revise or modify the decision adopted by the administrative body; therefore they cannot be considered effective remedies for the matter that is the purpose of this case. 230. Lastly, the Inter-American Commission stated that a violation of judicial protection had also taken place due to “the absence of a judicial forum where the petitioners could file their claims that the TCB was not, in fact, an offshore entity, which they alleged was proved by the fact that the Banco de Montevideo was allowed to assist the TCB to such a point that it resulted in its own insolvency.” On this issue, Uruguay indicated that “all the alleged victims were always empowered to have recourse to the organs of the Judiciary to make claims other than the ‘absence of consent’ (the specific sphere of action of the Advisory Commission under art. 31 Law 17,613)”. 231. In this regard, the Court notes that the said argument of the Inter-American Commission refers to a matter that does not form part of the factual framework of this case, given that the submission of arguments based on “the fact that the TCB was not […] an offshore entity” are excluded from the analysis of the situation that article 31 of Law 17,613 was intended to deal with. D. Conclusions of the Court concerning Chapter VI 232. Taking into account its decisions in this chapter, the Court finds that the State violated: (a) the right to be heard protected by Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 539 persons who filed a claim under article 31 of Law 17,613, indicated in the Annex to this judgment (supra paras. 133 to 142); (b) the right to equal treatment in relation to the procedural guarantee of adequate reasoning protected by Articles 1(1) and 8(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Alicia Barbani Duarte and Jorge Marenales (supra paras. 183 to 185); (c) the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Daniel Dendrinos Saquieres, Fabiana Lijtenstein, Jean Leroy, Martín Guerra, María Ivelice Gigli Rodríguez, Leandro Rama Sienra, Clara Volyvovic, Pablo Raúl Roure Casas, Marta Rodríguez Lois, Ángel Notaro, Alba Bonifacino and Thomas Máximo Neuschul, who filed appeals for annulment that were not examined fully by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (supra paras. 218 to 220). VII RIGHT TO PROPERTY270 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO GUARANTEE RIGHTS Arguments of the parties 233. The Inter-American Commission did not argue that Article 21 of the American Convention had been violated. 234. The representatives argued that Uruguay had violated the right to property. To found their allegation, they referred to extracts from the dissenting opinion of a commissioner of the Inter-American Commission with regard to the Report on Merits in 270 Article 21(1) and 21(2) (Right to Property) of the Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. The law may 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. […] 86