In this regard, it should be recalled that the Court stated that, once the administrative decision had been annulled by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, “the interested party can have recourse to the courts to claim reparation for the damage that the said act, which has been declared illegal, may have caused him”; but that, “under article 312 of the Constitution, the interested party may also resort directly to the competent courts to claim reparation for the damage caused by “acts or omission of the administration,” without the need to apply previously to the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal.”54 With regard to the remedies filed before the ordinary system of justice by some of the victims of the situation that befell the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco La Caja Obrera, the judgment takes into account that “the body of evidence does not show that the remedies available under the ordinary justice system, which decided the actions against the Banco de Montevideo, could apply article 31 of Law 17,613 and determine the rights established therein.”55 In the same way it “underlines that the body of evidence does not show that the use of these remedies, which decided the actions against the Banco de Montevideo, allowed application of article 31 of Law 17,613 and making the determinations that the article established, or review of the actions of the administrative body that were alleged to have violated the guarantees of due process.”56 The above allows the judgment to affirm that “[t]he fact that some alleged victims used these judicial remedies and that they obtained favorable judgments does not mean that these remedies were effective in this matter”57 and, consequently, it concludes that “actions before the ordinary jurisdiction […] cannot be considered effective remedies for the matter that is the purpose of this case.”58 Furthermore, the judgment records that filing these remedies “merely reveals the search by these alleged victims for alternate means to allow them to obtain judicial protection for at least some of the rights established in article 31 of Law 17,613.”59 And, it should be recalled that article 312 of the Constitution allows the individual to choose which judicial action to use to safeguard his rights. Meanwhile, the judgment does not make any ruling on the conformity or not with the provisions of Article 25(1) of the remedies established under “the ordinary justice system to claim reparation for the damage” in situations such as those that occurred to the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco La Caja Obrera, which is, after all, the purpose of article 31. This ruling would have been as or more significant and necessary because such remedies existed before the promulgation of Law 17,613 and there is no record that the latter invalidated them. In other words, by limiting its purpose in this matter as it did, the judgment did not make any ruling on the conformity of the said remedies before the ordinary system of justice with the provisions of Article 25. III. General considerations As previously stated, the judgment in this case, applied the provisions of Article 8(1) to the decisions of the Board of the Central Bank under article 31 and thus concluded that this procedure did not respect the right of everyone to be heard in the terms and before 54 Para. 102 55 Para. 128. 56 Para. 226. 57 Para. 228. 58 Para. 229. 59 Para. 228. 14