meant that the said depositors of the liquidated institutions had the right to receive from the State a complement to their proportional share of the respective Recovery Fund, up to (between the proportional share and that of the State) a maximum nominal amount of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or its equivalent in another currency.86 77. Additionally, due to measures taken by a group of clients of the Banco de Montevideo, who were not registered as depositors in the accounts ledgers of the said bank because they owned shares in other financial institutions,87 article 31 was added, which was not in the original bill sent by the Executive to the Legislature.88 Article 31 stipulated the following:89 Article 31. The Central Bank of Uruguay is hereby authorized to grant depositors of the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco La Caja Obrera, whose deposits have been transferred to other institutions without their consent, the same rights enjoyed by other depositors of these Banks. To that end, and by a well-founded resolution, the Central Bank of Uruguay shall establish a commission that shall function for an extendible period of 60 (sixty) days. 78. One of the main purposes of Law 17,613 was to authorize the Executive to establish a new banking institution with the “healthy” assets of the suspended financial entities: Banco de Montevideo, Banco La Caja Obrera and Banco Comercial.90 The rights of the depositors in those entities was exercised through a certificate of deposit in the “healthy” institution to be created with the “good” assets of the said banks;91 while the remaining assets of those banks remained in the so-called “Bank Asset Recovery Fund,” a mechanism similar to a trust fund.92 Article 24 of Law 17,613 ordered the creation of the Bank Asset Recovery Funds, based on all the rights and obligations of the financial entities whose activities were suspended at the time of the suspension of their activities.93 The creditors of the Bank Asset Recovery Funds were the State, certain depositors in the respective banks, and other creditors of different categories, such as “the holders of negotiable obligations of the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco 86 Opinion 04/525 of the Notarial Legal Department of the Central Bank of Uruguay of June 15, 2004 (file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 12, folios 6225 and 6226). 87 Cf. Judgment No. 138 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 8, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Dendrinos, Daniel v. Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14368 to 14374), and Judgment No. 315 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gigli, María v. Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15192 to 15199). 88 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folios 1099 and 1100); Intervention of Senator Gallinal in the session of the Treasury Chamber of the Senate of May 29, 2003, during the discussion of the matter of the “depositors of the Banco de Montevideo” and the visit of the Central Bank authorities (file of attachments to the application, volume XVI, attachment 12, folios 12056 and 12057); and Testimony of the witness Julio César Cardozo Ferreira before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 89 Article 31 of Law 17,613 on “Strengthening the financial system” (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 11, folio 2184). 90 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folios 1098 and 1099) and Intervention of Senator Alberto Brause in the Senate’s sessions of December 20 and 21, 2002 (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folios 13226 and 13228). 91 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1099); Intervention of Senator Gallinal in the Senate’s sessions of December 20 and 21, 2002 (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13235), and Intervention of Representative Amorín Batlle in the session of December 26, 2002, of the Chamber of Representatives (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13223). 92 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1099). 93 Article 24 of Law 17,613 on “Strengthening the financial system” (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 11, folio 2183). 26