Comercial,” all of which would be shareholders in the corresponding Recovery Fund in proportion or prorated to their credits against the respective bank.94 A.2.d) Creation and operation of the Advisory Commission of the Board of the Central Bank 79. Pursuant to article 31 of Law 17,613 (supra para. 77), the Board of the Central Bank of Uruguay created the “Advisory Commission – art. 31, Law No. 17,613”95 (hereinafter “the Advisory Commission”) by Resolution D/37/2003 of January 17, 2003. According to this resolution, the said commission must “advise the Board of the Central Bank of Uruguay, insofar as the legislator granted the latter the authority to determine the status as depositor of the Banco de Montevideo S.A (in liquidation) and Banco La Caja Obrera S.A. (in liquidation), in the conditions established in the first paragraph of [article 31 of Law 17,613].”96 The purpose of the Advisory Commission was to make recommendations, “but its decisions were not binding for the Board [of the Central Bank], which could diverge from them for well-founded reasons.”97 80. The Advisory Commission was composed of three jurists,98 with technical profiles, “acknowledged experience in both the public and private sphere, and extensive knowledge and experience in public and banking law.”99 The Advisory Commission used banking law as the basic law, and administrative law for procedural purposes.100 81. The Advisory Commission’s mandate, which was initially for 60 consecutive days, was extended numerous times, so that the Commission was in operation from February 2003 until at least October 2004.101 According to the Central Bank’s file on the Advisory Commission, these extensions were required because the number of petitions received 94 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1099) 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 13222). Senator Gallinal also indicated this, only when referring to the third category of creditors, the possible holders of negotiable obligations, he limited this to the “holders of Eurobonds” or “those who hold Bonds.” Cf. Intervention of Senator Francisco Gallinal in the Senate sessions of December 20 and 21, 2002 (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13235). 95 Cf. Decision D/37/2003 of the Board of the Central Bank of January 17, 2003 (file of attachments to the answer, volume XIII, attachment 30, folios 19545 and 19546). 96 Cf. Decision D/37/2003 of the Board of the Central Bank, first considerandum, supra note 95 (folio 19545). 97 Cf. Decision D/37/2003 of the Board of the Central Bank, second considerandum, supra note 95 (folio 19545); and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 98 Cf. Decision D/37/2003 of the Board of the Central Bank, first operative paragraph, supra note 95 (folio 19546). 99 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission before the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance in proceedings entitled “BARBANI, Alicia et al. v. DURAN MARTINEZ, Augusto et al. Complaint.” File No. 2-59680/04 (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 21, folio 13238), and Testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 100 Cf. Testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 101 No irrefutable evidence was submitted regarding the date on which the Advisory Commission terminated its function. According to the resolutions that extended its mandate, the Advisory Commission worked until October 2004. However, there are elements in the file that would appear to indicate that the Advisory Commission could have continued working after October 2004. Cf. Decisions D/175/2003, D/361/2003, D/490/2003, D/660/2003, D/782/2003, D/1605/2003, D/255/2004, D/721/2004, D/954/2004, and D/1355/2004 of March 26, June 4, July 31, October 1, November 27 and December 30, 2003; and of February 26, April 29, June 30 and August 26, 2004, in the Central Bank of Uruguay’s file on the Commission’s constitution (file of attachments to the answer, volume XIII, attachment 30, folios 19582 to 19625). In to brief dated September 6, 2006, presented by Uruguay to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it was affirmed that the Board of the Central Bank adopted the decisions “between December 30, 2003, and December 28, 2005” (brief with appendices to the application, volume III, Appendix 3 (C), folio 890). 27