85. If the Advisory Commission’s opinion was favorable to the petitioner, a draft decision was drawn up receiving the petition and this draft was forwarded to the Central Bank Board so that it could adopt the respective decision.111 If the Advisory Commission’s opinion concluded that the petitioner could not be considered a beneficiary of article 31 of Law 17,613, a draft decision was prepared rejecting the petition and, in accordance with article 79 of the Central Bank’s Rules of Procedure in force at the time,112 the draft resolution was made available to the petitioner for 10 days, so that he could formulate observations. If the petitioner had not objected to the draft decision when the time limit expired, a second draft decision was prepared and forwarded to the Central Bank Board so that it could adopt the final decision. To the contrary, if the petitioner contested the unfavorable draft decision or made observations on it, the Advisory Commission re-examined the case and sent the Central Bank Board a further draft decision so that the latter could adopt the decision it deemed appropriate.113 86. According to article 74 of the Central Bank’s Rules of Administrative Procedure in force at the time,114 any type of evidence was admissible and the petitioners had different opportunities to present evidence, or the Advisory Commission could require it ex officio.115 One of these opportunities was precisely when formulating observations on the draft decision, when the petitioner could offer any type of evidence, which was First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13242), and Testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 111 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13242) and Testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the InterAmerican Court during the public hearing in this case. 112 Article 79 of the Rules of Administrative Procedure of the Central Bank of Uruguay, in force when the Advisory Commission was operating, established the following: ARTICLE 79 (Examination by the interested parties). Once the preliminary investigation has been completed, or its time limit has expired and when, from the available information, it is possible that to decision may be made that is contrary to the petition that was filed, or it has been contested, before issuing to decision, it must be made available for examination for ten days to the person or persons to whom the proceedings refer. When examining the decision, the interested party may request that supplementary evidence be received, and this must be provided within five days and as established in the preceding articles. When there is more than one party to examine the decision, the time limit shall be common to all of them and shall be calculated from the day following the last notification. Source: Article 75 of Decree No. 500/91. Administrative Rules of Procedure of the Central Bank of Uruguay, issued by RES D/624/94 of November 15, 1994, and published in Official Gazette No. 25,399 of November 16, 1999 (file of appendixes to the Commission’s application, volume III, appendix 3, folio 1345) 113 Brief with additional answers of the members of the Advisory Commission (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 21, folio 13242); testimony of Augusto Durán Martínez during the public hearing. 114 Article 74 of the Central Bank Rules of Administrative Procedure of the Central Bank of Uruguay, applied to the facts of the instant case, established the following: ARTICLE 74: (Means of evidence) The relevant facts for the decision in to procedure may be authenticated by any means of evidence that it not prohibited by law. The evidence shall be assessed in accordance with the rules contained in the General Procedural Code. Source: Article 70 of Decree No. 500/91. Administrative Rules of Procedure of the Central Bank of Uruguay, issued by RES D/624/94 of November 15, 1994, and published in Official Gazette No. 25,399 of November 16, 1999 (file of appendixes to the Commission’s application, volume III, appendix 3, folio 1343) 115 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13242) and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the InterAmerican, supra note 99 (folio 13238); affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1103), and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 29