admitted, unless it was considered inadmissible because it was inappropriate, irrelevant or against the law.116 87. If testimonial evidence was offered, the petitioner was responsible for ensuring the appearance of the witness with the list of questions to be asked.117 To receive the evidence of witnesses, “testimonial hearings” were held with the presence of the witness or witnesses, the petitioner, his lawyer (if he had one) and one or more members of the Advisory Commission.118 In addition, to ensure the truth of the testimony, witnesses had to be sworn in.119 The members of the Advisory Commission took turns to attend these hearings of witnesses owing to “the numerous hearings that had to be held”120 – around 70.121 The evidence provided in the instant case reveals that very few of the alleged 116 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folios 13239 and 13245); testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. Article 75 of the Rules of Administrative Procedure of the Central Bank of Uruguay, applied to the facts of the instant case, established the following: ARTICLE 75: (Probative measures). The Central Bank of Uruguay may order ex officio the probative measures that it deems necessary to clarify the facts about which it must issue a decision. If a party has made a request, it must order the opening of a prudential period of no more than 10 days for gathering the evidence, so that all measures that legally admissible and relevant to the matter being processed may be taken. The decision of the Central Bank of Uruguay that rejects the processing of a piece of evidence because it considers it inadmissible, inadequate or irrelevant shall be duly founded, shall be issued by the head of the office of the Bank where the proceedings is being investigated and may be subject to the corresponding administrative remedies. [...] Source: Article 71 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 1344) 117 Article 76 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 76: (Testimonial evidence). The person proposing testimonial evidence shall be responsible for the appearance of the witnesses in the place, on the date and at the time established by the Central Bank of Uruguay. If the witness does not appear without a justified reason, his testimony shall be excluded. The Central Bank of Uruguay, notwithstanding the list of questions submitted by the party, may question witnesses freely and, in case of contradictory statements, may order confrontations, even with the interested parties. The parties or their defense lawyers may contest leading, biased or trick questions and, when the witnesses have completed their statements, may cross-examine them and ask for any rectifications they consider necessary to conserve the accuracy and truth of the statement. The official in charge shall at all times retain the control of the proceedings, may ask new questions, reject any question he deems inadequate, unnecessary, prejudicial or offensive to the witness, as well as terminate the questioning. Source: Article 72 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 1344) 118 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13242 and 13243) and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American during the public hearing in this case. 119 Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1111), and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 120 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13243) and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the InterAmerican Court during the public hearing in this case. 121 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13241) and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter- 30