States dollars) of the joint value of their credits against the Banco de Montevideo and La Caja Obrera, in accordance with the preference established in article 27 of Law 17,613 (supra para. 76).154 98. The Advisory Commission’s opinion was not binding for the Central Bank Board (supra para. 79). However, in every case, the Board of the Central Bank accepted the recommendation made by the Advisory Commission.155 In the first cases decided favorably, the Central Bank’s Board, “although it agreed with the decision recommended by the Advisory Commission, changed the grounds for the decision.”156 All the Advisory Commission’s opinions were adopted unanimously by its members, except for one case, in which one of the commissioners attached his dissenting opinion.157 99. A group of alleged victims filed a criminal action against the members of the Advisory Commission for alleged abuse of power regarding the latter’s actions in relation to the procedure under article 31 of Law 17,613. On November 7, 2005, the Criminal Court of First Instance rejected the prosecutor’s claim because it considered, inter alia, that no arbitrariness could be noted in the decisions, that the officials had acted within their terms of reference, and that “the task entrusted to them, which was sensitive, controversial and difficult, was carried out within the legal framework, and if there had been any irregularity, it did not fall within the competence of the criminal sphere.”158 This decision was confirmed by a court of appeal on August 14, 2006.159 A.2.g) Bills on the interpretation of article 31 of Law 17,613 100. From 2003 to 2010, the Legislature discussed various interpretative bills to define the scope of article 31 of Law 17,613.160 One of these bills was approved by the Senate 154 Report on the level of recovery of assets from the liquidation of the Banco de Montevideo S.A. (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment, folio 12788); and accounts statement of the Banco de Montevideo – Bank Asset Recovery Fund No. 38624 (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 10, folios 12789 and 12790). 155 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume IV, folios 1102, 1103 and 1105), and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 156 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13244), and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the InterAmerican Court during the public hearing in this case. Cf. decisions of the Central Bank of Uruguay of December 30, 2003, in the cases of Néstor Rosales and Viviana Rivanera (File No. 2003/0493) (file of attachments to the application, volume XV, attachment 12 (I), folios 11070 and 11071); Raúl Montero (File No. 2003/0469) (file of attachments to the application, volume XVI, attachment 12 (J), folios 11785 and 11786); Marta Cázeres (File No. 2003/0598) (file of attachments to the application, volume IV, attachment 12 (B), folios 3820 and 3821), and Clara Jasinski (File No. 2003/0637) (file of attachments to the application, volume III, attachment 12 (B), folios 3489 and 3490). 157 Cf. Testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case, and dissenting opinion of Commissioner Tomás Brause Berreta, attached to the draft decision of the Advisory Commission in the case of Carmen García Pardo de Arralde (File No. 2003/0908) (file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 12 (D), folio 6447). 158 Judgment of the 19th Criminal Court of First Instance of November 7, 2005 (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 22, folio 13347). 159 Cf. Judgment No. 245 of the First Criminal Court of Appeal of August 14, 2006, (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 23, folio 13349 to 13355). 160 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio Herrera of February 14, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1059 and 1061); testimony of the witness Julio Cardozo before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case, and explanatory statement of Bill interpreting article 31, presented in April 2007, and April 2010, by Representatives Daniel Mañana, Julio Cardozo Ferreira, Rodrigo Goñi Romero, Carlos González Álvarez, Jorge Gandini, Alberto Perdomo Gamarra and Mauricio Cusano, entitled “Clients of the Banco de Montevideo and La Caja Obrera whose saving were applied to the acquisition of shares in certificates of deposit of the Trade & Commerce Bank” (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 8, folios 31532 to 31548). 38