102. This appeal can be filed once the administrative remedies have been exhausted, and its purpose is to confirm or annul the administrative act and, should the act be annulled, the interested party can have recourse to the courts to claim reparation for the damage that the said act, which has been declared illegal, may have caused him.168 However, under article 312 of the Constitution,169 the interested party may also resort directly to the competent courts to claim reparation for the damage caused by “acts or omission of the administration,” without the need to apply previously to the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal.170 Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13910); Judgment No. 272 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 4, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Notero, Ángel et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VII, attachment 27, folio 16400); Judgment No. 316 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Contín, Gianni et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14474); Judgment No. 477 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of September 3, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Perles, Gisela v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 14875); Judgment No. 16 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of February 5, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Neuschul, Franklin v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 14936 and 14937); Judgment No. 179 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of April 30, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Neuschul, Thomas v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 14959); Judgment No. 306 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 13, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Lingeri, Manuel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15052), and Judgment No. 726 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of December 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gutiérrez, Eduardo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15150) 168 Cf. Expert testimony of Daniel Hugo Martins before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case, and Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 12, folio 12866). 169 Article 312 of the Constitution establishes that: The action to repair the harm caused by the administrative acts referred to in article 309 shall be filed before the jurisdiction determined by law and may only be exercised by those with legal standing to file an appeal for the annulment of the act in question. The appellant may choose between requesting the annulment of the act or reparation for the harm caused. If he chooses the former and obtains a judgment annulling the act, he may then file a claim for reparation before the corresponding court. However, he cannot request the annulment if he has first chosen the second option of requesting reparation, whatever the result of the respective judgment. If the judgment of the court confirms the request, and declares that the cause invoked for the annulment is sufficiently justified, a claim may also be made for reparation. Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 12, folio 12865). 170 Cf. Expert testimony of Daniel Hugo Martins before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case and written report on this testimony presented on March 4, 2011 (file on merits and possible reparations, volume III, folios 1273 to 1275). In this written report, Mr. Martins explained that the administrative courts of first instance “hear all administrative actions for reparation of patrimony in which a State public person is sued for the damage caused by an administrative act annulled by the [Administrative] Tribunal or annulled administratively owing to illegality, or caused by acts or omissions of the administration, by legislative acts or by jurisdictional acts.” In this regard, in the proceedings before the Court, judgments were provided that decided actions filed before these administrative courts of first instance in which, among their claims, the plaintiffs required that they should be recognized as covered by article 31 of Law 17,613 (file of attachments to the answer, volumes III to VII, attachment 27, folios 13562 to 15738). In their arguments before the Inter-American Court, none of the parties made specific reference to these judgments a regards this point. The State only referred more generally and broadly to the fact that actions were filed against the Central Bank of Uruguay in the ordinary jurisdiction, and that the corresponding final judgments that were issued rejected those actions considering that the presumption of lack of service had not been constituted, and no causal relationship had been proved between the harm suffered by the plaintiffs and the facts, acts or possible omissions of the defendants (answering brief of the State, paras. 42 to 46). 40