4. The State did not violate the right to due process, established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the alleged “presumption of consent” by applying “disqualifying criteria,” the alleged arbitrary application of a new criterion, or the alleged lack of information concerning probative elements, in the terms of paragraphs 153 to 160, 169 to 172, 176, 177, 185 and 189 to 194 of this judgment. 5. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Daniel Dendrinos Saquieres, Fabiana Lijtenstein, Jean Leroy, Martín Guerra, María Ivelice Gigli Rodríguez, Leandro Rama Sienra, Clara Volyvovic, Pablo Raúl Roure Casas, Marta Rodríguez Lois, Ángel Notaro, Alba Bonifacino and Thomas Máximo Neuschul, pursuant to paragraphs 216 and 218 to 220 of this judgment. 6. It has not found elements to declare a violation of the right to property, protected by Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to paragraph 238 of this judgment. 7. It is not incumbent to rule on the alleged violation of the right to equal protection established in Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to paragraph 173 to 175 of this judgment. AND ORDERS By four votes in favor to one vote against, that, 1. This judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 2. The State must guarantee that the victims in this case or their heirs can present new petitions concerning the determination of the rights established by article 31 of Law 17,613 on the strengthening of the financial system, which must be heard and decided, within three years, with all due guarantees by a body with the necessary competence to make a complete analysis of the requirements established in the said norm, pursuant to paragraphs 247 to 251 of this judgment. 3. The State must make the publications indicated in paragraph 252 of this judgment, within six months of its notification. 4. The State must pay the amounts established in paragraphs 260 and 272 of this judgment, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for reimbursement of costs and expenses, as appropriate, pursuant to paragraphs 273 to 279 of this judgment. 5. The State must, within one year of notification of this judgment, provide the Court with a report on the measures adopted to comply with it. 6. The Court shall monitor full compliance with this judgment, in exercise of its powers and in compliance with its obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights, and will consider the instant case concluded when the State has complied fully with all aspects of it. Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion, which accompanies this judgment. Judges Diego García-Sayán, Margarette May Macaulay and Rhadys Abreu Blondet informed the Court of their Concurring Opinions, which accompany this judgment. 95