I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On March 16, 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted an application against the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (hereinafter “the State” or “Uruguay”), under Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, in relation to case 12,587. The initial petition was lodged before the Inter-American Commission on October 17, 2003, by Alicia Barbani Duarte and María del Huerto Breccia Farro, on behalf of themselves and in representation of a group of clients of the Banco de Montevideo S.A. in Uruguay (hereinafter “Banco de Montevideo” or “the Banco de Montevideo”). On October 27, 2006, the Inter-American Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 123/064 and, on November 9, 2009, it approved the Report on Merits No. 107/09, in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention.5 This report was sent to the State on December 16, 2009, and the State was granted two months to provide information on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations made in the report. On March 12, 2010, the Inter-American Commission considered that the State had not complied with the recommendations made in the Report on Merits and therefore decided to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The InterAmerican Commission appointed María Silvia Guillén, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary, and Christina Cerna and Lilly Ching, lawyers of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 2. According to the Commission, this case relates to the alleged international responsibility of the State for failing to provide “a group of depositors of the Banco de Montevideo” with an impartial hearing for their claims before the Advisory Commission created under Law 17,613, Financial System Reform Law, or by the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal, concerning the transfer of their funds from the Banco de Montevideo […] to the Trade & Commerce Bank [in the Cayman Islands] without consulting them, [and also] the failure to provide the alleged victims with a simple and prompt remedy to examine all the factual and legal issues relating to the dispute before it.” 3. The Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State of Uruguay for violation of Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation, and to pay the costs and expenses. 4. The application was notified to the State and to the representatives on July 8, 2010. At that time, the parties were advised that, as established in Article 34(3) of the Court’s previous Rules of Procedure,6 applicable to this case in accordance with Article 4 Report on Admissibility 123/06, Petition 997-03, Alicia Barbani Duarte, María del Huerto Breccia et al. (Group of Depositors of the Banco de Montevideo) of October 27, 2006, (file of attachments to the application, volume I, Appendix 2, folios 54 to 68). In this report, the Inter-American Commission declared case 12,587 admissible in relation to the alleged violation of “Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention.” 5 Report on Merits No. 107/09, Case 12,587, Alicia Barbani Duarte, María del Huerto Breccia et al. (Group of Depositors of the Banco de Montevideo) of November 9, 2009 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, Appendix 1, folios 2 to 52). In this report, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the State had violated “Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention read together with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victims identified in th[is] report.” In addition, the Inter-American Commission concluded that “the State is not responsible for violations of Articles 21 and 24 of the American Convention and for failure to comply with Article 2 thereof with regard to the group of persons represented by the petitioners.” 6 Article 34(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure previously in force establishes: 3