case underlined that the Banco de Montevideo had not proved “that the ‘intellectuality’ of the plaintiffs was above average, to allow them to be aware of the increased risks of the operation with the TCB.” 203 In another of these cases, the court took into account “that these were not professional investors, but merely depositors.”204 114. Also, in at least six other cases before the ordinary jurisdiction, in which the Banco de Montevideo was not found responsible, the courts examined and confirmed the bank’s obligation to provide truthful and complete information to its clients, under either the norms of the Commercial Code, for consumer protection, or the commission contract. However, these cases were dismissed by the courts owing to lack of evidence or because the plaintiffs had not in fact alleged the said situations or non-compliance.205 B. RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW 115. The Court notes that, in this case, no violation has been alleged regarding the creation of the special administrative procedure under article 31 of Law 17,613, or with regard to the requirements established in this norm in order to benefit from it.206 In the instant case, the Court is called upon to determine whether, in the procedures in which the said norm was applied, the guarantees of due process and judicial protection of the alleged victims were violated. It is not incumbent on this Court to determine whether or not the alleged victims in the instant case comply with the requirements of article 31 of Law 17,613, or whether their petitions should have been considered favorably. Consequently, the different situations in which the alleged victims could be classified as regards the merits of their petitions are not relevant to this Court. These different situations could be relevant in the domestic sphere to determine whether they should be money safeguarded so that he can withdraw it and buy a business and, therefore, can be classified as a bank client who has no knowledge of the banking markets and their risks,” while the Court of Appeal agreed with the court of first instance that the average bank client is unaware of the norms and instruments that regulate the financial sector. 203 Proceedings entitled “Adrien Clavijo Paulina v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 2-59458/2005. Judgment No. 15 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of April 24, 2007, and Judgment No. 92 of the 2nd Civil Court of Appeal of April 16, 2008 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 14008). 204 Proceedings entitled “Marenales Escrich, Jorge et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. (in liquidation) et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 2-3004/2006. Judgment No. 138 of the 6th Civil Court of Appeal of July 16, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15005). 205 Cf. Proceedings entitled “Leite Rivero, Carlos v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. in liquidation et al. – Other Proceedings – Compliance with contract plus Damages.” File No. 2-25764/2006. Judgment No. 1 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of March 9, 2009, and Judgment No. 89 of the 3rd Civil Court of Appeal of April 13, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15091 to 15119); Proceedings entitled “Pereira Da Silva, Probo v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. (in liquidation) et al. – Reimbursement of funds – Damages.” File No. 2-60.855/2004. Judgment No. 178 of the 4th Civil Court of Appeal of July 22, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 14899 to 14909); Proceedings entitled “Luzardo Zafi, Ma. Rosa et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. in liquidation et al. – Damages.” File No. 2-25200/2006. Judgment No. 12 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of August 6, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14351 to 14366); Proceedings entitled “Demicheri, Luis Julio and Alvaro Julio v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. and Central Bank of Uruguay – Recovery of pesos, Damages.” File No. 41-172/2003. Judgment No. 110 of the 3rd Civil Court of Appeal of May 23, 2008 (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14391 to 14400); Proceedings entitled “Castellano Martínez, Gabriel et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. (In liquidation) et al. – Non-compliance with contract. Damages.” File No. 2-695/2005. Judgment No. 14 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of April 19, 2007, and Judgment No. 51 of the 1st Civil Court of Appeal of March 26, 2008 (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14603 to 14636), and Proceedings entitled “Supervielle, Ma. Mercedes v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Contractual liability.” File No. 2-225759/2006. Judgment No. 20 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of November 20, 2008, and Judgment No. 168 of the 2nd Civil Court of Appeal of May 26, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15439 to 15480). 206 In this regard, the representatives even stated during the public hearing before the Court that they “had never doubted the legality of the Law, or the contents of article 31.” 51