175. In the instant case, the Court observes that the representatives argued a supposed arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by the administrative body responsible for deciding their claims under article 31 of Law 17,613. This alleged discrimination regarding the rights contained in the Convention must be analyzed under the general obligation to respect and ensure those rights without discrimination, established by Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 176. First, the Court refers to its previous ruling concerning the alleged “presumption of consent and the disqualifying criteria” (supra paras. 159 and 160). The Court determined that no violation of due guarantees had been constituted due to the alleged preferential application of a new criterion to the benefit of the persons related to the 22 cases accepted (supra paras. 170 to 172). The Court recalls that it found that what the Inter-American Commission and the representatives identified as a “new criterion,” applied to the benefit of 22 cases accepted by the Board of the Central Bank, was in fact the analysis of the absence of consent, which they were able to prove in relation to three distinct situations (supra para. 170). As explained, in most of the cases accepted, the petitioners proved that they had sought not to renew their share in the certificate of deposit (supra para. 170). 177. Therefore, the Court determined that the fact that these 22 cases were admitted did not constitute a violation of due process that prejudiced the alleged victims. Consequently, the Court found that this action did not constitute arbitrary and discriminatory treatment because it related to the analysis of the requirements established in article 31 of Law 17,613 and not to a new criterion applied only for the benefit of some petitioners. 178. Despite this general conclusion, the Court emphasizes that the special procedure before the Central Bank was intended to determine the individual rights of a considerable number of people who had to prove that they were in the situation stipulated in article 31 of Law 17,613. This procedure was created specifically to determine these rights, after which it would cease to exist. Hence, it was the State’s obligation to ensure that everyone obtained an adequately reasoned ruling, allowing verification that the criteria to determine whether the requirements established by the said article 31 had been met were applied objectively to all the petitioners. 179. The Court will now examine whether the alleged victims whose claims were rejected were treated in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner even though they were in the same situation of absence of consent as the 22 cases admitted, because they had tried either not to renew their certificates of deposits or to withdraw their funds. It must be determined whether any of the four persons indicated by the representatives as alleged victims of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment are in the same situation that was determinant for accepting any of the said 22 cases. The Court notes that, to determine possible arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, it is not sufficient to merely verify the existence in both the accepted and the rejected cases of elements such as investment administration contracts, specific instructions, or uncontested statements, because other elements were present in the accepted cases that were considered decisive to conclude that there had been absence of consent. 180. Both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives have stated that, in the procedure before the Central Bank, the claims of alleged victims were denied, despite the fact that, as in the accepted cases, they had argued that they had tried not to renew their placements in certificates of deposit of the Trade & Commerce Bank and had submitted evidence of this. Nevertheless, although the Court requested additional information and useful evidence concerning the alleged victims regarding whom a violation could have been constituted in this regard, the representatives merely indicated four alleged victims and stated that they represented an “example” of a larger 71