A. Facts In the instant case, remedies were filed before two judicial organs: one, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, and the other the ordinary courts. Regarding the former, the judgment records that “[i]n the instant case, it has been proved that it was possible to file an appeal for annulment before the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal against the final decision of the Board of the Central Bank concerning a petition under article 31 of Law 17,613, that 39 alleged victims filed this appeal, and that all of them obtained an adverse ruling from this tribunal.”33 Regarding the second, “[t]he Court found it proved that at least 136 alleged victims filed actions in the ordinary jurisdiction against the Banco de Montevideo based on, inter alia, breach of contract and requests for compensation for damage. In 10 cases the Banco de Montevideo was found guilty and the decision is final in nine of them.”34 However, it should be noted that what the Court ruled on in this regard was whether or not the remedies that were filed permitted the annulment of the Bank’s decision under the provisions of article 31. Thus, the judgment indicates that “[i]n this 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.”35 For this purpose, the norm considered applicable is Article 25(1) of the Convention (hereinafter, Article 25(1)), which reads as follows: “Judicial Protection Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 1. Remedies before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal a. Facts or background information Regarding this matter, the judgment indicates that “[a]n appeal for annulment of the decisions of the Board of the Central Bank could be made before the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal,” and that “[a]ccording to article 309 of the Uruguayan Constitution36 and article 23 of Law No. 15,524, in the appeal for annulment, the plaintiffs have to prove that ‘the contested administrative acts were contrary to a rule of law or had been issued with misuse, abuse or excess of power.’”37 33 Para. 205. 34 Para. 224. 35 Para. 115. 36 The Court of Administrative Law shall hear the applications for the annulment of final administrative decisions complied with by the Administration in the exercise of its functions that are contrary to a rule of law or issued with misuse of authority. The jurisdiction of the Court shall also include final administrative decisions issued by other organs of the State, the departmental governments, the autonomous entities, and the decentralized services. The appeal for declaration of nullity may only be exercised by the possessor of a right or of a direct, personal and legitimate interest violated or harmed by the administrative decision.” 37 Para. 101. 10