37. The petitioners argue that they were able to demonstrate their compliance with the three requirements established by the law, but that their claims were denied due to the discriminatory attitude of the members of the Special Commission. The petitioners argue that the procedures used by the Special Commission were completely irregular and constitute a violation of their human rights. They argue that the Special Commission was comprised of individuals in positions of confidence in the government and they mention, by way of example, that among the 22 cases approved were those of three persons who were recognized as depositors and were former officers and directors of the Banco de Montevideo, who had exactly the same deposits as the petitioners and all the other depositors, with the aggravating circumstance that they were familiar with all of the internal operations and workings of said bank. According to the petitioners, this Commission discriminated against them, which constitutes a violation of the right of equality before the law enshrined in Article 24 of the American Convention. 38. The principal argument of the State with respect to admissibility is that the petitioners should have sought to have the Commission’s decisions nullified, and it argued that other individuals, in a similar situation to theirs, did, in fact, file actions for the nullification of the decisions of the Special Commission denying their claims. On February 16, 2006, the InterAmerican Commission specifically requested information from the State on the nullification actions presented in these cases. The pertinent portion of the State’s response of February 24, 2006, reads as follows: As with any administrative act, if the interested party does not agree with it, he may attempt an administrative remedy against it (via an action for revocation as provided in Article 317 of the Constitution) and – if his challenge is expressly denied or in the event of implied denial because the time for the action has lapsed – he may take his case to the Tribunal for Contentious-Administrative Disputes to bring an action for nullification of the administrative act that causes him injury, in accordance with Article 309 of the Constitution. On the basis of the foregoing, there are currently a large number of actions for nullification (approximately 80) in which the interested party or parties seek annulment of the administrative act of the Central Bank of Uruguay that refused their request for protection under the auspices of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Article 31 of Law 17.613, of December 27, 2002. Any person who failed to seek an administrative remedy or allowed the 60-day time limit for an action for nullification to expire have clearly not exhausted the remedies provided under domestic law to protect their respective legal rights. Without prejudice to the foregoing, and while not precisely related to a decision adopted under Article 31 of the aforesaid Law, given its connection with the issue, it is worth drawing attention to a recent judgment of the above-mentioned jurisdictional organ (Tribunal for Contentious-Administrative Disputes). Said judgment relates to a nullification action brought against the decision of the Central Bank of Uruguay of December 31, 2002, which ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the Banco de Montevideo S.A. and created the Bank Capital Recovery Fund, having deemed verified the credits accounted by said Bank. The injury consisted in the failure to recognize the plaintiff’s deposit in the Banco de Montevideo and the fact that the latter, without the plaintiff’s consent, had transferred said deposit to the TCB in the Cayman Islands. The Tribunal for Contentious-Administrative Disputes held that the impugned act was not injurious because the plaintiff made use of the protection conferred upon him by Article 31 of Law 17.613, requesting his inclusion, which petition is still in process. 39. In other words, the Tribunal for Contentious-Administrative Disputes held that the cause of action would not succeed because there is a proceeding in process before the administrative justice system which expressly provides “the possibility that the petitioner’s claim will be 10