Indeed, the judgment indicates that, since the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal did not analyze the defects that, in some cases, impaired the granting of the consent envisaged in the said article 31, the appeal filed before it was not an “effective remedy,” because, ultimately, it could not protect those prejudiced by the decisions of the Bank that (since the latter had not made the said analysis) violated the substantial sphere of the right “to be heard by an administrative body, for the determination of the rights granted in article 31 of Law 17,613.” Consequently, the judgment finds that, regarding the said cases, Article 25(1) had been violated.53 Since, as stated above, this dissenting opinion considers that Article 8(1) is not applicable to the Bank’s decisions, logically it is unable to agree with the ruling as regards Article 25(1). To the contrary, this opinion considers that, according to the above, that norm was fully applicable to the ruling of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal and, consequently, it was before that instance that the right to be heard stipulated in Article 8(1) should have been exercised in relation to the Bank’s decisions and, if its exercise had been prevented, it would have been possible to file an appeal to safeguard that right before the corresponding instance, under the provisions of Article 25(1). Hence, it can be said that what the Court should have done in relation to the rulings of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal was determine whether or not they conformed to the provisions of Article 8(1) rather than Article 25(1). But, it did not do this and, for the reasons stated, I cannot agree with the decision it took in this regard either. 2. Remedies before ordinary justice a. Facts and/or background information In this regard, it should be recalled that the Court stated that, once the administrative decision had been annulled by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, “the interested party can have recourse to the courts to claim reparation for the damage that the said act, which has been declared illegal, may have caused him”; but that, “under article 312 of the Constitution, the interested party may also resort directly to the competent courts to claim reparation for the damage caused by “acts or omission of the administration,” without the need to apply previously to the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal.”54 With regard to the remedies filed before the ordinary system of justice by some of the victims of the situation that befell the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco La Caja Obrera, the judgment takes into account that “the body of evidence does not show that the remedies available under the ordinary justice system, which decided the actions against the Banco de Montevideo, could apply article 31 of Law 17,613 and determine the rights established therein.”55 In the same way it “underlines that the body of evidence does not show that the use of these remedies, which decided the actions against the Banco de Montevideo, allowed application of article 31 of Law 17,613 and making the determinations that the article established, or review of the 53 Para. 220. 54 Para. 102 55 Para. 128. 15