actions of the administrative body that were alleged to have violated the guarantees of due process.”56 The above allows the judgment to affirm that “[t]he fact that some alleged victims used these judicial remedies and that they obtained favorable judgments does not mean that these remedies were effective in this matter”57 and, consequently, it concludes that “actions before the ordinary jurisdiction […] cannot be considered effective remedies for the matter that is the purpose of this case.”58 Furthermore, the judgment records that filing these remedies “merely reveals the search by these alleged victims for alternate means to allow them to obtain judicial protection for at least some of the rights established in article 31 of Law 17,613.”59 And, it should be recalled that article 312 of the Constitution allows the individual to choose which judicial action to use to safeguard his rights. Meanwhile, the judgment does not make any ruling on the conformity or not with the provisions of Article 25(1) of the remedies established under “the ordinary justice system to claim reparation for the damage” in situations such as those that occurred to the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco La Caja Obrera, which is, after all, the purpose of article 31. This ruling would have been as or more significant and necessary because such remedies existed before the promulgation of Law 17,613 and there is no record that the latter invalidated them. In other words, by limiting its purpose in this matter as it did, the judgment did not make any ruling on the conformity of the said remedies before the ordinary system of justice with the provisions of Article 25. III. General considerations As previously stated, the judgment in this case, applied the provisions of Article 8(1) to the decisions of the Board of the Central Bank under article 31 and thus concluded that this procedure did not respect the right of everyone to be heard in the terms and before the authority indicated in Article 8(1). Furthermore, with regard to the remedies filed by some interested parties before both the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal and the ordinary system of justice, it also determined that, since they were not heard in the terms established in the said provision, they did not constitute effective remedies in the terms of Article 25(1). Thus, ultimately, the judgment founds its entire analysis on the provisions of Article 8(1) in relation to the contents of article 31. Hence, because, for the above-mentioned reasons, I disagree with the judgment’s assessment that article 31 granted the Bank the authority to act as a body with jurisdictional powers and, consequently, because I consider that Article 8(1) is not applicable in the instant case and, therefore, neither is Article 25(1) in the terms of that assessment, I emit this opinion concerning everything that was decided in the 56 Para. 226. 57 Para. 228. 58 Para. 229. 59 Para. 228. 16