appeals for annulment of these decisions of the Central Bank before the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal, in application of the said norm.22 38. The Court has verified that, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives included facts that are not limited to explaining or clarifying the facts set out by the Inter-American Commission in the application, but rather they introduced facts that differ from those described in the latter. 39. Consequently, the following facts indicated by the representatives with regard to the conduct of the Central Bank of Uruguay, do not fall within the factual framework of this case: all the facts relating to the obligation to control and supervise financial institutions in Uruguay; all the facts relating to the “economic management of Uruguay in the face of the crisis,” and to “the private fraud committed by the Peirano group”; as well as regarding the measures taken by the Central Bank in relation to the economic and financial difficulties of the Banco Comercial during the said banking crisis of 2002. 40. The representatives did not present any explanation to justify the inclusion of those facts in their pleadings and motions brief. To the contrary they asserted that their description of the facts fell within the factual framework set out by the Inter-American Commission (supra para. 33). The Court has verified that, in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, some of the alleged facts described in the preceding paragraph were the subject of a ruling by the Commission in its Report on Merits No. 107/09, when examining the alleged violations of Articles 21 and 24 of the Convention. However, when determining the facts, the Inter-American Commission found that the above-mentioned facts alleged by the representatives had not been proved and concluded that the State had not violated the said articles of the Convention. The Commission did not include the said facts alleged by the representatives in the application it submitted to the Court. 41. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court will not rule on the alleged facts described by the representatives that do not form part of the factual framework of this case (supra paras. 37 to 39) and, consequently, will not rule on the allegations of violations to the American Convention related to these facts. As indicated, the Court will rule on or will take into account those facts that explain, clarify or reject the facts presented by the Inter-American Commission. The last hypothesis includes the facts introduced by the State to reject the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection 22 In the chapter entitled “Purpose of the application,” the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare that: a. The Uruguayan State is responsible for its failure to provide the [alleged] victims with an impartial hearing for their claims by either the Advisory Commission or the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, and thus violated the right to a fair trial set forth in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the [alleged] victims; and b. The State failed to provide to simple and prompt recourse for an examination of all the issues of fact and of law related to the dispute before it, and thereby violated the right to judicial protection set forth in Article 25(1), read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the [alleged] victims. Similarly, in the introduction to the application, the Commission indicated that it submitted this case against Uruguay: for its international responsibility arising from the failure to provide to group of depositors of the Banco de Montevideo […] with an impartial hearing for their claims, either by the Advisory Commission created under Law 17,613, the “Financial System Reform Law” […] or by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, concerning the transfer of their funds from the Banco de Montevideo […] to the Trade and Commerce Bank […] without consulting them; and the failure to provide the victims with to simple and prompt recourse to examine all the issues of fact and of law concerning the dispute before it” (para. 1). 13