provided to the case file to include the correct names of these alleged victims. Furthermore, it will take into account the State’s observations regarding the list of alleged victims and the names included by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief. C. Regarding the alleged “failure to exhaust domestic remedies” 52. Given that the State referred to the “failure to exhaust domestic remedies” in the chapter entitled “The relevant factual framework for these proceedings” of its answering brief, the Court finds it appropriate to establish previously that, since the State did not clearly file a preliminary objection in this regard, its arguments on this matter will be analyzed by the Court when determining the facts of this case and when ruling on the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 53. In its answering brief, the State did not clearly file a preliminary objection. However, in the chapter on “The relevant factual framework for these proceedings,” Uruguay alleged, inter alia, that “[a]ll those who submitted petitions to the Central Bank of Uruguay, and whose petition to be considered a depositor of the Banco de Montevideo S.A., was denied, were legally and procedurally empowered to contest the decisions that prejudiced them and to appeal for their annulment before the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal.” In this regard, the State indicated that “only 379 [alleged victims] filed legal actions […] against the Central Bank of Uruguay or the Uruguayan State […, and this] constitutes a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, which is a requirement to appear before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, according to the provisions of Article 46(a) of the Convention.” Furthermore, it indicated that “of those who filed judicial actions, only 172 did so against the Banco de Montevideo S.A. […] and, at present, eight of them had obtained a favorable judgment. In addition, it indicated that “only 38 [alleged victims] filed an appeal for annulment of the negative decision under art. 31 of Law No. 17,613 before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal; hence, [the State] does not understand the grounds on which the other ‘alleged victims’ of the 708 parties hereto are arguing before this Court a supposed prejudice owing to the absence of procedural guarantees in the proceedings before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal.” 54. It should be underlined that, in its conclusions in the answering brief, the State first asked the Court to rule on the factual framework of this case (supra para. 6) and then referred to “the material aspects to be decided in these proceedings,” indicating that it “contested all the claims submitted by the Commission in the application it submitted to the Court and the facts on which they were based, as well as the claims and facts alleged by the alleged victims in their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence.” In this regard, the State asserted that Articles 8(1), 25(1), 24 and 21 of the American Convention had not been violated and, in the pleadings in its answering brief, it asked the Court to reject the claims concerning reparations. In its conclusions, the State did not refer to any preliminary objection on which it had requested the Court to rule. 55. In this regard, since the State did not clearly file a preliminary objection, when its answering brief was sent to the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, they were not granted the 30-day period established in Article 42(4) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure to present observations on preliminary objections. If Uruguay had the State on petitions before the Central Bank under article 31 as “Schermann, Dora”; (19) “Soria, Luis Alfredo” and “Soria, Alfredo”, who appears in the Central Bank’s decision as “Luis Soria”; (20) “Supervielle, Mercedes” and “Supervielle, María Mercedes”, who appears in the Central Bank’s decision as “María Mercedes Supervielle Casaravilla”; (21) “Valiño, Ricardo” and “Valdiño, Ricardo”, who the Court understands is the same person, and (22) “Ventos Coll, Pedro” and “Ventos, Federico Pedro”, whose Central Bank file reveals that his complete name is “Pedro Federico Ventós Coll.” 17