74. Before the intervention of the Banco de Montevideo, there had been no reports of complaints by clients owing to products of the Trade & Commerce Bank or the Velox Investment Company, another company related to the Peirano or Velox Group.77 A.2.c) Law No. 17,613 to strengthen the financial system 75. In parallel to the specific measures adopted with regard to the Banco de Montevideo and other financial institutions, the State adopted legal measures to deal with the systemic crisis experienced by the Uruguayan financial system.78 Among these measures, the State enacted Law No. 17,613 “to strengthen the financial system” (hereinafter “Law 17,613”),79 which was adopted by the Legislature on December 21, 2002. This law established rules for protecting and strengthening the financial system.80 Law 17,613 granted powers to the Central Bank, as liquidator of the financial intermediation entities, to safeguard the rights of the depositors in these entities, protecting their savings, for reasons of general interest.81 76. Thus, Chapter III of this law established a series of norms applicable to the liquidation of the financial intermediation institutions whose activities were suspended at the date the law was promulgated,82 in order to “reduce the impact on society of the simple application of the current rules,” and to rescue as many assets as possible belonging to the suspended financial institutions so as to defend the rights of the creditors.83 In order “to protect savings, based on reasons of general interest,” article 27 of the law authorized the Executive to allocate part of the sums owed to it by the liquidated institutions to offer more favorable settlements to certain categories of depositors, or to depositors of up to certain amounts, from the non-financial private sector; to this end, priority would be given to “depositors” who held checking accounts, savings accounts and fixed term deposits in the entities affected.84 In this regard, the State, using part of the resources that corresponded to it in the said institutions, would provide a complement to the said depositors, up to the first US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or its equivalent in another currency.85 This 77 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Rosolina Trucillo dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1134). According to witness Jorge Xavier, he began to receive complaints from clients concerning the possibility of recovering their investments in TCB, once the provisional liquidation of TCB became known. Cf. Affidavit of Jorge Xavier dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1120). 78 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Fernando Barrán dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1180). 79 Cf. Law No. 17,613 on “Strengthening the financial system” (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 11, folios 2177 to 2190). 80 Cf. Testimony of the witness Julio César Cardozo Ferreira before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 81 Law No. 17,613 on “Strengthening the financial system” (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 11, folio 2180). 82 These institutions were the Banco de Montevideo, Banco de la Caja Obrera, the Banco Comercial and the Banco de Crédito. However, when the law was enacted, the latter was being bought out, so that the suspension would probably have been lifted. Taking this possibility into account, article 37 was added to Law 17,613 specifically referring to this financial entity. Cf. Record of the Senate sessions on December 20 and 21, 2002 (file of attachments to the answer, volume II, attachment 20, folio 13226). 83 Cf. Article 22 of Law 17,613 on “Strengthening the financial system” (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 11, folios 2182 and 2183). 84 Cf. Article 27 of Law 17,613 on “Strengthening the financial system” (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 11, folio 2183). 85 Cf. Article 27 of Law 17,613 on “Strengthening the financial system” (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 11, folio 2183). Witness Julio de Brun explained that this law authorized the Executive Branch to set up to sort of “deposit insurance to posteriori” which allowed the State to use its credits with the Banks of Montevideo, Caja Obrera and Comercial to ensure for those “with term deposits in the said institutions, to total recovery of their credits, up to a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars or its equivalent in national currency.” Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1099). 25