victims offered testimonial evidence. Most of the testimony offered was received122 and, in several cases, this evidence was not processed due to circumstances that could be attributed to the party proposing the testimony.123 88. Following the reception of the new evidence, the Advisory Commission examined the file with the new probative elements, prepared a new draft decision and forwarded it to the Central Bank’s Board so that the latter could adopt the decision it deemed appropriate.124 Subsequently, the Central Bank’s Board evaluated the draft decision, to endorse the Advisory Commission’s opinion, to disagree with it, or to order other measures, and then issued the corresponding decision.125 Following notification, the petitioner had 10 days to file an appeal to annul the decision, pursuant to article 131 of the Central Bank’s Rules of Procedure and articles 317 and 318 of the Constitution.126 89. If the petitioner filed an appeal to annul the decision of the Board of the Central Bank, the General Secretariat forwarded it to the Advisory Commission.127 On that occasion, the petitioner could again offer evidence.128 Following the processing of the respective evidence or, if evidence was not offered, after the appeal had been filed, the case was re-examined, taking into account the arguments set out in the appeal, based American Court during the public hearing in this case. For his part, witness Julio de Brun stated that “[m]ore than 100 petitioners provided witnesses.” Affidavit of witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1110). 122 Cf. the following are cases of alleged victims whose evidence is in the file of attachments to the State’s final written argument, attachments 2 and 3: Gutiérrez Galiana, Eduardo (File No. 2003/0876) (folios 22091 and 22092); Pitetta Antúnez, Luis Alberto (File No. 2003/0711) (folio 22700); Braceras Lussich, Elina and Rafael Enrique Braceras Lussich (File No. 2003/0707) (folio 22898); Neuschul Perles, Franklin (File No. 2003/0527) (folio 26084); Perles Ullman de Neuschul, Gisela (File No. 2003/0526) (folio 26147); Fernández González, Daniel (File No. 2003/0353) (folio 28714); Meerhoff, Enrique (File No. 2003/0301) (folio 29431); Giambruno De Amicis, Clara Augusta (File No. 2003/0284) (folio 30131); Roelsgaard Papke, Niels (File No. 2003/0608) (folios 30198 and 30199); Pastorino Peccotiello, José Ángel (File No. 2003/0545) (folio 30257); De Marco, Juan (File No. 2003/0536) (folio 30271); Abal Bordachal, Mario Héctor and María Virginia Abal Gemelli (File No. 2003/0646) (folio 30355); Lijtenstein Jasinski, Fabiana (File No. 2003/0639) (folio 30378); Barbani, Alicia (File No. 2003/0624) (folio 30381); Muccia García, Víctor (File No. 2003/0943) (folio 30398); Sienra Fattoruso, José Enrique (File No. 2003/0804) (folio 30518); Adinolfi Castellano, Julio Alberto (File No. 2003/0988) (folio 30676); Neuschul, Thomas Máximo (File No. 2003/1524) (folio 31347); Da Pena Pepoli, Marcela (File No. 2003/1522) (folio 31349), and Díaz Vidal, Eduardo and Lola Varela Cambre (File No. 2003/1520) (folio 31354). 123 Cf. the following are cases of alleged victims whose evidence is in the file of attachments to the State’s final written argument, attachments 2 and 3: De Luca Sarmoria, Vilma (File No. 2003/0710) (folio 22741), and Zanoni, María Cristina (File No. 2003/0397) (folio 27649); Ramos, Magela (File No. 2003/0471) (folio 30099); Da Silva Gaibisso, Hugo José (File No. 2003/0758) (folio 30303); Santisteban Tristán, José Pedro (File No. 2003/0662) (folio 30353); Alicia Recalde (File No. 2003/1177) (folio 30875); Cavajani, Nicida (File No. 2003/0216) (folio 31272); Pizza, Martha (File No. 2003/4028) (folio 31277), and Liliana Barcarcel (File No. 2003/4025) (folio 31282). 124 Cf. Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13244). 125 Cf. Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13244) and testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the InterAmerican Court during the public hearing in this case. 126 Cf. Articles 317 and 318 of the 1967 Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, with the amendments introduced by plebiscite on November 26, 1989, November 26, 1994, December 8, 1996, and October 31, 2004 (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 12, folio 12866). 127 In Decision D/758/2004 of May 11, 2004, the Board of the Central Bank of Uruguay extended the authority to study and examine the administrative remedies presented against the Board’s decisions “that did not admit the petitions submitted” under article 31 of Law 17,613. Decision D/758/2004 of the Board of the Central Bank of Uruguay of May 11, 2004 (file of attachments to the answer, volume XIII, attachment 30, folio 19612). 128 Brief with answers of the members of the Advisory Commission to the 19th Criminal Judge of First Instance, supra note 99 (folio 13245) and affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1104). 31