95.
When examining petitions filed under article 31 of Law 17,613, the Central Bank,
on the recommendation of the Advisory Commission, considered that it did not have the
power to examine possible defects in consent, the alleged responsibility of the financial
group, or the lifting of the corporate veil (theory of disregard), or to compel witnesses to
testify, owing to the administrative nature of the institution and of the procedure in
question, since such determinations constituted jurisdictional functions that belonged
exclusively to the courts.145 Indeed, in several decisions corresponding to petitions by
alleged victims in the instant case, the Board of the Central Bank found that “the
declaration of the annulment of the acceptance of the investment, and any contractual
responsibility for the unsuccessful operations carried out that involved error, fraud or
negligence, necessarily constitute[d] jurisdictional decisions that exceed[ed] the sphere
of the powers granted to the Central Bank of Uruguay under article 31 of Law
17,613.”146 Similarly, in the decisions corresponding to several alleged victims, the
Board of the Central Bank expressly stated that “the financial group’s liability necessarily
constitute[d] a jurisdictional decision that exceed[ed] the sphere of the powers granted
to the Central Bank of Uruguay under article 31 of Law 17,613.”147
96.
In the 22 cases that received a favorable decision, the Advisory Commission and
the Board of the Central Bank considered that the petitions complied with the three
requirements under article 31 of Law 17,613.148 In particular, it was considered that the
the existence of specific instructions, cf., inter alia, the following cases in which the evidence is in the file of
attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachments 2 and 3: González, Palmira (File
2003/0522) (folios 26230 to 26323); De la Sovera, Nilda (File 2003/0489) (folios 30063 to 30065); Casella,
Blanca (File 2003/1082) (folios 30571 to 30573); Birger Nejerman, Lili (File 2003/0485) (folios 30070 to
30072); Fabro, María Raquel (File 2003/0552) (folios 30250 to 30252); Guzzini García, José María (File
2003/1108) (folios 30926 to 30928); and García Santoro, Alejandro (File 2003/0787) (folios 30539 to 30541).
Regarding (iii) proven regularity in carrying out these operations, cf., inter alia, the following cases in which
the evidence is in the file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment 3:
Prevettoni, Gabriela (File 2003/0482) (folios 30079 to 30081); Piñeyro Castellanos, María Inés (File
2003/0480) (folios 30085 to 30087); Nario Alvarez, Álvaro (File 2003/0465) (folios 30108 to 30110); Di Salvo,
Crimilda (File 2003/0929) (folios 30404 to 30406); Panella Castro, Cristina (File 2003/0783) (folios 30545 to
30548); García Caban, Ricardo (File 2003/1049) (folios 30606 to 30608), and Reino Berardi, Sebastián (File
2003/1033) (folios 30618 to 30620). Regarding (iv) failure to contest the bank statements, cf., inter alia, the
following cases in which the evidence is in the file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments,
volumes I and II, attachment 3: Caballero Lehite, Fernando (File 2003/0613) (folios 30180 to 30182); Everett,
Oscar and Flocken, Marta (File 2003/0601) (folios 30211 to 30213); Llana, Francisco (File 2003/0607) (folios
30202 to 30204); Zanandrea, Mirta Elena (File 2003/0607) (folios 30259 to 30261); Cerda, Rubén (File
2003/1417) (folios 31098 to 31100); Abellá Demarco, María Cristina (File 2003/1408) (folios 31113 to 31116),
and Lingeri Olsson, Manuel (File 2003/1221) (folios 30792 to 30793).
145
Cf. Testimony of the witness Augusto Durán Martínez before the Inter-American Court during the
public hearing in this case.
146
Cf., inter alia, Acevedo Sotelo, Eduardo and Myriam Guillón Alvarez (File No. 2003/0268) (file of
attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folios 30152 and 30153); Schaich,
Rodolfo (File No. 2003/0266) (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment
3, folio 30157); Supervielle Casaravilla, María Mercedes (File No. 2003/0616) (file of attachments to the
State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folio 30168); De la Fuente, María del Carmen (File
No. 2003/0609) (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folio
30196); Dogliotti Guimaraens, Elida Yolanda (File No. 2003/0542) (file of attachments to the State’s final
written arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folio 30267); Marcos Marra, Eduardo and Amelia Sperati Soñora
(File No. 2003/0744) (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folio
30313), and Paseyro, Alfredo (File No. 2003/0735) (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments,
volume I, attachment 3, folio 30324).
147
Cf., inter alia, Da Silva, Hugo (File No. 2003/0758) (file of attachments to the State’s final written
arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folio 30303); Platero, Gustavo (File No. 2003/0685) (file of attachments
to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folio 30340); González, Mario (File No.
2003/0872) (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume I, attachment 3, folio 30437);
Cavajani, Nicida (File No. 2003/0216) (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II,
attachment 3, folio 31273); Pizza, Martha (File No. 2003/4028) (file of attachments to the State’s final written
arguments, volume II, attachment 3, folio 31277); Beimeras, Leonardo and María del Carmen Fernández (File
No. 2003/1581) (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 3, folio
31318), and Díaz Cabana, Eduardo (File No. 2003/1519) (file of attachments to the State’s final written
arguments, volume II, attachment 3, folio 31360).
148
Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1104).
36