103. In the instant case, 39 alleged victims filed appeals for annulment of the decisions of the Central Bank before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal.171 To date, the Tribunal has confirmed all the decisions issued by the Central Bank under article 31 of Law 17,613, with the exception of one case of an individual who is not an alleged victim before this Court.172 104. According to the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, article 31 of Law 17,613 is an exceptional norm and, consequently, its interpretation should be restrictive, in the sense that it should cover only those situations in which the requirements set out in article 31 are satisfied cumulatively.173 These requirements “were intended to cover specific situations, limiting the recognition as a “depositor” of the Banco de Montevideo to those who did not know, were unaware of, or had not given their consent for their money to be transferred to the ‘Trade & Commerce Bank in the Cayman Islands.’”174 In 171 The following are the alleged victims who filed appeals for annulment: (1) Alzaradel, Rita; (2) Azparren, Ana Beatriz; (3) Barcarcel, Liliana; (4) Canabal Lema, Andrés; (5) Canabal, Andrea; (6) Castro Etchart, Gustavo; (7) Cavajani, Nícida; (8) Cavanna, José Luis; (9) Contin, Gianna; (10) Da Silva Gaibisso, Hugo; (11) Dendrinos Saquieres, Daniel; (12) García Milia, María Delia; (13) Gigli Rodríguez, María Ivelice; (14) Glaser, Marion; (15) Guerra, Martín; (16) Gutiérrez Galiana, Eduardo; (17) Horvath, Raúl; (18) Leroy, Jean; (19) Lijtenstein, Fabiana; (20) Lingeri Olsson, Manuel; (21) Lisbona Vásquez, Gabriel; (22) López Varela, José Jorge; (23) López, Alejandro Rogelio; (24) Neuschul, Franklin; (25) Neuschul, Thomas Máximo; (26) Perles, Gisela; (27) Pizza, Martha; (28) Rama Sienra, Leandro; (29) Rodríguez Lois, Marta; (30) Roure Casas, Pablo Raúl; (31) Roelsgaard Papke, Niels Peter; (32) Rubio Saquieres, Manuel; (33) Rubio Saquieres, Miguel Ángel; (34) Saiquieres Garrido, Nelly; (35) Schipani Élida; (36) Tabárez Corni, Tabaré; (37) Volyvovic, Clara, (38) Notero Ángel, and (39) Bonifacino Alba. The State indicated in its answer that the victim Gladys Píriz Bustamente had also filed an appeal for annulment. However, the Court has verified that the said appeal for annulment is not related to a decision of the Central Bank issued in the context of article 31 of Law 17,613, but seeks the annulment of Decision D/933/2002, issued by the Board of the Central Bank, under article 14 of Law 17,613. Cf. Judgment No. 391 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 17, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Piriz, Gladys v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 14861 to 14870). In addition, the body of evidence reveals that the alleged victims Ángel Notero and Alba Bonifacino also filed an appeal for annulment against the decision rejecting their petition under article 31 (infra note 262). 172 Cf. Judgment No. 580 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Perrone, Alejandro et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 4, folios 31442 to 31450) 173 According to the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal these requirements consisted of: “(1) being a depositor in the Banco de Montevideo or the Banco La Caja Obrera; (2) whose deposits have been transferred to other institutions; (3) without his consent.” Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in the case file entitled “Clemata, Jose et al. v. the Central Bank. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13876). See also, inter alia, judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in the case file entitled “Azparren, Ana v. Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13911); Judgment No. 487 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 23, 2008, in the case file entitled “Castro, Gustavo v. Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14,600); Judgment No. 272 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 4, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Notero, Ángel et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VII, attachment 27, folios 16400 and 16401); Judgment No. 316 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Contín, Gianni et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14475); Judgment No. 477 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 3, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Perles, Gisela v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 14877); Judgment No. 16 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of February 5, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Neuschul, Franklin v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 14937); Judgment No. 306 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 13, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Lingeri, Manuel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15053 and 15054), and Judgment No. 726 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of December 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gutiérrez, Eduardo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15150 and 15151). 174 Judgment No. 659 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 4, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Alzaradel, Rita v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13971). See also, inter alia, Judgment No. 204 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of June 12, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Leroy, Jean et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15088); 41