concerning 128 of them, which refer to 41 cases, because many of them filed joint actions. In 10 of these cases the Banco de Montevideo was found responsible, and in nine of them this was confirmed by a higher court.183 According to the information provided by the State, these nine cases are “final,” or “closed.”184 In addition, in some Varela, in proceedings entitled “Díaz Eduardo et al. v. Trade and Commerce Bank et al.” Precautionary measure.” File 110-4/2003. Judgment No. 49 of the 2nd Administrative Court of First Instance of May 10, 2004, and Judgment No. 139 of the 3rd Civil Court of Appeal of June 5, 2006 (folios 14337 to 14343), and (33) Roberto Alonso, María Soledad Arieta Apesteguy, Walter Bara, Ignacio Barquín, Raúl Bergamino, Amilcar Bergara Avila, Mauro Bolla, Fernando Bonilla, Blanca Casella, Gonzalo Castagna, Ramón W Cotelo, Aldo D´Amico, Miguel Etchevarne, Oscar Everett, María Raquel Fabro, Raúl Favrin, Marta Flocken, Marta Gil, Alfredo González Rodríguez, Antonio Guimaraens, Yoko Hachiuma Yoshida, Carlos Iglesias, Sergio Iglesias, Minas Alberto Kahiaian Kevorkian, Alberto Ledoux, José Raúl Lorenzo, Beatriz Manaro, Ana María Martínez, Cristina Panella Castro, Vito Pascaretta, Atahualpa Pérez Rodríguez, Walter Pérez Soto, María Jesús Real de Azúa, Rodolfo Schaich, Nicolás Sosa, Gustavo Vázquez, Mirta Elena Zanandrea, in proceedings entitled “Iglesias, Sergio et al. v. Central Bank of Uruguay. Liability for omission.” File No. 110-258/2002. Judgment No. 81 of the 2nd Administrative Court of First Instance of September 28, 2006, Judgment No. 235 of the 7th Civil Court of Appeal of October 10, 2007, and Judgment No. 869 of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 15, 2008 (folios 15679 to 15697). In addition, the following filed complaints against the Banco de Montevideo: Paulina Isabel Adrién, Jorgelina Rial Merola, Vivián Barretto, Marcela da Pena, Jose Ángel Pastorino, Nelson Bocchi Paladino, Jorge Marenales Escrich and Eduardo Gutiérrez Galiana, whose cases and judicial decisions are described in the footnote below. The State indicated, in attachment 5 to its final written arguments, that the alleged victims Marion Glaser, María Delia García Milia, Jean Leroy, Maria Cristina Abellá Demarco, José Corredoira, Eduardo Durán, Niels Peter Roelsgaard Papke and Perla Kogan also filed proceedings in the ordinary jurisdiction against the Banco de Montevideo, which have been closed. However, the said judgments were not provided to the Court. Also, in the said attachment 5 and in attachment 26 to the answer, the State indicated other judicial actions filed by different alleged victims against the Banco de Montevideo, which have not been “closed,” and regarding which the Court has no information about the stage of their processing. Furthermore, in addition to the judgments mentioned above, the Court received decisions corresponding to actions filed by the alleged victims before the ordinary jurisdiction against the Central Bank of Uruguay for alleged “lack of service.” In this regard, the Court recalls that facts relating to “the monitoring, supervisions and control of the financial entities in Uruguay” by the Central Bank do not form part of the factual framework of this case, and neither does the “management of Uruguay’s finances when confronting the [2002 banking] crisis (supra para. 39 and 41). Consequently, the Court will not take the said decisions into account since they refer to the alleged responsibility of the Central Bank based on those reasons. 183 The said cases are in the file of attachments to the answer, volumes III to VII, attachment 27, and correspond to the following alleged victims: (1) Paulina Isabel Adrién, in proceedings entitled “Adrien Clavijo Paulina v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Recovery of Pesos – Damages.” File No. 2-59458/2005. Judgment No. 15 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of April 24, 2007, Judgment No. 92 of the 2nd Civil Court of Appeal of April 16, 2008, and Judgment No. 275 of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 26, 2009 (folios 13973 to 14027); (2) Jorgelina Rial Merola, in proceedings entitled “Rial Merola, Jorgelina v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Compliance with contract” File No. 40-226/2003. Judgment No. 6 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of March 22, 2007, Judgment No. 23 of the 5th Civil Court of Appeal of March 12, 2008, and Judgment No. 138 of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 29, 2009 (folios 15289 to 15363); (3) Vivián Barretto, in proceedings entitled “Grudzien Burstyn et al. v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 25-551/2002. Judgment No. 38 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of October 18, 2006, and Judgment No. 154 of the 5th Civil Court of Appeal of December 6, 2007 (folio 13768 to 13786); (4) Marcela da Pena, in proceedings entitled “Da Pena Marcela Adriana v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Damages.” File No. 2-22368/2006. Judgment No. 21 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of November 24, 2008, and Judgment No. 61 of the 2nd Civil Court of Appeal of March 25, 2010 (folios 14444 to 14468); (5) José Ángel Pastorino, in proceedings entitled “Pastorino, José Ángel v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 40-149/2003. Judgment No. 48 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of October 31, 2005, and Judgment No. 118 of the 2nd Court of Appeal of May 2, 2007 (folios 14910 to 14931); (6) Nelson Bocchi Paladino and Juan José Bocchi Paladino, in proceedings entitled “Bocchi Paladino, Nelson et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Preparatory measures.” File No. 22-458/2002. Judgment No. 12 of the 2nd Civil Court of First Instance of March 13, 2009 (folios 13655 to 13686); (7) Jorge Marenales Escrich, in proceedings entitled “Marenales Escrich, Jorge et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. (in liquidation) et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 2-3004/2006. Judgment No. 8 of the 2nd Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of June 30, 2009, and Judgment No. 138 of the 6th Civil Court of Appeal of July 16, 2010, (folios 14964 to 15011); (8) Eduardo Gutiérrez Galiana, in proceedings entitled “Menéndez Ana María et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Damages.” File No. 40/159/2003. Judgment No. 14 of the First Court for insolvency proceedings of August 26, 2010 (folios 15158 to 15181); (9) Marion Glaser, and (10) María Delia García Milia and Jean Leroy. The State indicated in attachment 5 to its final written arguments that, in the cases before the ordinary jurisdiction filed by the alleged victims Marion Glaser, María Delia García Milia and Jean Leroy the Banco de Montevideo was found responsible and the judgments are final. Nevertheless, these judgments were not provided to the Court. 46