213. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that the fact that the judicial remedy available was an appeal for annulment has not constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection in the present case. 214. In addition, the representatives indicated that, since it is a remedy of annulment, the appeal for annulment “does not allow all the aspects of the evidence to be considered, so that the petitioners could not argue defects of consent.” In this regard, the State emphasized that “[t]here is no limitation of any kind to the powers of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal as regards evidence under the annulment proceedings,” except that “it may reject any [evidence] that it finds significantly dilatory or prohibited by law.” According to the State, the parties “were able to offer any type of evidence additional to the evidence included in the previous administrative decisions that the appeal for annulment contested […].” The State also asserted that, in the appeals for annulment filed by the alleged victims, “probative elements submitted within the time frame and in the form established by law were not rejected.” 215. According to the norms that govern this remedy, the expert opinion of Daniel Hugo Martins, and the decisions of the said tribunal, it is clear that the alleged limitation did not exist with regard to the evidence or the arguments that the parties could submit to the decision of the said tribunal. 216. Given the reasons for which the Court declared a violation of the material sphere of the alleged victims’ right to be heard (supra paras. 133 to 142), the Court finds that, for the appeal for annulment before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal to be effective, according to Article 25(1) of the American Convention, the said tribunal would have had to examine fully whether the Central Bank’s analysis of the requirement of consent conformed to the provisions of article 31 of Law 17,613 for the determination of the rights that it granted. 217. From the judgments that were provided, the Court observes that the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal analyzed the requirements stipulated in article 31 and their application by the Central Bank in 11 of them, and decided that the allegations concerning defects of consent or non-compliance with the obligation to inform had not been proved, indicating, inter alia, that “factual evidence was lacking” or that “there was insufficient evidence.” The Court does not have sufficient elements to determine whether the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence impaired the effectiveness of the said remedy with regard to the respective claimants.266 266 Cf. (1) Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13865 to 13886); (2) Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13907 to 13918); (3) 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, folios 13965 to 13972); (4) 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, folios 14470 to 14481); (5) Judgment No. 487 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 23, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Castro, Gustavo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14597 to 14602); (6) 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, folios 14871 to 14881); (7) 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, folios 14932 to 14941); (8) 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 15048 to 15061); (9) Judgment No. 719 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Horvath, Raúl v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15121 to 15128); (10) Judgment No. 726 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of December 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gutiérrez, Eduardo v. the Central Bank 82