Caja Obrera for the nominal amount determined to have been transferred without his or her consent, 10 and (ii) the right to receive from the State a complement to his or her proportional share.11 21. In paragraphs 143 to 147 of the judgment, the Court established the criteria based on which it considered as victims the 539 persons who were thus declared, among whom are the three victims that the representatives seek to exclude with their request for interpretation.12 The Court found that the said violation had been proved to their detriment because there was uncontested evidence in the case file that they had filed a petition under article 31 of Law 17,613 that had been rejected by the Central Bank del Uruguay. The said three victims were in this situation because there is evidence in the case file before this Court that they filed petitions before the Central Bank that were rejected (Martha Moreira under File No. 2003/0714, Rafael Lena under File. No. 2003/0691 and José Pedro Santiesteban Tristán13 under File No. 2003/0662). 22. Furthermore, the Court finds it appropriate to underline that, at the merits stage of the instant case, on three occasions it expressly asked the parties, including the representatives Mrs. Barbani and Mrs. Breccia, to provide information or observations on the determination of the victims.14 Thus, in addition to the information that they were able to provide in the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, the oral arguments during the public hearing, and the brief with final arguments, the Court granted the representatives three specific additional opportunities to refer to the issue of the determination of the victims in this case or to forward any observations they deemed pertinent. However, the representatives did not request the exclusion of the three victims they do not represent on any of those occasions. 10 Thus making them proportional shareholders of the Bank Asset Recovery Fund of the respective bank. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 97, 126, 133 and 226. 11 The complement consisted of covering (between their own share and the complement from the State) a maximum nominal amount of US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in another currency. This right was recognized considering that they were in the same situation as the depositors with a checking, savings or fixed-term account referred to in article 27 of Law 17,613. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 97, 126, 133 and 226. 12 In order to determine and identify the victims, the Court took into account: the list of presumed victims indicated by the Inter-American Commission in its application and in its Report on Merits; the list of presumed victims provided by the Inter-American Commission with its final written observations, in response to the Court’s request that it list individually the names of the then presumed victims; the probative elements provided to the case file that prove that the person filed a petition before the Central Bank del Uruguay under article 31 of Law 17,613 that was rejected by the bank, as well as the clarifications and observations made by the parties in this regard. 13 The said victim is identified in the Annex of Victims of the Judgment as Tristán José Santiesteban (File No. 2003/0662). 14 During the public hearing (February 21 and 22, 2011) and in notes of March 8, 2011, the Court or its President called on the parties to present specific helpful information, documentation and explanations related to the determination of presumed victims. In particular, the Inter-American Commission was asked to forward an individualized list of the persons it had considered presumed victims in its application brief, and also that it indicate whether any of the petitions of the then presumed victims had been approved by the Board of the Central Bank del Uruguay. The Commission did not present any information on the last point. In addition, in notes dated April 14, 2011, the parties were given the opportunity to present any observations they deemed pertinent regarding the information and attachments forwarded by the other parties, in response to the requests for helpful evidence made by the Court and its President. The representatives and the State, together with their observations, forwarded certain new information and documentation in relation to the presumed victims in this case; consequently, on June 2, 2011, the parties were given a further opportunity to present any observations they deemed pertinent. Lastly, on September 23, 2011, the President of the Court asked the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State for certain information and documentation in relation to the determination of the presumed victims. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 10 to 14. 6