vindicated…” adding that the admission of the claim under Article 31 of Law 17.613 dispels any notion of finality in the decision of the Central Bank of Uruguay. 40. With respect to other judicial actions, apart from the actions for nullification, the State informed the Commission that: In some cases (still a few) there has been a judgment at first instance recognizing a valid claim for damages from the Banco de Montevideo S.A., based on its contractual liability as broker or intermediary in the operation. Those judgments have been appealed. In other cases the judgment rejected the complaint. A number of investors have brought actions against the Central Bank of Uruguay based on its alleged failure to exercise its control activities. Thus far, a favorable judgment has been returned in only one case, and it is under appeal before the relevant appellate court. Thus far, all the other decisions issued at first instance have rejected the claim of alleged liability on the part of the Central Bank of Uruguay. 41. In their March 5, 2006 communication to the Commission, the petitioners submitted the following information in response to the Commission’s request for information on the presentation of actions for nullification. In the pertinent parts of their response, the petitioners said, A. Not many depositors took their cases to the Tribunal for Contentious-Administrative Disputes. The few that did so have not yet received a final judgment and, despite the fact those four years will have elapsed on June 24, 2006, there is no indication as to when a final judgment will be issued. B. The delay, without any prospect of an immediate solution, is the strongest demonstration that domestic remedies have been exhausted due to the unreasonable delay in the issuance of a decision from all of the jurisdictional organs, whether it be the Tribunal for Contentious-Administrative Disputes or any of the other courts, since there has been no final and definitive judgment in any case.. The delay in the judicial decisions is enormous and the end to those proceedings appears to be an infinite distance away. It would be unreasonable to believe that legal solutions will be reached within six or seven years and to wait that long under such conditions would effectively constitute a denial or disavowal of the right or rights violated. In addition to all of this, the Commission that was created under Article 31 of Law 17.613 to study the 1,200 cases is currently under judicial investigation (the prosecutor sought an indictment) and this matter is currently before the courts for resolution, which could take another year. (Enclosed for the IACHR file was a news article in which the prosecutor, Mr. Fernández Dovat, sought the imprisonment, pending trial, of the three lawyers who comprised the Commission and the former Board of Directors of the Central Bank). C. According to a report of January 28, 2003, signed by the accountant Rosalina Trucillo, Unit Head of the Central Bank of Uruguay, which concerned the Banco de MontevideoBanco La Caja Obrera and, in particular, liability for the actions of its management, according to information gathered in July 2002 following the intervention, of a total of US $127,813,357 in client operations, there were US $53,426,535 for which they were no agreements or specific instructions signed by the client. This omission leaves the Banco de Montevideo in a very vulnerable position at a time when it has to demonstrate that the operations were carried out according to client instructions. The investigation shows that the internal audit of April 2001 noted cases in which private banking operations were documented without the signature of clients and without signed standing orders in the clients’ files. 42. The State has not presented any information to show that the actions for nullification were dealt with and that the situation alleged by the petitioners was remedied. In this context, according to the State, the only case decided by the Courts, in four years, concerned an action 11