timely and lawful manner to place the Banco de Montevideo in administration and to resolve the claims presented both by the depositors of the Banco de Montevideo and by the TCB investors. Thus, based on its analysis of the merits of the claims presented by the TCB investors, the Special Commission found that the various forms of expression of consent, the documents signed by the investors, the explanation of their investment, account statements, and the higher interest earned by a placement in an offshore bank, demonstrated awareness and willingness to transfer funds beyond the country's borders. Accordingly, the Special Commission did not act arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner. On the contrary, it acted in accordance with the law in order to avert possible injury to the legitimate Banco de Montevideo depositors. 24. The State concludes that the Central Bank of Uruguay, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and the Executive Branch did not violate the right to property nor did they deprive the petitioners of that right. The State says it protected the real creditors of the Uruguayan financial institution that was now in liquidation and sought through legislative solutions and administrative and judicial actions to recover their savings, a course of action that is symptomatic of a state in which the rule of law prevails and that demonstrates recognition and defense of the right to property. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission rationetemporis, and ratione loci ratione materiae, ratione personae, 25. The petitioners are entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition names as alleged victims Alicia Barbani Duarte, María del Huerto Breccia Farro, and 686 other, individually identified persons, for whom Uruguay undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Insofar as the State is concerned, the Commission notes that Uruguay has been a State party to the American Convention since April 19, 1985, when it deposited the respective instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence, ratione personae, to examine the petition. 26. The Commission has competence, ratione materiae, because the petitioners alleged violations of rights protected by the American Convention in Articles 1(1), 2, 4, 21, and 24 of said Convention. 27. The Commission has competence, ratione temporis, because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was in force for the State at the time the events alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. 28. The Commission has competence, ratione loci, because the petition alleges violations of rights that occurred in the territory of a State Party to the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements Exhaustion of domestic remedies a) A remedy is created to assist the victims of the bank collapse 29. The petitioners argued that despite their efforts to obtain a remedy at the domestic level, they were allegedly frustrated because the only domestic remedy available to them was decided by the administration in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.8 According to the 8 On June 17, 2005, the petitioners informed the Commission that a government prosecutor, based on a criminal complaint brought by the group of depositors, sought the imprisonment pending trial of three lawyers who were part 7