Constitution36 and article 23 of Law No. 15,524, in the appeal for annulment, the plaintiffs have to prove that ‘the contested administrative acts were contrary to a rule of law or had been issued with misuse, abuse or excess of power.’”37 It also states that “[t]his appeal can be filed once the administrative remedies have been exhausted….”38 On this basis, the Court merely determined whether the said appeal for annulment before the said Tribunal was “effective, in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Convention,” by verifying whether the Bank’s analysis of the requirement of consent was complete and “conformed to the provisions of article 31 of Law 17,613 for the determination of the rights that it granted.”39 b. Considerations In this regard, it should be noted that the judgment expressly indicates that the Court “does not have the necessary elements to analyze whether, the execution of a judgment deciding an appeal for annulment, specifically related to the application of article 31 of Law 17,613, could have been ineffective. This could have occurred if it merely annulled the administrative decision and failed to determine or recognize the rights established in the said article.”40 And, previously, it indicates that “[t]he only case that was decided favorably by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal was that of two people who are not alleged victims in the instant case and, although the judgment was provided, no information was forwarded on the consequences of the annulment of the administrative decision in relation to the recognition of the rights granted by article 31 of Law 17,613.”41 Furthermore it is relevant to underline that the judgment also indicates that “[o]nly 22 judicial rulings deciding the appeals of 28 alleged victims were provided to the Court, but neither the appeals nor the judicial case files were provided” so that it examined “the effectiveness of the appeal for annulment before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal based on the judgments provided, domestic law, and the expert appraisal on the matter,”42 adding that it “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.”43 36 The Court of Administrative Law shall hear the applications for the annulment of final administrative decisions complied with by the Administration in the exercise of its functions that are contrary to a rule of law or issued with misuse of authority. The jurisdiction of the Court shall also include final administrative decisions issued by other organs of the State, the departmental governments, the autonomous entities, and the decentralized services. The appeal for declaration of nullity may only be exercised by the possessor of a right or of a direct, personal and legitimate interest violated or harmed by the administrative decision.” 37 Para. 101. 38 Para. 102. 39 Para. 216. 40 Para. 212. 41 Para. 211. 42 Para. 207. 43 Para. 217. 12