specific instructions to the Banco de Montevideo to improve its economic and financial situation.53 Due to the failure of the Banco de Montevideo to comply with the requirements of the Central Bank, the consequent increase in the risk assumed by the Banco de Montevideo in relation to related enterprises, the deterioration in the finances and net worth of the Banco de Montevideo,54 as well as the situation of the Uruguayan financial system in general,55 on June 9, 2002 the Central Bank appointed an overseer in the Banco de Montevideo, who would have “maximum authority to veto any type of operation” with any physical or legal person connected to the said bank.56 The same day, the Central Bank also appointed an overseer for the Banco La Caja Obrera. 57 68. On June 21, 2002, the Central Bank decided to intervene the Banco de Montevideo, substituting all its statutory authorities, but without closing down its activities.58 In the same resolution, the Central Bank extended this decision to the Banco La Caja Obrera.59 On July 30, 2002, the Central Bank decided to suspend the activities of the Banco de Montevideo and the Banco La Caja Obrera totally for 60 days,60 a period that was extended until the end of December 2002.61 Finally, on December 31, 2002, the Central Bank ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the Banco de Montevideo, due to its negative net worth.62 In the same decision, pursuant to the provisions of article 24 of Law 17,613, the “Bank Asset Recovery Fund of the Banco de Montevideo” was established, called the “Banco de Montevideo – Bank Asset Recovery Fund.” This Fund would be administered by the Central Bank, and would comprise “all the rights, obligations, bonds, guarantees and even liquid assets of the dissolved entity,” which were transferred to the said Fund “automatically as of the date of [this] decision.”63 attachment 7, folio 2151); Affidavit of the witness Fernando Barrán dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1171); and Affidavit of the witness Rosolina Trucillo dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1130). 53 Cf. Decision D/199/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay of April 25, 2002 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 6, folios 2148 and 2149). 54 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Julio de Brun dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1097). 55 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Fernando Barrán dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1173); affidavit of the witness Rosolina Trucillo dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folios 1135 and 1136), and affidavit of the witness Jorge Xavier dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1122). 56 Cf. Decision D/322/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay, supra note 52 (folio 2152). 57 Cf. Decision D/322/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay, supra note 52 (folio 2153). 58 Cf. Decision D/350/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay of June 21, 2002 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 8, folio 2158). According to the testimony of the witness Jorge Xavier, who was named the overseer, “the first time the authorities of the BM failed to comply with to veto that had been imposed” was verified on June 11, 2002, regarding to transfer of funds to pay for to Banco Velox operation. Cf. Affidavit of the witness Jorge Xavier dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1115). 59 Cf. Decision D/350/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay, supra note 58 (folio 2158). 60 Cf. Decision D/454/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay of July 30, 2002 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 9, folio 2160). 61 Cf. Decisions of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay: D/656/2002 of September 24, 2002, D/746/2002 of October 24, 2002, D/817/2002 of November 14, 2002, D/862/2002 of November 29, 2002, D/884/2002 of December 13, 2002, and D/931/2002 of December 27, 2002, in which the suspension of activities of the Banco de Montevideo was extended successively (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 6, folios 12410 to 12415). 62 Cf. Decision D/933/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay of December 31, 2002 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 10, folios 2163 and 2164). 63 Cf. Decision D/933/2002 of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Uruguay of December 31, 2002, second and third operative paragraphs (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 10, folio 2164). 22