before the Central Bank of Uruguay under article 31 of Law 17,613. In this regard, the Court offered the parties several opportunities to present the corresponding evidence, as well as any observations they deemed pertinent with regard to the absence of information on the said alleged victims (supra paras. 10 to 14).226 145. The Inter-American Commission and the representatives argued that the indication by the State that some individuals identified as alleged victims had not even filed a petition before the Central Bank under the said article 31 was time-barred. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in view of the limited evidence provided by the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives with their principal briefs, the President of the Court asked Uruguay, as helpful evidence, to forward the decisions of the Central Bank corresponding to all the alleged victims in the instant case (supra paras. 11 to 14). When complying with this request, the State pointed out to the Court that it did not have information regarding all the alleged victims, which meant that some of them had not filed petitions before the Central Bank under article 31 of Law 17,613.227 The Court notes that the State’s observation is not a time-barred argument, because the fact that the said 179 persons have not filed a petition before the Central Bank would imply that the alleged violation regarding which the Court has ruled favorably was not constituted with regard to them (supra para. 133 to 142). The Court emphasizes that the identification of the alleged victims by the Inter-American Commission when submitting a case to this Court entails not only the indication of their names, but also requires providing probative elements that allow the Court to verify their status as such. This evidence will vary according to the facts of the case. Consequently, the Court does not admit the time-barred argument presented by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives and, in order to determine the victims will take into account the evidence provided by the parties, either directly or in response to a request for helpful evidence. 146. The Court also observes that, according to the representatives, some of the alleged victims in whose name a petition was lodged before the inter-American human rights system and who were subsequently considered as alleged victims by the InterAmerican Commission, are acting as representatives or heirs of those who did file petitions before the Central Bank under the said article 31, or are joint holders of accounts in the Banco de Montevideo with victims or individuals who were not included as alleged victims by the Inter-American Commission, and who did file petitions before Ana María; (146) Sartori, Miguel; (147) Schiaffino Conti, Carlota; (148) Schiavo, Luis; (149) Secco, Diego; (150) Seco, Valeria; (151) Seré Bonino, María; (152) Sienra, Beatriz; (153) Silva, Juan; (154) Solari, Hebert; (155) Sosa, Jorge; (156) Soto, Amelia María; (157) Spagna, Anna; (158) Steverlynck, Stanislas; (159) Tabárez Corni, Tabaré; (160) Tabárez, Nélida; (161) Testoni, Víctor; (162) Tonar, Mónica; (163) Tormo, Ana María; (164) Torre, José Alberto; (165) Unanua, Raúl; (166) Uriarte, Daoiz; (167) Valdez, Jorge; (168) Valdez, William; (169) Valiño, Ricardo; (170) Valsecchi, Patricia; (171) Valle, Nelly; (172) Vallega, Rodrigo; (173) Varela, Adrian; (174) Varona, Graciela; (175) Viera, Leonardo; (176) Villalba, María Fernanda; (177) Vivo Piquerez, Rafael; (178) Yacobo, Macowinn, and (179) Zanandrea, José Luis. 226 The representatives observed, with regard to the 171 individuals indicated by the State, that “many of them ha[d] been included irregularly on that list.” Owing to this, they indicated that the State “did not have all the correct information as regards these 171 alleged victims, [so that] they c[ould] not be sure that, with regard to [the other] depositors that they represent and who do not have probative documentation, there has not also been an error and/or mislaying of documentation by the Central Bank of Uruguay, taking into account the time that has elapsed.” In addition, they observed that “[t]he responsibility for the incomplete files falls on the Central Bank,” so that the State should not “take advantage of its own error,” bearing in mind the difficulties entailed “to refute the information that the Central Bank is now providing in extremis.” For its part, the Inter-American Commission indicated that “the State’s intention to present [with its final written arguments] a preliminary objection of apparent failure to [exhaust remedies] with regard to 171 victims is totally inadmissible and time-barred.” 227 Regarding the said observations, the State affirmed that it had trusted that the Inter-American Commission “had adequately verified case by case that the alleged victims who appeared before that organ had accredited their legal standing and complied with the prior and essential requirement of exhausting domestic remedies.” The State “assumed that the said Commission had carried out these controls fully, [and had therefore] presumed that all those individualized as victims by the Inter-American Commission had, in fact, been petitioners before the Central Bank of Uruguay; whereas it was subsequently verified, that this was not so.” 60