inappropriate or illegal. If a petitioner offered testimonial evidence, he was responsible for the appearance of the witness with the questions to be asked (supra para. 88). 191. Consequently, the Court finds that the arguments of the representatives are unfounded, because there was no justification for requiring the Advisory Commission or the Board of the Central Bank to provide specific information to the petitioners about the possibility of presenting witnesses to support their claims, since the regulations concerning the evidence they could submit were contained in general public norms. Moreover, the Court underscores that the norms applicable to the said procedure were expressly indicated in the resolution creating the Advisory Commission. 192. Regarding the alleged violations for failing to comply with domestic norms concerning the assessment of evidence, the Court notes that it is not incumbent on it to determine whether the significance accorded by the administrative body to the testimonial evidence in the 22 cases admitted was appropriate under domestic law. In addition, the Court refers to its preceding determination that, in the cases that were admitted, the requirement that was found proven by the said evidence, was not a new one, but rather the absence of consent (supra para. 170). 193. The persons accepted in those 22 cases are not alleged victims before this Court; thus the Court is unable to analyze their procedures, unless this is necessary for determining an unequal treatment in relation to the alleged victims that violates the American Convention. In the instant case, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives have not argued that the administrative body treated the testimony proposed by the alleged victims differently, but rather they are suggesting that this Court make an isolated analysis of the evidence rendered in 22 cases of persons who are not alleged victims. 194. Based on the above findings, the Court concludes that no violation of the American Convention has been constituted based on the alleged lack of information concerning evidence. C) JUDICIAL PROTECTION C.1) The appeal for annulment Administrative Tribunal before the Contentious- Arguments of the parties 195. Both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims argued that the State had violated the right to judicial protection by not providing “a simple and prompt remedy for examining all factual and legal issues related to the dispute.” 196. The Inter-American Commission argued that Uruguay had not provided the alleged victims with an effective remedy “to contest the interpretation made by the Advisory Commission of article 31 of Law 17,613 in the Uruguayan courts.” The alleged victims “were unable to submit to judicial resolution the central issue of the nature of the consent required to prove that their funds had been transferred offshore ‘without their consent.’” However, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it considered that “the information presented is not sufficient to demonstrate State responsibility related to a failure to comply with Article 2 of the Convention.” When referring to the appeal for annulment before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, the InterAmerican Commission indicated that the said tribunal “could only intervene in the contested proceedings from the perspective of whether a disqualifying factor existed, 76