now analyze the effectiveness of the appeal for annulment before the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal based on the judgments provided, domestic law, and the expert opinion on the matter. 208. Regarding the jurisdiction of the judicial body in question, it is relevant that article 23 of the Law of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal establishes that an appeal for annulment may be made against “the administrative decisions of a unilateral, treaty-based or any other nature that are issued involving misuse, abuse or excess of Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 14470 to 14481), corresponding to the alleged victim Contin, Gianna. (6) Judgment No. 487 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 23, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Castro, Gustavo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 14597 to 14602), corresponding to the alleged victim Castro Etchart, Gustavo. (7) Judgment No. 477 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 3, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Perles, Gisela v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 14871 to 14881), corresponding to the alleged victim Perles, Gisela. (8) Judgment No. 16 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of February 5, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Neuschul, Franklin v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 14932 to 14941), corresponding to the alleged victim Neuschul, Franklin. (9) Judgment No. 179 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of April 30, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Neuschul, Thomas v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 14954 to 14963), corresponding to the alleged victim Neuschul, Thomas Máximo. (10) Judgment No. 306 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 13, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Lingeri, Manuel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15048 to 15061), corresponding to the alleged victim Lingeri Olsson, Manuel. (11) Judgment No. 828 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of December 13, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Lijtenstein, Fabiana et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15062 to 15069), corresponding to the alleged victim Lijtenstein, Fabiana. (12) Judgment No. 204 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 12, 2008, in proceedings entitled “Leroy, Jean et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15083 to 15090), corresponding to the alleged victim Leroy, Jean. (13) Judgment No. 719 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Horvath, Raúl v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15121 to 15128), corresponding to the alleged victim Horvath, Raúl. (14) Judgment No. 726 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of December 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gutiérrez, Eduardo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15144 to 15157), corresponding to the alleged victim Gutiérrez Galiana, Eduardo; (15) Judgment No. 578 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of October 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Guerra, Martín v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15182 to 15191); corresponding to the alleged victim Guerra, Martín. (16) Judgment No. 315 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Gigli, María v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15192 to 15199), corresponding to the alleged victim Gigli Rodríguez, María Ivelice. (17) Judgment No. 435 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of August 22, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Rama, Leandro v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15200 to 15206), corresponding to the alleged victim Rama Sienra, Leandro. (18) Judgment No. 408 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of July 25, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Atijas, Vito et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15407 to 15414), corresponding to the alleged victim Volyvovic, Clara. (19) Judgment No. 314 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Roure, Pablo v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15603 to 15609), corresponding to the alleged victim Roure Casas, Pablo Raúl. (20) Judgment No. 317 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 13, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Roelsgaard, Niels et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15611 to 15617), corresponding to the alleged victim Roelsgaard Papke, Niels Peter. (21) Judgment No. 292 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 6, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Rodríguez, Marta v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15619 to 15629), corresponding to the alleged victim Rodríguez Lois, Marta. (22) Judgment No. 272 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 4, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Notero, Ángel et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (folios 15619 to 15629), corresponding to the alleged victims Notero, Ángel and Bonifacino, Alba. According to the information provided by the State, and not contested by the Inter-American Commission or the representatives, the appeals for annulment filed by another 11 alleged victims ended and, consequently, were archived because “more than six months had passed without any procedural action, which, pursuant to art. 96 of DL 15,524, results in prescription.” The said Decrees of Prescription are in the file of attachments to the answer, volume VII, attachment 27 (B) and are as follows: (1) Canabal Lema, Andrés, Decree of Prescription No. 2073/2010, of March 24, 2010, (folio 15670); (2) Canabal, Andrea, Decree of Prescription No. 3946/2010, de May 19, 2010, (folio 15671); (3) García Milia, María Delia, Decree of Prescription No. 2200/2007, of April 12, 2007, (folio 15672); (4) Lisbona Vásquez, Gabriel, Decree of Prescription No. 641/2009 of February 13, 2009 (folio 156724); (5) López Varela, José Jorge, Decree of Prescription No. 6062/2005 of September 5, 2005 (folio 15675); (6) López Alejandro, Rogelio, Decree of Prescription No. 1801/2009 of March 17, 2009 (folio 15676); (7) Rubio Saquieres, Manuel, Decree of Prescription No. 633/2009 of February 13, 2009 (folio 15677); (8) Rubio Saquieres, Miguel Ángel, Decree of Prescription No. 633/2009 of February 13, 2009 (folio 15677); (9) Saiquieres Garrido, Nelly, Decree of Prescription No. 633/2009 of February 13, 2009 (folio 15677); (10) Schipani, Élida, Decree of Prescription No. 2073/2010, of March 24, 2010, (folio 15670). The Court has no information regarding the status of the appeal for annulment filed by the alleged victim Marion Glaser. 80