220. Therefore, the Court finds that, in these 11 cases (supra para. 218), the State did not guarantee the petitioners a judicial remedy that protected them effectively against the violation of the material sphere of their right to be heard before the administrative body for the determination of the rights granted by article 31 of Law 17,613. Consequently, the Court declares that Uruguay violated the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Daniel Dendrinos Saquieres, Fabiana Lijtenstein, Jean Leroy, Martín Guerra, María Ivelice Gigli Rodríguez, Leandro Rama Sienra, Clara Volyvovic, Pablo Raúl Roure Casas, Marta Rodríguez Lois, Ángel Notaro, Alba Bonifacino and Thomas Máximo Neuschul. C.2) Other alleged judicial remedies available Arguments of the parties 221. When contesting the alleged violation of judicial protection, the State indicated that, in addition to the appeal for annulment before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, other effective judicial remedies were available to the alleged victims. Uruguay indicated that “article 31 does not exhaust the possibility of the TCB Cayman Islands investors being included as shareholders of the Banco de Montevideo – Bank Assets Recovery Fund.” It added that “many of them did not use them or, having used them, their cases were rejected, after proceedings endowed with all the judicial guarantees for defense and the production of evidence.” Uruguay indicated that several of the said actions before the courts were successful, enabling some alleged victims to be considered as shareholders of the respective Recovery Fund. Also, in this regard, it emphasized that “a significant percentage of the claimants presented their claims as of 2004 and, fundamentally, during 2005 and 2006, so that some proceedings are still underway.” The State presented figures and documentation with regard to the said proceedings and the judgments handed down. Lastly, it indicated that an application for amparo was also available, and was the most simple and prompt remedy under Uruguayan law for an act “of manifest illegality,” and that this remedy was not used. 222. The representatives indicated that “some depositors” filed actions under “other domestic judicial remedies in the civil, bankruptcy and criminal sphere,” but “most of these proceedings are still ongoing and subject to possible cassation.” In this regard, they indicated that “[a] remedy that takes from 7 to 10 years to decide is not effective.” Moreover, they stated that most of the alleged victims did not have “the capacity, the strength of character, the health and the money to continue and obtain proper counseling on the steps to take in order to evaluate properly to which jurisdiction they should resort.” They added that “if they really had all the remedies mentioned by the State within their reach, and if these remedies had really been effective, the legislator would not have taken the trouble to adopt article 31 and order the creation of an Advisory Commission to decide their situation in 60 days.” 223. For its part, the Inter-American Commission indicated that, as regards the remedies identified by the State in its answering brief, one of the minimum guarantees necessary under the administrative procedure should be the clarity of the path to follow by the petitioner to reclaim his rights and that, in the instant case, “the State revealed a lack of clarity in its defense before the inter-American system.” In its final written arguments, the Commission indicated that “even today it is not clear which remedy would be effective, or whether such a remedy exists […].” Considerations of the Court 224. The Court found it proved that at least 136 alleged victims filed actions in the ordinary jurisdiction against the Banco de Montevideo based on, inter alia, breach of 84