contract and claims for compensation for damage. In 10 cases the Banco de Montevideo was found guilty and the decision is final in nine of them (supra para. 107). 225. Uruguay argued the existence of other “means of judicial remedy” that would have allowed the alleged victims “to obtain a guilty verdict against [the] Banco de Montevideo S.A. (in liquidation), which would have enabled them to be included as shareholders in the Banco de Montevideo – Bank Assets Recovery Fund.” In this regard, the State did not provide details of what these remedies consisted of, their procedures and the norms that regulate them, as it did when referring to the appeal for annulment before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal. However, the State did provide copies of the judgments in some cases filed by certain alleged victims, as well as lists and tables with information on the appeals filed in different instances and how they were decided. 226. Bearing in mind the State’s arguments and the corresponding evidence as regards the alleged remedies in the instant case, the Court can analyze whether those remedies allowed the courts that decided them to consider the matter that is the purpose of the dispute in this case. In order to rule on this, the Court recalls that, under article 31 of Law 17,613, it was stipulated that those who met the requirements established in the said norm should be granted two rights: (i) recognition as a creditor of the Banco de Montevideo or the Banco La Caja Obrera, based on which they became shareholders in the Recovery Fund of the respective bank, and (ii) the right to receive from the State a complement to their share (supra paras. 97 and 126). In contrast, the civil actions against the Banco de Montevideo to which the State refers could only result in the determination of the right to be recognized as a creditor of the said banks, based on which they would also become shareholders in the Recovery Fund, although not always for the amount that they alleged had been transferred without their consent, but often for the amount that the respective court established as compensation for noncompliance with a banking obligation. Although these actions allowed an analysis of the petitioners’ consent as well as the Banco de Montevideo’s non-compliance with its obligation to provide truthful and complete information, the Court underlines that the body of evidence does not show that the use of these remedies, which decided the actions against the Banco de Montevideo, allowed the application of article 31 of Law 17,613 and making the determinations that the article established, or a review of the actions of the administrative body that were alleged to have violated the guarantees of due process. 227. In this regard, the Court considers that the preceding conclusion has been confirmed by the State’s assertion that “no ruling (even those that have been favorable to the claim presented, granting the plaintiff the status of creditor of the Banco de Montevideo S.A.) stated that the plaintiffs were depositors of the Banco de Montevideo S.A., […] but rather […] they are orders to pay all or part of sums invested as damages, but do not entail any recognition of the status as depositors of the Banco de Montevideo S.A. and, therefore, do not contest or contradict the decision of the Central Bank of Uruguay in application of the said art. 31 of Law No. 17,613.” Furthermore, referring to the final judgments that had admitted claims for compensation from the Banco de Montevideo, the State affirmed that, those who had obtained these favorable rulings, “did not receive […] the benefit – from State resources – of art. 31 of Law No. 17,613.” 228. The fact that some alleged victims used these judicial remedies and obtained favorable judgments does not mean that these remedies were effective in this matter. It merely reveals the search by these alleged victims for alternate means to allow them to obtain judicial protection for at least some of the rights established in article 31 of Law 17,613. 229. Based on the above, the Court finds that these actions before the civil jurisdiction did not grant all the rights established under the said article 31, and neither did they 85