In this regard, it should be underlined, also as a fact, that the commission required by article 31 “must ‘advise the Board of the Central Bank of Uruguay, insofar as the legislator granted the latter the authority to determine the status as depositor of the Banco de Montevideo S.A (in liquidation) and La Caja Obrera S.A. (in liquidation), in the situation established in the first paragraph of [article 31 of Law 17,613].’ The purpose of the Advisory Commission was to ‘make recommendations,’ but its decisions were not binding for the Board [of the Central Bank], which could diverge from them for well-founded reasons.”6 It is also a fact of the case that an appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal was admissible against the decisions adopted by the Bank under article 31, and this was filed by some of the interested parties.7 Lastly, it should also be recalled that the judgment “notes that, in this case, no violation has been alleged regarding the creation of the special administrative procedure under article 31 […], or with regard to the requirements established in this norm in order to benefit from it” and that, in the instant case, what must be “determined is whether, in the procedures in which the said norm was applied, the guarantees of due process and judicial protection […] were violated,”8 and it concluded “that the special administrative procedure was ineffective, in light of what it had to determine […], because the Central Bank made an incomplete analysis of the merits of the petitions, which meant that the State violated the substantive sphere of the right to be heard protected by Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 539 persons who filed a petition under article 31 of Law 17,613, indicated in the Annex on victims to this judgment.”9 It is precisely with regard to the meaning and scope that the judgment accords to the provisions of this norm, thus making it applicable to the corresponding decisions taken by the Bank, that I present this dissenting opinion. B. Interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Convention Based on the foregoing, it is now appropriate to analyze the text of the said Article 8(1) of the Convention (hereinafter, Article 8(1)), which reads: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial judge or tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” There are several ways of interpreting this article. 6 Para. 79. 7 Para. 103. 8 Para. 115. 9 Para. 142. 3