45 to the delivery that the police officials made to CONSEP on January 28, 1998.140 The official inventory that is attached to the official record of the delivery-reception of property to Mr. Chaparro does not appear in the file before the Court. However, from the notary’s record it is clear that some movable property was not returned. The State has not contested this record or explained the situation. Therefore, the Court accepts the notary’s record to be true and considers it is an established fact that the State did not return certain property of the Plumavit factory that was seized. Also, no reasons have been given to justify the failure to return property, nor has it been shown that fair compensation was paid for it. 209. The Court finds that the failure to return property belonging to the company had an impact on its value and productivity, which, in turn, prejudiced its shareholders. This prejudice must be understood as an arbitrary interference in the “enjoyment” of the property under the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Convention. Therefore, the Court declares that the State violated the right embodied in Article 21(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Chaparro. D) UNSATISFACTORY ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY 210. The Commission stated that the factory was under the administration of CONSEP “for almost five years,” and that “at the time of its return, the machinery was damaged […] as a result of its lease to a private individual for three years.” The Commission indicated that this lease was “in direct violation of the provisions of the Regulations for the application of the [NDPSA],” which established the possibility of extending a lease, but only to public institutions. The representatives endorsed this position and the State did not submit specific arguments on this point. 211. The Court finds, first, that property confiscated by the State during drugtrafficking operations is placed in its custody; consequently, the State assumes a position of guarantor of its good use and conservation, particularly taking into account that precautionary measures are not of a punitive nature. In the instant case, the position of guarantor of both the judge and CONSEP derived from their institutional role in this type of procedure; they were therefore responsible for ensuring that the precautionary measure did not become a cause of the deterioration of the property in question. The custodian, in this case CONSEP, had the legal obligation to return the confiscated property “in the condition in which it was at the time of its reception, except for normal deterioration owing to legitimate use” (supra para. 200). 212. Several CONSEP reports allow the Court to deduce that there was significant deterioration in the seized property.141 There is also evidence that several debts were not 140 872). Cf. appendix to the record of delivery/reception, supra note 121 (merits file, volume III, folios 871 and 141 On March 3, 1998, the Regional Head of CONSEP informed the judge of case that “the property contained in the said factory [was] received in regular condition, probably because it had suffered the effects of flooding owing to El Niño.” Cf. communication issued on March 3, 1998, by the Regional Head of CONSEP, addressed to the Guayas Twelfth Criminal Judge (judicial case file, volume 31, folio 4782). On May 14, 1998, the Head Custodian of CONSEP in Guayas made an inspection “of the property, sheets of espumaflex, ice chests of espumaflex, that were in the storage area for finished products and that had been destroyed owing to the effects of the flooding suffered by this factory.” This official verified that “the sheets and the ice chests were broken and totally deteriorated,” and advised that the lessee of the company had indicated that the foregoing “was the reason why the Municipality of Guayaquil had closed the factory.” Cf. official communication No. 071JRL-CONSEP-98 issued on May 28, 1998, by the Head Custodian CONSEP-Guayas (file on merits, volume III, folio 870). Also, in a report dated February 18, 2002, the #2 Custodian of CONSEP in Guayas informed his superior that “he had complied with the removal of several movables from the PLUMAVIT factory,” which, according to the official, were “in an appalling condition, totally unusable; in addition the computer equipment,