43 once the investigations had been concluded, so that the operation cannot be described as confiscatory.” 197. The Court finds that, when exercising the authority to issue material precautionary measures contemplated by law, the national authorities are obliged to provide reasons that justify the appropriateness of the measure. This requires them to clarify the “fumus boni iuris,” in other words, that there are sufficient probabilities and evidence that the property was really involved in the offense. 198. Based on the prior police report, the court order to investigate the crime alleged that the ice chests used in the criminal offense had been manufactured in the Plumavit factory and, therefore, ordered the deposit of the factory and all its contents with CONSEP. The Court considers that there is no evidence of an arbitrary procedure in this regard. However, evidence was subsequently presented to prove that the Plumavit factory was not involved in the criminal offense (supra paras. 110 to 113), and the judge of the case did not assess this and, consequently, did not assess the possibility of lifting the material precautionary measures in the event that the reasons that made them necessary had disappeared. Furthermore, there was no judicial ruling on the need to maintain the deposit; in other words, on whether the investigation could continue without affecting the possession and administration of the company to such an extent. 199. Based on the above, the precautionary measures adopted became arbitrary and, therefore, the State disproportionately affected the right of Mr. Chaparro to the use and enjoyment of his property in violation of Article 21(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. C) IRREGULARITIES IN THE RETURN OF THE PROPERTY 200. Under Ecuadorean law, when a possession has been the object of a precautionary measure, its return is in order when there has been an acquittal. The NDPSA regulates the return of property as follows: Article 110. Return of property. If the accused, owner of the seized property, is acquitted, the property shall be returned by CONSEP when the judge so orders, once the precautionary measures have been cancelled. The institutions to which the property was delivered shall return it in the condition in which it was when they received it, except for normal deterioration owing to its legitimate use. If it has been damaged, they must repair it or pay the compensation established by the judge, except in the case of force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances. The money or value represented by the monetary instruments or banking, financial or commercial documents seized or confiscated shall be returned in national currency, using the exchange rate on the free market for the purchase of the seized currency on the date of its return, with the respective legal interest in force, established by the Monetary Board. The legal action to seek compensation for any possible damages is admissible. 201. The parties alleged that, in this case, at the time of the corresponding return of the property, there were problems related to the delay in the return and the failure to return part of it. a) Delays in the return 202. The Commission alleged that the delay in returning the factory “exceeded a reasonable length of time and was a result of the grave violations of judicial guarantees that Mr. Chaparro experienced.”