50 in the instant case, since it was necessary in order to clarify on what basis the Court could consider this expert’s opinions to be valid. This is particularly necessary with regard to expert appraisals based on technical expertise outside that of the Court. 231. What the Court can observe from the expert appraisal in question is that the expert made a calculation of the “operating flows” from 1997 to 2006, and the result was more than five million United States dollars.157 No explanation has been presented to the Court of why the calculations had to be up until 2006. As established previously, the factory was returned in 2002 (supra para. 179). Furthermore, during the public hearing held in this case, Mr. Chaparro stated that he sold the factory,158 but he did not specify the exact date of the sale or the price obtained, and how much corresponded to him. Furthermore, when submitting the helpful evidence requested by the President (supra para. 11), the representatives advised that the factory still exists and that Mr. Chaparro is the owner of almost all the shares; in other words, the factory has not been sold.159 Lastly, the percentage of the company’s losses that would correspond to Mr. Chaparro, in relation to the number of shares he possessed at the time of his arrest, has not been explained. 232. Based on the above, and given the complexity of determining the commercial value of a company, which could include, inter alia, its capital, the financial situation, the capital investments, property and securities, assets and liabilities, operating flows, market potential and other matters, the Court considers that an arbitration tribunal should determine the percentage of loss that Mr. Chaparro suffered as a result of the State’s seizure and deposit of the Plumavit factory. Despite the foregoing, the Court takes into account that the said factory had been in operation for several years and that, at the time of the facts, had received some loans to improve its productivity; consequently, the Court establishes, based on the equity principle, the amount of US$150,000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) for this concept. If the amount decided during the arbitration procedure is greater that the amount ordered by the Court in this judgment, the State may deduct from the victim the amount established by this Court, based on the equity principle. If the amount decided in the arbitration procedure is less, the victim shall keep the US$150,000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) established in this judgment. The amount established by the Court shall be delivered to Mr. Chaparro within one year at the latest of notification of this judgment. 233. The arbitration procedure indicated in the preceding paragraph must be of an independent nature, be carried out in the city in which Mr. Chaparro resides, and be pursuant to the applicable domestic laws concerning arbitration, provided that it does not contradict the decisions in this judgment. The procedure must commence within six months of notification of this judgment. The arbitration tribunal shall be composed of three arbitrators. The State and Mr. Chaparro shall each select an arbitrator. The third arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement between the State and Mr. Chaparro. If, within two months of notification of this judgment, the parties have not reached an agreement, the third arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement by the arbitrator selected by the State and the one selected by Mr. Chaparro. If the two arbitrators do not reach an agreement within the following two months, the State and Mr. Chaparro’s 157 Cf. statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yazmín Kuri González on April 16, 2007 (file on merits, Volume I, folio 374). 158 159 Cf. testimony of Mr. Chaparro at the public hearing, supra note 95. Cf. brief submitted by the representatives on October 3, 2007, as helpful evidence requested by the President of the Court (file on merits, volume III, folio 1096).