4 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 representatives must present this Court with a slate of no less than two and no more than three candidates. The Court will decide the third arbitrator from among the candidates proposed by the parties. The amount decided by the arbitration tribunal must be delivered to Mr. Chaparro within one year of notification of its decision, at the latest. 16. The State presented its request for interpretation “[r]egretting that the judgment issued by the Inter-American Court is final and not open to appeal and that it has the effect of res judicata […] and therefore the parties affected through a judgment are left defenseless (emphasis added).” It expressed that “it rejects [the] reparation measure (emphasis added)” that consists in the establishment of an arbitration tribunal, because in the reparation ordered by the Court “there is no submission to Ecuador’s Law on Arbitration and Mediation,” since the latter demands the signing of an “arbitration agreement” prior to the arising of the controversy in order to establish an arbitration tribunal, which does not exist in this case. It stated that Article 68(2) of the Convention demands “that the return process of the case to the domestic realm, in its compensatory component, maintain a minimum conformity with domestic law.” It also argued that the measure ordered “besides illegal, contravenes the basic principle that governs the arbitral realm, specifically, the will of the parties to submit to arbitration” (emphasis added) and it is therefore “considered a non-recognition of a basic principle of a branch of Law,” when “the reparation measures must be included within the framework […] of the general principles of law, source of international law pursuant to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.” Before the negative to comply with the establishment of the arbitration tribunal, the State proposed, first of all, a mediation instead of the arbitration procedure and it then stated that “it only acknowledges and will only acknowledge the amount set in equity by the Inter-American Court for damages derived from the seizure of the PLUMAVIT factory (emphasis added).” 17. On the other hand, the State referred to the manner in which the arbitrators should be appointed and it expressed that “it [should] also respond to the parties’ decision, who may decide on the number of members and even on [their] identity.” The State also asked “[w]hat happens if the compensatory amount implies an enrichment or impoverishment for Mr. Chaparro? Who will respond for this? Would it