39 181. Before examining the dispute, the Court notes that the arguments of all the parties in relation to Mr. Chaparro, make no distinction between the Plumavit factory’s property, and Mr. Chaparro’s property. This Court has made a difference between the rights of the shareholders of a company and those of the company itself, indicating that domestic laws grant shareholders certain direct rights, such as the right to receive the agreed dividends, to attend and vote at general meetings, and to receive part of the company’s assets when it is liquidated.128 182. From the evidence provided, it can be seen that, in November 1997, Mr. Chaparro held shares in the Plumavit company amounting to 50% of its capital.129 In addition, Mr. Chaparro was the general manager of the company.130 It is clear that a value could be placed on this participation in the company’s shares, which formed part of its owner’s patrimony from the moment it was acquired. As such, this participation constituted an asset to which Mr. Chaparro had the right to use and enjoyment. The Court must therefore decide whether the State interfered in an unlawful and arbitrary manner in the exercise of this right. A) MATERIAL PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND OBLIGATION TO ADOPT PROVISIONS UNDER DOMESTIC LAW 183. The representatives alleged that the NDPSA norms relating to the special confiscation and deposit of property in CONSEP, “affect the private property of citizens whose innocence is presumed” and, consequently, these norms should be eliminated. They added that the seizure and deposit of property “always harms the patrimony of the defendants” owing to “its inadequate and, at times, wrongful custody and administration.” The State argued that, in criminal proceedings, “without the need for a prior judgment,” it is admissible to issue a material precautionary measure “to preserve the object of the crime of which the owner of the property is accused.” The State indicated that, “during the proceedings, the Inter-American Court must balance the exercise of the State’s investigative powers against the limitation of the right [to property].” The Commission did not submit any arguments in this regard. 184. that: Article 63 of the Constitution of Ecuador in force at the time of the facts stipulated Property, in any of its forms, constitutes a right that the State recognizes and guarantees for the organization of its economy, while it fulfills a social role […] 185. The Code of Criminal Procedure in force at that time authorized the judge to issue, as a material precautionary measure, the prohibition to dispose of, impound, retain and embargo property.131 Whereas the NDPSA authorized the Police to seize property, a 128 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 111, para. 127. See also, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 36, para. 47. 129 Cf. minutes of the extraordinary and universal general meeting of shareholders of the company “Aislantes Plumavit del Ecuador C. Ltda.” issued on March 15, 1990 (judicial case file, volume 9, folio 2272), and instrument increasing the capital and reforming the Articles of association of the company “Aislante Plumavit del Ecuador C. Ltda”, issued on March 23, 1990 (file on merits, volume III, folios 1107 to 1109). 130 Cf. communication issued on January 28, 1997, by Jorge Moncayo Nuques, president of the board of partners of the company, Aislante Plumavit del Ecuador C. Ltda” (judicial case file, volume 10, folio 2282). 131 The 1983 Code of Criminal Procedure established the following: Art. 170. In order to guarantee […] the payment of the compensation for damages to the aggrieved party and the procedural costs, the judge may order precautionary measures of a […] material nature.