41 187. The Court finds that the adoption of these measures does not constitute per se a violation of the right to property, if it is considered that they do not signify a transfer of the ownership of the right to legal title. In this regard, the property cannot be disposed of definitively and such disposal is restricted exclusively to its administration and conservation and to the respective acts of investigation and management of the evidence. 188. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the adoption of material precautionary measures must be justified previously by the inexistence of another type of measure that is less restrictive of the right to property. In this regard, it is only admissible to seize and deposit property when there is clear evidence of its connection to the offense, and provided that it is necessary to guarantee the investigation and the payment of the applicable pecuniary responsibilities, or to avoid the loss or deterioration of the evidence. Also, these measures must be adopted and supervised by judicial officials, taking into account that, if the reasons that justified the precautionary measure cease to exist, the judge must assess the pertinence of maintaining the restriction, even before the proceedings are concluded. This point is extremely important, given that if the property ceases to fulfill a relevant role in continuing or promoting the investigation, the material precautionary measure must be lifted, because they run the risk of becoming an anticipated punishment. The latter would constitute a manifestly disproportionate restriction of the right to property. 189. Based on the above, provided there is due justification to adopt these measures, the corresponding effect on the power to dispose of property that is created does not in itself constitute a violation of the right to property. Accordingly, the Court considers that the purpose of these measures is in keeping with the American Convention and their existence is not contrary to the provisions of Article 21 in relation to Article 2 thereof. The dispute regarding the alleged arbitrariness in the application of these measures will be examined below. * * * 190. The representatives referred to another aspect related to the compatibility of domestic law with the Convention. Thus, they indicated that the fact that CONSEP charged Mr. Chaparro for the deposit, custody and administration of the property (supra 180) means that this system is “onerous for the patrimony of the accused,” bearing in mind that “a person whose innocence has been declared in a judgment must pay the State for the deposit and administration of property that was seized unlawfully and unduly.” 191. The Court observes that, in the instant case, Resolution No. 059-CD of 2000 issued by the Administrative Council of CONSEP133 was applied. This Resolution issued the “Regulations for the collection of fees for the deposit, custody and administration of property and assets seized, confiscated or impounded that are entrusted to CONSEP.” The pertinent part of these regulations establishes that: Art. 1. The CONSEP Secretariat, through the National Directorate for the Administration of Property in Deposit, is responsible for the custody, administration and deposit of property that is seized, confiscated or impounded and entrusted to CONSEP; since such actions entail financial outlays, these must be assumed by the owners when the deposit ends owing to the existence of an order to return the property issued by a competent judge. 133 Cf. resolution No. 059-CD issued by the CONSEP Administrative Council and published in official gazette No. 14 of February 10, 2000 (file on merits, volume III, folios 1068 to 1072).