44 203. As can be observed from paragraph 198 of this judgment, the property confiscated from Mr. Chaparro should have been returned when the reasons had disappeared that made the material precautionary measures necessary. In the instant case, even though a provisional stay of proceedings was issued in favor of Mr. Chaparro on October 30, 2001, the property was only returned to him one year later, in October 2002. 204. The Court finds that this delay in complying with the order to return the property, which was no longer affected by a precautionary measure, aggravated Mr. Chaparro’s situation when he was attempting to remedy, to some extent, the impediment to the use and enjoyment of his property, and this constitutes a violation of Article 21(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to his detriment. b) Failure to return part of the property 205. The Commission and the representatives alleged that, when the factory was returned, all the seized property was not handed back. The State expressed its “concern about the alleged incompatibility between the inventory made at the time of the seizure [… and] the inventory presented for its return.” 206. On November 18, 1997, three days after Mr. Chaparro’s arrest, the Guayas Fourth Criminal Prosecutor and a Police Lieutenant made an inventory of the property in the Plumavit factory. On November 20, 1997, another inventory was made, this time of the documents found in the factory.137 The Court observes that, while these inventories were being prepared, neither a representative of the company nor Mr. Chaparro’s defense lawyers were represent. This prevented a satisfactory comparison being made of what was seized and what was returned. 207. On October 10, 2002, an “Official Record of Delivery/Reception” was signed by the Head Custodian CONSEP-Guayas and Mr. Chaparro. By means of this document, the Plumavit Industrial Plant was handed back and it was recorded that Mr. Chaparro “received the facilities with all the movable property in its actual condition and this is described in forty-one (41) folios attached to the record.”138 This appendix, which included the list of the respective movable property, was not submitted to the Court. Nevertheless, this record of delivery-reception specifies that “one of the molding machines is damaged and the interior of certain computer equipment, such as CPUs, is incomplete, because they were received in this condition by the CONSEP Custodian from the lessee.” The return of the factory was carried out in the presence of a notary public who was present at Mr. Chaparro’s request in order to record the property that was missing at that time. The corresponding record of the notarial procedure,139 stated that “by visual inspection” it was verified that a series of movable assets “do not appear physically in the factory.” Also, the notarial record indicated that “[t]here was no accounting documentation for the seven previous years, or deeds and other documents held in the safe (Caja de Fondos) of the Plumavit Company.” 208. The Court does not have the inventory that would allow it to make a comparison between what CONSEP states it handed over and what Mr. Chaparro affirms he did not receive. The State only provided one inventory of assets, but this inventory corresponds 137 Cf. report submitted to the Provincial Chief of the Guayas Anti-narcotics Office, supra note 115. 138 Cf. record of delivery/reception, supra note 121. 139 Cf. record of the notarial procedure, supra note 122.