6 losses and loss of earnings owing to the seizure of the Plumavit factory. It indicated that, after the expert appraisal had been completed, a series of meetings had been held with the representatives and the victim, resulting in a financial agreement, which “had to be approved by the office of the Attorney General; however, the Attorney General’s office ruled that the arbitration procedure should go forward.” Consequently, on June 11, 2010, the State informed the Court that it had appointed Cesar Molina as one of the arbitrators to constitute the court of arbitration in the instant case. In its report of August 19, 2010, it added that the arbitration procedure had started in May 2010, when the parties had each appointed one arbitrator and these two had subsequently selected a third. However, the latter, Roberto Hanze Salem, had not yet accepted his appointment. 17. Subsequently, on September 29, 2010, the State proposed Alicia Arias and Carlos Andreta as candidates to serve on the panel for the arbitration procedure. Following the Secretariat’s request for the curriculum vitae of both candidates, the State forwarded the curricula vitae of Alicia Arias and Rómulo García, and indicated that Carlos Andreta “would not form part of the panel in the case.” 18. The representatives indicated that, on April 15, 2009, they had advised the office of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice that they had “terminate[d] the friendly agreement of July 16, 2009[, which] the State had not fulfilled.” They affirmed that the friendly settlement procedure, the presidential decree authorizing the Ministry of Justice to sign this type of agreement, and the response of the Attorney General denying the authorization for the Ministry of Justice to sign the agreement, represented “delaying tactics by the State in the process of complying […] with the judgment.” Consequently, they informed the Court of the appointment of Ricardo Vaca Andrade as arbitrator to serve on the court of arbitration and indicated that “since the State […] and the victim were unable to reach an agreement on the appointment of the third arbitrator, the arbitrators who had been appointed agreed to designate Roberto Hanze Salem as the third arbitrator,” but apparently he had not accepted this designation. Accordingly, they proposed Hernán Salgado Pesantes and Vladimiro Álvarez Grau as candidates for the Court to select the third arbitrator. Mr. Chaparro indicated that he had no observations to make on the candidates proposed by the State. 19. Lastly, Mr. Chaparro indicated the existence of “uncertainty […] about the costs of the arbitration and the party obliged to assume them” and asked the Court to “order that the State […] assume the costs of the arbitration and that the respective payments be made as the need arose during the procedure”; to the contrary, “if it did not assume the arbitration costs, this could become a device to obstruct compliance with the judgment.” 20. The Commission indicated that it had no additional observations to make on this point pending compliance. 21. The Court observes that both the State and the representatives have made an effort to achieve a financial agreement establishing the amounts corresponding to pecuniary damage. Despite these efforts and a final agreement having been reached on the amount of the compensation by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and Mr. Chaparro and his representatives, ultimately the Attorney General did not grant the corresponding authorization, considering that the agreement with the victim “must be effectively and categorically in favor of the State’s interests,” in which case the ideal scenario was the arbitration procedure, where “the legal position, in defense of the State’s interests, could be explained and argued, so that the designated members of the court of arbitration could take a final decision, based on all the probative elements provided by the parties.”