89 Pleadings of the State 208. Regarding this point, the State argued that: a) once the competent authorities had issued the dismissal, upheld by the Sixth Chamber of the High Court of Guayaquil in January 1998, the Eighteenth Criminal Judge of the Guayas ordered the return of the petitioner’s property; b) when the judge asked Mr. Tibi to prove pre-existence and property of the seized goods, Mr. Tibi, through his defense counsel, merely asserted that property of said goods was on record in the proceedings; c) neither pre-existence of the alleged jewels nor their property have been proven in accordance with the law. Regarding the Volvo brand car that Mr. Tibi drove, with license plate PGN 244, the police agents found that the car’s registration was in the name of Edgar Herrera Santacruz; and d) since Mr. Tibi’s property rights over the seized goods had not been legally proven, their return was not in order. Considerations of the Court 209. Article 21 of the American Convention sets forth that: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. […] 210. The 1996 Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador sets forth in Article 63 that: Property, in any of its forms, is a right that the State recognizes and guarantees to organize its economy, as long as it carries out its social function […] 211. Ecuador’s law on narcotics and psychotropic substances established, in Article 105, that [t]hose who made the arrest [...] will identify all realty and personalty, substances, monies, securities, monetary instruments, banking, financial or commercial documents; as well as the alleged owner or owners, in separate records that they will forward to the criminal Judge within the following twenty-four hours. When the judge issues the court order to investigate the alleged crime, the Judge will order that all the property seized be deposited with CONSEP [Consejo Nacional de Control de Sustancias Estupefacientes Psicotrópicas] […] 212. Likewise, Article 110 of said law establishes that: [i]f the accused who owns the seized property is acquitted, it will be returned by CONSEP when so ordered by the Judge, once the precautionary measures have been cancelled. The Institutions to which the property has been given will return them to the state in which they were at the time they were received, save normal deterioration due to