47 arbitrarily of the possibility of continuing to receive the profits that he obtained when the company was operating. E) UNLAWFULNESS OF THE SEIZURE AND DEPOSIT OF THE AUTOMOBILE BELONGING TO MR. LAPO 215. The Commission stated that Mr. Lapo’s vehicle was seized and that “even though on October 30, 2001, the order was issued to lift any precautionary measures issued on this vehicle, it has not been returned to its owner.” The representative endorsed these arguments and added that “the seizure of [Mr. Lapo’s vehicle] was an accidental act that, added to the failure to return it, shows the arbitrariness with which the Ecuadorean authorities acted.” The State did not submit specific arguments on this point. 216. Regarding the seizure and deposit of this automobile, the Court observes that: (i) there is no reference to this in the police report on which the detention was based,147 and (ii) the judicial decision ordering the search of the Plumavit factory orders the seizure of some vehicles, but there is no order to seize Mr. Lapo’s vehicle.148 Thus, it was seized unlawfully. 217. In addition, the Court has verified that the unlawfulness of the seizure was aggravated because the relationship of this automobile with the criminal act investigated or with the other movable property that was found in the factory at the time of the seizure was not investigated or determined; the pertinence of continuing with the material precautionary measure was not assessed; and, on several occasions, its return was ordered,149 although CONSEP did not comply with these orders. To date, Mr. Lapo’s vehicle has not been returned and he has not been granted any compensation. 218. Bearing in mind these circumstances, the Court finds that the impediment to the use and enjoyment of the property of Mr. Lapo’s automobile was manifestly unlawful and arbitrary. Consequently, it concludes that the State violated the right to property established in Article 21(1) and 21(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Lapo. XI REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) DE THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 219. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.150 In its decisions in this regard, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention.151 147 Cf. report No. 512-JPA-G-97, supra note 30 (folios 2884 to 3026). 148 Cf. decision of November 14, 1997, supra note 33. 149 Cf. Communication issued on June 5, 2002, by the Guayas Eighth Criminal Judge (judicial, case file volume 80, folio 1045). 150 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 25; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 20, para. 156 and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 13, para. 131. 151 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.