7 22. The Court observes that, subsequently, the parties tried to establish the court of arbitration in accordance with the criteria established in paragraphs 232 and 233 of the judgment, each one appointing an arbitrator to compose the panel. Since the parties were unable to reach agreement on the third arbitrator and since, subsequently, the arbitrator appointed by mutual agreement between the arbitrator designated by the State and the arbitrator selected by Mr. Chaparro declined his appointment, in accordance with paragraph 233 of the judgment, the Court must select the third arbitrator from among the candidates proposed by the parties. In this regard, having analyzed the curricula vitae of the four arbitrators proposed (supra seventeenth and eighteenth considering paragraphs) and taking into consideration that the court of arbitration will be established to make a technical determination of the percentage of losses suffered by Mr. Chaparro as the result of the seizure and embargo of the Plumavit factory by the State, it appoints Alicia Arias Salgado as the third member of the court of arbitration in this case. Consequently, the court of arbitration responsible for establishing the amounts corresponding to pecuniary damage in the instant case is composed of Cesar Molina, Ricardo Vaca Andrade and Alicia Arias. 23. In accordance with paragraph 233 of the judgment, the arbitration procedure must be of an independent nature, carried out in the city in which Mr. Chaparro resides, and respect the applicable domestic law on arbitration, provided that this does not contradict the content of the judgment. Furthermore, the arbitration procedure must commence within the time frame established in the second operative paragraph of this order. Lastly, the amount decided by the court of arbitration must be delivered to Mr. Chaparro within one year, at the latest, from notification of the decision of the court of arbitration. 24. Regarding the payment of the expenses arising from the arbitration procedure, the Court recalls that this measure responds to the reparation of pecuniary damage corresponding to the loss of assets suffered by Mr. Chaparro as a result of the State’s actions in the instant case, which were indicated in paragraph 228 of the judgment. The Court recalls that, when an illegal act occurs that can be attributed to the State, the international responsibility of the State arises immediately for the violation of an international norm, with the consequent obligation to make reparation and to cause the consequences of the violation to cease. Furthermore, reparations, as the word indicates, consist in measures tending to eliminate the effects of the violations committed and cannot make the victims either richer or poorer.5 Consequently, the victim cannot be held responsible for paying the expenses arising from a procedure to determine the harm to his patrimony, but rather this corresponds to the State as part of its obligation to comply with the Court’s decisions in the judgment. d) Regarding the State’s obligation to pay the victims compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and reimburse costs and expenses 25. With regard to the payment to Mr. Chaparro of the interest on arrears corresponding to pecuniary compensation for the administration expenses and fees of the National Council for the Control of Psychotropic and Narcotic Substances (CONSEP) described in paragraph 245 of the judgment (fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment), the State advised that “the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights made the corresponding payment in December 2009.” 5 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 416, and Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009, para. 450.