88 a) when Daniel Tibi was detained, his automobile and all the securities and belongings he had with him, estimated at FRF 1,000,000.00 (one million French francs), were seized by the police and have not yet been returned to him; b) it has been established that the belongings of the alleged victim, specified in a list, were seized at the time of his arrest. After the dismissal, the High Court of Justice of Guayaquil ordered the return of said belongings, which has not taken place; c) the State has not contested these facts. It merely pointed out that Mr. Tibi had not submitted the appropriate claim for return of his belongings, but it did not specify the procedure to be followed; and d) Article 10 of the Law on narcotics and psychotropic substances applies in the instant case, since there is a court order that dismisses the charges against Mr. Tibi. There is no need for any procedure to return the property, since it is the obligation of CONSEP or the institution in whose power it is to return it after the release. Pleadings of the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin 207. In this regard, the representatives argued that: a) the Commission deemed it proven that the car and all the securities and belongings that Mr. Tibi had with him were seized when he was detained, and to date they have not been returned to him; b) Mt. Tibi’s credit cards issued by “Ecuadorian and French banks were used while he was detained and when he returned to France he discovered that his bank account had been emptied, including a 6,000[.00 (six thousand] [United States)] dollars overdraft;” c) when Mr. Tibi arrived in France he went to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Paris, together with his attorney, to claim his property. He was told that he could not return to Ecuador, because he had been declared an undesirable person; d) pursuant to Article 110 of the Law on narcotics and psychotropic substances, Mr. Tibi’s property should have been returned to him. While Mr. Tibi was not acquitted, because his case did not reach the plenary stage of the Ecuadorian criminal proceeding, the case was provisionally dismissed. The evidence against him was so scant that the Judge decided not to try him; and e) there is no provision in the Law on narcotics and psychotropic substances that forces acquitted individuals or those whose charges have been dismissed, to follow an administrative, judicial or other procedure for return of their property. It is for the State to recover any property of the interested party that is in the hands of any public or private person, and to return it forthwith, as set forth in said Article 110.