00fl0u i. Reparation inferred from violation of the "Non bis in idem" principle 104. ln terms of Article 27 of the Protocol, if the Court finds that there has been a violation of a human or peoples' rights, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation. In the present case, the Court recalls that in its judgment of 29 March 2019, following the finding that the Respondent State violated the principle of "non bis in idem", it ordered the latter to take all the necessary measures to annul judgment No. 007/3C.COR rendered on 18 October 2018 by CRIET in a way to erase all its effects and to report to the Court within six (6) months from the date of notification of that judgment. 105. The Court no longer deems it necessary to make a fresh ruling on this reparation which stems from the dual finding regarding CRIET's lack of jurisdiction22 to try the Applicant and the fact of trying him twice for the same offence, in violation of the "Non bis in idem" principle. II. Prejudice resulting from the freezing of bank accounts (a) Seizure of the Applicant's bank accounts and those of his family memberc 106. The Applicant avers that following the proceedings instituted against him in the international drug trafficking case, the tax administration on 14 August 2017, carried out tax adjustments on his companies resulting in seizures amounting to Two hundred and fifty-four million (254,000,000) Euros in his bank accounts, the accounts of JRL SA, SGI ELITE and COMON SA, as well as those of his children who have since been 2 IACHR: Cantoral Benavides v. Peru (Reparation) Judgment ol 78 311212001, Series C. No. 88, SS 77 and 28 s @__