17. The Commission did not add any observations other that those indicated in paragraph 5 of this judgment. Considerations of the Court 18. In this regard, the Court finds it necessary to refer to paragraph 61 of the judgment on reparations and costs, which establishes the following: The Court points out that, in the present case, the expropriation process through which the price of the property in question is determined is pending within the domestic jurisdiction (supra para. 48). However, the merits of the case were submitted and decided in this international jurisdiction on May 6, 2008, and both the State and the representatives have insisted that this Court has sufficient evidence to determine the value of the fair compensation (supra para. 19). In this regard, the Court recognizes that it corresponds to the States to establish the criteria to determine the payment of compensation under domestic law for an expropriation, according to its law and practice, provided that these are reasonable and in keeping with the rights recognized in the Convention. In the present case, the Court granted the parties six months from notification of the judgment on merits to reach an agreement, without them achieving this. In addition, the victim has waited more than 19 years for the determination of a final amount as fair payment for the expropriation of her property. In this regard, it would be unreasonable to continue waiting for a final judgment in the domestic jurisdiction when the judgment on merits reveals the State’s violation of the reasonable time to decide the matter. Therefore, pursuant to the object and purpose of the American Convention to provide effective protection to the right to private property, and based on the provisions of paragraph 134 of the judgment on merits, the Court will determine the amount of the fair compensation in the international proceedings. 19. In addition, in the second to seventh operative paragraphs of that judgment, the Court ordered the payments that the State must make to María Salvador Chiriboga, based on the findings set out in the judgment. 20. The Court considers that the judgment on reparations and costs clearly reveals that this case was decided in the international jurisdiction, including the aspect of the fair compensation. In this regard, the Court recalls its consistent case law to the effect that all aspects of the obligation to provide reparation established by the international courts are governed by international law: including its scope, its methods, and the determination of the beneficiaries, none of which can be changed by the State by invoking domestic legal provisions.4 In addition, this Court observes that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the effects of the said judgment. To the contrary, the parties agree that it is final. Consequently, this Court finds that it is unnecessary to rule in this regard. V SUBSTANTIATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION DETERMINED BY THE COURT Arguments of the parties 21. The State considered that “the Court has not been clear when establishing a causal relationship between its findings to decide the value of the land (paras. 67, 69, 71, 73 and 82 and paras. 76, 79, 80 and 83), and the determination of the fair compensation (para. 4 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 30; Case of Chaparro Álvarez v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 189, para. 21, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 175. 5