6 28. In the expert assessments aimed at determining the "market value prior to the declaration of public interest" to which we have stated have been used, in most of them, not affiliated with or arising from the succession of limitations on this right from 1981. Therefore, of the technical standards that in another context would have been perfectly appropriate are inapplicable or, at least, questionable in this case. It is the expert assessment by Estupiñan in which standards are provided that are more suited to those determined by the Court and in this particular case, the expert report on the "market value" sets an amount of just over U.S. $ 6'000, 000.00 without having even weighed the balance between private interests and the larger public interest determined by the Court in its Judgment on the Merits. 29. In the balancing of conflicting interests the Court's reasoning in this case is centrally called upon. The main review of the different valuations derived from the expert opinions which appear to arise in this Judgment on reparations,14 is not, in my opinion, the task established by the standards set in the jurisprudence of the Court and in its Judgment on the Merits. The review between appraisal standards and technical approaches that disparate and incomparable among themselves is not the best way to set a number for determining the amount to be paid for the expropriation of the property. Addressed in the Judgment on reparations is the exercise of weighing competing interests,15 the conclusion reached appears to have been driven by the attempt to set a number by balancing between the highest and lowest valuations as established by the experts as doing otherwise would not allow for the establishment of the number U.S. $ 18,705, 000.00 plus interest. 30. Accordingly, applying and integrating the standards established by the Court in its Judgment on the Merits to determine the compensation that should be paid for the expropriation, the amount of U.S. $ 28,140,757.80 (including interest) is not clearly supported, which the State, i.e. the Municipality of Quito, would have to pay. Other elements should have been required in order to establish that the number set in paragraph 84 of this Judgment adequately reflects the combined market value before the declaration of public interest with the relevant factor of "just balance" determined by the Court. Diego García-Sayán Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 14 15 Paragraph 63 of the Judgment on Reparations. Paragraph 75 and on of the Judgment on Reparations.