7 entity to assess the value of the just compensation, in which its members may offer individual estimates, and the representatives proposed an entity that could carry out the assessment, and one of its members is, at the same time, an executive of the entity proposed by the State. Therefore, they considered that the company proposed b the representatives and its executive and assessor are in full capacity to determine, in an expert manner, the value of a just compensation, pursuant with the Court’s Judgment. 18. On December 8, 2009, the State, after the Secretariat reiterated the presentation of its observations requested on November 18, 2009, stated that the entity called upon to carry out the expert assessment must be a multi-person collegiate group, which must be unbiased and international of a strictly technical order, specialized in real estate assessments.7 The State reiterated that for the execution of the expert opinion, a union company be appointed or any other body tied to it, without presenting individual names, and it stated that it did not agree with the appointment of a private company or a specific person. Finally, the State proposed as an act to facilitate adjudication of the case that the Court send the present case to a virtual discussion at the American Forum of Valuations (FAT) and that the collegiate body appointed and a Court official make a visit in situ to the Metropolitan Park of the City of Quito. 19. Based on the aforementioned, the proposal made by the State and the representatives to appoint an international expert to carry out the possible expert opinion was not successful. On the other hand, the State and the representatives, on different opportunities, reiterated that the Court had sufficient evidentiary elements to set the just compensation of the expropriated property. II JURISDICTION 20. The Court is competent to hear the present case, in the terms of Article 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention, given that Ecuador is a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. III EVIDENCE 21. Based on that established in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the jurisprudence of the Tribunal with regard to the evidence and its assessment, the Court will proceed to examine and assess the evidentiary elements forwarded by the Commission, the representatives, and the State on different procedural opportunities or as evidence requested to facilitate adjudication of the case; the testimonial and expert statements offered through an affidavit and before the Court during the public hearing held on October 19, 2007, which were already admitted in the Judgment on the Merits.8 22. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that, according to the Tribunal’s reiterated practice, during the reparations stage, the parties must state the evidence they offer on the first opportunity they have to go on the record in that regard. Without detriment to the 7 On June 15, 2010, the State reiterated its position regarding the assignment of a collegiate body to carry out the expert assessment in the case as ordered, and it indicated that an employee be assigned by the Court to carry out an in situ visit to the Metropolitan Park in the city of Quito with the mentioned collegiate body. 8 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 51, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 24.