2 3. To accurately determine the market value of a property as of a date prior to the declaration of public interest, namely May 13, 1991, is a complex task not only given the twenty years elapsed, but, essentially, because of the limits and restrictions imposed on the property several years prior. 4. A path to an appraisal is via an expert. As described in this Judgment, in the domestic and international transactions there have been different surveys carried out. Unfortunately, as shown and explained in this Judgment4, the idea of appointing an international expert for the possible expert assessment was unsuccessful. Therefore, we turn refer to the two opinions given in the domestic forum and the three rendered in the proceedings before this Court. 5. As stated in this Judgment, the case file shows that in the domestic procedures before the Ninth Court of Quito two expert reports were rendered: one of the expert Vicente Domínguez Zambrano and the other of the expert Manuel Silva Vásconez. After hearing the expert opinion of Dominguez by both parties before the Ninth Court, the appointment of expert Vásconez Silva was provided, whose opinion was issued in May 2008 and established the value per square meter “at the time of the survey” was U.S. $ 63.83 m2, which multiplied by the amount of land would give a total value of U.S. $ 41,214, 233.12. This Judgment of the Court states, however, that the same expert had determined in 1996 that in said year the value per square meter was U.S.$28.19 per m2, which meant a total of U.S. $ 18'201, 930.62. 6. It follows that from the two expert assessments carried out in the domestic forum, one was observed by both parties and the second, from the expert Silva Vasconez, determined a statistic of the values of 2008. The valuation made by the same expert in 1996 (five years after the declaration of public interest) determined the amount of U.S. $ 18,201, 930.62. The Court could incorrectly use as a reference the amount set in 2008 as a possible prices. It could be a less distant reference point, of course, the value set by the same expert in 1996. 7. In the Judgment on reparations the essential content of the three valuations given as expert assessments before this Court is described5: Edmundo Gutiérrez del Castillo, Jake Jaramillo Gonzalo Barcia and Estupiñán Narváez. The first, proposed by the Commission and representatives, the second by the representatives, and, third, by the State. 8. The expert assessment by Edmundo Gutiérrez del Castillo takes into account a number of standards and indicators to arrive at the amount of reparation, which he determined (U.S. $ 58,111,875.00). Between them, they mentioned that the land would have greater value because it was far removed from potential natural disaster zones, because in the area the properties have greater value (among other things for being close to shopping centers), because the infrastructure services available, because of the similar prices of real estate for sale in the area, because of the market value in the area and zoning (that allows the construction of buildings higher than 9m, which are more desirable).6 As shown, it does not appear to be a central issue, that of determining the value of this specific site, which is only briefly mentioned in this Judgment, as the succession of legal constraints imposed on the property since 1981.7 In light of this capital circumstance, many of the characteristics and conditions mentioned by the expert that are applied to other properties are not applicable to this expropriated land. 9. The opinion rendered by the expert Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia, on which the following Lumber is obtained U.S. $ 65.33 per m2, equivalent to U.S. $ 42,180, 504.47 for the entire plot, to which the value of the eucalyptus forest must be added, is based on explicit criteria which is, as noted above, that of the “urban vocation” of the property. In her expert report, the expert took account the prices of similar nearby properties that were for sale. As can be seen, in this case, the expert report does not seem to have taken into account the essential circumstances of the assessment as determined by the limitations imposed on the property since 1981 and which did not make said property comparable to other properties for sale that were able to maintain the “urban vocation” which was legally denied to the expropriated property. 10. The third expert assessment, that of expert Gonzalo Estupiñán Narváez, was presented by the State, as mentioned prior. This expert noted that the expropriated land had not been considered “by the Municipal Planning as urban land or land that could be developed or urbanized,” and that, since one could 4 5 6 7 Paragraphs 13 and on of the Judgment on Reparations. Paragraphs 49, 51, and 52 of the Judgment on Reparations. Cf. case file on the merits, tome IV, folios 502 to 505. Paragraph 71 of the Judgment on Reparations.