5 Compensation must be fair, namely, it should be fixed taking into account the interests of the community and the affected person and, therefore, those interests must be weighed on a caseby-case basis. (...) The role of the compensation is, generally, of a reparative nature. It includes both consequential damages and loss of earnings. However, in some circumstances, when assessing the interests of the community and giving those interests special weight, it may be reduced to satisfy only a compensatory function. Furthermore, in different circumstances, when assessing the interests of affected person and giving these interests special constitutional value, as in the event of the family home and others that are set out in this Judgment, the compensation may, in both its amount and in its form of payment, take on a manner that makes it restorative. 23. The Supreme Court of the United States has analyzed, as well, the issue of “just compensation” using as a reference, Amendment V of the Constitution which establishes that “private property may not be occupied for public use without a just compensation.” While it is true that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence tends to establish that it is the “market value” that determines the just compensation required by the abovementioned amendment. This was held, for example, in the case of U.S. vs. 50 Acres of Land (1984), which stated that “just compensation should be measured, usually, by the market value of the property at the time of expropriation [be paid] in a contemporary money.” However, the Supreme Court itself has stated that “when the market value is very difficult to determine or where its application may result in a manifest injustice to the owner or to the public interest,” it is possible to depart from said standard.13 In U.S. v. Commodities Trading, the Court held that the consideration that is always present in such cases is “what compensation is ‘just’ for both the owner of the property being expropriated and for the public [State] who should pay the bill.” 24. As noted in the jurisprudence of the courts cited in the prior paragraphs, the synonymy between "just compensation” and “payment of the market value” is incorrect. For said synonymy to be correct in the Inter-American System, the American Convention would have used those terms. The “just compensation” mentioned in Article 21(1) provides, therein, a context for greater discretion to determine compensation based on circumstances which are related to the market value of the property but incorporate the circumstances of general interest and public interest who are at the base of the legitimacy of the expropriation and are factors to be assessed in the determination of compensation. This is what the Court has done in the Judgment on the Merits when it determined that the valuation should be the result of a "just balance between the public interest and private interest.” 25. With the abovementioned being established, the “just balance between public interests and private interests" as provided by the Court as a criterion, should take into account, of course, the damage caused to those expropriated, whom, as determined by the Court, suffer an infringement to their right to judicial guarantees and to the reasonable time, without to date, a compensation being receiving for the expropriated property. But, on the other hand, there are two crucial aspects that make the general interest and public interest. 26. First, there is the public interest that benefits from the result, that is, the Metropolitan Park, which is a benefit to all who can make use of its facilities and, going beyond that, for the entire population of the capital city who, with that Park, is provided a space for environmental protection and clean air. 27. Second is the budget of the State agency that is expropriating and promoting the project and plan of the Metropolitan Park, a municipal entity that has very limited resources and income. Indeed, as reported by the State in the public hearing without it being contested, a large amount of compensation would affect the means of the limited budgetary resources of the Municipality of Quito whose initial budget for the so-called "social hub" was of U.S. $290 million for 2008 and $380 million for 2009. These elements could have been considered in way that balanced the interests at stake so as to better consider the impact of the compensation provided in the context of the proven public interest. Therefore, I consider that the Court should have weighed differently the balance between private interests and public interest in this case. Conclusion 13 Cf.. United States of America Supreme Court, “United States v. Commodities Trading Corp”, 339 U.S. 121, pg. 123 (1950); United States of America Supreme Court, “Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States”, 467 U.S. 1, 10, pg. 14 (1984).