PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA RAMÍREZ IN REGARD TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF SALVADOR CHIRIBOGA V. ECUADOR, OF MARCH 3, 2011 1. I have concurred with the majority of the members of the Court in the adoption of all the points covered in the Judgment of preliminary objections and the merits in the Case of Salvador Chiriboga, of May 6, 2008. Now, I agree with several points of this judgment on reparations, approved March 3, 2011, yet I disagree in some. Other colleagues who participated in this order have also agreed in this same sense. 2. I want to emphasize, as I have done in other cases, that my reservations or disagreements do not imply neglect or rejection of the valid reasons provided by those who hold different views. I leave unmentioned - as I've always done, over many years - the majority decision of the Court and the insights of its members, which I have always valued and respected. 3. I have no doubt (as evinced by my participation in the judgment on preliminary objections and the merits) about the violation to the right to property, enshrined in Article 21 of the Convention, to the detriment of the victim in this case. A violation occurred. This is evident. It is reprehensible. It was therefore brought before this Court and should be grounds for conviction in the judgment on reparations. 4. I also have no doubt about the legitimacy of repairing the violation through a just compensation - among other measures - as is clear from Article 21(2), in relation to Articles 63(1) and 1(1) of the Convention, and as was ordered by the Court in the aforementioned decision of May 6, 2008. 5. A patrimonial reparation, in the form of a just compensation for the victim, without enriching or impoverishing her - as has been established by the jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court -, is the natural and customary manner for responding to the violation the right to private property, regarding the use and enjoyment of assets, which in this case include tangible property, real estate, affected by measures of expropriation for social interest. 6. The amount of compensation for damages comes from an assessment that is usually based on the value of the asset in question, established with support on objective factors that provide reasonable certainty. To this amount, it is necessary to add other charges such as those relating to interest incurred through the passage of time without satisfying the affected right. In this sense, the appreciation of the value of an asset often presents problems of a lesser degree than those inherent to the assessment for indemnification of assets of another nature, such as life, integrity, and freedom. 7. It is highly desirable that a dispute of this nature leads to an agreed solution, in good faith and with equity, between the victim and the State being accused of a violation and has actually committed it. It entails a regular space for a joint solution, both in what regards the very recognition of a violation as well as in regard to the compensation due. In other cases the agreement between the parties is irrelevant. In these, however, it is the desirable and reasonable option. 8. In the hypothesis of reference, the agreement should have specified the amount of compensation due by the State - who is undoubtedly obligated to provide it - and in favor of the victim - who is unquestionably the creditor of this benefit. 9. The Inter-American Court sought to encourage such an agreement, as seen in operative paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Judgment of May 6, 2008. In this sense, it brought about the valuation of the property by a competent third party designated for this purpose, who deserved that the parties be in conformity and who would take into account the extremes that needed to be considered for this purpose, established in the judgment on the merits of the Court. The search for a joint solution has taken longer than was initially expected. 10. The valuations performed before the proceeding began before the Inter-American Court including those presented to national authorities - and in the course of this process, show