DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MARGARETTE MAY MACAULAY TO OPERATIVE PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE JUDGMENT I find it necessary to state my dissent to Operative paragraph 4 of the Judgment and consequently to the directions in paragraphs 102 and 103 of the Judgment. In my opinion, as they appear, these paragraphs are at the highest in conflict with, or at the lowest fall short of the criteria and the principles of standards propounded in paragraphs 83, 84 and 85 of the Judgment. In these paragraphs, we the Court make clear reference, firstly, in paragraph 83 to the State’s failure to comply with Article 21 of the Convention plus the requirement of making the payment for the expropriated property within a reasonable time; secondly, in paragraph 84 by applying the criteria of reasonableness, proportionality and equity, having balanced pubic interest and individual interest, fixed the sum of US$18,705,000.00 as a reasonable value and as a just compensation in the international arena for the expropriated property; and thirdly, in paragraph 85 on the issue of legitimate interest payable on the pecuniary damages awarded in the Judgment, that in order to ensure prompt and effective payment over of the award, the State must act pursuant to the manner of payments set out in the paragraphs of “Modalities of Payment”, (to wit for the purposes of this Dissenting Opinion), paragraphs 102 and 103 of the Judgment. Consequently, it is quite apparent to me that the State having failed to pay a fair and just compensation within a reasonable time, ought to be directed to pay over the sum determined by the Court as being a just compensation, as promptly as is practicable and just, therefore in the circumstances of the case, a period of 5 years for the said payment directed in paragraph 102, does not meet this criteria of promptness of payment of a just compensation. The period ought therefore to have been appreciably shorter, if not within a reasonably short time after receipt of the Judgment, then perhaps within 2 or at the most 3 years of that date, with simple interest thereon of a fixed rate, to date of payment. In addition, paragraph 103, in my opinion, fails far short, of ensuring a just compensation, especially to an owner of property who has been deprived of its possession and user and of any just compensation for the same, for so many years, even with the award of the sum of US$ 9,435.757,80 plus for interest covering the years specified in the Judgment. The direction therein in this paragraph, that the payment of interest within the directed 5 year period, will only arise, if an instalment is paid later than directed, will, in my opinion, result in a further deprivation of a just compensation to Mrs. Chiriboga, the owner, because of the fact that as each year for payment passes, the value of the next payment would have depreciated due to inflation, and yet, interest shall only be payable during this period if there is a delay of an instalment payment beyond the 30th of March of any of the 5 stated annual payments, and, only on the delayed instalment. In fact, the first payment, directed to be made on the 30th March 2012, would already be affected by inflation. The sum which the Court fixes in March 2011, will not be the same value a year from now. In such circumstances, it is just, reasonable, proportional and equitable for interest to run on the balance for payments being made over an extended period of time. As the majority of the Judges have determined in paragraph 103, I am of the opinion that Mrs. Chiriboga shall in fact not receive the full worth of the value determined by the Court as just compensation because of paragraphs 102 and 103 of the Judgment as they are worded, and that she ought to be awarded interest thereon as I have already stated above. It is my view, that if the payment of interest is not directed to be paid,