3 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 not build on it, criteria for appraisal of rural land should be applied, while considering its urban location. In one of his reports, 8 this expert recalls the basis contained in the study by the Association of Expert Evaluators (APA). Once these fundamentals were outlined, he concluded that the amount determined by the appraisal of the APA was correct: Whereas the valuation order explicitly states that it be made taking as reference the market value of the property being expropriated before the declaration of public interest (carried out in May 1991) “the market research investigation was carried out within the period of February to May 1991, wherein the unit value of $ 9.36 USO was reached, multiplied by the total land area of 645,687,50 m' was determined at the fair price of $ USO 6,043 .635.25. 11.Of the expert assessments presented in the domestic forum, two of them applied criteria of reference and conditions that do not highlight the limitations imposed on the property since 1981 for its development and use. The method of calculation used by the third expert appears to be closer in terms to the criteria laid down in the Judgment. Among other things because it combined unit values of rural land close to the nearest urban land. This does not make the property "rural" but it does distinguish it from appraisals that use said condition, use, or “urban vocation” to form the basis of the appraisal. The expert determination of market value at the date of the declaration of public interest does not appear, with particular clarity and sustainability for the purposes of this Judgment in the amounts such as those determined by the experts Gutiérrez del Castillo and Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia. Without necessarily stating that the expert Gonzalo Estupiñán Narvaez is the most appropriate assessment, there are elements to validly incorporate it as reference for the determination by the Court given that the objections appear to be less for purposes of this case. 12. In this Judgment on reparations, the Court established the relativism of most of the conclusions of the expert reports. The Court notes, in effect, that these reports “are based largely on a comparison of market prices of urban lots near the area, which are then adjusted considering the various factors of the property. On the other hand, it is evident that the expert Estupiñán Narváez parts from a rural value of agricultural basis in a nearby rural area and adjusts it to an area of Quito, based on market prices of both areas.” 13.The logical conclusion of this is that the determination of the commercial value of the property "prior to the declaration of public use” can be derived from two expert assessments that are based and supported by standards and criteria distinct from those that consider the specific legal conditions of the property to be expropriated upon declaration of public interest. Thus, only the expert Estupiñán’s assessment remains. Based on the valuation, however, an appraisal could not be reached as has been done in this Judgment, which triples that amount. The just balance between the public and private interests 14.The second standard determined by the Court to establish a valuation is that of the “just balance between public interests and private interests.” This must be in line with the former standard in order to determine “just compensation.” Having carried out an organic and systematic incorporation of this standard, valuation estimates could have been drawn that are distinct from those set forth in this Judgment and more appropriate for establishing the “just balance” required by this Court. 15.In order to establish a “just balance,” the Court determined in its Judgment on the Merits, in effect, that the competing interests at stake had to be analyzed. On the one hand, there is the finding of the Court that the expropriation was founded on reasons of public and social interest, and that there was “a legitimate or public interest based on environmental protection.” 9 And, on the other hand, there is the determination of the Court that the State breached its obligations in respect to “judicial guarantees, given that the proceedings have exceeded the reasonable time 8 9 Cf. case file on reparations, tome III, folios 569-591. Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 1, para. 76.