29 complied with all the requirements established in the Constitution, the Public Procurement Act and its Rules of Procedure. Later on, several procedural legal acts were filed in the proceeding,99 among them, the objections and the request for clarification filed by the Municipality against the court order of September 4, 1997; the decision made by the Judge in charge of the Ninth Trial Court, of February 18, 1998 regarding the disqualification from keep hearing the condemnation case,100 as well as the decision of January 25, 2006, by means of which the Ninth Trial Court declared the nullification of all the records of the case as from September 4, 1997 as a result of a request made by the Municipality. 104. It was on February 21 and June 14, 2007, more than 10 years after the expropriation proceedings were initiated, that the expert witness, Mr. Vicente Dominguez Zambrano, submitted before the Ninth Trial Court a report and later on, an extension of such report, in which he concluded that the total value of the property, including the value of the eucalyptus woods, is: US$ 55.567.055,oo (fifty-five millions five hundred sixty-seven thousand and fifty-five dollars of the United States of America)”101. Afterwards, on June 19, 2007, the Municipality challenged the expert assessment regarding the appraisal, alleging material defect; such report was rejected By the Ninth Trial Court on January 11, 2008. Nevertheless, the Ninth Trial Court appointed, in its own motion, Mr. Manuel Silva Vásconez, in order to render a new expert opinion102 , and up to the moment of this Judgment, the parties have not forwarded to the Court any information regarding the expert’s report at the domestic jurisdiction. 105. The procedural rules in force in Ecuador clearly establish that, in case of disagreement over the appraisal fixed, a condemnation proceeding shall be initiated,103 99 Among them: a) On December 22, 2006, the architect, Mr. Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, was ratified as expert witness. On February 21, 2007, the expert witness, Mr. Dominguez Zambrano submitted his report, in which, after carrying out an examination of the land and of the rules in force to appraise the land, he concluded that the price per square meter is $78.09 (seventy eight United States dollars), thus, the total value of the property is $50.421.736 (fifty millions four hundred and twenty-one thousand seven hundred and thirty-six United States dollars) , supra note 64. Afterwards, on February 23, 2007, Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga requested an extension of the report and the Municipality challenged the expert’s report on March 13, 2007. On June 14, 2007, the expert witness, Mr. Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, submitted the extension of the report regarding the value of the land subjected to expropriation. On June 19, 2007, the Municipality challenged the expert's report and the corresponding extension based on material defect, after considering that the expert witness has incurred in technical errors and legal defects, such as exceeding when carrying out the appraisal of the value of the eucalyptus wood or the appraisal of the value of the land taking into account the current prices and not the existing prices at the moment the occupation was effective. On September 20, 2007, the Ninth Trial Court ordered discovery for four days in order to prove the material defect so alleged and b) on January 11, 2008, the Ninth Trial Court issued a court order in which it decided: i) that the Municipality has not sufficiently proved the material defect it alleged, and therefore, it denied the cause of action; and ii) due to the fact that both parties have submitted observations to the expert assessment, it was evident that the report was not clear and therefore, it decided, on its own motion, to appoint a new expert witness, Mr. Manuel Silva Vásconez, Ing., in order to submit a new expert assessment. 100 The Judge in charge of the Ninth Trial Court based his decision on Section 15 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and on the order of the Supreme Court of Ecuador of December 5, 1997, according to which “any civil or administrative court case derived from acts, agreements and administrative facts, must be heard by the corresponding District Court on Administrative matters", so that, he considered he was not competent to hear the case and decided to refer the proceeding to the District Court on Administrative matters (case file N°130096, record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 1 and 2, p. 82). Nevertheless, in the evidence forwarded by the parties to the Court there is no evidence that the case has been heard, at any moment, by the District Court on Administrative matters. 101 Cf. Report of the expert witness, Mr. Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, supra note 64 and extension of the report of expert witness, Vicente Domínguez Zambrano (case file N°1300-96, record of appendixes submitted by the State, p. 3960 to 4000). 102 Cf. Court order issued by the Ninth Trial Court on January 11, 2008 (case file N°1300-96, record of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case forwarded by the State, Volume I, p. 4438). 103 Cf. Public Procurement Act, coding N° 501 of August 16, 1990; section 36; para. Four.