31 resumed when the Ninth Trial Court decided to declare the nullification of all the records of the case as from court order of September 4, 1997. Without prejudice to the foregoing, up to the present moment, there is no final decision. 108. Moreover, as is evidenced from the analysis of the case file, contrary to what the State argued before this Tribunal, the Municipality of Quito was the one who filed the majority of the remedies that were, procedurally speaking, declared inadmissible by the Ninth Trial Court.110 109. Article 62 (supra note 58) of the Political Constitution of Ecuador, now Article 33 (supra note 59) established that the State might condemn a property by means of a prior fair appraisal, payment and compensation, following a proceeding and within the terms determined by procedural rules. Accordingly, the Court considers that the terms established by law to such purpose are adequate (supra para. 105). However, in the instant case, those terms have not been fulfilled, and therefore one of the essential requirements established for the deprivation of property as enshrined in Article 21(2) of the Convention, consisting in the payment of a fair compensation, has not been complied with. Therefore, the State has not respected the procedural conditions established by law and neither has fixed a price nor made the corresponding payment within a reasonable time. 110. The Court notes that the State alleged, in order to justify the payment of the compensation, that it made a “provisional payment” of the value of the property subjected to condemnation. Nevertheless, this Tribunal considers that such payment does not comply with the standards required by the American Convention nor with the international standards and principles, and therefore, in more than 15 years, the State has neither fixed the final value of the property nor made the payment of a fair compensation to Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. 111. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga is in an uncertainty legal condition111 as a consequence of the delay in the proceedings, inasmuch as she cannot effectively exercise her right to property, which has been occupied by the Municipality of Quito for more than a decade and the question regarding who the owner of such property is remains undefined. 112. Moreover, in accordance with what the Court has already stated in relation to the effectiveness of the subjective procedures (supra para. 86 to 88), it is noted that the same criteria can be applied to the expropriation proceedings. The foregoing, due to the denial of justice as a result of the lack of a final decision determining the sum of money of the just compensation for the property of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, has made that the remedy is not effective. 110 Cf. For example, the State filed the following remedies against the court order dated September 4, 1997: a) on September 23, 1997, the Municipality appealed such court order, and the judge denied such appeal on that same day after considering that the appeal was inadmissible (case file N°1300-96, record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 1 and 2, p. 77 and case file N°1300-96, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 6 to 8, p. 1846); b) On September 26, 1997, the Municipality filed an appeal for review of the facts as well as law, alleging that the appeal already filed was admissible (case file N° 1300-96, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 6 to 8, p. 1850 to 1851), and c) On November 28, 1997, the State filed a motion requesting the clarification of the court order that denied the appeal for review of the facts as well as law and the legal provision on which the judge based his decision to deny it (case file Nº 1300-96, records of the appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 6 to 8, p. 1857 and 1858). 111 Cf. ECHR, Case Broniowski v. Poland, Judgment of 22 June 2004, Application no. 31443/96, paras. 134 and 151.