CASE OF SALVADOR CHIRIBOGA V. ECUADOR JUDGMENT ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND MERITS CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MANUEL E. VENTURA ROBLES I have concurred with my vote to the adoption of the Judgment on the Preliminary Objection and Merits in the case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, but I would prefer that the concept of “fair balance between the general interest and the interest of the individual” to have been conceptually developed. When considering the issue of the restrictions to the right to property in a democratic society, the Court should have analyzed not only the criteria of public use or social interest, as well as the payment of a fair compensation, but also the criteria of “fair balance between a general interest and the interest of the individual" at the time of determining the validity of a condemnation, such as in this case, in light of Article 21(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Judgment makes a briefly reference to said subject in paragraphs 63, 96 and 98. The need to broadly develop the concept of "fair balance between the general interest and the individual interest", is useful for the determination of a violation of the right to property, resulting from the lack of proportionality of the means used by the state to restrict such rights, as well as for the appraisal of a fair compensation in the specific case, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and, to such end, the concept of "fair balance" is essential. In my opinion, the following development of said concept of fair balance should have been included in the text of the Judgment delivered by the Court in the instant case: Fair balance between the general interest and the individual interest The Commission as well as the representatives agree on pointing out that the deprivation to which Salvador Chiriboga siblings were subjected was totally out of proportion regarding the intended purpose, considering that they even had to bear and are still bearing an excessive burden, as a result of all the taxes incorrectly paid by Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. Moreover, the State established that the procedures conducted in order to expropriate the property of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, were carried out in good faith. Furthermore, it pointed out the respect for the right to property is guaranteed in a democratic society as long as in such society, the right is exercised according to the limits established by law; and this situation, the State understands, is proven in this case given the fact that the condemnation of the property of the alleged victim is framed within the consideration of certain areas of ecological protection, in order to compensate the shortage of green areas in the City of Quito. This reason, at the discretion of the State, can be considered as a justification even bigger than the limit to the right to property. Furthermore, the