20 property is a fundamental element for its functioning and for this reason, the State, in order to guarantee other fundamental rights of vital relevance in a specific society, can limit or restrict the right to property, always respecting the cases contained in Article 21 of the Convention and the general principles of international law. 61. The right to property is not an absolute right, since Article 21(2) of the Convention states that for the deprivation of a person’s property to be in keeping with the right to property, such deprivation must be based on reasons of public utility or social interest, subject to the payment of a fair compensation and restricted to the cases and forms established by law and must be carried out according to the Convention.56 62. Hence, the Court has pointed out that “the restriction must be proportionate to the legitimate interest that justifies it and must be limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve that objective. It should interfere as little as possible with effective exercise of the right […].”57 63. The Court notes that, in order for the State to legally satisfy a social interest and find a fair balance of an individual’s interest, it must use the less costly means to damage, the least, the right to property of the person, subject-matter of the restriction. In this sense, the Tribunal considers that within the framework of an abridgement of the right to property, in particular, in the case of a condemnation, said restriction calls for the compliance with the requirements already contained in Article 21(2) of the Convention and the full exercise of them. 64. Moreover, this Tribunal notes that the domestic legislation of Ecuador provided for in the then Article 62 of the58 Political Constitution, at the moment, article 3359 of the Constitution, the requirements to exercise the condemnatory function of the State. Among such requirements, the law emphasizes the need to follow a procedure within the term established in the procedural rules, by means of a prior appraisal, payment and compensation". In this sense, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the “European Court”) in the expropriation cases, has pointed out that the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle [principle of lawfulness] is a decisive condition in order to verify the combination of a violation of the right to property and has insisted on the fact that this principle implies that the legislation that regulates the deprivation of the right to property must be clear, specific and foreseeable.60 65. To such end, the Court considers that it is not necessary that every cause for deprivation or restriction to the right to property be embodied in the law; but that it is 56 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 47, para. 174. Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs; Judgment of July 2, 2004; para. 123. 58 Article 62 of the Political Constitution of 1978 established that "[f]or the social purposes determined in the lay, the institutions of the State, by means of a procedure and within the terms established in the procedural rules, may condemn the property belonging to the private sector by means of a prior appraisal, payment and compensation. Seizure is prohibited”. 59 Article 33 states that “[F]or the social purposes determined by the law, the institutions of the State, by means of a procedure and within the term established in the procedural rules, may condemn the property belonging to the private section by means of a prior fair appraisal, payment and compensation. Seizure is prohibited”. 60 Cf. ECHR, Case Beyeler v. Italy, Judgment of 5 January 2000, Application no. 33202/96, para.. 108 and 109; ECHR, Case Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, Judgment of 30 May 2000, Application no. 24638/94, para. 65; ECHR, Case Belvedere Alberghiera Sr.l. v. Italy, Judgment of 30 May 2000, Application no. 31524/96, para. 58; and ECHR, Case Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 15 March 2007, Applications n°. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, para. 166. 57