21 essential that such law and its application respect the essential content of the right to property. This right entails that every limitation to such right must be exceptional. As a consequence, all restrictive measure must be necessary for the attainment of a legal goal in a democratic society61 in accordance with the purpose and end of the American Convention. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the legitimacy of the public utility and the process or proceedings used to pursue such end. 66. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal shall analyze whether said limit to the right to property, consisting in the deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the land of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, adjusted to the following criteria: A) Public utility or social interest; and B) payment of a just compensation. A) Public utility or social interest 67. The Inter-American Commission has not disputed the causes of public utility on which the State based to condemn the property of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. At the public hearing, the representatives stated that they have expressly recognized that the existence of the Metropolitan Park of Quito is a social need; thus, the declaration of public utility as to whether to assign this park to the public use of the Nation is not a disputed fact in the instant case. 68. Furthermore, the State pointed out that the deprivation of the property of the alleged victim was carried out according to Article 21 of the Convention, since it was based on reasons of public utility and social interest. 69. The Court notes that in the instant case, Julio Guillermo Chiriboga and María Salvador Chiriboga (siblings) inherited from their father, Guillermo Salvador Tobar, a piece of property of 60 hectares designated with the number 108 of the plot known as "Batán de Merizalde" or simply, "El Batán", located in the north-west area of the present Metropolitan District of Quito.62 Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga is the owner of such property.63 70. Afterwards, on May 13, 1991, the Municipal Council of Quito “decided to declare of public utility [and] authorized the urgent occupation for full condemnation purposes" of several plots of land, among them it was the property of64 Salvador Chiriboga siblings.65 At first, such declaration of public utility was made in the name of Mr. Guillermo Salvador Tobar,66 for being the owner of the land, and was later on modified, on October 5, 1995 and made in the name of Julio Guillermo and María Salvador Chiriboga, in their capacity 61 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 47, para. 93. See also The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986, Series A Nº 6, para. 28. 62 Cf. Real Estate Registry for the Canton of Quito Nº C4020204.001, which grants the effective possession of the property left by Mr. Guillermo Salvador Tobar (record of the appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 6, p. 1787 to 1791). 63 Cf. Deed executed by a notary regarding the rightful possession of the assets left by Mr. Julio Guillermo Salvador Chiriboga in favor of his heir, María Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 3. 64 Mr. Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, expert witness appointed by the Ninth Civil Trial Court in the condemnation proceedings, stipulates in its report of February 21, 2007, that the total area of the property has 645.687,50 square meters. Expert Report submitted by Vicente Domínguez Zambrano in the Condemnation Proceeding in process before the Ninth Court (case file N° 1300-96, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 6, p. 2032 to 2042). 65 Cf. Declaration of public utility of May 13, 1991 and notices of such declaration (record of appendixes to the complaint, appendix 1 and 2, p. 46 to 55). 66 Cf. Declaration of public utility of May 13, 1991 and notices of such declaration; supra note 65.