divergent. All the opinions contained useful elements, although none of them, taken as a whole, was determinant. Therefore, the Court considers these opinions as elements to constitute the criteria established in this judgment. 27. In section 2(b) the Court ruled on the “assessment of the just balance between general and private interests” (paras. 75 to 79 of the judgment) and in paragraph 83 of the judgment concluded that: Additionally, in the judgment on the merits the Court established the existence of the legitimate interest of the expropriation based on reasons of public interest, based on the protection of the environment, which results in the social benefit of the Parque Metropolitano, which is of vital importance for Quito. The expropriated property makes an important contribution not only to the park itself, but also to society as a whole and the environment in general (supra para. 73). However the State failed to comply with the payment required by Article 21(2) of the Convention and with the criteria of reasonable times, to the detriment of the victim. 28. Finally, in paragraph 84 the judgment, the Court established the amount of fair compensation at the international level, based on the following criteria: Therefore, in accordance with the claims of the parties, the legal restrictions affecting the property, which had an impact on its value given that the property object of the expropriation has been set aside for environmental protection and recreation, which is of great relevance and public interest for the Quito […], based on the rational balance between public and private interests, the Court, based on criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and fairness, establishes the sum of […] a fair compensation at the international level; this includes the value of the property expropriated and any fixtures. 29. Under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has inherent powers to order reparations and, specifically, to determine the payment of fair compensation to the injured party. The Court also indicated in its judgment that the State had the obligation to pay the fair compensation derived from Article 21(2) of the American Convention (para. 35 of the judgment). Thus, the Court was clear in establishing in detail the probative elements that were assessed and the specific criteria developed by the Court in this case. Furthermore, based on criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and equity, which is the 6 usual practice of international courts, and of this Court itself,7 it established the fair compensation for the expropriated property. 30. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that the question raised by the State reveals its discontent that the Court did not consider the expert opinion offered to the Court by the State as the determinant opinion. In addition, the question seeks for the Court to re-assess matters that have already been decided by the Court in its judgment in order to determine the amount of the fair compensation. In this regard, the Court has established the inadmissibility of re-evaluating factual and legal issues that were raised on the appropriate procedural occasion and on which the Court has adopted a decision.8 6 Cf. Iran-US Claims Tribunal, American International Group Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran. Award No. 932-3-4; Iran-U.S.C.T.R 96 (1983); Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Philips Petroleum Co. and The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Award No 425-39-21. Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 79 (1989); Permanent Court of International Justice Judicial Year 1937. The Diversion of Water from the Meuse. Netherlands v. Belgium. Para. 323; Grand Chamber Case of Varnava and others v. Turkey (Applications nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90) Judgment, Strasbourg, September 18 2009. Paras. 224-225. 7 Cf. Case of Garrido Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 5, para. 192, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 157. 8 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 15; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, 7