10 However, regarding the rest of the documents16 that had not been previously presented, this Court decides to admit it since it considers it useful for the resolution of the present case, pursuant with Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. 30. Regarding the information filed by the representatives on May 14, 2010, regarding the holding, within the domestic jurisdiction, of a hearing on April 7, 2010, before the First Civil Chamber of the Provincial Court of Pichincha, in the process of expropriation and its annexes, the Court observes that said diligence occurred after the presentation of the main briefs in this proceeding. This Tribunal considers that the mentioned information, as well as the evidence filed, complies with the formal requirements of admissibility and admits them as supervening evidence, pursuant with Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure. 31. It must be reiterated that for the examination of the representatives’ claims and the observations of the State and the Commission in the present stage of reparations, this Tribunal will analyze the evidence presented and admitted during the process that have been included into a single body of evidence. The Court will refer indistinctly to the evidence presented, among them, to the different expert reports presented throughout the course of the proceedings, as well as those offered in the domestic jurisdiction by Vicente Domínguez Zambrano and Manuel Silva Vasconez (cf. para. 21 of the Judgment of May 6, 2008); those offered in the merits part of the present case by Edmundo Gutiérrez del Castillo, Julio Raúl Moscoso, Gonzalo Estupiñán Narváez, and Edgar Neira Orellana (cf. paras. 26 and 32 of the Judgment of May 6, 2008), as well as those provided in the present stage of reparations offered by Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia and Rodrigo Borja Crizon (supra para. 25). Likewise, it will take into account the judgment issued within the domestic jurisdiction on April 3, 2009, by the Ninth Civil Court of Pichincha, which was appealed by the State and the representatives due to their non-conformity with the compensatory amount set in it, for which it will take into account the parties’ observations with regard to it. IV REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) Expropriation and establishment of staffing in the Municipality of the Metropolitan District of Quito (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and arguments, annex 23, folio 3021); 6) Resolution of declaration of public interest of May 13, 1991 (case file of annexes to the brief of motions and pleadings, annex 4 to 5, folio 1617); 7) Modification order of September 25, 1995 (case file of annexes to the application, folios 60 to 62); 8) petition and classification of the petition by the Ninth Court (annexes to the application, folios 63, 72, 221 to 223); 9) first contested expert assessment in the judicial process of Arq. Vicente Domínguez (annexes to the brief of motions and pleadings, annex 6 to 8, folios 2032 to 2043; 10) second contested expert assessment in the judicial process by Ing. Manuel Silva (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome IV, folios 651 to 655); 11) Ordinance No. 2776 of 1990 (case file of evidence to better resolve presented by the State, folio 7547); 12) The Municipal Code for the Metropolitan District of Quito published in the Official Registrar on December 31, 1997 (extracts of the municipal code, case file of annexes to the application, annex 16, folio 151); 13) Judgment of the Ninth Civil Court of Pichincha on April 3, 2009 (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome II, folios 260 to 263); 14) Organic Law of the Municipal Regimen No. 337 of October 15, 1971, mentioned articles (case file of annexes to the brief of motions and pleadings, annex 16, folios 2290 to 2677); 15) Law of Regimen for the Metropolitan District of Quito published in the Official Registrar on December 27, 1993 (case file of evidence to better resolve, folios 5932 to 5937), and 13) Resolution C704 (documents presented by the State in the public hearing on October 19, 2007, folios 4336 a 4338). 16 Namely: 1) Civil Code of Ecuador, mentioned articles (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folios 1094 to 1097); 2) Metropolitan Guanguiltagua Park Plan (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folio 1208; 3) Explanatory charts Metropolitan Guanguiltagua Park (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folios 1209 to 1215; 4) Metropolitan del Sur Park Plans (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folio 1216); 5) Explanatory chart Metropolitan Park del Sur (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folio 1217); 6) Metropolitan Chilibulo Park Plan (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folio 1218); 7) Explanatory chart of Metropolitan Chilibulo Park (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folio 1219); 8) Order SG 554, refund of taxes for the expropriated properties and Order DMF-T-3230 of October 12, 2009, issued by the Metropolitan Treasurer and addressed to the Metropolitan AG (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folios 1223 and 1073), and 9) General Regulations of the Application of the Forestry Law and Conservation of Natural Areas and Wildlife published in the Official Gazette of February 22, 1983 (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome VI, folios 1258 to 1284).