21 58. On the other hand, the European Court has pointed out that the limitations to the right to property by the State in those cases that follow a purpose of environmental protection are within the framework of public interest. Likewise, it stated that the preservation of nature and forests constitutes a value whose defense entails a constant and sustained interest within the public opinion and public powers. In this regard, the European Court established that “economic demands and even certain fundamental rights, including the right to property, must not be put before considerations regarding the protection of the environment.”84 Additionally, in the analysis of the “just balance” between the protection of the right to property and the demands of the public interest, the European Tribunal notes the specific circumstances of each case, such as the modalities foreseen in the domestic legislation,85 the existence of an effective domestic recourse, the granting of a compensation of the expropriating party, the time that has passed, or situations of uncertainty of the owner’s rights, in order to determine if the measure employed by the State, namely the limitation of the petitioners’ right to property, was proportional to its established objective. In view of this deliberation, if the load that must be assumed by the beneficiary has been burdensome,86 and taking into consideration the other requirements, it may determine a violation to the right to property, which will influence when setting the just compensation. 59. On its part, the International Permanent Court of Justice, establishing that in cases of expropriation, payment of a compensation constitutes a general principle in international law, establishing that an equitable reparation is one that corresponds “to the value the company had at the time of the loss of possession.”87 In the practice of the international arbitration courts, it points out that the determination of the amount of the compensation is made on the basis of the “fair market value,”88 which is equal to a comprehensive and effective reparation for the damage suffered.89 To determine said amount, these courts normally use expert reports as grounds for their decision. On occasions, said courts have determined the value of the property based on an approximation in attention to the valuations proposed by the parties.90 Likewise, the courts have taken into consideration other relevant circumstances, including the “equitable considerations.”91 Likewise, different standards are observed with regard to the date as of which the amount of the compensation must be estimated.92 Similarly, 84 Cf. Eur Court H.R., Hamer v. Belgium. Judgment of November 27 de 2007, para. 79, and Eur. Court H.R., Köktepe v. Turkey. Judgment of July 22, 2008, para. 87. 85 Cf. Köktepe v. Turkey, supra note 84, para. 92. 86 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case James and others v. United Kingdom, supra note 80, para. 50; Eur. Court H.R., Case Hutten-Czapska v. Poland. Judgment of February 22, 2005, para. 150; Eur. Court H.R., Case Matos e Silva, Lda. And others v. Portugal. Judgment of September 16, 1996, para. 86; Eur. Court H.R., Case Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden. Judgment of September 23, 1982, para. 69, and Eur. Court H.R., Case Schembri and others v. Malta. Judgment of November 10, 2009, para. 35. 87 Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), Matter regarding the Chorzów factory (Germany V. Poland) Petition for Compensation. Judgment of September 13, 1928. Series A. No. 17, p. 126. 88 Cf. Iran-US Claims Tribunal, INA Corporation and. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8 IranU.S.C.T.R. 373 (August 13, 1984), para. 380. 89 Cf. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), Amco Asia Corporation and Others V. Republic of Indonesia. First Arbitral Award of 1984. Case No. ARB/81/1. 90 Cf. Iran-US Claims Tribunal, American International Group Inc. v Islamic Republic of Iran. Award No. 93- 23. 4 Iran-U.S.C.T.R 96 (December 19, 1983). 91 Cf. Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Philips Petroleum Co. V. The Islamic Republic of Iran. Award No 425-39-2. 21 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 79 (1989). 92 Cf. Lauder V. Czech Republic, 2001 (UNCITRAL - United Nations Commission on International Trade Law), and ICSID, Compañía del Desarrollo Santa Elena S.A. V. Costa Rica. Judgment of February 17, 2000. ARB/96/1.