24 the land is within an area of ecological protection and recreation, whose use and occupation is limited and totally restricted to the needs of the Metropolitan Park.105 Therefore, even though the State takes into account the location of the expropriated property as a criterion to determine the just compensation,106 it makes prevalent the juridical limitations to the use of the property imposed by the regulations of the Municipality of Quito. 67. This Court points out that the determination of the valuation of a property object of expropriation for environmental reasons may depend on several elements, and it is not always adequate to evaluate it in comparison with properties on the market that do not present the same characteristics. Therefore, this Court considers that, in the present case, to determine the value of the property object of the expropriation all its essential characteristics107 must be taken into consideration, that is, natural (such as their location or their topographic and environmental characteristics) and legal (such as the limitations or possibilities of the use of the terrain and its purpose). 68. With regard to the natural characteristics of the property, the Court observes that Vicente Domínguez Zambrano in his report, as well as in its amplification,108 also stated that “the property could not be used for urbanization due to the municipal hindrance and resolution, but not because of the feasibility conditions, consolidation of the land, and many other physical, topographic, and landscaping characteristics, as well as many other conditions that grant it a privileged attraction and requirement.”109 Likewise, he indicated that the property “cannot be urbanized, it is rustic, and two high-tension electricity transmission lines go through it […], which if destined for urbanization would affect it for the erection of buildings, but not if used as green areas and gardening.”110 The expert Manuel Silva Vasconez made reference to the fact that according to the cadastral sheet “it is of an irregular form, with a variable topography and a moderate slope in an East-West direction, it does not have infrastructure works or services, it is located in front of the [u]rbanizations that have been developed in the sector.”111 The expert Gonzalo Estupiñan Narváez expressed that “due to its location in the outskirts of the city or within the urban areas it is not adequate to establish a purely rural value, thus it is necessary to determine a method that will also consider its urban location.”112 The expert report offered by Jakeline Jaramillo mentioned that this property has excellent characteristics and made emphasis on its urban vocation due to the specific conditions of location, infrastructure, and services in the area, its soft relief and landscaping 105 Cf. Answer to the application, case file of Merits, tome II, folio 226. 106 The State acknowledges that “because of its location on the outskirts of the city or within urban areas, it is not appropriate to set a value that is distinctly rural, which is why it is necessary to determine a method that takes into consideration its urban location.” 107 Cf. Eur. Court. H.R., Case Kozacioglu v. Turkey. Judgment of February 19, paras. 71 and 72. 108 Cf. Expert assessment and Expansion of the expert assessment of Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, supra note 26, folios 3960 to 4000. 109 According to the expert, the value of a property is determined by its location, the provision of infrastructure and equipment, the density of land use, the socioeconomic status of the area (which is of high value in this case) and the demand for builders (Expansion of the expert assessment of Vicente Zambrano, supra note 26, folios 3964 and 3965). 110 Moreover, it was noted that “the property is also partially affected by an underground matrix line that transmits potable water [...] that crosses the property [...] which affects buildings and high forestation, but not gardening and green spaces (Expansion of the expert assessment of Vicente Zambrano, supra note 26, page 3965). 111 Cf. Expert assessment of Manuel Silva Vásconez, supra note 33, folio 651, based on folio 12 of the cadastral. 112 Cf. Expert assessment of Gonzalo Estupiñán Narváez (final arguments of the State, case file of Merits, tome V, folio 809).