32 Tribunal will establish if the determination of the interests proceeds or not, and if it does, it will define the type of interests and the date as of which they shall be calculated. 92. The Judgment on the Merits established that the subjective recourses or those of full jurisdiction filed by the Salvador Chiriboga brothers and the expropriation claim filed by the State were not resolved within a reasonable time period nor were they effective and that the expropriation proceedings had been arbitrary.142 Additionally, the Court already ruled in said Judgment that the State has not paid the just compensation; thus it is not correct to reopen the discussion on this matter at this stage. 93. The Court reiterates that, up to this date, the expropriation proceedings are still in process before the domestic jurisdiction, more than twelve years after they were started, and the payment of the just compensation is still pending, despite the fact that María Salvador Chiriboga has lost possession of her property. In this sense the European Court of Human Rights has stated that the measures employed in combination with the excessive duration of the judicial action places the petitioners in a long situation of uncertainty, which worsens the damaging effects of these measures, to which they have had to carry a special burden that breaks the just balance between the demands of the public interest and the protection of the right to have property respected,143 and in cases such as the present, the European Court has ordered the payment of interests calculated on the basis of a lawful rate.144 94. This Court observes that other international courts have determined, in cases of expropriation, the payment of simple145 or compound146 interests to repair the damage caused. For example the European Court, in matters of expropriation, has decided upon a simple interest,147 while the arbitration courts in investment matters, from a commercial point of view, acknowledge that the granting of a compound interest148 is justified under certain circumstances, in order to compensate in a comprehensive manner the losses suffered and grant additional protection to foreign investors within a global context. 95. Additionally, the Court observes that the Organic Law of the Municipal Regimen in force, approved on December 5, 2005, in its Article 244149 states that in cases of expropriation, recalled that stated in the hearing on the appropriation of an amount since the declaration of public interest (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome V, folio 1069). Both the Commission and the representatives noted that the State could not change its opinion, given that it had acknowledged in the public hearing the payment of interests. In this regard, the Commission requested estoppel be applied (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome VI, folios 1242 and 1248). 142 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 24, para. 113 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Tsirikakis v. Greece. Judgment of January 17, 2002, para. 60 and 61. 144 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Tsirikakis v. Greece. Judgment of January 23, 2003, para. 11. 145 The following is meant by simple interest: in any period, interest rate multiplied by the invariable amount of the principal. 146 The following is meant by compound interest: in any period, the interest rate is multiplied by a varying amount of the principal. Unpaid interest is added to principal outstanding and converted to principal in the new period 143 147 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece. Judgment of December 9, 1994, para. 83; Eur. Court H.R., Case Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy, supra note 82, para. 105, and Eur. Court H.R., Case Schembri and others s v. Malta, supra note 83, para. 18. 148 At the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) cases are filed that have a distinct legal relevance, where the matters involve commercial motives and investment. Cf. ICSID, Compañía del Desarrollo Santa Elena S.A. V. Costa Rica, supra note 92, paras. 96 -107; Metalclad Corporation V. México. Judgment of August 30, 2000, ARB (AF)/97/1, para. 128, and Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. V. República Árabe de Egipto. Judgment of April 12, 2002. ARB/99/6, paras. 173-175. 149 It corresponds to Article 256 of the prior Organic Law of the Municipal Regimen, approved on October 15, 1971, which states “in all cases of expropriation the owner shall be paid, in addition to the conventional or judicially established price, five percent as for the price of the damage. The ultimate value shall be delivered to the owner in cash in the amounts and within the time limits set by the municipality, in agreement with the expropriated, and such