3 finances of the community of Quito and in this sense probably weighs on the extent of the objective behind the social interest. 19. I shall not omit to mention -using my memory as opposed to specific information regarding the jurisprudence of the Court- that this declaration of a violation of the right to private property is the highest it has been over a period of thirty years. Never before has a violation been declared that comes close to that amount even in cases of extrajudicial killings (of one or many persons, or massacres which destroy the lives of tens or hundreds of human beings), nor in cases of torture and enforced disappearances. 20. Of course, the consideration mentioned in the previous paragraph - which inspired some of my concerns upon studying the case and meditating over the judgment - does not in any way intend to question the existence or apparent violation of a right no less respectable and protected than any other in the Convention or to put aside objective facts to assess the damage caused (those of which were not enough in this case, as there are none- nor could there be- at the time of review for purposes of compensation, regarding the loss of life, injury to integrity, the unjust suppression of freedom), nor reconsidering the text of Article 21 and the decision held in the judgment on the merits, which I subscribed. Sergio García Ramírez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary