12 criteria regarding the appraisal of the lands [and is unaware] of the fact that when a land is condemned, it is removed from the market and therefore, it is no longer viable to take as reference the market demand”. As to the affidavit rendered by the expert witness Mr. Raúl Moscoso Álvarez (supra para. 19(f)), in the observations, the State expressed that his expert opinion "[...] does not restrict to the specific purpose of the expert assessment […] specially, to the judgment of the judicial orders in relation to the rules of due process […]”. To such effect, this Tribunal admits said experts’ opinions taking into account the purpose of such as intended in the President's Order of September 17, 2007 (supra note 18) as well as the observations submitted by the State and it shall assess them on the basis of the body of evidence and sound judgment. 27. As to the authenticated expert’s opinions rendered, jointly, by Mr. Armando Bermeo Castillo and Germánd Carrión Arciniegas (supra para. 19(h)), in the observations, the representatives pointed out that the expert report is incomplete and is full of personal assessments. To such end, they expressed that despite the fact that the expert witnesses indicated that the condemnation proceedings aim at determining the fair market value of the land, they omitted to point out that such proceedings constitute a process for the execution of an administrative act and not an effective remedy to protect the rights of people in such proceedings. Moreover, they noted that the expert witnesses confirmed, in their report, that after the administrative declaration of public utility, the appraisal is no longer necessary, given the fact that according to the case- law of the Supreme Court of Justice "[...] the appraisal is necessary and in case of lack of it, the result will be the nullification of the administrative proceeding". Lastly, they pointed out that the referred expert witnesses failed to make reference to certain judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice and some laws, which they consider " it was the duty of the expert witnesses to inform the Court on the correct application of the rules on condemnation. This Court observes that in the President’s Order of September 17, 2007, each one of the expert witnesses was ordered to forward its own report. Nevertheless, as proven in the records, the State forwarded only one expert report signed by the persons already mentioned. Regarding this issue, the Tribunal brings to the State’s attention the fact that it should have submitted individual expert reports as ordered by the President in the orders of September 17 and October 2, 2007. Moreover, this Court admits said joint report taking into account the purpose set forth in the President’s Order of September 17, 2007 (supra para. 18) and the observations made by the representatives and it shall assess them on the basis of the body of evidence and the sound judgment. 28. As to the authenticated statement rendered by Gonzalo Estupiñan Orejuela (supra para. 19(g)), in their observations, the representatives pointed out that his statement is opposite to his own manifestations published in several newspapers of the City of Quito, as well as those statements made in other condemnation proceedings forwarded in the case of the Metropolitan Park, where he sustained that they were absolutely illegal. They added that the expert witness failed to point out that, in the case of the family he represented, the Municipality of Quito delayed the payment, “[…] therefore, it is not true that the payments are immediate”. To such effect, this Tribunal admits said experts’ opinions taking into account the purpose of such as intended in the President's Order of September 17, 2007 (supra note 18) as well as the observations submitted by the representatives and it shall assess them on the basis of the body of evidence and sound judgment. 29. As to the press releases submitted by the State and the representatives, this Tribunal consider that such documentation could be assessed whenever they relate to