18 in the proceedings instituted by María Salvador Chiriboga that suggests that State authorities delayed such proceedings and therefore, there is no final decision on the merits for that a reasonable term has not been complied with and the State has not proved otherwise. As to the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, the Commission stated that imaginary remedy cannot be considered effective, whenever justice has been denied or there has been an unwarranted delay in the decision. 52. The representatives agreed on the majority of the arguments presented by the Commission regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. In turn, the representatives alleged that the lack of a prior compensation, as well as the procedural errors, vitiated the legitimacy of the declaration of public utility and turned the condemnation into a seizure, imposing an excessive burden on Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. 53. According to the State, the Municipality of Quito complied with the legal and constitutional rules during the expropriation ‘s process. Specifically, it pointed out that the declaration of public utility and the occupation of the property were carried out without violating any of the guarantees enshrined in laws, the Constitution of Ecuador nor even in the American Convention. Moreover, the State argued that it had not failed to comply with the reasonable time, since “the factor that prevented an agreement or determination of a reasonable appraisal of the condemned property in the case of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga was the ambitious and out of proportion demand of her lawyers”. Finally, the State indicated that the Ecuadorian legal system does provide with prompt and simple remedies in order to protect the alleged violated rights of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. 54. In relation to the arguments exposed, this Tribunal shall have to decide whether the limit to the right to property of Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga in order to build the Metropolitan Park in the City of Quito was carried out in accordance with the requirements established in Article 21 of the Convention. To that end, the Court shall refer to the content of the right to property and shall analyze the facts of the instant case according to the possible limits to said right and it also shall appraise whether the State, upon applying said limits, complied with the requirements established in the Convention. 55. The first paragraph of Article 21 of the American Convention establishes the right to property and points out as attributes to the land, the use and enjoyment of the property. It also includes a limit to such property’s attributes, which is the social interest. The Court’s case law has developed a broad concept of property47 that includes, among other matters, the use and enjoyment of property, defined as material goods that can be possessed, as well as any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony. Such concept includes all movables and immovables, and all tangible and intangible assets, as well as any other property susceptible of having value.48 Furthermore, the Court has 47 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C N°. 170, para. 174. 48 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 144; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C N°135, para. 102; Case of the Indigenous Community of Yakye Axa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 137; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 129.