22 of heirs.67 On June 17, 1991, Salvador Chiriboga siblings appealed the declaration of public utility to the Ministry of Government and requested it to set aside the entire process followed regarding the declaration of public utility.68 In response to such request, on September 16, 1997, the Ministry of Government issued the Ministerial Agreement N° 408, that annulled the declaration of public utility.69 On September 18, that same year, Ministerial Agreement N° 417 was issued rendering the Ministerial Agreement N° 408 without effect; therefore, the declaration of public utility was reinforced.70 71. The Court verified that the declaration of public utility was intended to assign such land to the so-called "Metropolitan Park".71 Moreover, since before that, the property was encumbered by ordinances Nº 2092 of January 26, 1981, called “Plan Quito” and Nº 2818 of October 19, 1990 that established the limits of the Metropolitan Park of the city of Quito. Both ordinances establish the limits and the use of the whole are of the Metropolitan Park as a recreational and ecological protected area of the city of Quito.72 72. This Tribunal notes the parties do not agree on the exact date on which the Municipality of Quito occupied the property of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. The InterAmerican Commission pointed out that, according to the complaint, the property was occupied on July 10, 1997; whereas, in the final argument submitted by the representatives, they stated that the State was in possession of the property subjected to expropriation since 1991. Nevertheless, that the same representatives, in the facts of the writ of the constitutional amparo filed with the domestic courts, expressed that “on July 7, 1997, the Municipality of the Metropolitan District of Quito abruptly entered into the western area of the property.” Moreover, it is worth mentioning that María Salvador Chiriboga, in the statement rendered before the Court, stated that she lost the possession of her property near 1991. In turn, the daughters of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga expressed that the property was occupied in 1994, when the park was officially opened (supra para. 19(a) and 19(b)). To such regard, in the evidence to facilitate the 67 Cf. modification of the order issued by the Council of the Metropolitan District of Quito of September 25, 1995 (record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 1 and 2, p. 61 and 62). 68 Instance in which they argued that: i) the act of the declaration of public utility was not duly notified to the parties, since the father of Salvador Chiriboga siblings was summoned but was already dead at that time, and therefore, “his heirs should have been summoned in accordance with the provisions of Section 86 of the Civil Procedural Code”; ii) in accordance with Article 252 of the Municipal System Act [Ley de Régimen Municipal] it is necessary that the Municipal Council is certain about the use that it is going to be assigned to the condemned property and the Council, up to that moment, had no idea whether the piece of property was going to be used as an ecological sanctuary or a metropolitan park; iii) in case the land is used as an ecological sanctuary, the competent authority to administer it would not be the Mayor of the city of Quito but the Forest and Renewable Natural Resources Under-Secretary and iv) "The Municipal Council of Quito has no funds to pay the just price of [...] [the] lands of such an extension and even worse, to carry out the building works in the size necessary for a metropolitan park", Cf. brief of appeal submitted by Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga before the Ministry of Government on July17, 1991 (record of documents submitted by the State during the public hearing, p. 4248 to 4254); and brief of the Undersecretary of Government addressed to the Mayor of Quito of June 24, 1991, which notifies the Mayor of the appeal lodged by Salvador Chiriboga siblings regarding the declaration of public utility (record of documents submitted by the State during the public hearing , p 4247). 69 Cf. Ministerial agreement N° 408 of September 16, 1997, supra note 7. 70 Cf. Ministerial agreement N° 417 of September 18, 1997, supra note 8. 71 Cf. Document “Metropolitan Park”, Master Plan: Execution strategies” (record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 4 and 5, p. 1647 to 1703). 72 Cf. Ordinance N° 2092 of the Municipal Council of Quito, by means of which “Plan Quito” was approved (record of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, Volume III, p. 7536 and 7537). This ordinance was later on repealed by ordinance N° 2816 issued by the Municipal Council of Quito, by means of which the "Urban Structure Project for Quito" [Proyecto de Estructura Urbana para Quito] was approved. Nevertheless, the revocation of the first ordinance does not affect the period during which the creation of the Metropolitan Park was in force, since such park has been contemplated by recent laws. To such end, communication from the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of Quito where he made observations to the Inter-American Commission regarding the instant case (record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 3, Volume II, p. 816 to 820).