27 94. Moreover, the State established that the true reason why the alleged victim had not received a just compensation was due to the innumerable recourses filed by her representatives, which were intended to impede the expropriatory authority exercised by the Municipality of Quito, and that prevented a judgment from being delivered. Furthermore, the State pointed out that the alleged victim, even though she was able to withdraw 225.990.625 sucres that were deposited in the Central Bank of Ecuador, did not want to do it and that regardless of the different approaches, no agreement has been reached due to the excessive ambition of her representatives. 95. Article 21(2) of the American Convention expressly establishes as a requirement to be able to carry out a deprivation of property, the payment of a just compensation. 96. To such regard, the Tribunal deems that in cases of expropriation, the payment of a compensation constitutes a general principle of the international law,89 which derives from the need to look for a balance between the general interest and the owner’s interest. Said principle has been sustained by the American Convention in its Article 21 when referring to the payment of a “just compensation”. This Court considers that in order to obtain a just compensation, this must be prompt, adequate and effective.90 97. In this sense, the European Court of Human Rights has construed the rule contained in Article 1 of the Protocol I, considering that it is an essential right to receive compensation for the deprivation of property.91 Furthermore, the General Assembly of United Nations Organization, by means of Resolution Nº 1803, pointed out that in the exercise of the State’s sovereignty to expropriate for reasons of public utility, the owner shall be paid the appropriate compensation.92 Even more, the principle according to which the compensation, in the case of expropriation, is enforceable has been reaffirmed by international case-law.93 98. The Court considers that, in expropriation cases, in order for the just compensation to be adequate, the trade value of the property prior to the declaration of public utility must be taken into account and also, the fair balance between the general interest and the individual interest as referred to in this Judgment (supra para. 63). * * * 89 Cf. Article 1 of the Protocol N°1 of the European Court, and PCIJ, The Factory At Chorzow (Claim for Indemnity) (Merits), Judgment N° 13, p. 40 and 41. 90 Cf. INA Corporation v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 8 Iran US CTR, p.373; 75 ILR, p. 595; and Principles 15 and 18 of the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparations for victims of gross violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of international Humanitarian Law”, Order of the G.A., Res. 60/147; Preamble, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147 (Dec. 16, 2006). Cf. See also: the WB, Guidelines of the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment; 1962. Texaco case 17 ILM, 1978, pp. 3, 29; 53 ILR, pp. 389, 489; Aminoil case 21 ILM, 1982, p. 1032; 66 ILR, p. 601; and Permanent Sovereignty Resolution; 1974 Charter of Economic Rights Direct and Duties of States. 91 Cf. ECHR, James v UK, Judgment of February 1985, Application no. 8793/79, para. 54; and ECHR, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of July 1986, Application no. 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/8, paras. 114 and 120. 92 Cf. General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII), of December 14, 1962, entitled "Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources” (1962) 93 Cf. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Arbitration between Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, S.A. and The Republic Of Costa Rica Case No. ARB/96/1; Matter of BP (British Petroleum Exploration Co. v. Libyan Arab Republic, October 10, 1973 and August 1, 1974; Matter of Liamco; and P.C.I.J The Factory At Chorzów, Judgment No. 7 (May 25th, 1926).