4 on February 13, 2001;13 and c) the writ of amparo14 lodged on July 10, 1997, by Salvador Chiriboga siblings, in which they argued that the expropriation conducted by the Municipality of Quito entailed a violation of the rights enshrined in the Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter, “political constitution”), in the American Convention and in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and that it did not adjust to the provisions established within the domestic legislation regarding the expropriation system. In such regard, the District Trial Court N°1 on Administrative matters issued a ruling regarding such remedy on October 2, 1997. 7. Finally, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible of the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 21 (Right to Private Property) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) therein, to the detriment of Maria Salvador Chiriboga. Furthermore, it requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures for reparations, as well as the payment of costs and expenses. 8. The Commission’s application representatives on January 19, 2007. was served on the State15 and on the 9. On March 18, 2007, Mr. Alejandro Ponce Martinez and Alejandro Ponce Villacís, in their capacity of representatives of the alleged victim (hereinafter, the “representatives”) filed the brief of requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter, “brief of requests and arguments”). The representatives requested the Tribunal to declare that the State violated Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 21 (Right to Private Property), 24 (Right to Equal Protection), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and 29 (Restrictions regarding Interpretation) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) therein, to the detriment of María Salvador Chiriboga. Finally, they requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures for reparation and the payment of the costs and expenses for litigating the case before the domestic courts and the Inter-American system of protection of human rights. 10. On May 17, 2007, the State16 submitted a brief containing a preliminary objection, the answer to the complaint and observations to the brief of requests and arguments (hereinafter, the “answer to the complaint”). The State alleged that it did not violate Article 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention and that the deprivation of the property belonging to Salvador Chiriboga siblings was conducted “[…] in accordance with the American Convention, it was compatible to the right to property because it was based on reasons of public utility and social interest and was subjected to the payment of a fair compensation". In relation to the alleged violation of Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the Convention, to the detriment of Salvador Chiriboga siblings, the State indicated that the alleged victim initiated several proceedings, both before constitutional as well as 13 Cf. Court order of February 13, 2001, issued by the Supreme Court of Justice (record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 10 and 11, p. 2139 to 2142). 14 Cf. complaint of the writ of amparo of July 10, 1997 (record of appendixes to the complaint, appendixes 1 and 2, p. 92 to 103). 15 When the application was served on the State, it was informed on the right to appoint a judge ad hoc in order to participate in the consideration of the case. On February 13, 2007, the State appointed Mr. Diego Rodriguez Pinzon as Judge ad hoc. 16 The State appointed Erick Roberts, Deputy Director on Human Rights’ matters for the Attorney General’s Office, Principal Agent and Salim Zaidán, Office of the Deputy Director on Human Rights’ matters of the Attorney General's Office, Deputy Agent.