8 deprived her of fifty per cent of the total lands she used to own. She said that, due to the financial need and a serious health condition, she accepted three parcels of land from the Municipality of Quito; however, one of them was a green area or park inside a developed area that is why she could not occupy this one. Finally, she stated that she had not try any legal proceedings against the Municipality of Quito since she knows the Municipality always delays the proceedings in its favor in order for the owner to get tired and negotiate with the Municipality, appearing to be legal. e) Edmundo Gutiérrez del Castillo: Proposed by the Commission and the representatives; technical expert witness of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and of the Chamber of Commerce and Construction Mediation Center (Centro de Mediación de las Cámaras de Comercio y de la Construcción). He referred to certain parameters for the assessment of the land and real estate. He gave his opinion regarding the actual value of the plots of land and real estate in the city of Quito and he considered that the lands located in the west part of the Metropolitan Park, including the property of Salvador Chiriboga siblings, have some characteristics that allow assessing the value in ninety United States dollars per square meter. Lastly, he mentioned that there is an approximate difference of 70% between the official appraisals made by the Municipality and the commercial costs of the lands and buildings. f) Julio Raúl Moscoso Álvarez: Proposed by the Commission and the representatives; expert in Ecuadorian law. He referred to the nature of the declaration of public utility, on the requirements needed to carry out a condemnation and the ways to challenge such legal concepts. Furthermore, he made reference to the requirements for the injuriousness claim and the way the administrative resolutions are challenged. He mentioned the reasons and the effects inherent to the dismissal of a judge from hearing a case. Within the tax environment, he gave her opinion regarding the different types of taxes on real property. He referred to certain criteria to guarantee the due process at administrative and judicial venues. According to his opinion, the delays in condemnations proceedings have no legal explanation since they are supposed to be simple legal procedures. However, in practice, civil trials can be delayed for many years and this causes confiscatory situations. Furthermore, he referred to the application of constitutional rules that bind the State to “[…] comply with human rights and protect the person from […] injuries and threats coming from third parties”. In line with that criterion, he pointed out that according to the domestic legislation of Ecuador, human right treaties, agreements and international conventions have a compulsory, binding and constitutional nature. Finally, he confirmed that in many cases, the declaration of public utility allows the execution of clearly confiscatory practices. g) Gonzalo Estupiñán Orejuela: Proposed by the State; lawyer. He stated that he knows of other similar condemnation proceedings as the one in debate, since he was a legal representative of a family against whom the Municipality initiated a condemnation proceeding for a piece of property located in the area of the Metropolitan Park. He pointed out that in such case, they began negotiating, since the only purpose of the trial was the determination of a fair price as compensatory payment. According to Mr. Estupiñán Orejuela, the negotiations and the compensatory payments in the legal proceedings were prompt and without further complications.