District Administrative Court disqualified itself from hearing the amparo claim. This decision was appealed to the Constitutional Court, which, on September 15, 1997, ruled that the lower court could not disqualify itself from hearing the claim. 16. In a ruling issued on October 2, 1997, the First District Administrative Court rejected the amparo claim, arguing that there had been no illegitimate exercise of authority and declaring that all the actions taken by the various authorities involved were lawful. An appeal against this decision of the First District Administrative Court was filed with the Constitutional Court, which denied the amparo appeal presented and affirmed the lower court’s ruling. 17. It should be noted that there are two sets of proceedings in this case. The first involves the reaction to the administrative act taken and the appeal to the Ministry of the Interior (Ministerio de Gobierno); the second involves the “subjective or full jurisdiction” claims filed with the First District Administrative Court. Whereas the first set is administrative, the second set is judicial, in nature. 18. The essence of the complaint is that the putative victims have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property without having received “just compensation” for the expropriation, in alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention. The petitioners do not challenge the power of the State to deprive them of their property for the greater good of the public interest. The discussion, they argue, is over the issue of just compensation, or more precisely, the amount of that compensation. The petitioners allege that the just compensation for the property must be paid before the expropriation proceedings can be initiated. The petitioners allege that they have been deprived of their property without the State respecting the “forms established by law” as required by the American Convention. In addition, since 1994, the petitioners have initiated a number of proceedings, which, as a result of delays have not resulted in judgments, in alleged violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention. The petitioners alleged also that in the writ of amparo that they presented, which was decided by the Constitutional Court, the Court failed to consider the alleged violations of the American Convention, in violation of Article 25 of the Convention. The petitioners also alleged that the failure to resolve the administrative remedy they presented to have the declaration that the property was of public utility nullified violates the State’s undertaking “to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State” set forth in Article 25 of the Convention; and further, that the nullification of Ministerial Agreement 408, two days after it was issued, not only violated domestic law but also violated the State’s undertaking “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted” also violates Article 25, and in addition, Article 2 of the Convention. Further, the petitioners allege that Article 794 of the Ecuadorian Code of Civil Procedure provides that the declaration of public or social utility made by the above mentioned entities, in order to proceed to expropriation, may not be the subject matter of judicial review, but only administrative review. Petitioners allege that this norm violates article 25 which guarantees the right to judicial protection and also violates Article 2 of the American Convention because it prevents the petitioners from initiating a judicial action against the declaration of public utility. The petitioners alleged that the State of Ecuador violated Articles 2, 8, 21, and 25 to the detriment of the Chiriboga siblings, in connection with the obligations incumbent upon a State party, set forth in Article 1(1) of said Convention B. Position of the State 19. The State, for its part, replied that the expropriation proceedings were carried out pursuant to the law and regulations in force at the time, but that the putative victims were unwilling to accept the amount of compensation determined by the Municipality, pursuant to the norms of Article 254 of the Law of Municipal Regimes and Articles 801 and 802 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 794(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly states that the declaration of public utility “ . . . . shall not be a matter for judicial consideration, but only for administrative review.” The petitioners filed for administrative review, but the proceedings have not yet been completed, according to the State, due to the “serious problems afflicting the administration of justice in Ecuador.” The only proceeding which has resulted in a final 4