23 63. First of all, the Court observes the different considerations of valuations of the expropriated property (supra paras. 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, and 52) consisting in: a) recording of the Municipality at the time of the presentation of the expropriation claim-according to the cadastral value - for 225,990,625.00 Sucres in favor of the victim;99 b) the expert Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, within the domestic realm, set the valuation of US$55,567,055.00 – including the eucalyptus forest -; c) the expert Manuel Silva Vásconez, within the domestic realm, set the valuation at US$41,883,379.12 –including the eucalyptus forest-, and estimated a calculation up to the year 1996 at US$18,201,930.62; e) the Ninth Civil Judge determined in its ruling of April 3, 2009, the amount of US$41,214,233.12 as the value of the expropriated property; f) the expert Gutiérrez Castillo set the valuation for US$58,111,875.00; g) the expert Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia determined the price at US$42,180,504.47; h) the expert Rodrigo Borja determined the valuation of the eucalyptus forest at US$1,174,735.00, and i) the expert Gonzalo Estupiñán Naváez determined the valuation at US$6,043,635.25. 64. Of the expert opinions previously stated it can be concluded that these are based in their majority on a comparison of the market prices of urbanized properties close to the area and then they make adjustments considering the different factors of the plot. On the other hand, it can be pointed out that the expert Estupiñán Narváez bases his assessment on a rural value of agricultural dedication in a close by rural area and adjusts it to try to locate it in an area of Quito, based on the market prices of one area and another. 65. In this sense, the Tribunal observes that the relevant differences between the valuations proposed for the determination of the just compensation have their origin in a disagreement between the parties in what refers to the juridical nature of the property and specifically to that regarding the juridical limitations of the use of the property imposed by the regulations of the Municipality of Quito, a disagreement that influences the calculation methods used for the evaluation of the property. 66. The parties adduce two different evaluation methods of the property object of the expropriation. To determine its market value, the representatives argued the “urban purpose” of the property, justifying its demands for expert opinions that use as reference values the value of urbanized properties adjacent to the expropriated property, with the location of the property prevailing as the evaluation standards.100 On its part, the State considered that it is illogical to compare the value of the expropriated property and the market value of the neighboring properties.101 It added that since it is a “rustic property”102 without the possibility of erecting buildings,103 the assessment standards of rural properties could be applied as well as agricultural profitability, the location, and quality of the expropriated land.104 Additionally, 99 Said amount was deposited by the State on July 16, 1996, at the time the expropriation petition was presented, in the checking account No. 00100508-1 of Banco del Pichincha C.A. with check No. CY794572. Cf. Expropriation petition presented by the Municipality against María and Julio Guillermo Salvador Chiriboga (proceeding No. 1300-96, case file of annexes to the brief of motions and pleadings, annexes 6 to 8, folios 1802 to 1804). Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 24, para. 103 and note 97. 100 According to the representatives "[t]he fair valuation of the property must be done independently and adjusted to actual parameters wherein the commercial value of the property is taken into consideration, depending on its location and comparatively considering the value other properties in the area have in the market.” 101 Brief of the State of September 22, 2009, (presented in the public hearing of September 24, 2009, and case file of reparations, tome III, folio, 576). 102 The State argued that the just price of the expropriated land must be established based on the values of the rustic properties given that “it was never included in a sector classified as an area for urban expansion.” 103 The State also argued that “the areas delimited within the Metropolitan Park were considered areas of ecological protection thirteen years prior to the order of the Declaration of Public interest.” 104 Cf. Case file of Preliminary Objection and Merits, tome V, folio 809.