25 physical conditions that could be the object of other urban uses. Likewise, she described that 2 high-tension lines go through it, thus determining an area of affectation and obligatory withdrawal.113 The Court also points out that the expert Edgar Neira Orellana stated that “the surcharge of property without edifications [imposed on the victim makes no sense in the case of properties located in rural areas destined for agricultural exploitation; it makes sense when the property is located within urban perimeters, and it punishes the lack of buildings or encourages edification processes within a specific Municipality.”114 69. With regard to the property’s legal characteristics, the Court considers that one of the factors that gives a property value is its possible use, vocation, and the possibility to erect constructions on it; thus, for the effects of the assessment in the present case, the juridical limitations to the use of the land that were imposed on the expropriated property prior to the declaration of public interest must be established, among other standards. 70. In this sense, this Tribunal observes that different expert opinions coincide on the existence of legal limitations on the use of the property of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, prior to the declaration of public interest. In this regard, the expert report presented by Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, and its expansion,115 points out that “the property in question could not be urbanized due to the municipal hindrance and resolution.” Likewise, the expert Gonzalo Estupiñan Narváez states that the expropriated property was never considered by municipal planning as an urban property or a property that could be urbanized.116 The expert report offered by the expert Jaramillo acknowledges that “since 1980 the Municipality of Quito, through the Quito Plan, defined a use of urban recreational park for the area where the property is included, [and that s]aid use of the land was ratified in the Urban Bylaws of 1990 in its proposal of Use of the Land and for the Environmental and Recreational System.”117 71. In addition to the expert reports presented, this Tribunal takes into consideration the ordinances that existed prior to the declaration of public interest of the property object of the expropriation, which legally limited the use of the land prior to the said declaration. In attention to the aforementioned, the Court points out that legal limitations were imposed on the mentioned property through the following acts of authority: a) Ordinance Nº 2092 of January 27, 1981,118 through which the “Quito Plan 1980” was approved; the latter controls, regulates, and rationalizes the city’s physical spatial development in response to the new socio-economic conditions and the urban dynamics that exceeded the limits foreseen in other technical and juridical instruments (f.7536, evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case). The Metropolitan Park was conceived as a reserve and compensation for the deficit of green areas, being characterized for 113 Cf. Expert assessment of Jakeline Jaramillo, supra note 44, folios 287 and 291. 114 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 24, and Expert assessment of Edgar Neira Orellana rendered during the public hearing on October 19, 2007, held in the city of Bogota, Colombia. 115 Cf. Expert assessment of Vicente Domínguez Zambrano, supra note 26, folios 3960 to 4000. 116 Cf. Brief of the State of September 22, 2009, of the observations of Expert Estupiñán Narváez regarding the Expert assessment of Jakeline Jaramillo (brief presented at the public hearing on September 24, 2009, and case file of Reparations and Costs, tome III, folio 585). 117 Cf. Expert assessment of Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia, supra note 44, folio 289. 118 Cf. Ordinance No. 2092 of the Municipal Council of Quito, by which it approved the "Plan Quito" (case file of evidence to better resolve the case submitted by the representatives, folios 7536 and 7537). This ordinance was subsequently repealed by Ordinance No. 2816 of the Municipal Council of Quito, by which it approved the “Urban Structure Project for Quito” (evidence to better resolve submitted by the State, folio 7570). However, the first repeal of the ordinance does not affect the validity of the creation of the Metropolitan Park, as this has been contemplated within the recent legislation. It is noted that in the document, the number of the ordinances are not shown clearly.