27 characteristics due to its urban location, wherein limitations were imposed regarding its use and enjoyment in order to obtain environmental, ecological, and recreational benefits, which contribute to the preservation of the resources that serve to benefit society, all of which is considered to determine the just price. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court notes that the State continued to collect taxes on the property being expropriated based on the lack of constructions, despite the fact that it had already imposed limitations in this sense, all of which will be covered in the corresponding section. 74. Regarding the eucalyptus forest, the Court notes the expert opinions presented in that sense (supra paras. 46 and 51). Particularly, it will assess the expert opinion offered by Rodrigo Borja, which the representatives used as grounds to establish their claims and which was not contested by the State. In consideration of the aforementioned and of the body of evidence, the Court finds that on one side, the date the forest was cultivated or its purpose cannot be concluded. However, it is clear that said forest plantation had a particular commercial potential, since it implied an important investment that consisted in the planting of 47,314 trees with an extension of 577,000 m2, which is evident since the species found on the property of María Salvador Chiriboga are not native to the area. In this regard, the Master Plan of the Municipality of Quito of December 1994, states that the Municipality had established a “eucalyptus substitution program for native species, in order to turn them into true wild botanical gardens.”122 On the other hand, the Court understands that the restrictions imposed on the property, upon declaring it an ecological area, limited the commercial exploitation of said forest. Therefore, the Tribunal will consider this plantation as an improvement to the property, 123 which will be carefully assessed along with the body of evidence and included in the total amount of the compensation. b) Assessment of the just balance between public and private interests 75. In those cases where there is a collision between rights, the Tribunal has applied proportionality standards to consider the restrictions and the consequences they could entail.124 The Tribunal established that in “the case of an expropriation, said restriction 122 Master plan of December 1994 of the Directorate of Planning of the Metropolitan Municipality of Quito, wherein the concepts were formulated regarding how the Metropolitan Park of Quito should be (case file of annexes to the Answer to the application, folio 3552). 123 Cf. Civil Code of Ecuador of June 24, 2005: Art. 952. “The holder who lost has the right to be paid the necessary expenses invested in its preservation, according to the following rules: If these expenses are invested in permanent fixtures [...] they holder shall be paid for such expense, in as much as they were necessary; but reduced to their worth at the time of restitution.” […] Art. 953. “the holder in good faith, defeated, also has the right to be paid for utility improvements, made before the petition was filed. Utilities improvements are understood as those that improve its market value.” 124 Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 24, para. 65: “[T]he Court considers that it is not necessary that every cause for deprivation or restriction to the right to property be embodied in the law; but that it is essential that such law and its application respect the essential content of the right to property. This right entails that every limitation to such right must be exceptional. As a consequence, all restrictive measure must be necessary for the attainment of a legal goal in a democratic society in accordance with the purpose and end of the American Convention. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the legitimacy of the public interest and the process or proceedings used to pursue such end.” Cf. also: Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 120; Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 96; Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 144; Case of López Álvarez V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paras. 67 to 69; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 212; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 93; Case of Kimel V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 54; Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 175, 176 and 180, and Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 129.