30 transferred for that purpose (supra para. 71), since the established limitations made it a property destined to the protection of the environment. Based on the aforementioned, when the declaration of public interest of May 13, 1991, was issued, the property already had legal limitations on its use, and therefore, its market value had decreased. 83. Additionally, in the Judgment on the Merits, the Court established the existence of the legitimate interest for expropriation due to reasons of public interest based on the protection of the environment, which results in the social benefit generated by the Metropolitan Park that is of vital importance for the city of Quito, and the expropriated property represents an important contribution, not only for the park itself, but for the entire society and the environment in general (supra para. 73). However, the State failed to comply with the payment required in Article 21(2) of the Convention and the standard of reasonable time periods to the detriment of the victim. 84. Therefore, according to the claims of the parties, the legal restrictions that fall upon the property, which affected its value since the property object of the expropriation has been destined to be an area for environmental protection and recreation of great relevance and a public interest for the city of Quito (supra para. 79), and in attention to the just balance between public interests and private interests, the Court, pursuant to the standard of reasonableness, proportionality, and equity, set the amount of US$18,705,000.00 (eighteen million, seven hundred and five thousand dollars of the United States of America) for just compensation in an international venue, which includes the value of the expropriated property and its accessories. 85. The Court will determine the legitimacy of the interests in the section of this Judgment regarding pecuniary damages (infra para. 91 to 101). Likewise, in order to achieve a prompt and effective payment, the State must pay the amounts owed pursuant to that established in the section Modalities of payment regarding pecuniary damages of this Judgment (infra para. 102 and 103). C) Compensation 1. Pecuniary damage 86. The Court has developed the standard of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be compensated.137 However, in the present case the Tribunal will not analyze the pecuniary damage from the traditional perspective of consequential damages or loss of income, but derived from the non-compliance with the payment of a just compensation, which has resulted in an infringement of the victim’s material condition and has led to the State’s international responsibility. 87. The representatives requested that as reparation “for the appropriation of the property […] belonging [to María Salvador Chiriboga] the State be ordered to pay the interests accrued during the time in which it has not paid the just compensation.” Based on the aforementioned, in its brief on reparations, the representatives demanded the payment of an annual compound interest computed as of the declaration of public interest dated May 13, 1991. Thus, they indicated that the State owed, up to May 13, 2009, the total amount of US$56,730,723.69 (fifty six million seven hundred and thirty thousand seven hundred and twenty three dollars of the United States of America with sixty nine cents) for that purpose. They added that if payment of the just compensation is made after that date, an estimate of the interests must 137 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 298, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 248.