35 standard of non-pecuniary damage as a violation to private property and due process, as this would delegitimize international justice and would seriously damage the credibility of the InterAmerican system.” 108. The Commission considered that the non-pecuniary damage is evident, since the victim has been appealing to the State for more than “sixteen” years without obtaining a final resolution until now. 109. The Court observes that Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga stated at the public hearing that the facts of the case have had a very strong impact on her, which has affected her health.154 Likewise, Susana Salvador Chiriboga, in her statement rendered before a public notary, stated that “[her] mother has preferred to continue with the claims, despite her health, so that justice can be served.”155 On her part, the witness Guadalupe Jessica Salvador Chiriboga emphasized the fact that her mother has had to overcome heavy emotional pressure, which has affected her health.156 110. Regarding the aforementioned, the State indicated that Mrs. Guadalupe Jessica Salvador Chiriboga “mentioned emotional aspects that deserve respect, but that are not relevant for the effects of this case, and the same thing has occurred with the other family members that have offered their statements as if it were a family of limited resources and whose health has deteriorated as a consequence of the municipal action, which is very far from the truth.” 111. The Court reintroduces that stated in the Judgment on the Merits,157 in the sense that Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga is in a state of juridical uncertainty as a result of the delay in the proceedings, since she has not been able to effectively exercise her right to property, since it has been occupied by the Municipality of Quito for more than a decade, without a decision being reached regarding who is the rightful owner of the property. A denial of justice has occurred since a final judgment determining the amount of the just compensation for the property has not been reached, which has resulted in an ineffective and arbitrary expropriation proceeding. Said situation persists today and has caused a disproportionate burden in detriment of the victim and in detriment of the just balance.158 112. This Tribunal’s jurisprudence has repeatedly stated that a judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.159 However, in consideration of that stated, the circumstances of the case sub judice, and of the violation declared in the Judgment on the Merits of Articles 21(2), 8(1), and 25(1) of the Convention in detriment of the victim, this Court considers it appropriate to 154 Cf. Statement of María Salvador Chiriboga rendered in the public hearing held on October 19, 2007 in the city of Bogota, Colombia. 155 Cf. Statement of Susana Salvador Chiriboga rendered before a public notary on October 1, 2007 (case file of Preliminary Objection and Merits, tome IV, f. 494). 156 Cf. Statement of Guadalupe Jessica Salvador Chiriboga rendered before a public notary on October 1, 2007 (case file of Merits, tome IV, folio 479). 157 158 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 24, paras. 111 to 113. As was indicated in paragraph 76 of the present Judgment, by limiting the right to private property, the State shall fulfill with the objective of achieving a just equilibrium in between the public interest and the owners interest, so that in the present case the State should have used the least burdensome means to reduce the detriment of the right to private property of the victim. 159 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 72; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 310, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 260.