38 Art. 1.- Order the return of the amounts paid in property tax, additional charges and other duties since the year 1995 and up to the year 2007, and for surcharge on properties without constructions, as of 2001 until the year 2007 for plot No. 0210902 under the name of SALVADOR TOBAR GUILLERMO HEIRS, pursuant with the considering clauses presented in [the] Ruling.” […] 119. Therefore, the State indicated that the amount collected from Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga ascends to US$23,984.82 (twenty three thousand nine hundred and eighty four dollars of the United States of America with eighty two cents). In this sense, the Tribunal points out that the State mentioned the amount collected from the victim without detailing the receipts or items considered to that effect, nor did it breakdown the amounts corresponding to taxes, surcharges for plots without constructions, and interests. 120. On their behalf, the representatives requested a refund for US$33,805.84 (thirty three thousand eight hundred and five dollars of the United States of America with eighty four cents) for the payment of taxes and fines on plots without constructions wrongfully collected by the State as of 1991. 121. From all that was stated, this Tribunal concludes that the complete refund of the amounts wrongfully collected from the victim for the taxes and fines, since according to that indicated by the representatives the State issued a credit note; thus, “it is not a real refund.” On the other hand, the representatives and the Commission, and the State mentioned a different date as of which the estimate must be made, therefore the amount requested for the improper payment of taxes and fines is different. Additionally, the Tribunal points out that the State did not object the receipts of payment presented by the representatives. Finally, even though the State ordered the payment of interests, it did not specify the type or form of payment. 122. The Tribunal reiterates that the additional charges consisting in the payment of taxes and fines for plots without constructions were wrongfully collected from Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga and in the present case they reveal the imposition of charges that are both excessive and disproportionate for the victim.165 In that sense, the Court has declared in specific situations the existence of charges that are especially burdensome for a person’s patrimony.166 Even though the State issued Ruling No. C 0704 of the Metropolitan Council of Quito approved on September 27, 2007, which was modified by the Metropolitan Council of Quito in a regular public session held on October 24, 2007 (supra note 161), with the purpose of ordering the return of that collected by the Municipality of Quito as well as the interests, as of the date of this Judgment, it has not been done. 123. Ruling No. C 0704 issued by the Metropolitan Council of Quito ordered a refund of the amounts paid for property taxes, additional charges, and other duties as of 1995 and for surcharge on plots without constructions to the victim as of 2001, as well as the refund of the interests accrued, pursuant with the modification made by the Metropolitan Council of Quito, in the regular public session held on October 24, 2007. In attention to the dates set in the mentioned ruling, being the year 1995 the date on which the modification of the declaration of public interest and its notification were issued, and given that the representatives presented different receipts, among which they forwarded those for the taxes corresponding to the years 165 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 24, para. 115. 166 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez V. Ecuador, supra note 124, paras. 200 to 218.