4 determination of the valuation of the expropriated property. The standard of “just compensation” referred to in Article 21(2) of the Convention can not be understood, therefore, to be synonymous with “market value” but rather as a result of a process that combines several factors and criteria, those of which, incidentally, establish a market value but also the “just balance between public interests and private interests” that needs to be developed and applied to this case as a complementary factor. 17. In a different context, this issue has been addressed by the European Court of Human Rights in several cases. In James and Others v. The United Kingdom, the alleged violation of property rights established in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was assessed.11 The Court referred to the “just balance” between the requirements of public interest and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals.12 The European Court has held that the terms for compensation are a fundamental element in the determination of whether a just balance was reached. 18. In this respect, the European Court handles flexible margins, but in any case, it takes away repeatedly, for various reasons, from the conceptual equivalence between “market value” and “just balance,” namely, what the Convention states as “just compensation” (and not “market value”). To arrive at the specific terms for a just compensation, it is necessary to analyze the context of the case, as it may determine that sometimes the "market value" of the expropriated property does not involve a proper balance between public interest and private interest. It should be noted, by way of example, that the European Court reached the conclusion that in a very special context such as German reunification, an expropriation is valid even when no compensation is provided. 19. Specifically, in the case James and Others, the European Court found that in certain circumstances, a compensation that is less than the "full market value" may be justified: The taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value would normally constitute a disproportionate interference which could not be considered justifiable under Article 1. Said Article does not, however, guarantee a right to full compensation in all circumstances. Legitimate objectives of "public interest", such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value [of the property in question]. 20. On its behalf, the Constitutional Court of Colombia established that: fixing the value of compensation may be done with difficulty in an abstract and general manner, without taking into account the context of each case; rather, it requires the weighting of specific interests in each situation, so that the appropriate amount of compensation corresponds to what is fair. 21. The Constitutional Court, as a consequence, established that if the circumstances warrant, it would be possible to establish compensation less than the total harm produced by the expropriation: This characteristic can provoke the judge to, upon weighing the interests in each case, set an amount for compensation that is less than the total damage caused by the expropriation, but without being able, given that the Legislative Act No. 1 of 1999, excluded the possibility of expropriation without compensation, to reach the conclusion that there is no room for an appropriate compensation, as has been stated. 22. Following this line of reasoning, the Constitutional Court ruled that compensation may take on a reparative function, but that “it does not always have to have a restorative function and, as such, needs not be comprehensive.” It also found that the compensation should take into account the interests at stake and weigh them case by case: 11 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law." 12 Cf. ECHR,“Case James and Others v. United Kingdom”. Judgment of February 21, 1986, para. 50.