30 which “only purpose shall be the determination of the amount to be paid as price for the condemned thing, […],”104 and “ the judge shall deliver a judgment within eight days as of the submission of the expert report […]”105 and the filing of interlocutory motions is not allowed within such proceeding.106 In accordance with the domestic legislation, the term established for this kind of proceeding is 38 days,107 to which the terms derived from other circumstances of the case shall have to be added. Furthermore, section 312 of the Civil Procedural Code108 establishes the possibility for a judge to grant an extraordinary term, which shall never be greater than three times the ordinary term. In such sense, the expert witness, Neira Orellana, in the opinion rendered before the Court, agreed on stating that one of the criterion regarding the reasonable time is that the resolution of a condemnation proceeding shall last no longer than three times the term established by law (supra para. 20(b)). 106. The Court notes that, in consideration of the domestic legislation, the condemnation proceeding is not a complex process but a prompt one. The purpose of the proceeding is simple; mainly to ascertain the value of the condemned property where the domestic judge is the person that must determine the price of the property. As to the procedural records of the victim's pleadings, in the instant case, Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga is the only person affected by the expropriation of her property and as is evident from the analysis of the case, there is no proof that her actions may have obstructed or delayed the proceeding. 107. Moreover, this Tribunal notes that in the instant case, the State is a party109 to the proceeding, given the fact that it had initiated an expropriation proceeding and, at the same time, is exercising its judicial function, which is being reflected on the procedural activity administered by the Ecuadorian judicial system. Regarding the behavior of the judicial authorities in charge of conducting the proceeding, the Court considers that they have not acted with due diligence, and this is evidenced, for example, as from the disqualification of the Judge in charge of the Ninth Trial Court dated February 17, 1997, since at that moment, supposedly, the proceedings were to be referred to an Administrative-Contentious Tribunal. However, in the case file of the expropriation proceedings, between February 17, 1997 and January 25, 2006, there are only a few judicial orders carried out by the judge, but none of them leads to a final decision of the case, thus, this proceeding has been in a halt during such period. The proceeding was 104 Cf. Civil Procedural Code, coding N° 000. R. O. sup. 687 of May 18, 1987, section 793. Cf. Civil Procedural Code, coding N° 000. R. O. sup. 687 of May 18, 1987, section 799. 106 Section 800 of the Civil Procedural Code establishes that: “[i]n the proceedings, no interlocutory motions are allowed and all the observations of the interested parties shall be considered and decided in the judgment”. 107 Section 799 of the Civil Procedural Code establishes that “[u]pon the filing of the complaint […] the judge shall appoint an expert witness […] to ascertain the value of the property. At the same time, it shall summon all the people […] in order to appear in court to make use of their rights within fifteen days. Said term shall start running simultaneously for every party involved. In the same court order, the judge shall fix a term within which the expert or experts witnesses must submit their report; said term shall not exceed fifteen days, as of the expiration of the previous term”. Moreover, Section 802 of the Civil Procedural Code provides that “[t]he judge shall deliver a judgment within eight days as of the submission of the expert report”. To such regard, the Court notes that the general terms that the Civil Procedural Code establishes for all civil trials should be added to the term of 38 days. 108 Section 312 establishes that: “[w]hen a judge grants an extraordinary term, it shall determine, in the same court order , in detail, the number of days that such term shall last, according to the time used for the forwarding of the documents and judicial proceedings; such term shall never be greater than three times the ordinary term and shall run as from the issuance date of the pleading, official letter or other document. The secretary of the tribunal shall certify this taking into account the issuance date”. 109 Section 796 of the Civil Procedural Code establishes that :"[f]or the condemnations determined by other institutions of the Public Sector [different from the national sector], the complaint shall be filed by their respective official representatives”. 105