37 THE COURT, DECIDES: Unanimously, 1. To dismiss the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the State, in accordance with paragraphs 40 to 46 of this Judgment. AND DECLARES: Six votes against two, that: 2. The State violated the right to property in relation to Article 21(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the rights to judicial guarantees and protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, all of that in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of María Salvador Chiriboga, in accordance with paragraphs 48 to 118 of this Judgment. Judge Quiroga Medina and Judge ad hoc Rodríguez Pinzón partially disagree with regard to the violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. Unanimously that: 3. It has not been proved that the State violated Articles 24 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights, nor that the State has failed to comply with Article 2 therein, to the detriment of María Salvador Chiriboga, under the terms of paragraphs 123, 124, 129, 132 and 133 of this Judgment. AND DECIDES: Unanimously that: 4. The determination of the amount and payment of the just compensation for the expropriation of the legally protected interests, as well as any other measure intended to repair the violations declared in this Judgment, be made by common consent between the State and the representatives, within the term of six months as from notice of this Judgment, pursuant to paragraph 134 of this Judgment. Unanimously that: 5. The Court reserves the authority to verify whether such agreement is made in accordance with the American Convention on Human Rights and proceed accordingly. In case no agreement is reached, the Court shall determine the corresponding reparations and the costs and expenses, continuing with the corresponding procedure, pursuant to paragraph 134 of this Judgment. Judge Quiroga Medina and Judge ad hoc Rodríguez Pinzón advised the Court of their Partially Dissenting Opinions and Judge Ventura Robles advised the Court of his Concurring Opinion, which accompany this Judgment.