3 Furthermore, upon application of the principle of fair balance, the European Court has recognized that long periods of uncertainty to which people in condemnation proceedings have been subjected aggravate the effects of the adopted measures, imposing an excessive burden that breaks the fair balance6. In the case at hand, the Inter-American Court notes that the State initiated several lawsuits that deprived Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga of her property and did not comply with the terms prescribed by law during their processing. In this sense, as article 8(1) of the Convention has already been analyzed with regard to the condemnation proceedings, this Tribunal considered that the State has not acted with due diligence, since the process has been delayed for more than a decade, and the fore, up to the moment, the State has not defined whether the expropriation is legal and the fair price as compensation. Moreover, this Tribunal considers that the State did not use the reasonable and necessary means to find a fair balance between the general interest and the interest of the individual. Besides, as a result of the excessive time passed to conduct the expropriation, the State deprived Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga of the right to enjoy the property for an indefinite time, situation which has been disproportionate and has subjected her to be in a legal uncertainty and violated her rights in an unreasonable manner. Furthermore, the Court notes that Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga had incorrectly paid taxes and penalties, during the years 1991 and 2007.7 In this sense, this Tribunal has determined, in specific situations, the existence of charges that are especially costly to the wealth of a person,8 which violated the legal content of Article 21 of the Convention. At the discretion of the Court, in the instant case, the payment of taxes and penalties evidence the imposition of additional charges and punishments, which are considered excessive and disproportionate for Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. The Court understand that such charges must be fully and effectively reimbursed to the victim and that the State shall guarantee that such abuses will not happen again. As to the argument raised by the State regarding that, in the instant case, certain greater limits to the right of property can be justified, this Tribunal considers that the standard required by the Convention to limit the right to property is clear and therefore, it is not a justifiable situation to let the victims, as in the case at hand, Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga in a state of uncertainty due to noncompliance with the reasonable term in the already mentioned procedures and the 6 Cf. ECHR, Case Matos e Silva, Ltda., and others, supra note **, para. 92; ECHR, Case of Beyeler, (application no. 33202/96), January 5, 2000. Para.122, Case of Sporrong and Lönnroth Vs. Sweden, supra note **, para. 72 and 73; and ECHR, Case of Jahn and Others v. Germany, Judgment of 30 June 2005, Applications nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, para. 93. For example, in the Case of Jahn et al v. Germany, the European Court determined that the total lack of compensation when the State acquires the property, violates the fair balance and imposes an unjust burden. 7 At the public hearing, Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga stated that she paid all the taxes up to the date of her statement and has been doing it “for fear of a seizure if she did not pay”. Spite of the payment of taxes, she has not been able to use the property. Even further, the expert witness Edgar Neira Orellana stated that the surcharge on non-serviced building areas is pointless to collect over those properties located in rural areas, for agriculture use; it has sense when the real estate is located within the urban parameters and punishes the lack of building or fosters the building within certain Municipality. 8 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note **, para. 200 a 218.