5 administrative courts “[…] which have been decided by resolutions taking into account the factual, legal and consequential elements, [... and that] in the condemnation proceeding initiated by the Municipality of Quito, it is clear the desire of the alleged victim’s representatives to delay the trial". In relation to Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, the State argued that it has never hindered the access to the legal resources available at the domestic administrative courts in order to challenge, on countless occasions, the administrative orders that turned out to be prejudicial to the interests of Salvador Chiriboga siblings. 11. With regard to the possible reparations, the State pointed out that it will only accept to pay “[…] a compensation […] fixed within the framework of the domestic or Inter-American proceedings and based on an impartial assessment, according to the real value of the property, regardless of the current increase in value, if it adjust to the reality of the country, and the annual municipal budget and above all, under the terms of [...] of the Court [...]". Lastly, it challenged the sums of money requested by the representatives as compensation, costs and expenses. In said brief, the State also raised a preliminary objection based on non- exhaustion of domestic remedies. 12. On June 24 and 25, 2007, the Commission and the representatives, respectively, submitted their closing arguments regarding the preliminary objection raised by the State and requested the Court to disallow such objection and continue analyzing the merits of the case. The representatives attached several appendixes, which were received on June 27, 2007. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 13. During the proceedings before this Tribunal, on September 17, 2007, the President of the Court (hereinafter, the “President”), at the time, issued an order requesting the testimonies of six persons,17 rendered by affidavit, and the expert opinions of four persons proposed by the Commission, the representatives and the State,18 with regard to which the parties had the chance to submit observations. Furthermore, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the President convened the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State to a public hearing to hear the statement rendered by the alleged victim, the statement rendered by the expert witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives and the statement rendered by the expert witness proposed by the State. On October 17, 2007, the representatives filed the observations to the statements rendered by the witness and two expert witnesses submitted by the State and on October 18, 2007, the Commission pointed out that it had no observation regarding the statements submitted by the State. On October 18, 2007, the Court took19 receipt of the statement rendered by one of the expert witnesses, under the same conditions indicated in the President’s Order of October 2, 2007 (supra note 18). 17 On October 8, 2007, the State informed that it waived its right to submit one of the testimonies rendered by affidavit. 18 Cf. Orders issued by the President of the Court on September 17, 2007 and October 2, 2007. 19 Cf. Order issued by the Court on October 18, 2008. [sic]