What is “rationality, proportionality and equality” in determining the price of land? Salvador Chiriboga v Ecuador, 21/03/2011

The Ecuadorian city of Quito expropriated the forest representing 55 % of the urban green area from Mrs Maria Salvador Chiriboga (§ 79), which led to the dispute on the price to be paid to the owner before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Mrs Salvador Chiriboga estimated the value at US $ 84 326 787.50, and the Ecuadorian Government insisted on $ 6 043 635.25. Expert Vincente Dominguez Zambrano concluded on US $ 55 567 055. Expert Manuel Silva Vasconez insisted on $ 41 883 379.12, but also calculated that in 1996 (beginning of expropriation) it was $ 18 201 930.62. $ 41 214 233.12 according to expert Juzgado Noveno. Expert Gutierrez Castillo concluded that the real price had to be $ 58 111 875, and it was $ 42 180 504.47 according to expert Jakeline Jaramillo Barca (§ 63).

The Inter-American Court declared that it must take into account the value that existed before the beginning of expropriation (§ 80), and targeted the numbers of expert Manuel Silva Vasconez who was the only who provided the data for 1996. After this, the judges awarded $ 18 705 000 under the criteria of “rationality, proportionality and equality” (§ 84).

On a number of occasions the Inter-American Court of Human Rights quoted the case law of the ECtHR as if it had any coherent sense (§§ 57-58, 60 etc.).

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requires to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Res. 2/11

Previously on 12/03/2002 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had already granted precautionary measured in respect of 254 detainees requesting the USA to determine their legal status. The ignorance of the Obama Administration led the Commission to declare the violation of the right to trial and of the right not to be tortured on 21/07/2011.


The Commission not only insists on either releasing or starting the trial of the detainees, but also declares that the diplomatic assurances must not be used to authorize the USA to violate the UN Convention against Torture. It denies the US argument on the applicability of the laws of war (right to detain combatants for an indefinite period), since contrary to the state of war it is unclear when and with whom a peace agreement could be concluded.


Other requirements of the Commission include allowing it to meet and to interview the detainees, to provide education facilities for children and to separate them from adults.