In light of the principle that "nobody is obliged to continue my association against his will … not least in community remain illiquid," he acknowledged that members of the community were entitled to admit it or avoid it, the latter decision finally adopted, according to their uses and customs, enabling him to orities that they knew the situation was, by general vote that ended with his expulsion. Fallador view of the statutes or articles of incorporation of private institutions governing the procedures for exclusion of members, so that "a determination of this class can not be equated with an administrative or judicial decision, especially when it comes to custom." The violation of right to due process – adds – "is not to force the foundation has to be free from association with those who do not want to, but subject of civil proceedings for compensation or payment of improvements." 9.3. In regard to property claims for the value of improvements and economic recognition of the work, the Court held that judicial action was not care, but the labor or civil process. As to the possible division of the property owned collectively felt that this option was ruled out for guards or indigenous territories, in accordance with Article 18 of Decree 2001 of 1988. 9.4. Finally, the court of first instance would not have been said possible transitional or interim protection under the hypothesis – previously ruled out – that he had violated a fundamental right of the petitioner, as the actor was faced with a fait accompli: his expulsion from December 1992. .