15 position earns; this represents an equalized pension. The witness made contributions from his salary so as to receive a pension when he ceased working. The SBS created a pension fund in 1943, with which it covered the pensions of the institution’s employees. In 1982, the SBS changed its labor regime, which was then public, and opted for a private regime. However, not all the employees changed their labor regime; there was a mechanism stipulating that those who wished to opt for the change could do so and those who did not wish to do so could remain under the regime in force. Employees could change regime or remain under the Decree Law No. 20530 regime. The witness remained under the previous regime with a reduced salary. Remaining under the previous regime meant retaining the right to a pension equalized with the salary of the active personnel. The SBS began to make his pension payments as of the day he ceased working in the institution on December 31, 1986. The amount he received varied each year, in accordance with SBS regulations. The adjustments were made when the salary of the person occupying the position that he had held before retiring increased; this adjustment was sometimes made once or twice a year, according to the country’s financial requirements at those times. The pension was paid from the SBS pension fund. The pension was paid for six and a half years, until September 1992, when the payments were abruptly discontinued without any notice, there was no communication at all, the SBS did execute any procedure to implement the reduction in the pensions, but abruptly reduced his pension to a sixth of the amount he had been receiving. He found out that the pension had been reduced when he went to collect it in September 1992; the amount was reduced to a gross sum of S.504.00 (five hundred and four soles), less deductions for insurance and S.100.00 (one hundred soles) for medical services, so that he received a net amount of S.308.00 (three hundred and eight soles), while in August of that year he had received S.2,450.00 (two thousand four hundred and fifty soles). This pension was his principal and only income. He thought that the amount would increase, because, under his pension regime, his pension was equalized every time the salary of the acting official was modified. He never thought that the amount of his pension would be reduced, because this “violates” the rights of the employee; a pension cannot be decreased. The reduction in his pension produced serious financial consequences, because he had to sell his car, ask his friends for loans and, finally, he even had to sell his house and move to an apartment. He reduced his expenses, bought less food and medicines, it affected his children’s schooling, it was a catastrophic situation. With regard to his children’s schooling at that time, the pension he received was less than the amount he paid to the Colegio San Agustín in Lima, Peru, the school attended by his children. This situation not only affected him financially, but also psychologically and socially. As regards the repercussions on his health, the witness had a heart attack and was hospitalized for two months in a Peruvian social security hospital, because the SBS had taken away his medical insurance. In this institution, he had a medical insurance for which he paid approximately S.89.00 to S.100.00 (eighty-nine to one hundred soles) each month. The insurance was supposed to continue while he received his pension, but unfortunately he was deprived of this also. Since the pension was reduced, several legal actions have been filed. Applications for amparo were filed and succeeded, but the SBS did not comply by making the