18 agreement, but they were never able to achieve this. In addition to these actions, they filed criminal proceedings to enforce the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice and, as a result, the SBS issued administrative decisions in the case of the five pensioners, ordering that their pensions should be reimbursed, but these decisions were never implemented. All of this made the witness and his family feel powerless, since they were unable to obtain any result. His family comprises his wife and two children, who are now 40 years of age and 32 years of age. With the pension, the witness paid his household expenses, his children’s studies, the family medical insurance, and other expenses and items. Apart from the pension, he had no other income to support himself, because at his age it is difficult to obtain another income. The reduction of the pension caused him financial, psychological and non-pecuniary damage. His family had to decrease its monthly budget. His son studied in the Universidad del Pacífico, a private university, and had to transfer to the Universidad Garcilazo de la Vega, a State university. The reduction in the pension affected the mental health of his family and himself. In view of the Commission’s recommendations and the annulment of Decree Law No. 25792, the State paid the five pensioners the amounts it owed them for the ten years that it had reduced the pensions. The judgments did not include a statement of the amount owed; this was prepared by the SBS. The pensioners accepted the amounts that they were paid, but one article of the SBS decisions states that these payments are subject to the judgment of the Inter-American Court. This is a threat that it might be necessary to pay back part of the amount. Currently, the amount of the witness’s pension in dollars is approximately US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars), without including bonuses, and he has received, in dollars, as repayment for the ten years that the pension was not paid correctly and with the corresponding equalizations approximately US$350,000.00 (three hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) or US$380,000.00 (three hundred and eighty thousand United States dollars). This pension is not subject to income tax at present, but it is subject to “previal” tax. The salary of the acting official is subject to income tax. In a recent television interview, when asked whether he considered it fair that, having had a salary of US$1,200.00 (one thousand two hundred United States dollars), his pension today could be US$3,600.00 (three thousand six hundred United States dollars) and that he had received a repayment of US$380,000.00 (three hundred and eighty thousand United States dollars), he answered that, in effect, “the pensions were high, the amounts received were high, but unfortunately that was the law, what the law established.” He would be grateful if the Court would decide that the article included in the SBS administrative decision of 2002, referring to the Court’s judgment should be eliminated, so that he could enjoy peace of mind. c. Expert report of Máximo Jesús Atauje Montes, economist and legal expert The expert witness referred to loss of income, consequential damage, and the legal interest payments that, in his opinion, correspond to the alleged victims.