43 school […] and had to work in a pharmacy in order to help with [such] expenses.”103 123. In this sense, Mr. Juan José Medina Morán stated, by means of affidavit, that in the proceeding instituted to seek compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court, the victims were “subjected to acts of rudeness and humiliation because of [their] condition of discharged employees and for not being considered […] productive personnel of the public administration”. By not being able to satisfy his basic human needs and having to "appear before different institutions to generate income, [his] state of mind was seriously affected.” 104 124. Moreover, also by means of affidavit, Mr. César Daniel Collantes Sora stated that “[he] was forced to suspend his recess [as discharged person] and start working to afford the basic needs" also causing "psychological problems, [...] feeling of discouragement and frustration to see that [his] country disregarded the laws that protect those who have given the best years [of] their lives to the service of the country. […] This took away from him the possibility of having a better quality of live.”105 125. Furthermore, Mr. Julio Cesar Borrero Briceño pointed out, in his statement, that the non-compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court generated "many frustrations in [his] life plan [since] his two daughters had to delay their studies at university, [his] minor sons […] had to change from private school to public school and [his younger daughter] had to live without many things”. Mr. Borrero Briceño further stated that he felt deep "frustration [...] about not being able to afford the basic needs of [his] home" and, as a result, "he lost considerable weight the self-esteem of him and his family were seriously damaged and taken to an extreme.”106 126. Mrs. Dicha Laura Arias Laureano, spouse of Mr. Gabino Ulises Pozo Calva, victim in the instant case, pointed out in her affidavit (supra para. 23) that “her husband was [quite] emotionally affected” since “her family did not have enough money to pay for food [...] and education”. In this way, “they survived with the support of [their] children who drop school and started working and contributed to the household expenses” . Mrs. Arias Laureano stated that apart from the physical disease of her husband, he “suffered from depression […] and that took away from him the desire to live.”107 127. In the statement rendered at the public hearing before the Court, Mr. José Luis Guillermo Ruiz Boto stated that “almost all of his colleagues of the Association or of the Comptroller had [to] look for a way to cope with, particularly, the family expenses that are the most difficult”. He asserted that “he knew many cases of [victims] that, due to their age, could not work at any other place, [and for that reason] they had suffered a lot, [...] some of them [...] even died". Mr. Ruiz Boto emphasized the fact of having to withdraw his children from private schools “and take them to public ones”. Moreover, he “had to work in tourism”, rendering services of transport in night shifts. Finally, he further 103 Affidavit rendered by Cosme Marino Vargas Salas, supra note 98 (page 2557). 104 Affidavit rendered by Juan José Medina Morán, supra note 98 (page 2559-2560). 105 Affidavit rendered by César Daniel Collantes, supra note 98 (page 2561-2562). 106 Affidavit rendered by Julio César Borrero, supra note 98 (page 2563-2564). 107 Affidavit rendered by Dicha Laura Arias Laureano de Pozo, supra note 98 (page 2570).