-106iv. to grant those workers that cannot be reinstated to their jobs for having reached the statutory retirement age, a retirement pension that shall take into account the service years they were out of employment due to the unfair dismissal; v. to recognize “the service years extending between their dismissal and the effective reinstatement to their jobs, for the purpose of their access to retirement pensions. Contributions due for such purpose should be deducted from the amount of the lost wages that must be reimbursed to the victims for the time elapsed while they were out of employment. This amount they owe shall not carry interest, as the lack of payment was the consequence of an arbitrary act of the State administration itself;” vi. to pay the victims the amount corresponding to the difference arising from the reduction of their wages and salaries adopted by Mayoral Resolution No. 044-A-96, and which resulted in the 30% reduction in the remunerations and pensions of all workers, plus the legal interest applicable, as ordered in the judgment of December 10, 1997, delivered in the Case No. 457-97/AA/TC; vii. to grant the family of the victims that died, a surviving family pension, pursuant to the provisions in the Peruvian legal system; viii. to pay “the victims and their families a compensation for pecuniary damages, including the compensation for the wages and salaries, bonuses, allowances and other labor benefits they did not receive as from the time of dismissal up to the date of the judgment by the Court.” Such compensation must include “a reasonable amount, estimated at the discretion of the Court, for all those health, education and housing expenses the victims and their families had to face during the period they have been dismissed, which caused them a serious impoverishment, especially taking into account that in the great majority of the cases, the victims were the only economic support of their families and that, as in the case of those that suffered a physical or mental incapacity or died after their unfair dismissal, leaving their families totally unprotected.” Besides, the time during which the victims were out of work should be taken into account; c) as regards non-pecuniary damage, the common intervener requested the Court: i. to grant “the victims and their families compensation for the moral damage sustained due to the suffering undergone during all these years resulting from the lack of the necessary means to satisfy their basic needs and those of their families, as well as from the anguish and suffering they had to undergo in their ceaseless struggle to reaffirm their labor rights;” and ii. “to grant the victims and their families a compensation deriving from “the damage to their life project.” The victims “sustained a drastic interruption of their personal and professional development due to the unfair dismissal.”; d) as to the measures of satisfaction and the non-repetition guarantees, the intervener requested the Court to order the State: