in similar cases, the judges had ruled differently. Consequently, it will not make any pronouncement on the matter. 50. By virtue of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Héctor Hugo Boleso was not heard within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, in this specific case, the writ of amparo was not a simple and quick remedy. The State is therefore responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection contained in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. VII-2 RIGHT TO PROPERTY 53 READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 51. The representatives alleged that because Mr. Boleso was impacted by a clear reduction in his wages, his use and enjoyment of his property were impacted directly, constituting a violation of his right to property. 52. The State argued that the amount received by Dr. Boleso as a result of the writ of amparo was the result of the settlement of the claim that he himself made and that, in addition, he voluntarily accepted the dischargeable nature of the payment. Therefore, considering that his claim is satisfied, no violation of the right to property has taken place. B. Considerations of the Court 53. Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that "[e]veryone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property" and that “[n]o one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law.” For its part, upon ratifying the American Convention, Argentina expressed a reservation, according to which "questions relating to the Government's economic policy shall not be subject to review by an international tribunal. Neither shall it consider reviewable anything the national courts may determine to be matters of 'public utility' and 'social interest', nor anything they may understand to be 'fair compensation.'" However, the Court notes that the State did not present arguments indicating that the reservation to the Convention applies in this specific case, and in any case, this reservation does not cover the object of the discussion, which is the use and enjoyment of Mr. Boleso's salary and the judicial proceedings aimed at guaranteeing his right to the inviolability of his salary. The Court’s jurisdiction to establish whether a violation of Article 21 of the Convention effectively occurred is therefore not limited. 54. In this case, the representatives alleged that the decrease in the value of Mr. Boleso's wages impacted his right to the use and enjoyment of his property, while the State argued that the amount paid to Mr. Boleso as a result of the writ of amparo corresponds to a calculation he himself made and included the respective interest, such that the alleged violation does not occur. The Court finds that the State is correct insofar as Mr. Boleso was granted the sums he failed to receive according to the calculation that he himself provided. However, what is under discussion is whether, during the 21 years that the writ of amparo process lasted, his right to property was violated because he was not paid the salary to which he was actually entitled. 53 Article 21 of the American Convention. 14