13 will address: 1) the proven facts, for later analysis of 2) the scope of the violation of the right to judicial protection in this case and 3) the alleged violation of the right to private property. 1. Established facts 51. The facts in this case cover: 1.1) the administrative and judicial rulings that implemented the system of salary scales; 1.2) the revocation of that system through the retroactive application of laws; 1.3) deductions and lack of raises applied to victims’ remunerations and 1.4) judicial remedies applied regarding the aforementioned. 1.1. The system of salary scales and the judicial and administrative rulings that implemented it 52. In 1989, the public company SEDAPAL classified the positions of its personnel into three groups: “1) laborers and employees whose legal procedure for establishing remuneration [was] govern[ed] by the process of collective bargaining; 2) Functionaries[,] and 3) [S]enior Management.”28 53. In June of 1989, SEDAPAL established a salary adjustment system known as “Salary Scales.” This system was not subject to collective bargaining and consisted of the automatic adjustment of monthly remuneration for the personnel at that time denominated as Functionaries and Senior Management of the company, taking as its basis i) the remuneration of the unskilled laborer or lowest position at the company and ii) the Salary Scales or Indexes, or Variation Coefficients previously established and assigned to each position. The goal of this system was to maintain the salary distribution in the aforementioned personnel structure.29 The system functioned automatically. In effect, each time the company increased the salary of the lowest positions as a consequence of a collective bargaining process, by necessity it also resulted in increases for the other positions in the company that could not benefit from that process.30 54. The salary scale system was established by the company’s Board of Directors prior to authorization from the National Development Corporation (CONADE in its Spanish acronym), which was granted on June 12, 1990.31 CONADE also “authorized the recovery of the ones that had not been put into effect since June 1989.”32 [...] Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. [...] No 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. […] 28 “[The] policy on salaries and remunerative raises for functionaries is regulated by the National Development Corporation [(CONADE in its Spanish acronym)], as they are not subject to collective bargaining.” Brief from the Supreme Office of the Public Prosecutor for adversarial administrative law, November 12, 1991 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome IX, annex 10, folio 2513). 29 Expert witness report presented by Felix Daniel Aquije Soler on May 24, 2010, (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome IX, annex 19, folio 2571). 30 In this respect, the witness Victor Hugo de los Santos León stated during the public hearing that, “The scale [was] an automatic adjustment [...] for all personnel not subject to collective bargaining - which at that time included the functionaries - [taking] as a baseline the lowest level of the company’s employment structure, which was the position occupied by the unskilled laborer.”Cf. Statement rendered by expert witness Víctor Hugo De Los Santos in the public hearing in the present case. 31 On May 16, 1990, SEDAPAL requested a new salary scale from CONADE for a “gradual improvement in salary indicators” in expert witness report presented by Felix Daniel Aquije Soler, supra note 29, folio 2572.