establish that “work is a right and a social duty” and it should be performed with “fair wages, employment opportunities and acceptable working conditions for all.” Article XIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 128 supports this by establishing, in the section entitled “Right to Work and Fair Remuneration,” that “every person has the right to work under proper conditions” […]. Moreover, Article 1 of ILO Convention No. 100 on equal remuneration establishes that “the term remuneration includes the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly, whether in cash or in kind, by the employer to the worker and arising out of the worker’s employment.” 129 These provisions demonstrate that the right to work also implies obtaining a fair wage, which, in turn, must include all the emoluments that are contained in the term remuneration. The Court has also pointed out that the States have the duty to respect and guarantee those rights, which would allow levelling the unequal relation that exists between workers and employers and the access to fair wages and safe working conditions. 130 109. In this case, the Court has determined that there was a violation of the reasonable time to execute the decision of February 12 for all the victims. The Court has also noted that the State had not proceeded with the payments owed to the sub-group of 2,309 maritime and port workers who continued to claim the additional amounts that they were owed. The Court considers that this had an impact on the right to the full payment of their remuneration, which impacted on their right to work. 110. The Court also notes that this harm had a differentiated impact on the victims due to their age, as most of them were in their 80s or 90s and some of them had even died, more than 800 victims, according to the representative Meneses Huayra, whose right was never made effective. The Court recalls that, in Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, it pointed out that “older persons have the right to increased protection and, consequently, this requires the adoption of differentiated measures,” 131 as was indicated in Professors of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, which required a reinforced standard of expeditiousness in all judicial and administrative proceedings, which includes the execution of judgments. 132 111. The State, in this case, far from taking this fact into consideration, has caused by its actions that the decision of February 12 has not yet been effectively or fully complied with, which has had a serious impact on the victims who, in spite of continuing to litigate for almost 30 years to obtain the payments that they are owed, have seen their legitimate claims frustrated, which also affected their right to receive a fair remuneration for their work, in violation of Article 26 of the Convention. 128 In determining the right to social security, special emphasis is given to the American Declaration since, as the Court stated “ […] the member states […] have signaled their agreement that the Declaration contains and defines those fundamental human rights referred to in the Charter. Thus, the Charter of the Organization cannot be interpreted and applied as far as human rights are concerned without relating its norms, consistent with the practice of the organs of the OAS, to the corresponding provisions of the Declaration.” Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10. para. 43; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 101 and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 129. 129 Cf. ILO, Convention 100 – Convention on the equality and remuneration, 1951 (No. 100), ratified by Peru on February 1, 1960. 130 Cf. Rights to freedom to organize, collective bargaining and strikes, and their relation to other rights, with a gender perspective (interpretation and scope of articles 13, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 26 in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, of Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Protocol of San Salvador, of articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention of Belem do Pará, of Articles 34, 44 and 45 of the Charter of the Organization of American States and of Articles II, IV, XIV, XXI and XXII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man). Advisory Opinion OC-27/21 of May 5, 2021. Series A No. 27, para. 141. 131 Cf. Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 127. 132 Cf. Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, supra, para. 152. 30