Moreover, the Court notes that wages have an nutritional and survival nature as they are necessary to satisfy the worker’s basic needs, which implies that any disruption in receiving a wage impacts on the enjoyment of other rights of the Convention, especially those contained in Article 26, the increased protection of which has been emphasized by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 6 on older persons, by indicating that “the States Parties to the Covenant are obligated to pay particular attention to promoting and protecting the economic, social and cultural rights of older persons.” 133 b.2 Right to private property 112. The Court has developed in its jurisprudence a broad concept of property that covers the use and enjoyment of goods, defined as appropriable things, as well as any right that may form part of the patrimony of a person. 134 The Court has also protected, by means of Article 21 of the Convention, acquired rights, understood as rights that have been incorporated into the patrimony of the person. 135 It must be reiterated that the right to property is not absolute and, in this regard, can be subject to restrictions and limitations, 136 as long as they are done legally 137 and within the parameters established by Article 21. 138 113. The Court recalls that the decision of February 12 ordered that the additional pay increase be applied to the basic income that the worker received at the moment of its calculation and payment. With respect to these amounts, the Court held that the guarantee of a reasonable time with respect to these payments was infringed and that, regarding the sub-group of 2,309 workers, there was a failure to fully comply with the relevant payments of the additional claims. 114. The Court considers that the right to receive these amounts affected the patrimony of the FEMAPOR members since the payment was delayed or sometimes was not made and, therefore, the victims could not fully enjoy their right to private property, understood as the amounts that they did not receive. b.3 Conclusion 115. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the serious delay in the payment of the amounts owed to the totality of the workers, as well as the failure to pay the amounts that were subsequently claimed by the sub-group of 2,309 workers, implied a violation of the right to work protected by Article 26 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, as well as the right to private property guaranteed by Article 21 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex I of this judgment. Cf. UN, ESCR Committee DESC, General Comment No. 6, (1995), para. 13. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, paras. 120 and 122 and Case Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 136. 135 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para. 122 and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 136. 136 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para. 128 and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 136. 137 In the same regard and, as an example, the Court observes that Article 5 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, only permits States to establish limitations and restrictions to the enjoyment and exercise of economic, social and cultural rights “by means of laws promulgated for the purpose of preserving the general welfare in a democratic society only to the extent that they are not incompatible with with the purpose and reason underlying those rights.” 138 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, paras. 60 to 63; Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 170 and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 136. 133 134 31