pesos, an amount significantly lower than the original sum awarded for reparation. Although the State argues that the decision to cash in the bonds was a personal one, the Court notes that due to the pressing personal and financial situation of Sebastián Furlan and his family (supra paras. 71, 104 and 214), it was not an option for them to wait until 2016 to redeem the bonds at their nominal value. The Court further notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives had submitted objections to the original amount awarded in the judgment, but rather to the fact that by cashing in the bonds, that amount was reduced by almost one-third. 215. In the second place, without entering into a general analysis of Law 23.982 of 1991, it is necessary to assess the impact that the application of said Law had on this specific case. The first effect is that Sebastián Furlan did not receive the full and complete indemnity, which implied an impairment to the real possibility of providing him with medical treatment and other needs required by a disabled person (supra para. 203). To this end, the Court considers that when it comes to the application of Law 23.983 of 1991, the administrative authorities should have considered that Sebastián Furlán was a person with disabilities and few financial resources, which placed him in a vulnerable situation and which entailed a greater degree of diligence on the part of the judicial authorities. 216. In this regard, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights has indicated that “the duty of States parties to protect the vulnerable members of their societies assumes greater rather than less importance in times of severe resource constraints.”354 Moreover, it stressed the particular importance of providing adequate income support to persons with disabilities who, owing to disability or disability-related factors, have been denied employment opportunities, which “should reflect the special needs for assistance and other expenses often associated with disability. In addition, as far as possible, the support provided should also cover individuals […] who undertake the care of a person with disabilities […], including members of the families of persons with disabilities, who are often in urgent need of financial support because of their assistance role.”355 Moreover, the Committee of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in its first case356, indicated that the particular circumstances of the individuals to whom a law is applied must be taken into consideration, given that States must not apply a law in a neutral manner “without objective and reasonable justification,” and therefore States must “treat differently those persons whose situations are significantly different.” 217. In the instant case, the administrative authorities never considered that, by applying the form of payment established in the aforementioned law, they greatly diminished the financial compensation awarded to Sebastián Furlan for adequate rehabilitation and to enjoy better living conditions, taking into account his vulnerable condition. On the contrary, the State justified the application of that rule due to the fact that “the Argentine State faced one of the most serious and profound economic and social crises in its history, which resulted, among other things, in the devaluation of the currency, preceded by the repeal of the Law […] on Convertibility [Ley de Convertibilidad] which established parity between the peso and the dollar". Nevertheless, the Court notes that the rule applied to the instant case dates from 1991, for which reason the Court considers that it was necessary for the authorities in charge of enforcing the judicial decision to weigh Sebastián Furlan’s vulnerable situation against the need to apply the law regulating these types of payments. The administrative 354 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 5, para. 10. 355 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 5, para. 28. 356 Committee on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Communication No. 3/2011, Case of H.M. v. Sweden CRPD/C/7/D/3/2011, April 19, 2012, para. 8.3. 69