58 proceeding, which established that Mr. Muelle Flores met the necessary requirements to acquire the right to an equalized pension. In addition, two amparo judgments were issued that ordered the payment of his pension, which were not implemented. 216. Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores retired on September 30, 1990, and received his pension, in full, only from October 1990 until January 1991, since these payments were suspended from February 1991. Although the private company- not the Peruvian State- made payments from 1999 to 2001, these covered the pension, but only partially, as expressly indicated in the pay slips issued by the company (supra para. 80). In this sense, the amounts paid to the victim as pension allowances from February 1991 until June 2001 consisted of partial payments, since the amount paid did not correspond to the equalized amount to which he was entitled under the pension scheme of Decree Law No. 20530, at least until the constitutional reform of November 2004 (supra para. 103). Furthermore, the Court confirms that from July 2001, Mr. Muelle Flores did not receive any pension payments; in other words, the victim has not been able to realize his right to a pension for more than 27 years. 217. The Court considers that the victim’s right to an equalized pension, under a system that was in force in Peru until 2004, as well as his right to a pension under the constitutional reforms implemented on that date, affected the patrimony of Mr. Muelle Flores. In fact, he acquired the right to receive a pension after he stopped providing services to the institution for which he had worked, having met the requirements for that purpose and having paid the corresponding contributions, in accordance with Peru’s domestic laws. In this sense, his patrimony was directly affected by the State’s decision to suspend the payments, as well as by its non-compliance and failure to execute the judgments. Consequently, the victim was unable to fully enjoy his right to property given the patrimonial effects on his legally recognized pension, this being understood as the amounts he did not receive. Similarly, given that the State has still not implemented the domestic judgments that ordered the payment of Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension, the effects on his patrimony continue. The foregoing situation is a direct consequence of the failure to comply with the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. 223 218. For all the aforementioned reasons, and bearing in mind that the lack of judicial protection affected the victim’s right to a pension that formed part of his patrimony, the Court declares that the State violated the right to property recognized in Article 21(1) and 21(2), in relation to Articles 25(1), 25(2) (c), 26 and 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. E. Conclusions 219. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the State of Peru is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection, social security, personal integrity, dignity, and property, recognized in Articles 8(1), 25(1), 25(2) (c), 26, 5, 11(1), 21(1), and 21(2) of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Oscar Muelle Flores. Furthermore, the State is responsible for the violation of its obligation to adopt domestic legal effects, established in Article 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Oscar Muelle Flores. VIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 220. Based on the provisions of Article 63 (1) of the American Convention,224 the Court has indicated 223 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office) supra, para. 89. 224 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[if] the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right