34 the State].”89 In the same line of thought, the Inter-American Commission has considered that in order to evaluate whether a regressive measure is compatible with the American Convention, it is necessary to “determine if it was justified by strong reasons.”90 Based on the foregoing, it is worth mentioning that the regression is actionable when economic, social and cultural rights are involved. A) Article 26 of the Convention in relation to the non-payment of the total amounts owed and the non-compliance with the judicial rulings that ordered said payment in the instant case 104. This Tribunal has already considered in this Judgment (supra paras. 69 to 79) that the State violated the right to judicial protection of the members of the Association as a result of the lack of effectiveness of the remedies filed and the non-compliance with the judgments that ordered the payment of the pension amounts owed from April 1993 to October 2002. Moreover, the Court considered that the lack of payment of said amounts continues adversely affecting the right to property of the victims given that they cannot fully exercise their right over the corresponding patrimonial effects, in accordance with the adjustable pension system they opted for (supra paras. 84 to 91). 105. The lack of compliance with said judicial rulings and the resulting patrimonial effects such failure produced on the victims are situations that affect the rights to judicial protection and property, enshrined in Articles 25 and 21 of the American Convention, respectively. Instead, the commitment requested from the State by Article 26 of the Convention consist in the adoption of measures, specially those of an economic and technical nature- insofar as there are available resources- by legislation or other appropriate means- with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of certain economic, social and cultural rights. In this regard, the State’s obligation that derives from Article 26 of the Convention is of a different, but complementary, nature to that related to Articles 21 and 25 of that treaty. 106. Therefore, considering that the analysis is not centered on some measure adopted by the State that hindered the progressive realization of the right to pension, but on the State's non-compliance with the payment ordered by the domestic courts, the Tribunal deems that the violated rights are those protected in Articles 25 and 21 of the Convention and it does not find ground to additionally declare the non-compliance with Article 26 of said treaty. Hence, the Tribunal refers to what was previously decided regarding the legal consequences that such non-compliance has had and the lack of payment in relation to the 89 United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment Nº 3, supra note 87. In accordance with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “[s]hould a State party use “resource constraints” as an explanation for any retrogressive steps taken, [..…] would consider such information on a country-by-country basis in the light of objective criteria such as: a) [t]he country’s level of development; b) [t]he severity of the alleged breach, in particular whether the situation concerned the enjoyment of the minimum core content of the Covenant; c) [t]he country’s current economic situation, in particular whether the country was undergoing a period of economic recession; d) [t]he existence of other serious claims on the State party’s limited resources; for example, resulting from a recent natural disaster or from recent internal or international armed conflict; e) [w]hether the State party had sought to identify low-costs options; and f) [w]hether the State party had sought cooperation and assistance or rejected offers of resources from the international community for the purposes of implementing the provisions of the Covenant without sufficient reason". United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Declaration on the "Evaluation of the obligation to take steps to the "Maximum of available resources" under an Optional Protocol to the Covenant”, E/C.12/2007/1, 38º Period of Sessions, September 21, 2007, para. 10. 90 Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 38/09, Case 12.670; National Association of ExEmployees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al. V. Perú, adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 27, 2009, para. 140 to 147.