44 asserted that “he feels frustrated since during his employment at the Comptroller, he was considered a senior officer [and later on] due to the circumstances, he had to work [...] for illiterate people.”108 128. Furthermore, also by means of statement rendered at the public hearing held before the Court, Mr. José Baltasar Vitkovic Trujillo emphasized that the effects of the reduction in the pension were “huge” since “his idea was to provide [his] children with the education they […] deserve” and that he was prevented from doing so due to the circumstances.109 129. Finally, the Tribunal notes that the representative submitted the affidavits of 95 members of the Association or their next-of-kin, the admissibility of which was objected by the State and not their content (supra para. 34). That is, the State alleged that the statements should not be admitted upon considering that “they [were not] related to the subject-matter of the claims of the present procedure” but it did not question the truthfulness of their content regarding the non-pecuniary damage suffered by such people. In that regard, the Court has already declared such evidence to be admissible upon considering it was relevant and pertinent to analyze to non-pecuniary damage suffered by the victims (supra para. 34). 130. It spring from said statements that the victims of the case at hand suffered from frustrations and emotional anguish due to the sudden and dramatically deterioration of their economic situation. 131. Hence, the Court considers that a natural expectation of a discharged or retired employee is to enjoy the freedom and rest implied in labor benefits, counting on the economic guarantee and security that the payment of the full pension represents for the beneficiary who is entitled to it after making the corresponding contributions. By means of their statements, the victims have referred to their particular case and to the case of the 273 members of the Association in general, to inform on the elimination or curtailment of the enjoyment of their dismissal or retirement, insofar as they were forced to obtain new jobs, to bind their patrimony and person by taking out loans or selling their assets, or adapting to a new socio-economic reality, precisely in the stage of their lives in which they could do without a job and in which the acquired right to a pension would guarantee economy tranquility. In the case under study, while the outcome was neither certain nor inevitable, it was a plausible situation --not merely possible-- within the likelihood given the subject’s natural and foreseeable development, a development that was disrupted and upset by the noncompliance with the rulings of the Constitutional Court. 132. Therefore, the Court notes that the reading and analysis of said statements allow concluding that the 102 victims concerned (100 that presented affidavits and two that rendered a statement at the public hearing) and the remaining 171, suffered from a clear uncertainty and defenselessness due to the non-compliance with the rulings of the Constitutional Court, which at the same time caused them psychological anguish and suffering for the impossibility or limitation to enjoy their expectations and responsibilities with a pension suddenly reduced. Such alterations in the conditions of existence of the victims constitute non-pecuniary damage derived, however, from the lack of compliance with the 108 Cf., statement of José Luis Guillermo Ruiz Boto, supra note 99. 109 Cf., statement of José Baltasar Vitkovic Trujillo, supra note 99.