24 subject to restrictions and limitations78 as long as those restrictions are established using the appropriate legal channel and in keeping with the parameters established in Article 21.79 83. In addition, in another case80 this Court declared a violation of the right to property after personal wealth was affected through a failure to comply with judgments that were intended to protect the right to a pension. The Tribunal indicated that from the moment in which a pensioner meets the requirements for accessing the retirement regimen provided for by law, the pensioner is vested with the right to a pension. The Court also ruled that the right to a pension with which that individual is vested has “wealth effects,”81 which are protected under Article 21 of the Convention.82 With respect to this, the Court considers that just as pensions that have complied with all legal requirements are part of the wealth of a worker, the salary, benefits and raises earned by that worker are also protected by the right to property enshrined in the Convention.83 84. In this case, the Court observes that the system of salary adjustments that the victims had before the application of Decree Law No. 25876 had generated an increase in remunerations that became part of the wealth of the victims. This means that it became vested right of the victims. It should be clarified that the issue is not a vested right to the salary scale system. The vested right in question refers to the sums that had already become part of the workers’ wealth, as well as the salary increases that had been established under the scale system before it was eliminated. The Court finds that this vested right was affected by the retroactive application of the aforementioned legal decree, which, according to the acquiescence of the State, was issued against domestic law and without the victims having access to judicial protection (supra paras. 17, 18, and 19). The effects visited on personal wealth were also manifested in the deduction imposed on the victims of a percentage of their monthly remuneration (supra paras. 63 and 64). In conclusion, the victims could not fully enjoy their right to property with regard to the remunerations. 85. Taking into account that the lack of judicial protection affected vested rights to remuneration that had become part of the victims’ personal wealth, the Court finds that the State violated the right to private property recognized in Articles 21(1) and 21(2), with regard to Articles 25(1) and 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the two hundred and thirty-three individuals indicated in paragraph 233 of this Judgment. 78 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Reparations and Costs, supra note 76, para. 128; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 76, paras. 60 and 61, and Case of Perozo et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Serie C No. 195, para. 399. 79 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 67, para. 54. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 68, para. 84. 80 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners," supra note 77. 81 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners," supra note 77, para. 103, Case of Acevedo Buendía et al (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 68, para. 85. 82 With regard to this, in the case cited, the Tribunal ruled that as the amount of the victims’ pension payments had been arbitrarily changed and the judicial judgments issued in response to the motions for guarantee submitted by the victims had not been complied with, the State violated the right to property recognized in Article 21 of the Convention. Case of the “Five Pensioners," supra note 77, paras. 115 and 121. 83 In this sense, the European Court has established that: “the Convention organs have consistently held that income that has been earned does constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.” ECHR, Case of Lelas v. Croatia, Judgment of 20 may 2010, para. 58, Case of Bahçeyaka v. Turkey, Judgment of 13 July 2006 para. 34 and Case of Schettini and others v. Italy (dec.), Judgment of 9 November 2000, para. 1.