37
that 85% reduction in the [v]ictims’ [r]emunerations comprises acts whose indecency is
so great [...] that a family must completely change its life plans [with regard to] type of
education, graduate studies, and access to housing, among other damage.”
127. For its part, the State noted that “at the moment of the new salary structure, the
victims obtained a salary that was on average 14% higher than the one they received
through the salary scales. In that sense, one cannot talk about a grave reduction in
opportunities for maximum personal development if over time and through the present
day [the] victims have received and, in the majority of cases, continued to receive,
salaries that range between S/.5,061.41 nuevos soles (five thousand and sixty one
nuevos soles), and S/. 18,924.00 nuevos soles (eighteen thousand, nine hundred and
twenty-four nuevos soles) - salaries, it is worth saying, that are on average more than
21.8 times greater than the minimum remuneration in Peru.”
128. The Court highlights that of the two hundred and thirty-three (233) victims, the
representative only submitted 131 sworn statements attempting to demonstrate nonpecuniary damages caused to them. This Tribunal finds that in cases in which it is not
possible to discern with clarity and certainty the non-pecuniary damages of the victims if for example the case does not involve grave violations of human rights - the
representative’s burden of proof is greater at the moment of establishing the causal link
between the violation of the Convention and the alleged damage. In cases where the
causal link is not proven in a detailed manner, the Court cannot itself attempt to
determine damage that is not fully demonstrated. Thus in these cases, complete and
precise evidentiary argumentation is needed to make a well-grounded ruling.
129. The Tribunal observes that in his statement before a public notary, Mr. Juan
Eroídes Vargas Vergaray stated that “because of the reductions in [his] remuneration
and a lack of raises, [... he] stop[ped] taking care of [his] father, given that with the
reductions in [his] income, [he] stop[ped] purchasing medicine that [his father] had to
take for the rest of his life starting in 1980.” His father’s illness caused his death in
1995. Similarly, Mr. Luis Humberto Tori Gentille expressed that his situation “was
directly detrimental to [his] family, to the point that [his] mother passed away [...] due
to an illness that worsened as a consequence of [his] dismissal. She was completely
dependent on [him] for her wellbeing [...] and [...] subsistence.“ For her part, Mrs.
Juana Luz Rodríguez Puell stated that she “had to change [her] children’s school [and
that] in the case of her son [with] special needs, he stopped receiving therapy that was
very important for his development. This has caused an enormous setback in [...] his
health.” Also, “[she] had to sell [her] house that she had bought with a mortgage in
order to pay off that mortgage, since she could not continue making payments.” Mr.
Carlos Alfredo Malaver Heredia stated that he “sacrificed [his] son’s studies so that his
son could work to support the family.” Similarly, Mr. Jorge Armando Raygada Correa
stated that he “had to take on bank debt to be able to provide a mid-level education for
[his] children.”
130. The Court considers that all workers organize their finances and make expense
projections based on their salaries. The receipt of monthly income provides economic
security for workers and allows them to take care of their different needs. Through their
statements, some of the victims have made reference to their specific case and, in some
cases, to those of the 233 victims in this case in order to provide information on the
difficulties and needs generated by the salary reduction, the deductions, and the lack of
salary increases. Some of them had compromised their personal wealth through taking
out loans or selling possessions, lost the opportunity to provide economic support to sick
family members, or had to adapt themselves to a new socio-economic reality. In this
way, their economic security and the availability of the monthly income they had
counted on were affected by the State’s actions declared to be violations in chapter VII.
However, the Court has established that the failure to give raises only took place
through 1993 (supra para. 114). As a consequence, the Tribunal notes the non-existence