55 was the result of a decision taken by the State, and therefore it was up to the State itself to communicate, in an adequate and timely manner, the effects of that decision on the victim’s acquired rights, which had also been judicially recognized. 201. Furthermore, the Court notes that, at the time of the facts, the State did not have clear regulations that clearly established how the pension rights of its retired workers would be protected after privatization, in accordance with its obligation to adopt the measures necessary to realize the right to social security. Although the sale contract between Tintaya S.A. and Magma Copper Corporation mentioned the number of retirees and pensioners that the State company had, and referred to responsibility for unregistered liabilities or contingencies (supra para. 59), this information was never clearly explained to Mr. Muelle Flores, in order to establish how his pension would continue to be guaranteed, based on the domestic judicial rulings. 202. The Court considers that the State failed to fulfill its obligations, namely, the obligation to adopt safeguards to prevent the negative effects of the privatization process resulting from a decision taken by the State itself; the obligation to inform Mr. Muelle Flores of the manner in which his legally recognized pension would be guaranteed; the obligation to clearly establish which entity would be responsible for paying his pension; and the obligation to comply with and execute domestic judicial decisions. These are all obligations of an immediate nature, which have nothing to do with the progressive development of the right. 203. At the same time, the Court observes that, according to Peruvian law, pensioners who retired under Decree Law No. 20530 had the right to obtain health insurance with EsSalud, the health care provider within Peru’s social security system. The pensioner had a right to this insurance since the entity responsible for paying his pension was required to retain 4% of his pension to pay his health insurance contributions. This deduction was mandatory, that is, the health insurance to which Mr. Muelle Flores was entitled, like any other pensioner under that pension scheme, was provided to him based on his contributions to that system. In the instant case, because the State stopped paying Mr. Muelle Flores the pension to which he had an acquired right – a right subsequently recognized by the courts - the contributions required to access the health insurance to which he was entitled were not made and, therefore, the victim did not receive the health coverage to which he was also entitled under Peruvian law and which, in turn, forms part of the right to social security. As result of this situation, Mr. Muelle Flores had to cover the cost of treatment for his health problems and the surgical intervention he required (supra, para. 84) with his own money, instead of being covered by the social health insurance to which he was entitled, in violation of his right to social security. 204. Furthermore, the Court considers that in a context in which a legally recognized pension is not paid, the rights to social security, personal integrity and human dignity are also affected, since they are interrelated, and that sometimes the violation of one right directly affects another, a situation that is accentuated in the case of older persons. Although neither the Commission nor the representatives have expressly alleged the violation of Articles 5(1) and 11(1) of the Convention in the instant case, that does not prevent this Court from applying those precepts by virtue of a general principle of law, iura novit curia, on which international jurisprudence has repeatedly relied and under which a court has the power and the duty to apply the juridical provisions relevant to a proceeding, even when the parties do not expressly invoke them. 216 205. Indeed, the lack of financial resources resulting from the failure to pay pension allowances directly undermines the dignity of an older person, since at this stage of life the pension constitutes their main source of income to cover the basic and essential necessities of a human being. 216 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para.239.