17 b. Statement by Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, alleged victim He retired from the SBS when he was 55 years of age, in 1984; the last position he occupied was that of Administrative Adviser. The SBS, which until 1992 had adhered to the public sector labor regime of Decree No. 11377 and Decree Law No. 20530, changed labor regime, from a public statutory regime to a private labor law regime. The personnel who had been working under the public regime were given the choice of remaining with that regime, with its remunerations and pension expectations, or of changing labor regime and joining the private regime. The witness and the other pensioners, the alleged victims, remained in the regime of Decree Law No. 20530, which meant that they did not change regime. During the 36 years that he worked with the SBS, the witness contributed to its pension fund. The percentage of his salary that he contributed varied from 8% to 12% to 15% for the most senior positions in the SBS. The witness’s position was one of the most senior in the institution. While he occupied that position, he believed that when he retired he would support himself with the pension that corresponded to him by law. He ceased to work for the SBS owing to illness and because he had worked sufficient years to obtain a pension. After leaving the SBS he received his complete pension for eight years. In 1984, his pension was approximately S.2,400.00 (two thousand four hundred soles), without including bonuses; this represented approximately US$1,400.00 (one thousand four hundred United States dollars). In September 1992, there was a quite significant reduction of 80% of his pension. This reduction was carried out arbitrarily, with no notice being given to the pensioners and without any legal basis. The witness learned of the reduction when he went to collect his cheque and instead of receiving approximately S.2,500.00 (two thousand five hundred soles), which he had been receiving, he was handed a cheque for S.504.00 (five hundred and four soles). He had never imagined that the amount of the pension could be reduced, because the pension law established how it should be equalized. The Constitution establishes that pensions should be equalized with the positions occupied by officials of the same level as the pensioners and there are also other laws, such as Decree Law No. 20530 and Law 23495 and its Regulation, which establish the same provisions in this respect. Several legal proceedings were filed to make the State comply effectively with the payment of the pensions: an application for amparo was filed before the lower court, which was the sitting court at that time. This application was filed against the SBS; the MEF was never included, because Decree Law No. 25792 was issued after the application for amparo had been filed, and subsequent laws are not retroactive. With Decree Law No. 25792, he began to receive his pension from the MEF. The said application for amparo was rejected, so an appeal was filed before the Superior Court, which upheld the pensioners; subsequently, the SBS appealed that decision and, in 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld them and ordered that the whole pension should be paid in accordance with the decision establishing that amount, but it also indicated that the pensions should be equalized; these judgments were not implemented. Other actions were filed through temporary courts, which also upheld them. In 2000, the Constitutional Court, when deciding on the compliance proceeding, upheld the pensioners and ordered that the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru should be complied with. The State did not respond to the failure to comply with the decisions and the pensioners sought answers, but did not receive them; they sent notarized letters to the State to try and reach an