42 February 2002; this did not include the payment of interest145. In March 2002, the equalized pension was reestablished and, as of April 2002, Mr. Bartra Vásquez has regularly received the equalized payment of his pension; currently, he receives a pension of approximately S.13,281.24 (thirteen thousand two hundred and eightyone soles and twenty-four cents) 146. VII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 (RIGHT TO PROPERTY) The Commission’s arguments 90. Regarding Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission alleges that: a) The State violated this provision by reducing by law, to the detriment of the alleged victims, the amount of the equalized pensions they had received since their retirement. In the instant case, the right to receive a retirement pension, calculated in accordance with Decree Law No. 20530 and its related norms, is an asset that formed part of the patrimony of the alleged victims and, consequently, they enjoyed all the guarantees established in Article 21 of the Convention; b) When the alleged victims ceased to work for the SBS they opted for the retirement regime established in Decree Law No. 20530, and this institution recognized their right to receive a retirement pension progressively equalized with the salary of the SBS employee who occupied the same position or a similar function to the ones they occupied at the date of their retirement. This acquired right could only be modified by the State, to the detriment of the five pensioners, as regards the parameters established in Article 21 of the Convention. According to this provision, a reduction would violate the right to property if it was substantial, as it is in this case in which the reduction represented approximately 80% of the amount of the pensions; and c) In order to interpret the scope of the substance of the right to property established in Article 21 of the Convention, it is relevant to take into 145 Cf. testimony provided to the Court by Carlos Torres Benvenuto on September 3, 2002; testimony provided to the Court by Guillermo Álvarez Hernández on September 3, 2002; communication of July 22, 2002, presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin (file on merits and possible reparations, tome IV, folio 898); and administrative decision SBS No. 254-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Reymert Bartra Vásquez (file on merits and possible reparations, tome IV, appendix 6 of the communication of July 22, 2002, presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, folios 991 to 994). 146 Cf. testimony provided to the Court by Carlos Torres Benvenuto on September 3, 2002; testimony provided to the Court by Guillermo Álvarez Hernández on September 3, 2002; communication of July 22, 2002, presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin (file on merits and possible reparations, tome IV, folio 899); and administrative decision SBS No. 254-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Reymert Bartra Vásquez (file on merits and possible reparations, tome IV, appendix 6 of the communication of July 22, 2002, presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, folios 991 to 994).