61 140. Consequently, this stage does not need further examination by the Court, because during this stage the judgments delivered in favor of the five pensioners were complied with. * * * 141. In view of the foregoing, this Court considers that the State violated Article 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez, by not executing the judgments of the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru until almost eight years after they had been delivered. IX ARTICLE 26 (PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS The Commission’s arguments 142. With regard to Article 26 of the Convention, the Commission alleges that: a) The State violated this article when it drafted Decree Law No. 25792, which “constituted an unjustified setback with regard to the level of development of the right to social security that the victims had achieved in accordance with Decree Law No. 20530 and its related norms,” so that it imposed a cap that was substantially lower cap than the amount of the equalized pension the alleged victims were receiving. As of the entry into force of Decree Law No. 25792, the five pensioners began to receive approximately one-fifth of the retirement pension they had been receiving; b) The obligation established in Article 26 of the Convention implies that the States may not adopt regressive measures in relation to the level of development achieved; although, in exceptional circumstances and by analogous application of Article 5 of the Protocol of San Salvador, laws that impose restrictions and limitations on economic, social and cultural rights may be justified, provided that they have been “promulgated in order to preserve 22, 2002, presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, folios 975 to 978); administrative decision SBS No. 251-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (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 979 to 982); administrative decision SBS No. 252-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (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 983 to 986); administrative decision SBS No. 253-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Javier Mujica RuizHuidobro (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 987 to 990); 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).