46 of Banks and Insurance.” The five pensioners are attempting “to project the effects of judgments that have been complied with onto a new situation that occurred subsequently, owing to the application of a subsequent norm”; j) The five pensioners were employed under the public labor regime and none of them worked under the private sector labor regime. By authority of law and provisions of the Constitution, services rendered under the two regimes cannot be accumulated. The five pensioners are claiming “that they should be recognized a right that does not correspond to them”, which is the regulation or updating of their pensions, taking as a reference the salary of the acting official of the SBS, who belongs to a different labor and pension regime; and k) The State has paid the five pensioners the pension repayments demanded and has decided “to continue to make the said payment in the amount established, which is not the amount that is legally owing, provided this is not reverted by a national judge.” “[T]he applications for amparo filed by the pensioners in the domestic courts have only decided that matters should be restored to their status prior to the alleged violation, but there has been no ruling on the merits of the right claimed.” Considerations of the Court 93. Article 21 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. 3. Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law. 94. The Court observes that, in the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties about whether the alleged victims have the right to a pension. They all agree that Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez, when they ceased to work at the SBS, obtained the right to the retirement pension established in Decree Law No. 20530147. The dispute between the parties relates to whether the parameters used by the State to reduce or recalculate the amounts of the pensions of the alleged victims as of 1992 represented a violation of their right to property. 95. In order to settle the dispute between the parties, the Court will examine two points in particular: a) whether the right to a pension can be considered an acquired right and what this means; and b) what parameters should be taken into consideration to quantify the right to a pension, and whether it is possible to cap a pension. 96. a) First point. Regarding whether the right to a pension is an acquired right or not, this dispute has already been settled by the Constitution of Peru and the Peruvian Constitutional Court. 147 The said Decree Law No. 20530, entitled “Pension and Compensation Regime for Civil Service to the State not covered by Decree Law 19990”, stipulates that: Art. 4. Employees acquire the right to a pension when they have completed fifteen years of real and paid service, for men, and twelve and a half, for women.