31. For its part, the State has indicated that, in its 1995 and 2002 decisions, the SBS had “proceed[ed] erroneously and illegally” (supra considering paragraph 20(iii)), thus justifying the 2005 actions for declaration of nullity. Initially, the State failed to explain the reason for the actions for declaration of nullity filed by the SBS against its decisions of 1995 and 2002. In its report of March 18, 2010, the State merely referred to an SBS communication that appeared to indicate that the judgments deciding the 2005 applications for declarations of nullity were based on “the consistent case law of the Constitutional Court,” deriving from a judgment of June 18, 2003, in an appeal filed by another SBS pensioner (supra considering paragraph 20(iii)), which established “inflexible criteria with which the matter must be considered, because it has conferred binding nature on such criteria as case law that must be complied with.” The Court notes that, in addition, during the 2009 private hearing on monitoring compliance with judgment held before the Court, the State referred briefly to the creation of a new pension regime in Peru starting in 2004. According to the State, “approximately 15% [of people with a pension] were subject to the regime of [Law] 20530 and received 85% of the amount the State paid out for pensions”; and it specified that “the constitutional reform [underway] sought to rectify the situation” and “bring order to the pension regime.”41 32. The Court observes that three of the five applications for declaration of nullity filed by the SBS in 2005 have received a final judgment (supra considering paragraph 21), and that, in its reports, the State itself has indicated that the case law of the Supreme Court of Justice, which follows the case law of the Constitutional Court, makes it predictable that the cases of two of the victims that remain pending judgment will be decided similarly (supra considering paragraph 20(iii)). 33. The three final judgments delivered in the proceedings under administrative law filed by the SBS in 2005 declared the nullity of the decisions that the SBS issued in 1995 and 2002 with regard to three of the victims. The Court underscores that the purpose of these SBS decisions was to execute the orders of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Peru when admitting the applications for protective measures (supra considering paragraph 23(a) and (b)). 34. Although the Court acknowledged in the judgment, in general terms, that States Parties to the Convention may reduce pensions respecting the parameters of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, in its judgment, “it did not […] order, as the State argue[d], a new determination of the pension regime corresponding to the victims.”42 When referring to the said parameters of the Convention, the Court indicated, inter alia, that “the States may place limitations on the enjoyment of the right to property for reasons of public utility or social interest,” according to Article 21 of the Convention and its Additional Protocol in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador”), provided that such limitations are established “by means of laws promulgated in order to preserve the general well-being in a democratic society, [and] to the extent that they are not incompatible with the purpose and object underlying those rights.”43 41 Intervention of the State during the private hearing on monitoring compliance with judgment held in San José, Costa Rica, on January 19, 2009. Although, Peru did not provide further information on the pension reform during the private hearing, when examining the case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office) v. Peru, the Court expressly examined Law 28449 of 2004, which, in the context of the constitutional reform initiated by the State, established the new rules for the pension regime of Decree Law 20530. Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 49. 42 Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, thirty-second considering paragraph. 43 Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, para. 116. 13