such restrictions or limitations are established by the appropriate legal channel and according to the parameters established by Article 21363. 221. Furthermore, in another case364 this Court declared a violation of the right to property due to patrimonial damage caused by the State’s non- compliance with the judgments that were intended to protect the right to a pension. The Court indicated that, from the moment a pensioner fulfills the requirements to claim retirement benefits established by law, he or she acquires the right to property over the amount of the pension. Furthermore, the Court declared that the right to a pension acquired by a pensioner has “patrimonial effects”365, which are protected under article 21 of the Convention.366 In this regard, in the case of Abrill Alosilla, the Court considered that just as pensions which comply with all legal requirements are part of the wealth of a worker, the salary, benefits and wage increases earned by that worker are also protected by the right to property enshrined in the Convention.367 222. Accordingly, the Court notes that, in this case, there is a correlation between the problems of effective judicial protection and the effective enjoyment of the right to property. In fact, by applying the proportionality principle to the restriction of the right to property, the Court finds that Law 23.982 fulfilled a purpose admitted by the Convention, related to the handling of a serious economic crisis that affected several rights of individuals. The means chosen to deal with such a problem might be suitable to achieve that end and, in principle, could be accepted as necessary, taking into account that, on occasions, there may be no less detrimental alternative measures to face the crisis. However, based on the information on record, the restriction of Sebastián Furlan’s right to property is not proportionate in the strict sense because it did not contemplate any other option that was less detrimental than the reduction of the compensation awarded to him. The case file contains no pecuniary or non-pecuniary measure that might have softened the impact of reducing the compensation or some other type of measure suited to the specific circumstances of a person with several disabilities who required, for his own care, the money already awarded judicially as a right to which he was entitled. In the specific circumstances of this case, the non-payment of the full amount ordered by the court in favor of a vulnerable person with limited resources called for a much greater justification of the restriction to the right to property and some type of measure to prevent such an excessive and disproportionate effect, which was not evident in this case. 223. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the right to judicial protection and the right to property, enshrined in Articles 25(1), 25(2.c) and 21, in relation to Article 1(1) 363 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, para. 54, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 84. 364 Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, paras. 90-121. Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, para.103, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 85. 365 366 In this regard, the Court found that, by arbitrarily changing the amount of the pensions that the victims had been receiving and by failing to comply with the judicial rulings arising from their applications for protective measures, the State violated the right to property embodied in Article 21 of the Convention. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, paras. 115 and 121. 367 Cf. Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, footnote on page 83, where the Court noted that, in this regard, the European Court has established that: “the Convention organs have consistently held that income that has been earned does constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. ECHR, Case of Lelas v. Croatia, (No. 55555/08), Judgment of May 20, 2010. Final, August 20, 2010, para. 58, Case of Bahçeyaka v. Turkey, (No. 74463/01), Judgment of July 13, 2006. Final, October 13, 2006, para. 34, and Case of Schettini et al. v. Italy (No. 29529/95), Decision on Admissibility, November 9, 2000. 71