56 206. For older persons, the impairment of their right to social security through the failure to pay pension allowances also causes anguish, insecurity and uncertainty regarding their future, given the possible lack of financial resources for their subsistence, since deprivation of income intrinsically affects the progress and development of their quality of life and their personal integrity. 207. The failure to implement the right to social security for more than 27 years seriously prejudiced the quality of life and health care coverage of Mr. Muelle, a person in a situation requiring special protection because he was an older person with a disability. The violation resulting from the failure to pay his pension exceeded a reasonable time and, as this was the victim’s only income, the prolonged absence of the payments inevitably resulted in financial hardship that affected his ability to pay for his basic necessities and, consequently, affected his mental and moral integrity, as well as his dignity. C.3 Conclusion 208. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 5, 8(1), 11(1), 25(1), 25(2)(c) and 1(1) thereof, as well as Article 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores. D. Right to property D.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 209. The Commission indicated that Mr. Muelle Flores: i) was lawfully included in the Decree Law No. 20530 pension scheme, as ratified by the courts in two amparo judgments and in the ruling on the lawsuit filed by the company itself; ii) he was prevented from continuing to receive the benefits to which he was entitled under that system; iii) he filed judicial appeals seeking his reinstatement in that pension scheme; iv) he obtained final court judgments supporting his claim; and v) to date, these rulings have not been executed. Thus, the Commission argued that all these factors had impaired Mr. Muelle Flores’ patrimony and, consequently, the State of Peru, violated the right to property established in Article 21 of the Convention. 210. The representatives argued that the right to property encompasses not only material possessions in the strict sense, but also the protection of acquired rights that form part of a person’s patrimony. They affirmed that Mr. Muelle Flores had not received any pension payments since 1991, despite the fact that his right was judicially recognized in a final judgment in 1993. They argued that the failure to comply with both domestic rulings had resulted in a violation of the right to property, which had “property implications” (patrimonial effects) derived from his right to an equalized pension, an acquired right under Peru’s domestic law, pursuant to Decree Law No. 20530. Therefore, the representatives concluded that the State violated Article 21 of the American Convention. 211. The State considered that the cases of Five Pensioners v. Peru and Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office") v. Peru were not relevant to the instant case, since those cases involved pensioners of public institutions, whereas the instant case concerns a pensioner of a public company that was subsequently privatized. It also affirmed that in the case Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru it was demonstrated in the domestic courts that the State had an obligation to pay the victims the amounts corresponding to the equalized pension, and only had to determine the amount owed, while in the case of Mr. Muelle Flores, it had not been proven that the State of Peru was obligated to pay the pension, since the State company that was initially obligated to do so was privatized, and the legislation on this matter had changed, thereby creating uncertainty regarding the entity responsible for the payment. Furthermore, it argued that the plaintiff