67 the State was asked to provide helpful evidence and the parties were granted different opportunities to challenge the criteria used by the counterpart to make the calculation. However, the Court considers that this information is solely in the hands of the State, since it is very difficult for the representatives to provide criteria that would disprove it. 259. Therefore, taking into account: i) the arguments of the parties regarding the amounts that the victim did not receive in pension payments; ii) the significant difference between the amounts proposed by the State and those proposed by the victim and his representatives; iii) the partial payments made by the private company totaling S/97,600 soles; iv) the payments of S/800 soles for provisional pension allowances made by the State from January 1, 2018; v) an advance payment for accrued unpaid pensions of S/175,989.00 new soles; vi) that it was not possible to equalize Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension with private sector workers, but rather with those of workers subject to the public sector regime;239 vii) that pensioners have a right to receive 12 pension payments annually, plus a bonus for educational level, a bonus for national holidays and a Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), and, viii) the complexity of the calculation, the Court orders the payment of US$ 120,000.00 (one hundred and twenty thousand United States dollars) as compensation for the pension allowances that he ceased to receive from February 1, 1991 until notification of this Judgment. This amount includes the applicable interest and arrears. Likewise, the Court considers that it was not appropriate for the State to have charged the sum of S/6,563.92 new soles retroactively to Mr. Muelle Flores to cover health expenses during a period in which the victim did not receive such coverage. Therefore, the State must reimburse the said amount to the victim. The amounts ordered must be paid by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, or by any entity designated by the State, within six months of notification of this Judgment. These amounts must be paid directly to Mr. Muelle Flores, or through a duly accredited representative, in the event that he is unable to attend to the matter, owing to his health condition. D.2 Non-pecuniary damage 260. The representatives referred to “the continuous anguish suffered,” the “very long wait” and the “grave deterioration in the victim’s living conditions,” which they considered placed him in a “situation of particular social vulnerability,” aggravated by his advanced age (82 years) and by his chronic hearing disability. Thus, they requested, in equity, the sum of no less than US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars), in accordance with the provisions established in the Case Based on various internal regulations, and on the domestic case law of Peru, it is not feasible to equalize the pensions of public sector retirees with the remuneration of private sector workers. In this regard, the adjustment of pensions cannot be made with reference to active workers subject to the private sector labor regime, but rather with active workers subject to the public sector labor regime. Cf. Affidavit rendered by César José Gonzáles Hunt on August 24, 2018 (evidence file, folios 1856 to 1863). The expert witness emphasized that “paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court in File No. 189-2002-AA/TC (Case of Carlos Maldonado Duarte, dated June 18, 2003) established the following as a binding precedent: “15. The adjustment to which a pensioner who enjoys an equalized pension is entitled must be made with reference to an active official or employee of the Public Administration, of the level and rank held by the pensioner at the time of his retirement […]”; 16. The plaintiff’s claim of a pension equalized with the salary received by an active worker of the private sector labor regime “[…] is inadmissible […].” The expert witness emphasized that this principle has been ratified by the Constitutional Court, becoming a binding rule for the purposes of application and interpretation. Subsequently, Law No. 28047 (Law to Update the Percentage of Contributions paid to the Pension Fund of National Public Sector Workers and to Regulate the Equalization of Pensions governed by Decree Law No. 20530) published on July 31, 2003, established in Article 3 entitled “Determination of the amount of the pensions of discharged and retired workers subject to the system under Decree Law Nº 20530” that:“[…]the equalization of pensions of discharged and retired workers subject to Decree Law Nº 20530, of those entities that have, or have had, different labor regimes, shall be determined with reference to the wages earned by workers of the pensioner’s institution of origin, under the Unified Remuneration System contemplated in Legislative Decree No. 276. For those purposes, non-pensionable benefits will not be taken into account. In no case will such pensions be adjusted taking as reference the payments of workers of such entities that are subject to the private sector labor regime. Furthermore, no person shall be entitled to receive an equalized pension higher than the amount of the salary received by an active worker of the same position and rank." According to the expert witness, “The article in question was framed within the current case law of the Constitutional Court set forth in paragraphs 15 and 16 (cited previously) of the amparo judgment in the case of Carlos Maldonado Duarte.” 239