9 acquired right and, second, the parameters that should be taken into consideration to quantify the right to a pension.45 22. Regarding the first point, the Inter-American Court considered that an acquired right is “a right that has been incorporated into the patrimony of a person,” such as a pension; “in other words, that pensioners acquire a right to property related to the patrimonial effects of the right to a pension, […] as established in Article 21 of the American Convention.” 46 On the second point, namely, the way in which an equalized pension should be calculated, the InterAmerican Court considered that “although the right to an equalized pension is an acquired right in accordance with Article 21 of the Convention, States may restrict the enjoyment of the right to property for reasons of public utility or social interest. In the case of the patrimonial effects of pensions (the pension amount), States may reduce these only by the appropriate legal procedure and for the said reasons.” Thus, the Inter-American Court indicated that Article 5 of the Protocol of San Salvador only “allows States to establish restrictions and limitations to the enjoyment and exercise of economic, social and cultural rights ‘by means of laws promulgated in order to preserve the general welfare in a democratic society only to the extent that they are not incompatible with the purpose and reason underlying those rights.’” 47 23. In addition to the violation of Article 21, in that case the Inter-American Court also found that there had been a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention because, in the domestic sphere, the judgments that granted protection to the victims’ pensions had not been executed.48 24. In 2009, in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru relating to the failure to pay pensions (from April 1993 to October 2002), following the precedent in the Case of the “Five Pensioners,” the Court considered that there had been a violation of Articles 25 49 and 2150 of the American Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 95. 45 Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 102 and 103. 46 Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 116. In other words, the Inter-American Court determined that, in order to restrict the right to an equalized pension it was necessary to: (a) execute an administrative procedure with full respect for the appropriate guarantees, and (b) in any event, given precedence to the decisions of the courts of justice over the administrative decisions. In the case of all five victims, the Inter-American Court considered that neither of these two conditions had been met. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 117 and 118. 47 Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 138 and 141. 48 Regarding the violation of Article 25 of the Pact of San José, the Court indicated that “72. In this sense, under the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific responsibilities of the State. The first is that the States have the responsibility to enact and ensure due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of the rights and obligations of the latter. The second is that States must guarantee effective mechanisms to execute the respective decisions and final judgments delivered by these competent authorities so that rights that are declared or recognized are protected effectively. And this is because a judgment that is res judicata grants certainty regarding the right or dispute in question in the specific case and, therefore, one of its effects is its binding nature. The contrary would imply the denial of the right involved.” Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged 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. 72. 49 With regard to the violation of Article 21 of the Pact of San José, the Court stipulated that: “85. In a case similar to this one, the Court declared a violation of the right to property based on the patrimonial damage caused by the State’s failure to comply with judgments that were intended to protect the right to a pension – a right that the 50