Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 98, ¶103 (2003). • • Economic, social and cultural rights have both an individual and a collective dimension. (p. 63, #147) Concurring opinion by Judge Garcia-Ramirez: Civil and political rights “do not rank higher” than ESCR. “Strictly speaking, both categories are mutually complementary and, as a whole, constitute the ‘basic statute’ of the individual today. The State, committed to respecting civil and political rights, unconditionally and promptly, should make a greater effort to ensure the prompt and complete effectiveness of economic, social and cultural rights, using the available recourses and avoiding setbacks that would diminish this basic statute.”´” (p. 90). 5. Court’s reasoning A. Article 21 right to property: • The pensioners acquired a right to property related to the patrimonial effects of the right to a pension, which is protected by Article 21 of the American Convention (p.48 #103). By arbitrarily reducing petitioners’ pensions, the State violated their right to property. (p. 51, #121) B. Article 25 right to judicial protection. • State violated Art. 25 right to judicial protection Art. 25 guarantees the right to “prompt recourse” for violations of fundamental rights. (p. 59, #125). The state violated this provision of art. 25 by failing to execute judgments of the Supreme Court of Peru until almost 8 years after they had been delivered. (p. 61, #141) C. Article 26 progressive development: • The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has ruled that “progressive development should be measured in function of the growing coverage of economic, social and cultural rights in general, and of the right to social security and to a pension in particular, of the entire population, bearing in mind the imperatives of social equity, and not in function of the circumstances of a limited group of pensioners, who do not necessarily represent the prevailing situation.” (p. 63, #147) Court determined that the pensioners here represent an isolated group and the impact of the pension regime change on them is not representative of the policy’s impact on the Peruvian population at large. (p. 64, #148) 6. What evidence did the court use to substantiate its decision on issues related to resources? Documents regarding salaries of victims and others similarly situated, victim and witness statements, expert testimony (p. 13). Documentation regarding victims’ pension payments and those of similarly situated retirees informed court’s decision holding that petitioners did not represent the prevailing situation, and therefore regressive policy reducing pensions did not warrant consideration of article 26 progressive development violation. 7. Relevant national/international norms in which the decision was based. • American Convention, Articles 21 (right to property), 25 (right to judicial intervention), and 26 (progressive development of ECSR).