Analyzing the appropriateness of the impugned provisions for the attainment of the legitimate aim, as A. Kovaļevska maintained, one can conclude that the measures referred to in Article 2 of the Disbursement Law are indeed appropriate for the attainment of the end in question, whereas the appropriateness of the measures referred to in Article 3 is not clear, for the annotation does not specify the planned reduction amounts of the special budget expenditures. At the same time, A. Kovaļevska maintained that the restrictions established in Article 2 of the Disbursement Law cannot be deemed as the least restrictive means for the attainment of the legitimate aim. Rights to social security are not granted at least at a minimum level if pensions are not disbursed to persons at least in the minimum amount. General principles concerning the minimum amount of pensions have been established in the practice of both the Constitutional Court and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, the guidelines for calculation of the minimum amount of old-age pensions can be found in the International Labor Organization Conventions No. 102 and No. 128, not ratified by Latvia. The European Code of Social Security, signed by Latvia, provides a similar approach. In accordance with these documents, old-age pension should make at least 40 percent from the average wages of the respective person. Moreover, Article 13 of the European Social Charter is binding to Latvia. This article guarantees the rights to social assistance in order to ensure that the income of persons is not below the poverty line. It is inadmissible to apply the impugned provisions to persons whose pension amounts are below the poverty line. This conclusion can also be substantiated by reference to Article 91 of the Constitution. The legislator had a duty to differentiate the recipients of pensions by the correspondence of the amounts of their pensions to the minimum income level. Concerning Article 3 of the Disbursement Law, one can agree in principle that it is permissible to reduce the amounts of pensions disbursed to employed pensioners. International treaties also support such a conclusion. Yet, as A. Kovaļevska pointed out, this impugned provision does not conform to the principles of proportionality and legal equality. The legislator has not taken into account such factors as the amounts of pensions granted to pensioners, the income received from employment legal relationships and the total income of pensioners. Consequently, a situation may arise 22