{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-125713", "citation": "Res. 14588-2008 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Omisión municipal en verificar infraestructura vial accesible para personas con discapacidad", "title_en": "Municipal omission in verifying accessible road infrastructure for persons with disabilities", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional conoce un recurso de amparo interpuesto por los padres de un menor con parálisis cerebral que debe desplazarse en silla de ruedas, contra la Municipalidad de Cartago. Alegan que el mal estado de las calles y aceras de la Urbanización El Atardecer, cuarta etapa, vulnera los derechos a la igualdad y a la educación de su hijo, al impedir o dificultar su tránsito al centro educativo. La Municipalidad argumentó que la urbanización no había sido oficialmente recibida, por lo que la responsabilidad de reparación recaía en el desarrollador. La Sala rechaza este argumento: constató que pese a que la infraestructura vial no cumplía con las exigencias de la Ley 7600 (Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad) y su reglamento, la Municipalidad otorgó permisos de venta y construcción sin verificar en sitio la concordancia con los planos aprobados, omitiendo su deber de control urbanístico conforme a los artículos 169 constitucional y 38 y 58 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. La Sala declara con lugar el recurso, condena a la Municipalidad al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios, y ordena las medidas necesarias para garantizar la accesibilidad del menor.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber hears an amparo action filed by the parents of a minor with cerebral palsy who uses a wheelchair, against the Municipality of Cartago. They claim that the poor condition of the streets and sidewalks in the fourth stage of the El Atardecer development violates their son's rights to equality and education by hindering his transit to school. The Municipality argued it had not officially accepted the development, so the developer was responsible for repairs. The Chamber rejects this: despite the road infrastructure not meeting the requirements of Law 7600 (Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act) and its regulations, the Municipality had issued sale and construction permits without on-site verification of compliance with approved plans, breaching its urban control duties under Article 169 of the Constitution and Articles 38 and 58 of the Urban Planning Law. The Chamber grants the amparo, orders the Municipality to pay costs and damages, and mandates measures to ensure the minor's accessibility.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "2008", "year": "2008", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "recurso de amparo", "Ley 7600 Igualdad de Oportunidades para Personas con Discapacidad", "visado municipal", "deberes de la función pública", "control urbanístico", "Ley de Planificación Urbana No. 4240", "segregación", "anteproyecto" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 33", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 169", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 1", "law": "Ley 7600" }, { "article": "Art. 38", "law": "Ley 4240" }, { "article": "Art. 58", "law": "Ley 4240" } ], "keywords_es": [ "amparo", "Ley 7600", "discapacidad", "igualdad", "educación", "accesibilidad", "infraestructura vial", "municipalidad", "Cartago", "deberes municipales", "control urbanístico", "artículo 169", "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "calles", "aceras" ], "keywords_en": [ "amparo", "Law 7600", "disability", "equality", "education", "accessibility", "road infrastructure", "municipality", "Cartago", "municipal duties", "urban control", "article 169", "Urban Planning Law", "streets", "sidewalks" ], "excerpt_es": "Esto permite concluir a este Tribunal Constitucional que la Municipalidad recurrida fue omisa, al no verificar en el sitio que las obras construidas coincidieran con los planos constructivos aprobados por los distintos órganos y entes involucrados, omisión en virtud de la cual en este asunto se quebrantó el derecho a la igualdad y a la educación del amparado y, además, las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias antes citadas, configurándose una violación flagrante de los deberes propios de la función pública que ameritan el amparo en esta sede.", "excerpt_en": "This allows this Constitutional Court to conclude that the respondent Municipality was negligent in failing to verify on site that the constructed works matched the construction plans approved by the various bodies and entities involved, an omission by virtue of which the rights to equality and education of the protected party were violated, as well as the aforesaid legal and regulatory provisions, constituting a flagrant violation of the duties inherent to public office that warrant the granting of the amparo in this venue.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The Chamber grants the amparo, orders the Municipality of Cartago to pay costs and damages, and mandates the necessary actions to ensure the road infrastructure complies with Law 7600 and guarantees the accessibility of the protected minor.", "summary_es": "La Sala declara con lugar el amparo, condena a la Municipalidad de Cartago al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios, y ordena realizar las gestiones necesarias para que la infraestructura vial cumpla con la Ley 7600 y garantice la accesibilidad del menor amparado." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "In this light, it is clear that the non-compliance with these provisions, whether by the State or by private parties, constitutes a violation of the right to substantive equality of persons with disabilities, as it prevents them from integrating into society and accessing public services.", "quote_es": "Bajo esa tesitura, resulta claro que el incumplimiento de esas disposiciones, sea por parte del Estado o de los particulares, implica una vulneración al derecho a la igualdad real de las personas con discapacidad, pues les impide integrarse a la sociedad y acceder a los servicios públicos." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "Thus, the respondent Municipality is not released from responsibility in the case at hand, since by law it is the entity in charge of supervising all matters related to works carried out in its jurisdiction.", "quote_es": "Así las cosas, la Municipalidad recurrida no queda relevada de responsabilidad en el caso que nos ocupa, ya que por ley es el ente encargado de vigilar todo lo atinente a las obras que se ejecuten en su jurisdicción." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-23261", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7600 Art. 1" }, { "target_id": "norm-35669", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 4240 Art. 38" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-125713", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-23261", "norm_num": "7600", "norm_name": "Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/05/1996" }, { "doc_id": "norm-35669", "norm_num": "4240", "norm_name": "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "15/11/1968" }, { "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_num": "0", "norm_name": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política", "norm_fecha": "07/11/1949" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“ I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. Los recurrentes solicitan el amparo de los\r\nderechos fundamentales a la igualdad y a la educación del menor de edad\r\namparado, quien debe movilizarse en silla de ruedas, debido al mal estado de\r\nlas calles y aceras que conducen al centro educativo al que éste asiste. \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A LA IGUALDAD DE LAS\r\nPERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. El artículo 33 de la Constitución Política reconoce que todas las personas\r\nson iguales ante la ley y prohíbe toda práctica de discriminación que resulte\r\ncontraria a la dignidad humana, precepto al cual el Constituyente le otorgó el\r\nrango de uno de los valores superiores que informan nuestra\r\nConstitución y, además, lo reconoció como un derecho fundamental. Así las\r\ncosas, el Estado debe, a través del\r\nPoder Legislativo, emitir las leyes que\r\nconforman el ordenamiento jurídico con absoluto respeto al principio\r\nde igualdad, evitando que sea la propia ley la que propicie la\r\ndiscriminación de las personas. Lo anterior, no\r\nimplica que deba darse un trato igualitario a todos los grupos de personas, por\r\nel contrario, debe procurarse que en iguales condiciones se apliquen las mismas\r\nmedidas jurídicas, ya que existen grupos de personas que por\r\nsus condiciones particulares se encuentran en una situación distinta a los\r\ndemás, que de otorgárseles el mismo trato se les estaría colocando en una\r\ncondición de desventaja que resultaría discriminatoria. En ese sentido, las\r\npersonas que poseen alguna discapacidad física, sea ésta temporal o permanente, se encuentran claramente en una situación distinta a\r\nla del resto\r\nde las personas, por lo que otorgar un trato igualitario en ambos casos,\r\nimplicaría una vulneración al principio de igualdad. Bajo esa\r\ninteligencia, se reconocen derechos a este grupo o sector, a fin de ofrecer\r\nmejores oportunidades que garanticen el ejercicio de sus derechos fundamentales\r\ny de esta manera alcanzar la igualdad real de\r\nlas personas. Estos derechos a los que se hace referencia se encuentran\r\nreconocidos tanto en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, en el artículo 33 de la\r\nCarta Magna y en la \"Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas\r\ncon Discapacidad\", Ley número 7600, como en Instrumentos\r\nInternacionales, a saber: la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos y,\r\nespecíficamente, en la Convención Americana para la Eliminación de\r\ntodas las Formas de Discriminación contra las Personas con Discapacidad,\r\naprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa por Ley número 7948. De esta\r\nmanera, se puede citar el artículo 1° de esta última convención, que en lo\r\nrelativo a la discriminación establece lo siguiente: “El término\r\ndiscriminación contra las personas con discapacidad, significa toda distinción,\r\nexclusión o restricción basada en una discapacidad, antecedente de\r\ndiscapacidad, consecuencia de discapacidad presente o pasada, que tenga el\r\nefecto o el propósito de impedir o anular el reconocimiento, goce o ejercicio\r\npor parte de las personas con discapacidad, de sus derechos humanos y\r\nlibertades fundamentales.” Aunado a ello,\r\neste Tribunal mediante la sentencia número 2004-012973 de las catorce horas y\r\ncuarenta y nueve minutos del\r\ndiecisiete de noviembre de dos mil cuatro, en lo que interesa señaló lo\r\nsiguiente: \n\r\n\r\n\n“Asimismo, dicha Convención establece la\r\nobligación de los Estados que la han suscrito, a adoptar las medidas para\r\neliminar progresivamente la discriminación y promover la integración por parte\r\nde las autoridades gubernamentales y/o entidades privadas en la prestación o\r\nsuministro de bienes, servicios, instalaciones, programas, actividades, tales como\r\nel empleo, el transporte, las comunicaciones, la vivienda, la recreación, la\r\neducación, el deporte, el acceso a la justicia y los servicios policiales y las\r\nactividades políticas y de administración. Indicó este\r\nTribunal en la sentencia No. 2305-00, que la tutela efectiva de los derechos de\r\nlas personas discapacitadas consagrados constitucionalmente, es uno de los\r\nmedios por los cuales este grupo de población puede tener una vida lo más\r\nindependiente y normal posible, de manera que su integración a la sociedad sea\r\nplena. Es claro que uno de ellos consiste en que la infraestructura de los\r\nedificios, así como los medios de transporte, especialmente aquellos en que se\r\nbrinden servicios públicos, tengan previstas facilidades para el acceso de las\r\npersonas discapacitadas. Es clara la obligación del Estado de eliminar\r\nprogresivamente las “barreras físicas” que les dificultan o impiden el acceso a\r\nestos servicios.” \n\r\n\r\n\nBajo esa tesitura, resulta claro que el\r\nincumplimiento de esas disposiciones, sea por parte del Estado o de los\r\nparticulares, implica una vulneración al derecho a la igualdad real de\r\nlas personas con discapacidad, pues les impide integrarse a la sociedad y\r\nacceder a los servicios públicos. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.- SOBRE LAS COMPETENCIAS MUNICIPALES EN\r\nMATERIA DE PROCESOS DE DESARROLLO URBANOS. El artículo 169 de la Constitución Política\r\nestipula que la administración de los intereses y servicios locales en cada\r\ncantón estará a cargo del Gobierno Municipal.\r\nCorresponde, en consecuencia, a las municipalidades verificar que las\r\nurbanizaciones cumplan con lo establecido en la normativa urbanística vigente.\r\nDe esta manera, las corporaciones municipales no pueden desligarse de la\r\nproblemática nacional urbanística, debido a la responsabilidad constitucional\r\nque cada una de ellas tiene de velar por el desarrollo\r\narmónico y de servicios, que es parte integrante del concepto “intereses y servicios\r\nlocales”. Así las cosas, la Municipalidad recurrida no\r\nqueda relevada de responsabilidad en el caso que nos ocupa, ya que por ley es\r\nel ente encargado de vigilar todo lo atinente a las obras que se ejecuten en su\r\njurisdicción. En efecto, cuando se habla de un\r\nproyecto de urbanización se está ante un proceso de desarrollo urbano por el\r\ncual un inmueble privado se divide o segrega en una serie de fincas\r\nindividuales y en espacios destinados a usos y servicios públicos, por\r\nconsiguiente, estos últimos son de naturaleza demanial. Este proceso de\r\nurbanización implica el levantamiento de toda aquella infraestructura pública y\r\nprivada necesaria para convertir el inmueble original o “finca madre” en\r\nuna zona habitable, sea residencial, comercial o industrial. A lo largo de este\r\nproceso, intervienen toda una serie de instrumentos de policía urbanística\r\ndestinados al control del ejercicio del derecho de propiedad privada y que haya\r\ncompatibilidad con el interés público; así, se pueden puntualizar las etapas\r\ndel proceso desde una fase previa de preparación y planeamiento del proyecto,\r\npasando luego a una etapa de habilitación del proyecto, después a la fase de\r\nejecución y construcción y, finalmente, la etapa de uso y disfrute de los\r\ninmuebles fraccionados y de las edificaciones que hayan sido levantadas. La\r\netapa de preparación y planeamiento comprende desde la presentación de los\r\nplanos preliminares del\r\nproyecto de fraccionamiento o urbanización, hasta el visado municipal de los\r\nplanos constructivos del\r\nfraccionamiento o urbanización. En la etapa de habilitación\r\nse encuentra la aceptación o recepción de obras y áreas públicas de los\r\nproyectos y el visado municipal de segregación. Asimismo, en la etapa de\r\nejecución y construcción se identifica el\r\notorgamiento de las licencias constructivas y, finalmente, la etapa de uso y\r\ndisfrute, coincide con la venta y goce de los inmuebles resultantes, los cuales\r\nquedarían además afectos a las restricciones urbanísticas del municipio. La participación de los entes\r\nmunicipales en todas esas etapas es trascendental, por imperativo\r\nconstitucional -artículo 169- y también legal como se desprende del artículo 38\r\nde la Ley de Planificación Urbana, de conformidad con el cual no se dará\r\npermiso para urbanizar terrenos en los siguientes casos: \n\r\n\r\n\na) Cuando el proyecto no satisfaga las normas mínimas reglamentarias, o los\r\ninteresados no hayan cumplido los trámites pertinentes, entre los que está la\r\naprobación indispensable de los planos por la Dirección de Urbanismo y el\r\nServicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado; \n\r\n\r\n\nb) Por no estar garantizado el importe de las obras de habilitación urbana\r\ndel inmueble, o no haberse hecho o garantizado el traspaso formal al municipio,\r\ndel área reservada a uso público, ni, en su defecto, satisfecho en dinero el\r\nvalor equivalente; y \n\r\n\r\n\nc) En tanto el desarrollo del área localizada fuera del límite zonificado\r\nse considere prematuro por carecer de facilidades y servicios públicos o por el\r\nalto costo de tales facilidades y servicios, por su distancia de otras áreas\r\nhabitadas o debido a cualquier otra deficiencia determinante de condiciones\r\nadversas a la seguridad y a la salubridad públicas. \n\r\n\r\n\nLos proyectos de urbanización ubicados dentro o fuera del área zonificada\r\nque tengan los servicios de acueductos, alcantarillado sanitario y electricidad\r\nalejados de sus linderos, deben ser aceptados para su análisis por la\r\nMunicipalidad y la Dirección de Urbanismo, si el urbanizador se compromete a\r\ncostear las obras ejecutadas fuera de su propiedad, para ofrecer todos los\r\nservicios necesarios. \n\r\n\r\n\nEn este caso, todos los proyectos futuros de urbanización que intenten usar\r\nlos servicios citados en el párrafo anterior en el período de cinco años,\r\ncontado desde la terminación de esas construcciones, abonarían al urbanizador\r\nuna cantidad por cada unidad de vivienda que contenga el nuevo proyecto. La\r\ncantidad a abonar será determinada por la institución\r\nque tenga a su cargo el servicio correspondiente y se cubrirá al hacerse la\r\nconexión física de cada unidad de vivienda.” \n\r\n\r\n\n De\r\nconformidad con la Ley de cita, para asegurar la ejecución de las obras de\r\nurbanización: “…el urbanizador, cuando venda una\r\nparcela no urbanizada deberá rendir póliza, fianza, hipoteca u otra forma de\r\ngarantía satisfactoria, que determinará y calificará en cada caso la\r\nmunicipalidad, de acuerdo con el Instituto. La garantía se hará efectiva si en\r\nel término de cinco años no se ejecutan las obras de urbanización especificadas\r\nen los planos aprobados. En el caso de que por incumplimiento\r\ndel\r\nurbanizador se haga efectiva la garantía, la municipalidad queda obligada a la\r\nejecución de las obras.” Asimismo, a nivel infralegal el “Reglamento\r\npara el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones”, establece: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"III.3.15 Garantías de cumplimiento de obra: \n\r\n\r\n\nIII.3.15.1 Cuando un municipio está anuente a autorizar la segregación de\r\nlotes sin que se hayan incluido las obras de urbanización, deberá exigir\r\npara esto la garantía que menciona el artículo 38 de la Ley No.4240 (\r\nPlanificación Urbana). \n\r\n\r\n\nPara estos casos, se remitirán al INVU los siguientes documentos: \n\r\n\r\n\n- Tipo de garantía ofrecida. \n\r\n\r\n\n- Presupuesto de las obras hechas y faltantes, firmado por el responsable\r\nde una compañía constructora autorizada. \n\r\n\r\n\n- Presupuesto de la arborización requerida asegurando el mantenimiento de\r\nlos árboles durante los primeros dos años. \n\r\n\r\n\nEste documento debe contar con el visto bueno de la\r\nDirección Forestal del Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas. (Así reformado por el\r\nArtículo IV de la Sesión Ordinaria No.3928 del INVU del 19 de junio de 1989). \n\r\n\r\n\nIII.3.15.2 El INVU resolverá en un plazo no mayor\r\nde un mes si la garantía y el monto son satisfactorios y lo comunicará a la\r\nmunicipalidad para lo que proceda. \n\r\n\r\n\nIII.3.15.3 En ningún caso se otorgarán permisos de segregación con base en\r\nanteproyectos.\" (El\r\nresaltado en negritas no es del original) \n\r\n\r\n\nDe esta manera, a las municipalidades les compete\r\nvigilar que los proyectos de urbanizaciones a realizar en su cantón cumplan con\r\nlas disposiciones emanadas de la Ley 7600 y su reglamento, lo que incluye:\r\ncarreteras y aceras en adecuadas condiciones. Asimismo, una vez construidas las\r\nobras y al momento de su aceptación, a las municipalidades les corresponderá\r\nejercer control en relación con el cumplimiento de las disposiciones normativas\r\ncorrespondientes, todo de conformidad con lo que establece el artículo VI.6 del\r\nReglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones. En\r\notras palabras, las municipalidades deben controlar que las urbanizaciones y\r\nlas edificaciones que en ellas se construyan cumplan\r\ncon las disposiciones que establece la Ley 7600 y su reglamento. \n\r\n\r\n\nVI.- SOBRE EL CASO EN\r\nCONCRETO. Del estudio del\r\nexpediente se desprende que el amparado es un menor de edad que debe\r\ntrasladarse en silla de ruedas debido a que padece parálisis cerebral. En este\r\nsentido, consta que los recurrentes, quienes son los padres del menor, han\r\npresentado varias gestiones ante la corporación municipal accionada,\r\nsolicitando la reparación de los caminos y aceras de la Urbanización El\r\nAtardecer, cuarta etapa, por donde debe transitar diariamente el amparado a\r\nefecto de acudir a su centro educativo. Ahora bien, según se desprende del informe rendido bajo la\r\nsolemnidad del juramento por la autoridad\r\nrecurrida la urbanización en la que habita el amparado no ha sido oficialmente\r\nrecibida por la Municipalidad de Cartago, y por ello, la reparación de las\r\ncalles y aceras es responsabilidad del\r\ndesarrollador del\r\nproyecto, y no de esa corporación. Al respecto, estima este Tribunal que no son\r\nde recibo los argumentos esgrimidos por la autoridad recurrida, pues se\r\nobserva que a pesar de que las obras de infraestructura vial en la cuarta etapa\r\nde la Urbanización El Atardecer, en Quircot de Cartago, no cumplen con las\r\nexigencias propias de la Ley número 7600 y su reglamento, esa Municipalidad\r\notorgó los permisos correspondientes para la venta y construcción en los lotes\r\ny no detuvo ninguna construcción por carecer de los permisos respectivos, de\r\nconformidad con el artículo 58 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. En este sentido, lo cierto es que a la fecha de interposición del recurso existen sectores en los que “la\r\ninfraestructura urbana básica y operacional se\r\nencuentra altamente deteriorada y deficiente, inclusive casi ya inexistente en\r\nalgunos sectores”, con lo cual, claramente, se imposibilita o dificulta el\r\nlibre tránsito del\r\namparado. Esto permite concluir a este Tribunal Constitucional que la\r\nMunicipalidad recurrida fue omisa, al no verificar en el sitio que las obras\r\nconstruidas coincidieran con los planos constructivos aprobados por los\r\ndistintos órganos y entes involucrados, omisión en virtud de la cual en este\r\nasunto se quebrantó el derecho a la igualdad y a la educación del amparado y,\r\nademás, las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias antes citadas,\r\nconfigurándose una violación flagrante de los deberes propios de la función\r\npública que ameritan el amparo en esta sede. \n\r\n\r\n\nVII.- EN CONCLUSIÓN. Corolario de las consideraciones\r\nrealizadas, se impone la estimatoria de este recurso,\r\ncon las consecuencias que se indicarán en la parte dispositiva de esta\r\nsentencia, como\r\nen efecto se ordena.”", "body_en_text": "I.- SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL. The appellants seek the protection of the fundamental rights to equality and to education of the protected minor, who must use a wheelchair, due to the poor condition of the streets and sidewalks that lead to the educational center he attends.\n\nIV.- ON THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. Article 33 of the Political Constitution recognizes that all persons are equal before the law and prohibits any practice of discrimination that is contrary to human dignity, a precept to which the Constituent Assembly granted the rank of one of the superior values that inform our Constitution and, furthermore, recognized it as a fundamental right. Accordingly, the State must, through the Legislative Branch, issue the laws that make up the legal system with absolute respect for the principle of equality, preventing the law itself from fostering discrimination against persons. The foregoing does not imply that all groups of people must be given equal treatment; on the contrary, it must be ensured that the same legal measures are applied under equal conditions, since there are groups of people who, due to their particular conditions, find themselves in a different situation from others, such that granting them the same treatment would place them in a condition of disadvantage that would be discriminatory. In that sense, persons who have some physical disability, whether temporary or permanent, find themselves clearly in a situation different from that of the rest of the people; therefore, granting equal treatment in both cases would imply a violation of the principle of equality. Under that understanding, rights are recognized for this group or sector, in order to offer better opportunities that guarantee the exercise of their fundamental rights and in this way achieve the real equality of persons. These rights referred to are recognized both in our legal system, in Article 33 of the Magna Carta and in the \"Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad,\" Law Number 7600, as well as in International Instruments, namely: the American Convention on Human Rights and, specifically, the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, approved by the Legislative Assembly by Law Number 7948. In this way, one can cite Article 1 of this latter convention, which, regarding discrimination, establishes the following: \"The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of a disability, consequence of a present or past disability, that has the effect or purpose of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.\" In addition to this, this Court, through judgment number 2004-012973 of fourteen hours and forty-nine minutes on the seventeenth of November of two thousand four, stated the following regarding what is relevant:\n\n\"Likewise, said Convention establishes the obligation of the States that have signed it to adopt measures to progressively eliminate discrimination and promote integration by governmental authorities and/or private entities in the provision or supply of goods, services, facilities, programs, activities, such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, access to justice and police services, and political and administrative activities. This Court indicated in judgment No. 2305-00 that the effective protection of the constitutionally enshrined rights of disabled persons is one of the means by which this population group can have a life that is as independent and normal as possible, so that their integration into society is full. It is clear that one of them consists of the infrastructure of buildings, as well as means of transportation, especially those in which public services are provided, having facilities for the access of disabled persons. The obligation of the State to progressively eliminate the 'physical barriers' that hinder or prevent their access to these services is clear.\"\n\nUnder that approach, it is clear that the failure to comply with those provisions, whether by the State or by private individuals, implies a violation of the right to the real equality of persons with disabilities, as it prevents them from integrating into society and accessing public services.\n\nV.- ON MUNICIPAL COMPETENCES IN MATTERS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES. Article 169 of the Political Constitution stipulates that the administration of local interests and services in each canton shall be the responsibility of the Municipal Government. It is, consequently, the responsibility of the municipalities to verify that urban developments (urbanizaciones) comply with the provisions of the current urban planning regulations. In this way, municipal corporations cannot detach themselves from the national urban planning problem, due to the constitutional responsibility that each one of them has to ensure harmonious development and services, which is an integral part of the concept of \"local interests and services.\" Thus, the respondent Municipality is not relieved of responsibility in the case at hand, since by law it is the entity in charge of supervising everything related to the works executed in its jurisdiction. Indeed, when speaking of an urban development project (proyecto de urbanización), one is facing an urban development process by which a private property is divided or segregated into a series of individual properties (fincas) and into spaces destined for public uses and services; consequently, the latter are of public domain nature. This urbanization process implies the construction of all the public and private infrastructure necessary to convert the original property or \"mother plot\" (finca madre) into a habitable area, whether residential, commercial, or industrial. Throughout this process, a whole series of urban planning enforcement instruments intervene, destined to control the exercise of the right to private property and ensure compatibility with the public interest; thus, the stages of the process can be specified from a preliminary phase of preparation and planning of the project, then moving on to a project enablement stage, then to the execution and construction phase, and, finally, the stage of use and enjoyment of the subdivided properties and the buildings that have been erected. The preparation and planning stage encompasses from the presentation of the preliminary plans of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) or urbanization project, to the municipal approval of the constructive plans of the subdivision or urbanization. In the enablement stage, the acceptance or reception of works and public areas of the projects and the municipal approval of segregation are found. Likewise, in the execution and construction stage, the granting of construction permits is identified, and, finally, the use and enjoyment stage coincides with the sale and enjoyment of the resulting properties, which would also remain subject to the urban planning restrictions of the municipality. The participation of municipal entities in all these stages is transcendental, by constitutional imperative—Article 169—and also legal, as can be deduced from Article 38 of the Urban Planning Law, according to which permission to urbanize land will not be granted in the following cases:\n\na) When the project does not meet the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is the indispensable approval of the plans by the Dirección de Urbanismo and the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado;\n\nb) Because the cost of the urban development works on the property is not guaranteed, or because the formal transfer to the municipality of the area reserved for public use has not been made or guaranteed, nor, alternatively, has the equivalent value been satisfied in money; and\n\nc) As long as the development of the area located outside the zoned limit is considered premature due to lacking public facilities and services or due to the high cost of such facilities and services, due to its distance from other inhabited areas, or due to any other deficiency determining adverse conditions for public safety and health.\n\nUrbanization projects located within or outside the zoned area that have water, sanitary sewer, and electricity services far from their boundaries must be accepted for analysis by the Municipality and the Dirección de Urbanismo if the urban developer (urbanizador) undertakes to pay for the works executed outside their property to offer all the necessary services.\n\nIn this case, all future urbanization projects that attempt to use the services mentioned in the preceding paragraph within a period of five years, counted from the completion of those constructions, would credit the urban developer an amount for each housing unit contained in the new project. The amount to be credited shall be determined by the institution responsible for the corresponding service and shall be covered upon making the physical connection of each housing unit.\"\n\nIn accordance with the cited Law, to ensure the execution of urbanization works: \"…the urban developer, when selling an unurbanized parcel, must provide a bond (póliza), surety (fianza), mortgage (hipoteca), or other satisfactory form of guarantee, which shall be determined and qualified in each case by the municipality, in agreement with the Institute. The guarantee shall be made effective if the urbanization works specified in the approved plans are not executed within a term of five years. In the event that the guarantee is made effective due to the urban developer's non-compliance, the municipality is obliged to execute the works.\" Likewise, at the infralegal level, the \"Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones\" establishes:\n\n\"III.3.15 Performance guarantees (Garantías de cumplimiento) of work:\n\nIII.3.15.1 When a municipality agrees to authorize the segregation of lots without the urbanization works having been completed, it must require for this purpose the guarantee mentioned in Article 38 of Law No. 4240 (Urban Planning).\n\nFor these cases, the following documents shall be forwarded to INVU:\n\n- Type of guarantee offered.\n\n- Budget of the works completed and missing, signed by the responsible party of an authorized construction company.\n\n- Budget of the required tree planting ensuring the maintenance of the trees during the first two years.\n\nThis document must have the approval of the Dirección Forestal of the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas. (As amended by Article IV of the Ordinary Session No. 3928 of INVU of June 19, 1989).\n\nIII.3.15.2 INVU shall resolve within a period no longer than one month whether the guarantee and the amount are satisfactory and shall communicate this to the municipality for whatever action is appropriate.\n\nIII.3.15.3 In no case shall segregation permits be granted based on preliminary plans (anteproyectos).\" (The highlighting in bold is not from the original)\n\nIn this way, it is the responsibility of the municipalities to ensure that urbanization projects carried out in their canton comply with the provisions emanating from Law 7600 and its regulation, which includes: roads and sidewalks in adequate conditions. Likewise, once the works are built and at the time of their acceptance, the municipalities shall be responsible for exercising control regarding compliance with the corresponding regulatory provisions, all in accordance with the provisions of Article VI.6 of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones. In other words, municipalities must control that the urban developments and the buildings constructed therein comply with the provisions established by Law 7600 and its regulation.\n\nVI.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. From the study of the case file, it is clear that the protected party is a minor who must be transported in a wheelchair because he suffers from cerebral palsy. In this regard, it is on record that the appellants, who are the minor's parents, have presented several requests before the respondent municipal corporation, requesting the repair of the roads and sidewalks of the Urbanización El Atardecer, fourth stage, where the protected party must travel daily in order to attend his educational center. However, as can be deduced from the report rendered under oath by the respondent authority, the urbanization in which the protected party lives has not been officially received by the Municipality of Cartago, and therefore, the repair of the streets and sidewalks is the responsibility of the project developer, and not of that corporation. In this regard, this Court considers that the arguments put forth by the respondent authority are not admissible, since it is observed that despite the fact that the road infrastructure works in the fourth stage of Urbanización El Atardecer, in Quircot de Cartago, do not meet the requirements of Law Number 7600 and its regulation, that Municipality granted the corresponding permits for the sale and construction on the lots and did not stop any construction for lacking the respective permits, in accordance with Article 58 of the Urban Planning Law. In this sense, the truth is that as of the date of filing the appeal, there are sectors in which the \"basic and operational urban infrastructure is highly deteriorated and deficient, even almost non-existent in some sectors,\" thereby clearly preventing or hindering the free transit of the protected party. This allows this Constitutional Court to conclude that the respondent Municipality was negligent, having failed to verify on-site that the built works coincided with the constructive plans approved by the various involved organs and entities, an omission by virtue of which in this matter the right to equality and to education of the protected party was violated, and, furthermore, the legal and regulatory provisions cited above were breached, thus constituting a flagrant violation of the duties inherent to public service that warrant the granting of protection in this venue.\n\nVII.- IN CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the considerations made, the granting of this appeal is imposed, with the consequences that will be indicated in the operative part of this judgment, as is hereby ordered.\"\n\nThroughout this process, a whole series of urban planning control instruments (instrumentos de policía urbanística) intervene, aimed at controlling the exercise of private property rights and ensuring compatibility with the public interest; thus, the stages of the process can be specified from a prior phase of project preparation and planning, then moving to a project authorization stage, followed by the execution and construction phase, and finally, the stage of use and enjoyment of the subdivided properties and the buildings that have been erected. The preparation and planning stage spans from the submission of preliminary plans for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) or urbanization project to the municipal approval (visado municipal) of the construction plans for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) or urbanization. The authorization stage includes the acceptance or reception of works and public areas of the projects and the municipal approval (visado municipal) of the segregation. Likewise, in the execution and construction stage, the granting of construction licenses (licencias constructivas) is identified, and finally, the use and enjoyment stage coincides with the sale and enjoyment of the resulting properties, which would also remain subject to the urban restrictions of the municipality. The participation of municipal entities in all these stages is transcendental, by constitutional imperative—Article 169—and also legal, as is evident from Article 38 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), according to which permission to urbanize land will not be granted in the following cases:\n\na) When the project does not satisfy the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is the indispensable approval of the plans by the Urban Planning Directorate (Dirección de Urbanismo) and the National Service of Aqueducts and Sewers (Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado);\n\nb) Because the cost of the urban development works (obras de habilitación urbana) for the property is not guaranteed, or the formal transfer to the municipality of the area reserved for public use has not been made or guaranteed, nor, failing that, its equivalent value satisfied in money; and\n\nc) As long as the development of the area located outside the zoned limit is considered premature because it lacks public facilities and services or due to the high cost of such facilities and services, because of its distance from other inhabited areas, or due to any other deficiency leading to conditions adverse to public safety and health.\n\nUrbanization projects located inside or outside the zoned area that have aqueduct, sanitary sewer, and electricity services far from their boundaries must be accepted for analysis by the Municipality and the Urban Planning Directorate (Dirección de Urbanismo), if the developer commits to financing the works executed outside their property to offer all the necessary services.\n\nIn this case, all future urbanization projects that attempt to use the services mentioned in the preceding paragraph within a period of five years, counted from the completion of those constructions, would pay the developer an amount for each housing unit contained in the new project. The amount to be paid will be determined by the institution in charge of the corresponding service and will be covered upon making the physical connection of each housing unit.\"\n\nIn accordance with the cited Law, to ensure the execution of urbanization works: “…the developer (urbanizador), when selling an unurbanized parcel, must provide an insurance policy (póliza), surety bond (fianza), mortgage (hipoteca), or other satisfactory form of guarantee, which the municipality will determine and qualify in each case, in agreement with the Institute (Instituto). The guarantee will be made effective if, within the term of five years, the urbanization works specified in the approved plans are not executed. In the event that the guarantee is made effective due to the developer’s (urbanizador) non-compliance, the municipality is obligated to execute the works.” Likewise, at the infra-legal level, the “Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations” (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), establishes:\n\n\"III.3.15 Works Compliance Guarantees (Garantías de cumplimiento de obra):\n\nIII.3.15.1 When a municipality agrees to authorize the segregation of lots without the urbanization works having been completed, it must demand for this the guarantee mentioned in Article 38 of Law No. 4240 (Urban Planning).\n\nFor these cases, the following documents will be sent to the INVU:\n\n- Type of guarantee offered.\n\n- Budget for the works completed and pending, signed by the responsible party of an authorized construction company.\n\n- Budget for the required tree planting, ensuring the maintenance of the trees during the first two years.\n\nThis document must have the approval (visto bueno) of the Forestry Directorate (Dirección Forestal) of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines. (Thus amended by Article IV of Ordinary Session No. 3928 of the INVU of June 19, 1989).\n\nIII.3.15.2 The INVU will decide within a period no longer than one month whether the guarantee and the amount are satisfactory and will notify the municipality for whatever action is appropriate.\n\nIII.3.15.3 In no case will segregation permits be granted based on preliminary projects (anteproyectos).\" (The boldface emphasis is not in the original)\n\nThus, it is the responsibility of the municipalities to oversee that the urbanization projects to be carried out in their canton comply with the provisions emanating from Law 7600 and its regulation, which includes: roads and sidewalks in adequate conditions. Likewise, once the works are built and at the time of their acceptance, the municipalities will be responsible for exercising control regarding compliance with the corresponding regulatory provisions, all in accordance with what is established in Article VI.6 of the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones). In other words, the municipalities must control that the urbanizations and the buildings constructed in them comply with the provisions established by Law 7600 and its regulation.\n\nVI.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE. From the study of the case file (expediente), it is evident that the protected party (amparado) is a minor who must move in a wheelchair because he suffers from cerebral palsy. In this regard, it is on record that the petitioners, who are the minor's parents, have filed several requests before the respondent municipal corporation, requesting the repair of the roads and sidewalks of the fourth stage of the El Atardecer Urbanization, where the protected party must travel daily in order to attend his educational center. However, as is evident from the report rendered under the solemnity of oath by the respondent authority, the urbanization where the protected party resides has not been officially received by the Municipality of Cartago, and therefore, the repair of the streets and sidewalks is the responsibility of the project developer, and not of that corporation. In this regard, this Court finds that the arguments put forth by the respondent authority are not acceptable, as it is observed that despite the fact that the road infrastructure works in the fourth stage of the El Atardecer Urbanization, in Quircot de Cartago, do not meet the requirements of Law Number 7600 and its regulation, that Municipality granted the corresponding permits for the sale and construction on the lots and did not stop any construction due to lack of the respective permits, in accordance with Article 58 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana). In this sense, the truth is that as of the filing date of the appeal (recurso), there are sectors in which \"the basic and operational urban infrastructure is highly deteriorated and deficient, even almost non-existent in some sectors,\" which clearly makes impossible or hinders the free transit of the protected party. This allows this Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) to conclude that the respondent Municipality was negligent, by not verifying on site that the constructed works coincided with the construction plans approved by the various organs and entities involved, an omission by virtue of which the protected party's rights to equality and education were violated in this matter, as well as the legal and regulatory provisions cited above, configuring a flagrant violation of the duties inherent to public office that warrant the protection (amparo) in this venue.\n\nVII.- IN CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the considerations made, the granting of this appeal (recurso) is appropriate, with the consequences that will be indicated in the operative part (parte dispositiva) of this judgment, as is indeed ordered.\"\n\nThese rights referred to are recognized both in our legal system, in Article 33 of the Magna Carta and in the \"Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities,\" Ley 7600, and in International Instruments, namely: the American Convention on Human Rights and, specifically, in the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, approved by the Legislative Assembly through Ley 7948. In this way, Article 1 of this latter convention can be cited, which, regarding discrimination, establishes the following: “The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of a disability, consequence of a present or past disability, which has the effect or purpose of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.” In addition to this, this Tribunal, through ruling number 2004-012973 of fourteen hours and forty-nine minutes on the seventeenth of November, two thousand four, stated the following, in what is relevant:\n\n“Likewise, said Convention establishes the obligation of the States that have subscribed to it to adopt measures to progressively eliminate discrimination and promote integration by governmental authorities and/or private entities in the provision or supply of goods, services, installations, programs, activities, such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, access to justice and police services, and political and administrative activities. This Tribunal indicated in ruling No. 2305-00 that the effective protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, constitutionally enshrined, is one of the means by which this population group can have a life as independent and normal as possible, so that their integration into society is full. It is clear that one of them consists of ensuring that the infrastructure of buildings, as well as means of transportation, especially those that provide public services, have provided facilities for the access of persons with disabilities. The State's obligation to progressively eliminate the 'physical barriers' that hinder or prevent their access to these services is clear.”\n\nUnder this rationale, it is clear that the failure to comply with these provisions, whether by the State or by private parties, constitutes a violation of the right to real equality of persons with disabilities, as it prevents them from integrating into society and accessing public services.\n\n**V.- ON MUNICIPAL COMPETENCIES IN MATTERS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES.** Article 169 of the Political Constitution stipulates that the administration of local interests and services in each canton shall be the responsibility of the Municipal Government. Consequently, it is up to the municipalities to verify that subdivisions (urbanizaciones) comply with the provisions of the current urban planning regulations. In this way, municipal corporations cannot dissociate themselves from the national urban planning problem, due to the constitutional responsibility that each one of them has to ensure harmonious development and services, which is an integral part of the concept of “local interests and services.” Thus, the respondent Municipality is not released from responsibility in the case at hand, since by law it is the entity responsible for overseeing everything related to the works executed within its jurisdiction. Indeed, when speaking of a subdivision (urbanización) project, one is dealing with an urban development process by which a private property is divided or segregated into a series of individual lots and spaces destined for public uses and services; therefore, the latter are of public domain (demanial) nature. This subdivision (urbanización) process entails the construction of all public and private infrastructure necessary to convert the original property or “mother lot (finca madre)” into a habitable zone, whether residential, commercial, or industrial. Throughout this process, a whole series of urban planning police instruments intervene, destined to control the exercise of the right to private property and ensure its compatibility with the public interest; thus, the stages of the process can be specified from a prior phase of preparation and planning of the project, then moving to a stage of project authorization (habilitación), then to the execution and construction phase, and finally, the stage of use and enjoyment of the subdivided (fraccionados) properties and the buildings that have been constructed. The preparation and planning stage comprises everything from the presentation of the preliminary plans for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) or development project, to the municipal endorsement of the constructive plans for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) or development project. In the authorization (habilitación) stage, the acceptance or reception of public works and areas of the projects and the municipal endorsement of segregation are found. Likewise, in the execution and construction stage, the granting of construction permits is identified, and finally, the use and enjoyment stage coincides with the sale and enjoyment of the resulting properties, which will also be subject to the urban planning restrictions of the municipality. The participation of municipal entities in all these stages is transcendental, by constitutional imperative — Article 169 — and also by law, as can be deduced from Article 38 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, in accordance with which no permit shall be given to urbanize land in the following cases:\n\n*a) When the project does not satisfy the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is the indispensable approval of the plans by the Dirección de Urbanismo and the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado;*\n\n*b) Because the cost of the urban development works (obras de habilitación urbana) for the property is not guaranteed, or the formal transfer to the municipality of the area reserved for public use has not been done or guaranteed, nor, failing that, the equivalent value satisfied in money; and*\n\n*c) As long as the development of the area located outside the zoned boundary is considered premature due to the lack of public facilities and services or because of the high cost of such facilities and services, due to its distance from other inhabited areas, or due to any other decisive deficiency creating adverse conditions for public safety and health.*\n\n*Subdivision (urbanización) projects located within or outside the zoned area that have aqueduct, sanitary sewer, and electrical services far from their boundaries must be accepted for analysis by the Municipality and the Dirección de Urbanismo, if the developer commits to paying for the works executed outside their property to offer all the necessary services.*\n\n*In this case, all future subdivision (urbanización) projects that attempt to use the services cited in the preceding paragraph in the period of five years, counted from the completion of those constructions, would pay the developer an amount for each housing unit contained in the new project. The amount to be paid shall be determined by the institution in charge of the corresponding service and shall be covered when the physical connection of each housing unit is made.”*\n\nIn accordance with the cited Law, to ensure the execution of subdivision (urbanización) works: *“…the developer, when selling an unurbanized parcel, must provide a policy, surety bond, mortgage, or other form of satisfactory guarantee, which shall be determined and qualified in each case by the municipality, in agreement with the Institute. The guarantee shall be made effective if the subdivision (urbanización) works specified in the approved plans are not executed within a term of five years. In the event that the guarantee is made effective due to the developer’s non-compliance, the municipality is obligated to execute the works.”* Likewise, at the sub-legal level, the “Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones” establishes:\n\n**“III.3.15 Guarantees for work compliance:**\n\n*III.3.15.1 When a municipality agrees to authorize the segregation of lots without the subdivision (urbanización) works having been included, it must require for this the guarantee mentioned in Article 38 of Ley No. 4240 (Planificación Urbana).*\n\n*For these cases, the following documents shall be submitted to the INVU:*\n\n*- Type of guarantee offered.*\n\n*- Budget for works done and missing, signed by the responsible party of an authorized construction company.*\n\n*- Budget for the required tree planting, ensuring the maintenance of the trees during the first two years.*\n\n*This document must have the approval (visto bueno) of the Dirección Forestal of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines. (Thus amended by Article IV of the Ordinary Session No. 3928 of the INVU of June 19, 1989).*\n\n*III.3.15.2 The INVU shall resolve within a period not exceeding one month whether the guarantee and the amount are satisfactory and shall notify the municipality for whatever action may be appropriate.*\n\n*III.3.15.3 Under no circumstances shall segregation permits be granted based on preliminary drafts.”* (The bold highlighting is not from the original)\n\nIn this way, municipalities are responsible for monitoring that the subdivision (urbanización) projects to be carried out in their canton comply with the provisions emanating from Ley 7600 and its regulation, which includes: roads and sidewalks in adequate conditions. Likewise, once the works are built and at the time of their acceptance, it will be the responsibility of the municipalities to exercise control regarding compliance with the corresponding regulatory provisions, all in accordance with what is established in Article VI.6 of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones. In other words, municipalities must control that the subdivisions (urbanizaciones) and the buildings constructed therein comply with the provisions established by Ley 7600 and its regulation.\n\n**VI.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.** From the study of the case file (expediente), it is evident that the protected party is a minor who must travel in a wheelchair because he suffers from cerebral palsy. In this regard, it is recorded that the appellants, who are the minor's parents, have filed several requests before the respondent municipal corporation, requesting the repair of the roads and sidewalks of El Atardecer Fourth-Stage Subdivision (Urbanización El Atardecer, cuarta etapa), through which the protected party must travel daily in order to attend his educational center. Now, according to what is evident from the report given under the solemnity of oath by the respondent authority, the subdivision (urbanización) where the protected party resides has not been officially accepted by the Municipality of Cartago, and therefore, the repair of the streets and sidewalks is the responsibility of the project developer, and not of that corporation. In this regard, this Tribunal considers that the arguments put forward by the respondent authority are not admissible, because it is observed that despite the fact that the road infrastructure works in the fourth stage of El Atardecer Subdivision (Urbanización El Atardecer), in Quircot de Cartago, do not meet the requirements of Ley 7600 and its regulation, that Municipality granted the corresponding permits for the sale and construction on the lots and did not stop any construction for lacking the respective permits, in accordance with Article 58 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana. In this sense, the truth is that at the date of filing the appeal, there exist sectors in which *“the basic and operational urban infrastructure is highly deteriorated and deficient, even almost non-existent in some sectors,”* thereby clearly preventing or hindering the free transit of the protected party. This allows this Constitutional Tribunal to conclude that the respondent Municipality was remiss, in failing to verify on site that the built works coincided with the constructive plans approved by the various organs and entities involved, an omission by virtue of which in this matter the right to equality and to education of the protected party was violated and, in addition, the legal and regulatory provisions cited above were breached, configuring a flagrant violation of the duties inherent to public function that warrant granting amparo in this venue.\n\n**VII.- IN CONCLUSION.** As a corollary of the considerations made, the granting of this appeal (recurso) is imperative, with the consequences that will be indicated in the operative part of this judgment, as is hereby ordered.”" }