{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-128596", "citation": "Res. 03427-2009 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Accesibilidad municipal para persona discapacitada", "title_en": "Municipal Accessibility for Disabled Person", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional conoce un recurso de amparo presentado por una mujer con discapacidad contra la Municipalidad de El Guarco, por la omisión en atender sus gestiones sobre las graves barreras de movilidad en la Urbanización El Silo, que incluyen mal estado de calles y aceras, falta de tapas en ceniceros y ausencia de rampas en paradas de autobús. La recurrente alega violación al principio de igualdad del artículo 33 constitucional. La Sala analiza el marco internacional y nacional de protección de los derechos de las personas con discapacidad, destacando la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades No. 7600 y diversas convenciones. En el caso concreto, determina que la municipalidad incumplió su deber al no solventar los problemas pese a reconocerlos, rechazando como justificación la falta de presupuesto y la inexistencia de normativa al momento de construir la urbanización. La Sala declara con lugar el recurso, condenando a la municipalidad al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber hears an amparo appeal filed by a woman with a disability against the Municipality of El Guarco, for failing to address the serious mobility barriers in El Silo residential area, including poor sidewalk and street conditions, missing manhole covers, and lack of access ramps at bus stops. The claimant alleges a violation of the principle of equality under Article 33 of the Constitution. The Chamber analyzes the international and national legal framework protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, highlighting the Equal Opportunities Law No. 7600 and various conventions. In the specific case, it finds that the municipality breached its duty by not resolving the problems despite acknowledging them, rejecting budget shortages and the absence of regulations at the time of construction as justifications. The Chamber grants the appeal and orders the municipality to pay costs, damages, and losses.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "2009", "year": "2009", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "amparo", "principio de igualdad", "personas con discapacidad", "Ley 7600", "costas, daños y perjuicios", "municipalidad" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 33", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": null, "law": "Ley 7600" }, { "article": null, "law": "Ley 7948" }, { "article": null, "law": "Ley 8661" }, { "article": "Art. 26", "law": "Ley 4229" }, { "article": "Art. 18", "law": "Ley 7907" } ], "keywords_es": [ "igualdad", "discapacidad", "accesibilidad", "municipalidad", "omisión", "costas", "amparo", "Ley 7600", "Constitución", "derechos humanos" ], "keywords_en": [ "equality", "disability", "accessibility", "municipality", "omission", "costs", "amparo", "Law 7600", "Constitution", "human rights" ], "excerpt_es": "Sobre el particular, este Tribunal Constitucional considera el recurso como procedente. Lo anterior, pues de los hechos que constan en autos se tiene plenamente demostrado que, efectivamente, las autoridades recurridas no han atendido las gestiones formuladas por la recurrente y, en ese sentido, la urbanización en donde reside posee graves problemas para la movilización de personas con discapacidad, en concreto, un mal estado de las calles y aceras, ceniceros sin sus respectivas tapas e, incluso, paradas de autobuses sin rampas de acceso.\n\nDe otra parte, deben de tomar en consideración las autoridades recurridas - quienes en su informe reconocen dicha problemática-, que, de ningún modo, son de recibo para esta Sala sus argumentos de descargo, sea, la falta de presupuesto y que cuando se construyó el proyecto habitacional bajo estudio, no regían las disposiciones establecidas en la Ley No. 7600 supra señalada.\n\nDe manera tal que, en la especie, este Tribunal Constitucional estime vulnerado, en perjuicio de la interesada, el derecho fundamental a la igualdad.", "excerpt_en": "On this matter, this Constitutional Court considers the appeal admissible. The foregoing, since from the facts on record it is fully demonstrated that, indeed, the respondent authorities have not addressed the requests made by the appellant, and in that sense, the residential area where she lives has serious mobility problems for disabled persons, specifically, poor sidewalks and streets, open manholes without their respective covers, and even bus stops without access ramps.\n\nOn the other hand, the respondent authorities — who in their report acknowledge this problematic — must take into consideration that this Chamber does not accept their discharging arguments, namely, the lack of budget and that when the housing project under study was built, the provisions established in Law No. 7600 aforementioned were not in force.\n\nTherefore, in the present case, this Constitutional Court finds the fundamental right to equality to have been violated to the detriment of the interested party.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The Chamber grants the amparo, condemning the Municipality of El Guarco to pay costs, damages, and losses for violating the right to equality by failing to address accessibility problems for a disabled person.", "summary_es": "La Sala declara con lugar el recurso de amparo, condenando a la Municipalidad de El Guarco al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios por vulneración del derecho a la igualdad al omitir atender problemas de accesibilidad para persona discapacitada." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "The enjoyment of equal opportunities of access and participation under identical circumstances ceases to be a mere aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a true fundamental right.", "quote_es": "El disfrute de iguales oportunidades de acceso y participación en idénticas circunstancias deja de ser para las personas con discapacidad una simple aspiración y se convierte en un verdadero derecho fundamental." }, { "context": "Considerando III, citando Sentencia 2288-1999", "quote_en": "It is not simply a special treatment in light of the particular conditions of this population, but a right of theirs and an obligation of the rest of people to respect those rights and fulfill the obligations derived from them.", "quote_es": "No se trata simplemente de un trato especial en atención a las particulares condiciones de esa población, sino de un derecho de ésta y una obligación del resto de las personas por respetar esos derechos y cumplir con las obligaciones que de ellos se derivan." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-23261", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7600" }, { "target_id": "norm-44205", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7907 Art. 18" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-128596", "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-44205", "norm_num": "7907", "norm_name": "Protocolo de San Salvador", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "03/09/1999" }, { "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. La recurrente -quien sufre de una\r\ndiscapacidad-, alega vulnerado el principio de igualdad tutelado en el artículo\r\n33 de la Constitución Política, toda vez que, según su dicho, las autoridades\r\nmunicipales recurridas han hecho caso omiso a las reiteradas gestiones\r\nque ha formulado tendentes a señalar los inconvenientes que existen para su\r\nmovilización en la urbanización en donde reside, entre los que destacan el mal\r\nestado de las calles y aceras, cuarenta y nueve ceniceros sin sus respectivas\r\ntapas y la falta de rampas de acceso en las paradas de autobuses. \n\r\n\r\n\nIII.- SOBRE LA IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDADES\r\nPARA LAS PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. El artículo 7 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos\r\nHumanos reconoce que “Todos son iguales ante la ley y tienen, sin\r\ndistinción, derecho a igual protección de la ley. Todos tienen derecho a igual\r\nprotección contra toda discriminación que infrinja esta Declaración y contra\r\ntoda provocación a tal discriminación”. El Pacto Internacional de Derechos\r\nCiviles y Políticos, incorporado a nuestro Ordenamiento mediante Ley de la\r\nRepública No. 4229 de 11 de diciembre de 1968, ordena en el artículo 26\r\nque “Todas las personas son iguales ante la ley y tienen derecho sin\r\ndiscriminación a igual protección de la ley. A este respecto, la ley prohibirá toda discriminación y garantizará a todas las\r\npersonas protección igual y efectiva contra cualquier discriminación por\r\nmotivos de raza, color, sexo, idioma, religión, opiniones políticas o de cualquier\r\níndole, origen nacional o social, posición económica, nacimiento o cualquier\r\notra condición social”. Por su parte, el Pacto Internacional de Derechos\r\nEconómicos, Sociales y Culturales dispone en el artículo 2° que los Estados\r\nPartes en el Pacto se “(…) comprometen a garantizar el ejercicio de los\r\nderechos que en él se enuncia, sin discriminación alguna por motivos de raza,\r\ncolor, sexo, idioma, religión, opinión política o de otra índole, origen\r\nnacional o social, posición económica, nacimiento o cualquier otra condición\r\nsocial”. En el plano americano, la Convención Americana Sobre\r\nDerechos Humanos dispone en el artículo 24 que todas las personas son iguales ante la ley y que, en consecuencia, tienen\r\nderecho sin discriminación a igual protección de ésta. El artículo 18 del\r\nProtocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en Materia\r\nde Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, “Protocolo de San Salvador”,\r\nLey No. 7907 de 3 de setiembre de 1999, dispone en el\r\nartículo 18 que “Toda persona afectada por una disminución de sus\r\ncapacidades físicas o mentales tiene derecho a recibir una atención especial\r\ncon el fin de alcanzar el máximo desarrollo de su personalidad.” Como puede\r\nobservarse, la tendencia expansiva y progresiva de los derechos humanos ha\r\nllevado a los países a sumarse a la lucha contra toda forma de discriminación\r\nque sea contraria a la dignidad humana. En atención a esas tendencias de\r\ngarantizar el derecho a la igualdad de todas las personas, los Estados\r\nAmericanos suscribieron la Convención Interamericana para la Eliminación de\r\ntodas las formas de Discriminación contra las Personas con Discapacidad, en\r\nCiudad de Guatemala el 8 de junio de 1999 y que fue incorporada a nuestro\r\nOrdenamiento Jurídico mediante Ley No. 7948 de 22 de noviembre de 1999\r\n(instrumento internacional con fuerza superior a la ley por disposición del\r\nartículo 7 constitucional). En la Convención se reafirmó que las personas con\r\ndiscapacidad tienen los mismos derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales que\r\notras personas y que estos derechos, incluido el de no verse sometidos a\r\ndiscriminación en razón de la discapacidad, dimanan de la dignidad y la\r\nigualdad que son inherentes a todo ser humano. El objetivo de la Convención es\r\nla prevención y la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra las\r\npersonas con discapacidad y propiciar su plena integración en la sociedad. El\r\nartículo 1° define la discriminación, de la siguiente manera: \n\r\n\r\n\n“El término discriminación\r\ncontra las personas con discapacidad, significa toda distinción, exclusión o\r\nrestricción basada en una discapacidad, antecedente de discapacidad,\r\nconsecuencia de discapacidad presente o pasada, que tenga el efecto o el\r\npropósito de impedir o anular el reconocimiento, goce o ejercicio por parte de las\r\npersonas con discapacidad, de sus derechos humanos y libertades\r\nfundamentales”. \n\r\n\r\n\nAsimismo, en el artículo 2° consagra\r\nla obligación de los Estados que la suscribieron, a adoptar: \n\r\n\r\n\n“las medidas para eliminar\r\nprogresivamente la discriminación y promover la integración por parte de las\r\nautoridades gubernamentales y/o entidades privadas en la prestación o\r\nsuministro de bienes, servicios, instalaciones, programas, actividades, tales\r\ncomo el empleo, el transporte, las comunicaciones, la vivienda, la recreación,\r\nla educación, el deporte, el acceso a la justicia y los servicios policiales y\r\nlas actividades políticas y de administración”. \n\r\n\r\n\nIgualmente, conviene señalar que la\r\nAsamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en el Sexagésimo primer periodo de\r\nSesiones entre el 14 y 25 de agosto de 2006 adoptó la resolución No. 61/106 que\r\nes la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, la cual\r\nfue aprobada en nuestro país mediante la Ley No. 8661 de 19 de agosto de 2008. En\r\nel Preámbulo de dicha Convención se reconoce que la discapacidad es un concepto\r\nque evoluciona y que resulta de la interacción entre las personas con\r\ndeficiencias y las barreras debidas a la actitud y al entorno, que evitan su\r\nparticipación plena y efectiva en la sociedad en igualdad de condiciones. Asimismo,\r\ndestaca la importancia de incorporar cuestiones relativas a la discapacidad\r\ncomo parte integrante de las estrategias pertinentes de desarrollo sostenible y\r\nreconoce que la discriminación contra cualquier persona por razón de su discapacidad\r\nconstituye una vulneración de la dignidad y el valor inherentes del ser humano.\r\nEl artículo 1° dispone que el propósito de la Convención es\r\npromover, proteger y asegurar el goce pleno y en condiciones de igualdad de\r\ntodos los derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales por todas las personas\r\ncon discapacidad y promover el respeto de su dignidad inherente. Como\r\nobligaciones generales establece lo siguiente: \n\r\n\r\n\n“Artículo 4. 1. Los\r\nEstados Partes se comprometen a asegurar y promover el pleno ejercicio de todos\r\nlos derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de las personas con\r\ndiscapacidad sin discriminación alguna por motivos de incapacidad.” \n\r\n\r\n\nEl común denominador de los\r\ninstrumentos internacionales sobre derechos humanos señalados se centra en la\r\neliminación de la discriminación y en la nueva dimensión de la igualdad de\r\noportunidades. Asimismo, se insiste sobre el derecho de las personas con\r\ndiscapacidad a las mismas oportunidades que el resto de la ciudadanía, a\r\ndisfrutar en un plano de igualdad de las mejoras en las condiciones de vida\r\nresultantes del desarrollo económico, tecnológico y social y se advierte de la\r\nimportancia de la inserción social de las personas con discapacidad. En el\r\nplano infraconstitucional, este Tribunal\r\nConstitucional ha señalado que con la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las\r\nPersonas con Discapacidad, Ley No. 7600 del 2 de mayo de 1996, el legislador\r\npretendió cumplir con los objetivos señalados y procurar por la eliminación una\r\nserie de barreras que impiden a las personas que sufren algún grado de\r\ndiscapacidad, participar en forma plena en la sociedad costarricense. En este\r\nsentido, la Sala resolvió lo siguiente: \n\r\n\r\n\n“(…) Esta Sala ya se ha\r\npronunciado en otras ocasiones sobre la protección especial que el ordenamiento\r\njurídico da a las personas discapacitadas, a fin de que éstas puedan\r\ndesenvolverse normalmente dentro de la sociedad. No se trata simplemente de un\r\ntrato especial en atención a las particulares condiciones de esa población,\r\nsino de un derecho de ésta y una obligación del resto de las personas por\r\nrespetar esos derechos y cumplir con las obligaciones que de ellos se derivan\r\n(…).\" (Sentencia No. 2288-1999\r\nde las 11:06 hrs. de 26 de marzo de 1999). \n\r\n\r\n\nAsí, esta normativa tiene como\r\nobjetivo fundamental que se logren las condiciones necesarias para que las\r\npersonas que padecen cualquier tipo de discapacidad, alcancen su plena\r\nparticipación social en iguales condiciones de calidad, oportunidad, derechos y\r\ndeberes que el resto de los habitantes. Precisamente, por ese fundamento, es\r\nque el disfrute de iguales oportunidades de acceso y participación en idénticas\r\ncircunstancias deja de ser para las personas con discapacidad una simple\r\naspiración y se convierte en un verdadero derecho fundamental, de manera que se\r\nprocure por el bienestar general en el marco de una sociedad democrática como\r\nla nuestra. \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- CASO CONCRETO. En el presente asunto, la recurrente\r\nRojas Cedeño -quien sufre de una discapacidad-, aduce\r\nquebrantado el principio de igualdad tutelado en el artículo 33 de la\r\nConstitución Política, toda vez que, según su dicho, las autoridades\r\nmunicipales recurridas han hecho caso omiso a las reiteradas gestiones que ha\r\nformulado tendentes a señalar los inconvenientes que existen para su\r\nmovilización en la Urbanización El Silo, ubicado en el Tejar de El Guarco de Cartago. Sobre el particular, este Tribunal\r\nConstitucional considera el recurso como procedente. Lo anterior, pues de los\r\nhechos que constan en autos se tiene plenamente demostrado que, efectivamente,\r\nlas autoridades recurridas no han atendido las gestiones formuladas por la\r\nrecurrente y, en ese sentido, la urbanización en donde reside posee\r\ngraves problemas para la movilización de personas con discapacidad, en\r\nconcreto, un mal estado de las calles y aceras, ceniceros sin sus respectivas\r\ntapas e, incluso, paradas de autobuses sin rampas de acceso. De otra parte,\r\ndeben de tomar en consideración las autoridades recurridas - quienes en su\r\ninforme reconocen dicha problemática-, que, de ningún modo, son\r\nde recibo para esta Sala sus argumentos de descargo, sea, la falta de\r\npresupuesto y que cuando se construyó el proyecto habitacional bajo estudio, no\r\nregían las disposiciones establecidas en la Ley No. 7600 supra\r\nseñalada. A mayor abundamiento, nótese que aún cuando la Municipalidad\r\nrecurrida haya puesto en marcha una serie de proyectos para realizar las obras\r\nalegadas como lo es la disposición de una partida presupuestaria y la apertura\r\nde un procedimiento de licitación abreviada, no se han concretado y, por\r\nconsiguiente, el problema de accesibilidad en cuestión persiste. De manera tal\r\nque, en la especie, este Tribunal Constitucional estime vulnerado, en perjuicio\r\nde la interesada, el derecho fundamental a la igualdad. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.- COROLARIO. En mérito de lo expuesto, se impone\r\ndeclarar con lugar el recurso planteado, con las consecuencias que se\r\ndetallarán en la parte dispositiva de la presente sentencia. ”", "body_en_text": "I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. The appellant—who suffers from a disability—alleges a violation of the principle of equality protected under Article 33 of the Political Constitution, in that, according to her account, the respondent municipal authorities have ignored the repeated requests she has made aimed at pointing out the obstacles that exist for her mobility in the urbanization where she resides, among which are the poor condition of the streets and sidewalks, forty-nine tree grates (ceniceros) without their respective covers, and the lack of access ramps at bus stops.\n\nIII.- ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, incorporated into our legal system through Law of the Republic No. 4229 of December 11, 1968, mandates in Article 26 that “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” For its part, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides in Article 2 that the States Parties to the Covenant “(…) undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” In the American sphere, the American Convention on Human Rights provides in Article 24 that all persons are equal before the law and, consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. Article 18 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Protocol of San Salvador,” Law No. 7907 of September 3, 1999, provides in Article 18 that “Every person affected by a diminution of his physical or mental capacities is entitled to receive special attention designed to help him achieve the greatest possible development of his personality.” As can be observed, the expansive and progressive trend of human rights has led countries to join the struggle against all forms of discrimination that are contrary to human dignity. In response to these trends of guaranteeing the right to equality for all persons, the American States signed the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, in Guatemala City on June 8, 1999, which was incorporated into our legal system through Law No. 7948 of November 22, 1999 (an international instrument with force superior to the law by provision of Article 7 of the Constitution). The Convention reaffirmed that persons with disabilities have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as other persons and that these rights, including the right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, emanate from the dignity and equality that are inherent in every human being. The objective of the Convention is the prevention and elimination of all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities and to foster their full integration into society. Article 1 defines discrimination as follows:\n\n“The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of disability, condition resulting from a previous disability, or perception of disability, whether present or past, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”\n\nLikewise, Article 2 enshrines the obligation of the States that signed it to adopt:\n\n“measures to progressively eliminate discrimination and to promote integration by government authorities and/or private entities in the provision or supply of goods, services, facilities, programs, and activities such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, law enforcement and the administration of justice, and political and administrative activities.”\n\nEqually, it is worth noting that the United Nations General Assembly, in its Sixty-first session period between August 14 and 25, 2006, adopted Resolution No. 61/106, which is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved in our country through Law No. 8661 of August 19, 2008. The Preamble of this Convention recognizes that disability is an evolving concept and that it results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. Likewise, it highlights the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant sustainable development strategies and recognizes that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability constitutes a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person. Article 1 provides that the purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. As general obligations, it establishes the following:\n\n“Article 4. 1. States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.”\n\nThe common denominator of the international human rights instruments cited centers on the elimination of discrimination and the new dimension of equal opportunity. Likewise, they insist on the right of persons with disabilities to the same opportunities as the rest of the citizenry, to enjoy on a plane of equality the improvements in living conditions resulting from economic, technological, and social development, and they warn of the importance of the social insertion of persons with disabilities. At the infraconstitutional level, this Constitutional Court has indicated that with the Equal Opportunity Law for Persons with Disabilities, Law No. 7600 of May 2, 1996, the legislator sought to comply with the aforementioned objectives and strive for the elimination of a series of barriers that prevent persons suffering from some degree of disability from participating fully in Costa Rican society. In this regard, the Chamber resolved the following:\n\n“(…) This Chamber has already pronounced on other occasions regarding the special protection that the legal system grants to persons with disabilities, so that they can function normally within society. It is not simply a matter of special treatment in consideration of the particular conditions of that population, but rather a right belonging to them and an obligation on the rest of the people to respect those rights and comply with the obligations derived from them (…).\" (Judgment No. 2288-1999 of 11:06 hrs. of March 26, 1999).\n\nThus, this regulation has as its fundamental objective to achieve the necessary conditions so that persons suffering from any type of disability may attain their full social participation under equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as the rest of the inhabitants. Precisely, on this basis, the enjoyment of equal opportunities of access and participation in identical circumstances ceases to be a simple aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a true fundamental right, in such a way that general well-being is sought within the framework of a democratic society such as ours.\n\nIV.- SPECIFIC CASE. In the present matter, the appellant Rojas Cedeño—who suffers from a disability—claims a breach of the principle of equality protected under Article 33 of the Political Constitution, in that, according to her account, the respondent municipal authorities have ignored the repeated requests she has made aimed at pointing out the obstacles that exist for her mobility in the Urbanización El Silo, located in Tejar de El Guarco de Cartago. On this point, this Constitutional Court considers the appeal admissible. The foregoing, because from the facts contained in the case file it is fully demonstrated that, indeed, the respondent authorities have not addressed the requests made by the appellant and, in that sense, the urbanization where she resides has serious problems for the mobility of persons with disabilities, specifically, poor condition of the streets and sidewalks, tree grates (ceniceros) without their respective covers, and, even, bus stops without access ramps. On the other hand, the respondent authorities—who in their report acknowledge this problem—must take into consideration that their arguments in defense, i.e., lack of budget and that when the housing project under study was built, the provisions established in the aforementioned Law No. 7600 were not in force, are in no way acceptable to this Chamber. Moreover, it should be noted that even though the respondent Municipality has launched a series of projects to carry out the alleged works, such as the provision of a budget line item and the opening of an abbreviated bidding procedure, they have not materialized, and, consequently, the accessibility problem in question persists. Thus, in this instance, this Constitutional Court deems the fundamental right to equality to have been violated, to the detriment of the interested party.\n\nV.- COROLLARY. By virtue of the foregoing, it is necessary to grant the appeal filed, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.\n\n”

\n\n

 

\n\n

“ I.-  PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. The appellant—who suffers from a\ndisability—alleges a violation of the principle of equality protected in article\n33 of the Constitución Política, given that, according to her statement, the\nrespondent municipal authorities  have ignored the repeated efforts she\nhas made to point out the inconveniences that exist for her mobility in the\nresidential development where she resides, among which the poor\nstate of the streets and sidewalks, forty-nine tree grates without their respective\ncovers, and the lack of access ramps at bus stops stand out. 

\n\n

III.- ON EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITIES\nFOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, incorporated into our legal system by Law of the Republic No. 4229 of December 11, 1968,  orders in article 26 that “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” For its part, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides in article 2 that the States Parties to the Covenant “(…) undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in (…) [the Covenant] will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. In the American sphere, the American Convention on Human Rights provides in article 24 that all persons are equal before the law and, consequently, are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. Article 18 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Protocol of San Salvador”,\nLaw No. 7907 of September 3, 1999, provides in article 18 that “Everyone affected by a diminution of his physical or mental capacities is entitled to receive special attention designed to help him achieve the greatest possible development of his personality.” As can\nbe observed, the expansive and progressive trend of human rights has\nled countries to join the fight against all forms of discrimination\nthat are contrary to human dignity. In response to these trends of\nguaranteeing the right to equality of all persons, the\nAmerican States signed the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, in\nGuatemala City on June 8, 1999, which was incorporated into our\nLegal System by Law No. 7948 of November 22, 1999\n(international instrument with force superior to law by provision of\nArticle 7 of the Constitution). In the Convention, it was reaffirmed that persons with\ndisabilities have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as\nother persons and that these rights, including that of not being subjected to\ndiscrimination based on disability, stem from the dignity and\nequality that are inherent to every human being. The objective of the Convention is\nthe prevention and elimination of all forms of discrimination against\npersons with disability and to foster their full integration into society.\nArticle 1 defines discrimination as follows:

\n\n

“The term ‘discrimination against persons with disabilities’ means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of disability, condition resulting from a previous disability, or perception of disability, whether present or past, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”  

\n\n

Likewise, article 2 enshrines\nthe obligation of the States that signed it to adopt:

\n\n

“measures to eliminate discrimination gradually and to promote integration by government authorities and/or private entities in providing or making available goods, services, facilities, programs, and activities such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, law enforcement and the administration of justice, and political and administrative activities.”

\n\n

Likewise, it is worth noting that the\nUnited Nations General Assembly at its Sixty-first Session\nbetween August 14 and 25, 2006, adopted resolution No. 61/106, which\nis the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which\nwas approved in our country through Law No. 8661 of August 19, 2008. In\nthe Preamble of said Convention, it is recognized that disability is a concept\nthat evolves and results from the interaction between persons with\nimpairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their\nfull and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. Likewise,\nit highlights the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as\nan integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development and\nrecognizes that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability\nconstitutes a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person.\nArticle 1 provides that the purpose of the Convention is\nto promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of\nall human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons\nwith disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. As\ngeneral obligations, it establishes the following:

\n\n

“Article 4. 1. States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.”

\n\n

The common denominator of the\ninternational human rights instruments indicated focuses on the\nelimination of discrimination and on the new dimension of equality of\nopportunities. Likewise, emphasis is placed on the right of persons with\ndisability to the same opportunities as the rest of the citizenry, to\nenjoy on an equal footing the improvements in living conditions\nresulting from economic, technological, and social development, and note is taken of the\nimportance of the social inclusion of persons with disabilities. At the\ninfra-constitutional level, this\nConstitutional Court has indicated that with the Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las\nPersonas con Discapacidad, Law No. 7600 of May 2, 1996, the legislator\nsought to comply with the objectives indicated and seek the elimination of a\nseries of barriers that prevent persons who suffer some degree of\ndisability from participating fully in Costa Rican society. In this\nregard, the Chamber resolved the following:

\n\n

“(…) This Chamber has already\nruled on other occasions regarding the special protection that the legal\nsystem grants to disabled persons, so that they can\nfunction normally within society. It is not simply a matter of\nspecial treatment in response to the particular conditions of that population,\nbut a right of the latter and an obligation of the rest of the people to\nrespect those rights and comply with the obligations derived from them\n(…)." (Judgment No. 2288-1999\nof 11:06 a.m. of March 26, 1999).

\n\n

Thus, this regulation has as its\nfundamental objective achieving the necessary conditions for\npersons suffering from any type of disability to attain their full\nsocial participation in equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and\nduties as the rest of the inhabitants. Precisely, for that reason, it\nis that the enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation in identical\ncircumstances ceases to be for persons with disabilities a simple\naspiration and becomes a true fundamental right, so that\nthe general welfare is sought within the framework of a democratic society such as\nours.

\n\n

IV.- SPECIFIC CASE. In the present matter, the appellant\nRojas Cedeño—who suffers from a disability—alleges\na violation of the principle of equality protected in article 33 of the\nConstitución Política, given that, according to her statement, the\nrespondent municipal authorities have ignored the repeated efforts she has\nmade to point out the inconveniences that exist for her\nmobility in El Silo Residential Development, located in El Tejar de El\nGuarco de Cartago. On this point, this\nConstitutional Court considers the appeal to be admissible. The foregoing, given that from the\nfacts contained in the record it is fully demonstrated that, indeed,\nthe respondent authorities have not addressed the efforts made by the\nappellant and, in that sense, the residential development where she resides has\nserious problems for the mobility of persons with disabilities, in\nparticular, a poor state of the streets and sidewalks, tree grates without their respective\ncovers, and even bus stops without access ramps. On the other hand,\nthe respondent authorities must take into consideration—who in their\nreport recognize said problem—that, in no way, are\ntheir arguments for discharge acceptable to this Chamber, that is, the lack of\nbudget and that when the housing project under study was built,\nthe provisions established in the aforementioned Law No. 7600 were not in force.\nFurthermore, note that even though the respondent\nMunicipality has launched a series of projects to carry out the\nclaimed works, such as the allocation of a budget line item and the opening\nof an abbreviated bidding procedure, they have not materialized and,\nconsequently, the accessibility problem in question persists. In such a way\nthat, in this case, this Constitutional Court deems the\nfundamental right to equality violated, to the detriment\nof the interested party.

\n\n

V.- COROLLARY. By virtue of the foregoing, it is necessary\nto declare the appeal filed with merit, with the consequences that will\nbe detailed in the operative part of this judgment. ”

\n\n

 

\n\n\n\n\n\n" }