{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-378685",
  "citation": "Res. 01628-2025 Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Inaplicabilidad del derecho de abstención en materia de familia",
  "title_en": "Inapplicability of the right against self-incrimination in family law",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda de la Corte revoca la sentencia de un tribunal de familia que había calificado de \"espuria\" la declaración de un co-accionado en un proceso de nulidad de matrimonio, por considerar que vulneraba su derecho de abstención y la presunción de inocencia. La Sala establece que la garantía de no declarar contra sí mismo, consagrada en el artículo 36 de la Constitución Política y en instrumentos internacionales como la Convención Americana y el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, es de aplicación exclusiva en materia penal. En el ámbito del derecho de familia, no existe fundamento constitucional que ampare este derecho, pues su razón de ser está ligada a la posible pérdida de libertad o imposición de penas propias del proceso penal. En el caso concreto, la declaración rendida por el co-demandado ante la Secretaría de Servicio Civil fue realizada en beneficio de sus propios intereses para anular los efectos del matrimonio, por lo que debió ser valorada como prueba.",
  "summary_en": "The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court overturns a family court ruling that had dismissed a co-defendant's statement in a marriage annulment proceeding as \"spurious,\" considering it violated his right against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence. The Chamber holds that the guarantee against self-incrimination, enshrined in Article 36 of the Constitution and in international instruments such as the American Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, applies exclusively in criminal matters. In family law, there is no constitutional basis for this right, as its rationale is tied to the potential loss of liberty or imposition of penalties specific to criminal proceedings. In this case, the co-defendant's statement given before the Civil Service Secretariat was made for his own benefit to annul the effects of the marriage, and therefore should have been admitted as evidence.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "date": "2025",
  "year": "2025",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "derecho de abstención",
    "autoincriminación",
    "presunción de inocencia",
    "Sala Constitucional",
    "Convención Americana de los Derechos del Hombre",
    "Código de Familia"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 36",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 24",
      "law": "Convención Americana de los Derechos del Hombre"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 14",
      "law": "Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos"
    },
    {
      "article": null,
      "law": "Código de Familia"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "derecho de abstención",
    "autoincriminación",
    "presunción de inocencia",
    "materia de familia",
    "nulidad de matrimonio",
    "prueba en familia",
    "Sala Segunda",
    "Resolución 01628-2025",
    "artículo 36 Constitución Política",
    "Convención Americana",
    "Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos",
    "jurisprudencia Sala Constitucional",
    "matrimonio simulado",
    "estatus migratorio",
    "Código de Familia"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "right against self-incrimination",
    "presumption of innocence",
    "family law",
    "marriage annulment",
    "evidence in family court",
    "Second Chamber",
    "Resolution 01628-2025",
    "Article 36 Constitution",
    "American Convention",
    "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights",
    "Constitutional Chamber jurisprudence",
    "sham marriage",
    "migratory status",
    "Family Code"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "El argumento del Tribunal, al calificar de “espuria” la declaración del co-accionado ante la Secretaría del Registro Civil, por la eventualidad de la infracción del derecho de abstención y de la presunción de inocencia (artículo 36 de la Carta Magna), no es compartido por esta Sala. Al respecto, ya la Sala Constitucional, en múltiples pronunciamientos, ha establecido que esta garantía -también regulada en los numerales 24 de la Convención Americana de los Derechos del Hombre y 14 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos-, se aplica solo en el campo de la materia penal. Debido a que, en esa rama del derecho, nadie está obligado a declarar en contra de sí mismo, puesto que, en ese campo, la persona puede llegar a ser condenada a perder su libertad o cualquier otra pena de otra índole. No obstante, en otras materias como el derecho civil o el de familia, constitucionalmente se ha dispuesto que no existe ningún fundamento que justifique la garantía de no declarar en contra de sí mismo, pues esta condición es propia únicamente de la materia penal (ver en este sentido los Votos números 6359-93, 5977-94, 2404-98, 412-99 y 2624-99, todos de la Sala Constitucional). En virtud de lo anterior, mal se haría en no apreciar como medio probatorio lo indicado por el propio co-accionado al presentar su denuncia ante la Secretaría de Servicio Civil, con fundamento con la infracción de un supuesto derecho de abstención por auto incriminación, dado que el co-demandado rindió esa declaración en beneficio de sus propios intereses y así anular los efectos jurídicos derivados del matrimonio.",
  "excerpt_en": "The Court's argument, in labeling the co-defendant's statement before the Civil Registry as 'spurious' due to the potential violation of the right against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence (Article 36 of the Constitution), is not shared by this Chamber. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber, in multiple rulings, has established that this guarantee—also regulated in Articles 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—applies only in the field of criminal law. This is because, in that branch of law, no one is compelled to testify against themselves, since in that field, a person may be sentenced to lose their liberty or any other type of penalty. However, in other areas such as civil or family law, it has been constitutionally determined that there is no basis to justify the guarantee against self-incrimination, as this condition belongs solely to criminal law (see in this regard Votes numbers 6359-93, 5977-94, 2404-98, 412-99 and 2624-99, all from the Constitutional Chamber). In light of the above, it would be incorrect not to consider as evidence what was stated by the co-defendant himself when filing his complaint before the Civil Service Secretariat, based on the violation of an alleged right against self-incrimination, given that the co-defendant gave that statement for his own benefit and thus to annul the legal effects derived from the marriage.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Granted",
    "label_es": "Con lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Second Chamber grants the appeal, overturns the family court ruling, and orders that the co-defendant's statement be admitted as valid evidence in the marriage annulment proceeding.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda declara con lugar el recurso, anula la sentencia del tribunal de familia y ordena valorar la declaración del co-demandado como prueba válida en el proceso de nulidad de matrimonio."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "This guarantee applies only in the field of criminal law.",
      "quote_es": "Esta garantía se aplica solo en el campo de la materia penal."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "In other areas such as civil or family law, it has been constitutionally determined that there is no basis to justify the guarantee against self-incrimination.",
      "quote_es": "En otras materias como el derecho civil o el de familia, constitucionalmente se ha dispuesto que no existe ningún fundamento que justifique la garantía de no declarar en contra de sí mismo."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "It would be incorrect not to consider as evidence what was stated by the co-defendant himself when filing his complaint before the Civil Service Secretariat.",
      "quote_es": "Mal se haría en no apreciar como medio probatorio lo indicado por el propio co-accionado al presentar su denuncia ante la Secretaría de Servicio Civil."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-378685",
  "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-15437",
      "norm_num": "",
      "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica",
      "tipo_norma": "",
      "norm_fecha": ""
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-5027",
      "norm_num": "4573",
      "norm_name": "Código Penal — Ley 4573",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "04/05/1970"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-970",
      "norm_num": "5476",
      "norm_name": "Código de Familia",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "21/12/1973"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "\"IV. [...] El argumento del Tribunal, al calificar de “espuria” la declaración del co-accionado ante la Secretaría del Registro Civil, por la eventualidad de la infracción del derecho de abstención y de la presunción de inocencia (artículo 36 de la Carta Magna), no es compartido por esta Sala. Al respecto, ya la Sala Constitucional, en múltiples pronunciamientos, ha establecido que esta garantía -también regulada en los numerales 24 de la Convención Americana de los Derechos del Hombre y 14 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos-, se aplica solo en el campo de la materia penal. Debido a que, en esa rama del derecho, nadie está obligado a declarar en contra de sí mismo, puesto que, en ese campo, la persona puede llegar a ser condenada a perder su libertad o cualquier otra pena de otra índole. No obstante, en otras materias como el derecho civil o el de familia, constitucionalmente se ha dispuesto que no existe ningún fundamento que justifique la garantía de no declarar en contra de sí mismo, pues esta condición es propia únicamente de la materia penal (ver en este sentido los Votos números 6359-93, 5977-94, 2404-98, 412-99 y 2624-99, todos de la Sala Constitucional). En virtud de lo anterior, mal se haría en no apreciar como medio probatorio lo indicado por el propio co-accionado al presentar su denuncia ante la Secretaría de Servicio Civil, con fundamento con la infracción de un supuesto derecho de abstención por auto incriminación, dado que el co-demandado rindió esa declaración en beneficio de sus propios intereses y así anular los efectos jurídicos derivados del matrimonio.\"",
  "body_en_text": "IV. [...] This Court does not share the argument of the lower court, in which it characterized as “spurious” the statement made by the co-plaintiff before the Civil Registry, due to the potential violation of the right to remain silent (derecho de abstención) and the presumption of innocence (Article 36 of the Constitution). In this regard, the Constitutional Court (Sala Constitucional), in numerous rulings, has established that this guarantee—also regulated in Articles 24 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—applies only in the field of criminal law. This is because, in that branch of law, no one is obligated to testify against themselves, since, in that field, a person may be sentenced to lose their liberty or any other type of penalty. However, in other areas such as civil law or family law, it has been constitutionally established that there is no basis justifying the guarantee against self-incrimination, as this condition is exclusive to criminal matters (see, in this regard, Votos numbers 6359-93, 5977-94, 2404-98, 412-99 and 2624-99, all from the Constitutional Court). In light of the foregoing, it would be erroneous not to consider as evidence what the co-plaintiff himself stated when filing his complaint before the Civil Service Office, based on the alleged violation of a supposed right to remain silent against self-incrimination, given that the co-defendant made that statement for the benefit of his own interests and thereby to annul the legal effects derived from the marriage.\n\nIn this regard, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in multiple rulings, has established that this guarantee—also regulated in Articles 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—applies only in the field of criminal law. This is because, in that branch of law, no one is obliged to testify against themselves, since, in that field, a person may be condemned to lose their liberty or any other penalty of a different nature. Nevertheless, in other areas such as civil or family law, it has been constitutionally determined that there is no basis whatsoever justifying the guarantee against self-incrimination, as this condition pertains solely to criminal law (see in this regard Votos No. 6359-93, 5977-94, 2404-98, 412-99, and 2624-99, all from the Constitutional Chamber). By virtue of the foregoing, it would be improper not to admit as evidence what the co-respondent himself stated when filing his complaint with the Civil Service Secretariat (Secretaría de Servicio Civil), based on the alleged violation of a supposed right of abstention from self-incrimination, given that the co-plaintiff made that statement in furtherance of his own interests and thus to nullify the legal effects arising from the marriage.\""
}