Res. 11901-2007 Sala Constitucional — Right to equal opportunities for visually impaired persons in public services

OutcomeResultado

Partially grantedParcialmente con lugar

ARESEP and the TSE are ordered to adapt their procedures and documents to Law 7600; the claim against the Central Bank is referred to prior judgments; and the claim against the Public Transport Council is denied.Se ordena a ARESEP y al TSE adecuar sus procedimientos a la Ley 7600; el reclamo contra el Banco Central se remite a sentencias previas; y se declara sin lugar contra el Consejo de Transporte Público.

SummaryResumen

The Constitutional Chamber hears an amparo filed by blind individuals alleging discrimination by several public bodies. They challenge ARESEP's exclusive use of print media for public hearings, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal's issuance of identity cards inaccessible to touch, the Central Bank's issuance of indistinguishable banknotes, and the failure to enforce Law 7600 in public transport. The Chamber reiterates its case-law on human dignity as the foundation of equality and the State's duty to remove barriers. It partially grants the remedy: it orders ARESEP to inform disability organizations of hearings; orders the TSE to adapt the format of visually accessible identity cards. Regarding the Central Bank, it refers to compliance with prior judgments. It denies the claim against the Public Transport Council, finding concrete measures have been adopted.La Sala Constitucional conoce un recurso de amparo presentado por personas ciegas que denuncian discriminación por parte de varias instituciones públicas. Cuestionan que la ARESEP convoca audiencias públicas únicamente en prensa escrita, que el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones emite cédulas de identidad inaccesibles al tacto, que el Banco Central no emite billetes distinguibles y que no se exige el cumplimiento de la Ley 7600 en transporte público. La Sala reitera su jurisprudencia sobre la dignidad humana como fundamento de la igualdad y la obligación estatal de eliminar barreras. Estima parcialmente el recurso: ordena a la ARESEP informar a organizaciones de discapacidad sobre audiencias; ordena al TSE adecuar el formato de las cédulas de identidad visual. Respecto al Banco Central, remite al cumplimiento de sentencias previas. Declara sin lugar el reclamo contra el Consejo de Transporte Público al constatar medidas concretas adoptadas.

Key excerptExtracto clave

In the Chamber's view, the respondent authorities' omission to consider the needs of visually impaired persons in issuing identity cards constitutes discrimination contrary to their fundamental rights, understood as a restriction based on disability that has the effect of impeding or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by persons with disabilities of their fundamental rights and freedoms, which requires granting this part of the claim. This must be so by virtue of the pro homine and pro libertate principles, which always compel the interpretation of norms relating to fundamental rights in favor of the person.A juicio de este Tribunal, la omisión de las autoridades recurridas de tomar en consideración las necesidades de las personas con discapacidad visual para la expedición de las cédulas de identidad constituye una discriminación contraria a sus derechos fundamentales, entendida ésta como la restricción basada en una discapacidad que tiene el efecto de impedir o anular el reconocimiento, goce o ejercicio por parte de las personas con discapacidad, de sus derechos y libertades fundamentales, lo que implica la estimatoria de este extremo del recurso. Esto debe ser así, en virtud del principio pro homine y pro libertate, que obligan siempre a interpretar las normas relativas a derechos fundamentales, a favor de la persona.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"La dignidad humana se da así como límite, como barrera a cualquier injerencia del poder en el individuo... se dice que la dignidad humana es la plataforma de la igualdad, porque los parámetros de valoración son siempre los mismos para toda persona, sin excepción."

"Human dignity thus stands as a limit, a barrier to any interference of power over the individual... it is said that human dignity is the platform of equality, because the parameters of evaluation are always the same for every person, without exception."

Considerando IV

"La dignidad humana se da así como límite, como barrera a cualquier injerencia del poder en el individuo... se dice que la dignidad humana es la plataforma de la igualdad, porque los parámetros de valoración son siempre los mismos para toda persona, sin excepción."

Considerando IV

"El Estado costarricense tiene la obligación, como consecuencia del reconocimiento de la igualdad y la dignidad humana, de adoptar las medidas necesarias para eliminar progresivamente la discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad y propiciar su plena integración en la sociedad."

"The Costa Rican State has the obligation, as a consequence of the recognition of equality and human dignity, to adopt the necessary measures to progressively eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities and promote their full integration into society."

Considerando VII

"El Estado costarricense tiene la obligación, como consecuencia del reconocimiento de la igualdad y la dignidad humana, de adoptar las medidas necesarias para eliminar progresivamente la discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad y propiciar su plena integración en la sociedad."

Considerando VII

"Esto debe ser así, en virtud del principio pro homine y pro libertate, que obligan siempre a interpretar las normas relativas a derechos fundamentales, a favor de la persona."

"This must be so by virtue of the pro homine and pro libertate principles, which always compel the interpretation of norms relating to fundamental rights in favor of the person."

Considerando VII

"Esto debe ser así, en virtud del principio pro homine y pro libertate, que obligan siempre a interpretar las normas relativas a derechos fundamentales, a favor de la persona."

Considerando VII

Full documentDocumento completo

I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. The appellants seek protection of their right to equality of opportunity and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 33 of the Political Constitution. They challenge the fact that the calls ordered by the Public Services Regulatory Authority for holding public hearings are made through written media, thus preventing the participation of persons who, like them, are blind. They allege that national identity cards (cédulas de identidad) are not accessible for persons with visual disabilities. They express their disagreement with the fact that public authorities do not promptly ensure due compliance with the provisions of Law 7600 applicable to public transportation. Finally, they challenge that the Central Bank issues banknotes that are not accessible to persons with disabilities.” …

IV.- REGARDING THE RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY. Costa Rica, in Article 1 of its Political Constitution, upon constituting itself as a State according to the basic principles of a democracy, opted for a political formulation in which the human being, by the mere fact of being human, by having been born such, is the depositary of a series of rights granted for the protection of his or her dignity, rights that cannot be denied except in the interest of superior social concerns, duly recognized in the Constitution itself or the laws (Judgment No. 1261-1990 of 3:30 p.m. on September 10, 1990). Regarding the recognition of a democratic system on which the guarantee of human dignity rests, this Court has resolved the following:

“(…) This positivization of the 'democratic principle' constitutes one of the pillars—not to say the core or essence—upon which our republican system rests, and entails that the entire normative system must be interpreted in accordance with the principles that inform this system of life and conceptualization of the State, in which the rights recognized to persons must be respected for that condition alone, regardless of their national origin, race, political or religious creed, without discrimination against their dignity as a human being. (…)” Judgment 6470-1999 of 2:36 p.m. on August 18, 1999.

Alongside life, intimately linked to its meaning and true moral and social value, lies the recognition and necessary respect for human dignity, the basis and foundation for the guarantee of the other fundamental rights, which without it are meaningless. Social order and peace rest upon respect for human dignity, as does any organization that claims to possess a substantial legitimation for its existence. Fundamental rights such as privacy, liberty, and equality are all derived from the dignity of man, the basis of the Human Rights system. As such, they are rights that are born with the person, so they do not originate from a text that so recognizes them, but from the intrinsic nature of the human being. Thus, this Constitutional Court has held that the guarantee of dignity is the fundamental basis for arriving at recognition of the right to equality, the fundamental basis of any Constitutional and Democratic Order. In this regard, the Chamber has resolved pertinently:

“(…) Human dignity thus serves as a limit, as a barrier to any interference by power upon the individual, and although it is difficult to define and determine, it can be described or considered as the deepest feeling each person has of their rights and fundamental conditions for existing, through which the sense of one's own identity as a person and of meaning as a citizen arises. That feeling gives us the perception of the value we assign to the human person and that is the basis for the recognition of other rights and attributes, primarily one's own, but which simultaneously brings about their recognition in others. That is why it is said that human dignity is the platform of equality, because the parameters of valuation are always the same for every person, without exception. (…)” Resolution No. 1428-1996 of 3:36 p.m. on March 27, 1996.

In short, one of the fundamental values and principles of Constitutional Law is, precisely, dignity, upon which the entire edifice of the dogmatic part of the Constitution is erected, that is, the fundamental rights of persons. It is from the recognition of the intrinsic dignity of the human being that international human rights instruments and domestic Constitutions grant a series of indisputable and universally accepted freedoms and rights. In this sense, the General Assembly of the United Nations, upon adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its resolution No. 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, considered in the Preamble that freedom, justice, and peace in the world are based on the recognition of the intrinsic dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of communities. Under that understanding, it was agreed in Article 1 that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights (…)" Likewise, Article 2 recognizes that everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms proclaimed in said Declaration without distinction of any kind. Identical considerations were made by the General Assembly of the United Nations upon adopting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted in resolution 2200 A (XXI) of December 16, 1966, in which it was decreed that the recognition of the rights set forth therein derives from the inherent dignity of the human person. Furthermore, that the ideal of the free human being enjoying their freedoms cannot be realized unless conditions are created that allow each person to enjoy their civil and political rights, as well as their economic, social, and cultural rights. For their part, the American States adopted the American Convention on Human Rights, which is Law of the Republic No. 4534 of February 23, 1970, and, in the preamble of the Convention, they recognized that the essential rights of man do not arise from the fact of being a national of a particular State, but rather are based on the attributes of the human person. In this regard, Article 1 provides that the States Parties to the Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons without discrimination. Likewise, said Convention, in its Article 11, paragraph 1, under the heading "Protection of Honor and Dignity," provides that "1. Everyone has the right to (…) recognition of his dignity." For its part, our Political Constitution in its Article 33 proscribes any discrimination contrary to human dignity. Such mandates of the International Law of Human Rights and of the Fundamental Norm itself impose respect for and recognition of the intrinsic dignity of all persons without making any odious discrimination based on their human condition.

V.- REGARDING EQUALITY OF 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 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." At the regional American level, the American Convention on Human Rights provides in Article 24 that all persons are equal before the law and that, 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 "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 be observed, the expansive and progressive trend of human rights has led countries to join the fight against all forms of discrimination that are contrary to human dignity. In light of these trends to guarantee 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. In the aforementioned Convention, it was 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 based on disability, emanate from the dignity and equality that are inherent to 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:

"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 consequence of a present or past disability, 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".

Likewise, Article 2 enshrines the obligation of the States that signed it to adopt "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, activities such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, access to justice and police services, and political and administrative activities." Likewise, and by way of illustration, it is pertinent to note that the General Assembly of the United Nations, at its Sixty-first Session between August 14 and 25, 2006, adopted resolution No. 61/106, which is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which shall be open for signature by all States and regional integration organizations at United Nations Headquarters, as of March 30, 2007. In the Preamble of said Convention, it is recognized 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. Furthermore, 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 provides the following:

"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" The common denominator of the international human rights instruments cited focuses on the elimination of discrimination and the new dimension of equality of opportunity. Likewise, they insist on the right of persons with disabilities to the same opportunities as the rest of the citizenry, to enjoy, on an equal footing, the improvements in living conditions resulting from economic, technological, and social development, and they note the importance of the social inclusion of persons with disabilities. The "achievement of equalization of opportunities" is defined by the "Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities" approved by the United Nations in resolution 32/2 on February 20, 1991, as "the process through which the various systems of society, the physical environment, services, activities, information and documentation are made available to all, especially to persons with disabilities." In current societies, obstacles still exist that prevent persons with disabilities from fully exercising their rights and freedoms and hinder their participation in the activities of their society. Therefore, it is the responsibility of States to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate those obstacles. Persons with disabilities and the organizations that represent them must play an active role as co-participants in that process. The principle of equal rights implies that the needs of each person have equal importance, and those needs must constitute the basis for the planning of societies, so that all resources must be employed with the purpose of ensuring that all persons have equal opportunities for participation. At the infra-constitutional level, this Constitutional Court has noted that with the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act, Law No. 7600 of May 2, 1996, the legislator sought to fulfill the objectives indicated and to endeavor, through the elimination of a series of barriers that prevent persons suffering some degree of disability from participating fully in Costa Rican society. In this regard, this Court resolved the following:

"(…) This Chamber has already pronounced on other occasions regarding the special protection that the legal system provides to persons with disabilities, so that they can function normally within society. It is not simply a matter of special treatment in light of the particular conditions of that population, but rather a right of these persons and an obligation of the rest of the people to respect those rights and comply with the obligations derived from them (…)" Judgment number 2288-1999 of 11:06 a.m. on March 26, 1999.

Thus, this legislation's fundamental objective is to achieve the necessary conditions for persons suffering from any type of disability to 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 for access and participation in identical circumstances ceases to be, for persons with disabilities, a simple aspiration and becomes a true fundamental right, so that general welfare is pursued within the framework of a democratic society.

VI.- REGARDING THE CALLS FOR HEARINGS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES REGULATORY AUTHORITY. It should be noted that this Court has already ruled on the acts and omissions alleged by the appellants in connection with an amparo proceeding filed on behalf of the Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas, to which the appellants in the initial complaint state they belong, against the Public Services Regulatory Authority. In this regard, the Director of the Patronato Nacional de Ciegos expressed her opinion to the effect that by making the calls for hearings in written form, the person with a visual disability does not have access to them, which could be solved if the calls were made through electronic communication media, radio, television, on the Public Services Regulatory Authority's website, or in La Gaceta Electrónica. In judgment No. 2006-4804 of 1:08 p.m. on March 31, 2006, this Court ordered Aracelly Pacheco Salazar, in her capacity as General Regulator of the Public Services Regulatory Authority, to take the necessary precautions based on the provisions of Law No. 7600, so that persons with visual disabilities are kept informed of the various public hearings scheduled. In this regard, the following was resolved:

"(…) From the report issued by the Public Services Regulatory Authority, the omission of the respondent to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons with visual disabilities can fully access the publications of calls for various public hearings scheduled, through a medium other than the written press, is confirmed. It is evident from the evidence in the record—specifically from official communication 107-DDU-2006 dated January 17, 2006—that the Director of the Public Services Regulatory Authority determined, starting from January of the current year, to communicate information or procedures in which there is a public interest to all organizations of persons with disabilities and thus disseminate the hearings to the greatest number of users so that they can register in the registry kept for these purposes by the respondent. However, in the judgment issued at two forty-five in the afternoon on February fifteen, two thousand six, a violation of the right to participate in public activity was determined, and the General Regulator and the Director of Oversight and User Defense were ordered to reschedule the hearing in question here, in strict compliance with Article 36 of the Law creating that entity, allowing the participation of interested parties. For the foregoing reasons, the Public Services Regulatory Authority must take the necessary measures to communicate, in a suitable manner, to the Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas both the date of the public hearing for the debate on fuel price setting, as well as future hearings scheduled that are of public interest, in strict compliance with the provisions of Law 7600. Consistent with the above, the omission of the respondent authorities in adopting the pertinent measures to inform persons with disabilities of the dates of the public hearings violates the Right of the Constitution, and therefore, it is appropriate to grant this amparo as is hereby ordered. (…)" This criterion is applicable to the specific case, in which it was proven that the Public Services Regulatory Authority called public hearings to resolve the tariff adjustment requests for routes 1235 and 284 through written communication media. In this regard, it was reported under oath that said calls were published in the nationally circulated newspapers Al Día, La República, La Extra, and in the Official Gazette La Gaceta. Thus, it is proven that the calls made by ARESEP do not comply with the principles outlined above, guaranteeing the full participation of persons with visual disabilities in the public hearings to resolve the tariff adjustment requests. In order to ensure that persons with disabilities achieve their maximum development, their full social participation, as well as the exercise of the rights and duties established in our legal system, public authorities must guarantee equality of opportunity for the Costa Rican population in all areas and eliminate any type of discrimination. It is the duty of the Costa Rican State to recognize and enforce the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities and guarantee them the opportunity to actively participate in decision-making processes related to policies, proposals, and programs, especially if such decisions could affect them directly. In effect, in the opinion of this Court, the design of policies and planning must take into consideration the needs of persons with disabilities, and for these purposes, it is vital that they be involved in decision-making. For example, the "Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities" cited supra, provide in Article 14 that States should ensure that disability aspects are included in all relevant national policy-making and planning activities. It even provides that States should involve organizations of persons with disabilities in all instances of decision-making related to plans and programs of concern to persons with disabilities or that affect their economic and social status. Article 18 states that States should recognize the right of organizations of persons with disabilities to represent these persons at national, regional, and local levels and should also recognize the advisory role of organizations of persons with disabilities in decision-making on disability matters. Such norms of International Law, although not incorporated into our Legal System, do serve as parameters of interpretation to reach the conclusion that ARESEP must take into consideration the organizations of persons with disabilities in order to guarantee their participation in public hearings through calls that are accessible according to their needs. This is expressly recognized in Article 13 of the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act No. 7600, stating the following:

"Article 13.- Obligation to consult organizations of persons with disabilities Legally constituted organizations of persons with disabilities must be consulted by the institutions responsible for planning, executing, and evaluating services and actions related to disability." By virtue of the foregoing, as was resolved in the cited judgment, regarding this aspect of the amparo, the appeal must be granted, reiterating that the authorities of ARESEP must inform organizations of persons with disabilities about the scheduling of public hearings. However, in the opinion of this Court, the rescheduling of the hearings is not appropriate, since, as was reported, the tariff adjustment requests were rejected through resolutions RRG-5397-2006 and RRG-5454-2006.

VII.- REGARDING NATIONAL IDENTITY CARDS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. The appellants challenge that at the public hearings held by the Public Services Regulatory Authority, scheduled for the purpose of hearing comments and objections regarding requests for public transportation fare increases, they are required to present their national identity card. However, they consider that the national identity card is an inaccessible document for blind persons. They challenge that the Supreme Electoral Tribunal has not taken their needs into account to find a way to make their cards accessible and not confused with other documents, such as a bank credit card. In this regard, the authorities of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal report that obtaining the national identity card is accessible for all citizens over eighteen years of age without exception, and the Tribunal has made efforts to facilitate the obtaining of the identity document for persons suffering from any disability. They consider that the primary function of the national identity card is for citizens to identify themselves, which is why the current format does not harm their fundamental rights. In this regard, the Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Civil Registry, Law No. 3504 of May 10, 1965, amended by Law No. 7563 of December 10, 1999, provides the following:

"(…) Article 93.- National Identity Card (*) The national identity card shall contain the information necessary, in the judgment of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, to fully identify its bearer in accordance with the law.

To produce and issue this document, the Tribunal and the Civil Registry shall use the most advanced and secure techniques for personal identification." Likewise, Article 95 regulates some of the legal acts for which presentation of the card is essential:

"Article 95.- Acts in which presentation of the card is mandatory Presentation of the national identity card is essential for:

a)Casting the vote; b) Any notarial act or contract; c) Initiating administrative or judicial procedures or actions; d) Signing marriage certificates, whether civil or Catholic; e) Being appointed as an official or employee of the State, its institutions, and municipalities; f) Formalizing employment contracts; g) Signing obligations in favor of autonomous institutions, semi-autonomous institutions, or the Rural Credit Boards and Farmer Aid Offices; h) Obtaining a passport; i) Formalizing Social Security, without this provision being able to shield the employer from the consequences imposed on them by the law and the Regulations of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund; j) Receiving payments from the State, municipalities, and autonomous or semi-autonomous institutions; k) Enrolling parents or guardians of their children or wards in public or private schools and high schools; l) Obtaining or renewing a driver's license for vehicles; and m) Any other procedure or operation where it is appropriate to justify personal identity.
k)In the actions of legal entities, the representative's card shall be presented." From the foregoing, the importance of the identity card (cédula de identidad) and that it be accessible to all persons is evident, not in the sense interpreted by the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones as meaning it should be easy to obtain, but rather that this document can be used by persons with visual disabilities without any doubt as to its validity and veracity. Note that the presentation of the identity card is mandatory for an endless number of acts, such that a citizen who does not carry and display their identity document cannot carry out any civil, commercial, or employment act, nor is it possible for them to initiate judicial or administrative proceedings, among other legal matters. As has been developed in the considerandos of this judgment and applying a parameter of reasonableness, the Costa Rican State has the obligation, as a consequence of the recognition of equality and human dignity, to adopt the necessary measures to progressively eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities and to foster their full integration into society (Article 3, point 1, of the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities). In the judgment of this Tribunal, the omission by the respondent authorities to take into consideration the needs of persons with visual disabilities for the issuance of identity cards constitutes discrimination contrary to their fundamental rights, understood as the restriction based on a disability that has the effect of impeding or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their fundamental rights and freedoms, which implies granting this part of the recourse. This must be so, by virtue of the pro homine and pro libertate principle, which always require interpreting norms relating to fundamental rights in favor of the person. On this matter and for illustrative purposes, it is noteworthy that new international trends in the protection of human rights, specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enshrines in Article 12 the Right to equal recognition before the law and provides as follows:

“1. States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law.

2. States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.

3. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity (…).” In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that it is essential that the authorities of the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones take concrete measures to guarantee the rights of blind persons in the issuance and use of their identity card as a means of proving their identity, in order to recognize the person's autonomy and individual independence, including the possibility of conducting legal transactions. The independence that can be ensured for persons with disabilities is fundamental to guaranteeing equality of opportunities. Currently, progress in technology can improve the quality of life of persons with disabilities and should be used as such. Therefore, it is necessary to declare the recourse granted for the purpose that the format of the identity cards for persons with visual disabilities be accessible to them and that, due to the impossibility of recognizing their difference from other types of identification, it does not become an obstacle to their full inclusion in the community.

VIII.- ON THE ISSUANCE OF COINS AND BILLS BY THE BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA. In another vein, the petitioners question that the Banco Central de Costa Rica does not issue bills accessible to persons with visual disabilities. On this point, this Tribunal has already resolved a claim filed by Erick Ramón Chacón Valerio himself on behalf of the Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas, in which it was ordered to abide by what was resolved in judgment 2004-08800 at 15:06 hrs. of August 17, 2004. On this matter, the following was resolved:

“Amparo recourse filed by ALBERTO CABEZAS VILLALOBOS, identity card number 1-1063-0064 and ERICK RAMON CHACON VALERIO, identity card number 1-788-092, on behalf of the COMISION PARA LA PROMOCION DE LA EQUIPARACION DE OPORTUNIDADES DE LA FUNDACION PARA EL PROGRESO DE LAS PERSONAS CIEGAS, against the GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA.

I.- The facts challenged here have already been the subject of a pronouncement by this Chamber in judgment number 2004-08800, at fifteen hours and six minutes of August seventeenth, two thousand four, in which it relevantly considered:

‘…I.- Purpose of the recourse. The legal point to be debated is the eventual discrimination that the protected party claims to suffer as a consequence of his disability as a blind person, since his social reintegration is made impossible for two reasons: a) he cannot determine the different denomination of the national currency bills because they are all the same size, which forces him to always be with people he totally trusts to carry out any transaction and prevents him from engaging in commerce or any productive activity involving the handling of money, since he cannot by touch establish the denomination of the bill, and b) the taximeters used in public service automobiles only allow the verification of the service's starting fare and the final amount through visual means, not auditory, a situation that facilitates unscrupulous taxi drivers charging fares and amounts unverifiable for the blind person who requires this means of transport. (…).

It is equally appropriate to resolve regarding the Banco Central de Costa Rica, since despite the efforts made by that entity (which holds the exclusive duty of issuing bills and coins in the national territory) to incorporate distinctive characteristics in the printings of bills and mintings of coins currently circulating in our country, in order to allow the blind population to distinguish the denomination of these values, the fact is that these efforts have not achieved the desired effects and, in reality, as the Director of the Patronato Nacional de Ciegos has stated to the Chamber, blind persons find in the handling of the coins and bills legally circulating in the country a true obstacle to their total social reintegration. It is for this reason that the present recourse must also be granted on this point, with the legal consequences and, in accordance with the remedial nature of the pronouncements issued by the Constitutional Chamber, the following is ordered: (…)

2)To the Banco Central de Costa Rica, that, also within the period of one month, it initiate the corresponding technical studies, for the purpose of finding a viable and satisfactory solution so that future issuances of coins and bills that are made comply with the necessary requirements that allow the blind population in our country to distinguish the denomination of the different values. (…)’ II.- Thus, as there is no reason to vary the criterion expressed in that judgment, the petitioners must abide by what was resolved therein.” Judgment No. 2005-017786 at 12:16 hrs. of December 23, 2005.

Therefore, regarding this part of the recourse, as it is a reiteration of other amparo proceedings filed by the same petitioners, it must be ordered that they abide by the precedents of this Tribunal. At most, by way of proceedings for non-execution of judgments, they could – in the event that the Banco Central de Costa Rica has failed to comply with the order issued by this Tribunal – allege the failure to carry out the pertinent studies, a point that must be alleged in the case files where the amparos granted by this Chamber were substantiated.

IX.- ON THE ADAPTATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. In the brief filing the amparo recourse, the petitioners allege that the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos has the function of monitoring compliance with the norms of quality, quantity, reliability, continuity, and optimal provision of services. However, they question that said authority does not comply with its competencies because in its resolutions for fare increases, it does not take into account whether the public transportation units are accessible to persons with disabilities. On this point, it must be noted that, according to the provisions of Law 7600, it is the responsibility of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes to prevent public transportation units from circulating without complying with the provisions to ensure the mobilization of all persons under equal conditions. On this point, the Law provides the following:

Article 45.- Technical Measures To guarantee mobility and safety in public transportation, technical measures must be adopted conducive to adapting it to the needs of persons with disabilities; likewise, the signage and orientation systems of the physical space shall be conditioned.

Collective means of transportation must be totally accessible and adapted to the needs of all persons.

Article 46.- Permits and Concessions To obtain permits and concessions for the operation of public transportation services, it shall be a requirement that the beneficiaries of this type of contract submit the technical inspection, approved by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, verifying that they comply with the measures established in this law and its regulations.

In accordance with these competencies, the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes has reported a series of concrete measures to comply with these provisions. On this matter, this Tribunal observes that the Consejo de Transporte Público, as the organ of maximum deconcentration of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, is the specialized instance to hear matters of public transportation. Said organ reported a series of concrete measures in order to comply with the mandate set forth in Law 7600 and, likewise, to observe what was ordered in judgment No. 2004-12973 at 14:49 hrs. of November 17, 2004. Specifically, they report that through the agreement adopted in Article 5 of Extraordinary Session No. 007-2003 of May 29, 2003, the Board of Directors ordered, among other things, to grant a maximum period of three months to all providers of remunerated passenger transportation service in bus modality (permit holders and concessionaires) for the adaptation of all units to the technical requirements set forth in Law 7600 and Executive Decree No. 23831 MP; they report that in La Gaceta No. 247 of December 17, 2004, the publication was made of the Technical Requirements for Accessible Interurban, Public and Private Collective Transportation Vehicles and the Technical Requirements for Accessible Taxi Vehicles with reference to standard INTE-03-01-14-03; that they are working with a series of institutions to issue the respective technical standard that allows for objective parameters for the modification of public transportation units, etc. Thus, it is concluded that, indeed, the Consejo de Transporte Público has adopted concrete measures to ensure persons with disabilities access to public transportation means.

X.- CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the foregoing considerations, it is necessary to grant the amparo for the alleged infringement of the right to equality of opportunities regarding the omissions attributed to the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos and the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones as the superior instance of the Sección de Cédulas and the Departamento Electoral del Registro Civil. Regarding the claim lodged against the bills issued by the Banco Central, the protected parties must abide by what was resolved in the precedents of this Constitutional Tribunal. Finally, insofar as the reproach is directed against the Consejo de Transporte Público, the amparo must be declared without merit, as no violation of the fundamental rights of the protected parties was proven on that point." In the cited Convention, it was 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 based on disability, derive from the dignity and equality 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 promote their full integration into society. Article 1 defines discrimination as follows:

“The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of disability, consequence of 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”.

Likewise, Article 2 enshrines the obligation of the States that 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”.

Also, and by way of illustration, it is worth noting that the United Nations General Assembly, at its Sixty-first Session between August 14 and 25, 2006, adopted resolution No. 61/106, which is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will be open for signature by all States and regional integration organizations at United Nations Headquarters, as of March 30, 2007. The Preamble of said 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. It also 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 provides the following:

“**Article 4.** 1. States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full exercise of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability” The common denominator of the international human rights instruments mentioned focuses on the elimination of discrimination and the new dimension of equal opportunities. Likewise, emphasis is placed on the right of persons with disabilities to the same opportunities as the rest of the citizenry, to enjoy, on an equal footing, the improvements in living conditions resulting from economic, technological, and social development, and the importance of the social inclusion of persons with disabilities is noted. The “achievement of equal opportunities” is defined by the “Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities” approved by the United Nations in resolution 32/2 on February 20, 1991, as “the process through which the various systems of society, the physical environment, services, activities, information, and documentation are made available to all, especially to persons with disabilities.” In today's societies, there are still obstacles that prevent persons with disabilities from fully exercising their rights and freedoms and hinder their participation in the activities of their society. Therefore, it is the responsibility of States to take appropriate measures to eliminate those obstacles. Persons with disabilities and the organizations that represent them must play an active role as partners in that process. The principle of equal rights implies that the needs of each person are equally important and those needs must constitute the basis for the planning of societies, so that all resources must be used for the purpose of guaranteeing that all persons have equal opportunities for participation. At the sub-constitutional level, this Constitutional Court has indicated that with the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Law, Law No. 7600 of May 2, 1996, the legislator intended to fulfill the stated objectives and seek, through the elimination of a series of barriers that prevent persons suffering some degree of disability from participating fully in Costa Rican society. In this regard, this Court resolved the following:

“(…) This Chamber has already ruled on other occasions on the special protection that the legal system grants to disabled persons, so that they can function normally within society. It is not simply a matter of special treatment in view of the particular conditions of that population, but rather a right of that population and an obligation on the rest of the people to respect those rights and fulfill the obligations derived therefrom (…)" Judgment number 2288-1999 of 11:06 hrs. of March 26, 1999.

Thus, this regulation's fundamental objective is to achieve the necessary conditions so that persons suffering any type of disability achieve their full social participation under equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as the rest of the inhabitants. Precisely for this reason, the enjoyment of equal opportunities of access and participation under identical circumstances ceases to be a simple aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a true fundamental right, so as to promote general well-being within the framework of a democratic society.

**VI.- REGARDING THE CALL FOR HEARINGS BY THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES.** It is worth noting that this Court has already ruled on the acts and omissions alleged by the petitioners in relation to an amparo proceeding filed on behalf of the Foundation for the Progress of Blind Persons, to which the petitioners state they belong in the initial petition, against the Regulatory Authority of Public Services. On this matter, the Director of the National Board of the Blind expressed her opinion that by issuing calls to hearings in written form, the person with a visual disability has no access to them, which could be resolved if the calls were made through electronic communication means, radio, television, on the Regulatory Authority of Public Services' website, or in the Electronic Gazette. In the judgment of this Court No. 2006-4804 of 13:08 hrs. of March 31, 2006, it was ordered to Aracelly Pacheco Salazar, in her capacity as General Regulator of the Regulatory Authority of Public Services, to take the necessary precautions based on the provisions of Law No. 7600, in such a way that persons with visual disabilities are kept informed of the various public hearings scheduled. On this matter, the following was resolved:

“(…) From the report submitted by the Regulatory Authority of Public Services, the omission of the respondent to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons with visual disabilities can fully access the publications of the calls for various public hearings scheduled through a medium other than the written press is verified. It is evident from the evidence in the record –specifically from official communication 107-DDU-2006 dated January 17, 2006– that the Director of the Regulatory Authority of Public Services determined, starting in the month of January of the current year, to communicate information or procedures in which there is a public interest to all organizations of persons with disabilities and thus disseminate the hearings to the greatest number of users so that they may thereby register in the registry kept by the respondent for these purposes. Now, in the judgment of fourteen hours and forty-five minutes of February fifteen, two thousand six, a violation of the right to participate in public activity was determined, and the General Regulator and the Director of Oversight and User Defense were ordered to reschedule the hearing in question here, in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 36 of the Law creating that entity, allowing the participation of interested parties. For the foregoing reasons, the Regulatory Authority of Public Services must take the necessary measures to communicate in a suitable manner to the Foundation for the Progress of Blind Persons both the date of the public hearing for the debate on fuel price setting, as well as future hearings that are scheduled and that are of public interest, in strict compliance (sic) with the provisions of Law 7600. Consistent with the foregoing, the omission of the respondent authorities in adopting the pertinent measures to inform persons with disabilities of the dates of public hearings violates the Right of the Constitution, and therefore it is appropriate to grant this amparo as is hereby provided. (…)” Criterion that is applicable to the specific case, in which it was proven that the Regulatory Authority of Public Services called the public hearings to resolve the requests for fare adjustments for routes 1235 and 284, in written communication media. On this matter, it was reported under oath that said calls were published in the nationally circulated newspapers Al Día, La República, La Extra and in the Official Gazette La Gaceta. In this manner, it is proven that the calls made by ARESEP do not comply with the provisions of the principles outlined above, guaranteeing the full participation of persons with visual disabilities in the public hearings to resolve the requests for fare adjustments. In the interest of ensuring that persons with disabilities achieve their maximum development, their full social participation, as well as the exercise of the rights and duties established in our legal system, public authorities must guarantee equal opportunities for the Costa Rican population in all areas and eliminate any type of discrimination. It is the duty of the Costa Rican State to recognize and implement the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities and guarantee them the opportunity to actively participate in decision-making processes related to policies, proposals, and programs, especially if such decisions could directly affect them. Indeed, in the judgment of this Court, the design of policies and planning must take into consideration the needs of persons with disabilities, and for these purposes, it is vital that they be involved in decision-making. For example, the “Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities” cited supra, provide in Article 14 that States should ensure that disability-related issues are included in all corresponding regulatory and planning activities of the country. Even more, it provides that States should involve organizations of persons with disabilities in all cases of decision-making related to plans and programs of interest to persons with disabilities or that affect their economic and social situation. Article 18 states that States should recognize the right of organizations of persons with disabilities to represent these persons at the national, regional, and local levels and should also recognize the advisory role of organizations of persons with disabilities in decision-making on issues relating to disabilities. Such norms of International Law, although not incorporated into our Legal System, certainly serve as parameters of interpretation to reach the conclusion that ARESEP must take into consideration organizations of persons with disabilities in order to guarantee their participation in public hearings through calls that are accessible according to their needs. This is expressly recognized by Article 13 of the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Law No. 7600, which states the following:

**“Article 13.- Obligation to consult with organizations of persons with disabilities** Legally constituted organizations of persons with disabilities must be consulted by the institutions responsible for planning, executing, and evaluating services and actions related to disability.” Therefore, as was resolved in the cited judgment, regarding this aspect of the amparo, the recourse must be granted, reiterating that the ARESEP authorities must inform organizations of persons with disabilities about the realization of the public hearings they schedule. However, in the judgment of this Court, the rescheduling of the hearings is not appropriate, since, as was reported, through resolutions RRG-5397-2006 and RRG-5454-2006, the requests for fare readjustment were rejected.

**VII.- REGARDING IDENTITY CARDS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES**. The petitioners question that at the public hearings held by the Regulatory Authority of Public Services, scheduled for the purpose of hearing statements and objections regarding requests for public transport fare increases, they are required to present their identity card. However, they consider that the identity card is an inaccessible document for blind persons. They question that the Supreme Electoral Tribunal has not taken their needs into account to find a way to make their cards accessible and not confused with other documents, such as, for example, a bank credit card. In this regard, the authorities of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal report that obtaining the identity card is accessible to all citizens over the age of eighteen without exception, and the Tribunal has made efforts to facilitate, for persons suffering from some disability, the obtaining of the identity document. They consider that the primary function of the identity card is for citizens to identify themselves, which is why the current format does not violate their fundamental rights. On this matter, the Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Civil Registry, Law No. 3504 of May 10, 1965, amended by Law No. 7563 of December 10, 1999, provides the following:

“(…) **Article 93.- Identity card (*)** The identity card shall contain the necessary information, in the judgment of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, to fully identify its bearer, in accordance with the law.

To prepare and issue this document, the Tribunal and the Civil Registry shall use the most advanced and secure techniques for personal identification.” Likewise, Article 95 regulates some of the legal acts in which the presentation of the identity card is indispensable:

“**Article 95.- Acts in which the presentation of the identity card is mandatory** The presentation of the identity card is indispensable for:

a)Casting the vote; b) Any notarial act or contract; c) Initiating administrative or judicial proceedings or actions; d) Signing marriage certificates, whether civil or Catholic; e) Being appointed as an official or employee of the State, its institutions, and municipalities; f) Formalizing employment contracts; g) Signing obligations in favor of autonomous, semi-autonomous institutions, or Rural Credit Boards and Farmer Aid Offices; h) Obtaining a passport; i) Formalizing Social Security, without this provision protecting the employer from the consequences that the law and Regulations of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund impose upon them; j) Receiving payments from the State, municipalities, and autonomous or semi-autonomous institutions; k) Enrolling, by parents or guardians, their children or wards in public or private schools and colleges; l) Obtaining or renewing a driver's license; and m) Any other diligence or operation where it is necessary to justify personal identity.
n)In the proceedings of legal entities, the identity card of the respective legal representative shall be presented. (…).” From the above, the importance of the identity card and that it be accessible to all persons is inferred, not in the sense interpreted by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal as meaning that it is easy to obtain, but rather that this document can be used by persons with visual disabilities without doubting its validity and veracity. Note that the presentation of the identity card is mandatory for an endless number of acts, such that a citizen who does not carry and display their identity document cannot carry out any civil, commercial, or employment act, nor is it possible for them to initiate judicial or administrative proceedings, among other legal acts. As has been developed in the considerandos of this judgment, and applying a standard of reasonableness, the Costa Rican State has the obligation, as a consequence of the recognition of equality and human dignity, to adopt the necessary measures to progressively eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities and promote their full integration into society (Article 3, point 1, of the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities). In the judgment of this Court, the omission of the respondent authorities to take into consideration the needs of persons with visual disabilities for the issuance of identity cards constitutes discrimination contrary to their fundamental rights, understood as the restriction based on a disability that has the effect of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their fundamental rights and freedoms, which entails the granting of this aspect of the recourse. This must be so, by virtue of the pro homine and pro libertate principle, which always oblige the interpretation of norms relating to fundamental rights in favor of the person. On this matter, and for illustrative purposes, it is notable that new international trends in the protection of human rights, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enshrines in Article 12 the Right to equal recognition as a person before the law and provides the following:

“1. States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law.

2. States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.

3. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity (…)”.

In view of the above, this Court considers it essential that the authorities of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal take concrete measures to guarantee the rights of blind persons in the issuance and use of their identity card as a means to prove their identity, in the interest of recognizing the person's autonomy and individual independence, including the possibility of undertaking legal transactions. The independence that can be ensured for persons with disabilities is fundamental to guarantee equal opportunities. Currently, progress in technology can improve the quality of life of persons with disabilities and must be used as such. Therefore, it is necessary to declare the recourse granted for the purpose that the format of the identity cards of persons with visual disabilities be accessible to them and that, due to the impossibility of recognizing their difference from other types of identification, it does not become an obstacle to their full inclusion in the community.

VIII.- ON THE ISSUANCE OF COINS AND BILLS BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA. In another vein, the appellants challenge the fact that the Central Bank of Costa Rica does not issue bills accessible to persons with visual disabilities. On this point, this Court has already resolved a claim filed by Erick Ramón Chacón Valerio himself on behalf of the Foundation for the Progress of Blind Persons (Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas), in which it was ordered to abide by what was decided in judgment 2004-08800 of 15:06 hrs. on August 17, 2004. Regarding that matter, the following was decided:

"Amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) filed by ALBERTO CABEZAS VILLALOBOS, identity card number 1-1063-0064 and ERICK RAMON CHACON VALERIO, identity card number 1-788-092, on behalf of the COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUALIZATION OF OPPORTUNITIES OF THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PROGRESS OF BLIND PERSONS (COMISION PARA LA PROMOCION DE LA EQUIPARACION DE OPORTUNIDADES DE LA FUNDACION PARA EL PROGRESO DE LAS PERSONAS CIEGAS), against the GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA.

I.- The facts challenged here have already been the subject of a ruling by this Chamber in judgment number 2004-08800, of fifteen hours and six minutes on August seventeenth, two thousand four, in which it relevantly considered:

'...I.- Object of the appeal. The legal point to be debated is the eventual discrimination that the protected party claims to suffer as a consequence of his disability as a blind person, since his social reintegration is made impossible for two reasons: a) he cannot determine the different denominations of national circulation bills because they are all the same size, which forces him to always be accompanied by people he completely trusts to carry out any transaction and makes it impossible for him to engage in commerce or any productive activity involving the handling of money, since he cannot establish the denomination of the bill by touch, and b) the taximeters used in public service automobiles only allow verification of the service starting fare and the final amount through visual, not auditory, means, a situation that facilitates unscrupulous taxi drivers charging fares and amounts that are unverifiable for the blind person who requires that means of transport. (...).

It is equally appropriate to rule with respect to the Central Bank of Costa Rica, since despite the efforts made by that entity (which holds the exclusive duty of issuing bills and coins in the national territory) in seeking to incorporate distinctive features for the printing of bills and minting of coins currently circulating in our country, in order to allow the blind population to distinguish the denomination of these values, the truth is that these efforts have not had the desired effects and, in reality, as the Director of the National Board of the Blind (Patronato Nacional de Ciegos) has stated to this Chamber, blind persons find in the handling of the coins and bills legally circulating in the country a true obstacle to their full social reintegration. It is for this reason that this appeal must also be granted on this point, with the legal consequences and, in view of the remedial nature of the rulings issued by this Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the following is ordered: (...)

2)To the Central Bank of Costa Rica, that, also within a period of one month, it initiate the corresponding technical studies, in order to find a viable and satisfactory solution so that future issuances of coins and bills that are made, comply with the necessary requirements that allow the blind population in our country to distinguish the denomination of the different values. (...)' II.- That being the case, and there being no reason to vary the criterion expressed in that judgment, the appellants must abide by what was decided therein." Judgment No. 2005-017786 of 12:16 hrs. on December 23, 2005.

In view of the foregoing, regarding this point of the appeal, as it is a reiteration of other amparo proceedings filed by the same appellants, it must be ordered that they abide by the precedents of this Court. At most, by way of sentence non-execution proceedings (diligencias de inejecución de sentencias), they could – should the Central Bank of Costa Rica have failed to comply with the order issued by this Court – allege the failure to carry out the pertinent studies, a point that must be alleged in the case files in which the amparo appeals that were granted by this Chamber were substantiated.

IX.- ON THE ADAPTATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. In the brief filing the amparo appeal, the appellants allege that the Public Services Regulatory Authority (Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos) has the function of overseeing compliance with the norms of quality, quantity, reliability, continuity, and optimal provision of services. However, they question that said authority does not fulfill its competencies because in its resolutions on fare increases, it does not take into account whether the public transportation units are accessible to persons with disabilities. Regarding this point, it must be noted that, according to the provisions of Law 7600 (Ley 7600), it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes) to prevent public transportation units from operating without complying with the provisions to ensure the mobilization of all persons under equal conditions. On this point, the Law provides the following:

Article 45.- Technical measures To guarantee mobility and safety in public transportation, technical measures conducive to adapting it to the needs of persons with disabilities must be adopted; likewise, the signaling and orientation systems of the physical space shall be adapted.

Collective means of transport must be totally accessible and adapted to the needs of all persons.

Article 46.- Permits and concessions To obtain permits and concessions for the operation of public transportation services, it shall be a requirement that the beneficiaries of this type of contract present the technical inspection, approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, which certifies that they comply with the measures established in this law and its regulations.

In accordance with these competencies, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport has reported a series of concrete measures to comply with these provisions. On this particular matter, this Court observes that the Public Transport Council (Consejo de Transporte Público), as a body of maximum deconcentration (desconcentración máxima) of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, is the specialized instance for hearing matters of public transportation. Said body reported a series of concrete measures in order to comply with the mandate established in Law 7600 and, likewise, to observe the provisions of judgment No. 2004-12973 of 14:49 hrs. on November 17, 2004. Specifically, they report that through the agreement adopted in Article 5 of the Extraordinary Session No. 007-2003 of May 29, 2003, the Board of Directors ordered, among other things, to grant a maximum period of three months to all providers of the remunerated passenger transport service in bus mode (permit holders and concessionaires) for the adaptation of all units to the technical requirements established in Law 7600 and Executive Decree No. 23831 MP; they report that in La Gaceta No. 247 of December 17, 2004, the publication of the Technical Requirements for Accessible Interurban, Public and Private Collective Transport Vehicles and the Technical Requirements for Accessible Taxi Vehicles was made with reference to standard INTE-03-01-14-03; that they are working with a series of institutions to issue the respective technical standard that allows for objective parameters for the modification of public transportation units, etc. Thus, it is concluded that, indeed, the Public Transport Council has adopted concrete measures to ensure persons with disabilities access to public means of transport.

X.- CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the foregoing considerations, it is necessary to grant the amparo appeal for the alleged violation of the right to equal opportunities regarding the omissions attributed to the Public Services Regulatory Authority and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) as the superior instance of the Identity Card Section (Sección de Cédulas) and the Electoral Department of the Civil Registry (Departamento Electoral del Registro Civil). Regarding the claim brought against the bills issued by the Central Bank, the protected parties must abide by what was decided in the precedents of this Constitutional Court. Finally, insofar as the reproach is directed against the Public Transport Council, the amparo appeal must be declared without merit, as, on that point, no violation of the fundamental rights of the protected parties has been proven." They express their disagreement with the fact that the public authorities do not timely ensure due compliance with the provisions of Ley 7600 applicable to public transport. Finally, they question that the Central Bank issues banknotes that are not accessible to persons with disabilities.”  “…IV.- ON THE RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY.  Costa Rica, in Article 1 of its Political Constitution, by constituting itself as a State according to the basic principles of a democracy, opted for a political formulation in which the human being, by the simple fact of being so, by having been born as such, is the bearer of a series of rights given to them in protection of their dignity, rights that cannot be denied them except for superior social interests, duly recognized in the Constitution itself or the laws (Judgment No. 1261-1990 of 15:30 hrs. on September 10, 1990). Regarding the recognition of a democratic system upon which the guarantee of human dignity rests, this Court has resolved the following: <o:p> </o:p> “(…) This positivization of the "democratic principle" constitutes one of the pillars—if not the nucleus or essence—upon which our republican system rests, and entails that the entire normative system must be interpreted in accordance with the principles that inform this system of life and conceptualization of the State, in which the rights recognized to persons must be respected for that condition alone, regardless of their national origin, race, political or religious creed, without discrimination against their dignity as a human being. (…)”  Judgment 6470-1999 of 14:36 hrs. on August 18, 1999. <o:p> </o:p> Together with life, intimately linked to its meaning and true moral and social value, is the recognition and necessary respect for human dignity, the basis and foundation for the guarantee of other fundamental rights, which without it lack meaning. Social order and peace rest upon respect for human dignity, as does any organization that prides itself on possessing a substantial legitimization for its existence. Fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom, and equality are all derived from the dignity of man, the basis of the Human Rights system. As such, they are rights born with the person, such that they do not originate in a text that so recognizes them, but from the intrinsic nature of the human being. Thus, this Constitutional Court has held that the guarantee of dignity is the fundamental basis for arriving at a recognition of the right to equality, the fundamental basis of all Constitutional and Democratic Order. In this respect, the Chamber has resolved accordingly: <o:p> </o:p> “(…) Human dignity thus serves as a limit, as a barrier to any interference of power over the individual and, even though it is difficult to define and determine, it can be described or considered as the deepest feeling that each person has of their fundamental rights and conditions for existing, through which the sense of one's own identity as a person and of one's meaning as a citizen is given. That feeling gives us the perception of the value we assign to the human person and which is the basis for the recognition of other rights and attributes, initially one's own, but which simultaneously brings its recognition in others. That is why it is said that human dignity is the platform of equality, because the parameters of valuation are always the same for every person, without exception. (…)”  Resolution No. 1428-1996 of 15:36 hrs. on March 27, 1996. <o:p> </o:p> In short, one of the fundamental values and principles of Constitutional Law is, precisely, dignity, upon which the entire edifice of the dogmatic part of the Constitution is erected—that is, the fundamental rights of persons. It is from the recognition of the intrinsic dignity of the human being that international Human Rights instruments and internal Constitutions grant a series of indisputable and universally accepted liberties and rights. In this sense, the General Assembly of the United Nations, in adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its resolution No. 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, considered in the Preamble that freedom, justice, and peace in the world have their basis in the recognition of the intrinsic dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of communities. Under that understanding, it was agreed in Article 1 that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights (…)”  Likewise, Article 2 recognizes that every person has the rights and freedoms proclaimed in said Declaration without distinction of any kind. Identical considerations were made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in issuing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted in resolution 2200 A (XXI) of December 16, 1966, in which it was decreed that the recognition of the rights set forth therein derives from the inherent dignity of the human person. Furthermore, that the ideal of free human beings enjoying their freedoms cannot be realized unless conditions are created that allow each person to enjoy their civil and political rights, as well as their economic, social and cultural rights. For their part, the American States adopted the American Convention on Human Rights, which is Law of the Republic No. 4534 of February 23, 1970, and in the preamble of the Convention, they recognized that the essential rights of man do not arise from the fact of being a national of a particular State, but rather have their foundation in the attributes of the human person. In this vein, Article 1 provides that the States Parties to the Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to every person without discrimination. Likewise, said Convention in its Article 11, paragraph 1, under the heading of "Protection of Honor and Dignity" provides that "1. Every person has the right to (…) recognition of their dignity".  For its part, our Political Constitution in its Article 33 proscribes any discrimination contrary to human dignity. Such mandates of International Human Rights Law and of the Fundamental Norm itself impose respect for and recognition of the intrinsic dignity of all persons without making any odious discrimination based on their human condition. V.- ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES 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 by Law 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 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.” At the American regional level, 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”, Law No. 7907 of September 3, 1999, provides in Article 18 that “Every person affected by a diminution of their physical or mental capacities has the right to receive special attention with the aim of achieving the maximum development of their personality.” As can be observed, the expansive and progressive trend of human rights has led countries to join the fight against all forms of discrimination that are contrary to human dignity. In response to these trends to guarantee the right to equality of 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 by Law No. 7948 of November 22, 1999. The cited Convention reaffirmed that persons with disabilities have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as other persons and that these rights, including that of not being subjected to discrimination based on disability, emanate from the dignity and equality that are inherent to every human being. The objective of the Convention is the prevention and elimination of all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities and to promote their full integration into society. Article 1 defines discrimination in the following manner: <o:p> </o:p> "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 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".   <o:p> </o:p> Likewise, Article 2 enshrines the obligation of the States that 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.”  Likewise, and by way of illustration, it is worth noting that the General Assembly of the United Nations, at its Sixty-first Session between August 14 and 25, 2006, adopted resolution No. 61/106, which is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will be open for signature by all States and regional integration organizations at United Nations Headquarters, starting March 30, 2007. The Preamble of said 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 incorporating 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 being. 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 provides the following: <o:p> </o:p> “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.” <o:p> </o:p> The common denominator of the international human rights instruments mentioned focuses on the elimination of discrimination and the new dimension of equal opportunities. Likewise, emphasis is placed on the right of persons with disabilities to the same opportunities as the rest of the citizenry, to enjoy, on an equal basis, the improvements in living conditions resulting from economic, technological, and social development, and attention is drawn to the importance of the social inclusion of persons with disabilities. The “achievement of equal opportunities” is defined by the “Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities” approved by the United Nations in resolution 32/2 on February 20, 1991, as “the process through which the various systems of society, the physical environment, services, activities, information and documentation are made available to all, especially to persons with disabilities.” In current societies, obstacles still exist that prevent persons with disabilities from fully exercising their rights and freedoms and hinder their participation in the activities of their society. Therefore, it is the responsibility of States to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate those obstacles. Persons with disabilities and the organizations that represent them must play an active role as co-participants in that process. The principle of equal rights implies that the needs of each person have equal importance, and those needs must constitute the basis for the planning of societies, so that all resources must be employed with the purpose of ensuring that all persons have equal opportunities for participation. At the infra-constitutional level, this Constitutional Court has indicated that with the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Law, Ley No. 7600 of May 2, 1996, the legislator intended to fulfill the stated objectives and to strive, through the elimination of a series of barriers that prevent persons who suffer some degree of disability from participating fully in Costa Rican society. In this regard, this Court resolved the following: <o:p> </o:p> “(…) This Chamber has already pronounced on other occasions on the special protection that the legal system provides to disabled persons, so that they can function normally within society. It is not simply a matter of special treatment in response to the particular conditions of that population, but rather a right of theirs and an obligation of the rest of the people to respect those rights and fulfill the obligations derived from them (…)" Judgment number 2288-1999 of 11:06 hrs. on March 26, 1999. <o:p> </o:p> Thus, the fundamental objective of this regulation is to achieve the necessary conditions so that persons suffering any type of disability may attain their full social participation under the same conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as the rest of the inhabitants. Precisely for that reason, the enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation under identical circumstances ceases to be a simple aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a true fundamental right, so as to strive for general well-being within the framework of a democratic society. VI.- ON THE CALLS FOR HEARINGS OF THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES.  It should be noted that this Court has already ruled on the acts and omissions alleged by the petitioners in connection with an amparo proceeding filed on behalf of the Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas, to which the petitioners in the initial brief claim to belong, against the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos. On this matter, the Director of the Patronato Nacional de Ciegos expressed her opinion to the effect that by issuing calls for hearings in written form, a person with a visual impairment does not have access to them, which could be solved if calls were made through electronic media, radio, television, on the website of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, or else, in La Gaceta Electrónica. In judgment No. 2006-4804 of this Court of 13:08 hrs. on March 31, 2006, Aracelly Pacheco Salazar, in her capacity as Reguladora General of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, was ordered to take the necessary steps, based on the provisions of Ley No. 7600, to ensure that persons with visual impairments are kept informed of the various public hearings scheduled. On this matter, the following was resolved: <o:p> </o:p> “(…) From the report provided by the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, it is verified that the respondent omitted to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons with visual impairments can fully access the publications of calls for various public hearings that they schedule through a medium other than the written press. It is evident from the evidence in the record—specifically from official letter 107-DDU-2006 dated January 17, 2006—that the Director of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos determined, starting in January of the current year, to communicate information or procedures in which there is a public interest to all organizations of persons with disabilities and thus disseminate the hearings to the greatest number of users so that they can register in the registry kept by the respondent for these purposes. Now then, in the judgment of fourteen forty-five hours on February fifteen, two thousand six, a violation of the right to participate in public activity was determined, and the Reguladora General and the Directora de Fiscalización y Defensa del Usuario were ordered to reschedule the hearing in question here, in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 36 of the Law creating that entity, allowing the participation of interested parties. In light of the foregoing, the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos must take the necessary measures to communicate in an appropriate manner to the Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas both the date of the public hearing for the debate on fuel price setting, as well as future hearings that are scheduled and have a public interest, in strict compliance (sic) with the provisions of Ley 7600. Consistent with the foregoing, the omission by the respondent authorities to adopt pertinent measures to inform persons with disabilities of the dates of public hearings infringes Constitutional Law, and therefore it is appropriate to grant this amparo as is hereby ordered. (…)” <o:p> </o:p> A criterion that is applicable to the specific case, in which it was proven that the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos called public hearings to resolve the requests for tariff adjustments for routes 1235 and 284 through written media. On this matter, it was reported under oath that said calls were published in the nationally circulated newspapers Al Día, La República, La Extra, and in the Official Gazette La Gaceta. In this way, it is proven that the calls made by ARESEP do not comply with the provisions set forth in the previously outlined principles, guaranteeing the full participation of persons with visual impairments in the public hearings to resolve the requests for tariff adjustment. In the interest of ensuring that persons with disabilities achieve their maximum development, their full social participation, as well as the exercise of the rights and duties established in our legal system, public authorities must guarantee equal opportunities for the Costa Rican population in all areas and eliminate any type of discrimination. It is the duty of the Costa Rican State to recognize and implement the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities and to guarantee them the opportunity to actively participate in decision-making processes related to policies, proposals, and programs, especially if such decisions could directly affect them. Indeed, in the judgment of this Court, the design of policies and planning must take into consideration the needs of persons with disabilities, and for these purposes, it is vital that they be involved in decision-making. For example, the “Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities” mentioned above provide in Article 14 that States must ensure that disability-related issues are included in all relevant regulatory and planning activities of the country.  It even provides that States must ensure that organizations of persons with disabilities are involved in all cases of decision-making related to plans and programs of interest to persons with disabilities or that affect their economic and social situation. Article 18 indicates that States must recognize the right of organizations of persons with disabilities to represent these persons at the national, regional, and local levels, and must also recognize the consultative role of organizations of persons with disabilities regarding decision-making on issues related to their disability. Such norms of International Law, although not incorporated into our Legal System, do indeed serve as an interpretative parameter to arrive at the conclusion that ARESEP must take into consideration organizations of persons with disabilities in order to guarantee their participation in public hearings through calls that are accessible according to their needs.  This is expressly recognized by Article 13 of the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Law No. 7600, which states the following: <o:p> </o:p> “Article 13.- Obligation to consult organizations of persons with disabilities Legally constituted organizations of persons with disabilities must be consulted by the institutions responsible for planning, executing, and evaluating services and actions related to disability.” <o:p> </o:p> In light of the foregoing, as was resolved in the cited judgment, regarding this aspect of the amparo, the petition must be granted, reiterating that the authorities of ARESEP must inform organizations of persons with disabilities about the scheduling of the public hearings they plan. Now then, in the judgment of this Court, the rescheduling of the hearings is not appropriate, since, as was reported, through resolutions RRG-5397-2006 and RRG-5454-2006, the requests for tariff adjustment were dismissed. **VII.- ON IDENTITY CARDS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES**. The appellants question that at the public hearings held by the Public Services Regulatory Authority for the purpose of hearing statements and objections to requests for public transport fare increases, they are required to present their identity card (cédula de identidad). However, they consider that the identity card is an inaccessible document for blind persons. They question that the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) has not taken their needs into account to find a way to make their cards accessible and not confused with other documents, such as a bank credit card. In this regard, the authorities of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal report that obtaining the identity card is accessible to all citizens over eighteen years of age without exception and the Tribunal has made efforts to facilitate the obtaining of the identity document for persons suffering from any disability. They consider that the primary function of the identity card is for citizens to identify themselves, for which reason the current format does not harm their fundamental rights. On this matter, the Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and of the Civil Registry, Law No. 3504 of May 10, 1965, amended by Law No. 7563 of December 10, 1999, provides the following:

"(…) **Article 93.- Identity card (*)** The identity card shall contain the information necessary, in the judgment of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, to fully identify its bearer according to law.

To prepare and issue this document, the Tribunal and the Civil Registry shall use the most advanced and secure techniques for personal identification." Likewise, Article 95 regulates some of the legal acts in which the presentation of the identity card is indispensable:

"**Article 95.- Acts in which presentation of the identity card is mandatory** The presentation of the identity card is indispensable for:

a)Casting the vote; b) Any notarial act or contract; c) Initiating administrative or judicial proceedings or actions; d) Signing marriage certificates, whether civil or Catholic; e) Being appointed as an official or employee of the State, its institutions, and municipalities; f) Formalizing employment contracts; g) Signing obligations in favor of autonomous institutions, semi-autonomous institutions, or the Rural Credit Boards and Farmer Assistance Offices; h) Obtaining a passport; i) Formalizing Social Security, without this provision being able to protect the employer from the consequences that the law and Regulations of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund impose upon them; j) Receiving payments from the State, municipalities, and autonomous or semi-autonomous institutions; k) Registering their children or wards in public or private schools and high schools by parents or guardians; l) Obtaining or renewing a driver's license; and m) Any other proceeding or operation where it is necessary to justify personal identity.
k)In the actions of legal entities, the identity card of the respective legal representative shall be presented. (…)." From the foregoing, the importance of the identity card (cédula de identidad) and that it be accessible to all persons is clear, not in the sense interpreted by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal that it is easy to obtain, but rather that this document can be used by persons with visual disabilities without doubting its validity and veracity. Note that the presentation of the identity card is mandatory for a multitude of acts, such that a citizen who does not carry and exhibit their identity document cannot carry out any civil, commercial, or labor act, nor is it possible for them to initiate judicial or administrative proceedings, among other legal acts. As developed in the recitals (considerandos) of this judgment and applying a standard of reasonableness (razonabilidad), the Costa Rican State has the obligation, as a consequence of the recognition of equality and human dignity, to adopt the necessary measures to progressively eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities and to promote their full integration into society (Article 3, point 1, of the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities). In the judgment of this Court, the failure of the respondent authorities to take into consideration the needs of persons with visual disabilities for the issuance of identity cards constitutes discrimination contrary to their fundamental rights, understood as a restriction based on a disability that has the effect of impeding or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their fundamental rights and freedoms, which implies the granting of this aspect of the appeal. This must be so, by virtue of the pro homine (pro homine) and pro libertate (pro libertate) principles, which always require the interpretation of norms related to fundamental rights in favor of the person. On this matter and by way of illustration, it is noted that new international trends in the protection of human rights, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enshrines in Article 12 the Right to equal recognition as a person before the law and provides the following:

"1. States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law. 2. States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life. 3. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity (…)".

In light of the foregoing, this Court considers it essential that the authorities of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal take concrete measures to guarantee the rights of blind persons in the issuance and use of their identity card as a means to prove their identity, in order to recognize the person's individual autonomy and independence, including the possibility of conducting legal transactions. The independence that can be ensured for persons with disabilities is fundamental to guaranteeing equality of opportunities. Currently, progress in technology can improve the quality of life of persons with disabilities and should be used as such. Therefore, it is necessary to grant the appeal (recurso) so that the format of the identity cards of persons with visual disabilities is accessible to them and that, due to the impossibility of recognizing their difference from other types of identification, it does not become an obstacle to their full integration into the community.

**VIII.- ON THE ISSUANCE OF COINS AND BILLS BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA.** In another vein, the appellants question that the Central Bank of Costa Rica does not issue banknotes accessible to persons with visual disabilities. On this point, this Court has already resolved a claim brought by Erick Ramón Chacón Valerio himself on behalf of the Foundation for the Progress of Blind Persons in which it was ordered to abide by what was resolved in judgment 2004-08800 at 3:06 p.m. on August 17, 2004. On that matter, the following was resolved:

"Amparo appeal (Recurso de amparo) filed by ALBERTO CABEZAS VILLALOBOS, identity card number 1-1063-0064 and ERICK RAMON CHACON VALERIO, identity card number 1-788-092, on behalf of the COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES OF THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PROGRESS OF BLIND PERSONS, against the GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA. **I.-** The facts challenged here have already been the subject of a ruling by this Chamber in judgment number 2004-08800, at three hours and six minutes on August seventeen, two thousand four, in which it considered, as relevant: '…I.- Purpose of the appeal. The legal point to be debated is the potential discrimination the petitioner says he suffers as a consequence of his disability as a blind person, given that his social reintegration is made impossible for two reasons: a) he cannot determine the different denominations of national banknotes because they are all the same size, which forces him to always be accompanied by people he trusts completely to carry out any transaction and prevents him from engaging in commerce or any productive activity involving the handling of money, since he cannot by touch establish the denomination of the banknote, and b) the taximeters used in public service automobiles only allow verification of the service start fare and the final amount through visual means, not auditory, a situation that makes it easy for unscrupulous taxi drivers to charge fares and amounts that are unverifiable for the blind person who requires that means of transport. (…). Likewise, it is appropriate to rule on what concerns the Central Bank of Costa Rica, since despite the efforts made by that entity (which holds the exclusive duty of issuing banknotes and coins in the national territory) to incorporate distinctive characteristics for the printing of banknotes and minting of coins currently circulating in our country, in order to allow the blind population to distinguish the denomination of these values, the truth is that these efforts have not had the desired effects and, in reality, as the Director of the National Board of the Blind has informed the Chamber, blind persons find the handling of coins and bills legally circulating in the country a true obstacle to their full social reintegration. It is for this reason that the present appeal (recurso) must also be granted regarding this point, with the consequences of law and, in consideration of the reparative nature of the rulings issued by the Constitutional Chamber, the following is ordered: (…) **2) To the Central Bank of Costa Rica, that, also within a period of one month, it initiates the corresponding technical studies, with the purpose of finding a viable and satisfactory solution so that future issuances of coins and bills that are made comply with the necessary requirements that allow the blind population in our country to distinguish the denomination of the different values. (…)'** **II.-** As things stand, and as there is no reason to vary the criterion expressed in that judgment, the appellants must abide by what was resolved therein." Judgment No. 2005-017786 at 12:16 p.m. on December 23, 2005.

Therefore, regarding this aspect of the appeal (recurso), as it is a reiteration of other amparo proceedings filed by the same appellants, it must be ordered that they abide by the precedents of this Court. At most, by way of the proceedings for non-execution of judgments (diligencias de inejecución de sentencias), they could—in the event that the Central Bank of Costa Rica has failed to comply with the order issued by this Court—allege the failure to carry out the pertinent studies, a point that must be raised in the case files (expedientes) in which the amparo appeals that were granted by this Chamber were substantiated.

**IX.- ON THE ADJUSTMENT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES**. In the brief initiating the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), the appellants claim that the Public Services Regulatory Authority has the function of monitoring compliance with the norms of quality, quantity, reliability, continuity, and optimal provision of services. However, they question whether said authority fulfills its competencies because in its resolutions on fare increases, it does not take into account whether the public transport units are accessible to persons with disabilities. Regarding this point, it should be noted that, according to the provisions of Law 7600, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes) is responsible for preventing public transport units from operating without complying with the provisions to ensure the mobility of all persons under equal conditions. On this point, the Law provides the following:

**Article 45.- Technical measures** To guarantee mobility and safety in public transportation, appropriate technical measures must be adopted to adapt it to the needs of persons with disabilities; likewise, the signaling and orientation systems of the physical space shall be conditioned.

Collective means of transportation must be totally accessible and appropriate to the needs of all persons.

**Article 46.- Permits and concessions** To obtain permits and concessions for operating public transportation services, it shall be a requirement that the beneficiaries of this type of contract present the technical inspection, approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, which verifies that they comply with the measures established in this law and its regulations.

In accordance with these competencies, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport has reported a series of concrete measures to comply with these provisions. On this matter, this Court observes that the Public Transport Council (Consejo de Transporte Público), as the organ of maximum deconcentration of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, is the specialized body to hear matters of public transportation. Said body reported a series of concrete measures in order to comply with the mandate provided in Law 7600 and, likewise, to observe the provisions of judgment No. 2004-12973 at 2:49 p.m. on November 17, 2004. Specifically, they report that by means of the agreement adopted in Article 5 of Extraordinary Session No. 007-2003 of May 29, 2003, the Board of Directors ordered, among other things, to grant a maximum period of three months to all providers of the paid passenger transport service in bus mode (permit holders and concessionaires) for the adaptation of all units to the technical requirements established in Law 7600 and Executive Decree No. 23831 MP; they report that in La Gaceta No. 247 of December 17, 2004, the publication was made of the Technical Requirements for Accessible Interurban Collective Transport Vehicles, Public and Private, and the Technical Requirements for Accessible Taxi Vehicles with reference to standard INTE-03-01-14-03; that they are working with a series of institutions to issue the respective technical standard that allows for objective parameters for the modification of public transport units, etc. Thus, it is concluded that, effectively, the Public Transport Council has adopted concrete measures to ensure persons with disabilities access to means of public transportation.

**X.- CONCLUSION**. As a corollary of the considerations set forth, it is necessary to grant the amparo for the alleged infringement of the right to equal opportunities regarding the omissions attributed to the Public Services Regulatory Authority and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal as the superior body of the Identity Card Section and the Electoral Department of the Civil Registry. Regarding the claim raised against the banknotes issued by the Central Bank, the petitioners must abide by what was resolved in the precedents of this Constitutional Court. Finally, insofar as the reproach is directed against the Public Transport Council, the amparo must be declared without merit (sin lugar), as no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners was proven on that point.”

“I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. Los recurrentes acuden en amparo de su derecho a la igualdad de oportunidades y a la no discriminación, consagrado en el artículo 33 de la Constitución Política. Cuestionan que las convocatorias que ordena la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos para la realización de las audiencias públicas, se llevan a cabo mediante medios de comunicación escrita, por ende, se impide la participación a las personas que, como ellos, son ciegos. Acusan que las cédulas de identidad no son accesibles para las personas con discapacidad visual. Presentan su disconformidad con el hecho que las autoridades públicas no velan de manera oportuna por el debido cumplimiento de las disposiciones de la Ley 7600 aplicables al transporte público. Finalmente, cuestionan que el Banco Central emite billetes que no resultan accesibles a las personas con discapacidad.” “…IV.- SOBRE EL RECONOCIMIENTO A LA DIGNIDAD INDIVIDUAL. Costa Rica, en el artículo 1° de su Constitución Política, al constituirse en Estado según los principios básicos de una democracia, optó por una formulación política en la que el ser humano, por el simple hecho de serlo, por haber nacido tal, es depositario de una serie de derechos que le son dados en protección de su dignidad, derechos que no pueden serle desconocidos sino en razón de intereses sociales superiores, debidamente reconocidos en la propia Constitución o las leyes (Sentencia Nº 1261-1990 de las 15: 30 hrs. del 10 de setiembre de 1990). Sobre el reconocimiento de un sistema democrático en el que descansa la garantía de la dignidad humana, este Tribunal ha resuelto lo siguiente:

“(…) Esta positivación del "principio democrático" constituye uno de los pilares –por no decir, el núcleo o esencia- en el que se asienta nuestro sistema republicano, y conlleva que todo el sistema normativo deba ser interpretado conforme a los principios que informan este sistema de vida y de conceptualización del Estado, en el que los derechos reconocidos a las personas les deben ser respetados por esa sola condición, independientemente de su origen nacional, raza, credo político o religioso, sin discriminaciones a su dignidad como ser humano. (…)” Sentencia 6470-1999 de las 14:36 hrs. del 18 de agosto de 1999.

Junto a la vida, íntimamente ligada a su sentido y verdadero valor moral y social, se encuentra el reconocimiento y necesario respeto a la dignidad humana, base y fundamento para la garantía de los demás derechos fundamentales, que sin ella carecen de sentido. Sobre el respeto a la dignidad humana se asienta el orden y la paz social, así como toda organización que se precie de ostentar una legitimación sustancial de su existencia. Derechos fundamentales como la intimidad, la libertad, e igualdad son todos derivados de la dignidad del hombre, base del sistema de Derechos Humanos. Como tales, son derechos que nacen con la persona, de modo que no tienen su origen en un texto que así lo reconozca, sino de la naturaleza intrínseca del ser humano. Así, este Tribunal Constitucional ha sostenido que la garantía de la dignidad es la base fundamental para arribar a un reconocimiento del derecho a la igualdad, base fundamental de todo Ordenamiento Constitucional y Democrático. Al respecto, la Sala ha resuelto en lo conducente:

“(…) La dignidad humana se da así como límite, como barrera a cualquier injerencia del poder en el individuo y, aún cuando es de difícil definición y determinación, puede describirse o considerarse como el más profundo sentimiento que cada uno tiene de sus derechos y condiciones fundamentales para existir, a través del cual se da el sentido de la propia identidad como persona y del significado como ciudadano. Ese sentimiento nos da la percepción del valor que le asignamos a la persona humana y que es la base para el reconocimiento de los demás derechos y atributos, en primera instancia propios, pero que al mismo tiempo trae su reconocimiento en los demás. Por eso se dice que la dignidad humana es la plataforma de la igualdad, porque los parámetros de valoración son siempre los mismos para toda persona, sin excepción. (…)” Resolución Nº 1428-1996 de las 15:36 hrs. del 27 de marzo de 1996.

En definitiva, uno de los valores y principios fundamentales del Derecho de la Constitución lo constituye, precisamente, la dignidad, sobre el cual se erige el edificio entero de la parte dogmática de la Constitución, esto es, de los derechos fundamentales de las personas. Es a partir del reconocimiento de la dignidad intrínseca al ser humano que los instrumentos internacionales de Derechos Humanos y las Constituciones internas le otorgan una serie de libertades y derechos indiscutibles y universalmente aceptados. En este sentido, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas al adoptar la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos en su resolución Nº 217 A (III) del 10 de diciembre de 1948, consideró en el Preámbulo que la libertad, la justicia y la paz en el mundo tienen por base el reconocimiento de la dignidad intrínseca y de los derechos iguales e inalienables de todos los miembros de las comunidades. Bajo esa inteligencia, se acordó en el artículo 1° que “Todos los seres humanos nacen libre e iguales en dignidad y derechos (…)” Asimismo, en el artículo 2 reconoce que toda persona tiene los derechos y libertades proclamados en dicha Declaración sin distinción alguna. Idénticas consideraciones realizó la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas al dictar el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos y el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, adoptados en la resolución 2200 A (XXI) del 16 de diciembre de 1966, en los que se decretó que el reconocimiento de los derechos allí dispuestos derivan de la dignidad inherente a la persona humana. Además, que no puede realizarse el ideal del ser humano libre en el disfrute de sus libertades, a menos que se generen condiciones que permitan a cada persona gozar de sus derechos civiles y políticos, tanto como sus derechos económicos, sociales y culturales. Por su parte, los Estados Americanos adoptaron la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos que es Ley de la República Nº 4534 del 23 de febrero de 1970 y, en el preámbulo de la Convención, reconocieron que los derechos esenciales del hombre no surgen del hecho de ser nacional de un determinado Estado, sino que tienen como fundamento los atributos de la persona humana. En esa tesitura en el artículo 1° se dispone que los Estados Partes en la Convención se comprometen a respetar los derechos y libertades reconocidos en ella y a garantizar su libre y pleno ejercicio a toda persona sin discriminación. Asimismo, dicha Convención en su artículo 11, párrafo 1°, bajo el epígrafe de "Protección de la Honra y de la Dignidad" dispone que "1. Toda persona tiene derecho al (…) reconocimiento de su dignidad". Por su parte, nuestra Constitución Política en su artículo 33 proscribe cualquier discriminación contraria a la dignidad humana. Tales mandatos del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y de la propia Norma Fundamental imponen el respeto y reconocimiento de la dignidad intrínseca de todas las personas sin hacer ninguna discriminación odiosa de su condición humana.

V.- SOBRE LA IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDADES PARA LAS PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. El artículo 7 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos reconoce que “Todos son iguales ante la ley y tienen, sin distinción, derecho a igual protección de la ley. Todos tienen derecho a igual protección contra toda discriminación que infrinja esta Declaración y contra toda provocación a tal discriminación”. El Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, incorporado a nuestro Ordenamiento Jurídico mediante Ley Nº 4229 del 11 de diciembre de 1968, ordena en el artículo 26 que “Todas las personas son iguales ante la ley y tienen derecho sin discriminación a igual protección de la ley. A este respecto, la ley prohibirá toda discriminación y garantizará a todas las personas protección igual y efectiva contra cualquier discriminación por motivos de raza, color, sexo, idioma, religión, opiniones políticas o de cualquier índole, origen nacional o social, posición económica, nacimiento o cualquier otra condición social”. Por su parte, el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales dispone en el artículo 2° que los Estados Partes en el Pacto se “comprometen a garantizar el ejercicio de los derechos que en él se enuncian, sin discriminación alguna por motivos de raza, color, sexo, idioma, religión, opinión política o de otra índole, origen nacional o social, posición económica, nacimiento o cualquier otra condición social”. En el plano regional americano, la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos dispone en el artículo 24 que todas las personas son iguales ante la ley y que, en consecuencia, tienen derecho sin discriminación a igual protección de ésta. El artículo 18 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en Materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, “Protocolo de San Salvador”, Ley Nº 7907 del 3 de setiembre de 1999, dispone en el artículo 18 que “Toda persona afectada por una disminución de sus capacidades físicas o mentales tiene derecho a recibir una atención especial con el fin de alcanzar el máximo desarrollo de su personalidad.” Como puede observarse, la tendencia sumarse a la lucha contra toda forma de discriminación que sea contraria a la dignidad humana. En atención a esas tendencias de garantizar el derecho a la igualdad de todas las personas, los Estados Americanos suscribieron la Convención Interamericana para la Eliminación de todas las formas de Discriminación contra las Personas con Discapacidad, en Ciudad de Guatemala el 8 de junio de 1999, la que fue incorporada a nuestro Ordenamiento Jurídico mediante Ley Nº 7948 del 22 de noviembre de 1999. En la Convención de cita se reafirmó que las personas con discapacidad tienen los mismos derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales que otras personas y que estos derechos, incluido el de no verse sometidos a discriminación en razón de la discapacidad, dimanan de la dignidad y la igualdad que son inherentes a todo ser humano. El objetivo de la Convención es la prevención y la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad y propiciar su plena integración en la sociedad. El artículo 1° define la discriminación, de la siguiente manera:

“El término discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad, significa toda distinción, exclusión o restricción basada en una discapacidad, antecedente de discapacidad, consecuencia de discapacidad presente o pasada, que tenga el efecto o el propósito de impedir o anular el reconocimiento, goce o ejercicio por parte de las personas con discapacidad, de sus derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales”.

Asimismo, en el artículo 2 consagra la obligación de los Estados que la suscribieron, a adoptar “las medidas para eliminar progresivamente la discriminación y promover la integración por parte de las autoridades gubernamentales y/o entidades privadas en la prestación o suministro de bienes, servicios, instalaciones, programas, actividades, tales como el empleo, el transporte, las comunicaciones, la vivienda, la recreación, la educación, el deporte, el acceso a la justicia y los servicios policiales y las actividades políticas y de administración”.

Asimismo y, a modo de ilustración, conviene señalar que la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en el Sexagésimo primer periodo de Sesiones entre el 14 y 25 de agosto de 2006 adoptó la resolución Nº 61/106 que es la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, la cual estará abierta a la firma de todos los Estados y las organizaciones regionales de integración en la Sede de las Naciones Unidas, a partir del 30 de marzo de 2007. En el Preámbulo de dicha Convención se reconoce que la discapacidad es un concepto que evoluciona y que resulta de la interacción entre las personas con deficiencias y las barreras debidas a la actitud y al entorno, que evitan su participación plena y efectiva en la sociedad en igualdad de condiciones. Asimismo, destaca la importancia de incorporar cuestiones relativas a la discapacidad como parte integrante de las estrategias pertinentes de desarrollo sostenible y reconoce que la discriminación contra cualquier persona por razón de su discapacidad constituye una vulneración de la dignidad y el valor inherentes del ser humano. El artículo 1° dispone que el propósito de la Convención es promover, proteger y asegurar el goce pleno y en condiciones de igualdad de todos los derechos humanos y libertades fundamentales por todas las personas con discapacidad y promover el respeto de su dignidad inherente. Como obligaciones generales dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 4.

1. Los Estados Partes se comprometen a asegurar y promover el pleno ejercicio de todos los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de las personas con discapacidad sin discriminación alguna por motivos de incapacidad” El común denominador de los instrumentos internacionales sobre derechos humanos señalados se centra en la eliminación de la discriminación y en la nueva dimensión de la igualdad de oportunidades. Asimismo, se insiste sobre el derecho de las personas con discapacidad a las mismas oportunidades que el resto de la ciudadanía, a disfrutar, en un plano de igualdad, de las mejoras en las condiciones de vida resultantes del desarrollo económico, tecnológico y social y se advierte de la importancia de la inserción social de las personas con discapacidad. El “logro de la igualdad de oportunidades” es definido por las “Normas Uniformes sobre la igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad” aprobadas por las Nacional Unidas en la resolución 32/2 el 20 de febrero de 1991, como “el proceso mediante el cual los diversos sistemas de la sociedad, el entorno físico, los servicios, las actividades, la información y la documentación se ponen a disposición de todos, especialmente de las personas con discapacidad.” En las sociedades actuales todavía existen obstáculos que impiden que las personas con discapacidad ejerzan, plenamente, sus derechos y libertades y dificultan su participación en las actividades de su sociedad. Por ende, es responsabilidad de los Estados adoptar medidas adecuadas para eliminar esos obstáculos. Las personas con discapacidad y las organizaciones que las representan, deben desempeñar una función activa como copartícipes en ese proceso. El principio de igualdad de derechos implica que las necesidades de cada persona tienen igual importancia y esas necesidades deben constituir la base de la planificación de las sociedades, de manera que todos los recursos han de emplease con el propósito que se garantice que todas las personas tengan iguales oportunidades de participación. En el plano infraconstitucional, este Tribunal Constitucional ha señalado que con la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad, Ley Nº 7600 del 2 de mayo de 1996, el legislador pretendió cumplir con los objetivos señalados y procurar, a través de la eliminación una serie de barreras que impiden a las personas que sufren algún grado de discapacidad, que participen en forma plena en la sociedad costarricense. En este sentido, este Tribunal resolvió lo siguiente:

“(…) Esta Sala ya se ha pronunciado en otras ocasiones sobre la protección especial que el ordenamiento jurídico da a las personas discapacitadas, a fin de que éstas puedan desenvolverse normalmente dentro de la sociedad. 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 (…)" Sentencia número 2288-1999 de las 11:06 hrs. del 26 de marzo de 1999.

Así, esta normativa tiene como objetivo fundamental que se logren las condiciones necesarias para que las personas que padecen cualquier tipo de discapacidad, alcancen su plena participación social en iguales condiciones de calidad, oportunidad, derechos y deberes que el resto de los habitantes. Precisamente, por ese fundamento, es que 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, de manera que se procure por el bienestar general en el marco de una sociedad democrática.

VI.- SOBRE LAS CONVOCATORIA DE LAS AUDIENCIAS DE LA AUTORIDAD REGULADORA DE LOS SERVICIOS PÚBLICO. Cabe indicar que este Tribunal ya se pronunció sobre los hechos y omisiones acusados por los recurrentes a propósito de un proceso de amparo interpuesto a favor de la Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas, a la que dicen pertenecer los recurrentes en el libelo inicial, contra la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos. Sobre el particular, la Directora del Patronato Nacional de Ciegos externó su criterio en el sentido que al hacer las convocatorias a las audiencias en forma escrita, la persona con discapacidad visual no tiene acceso a las mismas, lo cual se podría solucionar si se realizaran las convocatorias por medios de comunicación electrónica, radio televisión, en la página electrónica de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Público, o bien, en La Gaceta Electrónica. En la sentencia de este Tribunal N° 2006-4804 de las 13:08 hrs. del 31 de marzo de 2006, se ordenó a Aracelly Pacheco Salazar, en su calidad de Reguladora General de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, tomar las previsiones necesarias con base en las disposiciones de la Ley Nº 7600, de tal modo que se mantengan informadas a las personas con discapacidad visual de las diversas audiencias públicas que programen. Sobre el particular, se resolvió lo siguiente:

“(…) Del informe rendido por la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, se constata la omisión de la recurrida de tomar las medidas necesarias para asegurar que las personas con discapacidad visual puedan acceder, en forma plena, a las publicaciones de las convocatorias de diversas audiencias públicas que programan mediante un medio diferente que la prensa escrita. Se desprende de la prueba que corre en autos –propiamente del oficio 107-DDU-2006 con fecha 17 de enero de 2006- que la Directora de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos determino a partir del mes de enero del año en curso, comunicar la información o procedimientos en los que exista un interés público a todas las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad y así difundir las audiencias al mayor número de usuarios para que de esa forma logren inscribirse en el registro que para esos efectos lleva la recurrida. Ahora bien, en la sentencia de las catorce horas y cuarenta y cinco minutos del quince de febrero del dos mil seis se determino una violación del derecho a participar en al actividad pública y se ordenó a la Reguladora General y a la Directora de Fiscalización y Defensa del Usuario reprogramar la audiencia que aquí interesa, en estricto apego a lo estipulado en el artículo 36 de la Ley de creación de ese ente, permitiendo la participación de los interesados. Por lo anteriormente expuesto debe la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos tomar las medidas necesarias a fin de comunicar de una forma idónea a la Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas tanto la fecha de la audiencia pública para el debate de la fijación de precios de los combustibles, como las futuras audiencias que se programen y que gocen de un interés público en estricto apega (sic) a lo establecido en la Ley 7600. Consecuente con lo expuesto, la omisión de las autoridades recurridas en adoptar las medidas pertinentes para informar a las personas con discapacidad las fechas de las audiencias públicas, transgrede el Derecho de la Constitución, por lo que es procedente estimar el presente amparo como en efecto se dispone. (…)” Criterio que resulta aplicable al caso concreto, en el que se acreditó que la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos convocó a las audiencias públicas para resolver las solicitudes de ajuste de tarifas para las rutas 1235 y la 284, en los medios de comunicación escrita. Sobre el particular, se informó bajo juramento que dichas convocatorias fueron publicadas en los diarios de circulación nacional Al Día, La República, La Extra y en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta. De esta manera, se acredita que las convocatorias realizadas por la ARESEP no cumplen con lo dispuesto en los principios anteriormente esbozados, garantizando la plena participación de las personas con discapacidad visual en las audiencias públicas para resolver las solicitudes de ajuste tarifario. En aras de procurar que las personas con discapacidad alcancen su máximo desarrollo, su plena participación social, así como el ejercicio de los derechos y deberes establecidos en nuestro sistema jurídico, las autoridades públicas deben garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades para la población costarricense en todos los ámbitos y eliminar cualquier tipo de discriminación. Es deber del Estado costarricense reconocer y actuar los derechos fundamentales de las personas con discapacidad y garantizarles la oportunidad de participar activamente en los procesos de adopción de decisiones relacionadas con políticas, propuestas y programas, máxime, si tales decisiones podrían afectarlos directamente. En efecto, a juicio de este Tribunal el diseño de las políticas y la planificación tienen que tomar en consideración las necesidades de las personas con discapacidad y, para esos efectos, es vital que se les involucre en la toma de decisiones. Por ejemplo, las “Normas Uniformes sobre la igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad” señaladas supra, disponen en el artículo 14 que los Estados deben velar porque las cuestiones relativas a la discapacidad se incluyan en todas las actividades normativas y de planificación correspondientes del país. Incluso, dispone que los Estados deben hacer que las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad intervengan en todos los casos de adopción de decisiones relacionadas con los planes y programas de interés para las personas con discapacidad o que afecten su situación económica y social. En el artículo 18 señala que los Estados deben reconocer el derecho de las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad a representar a estas personas en los planos nacional, regional y local y deben reconocer también el papel consultivo de las organizaciones con discapacidad en lo que se refiere a la adopción de decisiones sobre cuestiones relativas a su discapacidad. Tales normas de Derecho Internacional, aunque no están incorporadas a nuestro Ordenamiento Jurídico, lo cierto es que sirven de parámetro de interpretación para arribar a la conclusión que la ARESEP debe tomar en consideración a las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad a efecto de garantizarles su participación en las audiencias públicas mediante convocatorias que sean accesibles conforme a sus necesidades. Así lo reconoce, expresamente, el artículo 13 de la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad Nº 7600, al señalar lo siguiente:

“Artículo 13.- Obligación de consultar a organizaciones de personas con discapacidad Las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad legalmente constituidas deben ser consultadas por parte de las instituciones encargadas de planificar, ejecutar y evaluar servicios y acciones relacionadas con la discapacidad.” Por lo anterior, tal y como se resolvió en la sentencia citada, respecto a este extremo del amparo se debe acoger el recurso reiterando que las autoridades de la ARESEP deben informar a las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad sobre la realización de las audiencias públicas que programen. Ahora bien, a juicio de este Tribunal no es procedente la reprogramación de las audiencias, puesto que, tal y como se informó, mediante las resoluciones RRG-5397-2006 y la RRG-5454- 2006 se desestimaron las solicitudes de reajuste tarifario.

VII.- SOBRE LAS CÉDULAS DE IDENTIDAD ACCESIBLES A LAS PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. Los recurrentes cuestionan que en las audiencias públicas realizadas por la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos fijadas con el propósito de escuchar las manifestaciones y oposiciones sobre las solicitudes de aumento de tarifas del transporte público, se les requiere la presentación de la cédula de identidad. Sin embargo, consideran que la cédula de identidad es un documento inaccesible para las personas ciegas. Cuestionan que el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones no ha tomado en cuenta sus necesidades para buscar la manera que sus cédulas sean accesibles y no se confundan con otros documentos, como por ejemplo, la tarjeta de crédito de un banco. Al respecto, las autoridades del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones informan que la obtención de la cédula de identidad es accesible para todos los ciudadanos mayores de dieciocho años sin excepción y el Tribunal ha realizado esfuerzos para facilitar a las personas que sufren de alguna discapacidad, la obtención del documento de identidad. Consideran que la función primordial de la cédula de identidad es que los ciudadanos se identifiquen, motivo por el cual, el formato actual no lesiona sus derechos fundamentales. Sobre el particular, la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil, Ley Nº 3504 de 10 de mayo de 1965, reformada por la Ley Nº 7563 del 10 de diciembre de 1999, dispone lo siguiente:

“(…) Artículo 93.- Cédula de identidad (*) La cédula de identidad contendrá la información necesaria, a juicio del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, para identificar, conforme a derecho, plenamente a su portador.

Para confeccionar y emitir este documento, el Tribunal y el Registro Civil utilizarán las técnicas más avanzadas y seguras para la identificación personal.” Asimismo, el artículo 95 regula algunos de los actos jurídicos en los que resulta indispensable la presentación de la cédula:

“Artículo 95.- Actos en que es obligatoria la presentación de la cédula La presentación de la cédula de identidad es indispensable para:

a)Emitir el voto; b) Todo acto o contrato notarial; c) Iniciar gestiones o acciones administrativas o judiciales; d) Firmar las actas matrimoniales, ya sean civiles o católicas; e) Ser nombrado funcionario, o empleado del Estado, sus instituciones y municipalidades f) Formalizar contratos de trabajo; g) Firmar obligaciones a favor de instituciones autónomas, semiautónomas o de las juntas Rurales de Crédito y Oficinas de Ayuda al Agricultor; h) Obtener pasaporte; i) Formalizar el Seguro Social, sin que esta disposición pueda amparar al patrono de las consecuencia; que la ley y Reglamento de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social le imponen; j) Recibir giros del Estado municipalidades e instituciones autónomas o semiautónomas; k) Matricular los padres o encargados a sus hijos o pupilos en escuelas y colegios públicos o privados; 1) Obtener o renovar la licencia de conductor de vehículos; y m) Cualquier otra diligencia u operación en que sea del caso justificar la identidad personal.
k)En las actuaciones de las personas jurídicas, presentará la cédula del respectivo personero. (…).” De lo anterior se desprende, la importancia de la cédula de identidad y que ésta sea accesible para todas las personas, no en el sentido que lo interpreta el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones como que sea fácil su obtención, sino que este documento pueda ser utilizado por las personas con discapacidad visual sin tener duda de su validez y veracidad. Nótese que la presentación de la cédula de identidad es obligatoria para un sin fin de actos, de manera que un ciudadano que no porte y exhiba su documento de identidad no puede llevar a cabo ningún acto civil, comercial, de trabajo, no le es posible iniciar gestiones judiciales o administrativas, entre otras, jurídicas. Como se ha desarrollado en los considerandos de esta sentencia y aplicando un parámetro de razonabilidad, el Estado costarricense tiene la obligación, como consecuencia del reconocimiento de la igualdad y la dignidad humana, de adoptar las medidas necesarias para eliminar progresivamente la discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad y propiciar su plena integración en la sociedad (artículo 3, punto 1, de la Convención Interamericana para la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad). A juicio de este Tribunal, la omisión de las autoridades recurridas de tomar en consideración las necesidades de las personas con discapacidad visual para la expedición de las cédulas de identidad constituye una discriminación contraria a sus derechos fundamentales, entendida ésta como la restricción basada en una discapacidad que tiene el efecto de impedir o anular el reconocimiento, goce o ejercicio por parte de las personas con discapacidad, de sus derechos y libertades fundamentales, lo que implica la estimatoria de este extremo del recurso. Esto debe ser así, en virtud del principio pro homine y pro libertate, que obligan siempre a interpretar las normas relativas a derechos fundamentales, a favor de la persona. Sobre el particular y de manera ilustrativa se rescata que las nuevas tendencias internacionales de tutela a los derechos humanos, concretamente, la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, consagra en el artículo 12 el Derecho a igual reconocimiento como persona ante la ley y dispone lo siguiente:

“1. Los Estados Parten reafirman que las personas con discapacidad tienen derecho en todas partes al reconocimiento de su personalidad jurídica.

2. Los Estados Partes reconocerán que las personas con discapacidad tienen capacidad jurídica en igualdad de condiciones con las demás en todos los aspectos de la vida.

3. Los Estados Partes adoptarán las medidas pertinentes para proporcionar acceso a las personas con discapacidad al apoyo que puedan necesitar en el ejercicio de su capacidad jurídica (…)”.

En atención a lo anterior, considera este Tribunal que es fundamental que las autoridades del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones tomen medidas concretas para garantizar los derechos de las personas no videntes en la emisión y utilización de su cédula de identidad como medio para demostrar su identidad, en aras de reconocerle a la persona su autonomía e independencia individual, incluyéndose la posibilidad de realizar negocios jurídicos. La independencia que se les pueda asegurar a las personas con discapacidad es fundamental para garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades. Actualmente, el progreso en la tecnología, puede mejorar la calidad de vida de las personas con discapacidad y así debe ser utilizado. Por lo anterior, se impone declarar con lugar el recurso con el propósito que el formato de las cédulas de identidad de las personas con discapacidad visual les resulte accesible y que debido a la imposibilidad de reconocer su diferencia con otro tipo de identificaciones, no les resulte un obstáculo para su total inserción en la comunidad.

VIII.- SOBRE LA EMISIÓN DE MONEDAS Y BILLETES POR PARTE DEL BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA. En otro orden de ideas, los recurrentes cuestionan que el Banco Central de Costa Rica no emite billetes accesibles para las personas con discapacidad visual. Sobre este extremo, ya este Tribunal resolvió un reclamo planteado por el propio Erick Ramón Chacón Valerio a favor de la Fundación para el Progreso de las Personas Ciegas en el que se ordenó estarse a lo resuelto en la sentencia 2004-08800 de las 15:06 hrs. del 17 de agosto de 2004. Sobre el particular se resolvió lo siguiente:

“Recurso de amparo interpuesto por ALBERTO CABEZAS VILLALOBOS, cédula número 1-1063-0064 y ERICK RAMON CHACON VALERIO, cédula número 1-788-092, a favor de la COMISION PARA LA PROMOCION DE LA EQUIPARACION DE OPORTUNIDADES DE LA FUNDACION PARA EL PROGRESO DE LAS PERSONAS CIEGAS, contra el GERENTE GENERAL DEL BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA.

I.- Los hechos aquí impugnados, ya fueron objeto de pronunciamiento por parte de esta Sala en sentencia número 2004- 08800, de las quince horas con seis minutos del diecisiete de agosto del dos mil cuatro, en lo que interesa consideró:

‘…I.- Objeto del recurso. El punto jurídico a debatir es la eventual discriminación que dice sufrir el amparado como consecuencia de su discapacidad por ser una persona no vidente, ya que se le imposibilita su reinserción social por dos razones: a) no puede determinar la distinta denominación de los billetes de circulación nacional porque todos tienen el mismo tamaño, lo que le obliga a andar siempre con personas de su total confianza para realizar cualquier transacción y le imposibilita dedicarse al comercio o a cualquiera actividad productiva en la que medie el manejo de dinero, ya que no puede por medio del tacto establecer la denominación del billete, y b) los taxímetros que se utilizan en los automóviles de servicio público solo permiten la comprobación de la tarifa de inicio del servicio y el monto final a través de medios visuales, no auditivos, situación que facilita a los taxistas inescrupulosos el cobro de tarifas y montos no comprobables para el no vidente que requiere ese medio de transporte. (…).

De igual forma procede resolver en lo que atañe al Banco Central de Costa Rica, puesto que pese a los esfuerzos realizados por ese ente (que ostenta el deber exclusivo de la emisión de billetes y monedas en el territorio nacional) en procura de incorporar características distintivas para las impresiones de billetes y acuñaciones de monedas que circulan actualmente en nuestro país, con el fin de permitir a la población no vidente que distinga la denominación de estos valores, lo cierto es que son esfuerzos que no han surtido los efectos deseados y, en la realidad, según ha manifestado a la Sala la Directora del Patronato Nacional de Ciegos, las personas no videntes encuentran en el manejo de las monedas y los billetes que circulan legalmente en el país un verdadero obstáculo para su total reinserción social. Es por ese motivo que el presente recurso debe también ser acogido en cuanto a este extremo, con las consecuencias de ley y, en atención al carácter reparador de los pronunciamientos emitidos por la Sala Constitucional, se ordena lo siguiente: (…)

2)Al Banco Central de Costa Rica, que, también dentro del plazo de un mes inicie los estudios técnicos que corresponda, a efecto de encontrar una solución viable y satisfactoria para que las futuras emisiones de monedas y billetes que se hagan, cumplan con los requisitos necesarios que permitan a la población no vidente en nuestro país distinguir la denominación de los distintos valores. (…)’ II.- Así las cosas, y al no existir motivo para variar el criterio vertido en esa sentencia, deben estarse los recurrentes a lo allí resuelto.” Sentencia Nº 2005-017786 de las 12:16 hrs. del 23 de diciembre de 2005.

Por lo anterior, respecto a este extremo del recurso, al ser una reiteración de otros procesos de amparo presentados por los mismos recurrentes, se debe ordenar que se estén a los precedentes de este Tribunal. A lo sumo, por vía de las diligencias de inejecución de sentencias, podrían –en caso de haber incumplido el Banco Central de Costa Rica la orden impartida por este Tribunal- aducir la falta de realización de los estudios pertinentes, extremo que debe ser alegado en los expedientes en que se substanciaron los amparos que fueron acogidos por esta Sala.

IX.- SOBRE LA ADECUACIÓN DEL TRANSPORTE PÚBLICO A LAS NECESIDADES DE LAS PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. En el memorial de interposición del recurso de amparo, los recurrentes alegan que la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos tiene la función de vigilar por el cumplimiento de las normas de calidad, cantidad, confiabilidad, continuidad y prestación óptima de los servicios. Sin embargo, cuestionan que dicha autoridad no cumple con sus competencias pues en sus resoluciones de aumentos de tarifas, no toman en cuenta si las unidades del transporte público son accesibles a las personas con discapacidad. En torno a este punto, corresponde señalar que, según lo dispuesto en el Ley 7600, le compete al Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes impedir que las unidades de transporte público circulen sin que al efecto se cumplan las disposiciones para asegurar la movilización de todas las personas en igualdad de condiciones. Sobre este punto, la Ley dispone lo siguiente:

Artículo 45.- Medidas técnicas Para garantizar la movilidad y seguridad en el transporte público, deberán adoptarse medidas técnicas conducentes para adaptarlo a las necesidades de las personas con discapacidad; asimismo, se acondicionarán los sistemas de señalización y orientación del espacio físico.

Los medios de transporte colectivo deberán ser totalmente accesibles y adecuados a las necesidades de todas las personas.

Artículo 46.- Permisos y concesiones Para obtener permisos y concesiones de explotación de servicios de transporte público, será requisito que los beneficiarios de este tipo de contrato presenten la revisión técnica, aprobada por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, que compruebe que cumplen con las medidas establecidas en esta ley y su reglamento.

En atención a estas competencias, el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes ha informado de una serie de medidas concretas para dar cumplimiento a estas disposiciones. Sobre el particular, observa este Tribunal que el Consejo de Transporte Público, como órgano de desconcentración máxima del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, es la instancia especializada para conocer de la materia de transporte público. Dicho órgano informó de una serie de medidas concretas a fin de cumplir con el mandato dispuesto en la Ley 7600 y, asimismo, observar lo dispuesto en la sentencia Nº 2004-12973 de las 14:49 hrs. del 17 de noviembre de 2004. Específicamente, informan que por medio del acuerdo adoptado en el artículo 5 de la Sesión Extraordinaria Nº 007-2003 del 29 de mayo de 2003, la Junta Directiva dispuso, entre otras cosas, otorgar una plazo máximo de tres meses a todos los prestatarios del servicio de transporte remunerado de personas en modalidad de autobús (permisionarios y concesionarios) para la adaptación de todas las unidades a los requerimientos técnicos dispuestos en la Ley 7600 y el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 23831 MP; informan que en La Gaceta Nº 247 del 17 de diciembre de 2004 se realizó la publicación de los Requisitos Técnicos de los Vehículos de Transporte Colectivo Interurbano, Público y Privado Accesibles y los Requisitos Técnicos de los Vehículos Taxis Accesibles con referencia a la norma INTE-03-01-14-03; que están trabajando con una serie de instituciones para emitir la norma técnica respectiva que permita contar con parámetros objetivos para la modificación de las unidades de transporte público, etc. Así las cosas, se concluye que, efectivamente, el Consejo de Transporte Público ha adoptado las medidas concretas para asegurar a las personas con discapacidad el acceso a los medios de transporte público.

X.- CONCLUSIÓN. Corolario de las consideraciones la igualdad de oportunidades respecto a las omisiones atribuidas a la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos y el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones como instancia superior de la Sección de Cédulas y el Departamento Electoral del Registro Civil. Respecto al reclamo planteado contra los billetes emitidos por el Banco Central, los amparados deben estarse a lo resuelto en los precedentes de este Tribunal Constitucional. Finalmente, en cuanto el reproche se dirige contra el Consejo de Transporte Público, el amparo debe declararse sin lugar, al no acreditarse, sobre ese extremo, vulneración a los derechos fundamentales de los amparados.”

Right to equal opportunities for visually impaired persons in public servicesDerecho a igualdad de oportunidades de personas con discapacidad visual en servicios públicos

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp