Res. 03427-2009 Sala Constitucional — Municipal Accessibility for Disabled Person

OutcomeResultado

GrantedCon lugar

The Chamber grants the amparo, condemning the Municipality of El Guarco to pay costs, damages, and losses for violating the right to equality by failing to address accessibility problems for a disabled person.La Sala declara con lugar el recurso de amparo, condenando a la Municipalidad de El Guarco al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios por vulneración del derecho a la igualdad al omitir atender problemas de accesibilidad para persona discapacitada.

SummaryResumen

The Constitutional Chamber hears an amparo appeal filed by a woman with a disability against the Municipality of El Guarco, for failing to address the serious mobility barriers in El Silo residential area, including poor sidewalk and street conditions, missing manhole covers, and lack of access ramps at bus stops. The claimant alleges a violation of the principle of equality under Article 33 of the Constitution. The Chamber analyzes the international and national legal framework protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, highlighting the Equal Opportunities Law No. 7600 and various conventions. In the specific case, it finds that the municipality breached its duty by not resolving the problems despite acknowledging them, rejecting budget shortages and the absence of regulations at the time of construction as justifications. The Chamber grants the appeal and orders the municipality to pay costs, damages, and losses.La Sala Constitucional conoce un recurso de amparo presentado por una mujer con discapacidad contra la Municipalidad de El Guarco, por la omisión en atender sus gestiones sobre las graves barreras de movilidad en la Urbanización El Silo, que incluyen mal estado de calles y aceras, falta de tapas en ceniceros y ausencia de rampas en paradas de autobús. La recurrente alega violación al principio de igualdad del artículo 33 constitucional. La Sala analiza el marco internacional y nacional de protección de los derechos de las personas con discapacidad, destacando la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades No. 7600 y diversas convenciones. En el caso concreto, determina que la municipalidad incumplió su deber al no solventar los problemas pese a reconocerlos, rechazando como justificación la falta de presupuesto y la inexistencia de normativa al momento de construir la urbanización. La Sala declara con lugar el recurso, condenando a la municipalidad al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios.

Key excerptExtracto clave

On this matter, this Constitutional Court considers the appeal admissible. The foregoing, since from the facts on record it is fully demonstrated that, indeed, the respondent authorities have not addressed the requests made by the appellant, and in that sense, the residential area where she lives has serious mobility problems for disabled persons, specifically, poor sidewalks and streets, open manholes without their respective covers, and even bus stops without access ramps. On the other hand, the respondent authorities — who in their report acknowledge this problematic — must take into consideration that this Chamber does not accept their discharging arguments, namely, the lack of budget and that when the housing project under study was built, the provisions established in Law No. 7600 aforementioned were not in force. Therefore, in the present case, this Constitutional Court finds the fundamental right to equality to have been violated to the detriment of the interested party.Sobre el particular, este Tribunal Constitucional considera el recurso como procedente. Lo anterior, pues de los hechos que constan en autos se tiene plenamente demostrado que, efectivamente, las autoridades recurridas no han atendido las gestiones formuladas por la recurrente y, en ese sentido, la urbanización en donde reside posee graves problemas para la movilización de personas con discapacidad, en concreto, un mal estado de las calles y aceras, ceniceros sin sus respectivas tapas e, incluso, paradas de autobuses sin rampas de acceso. De otra parte, deben de tomar en consideración las autoridades recurridas - quienes en su informe reconocen dicha problemática-, que, de ningún modo, son de recibo para esta Sala sus argumentos de descargo, sea, la falta de presupuesto y que cuando se construyó el proyecto habitacional bajo estudio, no regían las disposiciones establecidas en la Ley No. 7600 supra señalada. De manera tal que, en la especie, este Tribunal Constitucional estime vulnerado, en perjuicio de la interesada, el derecho fundamental a la igualdad.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"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."

"The enjoyment of equal opportunities of access and participation under identical circumstances ceases to be a mere aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a true fundamental right."

Considerando III

"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."

Considerando III

"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."

"It is not simply a special treatment in light of the particular conditions of this population, but a right of theirs and an obligation of the rest of people to respect those rights and fulfill the obligations derived from them."

Considerando III, citando Sentencia 2288-1999

"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."

Considerando III, citando Sentencia 2288-1999

Full documentDocumento completo

I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. The appellant—who suffers from a disability—alleges a violation of the principle of equality protected under Article 33 of the Political Constitution, in that, according to her account, the respondent municipal authorities have ignored the repeated requests she has made aimed at pointing out the obstacles that exist for her mobility in the urbanization where she resides, among which are the poor condition of the streets and sidewalks, forty-nine tree grates (ceniceros) without their respective covers, and the lack of access ramps at bus stops.

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

“The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of disability, condition resulting from a previous disability, or perception of disability, whether present or past, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.” 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, and activities such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, law enforcement and the administration of justice, and political and administrative activities.” Equally, it is worth noting that the United Nations General Assembly, in its Sixty-first session period between August 14 and 25, 2006, adopted Resolution No. 61/106, which is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved in our country through Law No. 8661 of August 19, 2008. The Preamble of this Convention recognizes that disability is an evolving concept and that it results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. Likewise, it highlights the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant sustainable development strategies and recognizes that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability constitutes a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person. Article 1 provides that the purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. As general obligations, it establishes the following:

“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 centers on the elimination of discrimination and the new dimension of equal opportunity. Likewise, they insist on the right of persons with disabilities to the same opportunities as the rest of the citizenry, to enjoy on a plane of equality the improvements in living conditions resulting from economic, technological, and social development, and they warn of the importance of the social insertion of persons with disabilities. At the infraconstitutional level, this Constitutional Court has indicated that with the Equal Opportunity Law for Persons with Disabilities, Law No. 7600 of May 2, 1996, the legislator sought to comply with the aforementioned objectives and strive for the elimination of a series of barriers that prevent persons suffering from some degree of disability from participating fully in Costa Rican society. In this regard, the Chamber resolved the following:

“(…) This Chamber has already pronounced on other occasions regarding the special protection that the legal system grants to persons with disabilities, so that they can function normally within society. It is not simply a matter of special treatment in consideration of the particular conditions of that population, but rather a right belonging to them and an obligation on the rest of the people to respect those rights and comply with the obligations derived from them (…)." (Judgment No. 2288-1999 of 11:06 hrs. of March 26, 1999).

Thus, this regulation has as its fundamental objective to achieve the necessary conditions so that persons suffering from any type of disability may attain their full social participation under equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as the rest of the inhabitants. Precisely, on this basis, the enjoyment of equal opportunities of access and participation in identical circumstances ceases to be a simple aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a true fundamental right, in such a way that general well-being is sought within the framework of a democratic society such as ours.

IV.- SPECIFIC CASE. In the present matter, the appellant Rojas Cedeño—who suffers from a disability—claims a breach of the principle of equality protected under Article 33 of the Political Constitution, in that, according to her account, the respondent municipal authorities have ignored the repeated requests she has made aimed at pointing out the obstacles that exist for her mobility in the Urbanización El Silo, located in Tejar de El Guarco de Cartago. On this point, this Constitutional Court considers the appeal admissible. The foregoing, because from the facts contained in the case file it is fully demonstrated that, indeed, the respondent authorities have not addressed the requests made by the appellant and, in that sense, the urbanization where she resides has serious problems for the mobility of persons with disabilities, specifically, poor condition of the streets and sidewalks, tree grates (ceniceros) without their respective covers, and, even, bus stops without access ramps. On the other hand, the respondent authorities—who in their report acknowledge this problem—must take into consideration that their arguments in defense, i.e., lack of budget and that when the housing project under study was built, the provisions established in the aforementioned Law No. 7600 were not in force, are in no way acceptable to this Chamber. Moreover, it should be noted that even though the respondent Municipality has launched a series of projects to carry out the alleged works, such as the provision of a budget line item and the opening of an abbreviated bidding procedure, they have not materialized, and, consequently, the accessibility problem in question persists. Thus, in this instance, this Constitutional Court deems the fundamental right to equality to have been violated, to the detriment of the interested party.

V.- COROLLARY. By virtue of the foregoing, it is necessary to grant the appeal filed, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.

”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> “ I.-  PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. The appellant—who suffers from a disability—alleges a violation of the principle of equality protected in article 33 of the Constitución Política, given that, according to her statement, the respondent municipal authorities  have ignored the repeated efforts she has made to point out the inconveniences that exist for her mobility in the residential development where she resides, among which the poor state of the streets and sidewalks, forty-nine tree grates without their respective covers, and the lack of access ramps at bus stops stand out.  <o:p></o:p> III.- ON EQUALITY OF 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 of the Republic No. 4229 of December 11, 1968,  orders in article 26 that “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” For its part, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides in article 2 that the States Parties to the Covenant “(…) undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in (…) [the Covenant] will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. In the American sphere, the American Convention on Human Rights provides in article 24 that all persons are equal before the law and, consequently, are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. Article 18 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Protocol of San Salvador”, 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 response to these trends of guaranteeing 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 (international instrument with force superior to law by provision of Article 7 of the Constitution). In the Convention, it was 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, stem 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 disability and to foster their full integration into society. Article 1 defines discrimination as follows: <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 disability, whether present or past, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”   <o:p></o:p> Likewise, article 2 enshrines the obligation of the States that signed it to adopt: <o:p></o:p> “measures to eliminate discrimination gradually and to promote integration by government authorities and/or private entities in providing or making available goods, services, facilities, programs, and activities such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, law enforcement and the administration of justice, and political and administrative activities.” <o:p></o:p> Likewise, 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 was approved in our country through Law No. 8661 of August 19, 2008. In the Preamble of said Convention, it is recognized that disability is a concept that evolves and results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. Likewise, it highlights the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development and recognizes that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability constitutes a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person. Article 1 provides that the purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. As general obligations, it establishes the following: <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 indicated focuses on the elimination of discrimination and on the new dimension of equality of opportunities. Likewise, emphasis is placed on the right of persons with disability 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 note is taken of the importance of the social inclusion of persons with disabilities. At the infra-constitutional level, this Constitutional Court has indicated that with the Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad, Law No. 7600 of May 2, 1996, the legislator sought to comply with the objectives indicated and seek 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, the Chamber resolved the following: <o:p></o:p> “(…) This Chamber has already ruled on other occasions regarding 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 response to the particular conditions of that population, but a right of the latter and an obligation of the rest of the people to respect those rights and comply with the obligations derived from them (…)." (Judgment No. 2288-1999 of 11:06 a.m. of March 26, 1999). <o:p></o:p> Thus, this regulation has as its fundamental objective achieving the necessary conditions for persons suffering from any type of disability to attain their full social participation in equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as the rest of the inhabitants. Precisely, for that reason, it is that 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 the general welfare is sought within the framework of a democratic society such as ours. <o:p></o:p> IV.- SPECIFIC CASE. In the present matter, the appellant Rojas Cedeño—who suffers from a disability—alleges a violation of the principle of equality protected in article 33 of the Constitución Política, given that, according to her statement, the respondent municipal authorities have ignored the repeated efforts she has made to point out the inconveniences that exist for her mobility in El Silo Residential Development, located in El Tejar de El Guarco de Cartago. On this point, this Constitutional Court considers the appeal to be admissible. The foregoing, given that from the facts contained in the record it is fully demonstrated that, indeed, the respondent authorities have not addressed the efforts made by the appellant and, in that sense, the residential development where she resides has serious problems for the mobility of persons with disabilities, in particular, a poor state of the streets and sidewalks, tree grates without their respective covers, and even bus stops without access ramps. On the other hand, the respondent authorities must take into consideration—who in their report recognize said problem—that, in no way, are their arguments for discharge acceptable to this Chamber, that is, the lack of budget and that when the housing project under study was built, the provisions established in the aforementioned Law No. 7600 were not in force. Furthermore, note that even though the respondent Municipality has launched a series of projects to carry out the claimed works, such as the allocation of a budget line item and the opening of an abbreviated bidding procedure, they have not materialized and, consequently, the accessibility problem in question persists. In such a way that, in this case, this Constitutional Court deems the fundamental right to equality violated, to the detriment of the interested party. <o:p></o:p> V.- COROLLARY. By virtue of the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the appeal filed with merit, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment. ”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>

“ I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. La recurrente -quien sufre de una discapacidad-, alega vulnerado el principio de igualdad tutelado en el artículo 33 de la Constitución Política, toda vez que, según su dicho, las autoridades municipales recurridas han hecho caso omiso a las reiteradas gestiones que ha formulado tendentes a señalar los inconvenientes que existen para su movilización en la urbanización en donde reside, entre los que destacan el mal estado de las calles y aceras, cuarenta y nueve ceniceros sin sus respectivas tapas y la falta de rampas de acceso en las paradas de autobuses.

III.- 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 mediante Ley de la República No. 4229 de 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 enuncia, 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 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 de 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 expansiva y progresiva de los derechos humanos ha llevado a los países a 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 y que fue incorporada a nuestro Ordenamiento Jurídico mediante Ley No. 7948 de 22 de noviembre de 1999 (instrumento internacional con fuerza superior a la ley por disposición del artículo 7 constitucional). En la Convención 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”.

Igualmente, 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 fue aprobada en nuestro país mediante la Ley No. 8661 de 19 de agosto de 2008. 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 establece 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. 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 por la eliminación una serie de barreras que impiden a las personas que sufren algún grado de discapacidad, participar en forma plena en la sociedad costarricense. En este sentido, la Sala 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 No. 2288-1999 de las 11:06 hrs. de 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 como la nuestra.

IV.- CASO CONCRETO. En el presente asunto, la recurrente Rojas Cedeño -quien sufre de una discapacidad-, aduce quebrantado el principio de igualdad tutelado en el artículo 33 de la Constitución Política, toda vez que, según su dicho, las autoridades municipales recurridas han hecho caso omiso a las reiteradas gestiones que ha formulado tendentes a señalar los inconvenientes que existen para su movilización en la Urbanización El Silo, ubicado en el Tejar de El Guarco de Cartago. Sobre el particular, este Tribunal Constitucional considera el recurso como procedente. Lo anterior, pues de los hechos que constan en autos se tiene plenamente demostrado que, efectivamente, las autoridades recurridas no han atendido las gestiones formuladas por la recurrente y, en ese sentido, la urbanización en donde reside posee graves problemas para la movilización de personas con discapacidad, en concreto, un mal estado de las calles y aceras, ceniceros sin sus respectivas tapas e, incluso, paradas de autobuses sin rampas de acceso. De otra parte, deben de tomar en consideración las autoridades recurridas - quienes en su informe reconocen dicha problemática-, que, de ningún modo, son de recibo para esta Sala sus argumentos de descargo, sea, la falta de presupuesto y que cuando se construyó el proyecto habitacional bajo estudio, no regían las disposiciones establecidas en la Ley No. 7600 supra señalada. A mayor abundamiento, nótese que aún cuando la Municipalidad recurrida haya puesto en marcha una serie de proyectos para realizar las obras alegadas como lo es la disposición de una partida presupuestaria y la apertura de un procedimiento de licitación abreviada, no se han concretado y, por consiguiente, el problema de accesibilidad en cuestión persiste. De manera tal que, en la especie, este Tribunal Constitucional estime vulnerado, en perjuicio de la interesada, el derecho fundamental a la igualdad.

V.- COROLARIO. En mérito de lo expuesto, se impone declarar con lugar el recurso planteado, con las consecuencias que se detallarán en la parte dispositiva de la presente sentencia. ”

Municipal Accessibility for Disabled PersonAccesibilidad municipal para persona discapacitada

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp