Accessibility for persons with disabilities to public buildings in Pérez ZeledónAccesibilidad de personas con discapacidad a edificios públicos en Pérez Zeledón

III.- On the merits. The fundamental objective of the Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities is to achieve the necessary conditions so that persons who suffer any type of problem of that nature may attain their full social participation. Precisely because of its foundation, 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 fundamental right. To guarantee the exercise of their rights and duties, the Law and its Regulations impose on Public Administrations and private legal entities that provide a public service the obligation to provide persons with disabilities with support services, the required technical aids, and the elimination of all types of architectural barriers. Within this order of ideas, failure to comply with the public interest enshrined in the law implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of that social group. It is the lack of the necessary infrastructure to have access to public offices that the appellant claims in this proceeding, apart from the deficient state and obstruction of the sidewalks. In the specific case, the Chamber notes that most of the respondent authorities admit that the infrastructure of the buildings they occupy does not entirely satisfy the requirements of persons with disabilities. This Court draws attention to the fact that more than 10 years have elapsed since the approval of said law and the respondent authorities that will be named have not taken the necessary measures to adapt to that regulation. The legislator, aware of the administrative and budgetary difficulties, when enacting Law 7600, “Law on equal opportunities for persons with disabilities,” provided in its Transitory Provision II, that all constructed physical space, whether publicly or privately owned, that involves public concurrence or attention, should be modified within a period not exceeding ten years from the effective date of this law. Despite that clear provision, from the study of the case file and the statements rendered under oath, it is evident that this normative obligation has not been fully complied with by the respondent authorities. Because various institutions are involved in the present matter, each requiring an independent analysis of their actions, we proceed to resolve this remedy, conducting the examination separately. However, prior to that, the scope of the obligation that Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, #7600, imposes on the subject alluded to must first be delimited. In its Article 4, the Law provides that, for its compliance, it is the responsibility of the State:

• a)To include in the plans, policies, programs, and services of its institutions, the principles of equal opportunities and accessibility to the services that, based on this law, are provided; as well as to develop differentiated projects and actions that take into consideration the lower relative development of the country's regions and communities.
• b)To guarantee that the environment, goods, services, and public service facilities are accessible for persons to use and enjoy.
• c)To eliminate actions and provisions that, directly or indirectly, promote discrimination or prevent persons with disabilities from having access to programs and services.
• d)To support civil society sectors and organizations of persons with disabilities, in order to achieve equal opportunities.
• e)To guarantee the right of organizations of persons with disabilities to participate in actions related to the development of plans, policies, programs, and services in which they are involved.
• f)To disseminate this law to promote its compliance.
• g)To guarantee, through the corresponding institutions, the support services required by persons with disabilities to facilitate their permanence in the family.
• h)To guarantee that persons with disabilities who are physically, emotionally, or sexually assaulted, treated with negligence, who do not have a family, or who are in a state of abandonment, have access to the means that allow them to exercise their autonomy and live a dignified life.

Mainly in subsections a) and b) of the transcribed norm, the principle of accessibility is established, understood in the context of this amparo, as the possibility for a person with a disability to access, in the greatest possible similarity of conditions, the same spaces as any other person, through the implementation of means to alleviate the natural obstacles resulting from their disability. Now, regarding what directly concerns physical spaces, Article 41 of the same Law stipulates:

“New constructions, expansions, or remodeling of buildings, parks, sidewalks, gardens, plazas, roads, sanitary services, and other publicly owned spaces, must be carried out in accordance with the regulatory technical specifications of the public and private agencies in charge of the matter.

Private buildings that involve public concurrence and provide public service must have the same characteristics established in the previous paragraph.

The same obligations mentioned shall apply to housing projects of any nature, financed totally or partially with public funds. In this type of projects, the dwellings assigned to persons with disabilities or families of persons in which one of its members is a person with a disability must be located in a site that guarantees their easy access.” The norm, although concentrated on publicly owned spaces, extends its requirements to private buildings that involve public concurrence and provide public service, a notion in which commercial premises easily fit, as they are properties open to the general public. Likewise, it is important to highlight that what is required is adaptation to the regulatory technical specifications on accessibility when executing new constructions, expansions, or remodeling. The Regulations to the Law in commentary, Executive Decree #26831-MP of March 23, 1998, provides specifications on various spatial elements, such as the characteristics of dwellings intended for habitation by persons with disabilities, pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, and pedestrian traffic lights. In relation to buildings in general, it establishes conditions regarding awnings (aleros), handrails, stairs, floors, lighting, safety railings, basements, hallways, doors, sanitary services, entrances, and elevators (Articles 132 to 151). These latter elements are those that can be supervised with regard to new constructions, expansions, or remodeling of commercial establishments.

IV.- Regarding the Ministry of Health. Concerning what was alleged by the appellant, both the Minister of Health and the Director of the Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud) of the Ministry of Health in Pérez Zeledón report that the specific competence of that Ministry to monitor and order compliance with the provisions of Law 7600, based on Articles 41 of the Law and 103 of its Regulations, and according to what the Constitutional Chamber (resolution 0678-2007 of twelve hours nine minutes on January 19, 2007) and the Attorney General's Office of the Republic (C-077-2007 of March 13, 2007) have ordered, must be interpreted as being “when authorizing construction plans for new constructions, expansions, or remodeling of buildings” and not at the time of issuing Operating Permits, a provision and interpretation that has been observed and complied with, not only in the Health Governing Area of Pérez Zeledón, where the appellant lives, but in the rest of the Attraction Areas of the Region. Apart from the fact that by virtue of the express assignment of competences made by Law 7600 to the different agencies of the Public Administration, the Ministry lacks competence to directly order the public entities or governmental offices mentioned by the appellant in his brief (Municipal Building, State Banks, Ministries of Finance and Education, Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, among others), the correction or adaptation of their physical plants to the provisions of Law 7600, unless –as already stated– before the necessary approval (endorsement) of construction or remodeling plans. However, these arguments are not acceptable, since as was proven, they have indeed omitted to control the access requirements to physical space for persons with disabilities in Institutions of that canton. See for example the current locations of the Brunca Branch Directorate (Dirección de Sucursales Brunca) of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone, and the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón, which in recent years moved or opened where they are currently providing services. The cited Director of the Health Governing Area also argues that the appellant has not filed any action before the Ministry of Health at the Regional or Local levels due to his disagreement with the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Law 7600 in public buildings of the canton of Pérez Zeledón. However, that argument is also considered inappropriate, since for compliance with such regulations, no expression of disagreement from any interested party is required for its non-observance, and hence it is considered unnecessary to assess whether the appellant indeed filed any management in that regard, as he alleges.

V.- Regarding the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón. According to what was reported by the Mayor and the President of the Municipal Council, both of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, it is evident that through various proceedings carried out both by the Municipal Administration of Pérez Zeledón and by the Municipal Council, the different requests made by the appellant have been processed, among which can be cited the referral of some of them to a special commission called the Accessibility Commission within the Municipal Council, in order to solve the problems reported by the appellant. However, due to the magnitude that solving this issue represents, the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón is working on the preparation of a diagnosis in the city of San Isidro de El General in order to correct and improve aspects related to better access for persons with physical disabilities and infrastructure in general. Regarding the obstruction of public sidewalks, through the Control and Citizen Security Process of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, constant operations are being carried out in the center of that city in order to detect and remove obstacles that may exist on the sidewalks, such as the placement of merchandise by street vendors and commercial businesses themselves, from whom, in coordination with the Public Force, the merchandise or objects found on the sidewalk or public road are confiscated and a criminal case is initiated for Obstruction of the public road, annoyance to passersby, or disobedience to authority, as the case may be. They add that the remodeling and adaptation to modern legal requirements of the building that houses the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón has not been possible because it requires a budgetary provision that the local government cannot currently afford, so a phased remodeling has been considered to be able to solve the access needs of persons with disabilities and the general public. For this purpose, the Municipal Administration of Pérez Zeledón, in partnership with the Municipal Council, has begun the technical and budgetary studies that will allow the remodeling of the building they occupy, starting with the construction of a new session hall on the first floor and consequently, the relocation to the same first floor of the majority of offices whose primary function is public service. On multiple occasions, the Chamber has referred to the special protection that persons with disabilities deserve, under the terms of constitutional Article 51, so that they can function normally within society. It is not simply a matter of special treatment in attention to the particular conditions of that population, but rather 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 (ruling No. 2288-99 of 11:06 hours on March 26, 1999). The fundamental objective of the Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities is to achieve the necessary conditions so that persons who suffer any type of problem of that nature may attain their full social participation. Precisely, the enjoyment of equal opportunities of access and participation in identical circumstances ceases to be for them a simple aspiration and becomes a fundamental right. In this regard, constitutional jurisprudence has admitted as a violation of fundamental rights all those cases in which persons with some disability are prevented from accessing public offices or public transportation, for example. On this matter, it is necessary to reiterate that Law No. 7600 established transitory provisions in which deadlines were set for the execution of the obligations indicated in that law, deadlines that have amply elapsed; This leads the Chamber to uphold the amparo insofar as the alleged injuries to the fundamental rights of the protected party have indeed occurred, since the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón has demonstrated a lack of interest in the adequate compliance with said legal obligations, which directly and negatively impacts the equalization of opportunities and the non-discrimination of persons with disabilities. This negligence is sanctioned because there has been sufficient time to address situations such as the one pointed out. Now, regarding the obstacles on the sidewalks, although it is reported that constant operations are being carried out in the center of that city in order to detect and remove the obstacles that may exist on them, in accordance with the documentary evidence provided by the protected party and appearing on folios 131 to 136, it is evident that these have been insufficient, since that impediment persists in multiple forms. Consequently, and since what was alleged on this extreme has not been convincingly refuted, the amparo is likewise considered appropriate in this regard.

VI.- Regarding the Branch of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. The Regional Director of the Brunca Branch Directorate of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund reports that due to the increase in the staff of the Inspection, Collections, Social Work, and other areas, and given the need for a computer management laboratory, a session room for the different activities carried out in the region, and to comply with the requirements of Law 7600, that Directorate acquired a new two-story building on September 1, 2007, which became operational as of December 20 of the same year. In that new building, the public is served on the first level where the work stations were adapted to the conditions that Law 7600 indicates, and if an audience is requested with other officials on the second level, a preferential place was adapted on the ground floor for the attention of persons with disabilities and older adults, so that the Director or another official who is on the second level goes down to provide the corresponding attention. Regarding accessibility to that building, there are suitable conditions both on the sidewalks and the size of the doors. In this regard, this Court draws attention to the fact that more than 10 years have elapsed since the approval of said law and the authorities of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund have not taken the necessary measures to eliminate architectural barriers. As already indicated, the legislator, aware of the administrative and budgetary difficulties, when enacting Law 7600, “Law on equal opportunities for persons with disabilities,” provided in its Transitory Provision II, that all constructed physical space, whether publicly or privately owned, that involves public concurrence or attention, should be modified within a period not exceeding ten years from the effective date of this law. Despite that clear provision, from the study of the case file and the statements rendered under oath, it is evident that this normative obligation has not been complied with by the indicated authorities.

VII.- Regarding the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone. According to what was reported by the Minister of Finance, it is evident that the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone is currently located in canton 19 Pérez Zeledón, in the building owned by Mr. Rodrigo Gerardo Quirós Jiménez, which has been leased by the Ministry of Finance in accordance with contract MH-030-2006, modified by MH-006-2007. According to the lessor's obligations, the Ministry of Finance is unable to make any modification to the infrastructure of that building without the approval of the property owner. Public service at counters for registration, deregistration, and modification of databases in the Unified Taxpayer Registry (Registro Único de Contribuyentes, RUC), assigned to the Management Area of the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone, as well as personalized general inquiries, is strictly provided on the first floor. The building measures 13.11 meters wide and from the sidewalk itself across the entire width of the land on which the Administration is located, there is a slope that does not hinder the entry of persons who, due to their limitations, use biomechanical aids (wheelchairs, crutches, canes, etc.), and there are no drop-offs that present danger in any of those cases, and the sanitary services enabled on the first floor for public use meet all the conditions to be used by persons with special limitations. Entry to the first floor of the building has no obstacles, since the gates or access to the Administration are across the width of the building, separated by a column in the center. The entrance to the public service room located on the first floor has wide double-leaf doors that allow several persons to enter at once; however, due to having air conditioning, these doors remain closed and it is the security officers who open them for those persons who cannot do so by their own means or have some difficulty doing so. Regarding that first level, this Chamber considers that the technical specifications established in Law 7600 for the attention of persons with some disability have been observed. However, the same is not true regarding the second floor that this Administration also occupies. Note that according to what was reported, the Management and Collection Areas are located on the second floor of the building, specifically, the massive plan attention processes that are characterized by having field execution activities, in which the managers necessarily travel to the tax domiciles of the taxpayers to communicate their acts. Attention to persons on the second floor is not usual, and for security measures and in compliance with Law 7600, this Administration has, since this year 2008, enabled a complete workstation on the first floor that has its own computer with access to all the services provided by the General Directorate of Taxation, where all persons presenting a special limitation and who require attention from an official working on the second floor must be served. Access to that second floor is by means of stairs, which have handrails and non-slip strips on each step. It is evident that that floor does not have the legally required requirements for the type of users of interest in this amparo. The fact that the official is transferred to provide service on the first floor is not sufficient to remedy that deficiency, because what is protected is that persons with some disability have access by themselves to all services, without any intermediary. Now, the fact that the building design has a complete space planned for the installation of an elevator and that in the 2008 purchasing plan presented by that Administration in June 2007, the necessary increase in the rental budget line to cover that additional cost was included, is not sufficient to nullify the legal responsibility they have, given that, as pointed out above, there has been sufficient time to address all those situations, including budgetary provisions.

VIII.- Regarding the Agency of the National Bank of Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General. According to what was reported by the Manager of that Agency, it is noted that his Office is located on the second floor of the building but access to it is not necessary for all of the Agency's clients, and furthermore, the Director of Operations works on the first floor of the same, an official with the same conditions of representation as the Manager and who is fully capable of attending to any management of a particular client. In the event that the presence of the Manager is necessary, it is perfectly feasible for him to move to one of the customer service modules located on the first floor of the building, which are designed for the attention of persons with disabilities. The Credit Department, although mostly located on the second floor of the building, has a platform conditioned, identified with number 6, which is assigned not only the processing of typical platform procedures, but also handles specialized attention for credit applications for persons suffering from some type of disability, with a person trained in credit processing stationed at that platform. These arguments are not acceptable to this Chamber because it is obvious that there are differences between the attention that can eventually be provided to a person with a disability and another without any disability, when it has been repeatedly noted that what is mandated by the respective regulation and cited repeatedly in this resolution is that such differences do not exist, ensuring that all persons have the same access to all services under equal conditions, which means in the specific case, that due to someone's eventual physical impairment, they should not have to wait for an official located on the second floor to arrive to attend to them on the first floor, when they should be able to access by their own means all authorized departments.

IX.- Regarding the headquarters of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers in the Brunca Region. The Director of that headquarters informs this Chamber that the administrative access to the building they occupy has both stairs and a ramp, which enables persons with physical disabilities to enter to request the public services provided by the Institution. The public sidewalk of the building also has a ramp and there is no architectural or physical barrier during transit along it that prevents free transit, precisely because it is located in a residential and not a commercial area. There are also no advertising signs, merchandise, hooks, propaganda signs that cause obstacles to people with some physical, mental, or sensory impairment. Due to the disability that the appellant claims to have, which is visual and not motor-related, he faces no obstacle to access all the service areas provided by AyA in the Canton of Pérez Zeledón. Under that context, and since there is no evidence in the case file that refutes that information, it is considered that with respect to that Public Administration, the amparo is not appropriate, because the appellant and any person with some disability would have no problems accessing by their own means the services provided there.

X.- Regarding the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón. According to what was reported by both the Coordinator of the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón and the Manager of the Agency of the Bank of Costa Rica in the area, it is evident that access to the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón is via a staircase that leads to the second floor of the building, by virtue of the Services Agreement between the Bank of Costa Rica and the Administrative Board of the National Registry, concluded on July 16, 1999, since the area and location of the Regional Headquarters depend on the decisions that the owner or the entity exercising the right of use over the property, which is the Bank of Costa Rica, can make. That is why, when the user cannot access the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón on the second floor, where there is a preferential window for elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and others, the Guards communicate with the officials of the Public Registry, so that one of those officials is sent to the first floor to attend to them promptly and properly. Likewise, that Agreement stipulated that the initial remodeling of the designated area would be carried out once by the Bank, with any subsequent remodeling of that Area being an exclusive decision of that Board. It is not for this Chamber to determine, by virtue of the cited Agreement, which of those two Institutions must make the physical modifications to the building occupied by the National Registry, to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the services provided by that entity, as it is a matter of legality, but it is evident that persons with conditions like the appellant here cannot directly request a service, and therefore the amparo must be upheld. Apart from that, it must be emphasized that the protection of a fundamental right is above a contractual agreement or legal provision.

XI.- Regarding the Public Library of Pérez Zeledón. Concerning that entity, it is noted that the Accessibility Commission 7600 Equal Opportunity formed by the Municipal Council of Pérez Zeledón has organized itself this year to provide a solution to the problem reported by the citizen in this present remedy regarding the Public Library. For this reason, the adaptation project for the building it occupies, approved with 9 votes by the Municipal Council in ordinary session number 103-08, article 4) subsection 5), of April 15, 2008, for an amount of sixteen million five hundred thousand colones, is at a quite important stage of progress, reaching almost its final phase, where it is currently awaiting the final design of the cubicles and the area for persons with disabilities by the Municipal Engineer, to subsequently begin the administrative procedures for the public tenders (licitaciones) for the final execution of the project.

Despite that progress, it is considered that the alleged constitutional violation has nonetheless occurred, because the Administration has had sufficient time to adapt its building to the regulations established in the cited Law, in order to allow persons such as the appellant to have free access by their own means to the services provided therein, which under current conditions is not possible.

XII.- Regarding the Office of the Banco de Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General. In accordance with what has been reported, it is established that this Office has the following facilities for serving clients with differentiated or diminished capacity (visual, physical-motor, etc.): a. Personalized attention on the first floor in an area specially conditioned for this purpose; b. Teller service with cubicles adequate in height and space for persons who, due to their condition, must remain seated; c. Ramps have been enabled to allow entry for clients with disabilities; d. Spaces have been set aside exclusively for vehicles transporting persons with a disability; e. The office, in compliance with the provisions of Ley 7600, has a restroom with all the recommended characteristics for differentiated client service (door width, toilet height, grab bars, etc.). Under that context, it is considered that the amparo is not appropriate, because the cited Office has a physical plant adequate to the requirements of Ley 7600 and consequently, the appellant and persons in similar conditions would have no problem whatsoever accessing the various services provided.

XIII.- Regarding the Branch of the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal in Pérez Zeledón. The Manager of that Agency reports that the building they occupy has ample parking and designated space for persons with disabilities. The sidewalks in front of the Branch are in good condition and are suitable for entry by persons with different capacities. The sidewalks adjoining the building they occupy have no architectural barriers that impede free transit in front of the building, and there are no advertising boards or promotional signs, nor is merchandise placed on the sidewalk. On the first floor of the building there is a conditioned restroom and an ATM with voice guidance for persons with disabilities. On the Service Platform there is a preferential teller window, properly labeled, and they have personnel trained in the LESCO language. For access to the second floor, there is a 1.28 meter wide staircase, consisting of 18 steps with 4 wide landings every 3 steps. This is mainly where the administrative area, accounting, management, the manager's secretary, an official who handles "Banco en su Empresa," and the development credit analysts are located. When it is necessary to serve a client with a disability, the staff is duly informed that they must attend to that client on the ground floor. In the same manner regarding that banking entity, it is considered that there is liability concerning what the appellant has claimed, because although the first floor of the building where they are located is very well conditioned, the truth is that the same is not true regarding the second floor, since it is clear from what has been reported that it lacks accessibility for persons who have a disability, such that an official must come down to attend to them. As has already been pointed out, that procedure is not acceptable, because the building must have the physical conditions that permit free access to the public without distinction and by their own means, except of course for rooms accessible only to the Institution's personnel.

XIV.- Regarding the Dirección Regional de Educación of Pérez Zeledón. When the Regional Director only reports that the situation presented by the appellant is already contemplated as a priority in the budget for the year 2009 as established by Ley 7600, it is more than evident that its current location does not meet the conditions established by that regulation for persons with disabilities, and for which the Legislator, in accordance with what has been noted, granted a deadline that is even more than expired. Hence the appropriateness of the amparo against that Institution.

XV.- Conclusion. By virtue of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that due to the architectural barriers present in the buildings occupied by the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, the Dirección Regional of the Dirección de Sucursales Brunca of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, the Administración Tributaria of the Zona Sur, the Agencies of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica and the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal in San Isidro de El General, the Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional, the Public Library, and the Dirección Regional de Educación, all in Pérez Zeledón, the discrimination suffered by the appellant is proven, which definitively injures his fundamental rights. It is evident from the record that the omission of those authorities in not having adopted the necessary measures for the equalization of opportunities and the non-discrimination of persons with disabilities has prevented the appellant from developing freely and independently. As already stated in the ruling of this Tribunal No. 6732-98 of fifteen hours eighteen minutes of September 18, 1998, the faithful development and execution of the Law on Equality of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities forms part of the right to equality of those who suffer from that type of difficulty: “The Chamber understands that this regulation has its fundamental basis in Articles 33, 50, 51 and 67 of the Political Constitution, so that its issuance, more than a merely programmatic content, implies the real execution of basic principles to permit the moral, physical, intellectual, and spiritual development of persons with physical disabilities. It is, in reality, the creation of a system of updating and promoting the necessary conditions for persons with disabilities to achieve their full social participation (Article 3 subsection a) of Ley 7600) and therefore, failure to comply with its provisions implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities.” (In the same sense, see judgment number 2002-09233 of 10:56 hours of September 20, 2002). A right, which the Chamber considers has been infringed in this case, by the omission of the indicated authorities to control and maintain the requirements proper to access to physical space for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, it is necessary to reiterate that the deficiency of material and budgetary resources does not constitute a cause that exempts the Administration from its obligation to respect the fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The amparo must therefore be granted, and thus the respondents must, within the deadline to be stated, condition the buildings to fully guarantee the exercise of the rights and duties of persons with disabilities who visit them. Regarding the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, the amparo also proceeds for the problem of obstruction of the sidewalks, which undoubtedly affects the protected party in his transit. With respect to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados in the Brunca Region and the Office of the Banco de Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General, the amparo is dismissed, as it has been demonstrated that the buildings they occupy are accessible to persons with disabilities.” That negligence is sanctioned since there has been sufficient time to address situations such as the one noted.

Now, regarding the obstacles on the sidewalks, although it is reported that constant operations are being carried out in the center of that city to detect and remove any obstacles that may exist on them, in accordance with the documentary evidence provided by the petitioner and appearing on folios 131 a 136, it is evident that these have been insufficient, as this impediment persists in multiple forms. Consequently, and since what was alleged on this matter has not been reliably refuted, the amparo is likewise deemed admissible in this regard.

**VI. - Regarding the Branch of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social.** The Regional Director of the Brunca Branch Directorate of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social reports that due to the increase in the staff payroll of the Inspection, Collections, Social Work, and other areas, and given the need for a computer management laboratory, a meeting room for the different activities carried out in the region, and to comply with the requirements of Law 7600, that Directorate acquired a new two-story building on the first of September 2007, which became operational as of December 20 of the same year. In that new building, the public is served on the first level, where workstations were adapted to the conditions set forth in Law 7600, and if a meeting is requested with other officials on the second level, a preferential location was adapted on the ground floor for the attention of persons with disabilities and older adults, so that the Director or another official who is on the second level comes down to provide the corresponding attention. Regarding accessibility to that building, it has suitable conditions both on the sidewalks and in the size of the doors. In this regard, this Court notes with concern that more than 10 years have passed since the approval of said law, and the authorities of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social have not taken the necessary measures to eliminate architectural barriers. As already indicated, the legislator, aware of the administrative and budgetary difficulties when enacting Law 7600, *“Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities”*, provided in its Transitory Provision II that all constructed physical space, whether publicly or privately owned, involving public attendance or service, must be modified within a period not exceeding ten years from the effective date of this law. Despite this clear provision, from the study of the case file and the statements made under oath, it is evident that this regulatory obligation has not been complied with by the mentioned authorities.

**VII.- Regarding the Tax Administration of the Zona Sur.** In accordance with what was reported by the Minister of Finance, the Tax Administration of the Zona Sur is currently located in canton 19 Pérez Zeledón, in the building owned by Mr. Rodrigo Gerardo Quirós Jiménez, which has been leased by the Ministry of Finance pursuant to contract MH-030-2006, amended by MH-006-2007. According to the lessor's obligations, the Ministry of Finance is unable to make any modification to the infrastructure of that building without the approval of the property owner. Over-the-counter public service for registration, deregistration, and database modification services in the Single Taxpayer Registry (RUC), assigned to the Management Area of the Tax Administration of the Zona Sur, as well as personalized general inquiries, is provided strictly on the first floor. The building measures 13.11 meters wide, and from the sidewalk itself, across the entire width of the land where the Administration is located, there is a slope that does not hinder the entry of persons who, due to their limitations, use biomechanical aids (wheelchairs, crutches, canes, etc.), and there are no slopes that present a danger in any of these cases, and the restrooms enabled on the first floor for public use meet all the conditions for use by persons with special limitations. Entry to the first floor of the building has no obstacles, as the gates or access to the Administration are the width of the building, separated by a column in the center. The entrance to the public service hall located on the first floor has wide double doors that allow the entry of several people at once; however, because there is air conditioning, these doors remain closed, and it is the security officers who open them for those people who cannot do so by their own means or have some difficulty doing so. Regarding that first level, this Chamber considers that the technical specifications established in Law 7600 for the attention of persons with disabilities have been observed. However, the same is not true concerning the second floor, which that Administration also occupies. Note that according to what was reported, the Management and Collection Areas are located on the second floor of the building, specifically, the attention processes for mass plans characterized by field execution activities, in which the agents necessarily travel to the tax domiciles of the taxpayers to communicate their acts. Attention to persons on the second floor is not usual, and for security measures and in compliance with Law 7600, this Administration has enabled, since this year 2008, a complete workstation on the first floor that has its own computer with access to all the services provided by the Dirección General de Tributación, where all persons with a special limitation who require attention from an official working on the second floor must be served. Access to that second floor is by stairs, which have handrails and non-slip strips on each step. It is evident that this floor does not meet the legally required conditions for the type of users of interest in this amparo. Having the official come down to the first floor to provide service is not sufficient to remedy this deficiency, because what is protected is that persons with disabilities have access by themselves to all services, without any intermediary. Now, the fact that the building design provides for complete installation of an elevator and that the 2008 purchasing plan submitted by that Administration in June 2007 included the necessary increase in the rental budget line item to cover this additional cost is not sufficient to nullify the legal responsibility they bear, given that, as noted above, there has been sufficient time to resolve all such situations, including budgetary provisions.

**VIII.- Regarding the Agencia of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General.** According to what was reported by the Manager of that Agency, his Office is located on the second floor of the building, but access to it is not necessary for all of the Agency's clients, and furthermore, the Operations Director works on the first floor of the same, an official with the same conditions of representation as the Manager and who is fully capable of attending to any particular client's request. In the event that the Manager's presence is necessary, it is perfectly feasible for him to move to one of the customer service modules located on the first floor of the building, which are designed for the attention of persons with disabilities. The Credit Department, although mostly situated on the second floor of the building, has a platform identified with the number 6, which is assigned not only the processing of the platforms' own procedures but is also responsible for the specialized attention of credit applications for persons afflicted with some type of disability, with a person trained in the credit process being assigned to that platform. These arguments are not acceptable to this Chamber, as it is obvious that there are differences between the attention that can eventually be provided to a person with a disability and another without any disability, when it has been repeatedly stated that what is prescribed in the respective regulations and cited repeatedly in this resolution is that such differences should not exist, ensuring that all persons have the same access to all services under equal conditions, which means in this specific case, that because of someone's eventual physical impairment, they should not have to wait for an official located on the second floor to come down and attend to them on the first floor, when they should be able to access all permitted facilities by their own means.

**IX.- Regarding the headquarters of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados in the Brunca Region.** The Director of that headquarters reports to this Chamber that the administrative access to the building they occupy has both stairs and a ramp, which enables persons with physical disabilities to enter and request the public services provided by the Institution. The public sidewalk of the building also has a ramp, and no architectural or physical barrier is found during transit along it that impedes free movement, precisely because it is located in a residential and not a commercial zone. There are also no advertising billboards, merchandise, hooks, or advertising signs that cause obstacles for persons with any physical, mental, or sensory deficiency. Due to the disability the petitioner states he has, which is visual, not motor-related, he does not face any obstacle in accessing all the service areas provided by AyA in the Canton of Pérez Zeledón. Under this context, and with no evidence in the record refuting this information, it is considered that the amparo does not proceed against this Public Administration, since the petitioner and any person with a disability would have no problem accessing the services provided there by their own means.

**X.- Regarding the Regional Office of the Registro Nacional in Pérez Zeledón.** In accordance with what was reported by both the Coordinator of the Regional Office of the Registro Nacional in Pérez Zeledón and the Manager of the Banco de Costa Rica Agency in the area, access to the Regional Office of the Registro Nacional in Pérez Zeledón is via a staircase leading to the second floor of the building, by virtue of the Services Agreement between the Banco de Costa Rica and the Administrative Board of the Registro Nacional, entered into on July 16, 1999, since the area and location of the Regional Headquarters correspond to the decisions that the owner or whoever exercises the right of use over the property, which is the Banco de Costa Rica, can make. It is for this reason that when the user cannot access the Regional Office of the Registro Nacional in Pérez Zeledón on the second floor, where there is a preferential window for elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and others, the Guards communicate with the officials of the Public Registry, so that one of those officials is sent to the first floor to attend to them timely and properly. Likewise, that Agreement stipulated that the initial remodeling of the designated area would be carried out once by the Bank, with any subsequent remodeling of that Area being the exclusive decision of that Board. It is not for this Chamber to determine, by virtue of the cited Agreement, which of those two Institutions must make the physical modifications to the building that the Registro Nacional occupies to ensure access to the services provided by that entity for persons with disabilities, as this is a matter of legality, but it is evident that persons with conditions like the petitioner here cannot directly request a service, and hence the amparo must be granted. Apart from that, it must be emphasized that the protection of a fundamental right is above a contractual agreement or legal provision.

**XI.- Concerning the Biblioteca Pública of Pérez Zeledón.** Regarding that entity, it is established that the Accessibility 7600 Equal Opportunity Commission formed by the Municipal Council of Pérez Zeledón has organized itself this year to provide a solution to the problem denounced by the citizen in this appeal regarding the Biblioteca Pública. Therefore, the adaptation project for the building it occupies, approved with 9 votes by the Municipal Council in ordinary session number 103-08, article 4) subsection 5), of April 15, 2008, for an amount of sixteen million five hundred thousand colones, is making significant progress, nearing its final stage, where the final design of the cubicles and the area for persons with disabilities by the Municipal Engineer is currently awaited, to subsequently begin the administrative procedures for the tenders for the final execution of the project. Despite this progress, it is considered that the alleged constitutional violation has nonetheless occurred, because the Administration has had sufficient time to adapt its building to the regulations established in said Law, in order to allow persons like the petitioner to have free access by their own means to the services provided there, which under current conditions is not possible.

**XII.- Regarding the Office of the Banco de Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General.** According to what was reported, that Office has the following facilities for the attention of clients with differentiated or diminished capacities (visual, physical-motor, etc.): a. Personalized attention on the first floor in an area specially conditioned for this purpose; b. Teller service with cubicles adequately sized in height and space for persons who, due to their condition, must remain seated; c. Ramps have been enabled to allow the entry of clients with disabilities; d. Spaces have been reserved exclusively for vehicles transporting persons with disabilities; e. The office, in compliance with the provisions of Law 7600, has a restroom with all the recommended characteristics for the differentiated attention of clients (door width, toilet height, grab bars, etc.). Under this context, it is considered that the amparo does not proceed, since the cited Office has physical facilities adequate to the requirements of Law 7600, and consequently, the petitioner and persons in similar conditions would have no problem whatsoever accessing the various services provided.

**XIII.- Regarding the Branch of the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal in Pérez Zeledón.** The Manager of that Agency reports that the building they occupy has ample parking with a designated space for persons with disabilities. The sidewalks in front of the Branch are in good condition and are suitable for the entry of persons with different abilities. The sidewalks adjoining the building they occupy do not have architectural barriers that impede free transit in front of the building, and there are no advertising billboards or signs, nor is merchandise placed on the sidewalk. On the first floor of the building, there is an adapted restroom and a talking ATM for persons with disability. On the Service Platform, there is a properly labeled preferential teller window, and they have staff trained in LESCO language. For access to the second floor, there is a staircase 1.28 meters wide, consisting of 18 steps with 4 wide landings every 3 steps. The administrative area, accounting, management, the manager's secretary, an official who handles "Banco en su Empresa," and the development credit analysts are mainly located there. When a client with a disability needs to be attended to, the staff is duly informed that they must attend to them on the ground floor. In the same manner, regarding that banking entity, it is deemed that there is liability concerning what was demanded by the petitioner, because although the first floor of the building where they are located is very well conditioned, the same is not true regarding the second floor, since it follows from what was reported that it is not accessible for persons with disabilities, such that an official must come down to attend to them. As already stated, this practice is not acceptable, because the building must have the physical conditions that allow free access to the public without distinction and by their own means, except of course for rooms accessible only to the Institution's staff.

**XIV.- Regarding the Dirección Regional de Educación of Pérez Zeledón.** As the Regional Director only reports that the situation described by the petitioner is already contemplated as a priority in the budget for the year 2009, as established by Law 7600, it is more than evident that its current location does not meet the conditions established by that regulation for persons with disabilities, and for which the Legislator, according to what was outlined, granted a deadline that is even more than expired. Hence, the amparo against that Institution is admissible.

**XV.- Conclusion.** By virtue of the foregoing, this Court finds that due to the architectural barriers presented by the buildings occupied by the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, the Regional Directorate of the Brunca Branch Directorate of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, the Tax Administration of the Zona Sur, the Agencias of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica and the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal in San Isidro de El General, the Regional Office of the Registro Nacional, the Biblioteca Pública, and the Dirección Regional de Educación, all in Pérez Zeledón, the discrimination suffered by the petitioner is proven, which ultimately harms his fundamental rights. From the case file, it is inferred that the omission of these authorities in failing to adopt the necessary measures for the equalization of opportunities and the non-discrimination of persons with disabilities has prevented the petitioner from developing freely and independently. As already stated in this Court's judgment No. 6732-98 of three-eighteen in the afternoon of September 18, 1998, the faithful development and implementation of the Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities forms part of the right to equality of those who suffer from that type of difficulty: *“The Chamber understands that this regulation is fundamentally based on Articles 33, 50, 51, and 67 of the Political Constitution, so its enactment, more than a merely programmatic content, implies the real execution of basic principles to allow the moral, physical, intellectual, and spiritual development of persons with physical disabilities. It is, in reality, the creation of a system of updating and promoting the necessary conditions for persons with disabilities to achieve their full social participation (Article 3 subsection a) of Law 7600), and therefore, non-compliance with its provisions implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities.”* (In the same sense, see judgment number 2002-09233 of 10:56 a.m. on September 20, 2002). A right that the Chamber considers has been violated in this case by the omission of the indicated authorities to control and have the proper requirements for physical space access for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, it is necessary to reiterate that a deficiency of material and budgetary resources does not constitute a cause that exempts the Administration from its obligation to respect the fundamental rights of the inhabitants. In light of the foregoing, the amparo must be granted; therefore, the respondents must, within the time period to be stated, adapt the buildings to fully guarantee the exercise of the rights and duties of the persons with disabilities who attend them. Regarding the Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, the amparo also proceeds due to the problem of sidewalk obstruction, which undoubtedly affects the petitioner in his transit.

With respect to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados in the Brunca Region and the Office of the Banco de Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General, the amparo is dismissed, as it has been demonstrated that the buildings they occupy are accessible to persons with disabilities.

**III.- On the merits.** The Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act (Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad) has as its fundamental objective that the necessary conditions be achieved so that persons suffering any type of problem of that nature may attain their full social participation. Precisely because of its foundation, the enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation in identical circumstances ceases to be a simple aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a fundamental right. To guarantee the exercise of their rights and duties, the Act and its Regulations impose upon Public Administrations and private law subjects that provide a public service the obligation to provide persons with disabilities with support services, the required technical aids, and the elimination of all types of architectural barriers. Within this line of thought, failure to comply with the public interest that the law enshrines implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of that social group. It is the lack of the necessary infrastructure to have access to public offices that the petitioner claims in this proceeding, apart from the deficient condition and obstruction of the sidewalks. In the specific case, the Chamber notes that most of the respondent authorities admit that the infrastructure of the buildings they occupy does not fully satisfy the requirements of persons with disabilities. It calls this Court's attention that more than 10 years have elapsed since the approval of said law and the respondent authorities that will be named have not taken the necessary measures to conform to that regulation. The legislator, aware of the administrative and budgetary difficulties, when enacting Law 7600, *“Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act”*, provided in its Transitory Provision II that every built physical space, whether publicly or privately owned, that involves public attendance or service, should be modified within a period not exceeding ten years from the effective date of this law. Despite that clear provision, from the study of the case file and the statements given under oath, it is found that this normative obligation has not been fully complied with by the respondent authorities. Given that various institutions are involved in this matter, requiring an independent analysis of their actions, we proceed to resolve this appeal by conducting the examination separately. However, before doing so, it is necessary to define, first, the scope of the obligation that, on the subject alluded to, is imposed by the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 7600. In its Article 4, the Act provides that, for its compliance, the State is responsible for:

“a) Including in the plans, policies, programs, and services of its institutions the principles of equal opportunities and accessibility to the services that, based on this law, are provided; as well as developing differentiated projects and actions that take into consideration the lesser relative development of the country's regions and communities.

• b)Guaranteeing that the environment, goods, services, and facilities for public service are accessible so that persons may use and enjoy them.
• c)Eliminating the actions and provisions that, directly or indirectly, promote discrimination or prevent persons with disabilities from having access to programs and services.
• d)Supporting sectors of society and organizations of persons with disabilities, in order to achieve equal opportunities.
• e)Guaranteeing the right of organizations of persons with disabilities to participate in actions related to the development of plans, policies, programs, and services in which they are involved.
• f)Disseminating this law to promote its compliance.
• g)Guaranteeing, through the corresponding institutions, the support services required by persons with disabilities to facilitate their permanence in the family.
• h)Guaranteeing that persons with disabilities who are physically, emotionally, or sexually assaulted, treated with negligence, who lack a family, or who are in a state of abandonment, have access to the means that allow them to exercise their autonomy and lead a dignified life.” Mainly in subsections a) and b) of the transcribed rule lies the principle of accessibility, understood in the context of this amparo as the possibility that a person with a disability can access, under the greatest possible similarity of conditions, the same spaces as any other person, through the implementation of means to mitigate the natural obstacles resulting from their disability. Now, regarding what directly concerns physical spaces, Article 41 of the same Act stipulates:

“New constructions, expansions, or remodelings of buildings, parks, sidewalks, gardens, squares, roadways, sanitary services, and other publicly owned spaces must be carried out in accordance with the regulatory technical specifications of the public and private agencies in charge of the matter.

Private buildings that involve public attendance and provide public service must have the same characteristics established in the preceding paragraph.

The same obligations mentioned shall govern housing projects of any nature, financed totally or partially with public funds. In this type of projects, the housing units assigned to persons with disabilities or families in which one of their members is a person with a disability must be located in a site that guarantees their easy access.” The rule, although it concentrates on publicly owned spaces, extends its requirements to private buildings that involve public attendance and provide public service, a notion into which commercial premises fit without difficulty, since they are real estate open to the general public. Likewise, it is important to highlight that what is required is the adaptation to the regulatory technical specifications on accessibility when new constructions, expansions, or remodelings are executed. The Regulations to the Act under discussion, Executive Decree No. 26831-MP of March 23, 1998, provide specifications on various spatial elements, such as the characteristics of housing units intended for habitation by persons with disabilities, pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, and pedestrian traffic lights. In relation to buildings in general, it establishes conditions regarding eaves, handrails, stairways, floors, lighting, safety railings, basements, hallways, doors, sanitary services, entrances, and elevators (articles 132 to 151). These last elements are those that can be supervised regarding new constructions, expansions, or remodelings of commercial establishments.

**IV.- Regarding the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud).** Regarding what was alleged by the petitioner, both the Minister of Health and the Director of the Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud) of the Ministry of Health in Pérez Zeledón report that the specific competence of that Ministry to supervise and order compliance with the provisions of Act 7600, based on Articles 41 of the Act and 103 of its Regulations, and pursuant to what has been ordered by the Constitutional Chamber (resolution 0678-2007 of twelve hours nine minutes of January 19, 2007) and the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) (C-077-2007 of March 13, 2007), must be interpreted as being *“when approving construction plans for new buildings, expansions, or remodelings”* and not when issuing Operating Permits (Permisos de Funcionamiento), a provision and interpretation that has been observed and complied with, not only in the Health Governing Area of Pérez Zeledón, where the petitioner lives, but in the rest of the Area of Attraction of the Region. Apart from that, by virtue of the express assignment of powers that Act 7600 makes to the different agencies of the Public Administration, the Ministry lacks the authority to directly order the public entities or government offices mentioned by the petitioner in his brief (Municipal Building (Palacio Municipal), State Banks, Ministries of Finance and Education, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, among others) to correct or adapt their physical plants to the provisions of Act 7600, except –as already stated– when the necessary approval (endorsement) of construction or remodeling plans is required. However, those arguments are not acceptable, given that, as has been held as proven, they have indeed failed to control the requirements inherent to physical space access for persons with disabilities in Institutions of that canton. See, for example, the current locations of the Brunca Branch Directorate (Dirección de Sucursales Brunca) of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone (Administración Tributaria de la Zona Sur), and the Regional Office of the National Registry (Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional) in Pérez Zeledón, which in recent years moved or opened where they are currently providing services. The aforementioned Director of the Health Governing Area also argues that the petitioner has not filed any action before the Ministry of Health at the Regional or Local levels regarding his disagreement with the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Act 7600 in public buildings of the canton of Pérez Zeledón. However, that argument is also considered unfounded, since compliance with such regulations does not require the expression of disagreement by any administered party regarding its non-observance, and hence it is considered unnecessary to assess whether the petitioner indeed presented any action in that sense, as he alleges.

**V.- As to the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón (Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón).** According to what was reported by the Mayor (Alcaldesa) and the President of the Municipal Council (Presidenta del Concejo Municipal), both of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, it is established that through various proceedings carried out both by the Municipal Administration of Pérez Zeledón and by the Municipal Council, the different requests made by the petitioner have been processed, among which can be cited the referral of some of them to a special commission called the Accessibility Commission (Comisión de Accesibilidad) within the Municipal Council, in order to resolve the problems reported by the petitioner. However, due to the magnitude that solving this set of problems represents, the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón is working on the development of a diagnosis in the city of San Isidro de El General in order to correct and improve matters related to better access for persons with physical disabilities and infrastructure in general. As for the obstruction of public sidewalks, through the Control and Citizen Security Process (Proceso de Control y Seguridad Ciudadana) of the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, constant operations are being carried out in the center of that city in order to detect and remove obstacles that may exist on the sidewalks, such as the placement of merchandise by street vendors and the commercial businesses themselves, from whom, in coordination with the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), the merchandise or objects found on the sidewalk or public thoroughfare are seized, and a criminal case is initiated against them for Obstruction of the public thoroughfare, causing disturbances to passersby, or disobedience to authority, as the case may be. They add that the remodeling and adaptation to modern legal requirements of the building that houses the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón has not been possible because it requires a budgetary allocation that the local government cannot currently afford, which is why a phased remodeling has been considered to be able to meet the access needs of persons with disabilities and the general public. To this end, the Municipal Administration of Pérez Zeledón, in association with the Municipal Council, has initiated the technical and budgetary studies that will allow the remodeling of the building they occupy, beginning with the construction of a new session hall on the first floor and, consequently, the relocation to that same first floor of the majority of offices whose primary function is public service. On multiple occasions, the Chamber has referred to the special protection that persons with disabilities deserve under the terms of Article 51 of the Constitution, 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 of the latter and an obligation of the rest of society to respect those rights and comply with the obligations derived from them (judgment No. 2288-99 of 11:06 hours, March 26, 1999). The Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act has as its fundamental objective that the necessary conditions be achieved so that persons suffering any type of problem of that nature may attain their full social participation.

Precisely, the enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation in identical circumstances ceases to be a mere aspiration for them and becomes a fundamental right. In this regard, constitutional jurisprudence has recognized as a violation of fundamental rights all cases in which persons with some disability are prevented from accessing public offices or public transportation, for example. On this point, it is necessary to reiterate that Law No. 7600 established transitional provisions setting deadlines for the execution of the obligations set forth in that law, deadlines that have amply expired; which leads the Chamber to grant the amparo insofar as the alleged violations of the fundamental rights of the petitioner have indeed occurred, since the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón has demonstrated a lack of interest in the adequate fulfillment of said legal obligations, which directly and negatively impacts the equalization of opportunities and the non-discrimination of persons with disabilities. Such negligence is sanctioned because there has been sufficient time to address situations like the one pointed out.

Now, regarding the obstacles on the sidewalks, although it is reported that constant operations are being carried out in the downtown area of that city to detect and remove any obstacles that may exist on them, in accordance with the documentary evidence provided by the petitioner and which appears on folios 131 a 136, it is evident that they have been insufficient, as that impediment persists in multiple forms. Consequently, and since what was alleged on this point has not been reliably refuted, the amparo is likewise considered admissible in this regard.

VI. - Regarding the Branch of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social). The Regional Director of the Brunca Branch Directorate of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund reports that due to the increase in the staff of the Inspection, Collections, Social Work, and other areas, and given the need for a computer management laboratory, a meeting room for the different activities carried out in the region, and to comply with the requirements of Law 7600, that Directorate acquired a new two-story building on the first of September 2007, which became operational as of December 20 of the same year. In this new building, the public is served on the first level where the workstations were adapted to the conditions indicated by Law 7600, and if an audience is requested with other officials on the second level, a preferential place on the ground floor was adapted for the attention of persons with disabilities and older adults, so that the Director or another official who is on the second level comes down to provide the corresponding attention. Regarding accessibility to that building, it has suitable conditions both in the sidewalks and the size of the doors. In this regard, it draws the attention of this Tribunal that more than 10 years have elapsed since the approval of said law and the authorities of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund have not taken the necessary measures to eliminate architectural barriers. As already indicated, the legislator, aware of the administrative and budgetary difficulties when enacting Law 7600, “Law of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities,” provided in its Transitory Provision II that every constructed physical space, whether publicly or privately owned, that involves public attendance or service, must be modified within a period not exceeding ten years from the effective date of this law. Despite this clear provision, from the study of the case file and the statements made under oath, it is evident that this normative obligation has not been complied with by the aforementioned authorities.

VII. - Regarding the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone. According to what was reported by the Minister of Finance, the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone is currently located in canton 19 Pérez Zeledón, in the building owned by Mr. Rodrigo Gerardo Quirós Jiménez, which has been leased by the Ministry of Finance in accordance with contract MH-030-2006, modified by MH-006-2007. According to the lessor's obligations, the Ministry of Finance is unable to make any modification to the infrastructure of that building without the approval of the property owner. Public service at the counter for registration, deregistration, and modification of databases in the Single Taxpayer Registry (Registro Único de Contribuyentes, RUC), assigned to the Management Area of the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone, as well as personalized general inquiries, is provided strictly on the first floor. The building measures 13.11 meters wide, and from the sidewalk itself across the entire width of the land on which the Administration is located, there is an unevenness that does not hinder the entry of persons who, due to their limitations, use biomechanical aids (wheelchairs, crutches, walking sticks, etc.), and there are no unevennesses that present a danger in any of those cases, and the sanitary facilities enabled on the first floor for public use meet all the conditions to be used by persons with special limitations. The entrance to the first floor of the building has no obstacles, as the gates or access to the Administration span the width of the building, separated by a column in the center. The entrance to the public service hall located on the first floor has wide double-leaf doors that allow several persons to enter at once; however, because it has air conditioning, these doors remain closed, and it is the security officers who open them for those persons who cannot do so by their own means or have some difficulty doing so. Regarding this first level, this Chamber considers that the technical specifications established in Law 7600 for the attention of persons with some disability have been observed. However, the same is not true with respect to the second floor that this Administration also occupies. Note that according to what was reported, the Management and Collection Areas are located on the second floor of the building, specifically, the processes for handling mass plans that are characterized by having field execution activities, in which the managers necessarily travel to the tax domiciles of the taxpayers to communicate their acts. Attention to persons on the second floor is not usual, and for security measures and in compliance with Law 7600, this Administration has had, since this year 2008, a complete workstation available on the first floor that has its own computer with access to all the services provided by the General Directorate of Taxation, where all persons with a special limitation who require attention from an official working on the second floor must be served. Access to that second floor is by stairs, which have handrails and anti-slip strips on each step. It is evident that this floor does not have the legally required requirements for the type of users relevant to this amparo. The fact that an official comes down to provide service on the first floor is not sufficient to remedy that deficiency, since what is protected is that persons with some disability have access by themselves to all services, without any intermediary. Now, the fact that the building design provides a complete shaft for the installation of an elevator, and that in the 2008 procurement plan submitted by that Administration in June 2007, the necessary increase in the rental budget line item was included to cover that additional cost, is not sufficient to negate their legal responsibility, given that, as noted above, there has been sufficient time to resolve all these situations, including budgetary forecasts.

VIII. - Regarding the Agency of the National Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Nacional de Costa Rica) in San Isidro de El General. According to what was reported by the Manager of that Agency, his Office is located on the second floor of the building, but access to it is not necessary for all of the Agency's clients, and furthermore, the Director of Operations works on the first floor of the same, an official with the same conditions of representation as the Manager and who is fully capable of handling any customer’s transaction. In the event that the Manager's presence is necessary, it is perfectly feasible for him to move to one of the customer service modules located on the first floor of the building and which are designed for the attention of persons with disabilities. The Credit Department, although mostly located on the second floor of the building, has a platform conditioned and identified with the number 6, which is assigned not only the execution of procedures typical of the platforms but also handles the specialized attention of credit applications for persons afflicted with some type of disability, with a person trained in credit procedures stationed at that platform. These arguments are not acceptable to this Chamber because it is obvious that there are differences between the attention that can eventually be provided to a person with and another without any disability, when it has been repeatedly stated that what is prescribed in the respective regulations, cited repeatedly in this resolution, is that such differences do not exist, ensuring that all persons have the same access to all services under equal conditions, which means in this specific case, that due to the eventual physical impairment of some person, he or she should not have to wait for an official located on the second floor to come and attend to him or her on the first floor, when he or she should access all permitted dependencies by his or her own means.

IX. - Regarding the headquarters of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) in the Brunca Region. The Director of that headquarters informs this Chamber that the administrative access to the building they occupy has both stairs and a ramp, which enables persons with physical disabilities to enter to request the public services provided by the Institution. The public sidewalk of the building also has a ramp, and during transit on it, there is no architectural or physical barrier that impedes free movement, precisely because it is located in a residential and not a commercial area. There are also no advertising boards, merchandise, hooks, or promotional signs that cause obstacles to persons with some physical, mental, or sensory deficiency. Due to the disability that the petitioner claims to have, which is not motor-related but visual, he faces no obstacle whatsoever to access all the service areas provided by AyA in the Canton of Pérez Zeledón. Under that context, and with no evidence in the record refuting that information, it is considered that regarding that Public Administration, the amparo is not admissible, because the petitioner and any person with a disability would have no problem accessing by their own means the services provided there.

X. - Regarding the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón. According to what was reported by both the Coordinator of the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón and the Manager of the Agency of the Bank of Costa Rica (Banco de Costa Rica) in the area, access to the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón is by a staircase leading to the second floor of the building, by virtue of the Services Agreement between the Bank of Costa Rica and the Administrative Board of the National Registry, executed on July 16, 1999, since the area and location of the Regional Headquarters respond to the decisions that the owner or whoever exercises the right of use over the thing, which is the Bank of Costa Rica, can make regarding the real property. That is why when a user cannot access the Regional Office of the National Registry in Pérez Zeledón on the second floor, where there is a preferential window for elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and others, the Security Guards communicate with the officials of the Public Registry, so that one of those officials is sent to the first floor to attend to the user in a timely and proper manner. Likewise, that Agreement stipulated that the initial remodeling of the designated area was to be carried out on a one-time basis by the Bank, with any subsequent remodeling of that Area being an exclusive decision of that Administrative Board. It is not for this Chamber to determine, by virtue of the cited Agreement, which of those two Institutions must make the physical modifications to the building occupied by the National Registry to ensure persons with disabilities access to the services provided by that entity, as this is a matter of legality; however, it is evident that persons with conditions like the petitioner here cannot directly request a service, and hence the amparo must be granted. Apart from that, it must be emphasized that the protection of a fundamental right is above a contractual agreement or legal provision.

XI. - Regarding the Public Library of Pérez Zeledón. Regarding that entity, it is understood that the Accessibility 7600 Equal Opportunity Commission formed by the Municipal Council of Pérez Zeledón has organized itself this year to provide a solution to the problem denounced by the citizen in the present appeal concerning the Public Library. Therefore, the project to adapt the building it occupies, approved with 9 votes by the Municipal Council in ordinary session number 103-08, article 4), subsection 5), of April 15, 2008, for an amount of sixteen million five hundred thousand colones, has made quite significant progress, nearing its final stage, where the final design of the cubicles and the area for persons with disabilities by the Municipal Engineer is currently awaited, to subsequently begin the administrative procedures for the public tenders for the final execution of the project. Despite this progress, it is considered that the alleged constitutional violation has equally occurred, because the Administration has had sufficient time to adapt its building to the regulations established in the cited Law, in order to allow persons like the petitioner free access by their own means to the services provided there, which under current conditions is not possible.

XII. - Regarding the Office of the Bank of Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General. According to what was reported, that Office has the following facilities for serving clients with differentiated or diminished capacity (visual, physical-motor, etc.): a. Personalized attention on the first floor in an area specially conditioned for this purpose; b. Teller service with cubicles adequate in height and space for persons who, due to their condition, must remain seated; c. Ramps have been enabled to allow the entry of clients with disabilities; d. Spaces have been reserved exclusively for vehicles transporting persons with some disability; e. The office, in compliance with the provisions of Law 7600, has a sanitary facility with all the characteristics recommended for differentiated attention to clients (door width, toilet height, grab bars, etc.). Under that context, it is considered that the amparo is not admissible, because the cited Office has a physical plant adequate to the requirements of Law 7600 and that, consequently, the petitioner and persons in similar conditions would have no problem accessing the various services provided there.

XIII. - Regarding the Branch of the Popular Bank and Communal Development (Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal) in Pérez Zeledón. The Manager of that Agency reports that the building they occupy has ample parking with a labeled space for persons with disabilities. The sidewalks in front of the Branch are in good condition and are suitable for the entry of persons with different abilities. The sidewalks adjacent to the building they occupy have no architectural barriers that impede free movement in front of the building, and there are no advertising boards, promotional signs, nor are goods placed on the sidewalk. On the first floor of the building, there is an adapted sanitary facility and an ATM with voice guidance for persons with disabilities. On the Service Platform, there is a duly labeled preferential teller window, and they have staff trained in LESCO language. For access to the second floor, there is a staircase 1.28 meters wide, consisting of 18 steps with 4 wide landings every 3 steps. The administrative area, accounting, management, the manager's secretary, an official who handles "Banco en su Empresa," and the development credit analysts are mainly located there. When it is necessary to serve a client with some disability, the staff is duly informed that they must attend to the client on the ground floor. In the same manner, with respect to that banking entity, it is considered that there is responsibility for what is claimed by the petitioner, because although the first floor of the building where they are located is very well conditioned, the same is not true regarding the second floor, since it follows from what was reported that it is not accessible to persons with some disability, in such a way that an official must come down to attend to them. As has already been stated, this practice is not acceptable, because the building must have the physical conditions that allow free access to the public without distinction and by their own means, except of course to rooms that are only permitted to the Institution's personnel.

XIV. - Regarding the Regional Directorate of Education of Pérez Zeledón. When the Regional Director reports only that the situation described by the petitioner is already contemplated as a priority in the budget for the year 2009 as established by Law 7600, it is more than evident that its current location does not meet the conditions established by that regulation for persons with disabilities, for which the Legislator, according to what has been outlined, granted a deadline that is even more than expired. Hence the admissibility of the amparo against that Institution.

XV. - Conclusion. By virtue of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that due to the architectural barriers presented by the buildings occupied by the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, the Regional Directorate of the Brunca Branch Directorate of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, the Tax Administration of the Southern Zone, the Agencies of the National Bank of Costa Rica and the Popular Bank and Communal Development in San Isidro de El General, the Regional Office of the National Registry, the Public Library, and the Regional Directorate of Education, all in Pérez Zeledón, the discrimination suffered by the petitioner is proven, which definitively harms his fundamental rights. It is evident from the record that the omission of these authorities in failing to adopt necessary measures for the equalization of opportunities and the non-discrimination of persons with disabilities has prevented the petitioner from developing freely and independently. As already indicated in the judgment of this Tribunal No. 6732-98 of eighteen minutes past three in the afternoon on September 18, 1998, the faithful development and execution of the Law of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities forms part of the right to equality of those who suffer from such difficulties: “The Chamber understands that this regulation is fundamentally based on Articles 33, 50, 51, and 67 of the Political Constitution, so that its enactment, more than a merely programmatic content, implies the real execution of basic principles to allow the moral, physical, intellectual, and spiritual development of persons with physical disabilities. It is, in reality, the creation of a system for updating and promoting the necessary conditions so that persons with disabilities achieve their full social participation (Article 3, subsection a) of Law 7600), and therefore, the non-compliance with its provisions implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities.” (In the same sense, see judgment number 2002-09233 of 10:56 a.m. on September 20, 2002). A right that the Chamber considers has been infringed in this case, by the omission of the indicated authorities to control and have the proper access requirements to physical space for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, it is necessary to reiterate that the lack of material and budgetary resources does not constitute a cause that exempts the Administration from its obligation to respect the fundamental rights of the inhabitants. By virtue of the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the amparo admissible, so the respondents must, within the period to be stated, condition the buildings to fully guarantee the exercise of the rights and duties of persons with disabilities who attend them. Regarding the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón, the amparo is also admissible for the problem of obstructed sidewalks, which undoubtedly affects the petitioner in his transit. With respect to the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers in the Brunca Region and the Office of the Bank of Costa Rica in San Isidro de El General, the amparo is dismissed, as it has been demonstrated that the buildings they occupy are accessible to persons with disabilities.”

“III.- Sobre el fondo. La Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad tiene por objetivo fundamental que se logren las condiciones necesarias para que las personas que padecen cualquier tipo de problema de esa naturaleza, alcancen su plena participación social. Precisamente, por su fundamento es que el disfrute de iguales oportunidades de acceso y participación en idénticas circunstancias deja de ser para los discapacitados una simple aspiración y se convierte en un derecho fundamental. Para garantizar el ejercicio de sus derechos y deberes, la Ley y su Reglamento imponen a las Administraciones Públicas y a los sujetos de derecho privado que brindan un servicio público, proveer a los discapacitados de los servicios de apoyo, las ayudas técnicas requeridas y la supresión de todo género de barrera arquitectónica. Dentro de este orden de ideas, el incumplimiento del interés público que la ley consagra, implica una violación flagrante de los derechos fundamentales de ese grupo social. Es la carencia de la infraestructura necesaria para tener acceso a las dependencias públicas lo que reclama el recurrente en este proceso, aparte del deficiente estado y obstrucción de las aceras. En el caso concreto, la Sala advierte que la mayoría de las autoridades recurridas admiten que la infraestructura de los edificios que ocupan no satisfacen en su totalidad los requerimientos de las personas con discapacidad. Llama la atención de este Tribunal que han transcurrido más de 10 años desde la aprobación de dicha ley y las autoridades recurridas que se dirán, no han tomado las medidas necesarias para adecuarse a esa normativa. El legislador conocedor de las dificultades administrativas y presupuestarias al promulgar la Ley 7600, “Ley de igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad” previó en su transitorio II, que todo espacio físico construido, sea de propiedad pública o privada, que implique concurrencia o atención al público, debería ser modificado en un plazo no mayor a diez años a partir de la vigencia de esta ley. Pese a esa clara disposición, del estudio del expediente y de las manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento, se tiene que esa obligación normativa no ha sido acatada en su totalidad por las autoridades demandadas. En razón de que en el presente asunto se encuentran involucradas diversas instituciones que ameritan un análisis independiente de sus actuaciones, se procede a resolver este recurso, realizando el examen en forma separada. Sin embargo, de previo a ello debe delimitarse, primero, los alcances de la obligación que, sobre el tema al que se alude, impone la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad, #7600. En su artículo 4° la Ley dispone que, para su cumplimiento, corresponde al Estado:

“a) Incluir en planes, políticas, programas y servicios de sus instituciones, los principios de igualdad de oportunidades y accesibilidad a los servicios que, con base en esta ley, se presten; así como desarrollar proyectos y acciones diferenciados que tomen en consideración el menor desarrollo relativo de las regiones y comunidades del país.

• b)Garantizar que el entorno, los bienes, los servicios y las instalaciones de atención al público sean accesibles para que las personas los usen y disfruten.
• c)Eliminar las acciones y disposiciones que, directa o indirectamente, promueven la discriminación o impiden a las personas con discapacidad tener acceso a los programas y servicios.
• d)Apoyar a los sectores de la sociedad y a las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad, con el fin de alcanzar la igualdad de oportunidades.
• e)Garantizar el derecho de las organizaciones de personas con discapacidad de participar en las acciones relacionadas con la elaboración de planes, políticas, programas y servicios en los que estén involucradas.
• f)Divulgar esta ley para promover su cumplimiento.
• g)Garantizar, por medio de las instituciones correspondientes, los servicios de apoyo requeridos por las personas con discapacidad para facilitarles su permanencia en la familia.
• h)Garantizar que las personas con discapacidad agredidas física, emocional o sexualmente, tratadas con negligencia, que no cuenten con una familia o se encuentren en estado de abandono, tengan acceso a los medios que les permitan ejercer su autonomía y desarrollar una vida digna.” Principalmente en los incisos a) y b) de la norma transcrita se sienta el principio de accesibilidad, entendido en el contexto de este amparo, como la posibilidad de que una persona con discapacidad pueda acceder, en la mayor similitud posible de condiciones, a los mismos espacios que cualquier otra persona, a través de la implementación de medios para paliar los obstáculos naturales consecuencia de su discapacidad. Ahora bien, en lo que concierne directamente a los espacios físicos, estipula el artículo 41 de la misma Ley:

“Las construcciones nuevas, ampliaciones o remodelaciones de edificios, parques, aceras, jardines, plazas, vías, servicios sanitarios y otros espacios de propiedad pública, deberán efectuarse conforme a las especificaciones técnicas reglamentarias de los organismos públicos y privados encargados de la materia.

Las edificaciones privadas que impliquen concurrencia y brinden atención al público deberán contar con las mismas características establecidas en el párrafo anterior.

Las mismas obligaciones mencionadas regirán para los proyectos de vivienda de cualquier carácter, financiados total o parcialmente con fondos públicos. En este tipo de proyectos, las viviendas asignadas a personas con discapacidad o familias de personas en las que uno de sus miembros sea una persona con discapacidad deberán estar ubicadas en un sitio que garantice su fácil acceso.” La norma, aunque se concentra en espacios de propiedad pública, extiende sus exigencias a las edificaciones privadas que impliquen concurrencia y brinden atención al público, noción en la que se enmarcan, sin dificultad, locales comerciales, ya que se trata de inmuebles abiertos al público en general. Asimismo, importa destacar que lo que se pide es la adecuación a las especificaciones técnicas reglamentarias sobre accesibilidad al ejecutarse construcciones nuevas, ampliaciones o remodelaciones. El Reglamento a la Ley en comentario, Decreto Ejecutivo #26831-MP del 23 de marzo de 1998, imparte especificaciones sobre diversos elementos espaciales, como las características de las viviendas destinadas a habitación de personas con discapacidad, de los pasos peatonales, aceras y semáforos peatonales. En relación con edificaciones en general establece condiciones a propósito de aleros, pasamanos, escaleras, pisos, iluminación, barandas de seguridad, sótanos, pasillos, puertas, servicios sanitarios, entradas y ascensores (artículos 132 a 151). Estos últimos elementos son los que pueden ser supervisados a propósito de las construcciones nuevas, ampliaciones o remodelaciones de establecimientos comerciales.

IV.- Respecto al Ministerio de Salud. Sobre lo alegado por el recurrente, informan tanto la Ministra de Salud como el Director del Área Rectora de Salud del Ministerio de Salud en Pérez Zeledón, que la competencia específica de esa Cartera para vigilar y ordenar el cumplimiento de las disposiciones de la Ley 7600, con base en los artículos 41 de la Ley y 103 de su Reglamento, y a tenor de lo que ha dispuesto la Sala Constitucional (resolución 0678-2007 de las doce horas nueve minutos del 19 de enero del 2007) y la Procuraduría General de la República (C-077-2007 del 13 de marzo del 2007), debe interpretarse que lo es “al autorizar planos constructivos de construcciones nuevas, ampliaciones o remodelaciones de edificios” y no al momento de emitir los Permisos de Funcionamiento, disposición e interpretación que ha sido observada y cumplida, no solo en el Área Rectora de Salud de Pérez Zeledón, donde vive el recurrente, sino en el resto de Áreas de Atracción de la Región. Aparte de que en virtud de la asignación expresa de competencias que hace la Ley 7600 a las distintas dependencias de la Administración Pública, el Ministerio carece de competencia para ordenar directamente a las entidades públicas u oficinas gubernamentales que menciona el recurrente en su escrito (Palacio Municipal, Bancos Estatales, Ministerios de Hacienda y Educación, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, entre otros), la corrección o adaptación de sus plantas físicas a las disposiciones de la Ley 7600, a no ser –como ya se dijo- ante la necesaria aprobación (visado) de planos de construcción o remodelación. Sin embargo, esos argumentos no son aceptables, toda vez que conforme se tuvo por probado, sí han omitido controlar los requerimientos propios de acceso al espacio físico para las personas con discapacidad en Instituciones de ese cantón. Véase por ejemplo las actuales ubicaciones de la Dirección de Sucursales Brunca de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, la Administración Tributaria de la Zona Sur y la Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional en Pérez Zeledón, las cuales en recientes años se trasladaron o abrieron donde se encuentran prestando servicios. También esgrime el citado Director del Área Rectora de Salud, que el recurrente no ha planteado acción alguna ante el Ministerio de Salud en los niveles Regional o Local por su inconformidad ante el supuesto incumplimiento de las disposiciones de la Ley 7600 en edificios públicos del cantón de Pérez Zeledón. No obstante, ese argumento igualmente se considera improcedente, pues para el cumplimiento de tal normativa no se requiere la manifestación de inconformidad de ningún administrado por su inobservancia y de ahí que se considere innecesario entrar a valorar si efectivamente presentó alguna gestión el recurrente en ese sentido, como lo alega.

V.- En cuanto a la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón. De conformidad con lo informado por la Alcaldesa y la Presidenta del Concejo Municipal, ambas de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, se tiene que mediante diferentes diligencias llevadas a cabo tanto por la Administración Municipal de Pérez Zeledón como por el Concejo Municipal, se le ha dado trámite a las diferentes peticiones hechas por el recurrente, entre las cuales se puede citar el envío de algunas de ellas a una comisión especial denominada Comisión de Accesibilidad dentro del Concejo Municipal, con el fin de que se puedan solucionar los problemas denunciados por el recurrente. Sin embargo, debido a la magnitud que representa solucionar esa problemática, en la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón se está trabajando en la elaboración de un diagnóstico en la ciudad de San Isidro de El General con el fin de corregir y mejorar lo relacionado con mejores accesos para personas con discapacidad física y la infraestructura en general. En cuanto a la obstrucción de las aceras públicas, a través del Proceso de Control y Seguridad Ciudadana de la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, se están realizando operativos constantes en el centro de esa ciudad a fin de detectar y remover los obstáculos que puedan existir sobre las aceras, como la ubicación de la mercadería por parte de los vendedores ambulantes y los mismos negocios comerciales, a quienes en coordinación con la Fuerza Pública, se les decomisa la mercadería o los objetos que se encuentren sobre la acera o vía pública y se les inicia una causa penal por Obstrucción a la vía pública, molestias a transeúntes o desobediencia a la autoridad, según sea el caso. Agregan que la remodelación y adecuación a la exigencia legal moderna del edificio que alberga la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, no ha sido posible por cuanto amerita una disposición presupuestaria que no puede afrontar actualmente el gobierno local, por lo que se ha pensado en una remodelación por etapas para poder solventar las necesidades de acceso a las personas con discapacidad y público en general. Para ello la Administración Municipal de Pérez Zeledón en asocio con el Concejo Municipal ha iniciado los estudios técnicos y presupuestarios que permitan realizar la remodelación del edificio que ocupan, iniciando por la construcción de un nuevo salón de sesiones en el primer piso y consecuentemente, la movilización a la misma primera planta de la mayoría de oficinas que tienen como función primordial la atención al público. En múltiples ocasiones, la Sala se ha referido sobre la protección especial que merecen las personas con discapacidad, en los términos del artículo 51 constitucional, 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. 2288-99 de las 11:06 horas 26 de marzo de 1999). La Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad tiene por objetivo fundamental que se logren las condiciones necesarias para que las personas que padecen cualquier tipo de problema de esa naturaleza alcancen su plena participación social. Precisamente, el disfrute de iguales oportunidades de acceso y participación en idénticas circunstancias deja de ser para ellos una simple aspiración y se convierte en un derecho fundamental. Al respecto, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha admitido como una violación a derechos fundamentales todos aquellos casos en que se impida a las personas con alguna discapacidad acceder a oficinas públicas o al transporte público, por ejemplo. Sobre el particular, es necesario reiterar que la Ley No. 7600 estableció disposiciones transitorias en que se fijaban plazos para la ejecución de las obligaciones señaladas en esa ley, plazos que han transcurrido sobradamente; lo que lleva a la Sala a estimar el amparo en el tanto sí se han producido las alegadas lesiones a los derechos fundamentales del amparado, ya que la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón ha demostrado desinterés en el cumplimiento adecuado de dichas obligaciones legales, lo que incide directamente y de forma negativa, en la equiparación de oportunidades y la no discriminación de las personas con discapacidad. Esa desidia se sanciona pues se ha contado con suficiente tiempo para atender situaciones como la apuntada. Ahora respecto a los obstáculos en las aceras, si bien se informa que se están realizando operativos constantes en el centro de esa ciudad a fin de detectar y remover los obstáculos que puedan existir sobre las mismas, de conformidad con la prueba documental aportada por el amparado y que consta a folios 131 a 136, es evidente que han sido insuficientes, pues ese impedimento persiste en múltiples formas. En consecuencia y al no haberse desvirtuado fehacientemente lo alegado sobre extremo, igualmente se considera procedente el amparo al respecto.

VI. - En cuanto a la Sucursal de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. Informa el Director Regional de la Dirección de Sucursales Brunca de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social que debido al aumento en la planilla de funcionarios de las áreas de Inspección, Cobros, Trabajo Social y otros, y ante la necesidad de contar con un laboratorio de gestión de informática, una sala de sesiones para las diferentes actividades que se desarrollen en la región y cumplir con los requerimientos de la Ley 7600, esa Dirección adquirió un nuevo edificio de dos plantas el primero de setiembre del 2007, el cual entró en funcionamiento a partir del 20 de diciembre del mismo año. En ese nuevo edificio el público es atendido en el primer nivel donde los puntos de trabajo fueron adaptados a las condiciones que la Ley 7600 señala y de solicitarse audiencia con los demás funcionarios del segundo nivel, se adecuó un lugar preferencial en la planta baja para la atención de personas con discapacidades y adultos mayores, de manera que el Director u otro funcionario que esté en el segundo nivel baje a brindar la atención correspondiente. En cuanto a la accesibilidad a ese edificio, se cuenta con las condiciones aptas tanto en las aceras como el tamaño de las puertas. Al respecto, llama la atención de este Tribunal que han transcurrido más de 10 años desde la aprobación de dicha ley y las autoridades de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social no han tomado las medidas necesarias para eliminar las barreras arquitectónicas. Como ya se indicó, el legislador conocedor de las dificultades administrativas y presupuestarias al promulgar la Ley 7600, “Ley de igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad” previó en su transitorio II, que todo espacio físico construido, sea de propiedad pública o privada, que implique concurrencia o atención al público, debería ser modificado en un plazo no mayor a diez años a partir de la vigencia de esta ley. Pese a esa clara disposición, del estudio del expediente y de las manifestaciones rendidas bajo juramento, se tiene que esa obligación normativa no ha sido acatada por las autoridades señaladas.

VII.- En cuanto a la Administración Tributaria de la Zona Sur. De conformidad con lo informado por el Ministro de Hacienda se tiene que actualmente la Administración Tributaria de la Zona Sur se encuentra ubicada en el cantón 19 Pérez Zeledón, en el edificio propiedad del señor Rodrigo Gerardo Quirós Jiménez, que ha sido arrendado por el Ministerio de Hacienda de conformidad con el contrato MH-030-2006, modificado por el MH-006-2007. Según las obligaciones del arrendante, el Ministerio de Hacienda se encuentra imposibilitado de realizar alguna modificación a la infraestructura de ese edificio si no se cuenta con la aprobación del propietario del inmueble. La atención al público en ventanilla por servicios de inscripción, desinscripción y modificación de bases de datos en el Registro Único de Contribuyentes RUC, adscrito al Área de Gestión de la Administración Tributaria de la Zona Sur, así como la atención de consultas generales personalizadas, se brinda estrictamente en el primer piso. El edificio mide 13.11 metros de ancho y desde la acera misma a todo lo ancho del terreno en que se encuentra la Administración, se mantiene un desnivel que no obstaculiza el ingreso de personas que por sus limitaciones hagan uso de ayudas biomecánicas (sillas de ruedas, muletas, bordones, etc), y no hay desniveles que presenten peligro en ninguno de esos casos y los servicios sanitarios habilitados en el primer piso para uso del público cumplen con todas las condiciones para ser usados por personas con limitaciones especiales. El ingreso al primer piso del edificio no tiene obstáculos, ya que los portones o acceso a la Administración son a lo ancho del edificio, separados por una columna al centro. El ingreso a la sala de atención al público ubicada en el primer piso cuenta con puertas anchas de dos hojas que permiten el ingreso de varias personas a la vez, sin embargo, por contar con aires acondicionados, esas puertas permanecen cerradas y son los oficiales de seguridad quienes las abren para aquellas personas que no pueden hacerlo por sus propios medios o bien tienen alguna dificultad para hacerlo. En cuanto a ese primer nivel, considera esta Sala que se han observado las especificaciones técnicas establecidas en la Ley 7600 para la atención de personas con alguna discapacidad. Sin embargo, no sucede lo mismo respecto a la segunda planta que igualmente, ocupa esa Administración. Véase que de conformidad con lo informado, en el segundo piso del edificio se encuentran las Áreas de Gestión y de Recaudación, específicamente, los procesos de atención de planes masivos que se caracterizan por tener actividades de ejecución de campo, en las que los gestores necesariamente se desplazan a los domicilios fiscales de los contribuyentes a comunicar sus actos. La atención de personas en la segunda planta no es usual, y por medidas de seguridad y en atención a la Ley 7600, esa Administración tiene habilitada desde este año 2008, una estación de trabajo completa en el primer piso que cuenta con su propia computadora con acceso a todos los servicios que brinda la Dirección General de Tributación, en la que se deben atender todas las personas que presenten una limitación especial y que requieran ser atendidos por un funcionario que labora en el segundo piso. El acceso a ese segundo piso se hace por medio de gradas, las cuales cuentan con pasamanos y fajas antideslizantes en cada escalón. Es evidente que esa planta no cuenta con los requerimientos legalmente exigidos para el tipo de usuarios que interesa en este amparo. No siendo suficiente para solventar esa deficiencia el que se traslade el funcionario a atender al primer piso, pues lo que se tutela es que las personas con alguna discapacidad tengan acceso por si misma a todos los servicios, sin intermediario alguno. Ahora, el hecho de que el diseño del edificio tenga prevista completa para la instalación de ascensor y que en el plan de compras del 2008 presentado por esa Administración en junio del 2007, se incluyó el aumento necesario en la partida de alquileres para cubrir ese costo adicional, no es suficiente para enervar la responsabilidad legal que tienen, toda vez que, conforme se señaló líneas atrás, se ha contado con suficiente tiempo para solventar todas esas situaciones, incluyendo las previsiones presupuestarias.

VIII.- En cuanto a la Agencia del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica en San Isidro de El General. De conformidad con lo informado por el Gerente de esa Agencia, se tiene que su Oficina se ubica en el segundo piso del edificio pero el acceso a la misma no es necesario para la totalidad de los clientes de la Agencia y además en el primer piso de la misma labora el Director de Operaciones, funcionario con las mismas condiciones de representación del Gerente y que está en la plena capacidad de atender cualquier gestión de un cliente en particular. En la eventualidad de que sea necesaria la presencia del Gerente, es perfectamente factible que se traslade a uno de los módulos de atención al cliente que se ubican en la primera planta del edificio y que están diseñados para la atención de personas con discapacidad. El Departamento de Crédito aunque se sitúa en su mayoría en el segundo piso del edificio, tiene acondicionada una plataforma identificada con el número 6, la cual tiene asignado no solo la realización de trámites propios de las plataformas, sino que se encarga de la atención especializada de solicitudes de crédito para personas aquejadas de algún tipo de discapacidad, estando destacada en esa plataforma una persona capacitada en el trámite crediticio. Esos argumentos no son aceptables para esta Sala pues es obvio que sí hay diferencias entre la atención que eventualmente se le pueda proporcionar a una persona con y a otra sin discapacidad alguna, cuando reiteradamente se ha señalado que lo preceptuado en la normativa respectiva y citada en forma reiterada en esta resolución, es que no existan ese tipo de diferencias, procurando que todas las personas tengan el mismo acceso a todos los servicios en iguales condiciones, lo que significa en el caso concreto, que por el eventual menoscabo físico de alguna no tenga que esperar a que llegue un funcionario que está ubicado en el segundo piso, a atenderlo en el primer piso, cuando debería accesar por sus propios medios a todas las dependencias permitidas.

IX.- Respecto a la sede del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en la Región Brunca. Informa a esta Sala el Director de esa sede que el acceso administrativo al edificio que ocupan, cuenta tanto con gradas como rampa, lo que posibilita a las personas con discapacidad física el poder ingresar a requerir los servicios públicos que brinda la Institución. La acera pública de la edificación también posee rampa y no se encuentra durante el tránsito por ésta, ninguna barrera arquitectónica o física que impida el libre tránsito, precisamente por ubicarse en una zona residencial y no comercial. Tampoco existen vallas publicitarias, mercadería, ganchos, rótulos de propaganda que ocasionen obstáculos a las personas con alguna deficiencia física, mental o sensorial. Por la discapacidad que manifiesta tener el recurrente, la cual no es motora sino visual, éste no enfrenta obstáculo alguno para acceder a todas las áreas de servicio que brinda el AyA en el Cantón de Pérez Zeledón. Bajo ese contexto, y no constando en autos prueba que desvirtúe esa información, se considera que en cuanto a esa Administración Pública no procede el amparo, por cuanto el recurrente y toda persona con alguna discapacidad, no tendría problemas para accesar por sus propios medios los servicios que ahí se prestan.

X.- En cuanto a la Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional en Pérez Zeledón. De conformidad con lo informado tanto por el Coordinador de la Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional en Pérez Zeledón como el Gerente de la Agencia del Banco de Costa Rica en la zona, se tiene que el acceso a la Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional en Pérez Zeledón se da por medio de una escalera que lleva a la segunda planta del edificio, en virtud del Convenio de Servicios entre el Banco de Costa Rica y la Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional, celebrado el 16 de julio de 1999, pues el área y la ubicación de la Sede Regional responden a las decisiones que sobre el bien inmueble puede tomar el propietario o quien ejerce el derecho de uso sobre la cosa, que es el Banco de Costa Rica. Es por ello que cuando el usuario no puede acceder a la Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional en Pérez Zeledón en la segunda planta, donde hay una ventanilla preferencial para personas de tercera edad, con discapacidad y otras, los Guardas se comunican con los funcionarios del Registro Público, de modo que se envía a uno de aquellos funcionarios al primer piso para atenderla oportuna y debidamente. Igualmente, que ese Convenio dispuso que la remodelación inicial del área designada fuera realizada por una única vez por el Banco, siendo que cualquier remodelación posterior de esa Área sería una decisión exclusiva de aquella Junta. A esta Sala no le corresponde entrar a determinar, en virtud del citado Convenio, cual de esas dos Instituciones debe realizar las modificaciones físicas del edificio que ocupa el Registro Nacional, para asegurar a las personas con discapacidad, el acceso a los servicios que presta esa entidad, por ser un asunto de legalidad, pero sí es evidente que personas con condiciones como el aquí recurrente, no pueden requerir en forma directa un servicio y de ahí que se deba estimar el amparo. Aparte de ello, se debe hacer hincapié en que la tutela a un derecho fundamental está por encima de un acuerdo contractual o disposición legal.

XI.- Referente a la Biblioteca Pública de Pérez Zeledón. Sobre esa entidad se tiene que la Comisión de Accesibilidad 7600 Igualdad de Oportunidad formada por el Concejo Municipal de Pérez Zeledón, para este año se ha organizado para dar solución al problema denunciado por el ciudadano en el presente recurso respecto a la Biblioteca Pública. Es por ello, que el proyecto de adecuación del edificio que ocupa, aprobado con 9 votos por el Concejo Municipal en sesión ordinaria número 103-08, artículo 4) inciso 5), del 15 de abril del 2008, por un monto de dieciséis millones quinientos mil colones, se encuentra con un avance bastante importante llegando casi a su etapa final, donde actualmente se está en espera del diseño final de los cubículos y el área para discapacitados por parte del Ingeniero Municipal, para posteriormente iniciar con los trámites administrativos de las licitaciones para la realización final del proyecto. A pesar de ese avance, se considera que igualmente se ha producido la alegada infracción constitucional, pues la Administración ha contado con suficiente tiempo para adecuar su edificación a la normativa establecida en la citada Ley, a fin de permitir que personas como el recurrente, tenga libre acceso por sus propios medios a los servicios que ahí se proporcionan, lo cual en las condiciones actuales no es posible.

XII.- En cuanto a la Oficina del Banco de Costa Rica en San Isidro de El General. De conformidad con lo informado, se tiene que esa Oficina cuenta con las siguientes facilidades para la atención de los clientes con una capacidad diferenciada o disminuida (visual, física-motora, etc.): a. Atención personalizada en la primera planta en un área acondicionada especialmente para ello; b. Servicio de cajas con cubículos adecuados en altura y espacio para personas que por su condición deban permanecer sentadas; c. Se han habilitado rampas para posibilitar el ingreso de los clientes con discapacidad; d. Se ha dispuesto de espacios reservados exclusivamente para vehículos que transporten a personas con alguna discapacidad; e. La oficina en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por la Ley 7600, cuenta con servicio sanitario con todas las características recomendadas para la atención diferenciada de los clientes (ancho de puerta, altura del inodoro, agarraderas, etc.). Bajo ese contexto, se considera que no procede el amparo, por cuanto la citada Oficina cuenta con una planta física adecuada a las exigencias de la Ley 7600 y que en consecuencia, no tendría el recurrente y personas en similares condiciones, problema alguno para accesar a los diversos servicios que prestan.

XIII.- Respecto a la Sucursal del Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal en Pérez Zeledón. Informa el Gerente de esa Agencia que el edificio que ocupan cuenta con un amplio parqueo y con espacio rotulado para personas con discapacidad. Las aceras frente a la Sucursal se encuentran en buen estado y son aptas para el ingreso de las personas con capacidades diferentes. Las aceras que colindan con el edificio que ocupan no poseen barreras arquitectónicas que impidan el libre tránsito frente al edificio y no existen vallas publicitarias ni rótulos de propaganda, ni se colocan mercaderías sobre la acera. En la primera planta del edificio existe un servicio sanitario acondicionado y un cajero automático con voz para personas con discapacidad. En la Plataforma de Servicios hay una caja preferencial debidamente rotulada y cuentan con personal capacitado en lenguaje Lesco. Para el acceso a la segunda planta hay una grada de 1.28 metros de ancha, formada por 18 escalones con 4 espacios amplios cada 3 escalones. Ahí se encuentra principalmente el área administrativa, contabilidad, la gerencia, la secretaria de la gerencia, un funcionario que atiende “Banco en su Empresa” y los analistas de crédito de desarrollo. Cuando se requiere atender un cliente con alguna discapacidad, el personal está debidamente informado de que debe atenderlo en la planta baja. En igual manera respecto a esa entidad bancaria se estima que hay responsabilidad acerca de lo demandado por el recurrente, pues aunque se tiene muy bien acondicionada la primera planta del edificio donde se ubican, es lo cierto que no sucede lo mismo en cuanto al segundo piso, ya que se desprende de lo informado que no tiene accesibilidad para las personas que presenten alguna discapacidad, de tal manera que tenga que descender un funcionario a atenderlo. Como ya se ha señalado, ese proceder no es aceptable, por cuanto la edificación debe tener las condiciones físicas que permitan el libre acceso al público sin distingo y por sus propios medios, excepto por supuesto a los aposentos que solo permitan al personal de la Institución.

XIV.- Respecto a la Dirección Regional de Educación de Pérez Zeledón. Al informar el Director Regional, únicamente, que la situación expuesta por el recurrente ya se encuentra contemplada como prioridad en el presupuesto para el año 2009 según lo establece la Ley 7600, es más que evidente que su actual ubicación no reúne las condiciones que establece esa normativa para las personas con discapacidades y para lo cual el Legislador, de conformidad con lo reseñado, confirió un plazo que incluso se encuentra más que vencido. De ahí la procedencia del amparo contra esa Institución.

XV.- Conclusión. En virtud de lo expuesto, este Tribunal estima que debido a las barreras arquitectónicas que presentan las edificaciones que ocupan la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón, la Dirección Regional de la Dirección de Sucursales Brunca de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, la Administración Tributaria de la Zona Sur, las Agencias del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica y el Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal en San Isidro de El General, la Oficina Regional del Registro Nacional, la Biblioteca Pública y la Dirección Regional de Educación, todas en Pérez Zeledón, se acredita la discriminación sufrida por el recurrente, lo que en definitiva lesiona sus derechos fundamentales. De autos se extrae que la omisión de esas autoridades al no haber adoptado medidas necesarias para la equiparación de oportunidades y la no discriminación de las personas con discapacidad, le ha impedido al recurrente desarrollarse libre e independientemente. Como ya se indicó en la sentencia de este Tribunal No. 6732-98 de las quince horas dieciocho minutos del 18 de setiembre de 1998, el fiel desarrollo y ejecución de la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad forma parte del derecho a la igualdad de quienes sufren de ese tipo de dificultades: “La Sala entiende que esta normativa tiene sustento fundamental en los artículos 33, 50, 51 y 67 de la Constitución Política, de manera que su dictado, más que un contenido meramente programático, implica la ejecución real de principios básicos para permitir el desarrollo moral, físico, intelectual y espiritual de las personas con discapacidad física. Es en realidad, la creación de un sistema de actualización y de promoción de las condiciones necesarias para que las personas con discapacidad alcancen su plena participación social (artículo 3 inciso a) de la Ley 7600) y por ello, el incumplimiento de sus disposiciones, implica una violación flagrante de los derechos fundamentales de las personas con discapacidad.” (En el mismo sentido ver la sentencia número 2002-09233 de las 10:56 horas del 20 de setiembre de 2002). Derecho, que considera la Sala se ha infringido en este caso, con la omisión de las autoridades señaladas de controlar y tener los requerimientos propios de acceso al espacio físico para las personas con discapacidad. Además, resulta necesario reiterar que la deficiencia de recursos materiales y presupuestarios no constituye una causal que exima a la Administración de su obligación de respetar los derechos fundamentales de los habitantes. En mérito de lo expuesto se impone declarar con lugar el amparo, por lo que deberán los recurridos, dentro del plazo que se dirá, acondicionar las edificaciones que garanticen en forma plena el ejercicio de los derechos y deberes de las personas con discapacidad que acuden a ellas. En cuanto a la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón también procede el amparo por la problemática de obstrucción de las aceras y que no hay duda afecta al amparado en su transitar. Respecto al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en la Región Brunca y la Oficina del Banco de Costa Rica en San Isidro de El General, se desestima el amparo al haberse demostrado que las edificaciones que ocupan son accesibles a personas con discapacidad.”