Denial of Access to Naturalization File by Civil RegistryAcceso a expediente de naturalización denegado por el Registro Civil

**I.- Purpose of the appeal (recurso).-** The petitioner files the appeal on behalf of the protected party because he considers that the denial of access to the naturalization proceeding file on August 24, 2010, violated his fundamental rights.

**IV.- Regarding the right of access to administrative information.-** Article 30 of the Political Constitution guarantees free access to "administrative departments for purposes of information on matters of public interest," a fundamental right that in legal doctrine has been called the right of access to administrative information, and which emanates from the principle of publicity that covers administrative action, as an object of public interest. This Constitutional Court, on several prior occasions, has referred to the fundamental right derived from Article 30 of our Magna Carta, called the right of access to administrative information, stating the following:

**"IV.- THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** Article 30 of the Political Constitution guarantees free access to "administrative departments for purposes of information on matters of public interest," a fundamental right that in legal doctrine has been called the right of access to administrative archives and records; however, the most accurate denomination should be the right of access to administrative information, since access to the physical or virtual media of public administrations is the instrument or mechanism to achieve the intended purpose, which is for the administered parties to become apprised of the information held by those entities. It is necessary to point out that the administrative information of public interest sought by an administered party is not always found in an administrative file, archive, or record. The right of access to administrative information is a control mechanism in the hands of the administered parties, since it allows them to exercise optimal control over legality and over timeliness, convenience, or merit, and, in general, over the effectiveness and efficiency of the administrative function performed by the various public entities. Efficient and effective public administrations are those that submit to public control and scrutiny, but citizen control cannot exist without adequate information. In this way, a logical chain can be established between access to administrative information, knowledge and handling thereof, effective or timely citizen control, and efficient public administrations. The right of access to administrative information has a profound foundation in a series of principles and values inherent to the Social and Democratic Rule of Law, which, at the same time, it also enacts. Thus, effective and direct citizen participation in the management and handling of public affairs is inconceivable without a significant body of information about administrative competencies and services; likewise, the democratic principle is strengthened when various social, economic, and political forces and groups participate actively and informatively in the formation and execution of public will. Finally, the right of access to administrative information is an indispensable tool, like many others, for the full enforcement of the principles of administrative transparency and publicity. The content of the right of access to administrative information is truly broad and consists of a bundle of powers vested in the person exercising it, such as the following: a) access to public departments, offices, buildings; b) access to archives, records, files, and physical or automated documents—databases and files—; c) the power of the administered party to know stored personal or nominative data that affects him/her in any way; d) the power of the administered party to rectify or eliminate such data if they are erroneous, incorrect, or false; e) the right to know the content of physical or virtual documents and files; and f) the right to obtain, at his/her own expense, certifications or copies thereof.

**V.- TYPOLOGY OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** A clear distinction can be made between the right of access to administrative information (a) ad extra —outside— and (b) ad intra —within— an administrative procedure. The first is granted to any person or administered party interested in accessing specific administrative information —uti universi— and the second, only to the interested parties in a specific and concrete administrative procedure —uti singuli—. This right is regulated in the General Public Administration Law in its Sixth Chapter entitled "On access to the file and its parts," Third Title of the Second Book, in Articles 272 to 274. Article 30 of the Political Constitution, evidently, refers to the right of access ad extra, since it is absolutely independent of the existence of an administrative procedure. This right has not been legislatively developed in a systematic and coherent manner, which constitutes a serious and significant gap in our legal system that has persisted for more than fifty years since the validity of the constitutional text. The regulation of this right has been fragmented and sectorial; thus, by way of example, the National Archive System Law No. 7202 of October 24, 1990, regulates it regarding documents with scientific and cultural value belonging to public entities and bodies —passive subjects— that make up the National Archive System (the Legislative, Judicial, Executive Powers and other public entities with legal personality, as well as those deposited in private and individual archives subject to the provisions of that legal body)..." (resolution number 2004-05693 at fifteen hours and thirty-six minutes on May twenty-sixth, two thousand four). In this way, it is understood that this is a fundamental right held by any person interested in accessing specific administrative information, whether or not it is in connection with a specific and concrete administrative procedure.

Given that, in the latter case, access to the file within an administrative procedure is subject to the regulations and limitations established in Articles 272 to 274 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (Article 272.- 1. The parties and their representatives, and any attorney, shall have the right at any stage of the procedure to examine, read, and copy any part of the file, as well as to request certification thereof, with the exceptions indicated in the following article. // 2. The cost of the copies and certifications shall be at the expense of the petitioner. Article 273.- 1. There shall be no access to the parts of the file whose knowledge could compromise state secrets or confidential information from the counterparty or, in general, when the examination of said parts confers upon the party an undue privilege or an opportunity to illegitimately harm the Administration, the counterparty, or third parties, within or outside the file. // 2. Draft resolutions, as well as reports for consultative bodies and their opinions before they have been issued, shall be presumed to be in this condition, unless proven otherwise. Article 274.- The decision denying knowledge of and access to a part must be sufficiently reasoned. The ordinary appeals provided for in this law shall be admissible against such decision.") **V.- Regarding the specific case.-** Taking into account the preceding recital (considerando), in the matter under study, from the report rendered by the representative of the appealed authority —which are taken as given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction—, and the evidence provided for the resolution of the present matter, it is proven that indeed on August 24, 2010, the petitioner appeared before the Options and Naturalizations Section of the Civil Registry to consult the protected party's naturalization file. Being that what happened afterward has not been duly established before this Court. However, in view of the circumstantial evidence detailed below, it is concluded that in this case there has indeed been a violation of the right of access to the file. First, the appealed party himself reports that the protected party's naturalization proceeding was referred for consultation to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) on August 17, 2010, so on August 24 the file was not in the possession of the Options and Naturalizations Section; therefore, this Chamber has a first indication that what the petitioner stated is true, in the sense that when he appeared at said office they told him that "the window clerk told me that the file was at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal..." Second, the appealed parties do not prove that on that day they gave the petitioner the proper information, whether regarding its current status (approved, rejected, or under review), regarding the possibility of checking it in the computer system, or that they indicated to him the procedure to follow to be able to access the file that was under consultation before the Supreme Electoral Tribunal; therefore, this Chamber has another indication that what the petitioner stated is true, in the sense that at that moment they told him that "the file was at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and therefore they could not give me any type of information..." While it is true that it is not proven that the petitioner filed any complaint before the Options and Naturalizations Section, or went to the higher instances of the Civil Registry to file it, this does not eliminate the fact that access to the file had already been denied to him, or at least, he had not been duly informed of the manner in which he could have access to it —which also amounts to a denial—. It should be noted that, in this type of case involving a denial, substantial proof of the denial cannot be demanded from the affected party, so this Constitutional Court may well make use of the aforementioned circumstantial evidence to consider the violation of the fundamental right as verified. In conclusion, given that it is proven that on August 24, 2010, the petitioner appeared before the Options and Naturalizations Section of the Civil Registry to consult the protected party's naturalization file, and that it is not proven that at that moment the window clerk of the Options and Naturalizations Section informed him about its current status (approved, rejected, or under review), informed him that he could check it in the computer system, or indicated to him the procedure to follow to be able to access the file that was under consultation before the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, this Constitutional Chamber admits as true the allegation that he was denied access to the file in question, without any reasonable justification; therefore, the granting of this appeal (recurso) is required, with the consequences detailed in the operative part of this resolution (Por tanto)." Being that, in this latter case, access to the case file (expediente) within an administrative procedure is subject to the regulations and limitations established in Articles 272 to 274 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública ( **Article 272.-** 1. The parties and their representatives, and any attorney, shall have the right at any stage of the procedure to examine, read, and copy any piece of the case file, as well as to request certification thereof, with the exceptions indicated in the following article. // 2. The cost of copies and certifications shall be borne by the petitioner. **Article 273.-** 1. There shall be no access to the pieces of the case file whose knowledge may compromise State secrets or confidential information of the counterparty or, in general, when the examination of said pieces grants the party an undue privilege or an opportunity to illegitimately harm the Administration, the counterparty, or third parties, inside or outside the case file. // 2. Draft resolutions shall be presumed in this condition, unless proven otherwise, as well as reports for advisory bodies and their opinions before they have been rendered. **Article 274.-** The decision that denies knowledge and access to a piece must be sufficiently reasoned. The ordinary remedies of this law shall be admissible against it.” ) **V.- Regarding the specific case.-** Taking into account the preceding whereas clause (considerando), in the matter under study, from the report rendered by the representative of the appealed authority –which is taken as given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law that governs this Jurisdiction–, and the evidence provided for the resolution of this matter, it is proven that indeed on August 24, 2010, the appellant appears before the Options and Naturalizations Section of the Civil Registry to consult the protected party's naturalization case file. Being that, what occurred afterwards has not been duly established before this Court. However, in view of the circumstantial evidence detailed below, it is concluded that in this case there has indeed been a violation of the right of access to the case file. **First**, the respondent itself reports that the naturalization process for the protected party was submitted for consultation to the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones on August 17, 2010, so that on August 24 the case file was not in the possession of the Options and Naturalizations Section, for which this Chamber has a first indication that what was affirmed by the appellant is true, in the sense that when he appeared at said office they told him that *“the official at the window informed me that the case file was at the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones…”* **Second**, the respondents do not prove that on that day they gave the appellant the proper information, whether about the current status of it (approved, rejected, or under study), about the possibility of reviewing it in the computer system or that they indicated the procedure to follow in order to gain access to the case file that was under consultation before the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones; for which this Chamber has another indication that what was affirmed by the appellant is true, in the sense that at that time they told him that *“the case file was at the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones and that therefore they could not give me any type of information…”*.While it is true that it is not proven that the appellant filed any complaint before the Options and Naturalizations Section, or went to the higher authorities of the Civil Registry to file it, this does not eliminate the fact that access to the case file had already been denied to him, or at least, the manner in which he could gain access to it had not been duly indicated to him –which is also equivalent to a denial–. It should be noted that, in this type of case involving a denial, the affected party cannot be required to provide substantial proof of the denial, for which this Constitutional Court may well make use of the aforementioned circumstantial evidence to consider the violation of the fundamental right as verified. **In conclusion,** given that it is accredited that on August 24, 2010, the appellant appeared before the Options and Naturalizations Section of the Civil Registry to consult the protected party's naturalization case file, and that it is not accredited that at that moment the person in charge of the window of the Options and Naturalizations Section informed him about the current status of it (approved, rejected, or under study), informed him that he could review it in the computer system, or indicated the procedure to follow in order to gain access to the case file that was under consultation before the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, this Constitutional Chamber admits as true the allegation that he was denied access to the case file in question, without any reasonable justification; therefore, the granting of this amparo action (recurso) is imposed, with the consequences detailed in the operative part of this resolution.” ... of October 24, 1990, regulates the matter regarding documents with scientific and cultural value of public entities and bodies —passive subjects— that make up the National Archives System (Sistema Nacional de Archivos) (Legislative, Judicial, Executive Branches and other public entities with legal personality, as well as those deposited in private and particular archives subject to the provisions of that legal body)…” (resolution number 2004-05693 of fifteen hours and thirty-six minutes of May twenty-sixth, two thousand four). It is thus understood that this is a fundamental right held by any person interested in accessing a specific administrative information, whether or not on the occasion of a concrete and specific administrative proceeding. In the latter case, access to the case file (expediente) within an administrative proceeding is subject to the regulations and limitations established in articles 272 to 274 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (Article 272.- 1. The parties and their representatives, and any attorney, shall have the right in any phase of the proceeding to examine, read, and copy any piece of the case file (expediente), as well as to request certification thereof, with the exceptions indicated in the following article. // 2. The cost of the copies and certifications shall be borne by the petitioner. Article 273.- 1. There shall be no access to the pieces of the case file (expediente) whose knowledge may compromise state secrets or confidential information of the counterparty or, in general, when the examination of said pieces grants the party an undue privilege or an opportunity to illegitimately harm the Administration, the counterparty, or third parties, within or outside the case file (expediente). // 2. Draft resolutions shall be presumed in this condition, unless proven otherwise, as well as reports for consultative bodies and the opinions of these before they have been rendered. Article 274.- The decision that denies knowledge of and access to a piece must be sufficiently reasoned. The ordinary appeals provided in this law may be filed against it.)

V.- Regarding the specific case.- Taking into account the preceding whereas clause, in the matter under study, from the report rendered by the representative of the challenged authority —which is taken as given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in article 44 of the Law that governs this Jurisdiction—, and the evidence provided for the resolution of the present matter, it is verified that in fact on August 24, 2010, the appellant appeared before the Options and Naturalizations section of the Civil Registry to consult the protected party’s naturalization case file (expediente). However, what occurred afterwards has not been duly established before this Court. However, in view of the indications detailed below, it is concluded that in this case there has indeed been a violation of the right of access to the case file (expediente). Firstly, the respondent itself reports that the protected party’s naturalization process was referred for consultation to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) on August 17, 2010, so on August 24 the case file (expediente) was not in the possession of the Options and Naturalizations section; therefore, this Chamber has a first indication that what was affirmed by the appellant is true in the sense that when he appeared at said office they told him that “the official at the counter informed me that the case file (expediente) was at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones)…” Secondly, the respondents do not prove that on that day they gave the appellant the due information, whether about the current status of it (approved, rejected, or under study), about the possibility of reviewing it in the computer system, or that they indicated the procedure to follow to gain access to the case file (expediente) that was under consultation before the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones); therefore, this Chamber has another indication that what was affirmed by the appellant is true in the sense that at that moment they told him that “the case file (expediente) was at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) and that therefore they could not give me any type of information…” Although it is true that it is not proven that the appellant filed any complaint before the Options and Naturalizations section, or went to the higher instances of the Civil Registry to file it, this does not eliminate the fact that access to the case file (expediente) had already been denied to him, or at least, he had not been duly informed of the way in which he could have access to it —which also amounts to a denial—. Note that, in this type of case involving a denial, the affected party cannot be required to provide substantial proof of the denial; therefore, this Constitutional Court can very well make use of the aforementioned circumstantial evidence (prueba indiciaria) to consider the violation of the fundamental right as verified. In conclusion, given that it is accredited that on August 24, 2010, the appellant appeared before the Options and Naturalizations section of the Civil Registry to consult the protected party’s naturalization case file (expediente), and that it is not accredited that at that moment the person in charge of the counter of the Options and Naturalizations section informed him about the current status of it (approved, rejected, or under study), informed him that he could review it in the computer system, or indicated the procedure to follow to gain access to the case file (expediente) that was under consultation before the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), this Constitutional Chamber admits as true the allegation that he was denied access to the case file (expediente) in question, without any reasonable justification; therefore, the granting of this appeal (recurso) is warranted, with the consequences detailed in the operative part of this resolution.

“I.- Objeto del recurso.- El recurrente plantea el recurso a favor del amparado pues considera que la negativa de acceso al expediente del trámite de naturalización, el día 24 de agosto del 2010, violentó sus derechos fundamentales.

IV.- Sobre el derecho de acceso a la información administrativa.- El artículo 30 de la Constitución Política garantiza el libre acceso a los “departamentos administrativos con propósitos de información sobre asuntos de interés público”, derecho fundamental que en la doctrina se ha denominado derecho de acceso a la información administrativa, y que emana del principio de publicidad que cubre a la actuación administrativa, en tanto objeto del interés público. Este Tribunal Constitucional, en varias oportunidades anteriores se ha referido al derecho fundamental derivado del artículo 30 de nuestra Carta Magna, denominado derecho de acceso a la información administrativa, indicándose lo siguiente:

“IV.- EL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. El ordinal 30 de la Constitución Política garantiza el libre acceso a los “departamentos administrativos con propósitos de información sobre asuntos de interés público”, derecho fundamental que en la doctrina se ha denominado derecho de acceso a los archivos y registros administrativos, sin embargo la denominación más acertada debe ser la de derecho de acceso a la información administrativa, puesto que, el acceso a los soportes materiales o virtuales de las administraciones públicas es el instrumento o mecanismo para alcanzar el fin propuesto que consiste en que los administrados se impongan de la información que detentan aquéllas. Es menester indicar que no siempre la información administrativa de interés público que busca un administrado se encuentra en un expediente, archivo o registro administrativo. El derecho de acceso a la información administrativa es un mecanismo de control en manos de los administrados, puesto que, le permite a éstos, ejercer un control óptimo de la legalidad y de la oportunidad, conveniencia o mérito y, en general, de la eficacia y eficiencia de la función administrativa desplegada por los diversos entes públicos. Las administraciones públicas eficientes y eficaces son aquellas que se someten al control y escrutinio público, pero no puede existir un control ciudadano sin una adecuada información. De este modo se puede establecer un encadenamiento lógico entre acceso a la información administrativa, conocimiento y manejo de ésta, control ciudadano efectivo u oportuno y administraciones públicas eficientes. El derecho de acceso a la información administrativa tiene un profundo asidero en una serie de principios y valores inherentes al Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, los cuales, al propio tiempo, actúa. Así la participación ciudadana efectiva y directa en la gestión y manejo de los asuntos públicos resulta inconcebible si no se cuenta con un bagaje importante de información acerca de las competencias y servicios administrativos, de la misma forma, el principio democrático se ve fortalecido cuando las diversas fuerzas y grupos sociales, económicos y políticos participan activa e informadamente en la formación y ejecución de la voluntad pública. Finalmente, el derecho de acceso a la información administrativa es una herramienta indispensable, como otras tantas, para la vigencia plena de los principios de transparencia y publicidad administrativas. El contenido del derecho de acceso a la información administrativa es verdaderamente amplio y se compone de un haz de facultades en cabeza de la persona que lo ejerce tales como las siguientes: a) acceso a los departamentos, dependencias, oficinas y edificios públicos; b) acceso a los archivos, registros, expedientes y documentos físicos o automatizados —bases de datos ficheros—; c) facultad del administrado de conocer los datos personales o nominativos almacenados que le afecten de alguna forma, d) facultad del administrado de rectificar o eliminar esos datos si son erróneos, incorrectos o falsos; e) derecho de conocer el contenido de los documentos y expedientes físicos o virtuales y f) derecho de obtener, a su costo, certificaciones o copias de los mismos.

V.- TIPOLOGIA DEL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. Se puede distinguir con claridad meridiana entre el derecho de acceso a la información administrativa (a) ad extra –fuera- y (b) ad intra —dentro— de un procedimiento administrativo. El primero se otorga a cualquier persona o administrado interesado en acceder una información administrativa determinada —uti universi— y el segundo, únicamente, a las partes interesadas en un procedimiento administrativo concreto y específico —uti singuli—. Este derecho se encuentra normado en la Ley General de la Administración Pública en su Capítulo Sexto intitulado “Del acceso al expediente y sus piezas”, Título Tercero del Libro Segundo en los artículos 272 a 274. El numeral 30 de la Constitución Política, evidentemente, se refiere al derecho de acceso ad extra, puesto que, es absolutamente independiente de la existencia de un procedimiento administrativo. Este derecho no ha sido desarrollado legislativamente de forma sistemática y coherente, lo cual constituye una seria y grave laguna de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico que se ha prolongado en el tiempo por más de cincuenta años desde la vigencia del texto constitucional. La regulación de este derecho ha sido fragmentada y sectorial, así, a título de ejemplo, la Ley del Sistema Nacional de Archivos No. 7202 del 24 de octubre de 1990, lo norma respecto de los documentos con valor científico y cultural de los entes y órganos públicos —sujetos pasivos— que conforman el Sistema Nacional de Archivos (Poderes Legislativo, Judicial, Ejecutivo y demás entes públicos con personalidad jurídica, así como los depositados en los archivos privados y particulares sometidos a las previsiones de ese cuerpo legal)…” (resolución número 2004-05693 de las quince horas con treinta y seis minutos del veintiséis de mayo del dos mil cuatro).De esta forma se entiende que se trata de un derecho fundamental que tiene cualquier persona interesada en acceder una información administrativa determinada, sea o no, con ocasión de un procedimiento administrativo concreto y específico. Siendo que, en este último caso, el acceso al expediente dentro de un procedimiento administrativo está sujeto a las regulaciones y limitaciones establecidas en los artículos 272 a 274 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (Artículo 272.- 1. Las partes y sus representantes, y cualquier abogado, tendrán derecho en cualquier fase del procedimiento a examinar, leer y copiar cualquier pieza del expediente, así como a pedir certificación de la misma, con las salvedades que indica el artículo siguiente. // 2. El costo de las copias y certificaciones será de cuenta del petente. Artículo 273.- 1. No habrá acceso a las piezas del expediente cuyo conocimiento pueda comprometer secretos de Estado o información confidencial de la contraparte o, en general, cuando el examen de dichas piezas confiera a la parte un privilegio indebido o una oportunidad para dañar ilegítimamente a la Administración, a la contraparte o a terceros, dentro o fuera del expediente. // 2. Se presumirán en esta condición, salvo prueba en contrario, los proyectos de resolución, así como los informes para órganos consultivos y los dictámenes de éstos antes de que hayan sido rendidos. Artículo 274.- La decisión que negare el conocimiento y acceso a una pieza deberá ser suficientemente motivada. Cabrán contra la misma los recursos ordinarios de esta ley.”) V.- Sobre el caso concreto.- Tomando en cuenta el considerando anterior, en el asunto bajo estudio, del informe rendido por el representante de la autoridad recurrida -que se tienen por dados bajo fe de juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción-, y la prueba aportada para la resolución del presente asunto, se comprueba que en efecto el 24 de agosto del 2010 el recurrente se presenta ante la sección de Opciones y Naturalizaciones del Registro Civil a consultar expediente de naturalización del amparado. Siendo que, lo que ocurrió después no ha quedado debidamente establecido en este Tribunal. Sin embargo, en vista de los indicios que a continuación se detallan se concluye que en este caso sí ha habido una violación del derecho de acceso al expediente. En primer lugar, el mismo recurrido informa que el trámite de naturalización del amparado fue elevado en consulta al Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones el 17 de agosto del 2010, así que el 24 de agosto el expediente no estaba en poder de la sección de Opciones y Naturalizaciones, por lo que esta Sala tiene un primer indicio de que sea cierto lo afirmado por el recurrente en el sentido de que cuando se presenta a dicha oficina le indican que “el funcionario de la ventanilla me comunicó que el expediente estaba en el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones…” En segundo lugar, no prueban los recurridos que ese día le hayan dado la debida información al recurrente, sea sobre el estado actual de este (aprobado, rechazado o en estudio), sobre la posibilidad de revisar en el sistema informático o le indicaran el procedimiento a seguir para poder tener acceso al Elecciones; por lo que esta Sala tiene otro indicio de que sea cierto lo afirmado por el recurrente en el sentido de que en se momento le indican que “el darme ningún tipo de información…” Si bien es cierto no se prueba que el recurrente presentara queja alguna ante la sección de Opciones y Naturalizaciones, o acudiera a las instancias superiores del Registro Civil a plantearla, ello no elimina el hecho de que el acceso al expediente ya le había sido denegado, o al menos, no se le había indicado debidamente la forma en que podía tener acceso a él –lo que equivale también a una denegatoria-. Nótese que, en este tipo de casos en que de una denegatoria se trata, no se le puede exigir al afectado prueba sustancial de la denegatoria, por lo que este Tribunal Constitucional bien puede hacer uso de la prueba indiciaria mencionada para tener por constatada la violación al derecho fundamental. En conclusión, dado que se acredita que el 24 de agosto del 2010 el recurrente se presenta ante la sección de Opciones y Naturalizaciones del Registro Civil a consultar expediente de naturalización del amparado, y que no se acredita que en ese momento el encargado de ventanilla de la sección de Opciones y Naturalizaciones le informara sobre el estado actual de este (aprobado, rechazado o en estudio), le informara que podía revisar en el sistema informático o le indicara el procedimiento a seguir para poder tener acceso al expediente que se encuentra en consulta ante el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, esta Sala Constitucional admite como cierto el alegato de que le fue denegado el acceso al expediente en cuestión, sin justificación razonable alguna; por lo tanto se impone la estimatoria de este recurso, con las consecuencias que se detallan en la parte dispositiva de esta resolución.”