Immediate access to the administrative file in municipal proceedingsAcceso inmediato al expediente administrativo en trámites municipales

“I.- PURPOSE OF THE RECURSO. The petitioner raises the following complaints: a) that the new building of the Municipality of Osa does not comply with the provisions of Law No. 7600, in order to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can access the second floor; b) that gates have been installed to prevent members of the public from having access to various offices of the Municipality, unless they have the approval of the Mayor; and c) that on January 18 and 19, 2010, he appeared before the Municipality to review and photocopy a case file (expediente) that he is currently processing before the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department (Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre), but he was told that for such purposes he had to file a formal written request and obtain the approval of the Mayor.

III.- ON THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND THE DUTY TO ELIMINATE ALL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. It must be stated, first of all, that the right to equality, as well as the prohibition of all forms of discrimination contrary to human dignity, enjoy profound recognition and protection under Constitutional Law. The Political Constitution itself enshrines in its Article 33 that: “Every person is equal before the law and no discrimination contrary to human dignity may be practiced.” In a similar sense, one should cite Articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Articles 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 1 and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, from which the duty of States to prevent and eliminate all forms of distinction or exclusion contrary to human dignity is derived. This acquires particular significance in the case of persons with some type of disability, such that a series of international instruments have even been subscribed with the express purpose of guaranteeing such persons the effective enjoyment of their fundamental rights, as well as to promote their full integration into society. One can cite, to this effect, the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities – which was incorporated into our legal system through Law No. 7948 of November 22, 1999 – which in its Article 1 defines discrimination in the following terms:

“(...) The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of disability, consequence of former or existing disability, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

That same international instrument enshrines the obligation of the subscribing States to adopt measures to progressively eliminate discrimination and promote integration by governmental authorities and/or private entities in the provision or supply of goods, services, facilities, programs, and activities, such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, access to justice and police services, and in political and administrative activities. This corroborates the duty of such States to promote, protect, and ensure for persons with some type of disability the effective enjoyment and under conditions of equality of all their fundamental rights, as well as their full participation and integration into society. In compliance with such duty – and in relation to the specific issue that motivates the filing of this recurso de amparo – Article 4, subsection b), of the Equal Opportunities Law for Persons with Disabilities (Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad, Law 7600 of May 2, 1996, and its amendments) provides that it is the responsibility of the State to guarantee that the environment, goods, services, and facilities for public service are accessible so that persons may use and enjoy them. In accordance with the foregoing, Article 41 of that same regulatory body provides:

"ARTICLE 41.- Regulatory technical specifications. New constructions, expansions, or remodeling of buildings, parks, sidewalks, gardens, plazas, 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 apply to housing projects of any nature, totally or partially financed with public funds. In this type of project, housing assigned to persons with disabilities or families of persons in which one of their members is a person with a disability must be located in a site that guarantees their easy access." The foregoing with the purpose of eliminating those architectural barriers that obstruct or prevent persons with some type of disability from being able to effectively and without discrimination exercise their fundamental rights, and which limit, moreover, their full participation and integration into Costa Rican society. Regarding this issue, in judgment number 2009-001650 of 11:41 a.m. on February 6, 2009, this Chamber recalled:

“(…) In repeated pronouncements, this Chamber has referred to the special and transcendental protection that disabled persons require and deserve, under the terms of Article 51 of the Constitution, so that they may 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 and an obligation of the rest of the people to respect those rights and fulfill the obligations derived from them (judgment No. 2288-99 of 11:06 a.m. on March 26, 1999). The Equal Opportunities Law for Persons with Disabilities has as its fundamental objective that the necessary conditions be achieved so that persons who hold some special condition, of that nature, achieve their full social participation. Precisely, due to its foundation, it ceases to be a simple aspiration and becomes a fundamental right. To guarantee the exercise of their rights and duties, the Law and its Regulations impose on Public Administrations and on private law subjects that provide public service, the duty to provide disabled persons with support services, the required technical aids, and the suppression of all types of architectural barriers. Within this order of ideas, non-compliance with the public interest that the law enshrines implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of that social group. The effective protection of the rights of disabled persons, constitutionally enshrined, is one of the means by which this population group can have a free development of their personality and a dignified and quality life, facilitating their full integration into society.” (the underlining does not correspond to the original) Now, in the case at hand, the petitioner raises – as his first complaint – that the new building of the Municipality does not comply with the provisions of Law No. 7600, in order to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can access the second floor, where the office of the Municipal Mayor and some other administrative offices are located. For his part, the Municipal Mayor refutes the petitioner’s complaint and indicates in his report – which is rendered under the solemnity of an oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction – that the offices specifically designated for public service, as is the case of the Services Platform (Plataforma de Servicios) and the Services Comptroller’s Office (Contraloría de Servicios), are located on the ground floor of the building and every person can access them, including those persons with some type of disability, since, for such purposes, paths and cobblestone walkways have been built that facilitate movement to the property. The reporting party adds that, furthermore, on the first floor of the building, a meeting room has also been enabled for those cases in which he must meet with or attend to any person who finds it difficult to go up to the second floor, including those persons with some disability. Finally, the construction of an access ramp to the second floor is already being promoted, which is intended to be included in the budget for the year 2011. Thus, it is verified that the respondent Municipality has adopted concrete actions to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can be attended to on the first floor of the municipal building and, in this sense, can have free and full access to municipal services. Therefore, the amparo must be dismissed with respect to this point.

IV.- The petitioner adds, as a second complaint, that in the Municipality of Osa, gates have been installed in order to prevent the public from having access to various offices of the Municipality, unless they have the approval of the Mayor. For his part, the respondent authority indicates that such gates were not installed with the purpose of preventing the public's access to municipal services, but rather, only to regulate or control access to certain offices of the Municipality, for eminently security reasons, due to some thefts that the municipal corporation has suffered. He adds that, moreover, the placement of such gates does not affect the free entry of the public to the offices specifically designated for public service, as is the case of the Services Platform (Plataforma de Servicios) and the Services Comptroller’s Office (Contraloría de Servicios). Finally, he indicates that it is false that in the particular case of the petitioner he is being totally denied access to the entity. Regarding this issue, this Chamber also does not verify an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. This Tribunal has already recognized that the Administration, for the better fulfillment of the purposes entrusted to it, may regulate everything related to the access and permanence of persons in its facilities, as long as such measures are reasonable, proportional, and not discriminatory (see, to this effect, judgment number 2007-000259 of 11:28 a.m. on January 12, 2007). In the case under study, and in light of the elements of conviction added to the case file (autos), this Chamber concludes that the measures adopted by the Municipality are not discriminatory – since they are of general application – and are reasonable and proportional, to the extent that they do not prevent the public from having free access to the offices specifically designated for public service – in order to have access to municipal public services – and, conversely, they only seek to regulate and control the passage to the rest of the municipal offices, for evident security reasons. Therefore, the recurso must be dismissed with respect to this point.

V.- Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Chamber considers that Article 30 of the Political Constitution has indeed been infringed to the detriment of the petitioner, specifically regarding the obstacles that have been imposed on him to be able to review the case file (expediente) that he is currently processing before the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department (Departamento de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre). Regarding this point, the petitioner complains that on January 18 and 19, 2010, he appeared before the Municipality of Osa to review and photocopy the mentioned case file, and at the Services Platform (Plataforma de Servicios) he was told that for such purposes he had to file a formal written request and obtain the approval of the Mayor. For his part, the respondent authority does not deny such facts and, conversely, merely indicates that the petitioner must comply with the procedure that the Municipality has established so that the case file he seeks can be provided to him. In which case, it is disproportionate and unreasonable that the interested party in an administrative procedure must apply in writing and wait for formal approval from the Municipal Mayor, in order to be able to review the respective administrative case file (expediente administrativo). This Tribunal has developed the scope of the right of access to administrative information within the framework of an administrative procedure – ad intra information. Thus, in judgment number 2004-4637 of 12:15 p.m. on April 30, 2004, this Chamber resolved – in what is relevant – the following:

“(…) 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 doctrine has been called the right of access to administrative archives and records; however, the most accurate denomination is the right of access to administrative information, since access to the material or virtual media of public administrations is the instrument or mechanism to achieve the intended goal, which is that those governed become informed of the information held by those administrations. It is necessary to indicate that the administrative information of public interest sought by a person governed is not always found in an administrative case file, archive, or record. The right of access to administrative information is a control mechanism in the hands of the governed, since it allows them to exercise optimal control of legality and of opportunity, convenience, or merit and, in general, of the efficacy and efficiency of the administrative function deployed by the various public entities. Efficient and effective public administrations are those that submit to public control and scrutiny, but there can be no citizen control without adequate information. In this way, a logical chain can be established between access to administrative information, knowledge and handling of it, effective or timely citizen control, and efficient public administrations. The right of access to administrative information has a deep foundation in a series of principles and values inherent to the Social and Democratic State of Law, which, at the same time, it itself supports. 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 the various social, economic, and political forces and groups participate actively and informedly in the formation and execution of the public will. Finally, the right of access to administrative information is an indispensable tool, like so many others, for the full validity of the principles of administrative transparency and publicity. The content of the right of access to administrative information is truly broad and is composed of a bundle of powers vested in the person who exercises it, such as the following: a) access to departments, units, offices, and public buildings; b) access to archives, records, case files, and physical or automated documents – databases, files –; c) power of the person governed to know the stored personal or nominative data that affects them in any way; d) power of the person governed to rectify or eliminate that data if they are erroneous, incorrect, or false; e) right to know the content of documents and physical or virtual files; and f) right to obtain, at their cost, 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 – inside – an administrative procedure. The first is granted to any person or interested party seeking access to specific administrative information – uti universi – and the second, only to the interested parties in a specific and particular administrative procedure – uti singuli. Although this latter right is regulated in the General Law of Public Administration in its Sixth Chapter entitled ‘On Access to the Case File and Its Parts,’ Third Title of the Second Book in Articles 272 to 274, there is not the slightest doubt that it has its foundation in Article 30 of the Political Constitution and, therefore, enjoys the mechanisms of guarantee, protection, and defense provided for in the fundamental text (Article 48 of the Political Constitution) and developed by the procedural law of this jurisdiction (Articles 29 and following). This corollary is imposed upon considering the clearly insufficient, slow, and cumbersome nature of the sole mechanism of protection, established at the infraconstitutional level, of the right of access to administrative information ad intra of an administrative procedure. In effect, Article 274 of the General Law of Public Administration provides that against the resolution denying the knowledge of and access to a part of a case file, the ordinary remedies provided for by that normative body are available, that is, reconsideration (revocatoria), appeal (apelación), and, eventually, if it involves the highest authority, reconsideration (reposición), without providing for an expeditious and swift remedy when those remedies are declared unfounded, which makes it clearly insufficient by obligating the claimant to resort to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution) to seek the annulment of the resolution that denied them access to the administrative case file, a solution that entails a high economic and temporal cost for the aggrieved party and that is, by all appearances, tardy.” (the underlining does not correspond to the original) This corroborates that from Article 30 of the Political Constitution derives the right of the parties interested in an administrative procedure to have access to the case file (expediente) in which it materializes, which obviously includes their right to be able to examine and know its contents – whether personally or through their representatives – as well as to be guaranteed access to the case file immediately. In this regard, in judgment number 2004-13661 of 6:22 p.m. on November 30, 2004, this Chamber resolved:

“(…) On the other hand, the petitioner alleges a violation of his right enshrined in Article 30 of the Political Constitution, since according to his statement, the authorities of the Municipal Council of San José have not permitted him to have access to the administrative case file of the proceeding filed before the respondent Municipality. As is evident from the case file (autos), on October 13, 2004, the petitioner requested administrative case file No. 4290 from the Secretary of the Legal Affairs Commission (Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos). On that occasion, the petitioner could not have access to said case file because, at that precise moment, it was being subject to analysis and study by the Commission, hence, verbally, the aforementioned official informed him of the situation and indicated to him that he had to make the formal written request through the Council Secretariat. By virtue of the foregoing, on October 20 of the current year, the petitioner had access to case file No. 4290 and, furthermore, obtained photocopies of the same (visible on folio 48). This Constitutional Tribunal finds that the reasons that made it impossible for the petitioner to access the case file on the first occasion are not admissible. If an interested party in an administrative procedure requests access to the case file, it must be provided to them immediately, without needing to apply for it in writing, and it is also improper to delay their access under the pretext of it being under study by an administrative body; as in the case under study, the petitioner requested access as of October 13 and it was not until seven days later that he obtained it – namely, on the following October 20 –, we are faced with a clear denial of access to the administrative case file, hence, it is necessary to uphold this part of the recurso, for violation of Article 30 of the Constitution, solely for indemnity purposes (Article 52 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction).” (the underlining does not correspond to the original) Considerations that are applicable to the case under study. Hence, while it may be considered reasonable that the Municipality has enabled a Services Platform (Plataforma de Servicios) in order to centralize and systematize user service and, even, so that the parties interested in a specific administrative procedure may manage access to the respective case file, what is not admissible, in light of Article 30 of the Constitution, is that such procedure must be carried out in writing and must await formal approval from the Mayor, because, as already indicated, in such cases, the Administration has the obligation to guarantee access to the case file immediately.

VI.- CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the foregoing, the recurso must be declared partially with merit (parcialmente con lugar), for infringement of Article 30 of the Political Constitution, due to the respondent authority’s omission in guaranteeing the petitioner immediate access to the case file (expediente) that he is processing before the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department (Departamento de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre).” The petitioner raises the following objections: a) that the new building of the Municipality of Osa does not comply with the provisions of Law No. 7600, in order to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can access the second floor; b) that gates have been installed to prevent citizens under administration (administrados) from having access to various offices of the Municipality, unless they have the approval of the Mayor; and c) that on January 18 and 19, 2010, he appeared before the Municipality to review and photocopy a file (expediente) that he is currently processing before the Department of the Maritime Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre), but he was told that for such purposes he had to file a formal written request and obtain the Mayor's approval.

**III.- ON THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND THE DUTY TO ELIMINATE ALL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.** It must be stated, first, that the right to equality, as well as the prohibition of any form of discrimination contrary to human dignity, enjoy profound recognition and protection by Constitutional Law. The Political Constitution itself enshrines in its article 33 that: "*Every person is equal before the law and no discrimination contrary to human dignity may be practiced*". In a similar vein, one must cite articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 2 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, articles 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and articles 1 and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, from which derives the duty of States to prevent and eliminate any form of distinction or exclusion that is contrary to human dignity. This acquires particular significance in the case of persons with some type of disability, for which reason, a series of international instruments have even been signed with the express purpose of guaranteeing such persons the effective enjoyment of their fundamental rights, as well as to foster their full integration into society. One can cite, for this purpose, the Inter-American Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities - which was incorporated into our legal order through Law No. 7948 of November 22, 1999 - which in its article 1 defines discrimination in the following terms:

"(...) *The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of disability, consequence of present or past disability, which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.*"

That same international instrument enshrines the obligation of the States that signed it to adopt measures to progressively eliminate discrimination and promote integration by governmental authorities and/or private entities in the provision or supply of goods, services, facilities, programs, and activities, such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, access to justice and police services, and in political and administrative activities. This corroborates the duty of such States to promote, protect, and ensure to persons with some type of disability the effective enjoyment, under conditions of equality, of all their fundamental rights, as well as their full participation and integration into society. In compliance with such duty—and in relation to the specific issue motivating the filing of this amparo—article 4, subsection b), of the Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Law 7600 of May 2, 1996, and its reforms) provides that it is incumbent upon the State to guarantee that the environment, goods, services, and facilities for public service are accessible so that persons may use and enjoy them. In accordance with the foregoing, article 41 of that same regulatory body provides:

"*ARTICULO 41.-* *Regulatory technical specifications.* *New constructions, expansions, or remodeling of buildings, parks, sidewalks, gardens, plazas, roads, sanitary services, and other public property spaces must be carried out in accordance with the regulatory technical specifications of the public and private bodies in charge of the matter. Private buildings that involve public concurrence and provide service to the public must have the same characteristics established in the preceding paragraph.* *The same obligations mentioned will apply to housing projects of any nature, totally or partially financed with public funds. In this type of project, housing assigned to persons with disabilities or families of persons in which one of the members is a person with a disability must be located in a site that guarantees easy access.*" The above is for the purpose of eliminating those architectural barriers that obstruct or prevent persons with some type of disability from being able to exercise their fundamental rights effectively and without discrimination, and that limit, moreover, their full participation and integration in Costa Rican society. Regarding this topic, in judgment number 2009-001650 at 11:41 a.m. on February 6, 2009, this Chamber recalled:

"(…) *In repeated pronouncements, this Chamber has referred to the special and transcendental protection that disabled persons require and deserve, under the terms of article 51 of the Constitution, so that they may function normally within society. It is not simply a matter of special treatment in attention to the particular conditions of that population, but a right and an obligation of the rest of the people to respect those rights and fulfill the obligations derived from them (judgment N°2288-99 at 11:06 a.m. on March 26, 1999). The Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities has the fundamental objective of achieving the necessary conditions so that persons who have some special condition, of that nature, achieve their full social participation. Precisely, because of its foundation, it ceases to be a simple aspiration and becomes a fundamental right.* *To guarantee the exercise of their rights and duties, the Law and its Regulation impose upon Public Administrations and private law subjects that provide public service, the duty to provide to the disabled, support services, the required technical aids, and the suppression of all types of architectural barriers*. *Within this line of thought, non-compliance with the public interest that the law enshrines implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of that social group. The effective protection of the rights of disabled persons, constitutionally enshrined, is one of the means by which this population group can have a free development of personality and a dignified and quality life, facilitating their full integration into society*." (the underlining is not from the original) Now then, in the specific case, the petitioner raises—as a first objection—that the new building of the Municipality does not comply with the provisions of Law No. 7600, in order to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can access the second floor, where the office of the Municipal Mayor and some other administrative offices are located. For his part, the Municipal Mayor refutes the petitioner's objection and states in his report—which is rendered under the solemnity of an oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in article 44 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction—that the offices specifically designated for public service, such as the Services Platform (Plataforma de Servicios) and the Comptroller of Services (Contraloría de Servicios), are located on the ground floor of the building and can be accessed by any person, including those persons with some type of disability, since, for those purposes, paths and cobblestone walkways have been built to facilitate movement to the property. The reporting party adds that, furthermore, a meeting room has also been set up on the first floor of the building, for those cases in which he must meet with or attend to a person who has difficulty going up to the second floor, including those persons with some disability. Finally, the construction of an access ramp to the second floor is already being promoted, which is intended to be included in the budget for the year 2011. Thus, it is verified that the respondent Municipality has adopted concrete actions to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can be attended to on the first floor of the municipal building and, in that sense, can have free and full access to municipal services. Therefore, the amparo should be dismissed regarding this point.

**IV.-** The petitioner adds, as a second objection, that in the Municipality of Osa, gates have been installed in order to prevent citizens under administration from having access to various offices of the Municipality, unless they have the approval of the Mayor. For its part, the respondent authority indicates that such gates have not been installed with the purpose of preventing the access of citizens under administration to municipal services, but rather, only to regulate or control access to certain offices of the Municipality, for eminently security reasons, due to some robberies that the municipal corporation has suffered. He adds that, furthermore, the placement of such gates does not affect the free entry of citizens under administration to the offices specifically designated for public service, such as the Services Platform and the Comptroller of Services. Finally, he indicates that it is false that in the particular case of the petitioner, total access to the entity is denied. Regarding this topic, this Chamber also does not verify an infringement of the fundamental rights of the person protected by the amparo. This Tribunal has already recognized that the Administration, for the better fulfillment of the purposes entrusted to it, may regulate everything related to the access and permanence of persons in its facilities, provided that such measures are reasonable, proportional, and not discriminatory (see, for this purpose, judgment number 2007-000259 at 11:28 a.m. on January 12, 2007). In the case under study, and in light of the evidence added to the record, this Chamber concludes that the measures adopted by the Municipality are not discriminatory—as they are of general application—and are reasonable and proportional, insofar as they do not prevent citizens under administration from having free access to the offices specifically designated for public service—in order to have access to municipal public services—and, on the contrary, only seek to regulate and control passage to the rest of the municipal offices, for evident security reasons. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed regarding this point.

**V.-** Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Chamber finds that article 30 of the Political Constitution has indeed been infringed to the detriment of the person protected by the amparo, specifically regarding the obstacles that have been imposed on him to be able to review the file that he is currently processing before the Department of the Maritime Zone. Regarding this point, the petitioner claims that on January 18 and 19, 2010, he appeared before the Municipality of Osa to review and photocopy the mentioned file, and at the Services Platform he was told that for such purposes he had to file a formal written request and obtain the approval of the Mayor. For its part, the respondent authority does not deny such facts and, on the contrary, merely indicates that the petitioner must comply with the procedure that the Municipality has established so that the file he seeks can be provided. In which case, it is disproportionate and unreasonable that the interested party in an administrative procedure must process in writing and wait for formal approval from the Municipal Mayor, in order to be able to review the respective administrative file. This Tribunal has developed the scope of the right to access administrative information within the framework of an administrative procedure—*ad intra* information—. Thus, in judgment number 2004-4637 at 12:15 p.m. on April 30, 2004, this Chamber ruled—in what is relevant—the following:

"(…) *Article 30 of the Political Constitution guarantees free access to "administrative departments for information purposes on matters of public interest," a fundamental right that in doctrine has been called the right of access to administrative archives and records; however, the more accurate denomination is the right of access to administrative information, since access to the material or virtual supports of public administrations is the instrument or mechanism to achieve the proposed end, which is for citizens under administration to obtain the information held by them. It is necessary to indicate that the administrative information of public interest sought by a citizen under administration 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 citizens under administration, since it allows them to exercise optimal control over the legality and the opportunity, convenience, or merit and, in general, the efficacy and efficiency of the administrative function carried out 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 management of it, 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 in the Social and Democratic Rule of Law, which, at the same time, it effectuates. Thus, effective and direct citizen participation in the management and handling of public affairs is inconceivable without having a significant body of information about administrative competencies and services; in the same way, the democratic principle is strengthened when the various social, economic, and political forces and groups participate actively and in an informed manner 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 validity of the principles of administrative transparency and publicity. The content of the right of access to administrative information is truly broad and is composed of a bundle of powers in the hands of the person exercising it, such as the following: a) access to public departments, units, offices, and buildings; b) access to archives, records, files, and physical or automated documents—databases, files—; c) the power of the citizen under administration to know the stored personal or nominative data that affect him in some way; d) the power of the citizen under administration 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 cost, certifications or copies of the same.* ***V.- TYPOLOGY OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.** *A clear distinction can be drawn between the right of access to administrative information (a) ad extra—outside—and (b) ad intra—inside—an administrative procedure.* *The former is granted to any person or citizen under administration interested in accessing specific administrative information—uti universi—and the latter, only to the interested parties in a concrete and specific administrative procedure—uti singuli—*.

While this latter right is regulated in the General Law of the Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) in its Sixth Chapter entitled "On access to the file and its documents," Third Title of the Second Book, in articles 272 to 274, there is no doubt that it is grounded in section 30 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and, therefore, enjoys the guarantee, protection, and defense mechanisms provided for in the fundamental text (article 48 of the Political Constitution) and developed by the procedural law of this jurisdiction (sections 29 and following). This conclusion is compelled upon noting the clearly insufficient, slow, and cumbersome nature of the sole protection mechanism, established at the infra-constitutional level, for the right of access to administrative information within an administrative procedure. In effect, section 274 of the General Law of the Public Administration provides that against the resolution denying knowledge of and access to a document in a file, the ordinary appeals provided for by that normative body are available, that is, reconsideration (revocatoria), appeal (apelación), and, eventually, if it concerns the head of the agency, reinstatement (reposición), without providing for an expeditious and swift avenue when the appeals are declared without merit, which is clearly insufficient by obliging the applicant to resort to the administrative contentious jurisdiction (article 49 of the Political Constitution) to seek the nullity of the resolution that denied access to the administrative file, a solution that entails a high economic and temporal cost for the aggrieved party and is, clearly, belated." (the underlining does not correspond to the original) It is thus corroborated that from article 30 of the Political Constitution derives the right of interested parties in an administrative procedure to have access to the file in which it materializes, which evidently includes their right to be able to examine and know its content—whether personally or through their representatives—as well as to be guaranteed immediate access to the file. In this sense, in judgment number 2004-13661 of 18:22 hours on November 30, 2004, this Chamber resolved:

" (...) Of other part, the petitioner alleges a violation of his right enshrined in article 30 of the Political Constitution, since according to his claim, the authorities of the Municipal Council of San José have not allowed him to have access to the administrative file of the proceeding filed before the respondent Municipalidad. As can be inferred from the record, on October 13, 2004, the petitioner requested administrative file No. 4290 from the Secretary of the Commission (Comisión) of Legal Affairs. On that occasion, the petitioner could not have access to said file because, at that precise moment, it was being subject to analysis and study by the Commission, therefore, the aforementioned official verbally explained the situation to him and indicated that he had to make the formal written request before the Secretariat (Secretaría) of the Council. By virtue of the foregoing, on October 20 of this year, the petitioner had access to file No. 4290 and also obtained photocopies thereof (visible on page 48). This Constitutional Chamber finds that the reasons that prevented the petitioner from accessing the file on the first opportunity are not acceptable. If an interested party in an administrative procedure requests access to the file, it must be provided immediately, without the need to process it in writing, and it is also inadmissible to delay its access under the pretext of it being under study by an administrative body, as in the case under study, the petitioner requested access from October 13 and it was not until seven days later that he obtained it—namely, on the following October 20—, this constitutes a clear denial of access to the administrative file, hence it is necessary to grant this part of the appeal, for violation of article 30 of the Constitution, solely for purposes of compensation (article 52 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional)." (the underlining does not correspond to the original)

These considerations are applicable to the case under study. Therefore, while it may be considered reasonable that the Municipalidad has enabled a Services Platform, for the purpose of centralizing and systematizing user service and even so that interested parties in a specific administrative procedure may manage access to the respective file, what is not admissible, in light of article 30 of the Constitution, is that such a procedure must be carried out in writing and must await the formal approval of the Mayor (Alcalde), since, as already indicated, in such cases, the Administration (la Administración) has the obligation to guarantee immediate access to the file.

VI.- CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the foregoing, it is appropriate to declare the appeal partially with merit, for violation of article 30 of the Political Constitution, due to the omission of the respondent authority in guaranteeing the petitioner immediate access to the file that he processes before the Department of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Departamento de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre)." One may cite, to this effect, the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities – which was incorporated into our legal system through Law No. 7948 of November 22, 1999 – which in its article 1 defines discrimination in the following terms:

“(...) The term discrimination against persons with disabilities means any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on a disability, record of disability, consequence of current or past disability, which has the effect or purpose of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by persons with disabilities of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

That same international instrument enshrines the obligation of the States that signed it to adopt measures to progressively eliminate discrimination and promote integration by governmental authorities and/or private entities in the provision or supply of goods, services, facilities, programs, and activities, such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, access to justice and police services, and in political and administrative activities. This corroborates the duty of such States to promote, protect, and ensure for persons with some type of disability the effective enjoyment, under conditions of equality, of all their fundamental rights, as well as their full participation and integration in society. In compliance with such duty – and in relation to the specific issue motivating the filing of this amparo – Article 4, subsection b), of the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Law (Law 7600 of May 2, 1996, and its amendments) provides that it is the State's responsibility to guarantee that the environment, goods, services, and public service facilities are accessible so that persons may use and enjoy them. In accordance with the foregoing, Article 41 of that same normative body provides:

"ARTICLE 41.- Regulatory technical specifications. 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 bodies in charge of the matter. Private buildings that imply public attendance and provide service to the public must have the same characteristics established in the preceding paragraph.

The same mentioned obligations shall govern housing projects of any nature, financed totally or partially with public funds. In this type of project, housing units assigned to persons with disabilities or families in which one of the members is a person with a disability must be located in a site that guarantees their easy access." The foregoing with the purpose of eliminating those architectural barriers that hinder or prevent persons with some type of disability from exercising their fundamental rights effectively and without discrimination, and that limit, moreover, their full participation and integration in Costa Rican society. Regarding this topic, in judgment number 2009-001650 of 11:41 a.m. on February 6, 2009, this Chamber recalled:

“(…) In repeated pronouncements, this Chamber has referred to the special and transcendental protection that disabled persons require and 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 view of the particular conditions of that population, but rather a right and an obligation of the rest of the people to respect those rights and comply with the obligations derived from them (judgment No. 2288-99 of 11:06 a.m. on March 26, 1999). The Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Law has as its fundamental objective achieving the conditions necessary for persons who hold some special condition of that nature to attain their full social participation. Precisely, due to its foundation, it ceases to be a simple aspiration 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 subjects that provide public service the obligation to provide disabled persons with support services, the required technical aids, and the elimination of all types of architectural barriers. Within this line of thought, non-compliance with the public interest enshrined in the law implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of that social group. The effective protection of the rights of disabled persons, constitutionally enshrined, is one of the means by which this population group can achieve free development of their personality and a dignified and quality life, facilitating their full integration into society.” (the underlining is not from the original) Now then, in the specific case, the petitioner raises – as a first complaint – that the new building of the Municipality does not comply with the provisions of Law No. 7600, in order to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can access the second floor, where the Municipal Mayor's office and some other administrative offices are located. For his part, the Municipal Mayor refutes the petitioner's complaint and indicates in his report – rendered under the solemnity of an oath, with due warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in article 44 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction – that the offices specifically designated for public service, such as the Service Platform (Plataforma de Servicios) and the Service Comptroller (Contraloría de Servicios), are located on the ground floor of the building and can be accessed by all persons, including those persons with some type of disability, since, for such purposes, paths and paved walkways have been built that facilitate movement to the property. The reporting party adds that, furthermore, a meeting room has been enabled on the first floor of the building for those cases in which he must meet with or attend to a person who finds it difficult to go up to the second floor, including those persons with some disability. Finally, the construction of an access ramp to the second floor is already being promoted, which is intended to be included in the budget for the year 2011. As things stand, it is verified that the respondent Municipality has adopted concrete actions to guarantee that persons with some type of disability can be attended to on the first floor of the municipal building and, in that sense, can have free and full access to municipal services. Therefore, the amparo must be dismissed regarding this point.

IV.- The petitioner adds, as a second complaint, that in the Municipality of Osa some gates have been installed in order to prevent the public from being able to access various offices of the Municipality, unless they have the approval of the Mayor. For his part, the respondent authority indicates that such gates have not been installed with the purpose of preventing the public's access to municipal services, but rather, only to regulate or control access to certain offices of the Municipality, for eminently security reasons, due to some robberies that the municipal corporation has suffered. He adds that, furthermore, the placement of such gates does not affect the free entry of the public to the offices specifically designated for public service, such as the Service Platform and the Service Comptroller. Finally, he indicates that it is false that in the particular case of the petitioner, total access to the entity is denied. Regarding this topic, this Chamber also does not verify an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. This Court has already recognized that the Administration, for the better fulfillment of the purposes entrusted to it, may regulate everything concerning the access and permanence of persons in its facilities, provided that such measures are reasonable, proportional, and not discriminatory (see, to this effect, judgment number 2007-000259 of 11:28 a.m. on January 12, 2007). In the case under study, and in light of the elements of conviction added to the case file, this Chamber concludes that the measures adopted by the Municipality are not discriminatory – as they are of general application – and are reasonable and proportional, to the extent that they do not prevent the public from having free access to the offices specifically designated for public service – in order to access municipal public services – and, on the contrary, only seek to regulate and control passage to the rest of the municipal offices, for obvious security reasons. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed regarding this point.

V.- Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Chamber considers that Article 30 of the Political Constitution has been infringed to the detriment of the petitioner, specifically regarding the obstacles that have been imposed on him to be able to review the file (expediente) that he is currently processing before the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department. Regarding this point, the petitioner complains that on January 18 and 19, 2010, he appeared before the Municipality of Osa to review and photocopy the mentioned file, and at the Service Platform he was told that for such purposes he had to formally submit a written request and obtain the Mayor's approval. For his part, the respondent authority does not deny such facts and, on the contrary, merely indicates that the petitioner must comply with the procedure that the Municipality has established so that the file he seeks can be provided to him. In which case, it is disproportionate and unreasonable that the party interested in an administrative procedure must make a written request and await formal approval from the Municipal Mayor in order to review the respective administrative file. This Court has developed the scope of the right of access to administrative information within the framework of an administrative procedure – ad intra information. Thus, in judgment number 2004-4637 of 12:15 p.m. on April 30, 2004, this Chamber resolved – in what is relevant – the following:

“(…) 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 doctrine has been called the right of access to administrative archives and records; however, the most accurate denomination is that of the right of access to administrative information, since access to the material or virtual supports of public administrations is the instrument or mechanism to achieve the proposed end, which is that the public learns of the information held by those administrations. It is necessary to indicate that the administrative information of public interest sought by a member of the public 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 public, since it allows them to exercise optimal control of legality and of the opportunity, convenience or merit, and, in general, of the efficacy and efficiency of the administrative function deployed by the various public entities. Efficient and effective public administrations are those that submit to public control and scrutiny, but there cannot be citizen control without adequate information. In this way, a logical linkage can be established between access to administrative information, knowledge and management of it, effective or timely citizen control, and efficient public administrations. The right of access to administrative information has a profound basis in a series of principles and values inherent to the Social and Democratic State of Law, which, at the same time, it promotes. 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 the various social, economic, and political forces and groups participate actively and informatively in the formation and execution of the public will. Finally, the right of access to administrative information is an indispensable tool, like many others, for the full validity of the principles of administrative transparency and publicity. The content of the right of access to administrative information is truly broad and is composed of a bundle of powers held by the person exercising it, such as the following: a) access to public departments, units, offices, and buildings; b) access to archives, records, files, and physical or automated documents – databases, files; c) the power of the public to know the stored personal or nominative data that affect them in any way; d) the power of the public to rectify or eliminate that data if it is 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 their cost, certifications or copies of the same.

V.- TYPOLOGY OF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION. A clear distinction can be drawn between the right of access to administrative information (a) ad extra – outside – and (b) ad intra – within – an administrative procedure. The former is granted to any person or member of the public interested in accessing certain administrative information – uti universi – and the latter, solely, to the interested parties in a specific and concrete administrative procedure – uti singuli. Although this latter right is regulated in the General Law of Public Administration in its Sixth Chapter entitled “On access to the file and its parts,” Third Title of the Second Book in articles 272 to 274, there is no doubt that it has a basis in Article 30 of the Political Constitution and, therefore, enjoys the mechanisms of guarantee, protection, and defense provided for in the fundamental text (Article 48 of the Political Constitution) and developed by the procedural law of this jurisdiction (articles 29 et seq.). This corollary is imposed upon noting the clearly insufficient, slow, and cumbersome nature of the sole mechanism of protection, established at the infra-constitutional level, for the right of access to administrative information ad intra of an administrative procedure. In effect, Article 274 of the General Law of Public Administration provides that against the resolution denying knowledge and access to a part of a file, the ordinary remedies provided for by that normative body are available, that is, revocation, appeal, and, eventually, in the case of the head of the entity, reconsideration, without providing an expedited and speedy route when the remedies are declared without merit, which makes it clearly insufficient by forcing the claimant to resort to the administrative-contentious jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution) to seek the nullity of the resolution that denied them access to the administrative file, a solution that entails a high economic and temporal cost for the aggrieved party and is, by all lights, belated.” (the underlining is not from the original) Thus, it is corroborated that from Article 30 of the Political Constitution derives the right of the interested parties in an administrative procedure to have access to the file in which it materializes, which includes, evidently, their right to be able to examine and know its content – whether personally or through their representatives – as well as that they be guaranteed access to the file immediately.

In this regard, in judgment number 2004-13661 of 18:22 hours on 30 November 2004, this Chamber resolved:

“(…)<b> </b><i>On the other hand, the petitioner alleges a violation of his right enshrined in Article 30 of the Constitución Política, since according to his account, the authorities of the Concejo Municipal de San José have not allowed him access to the administrative file of the proceeding filed before the respondent Municipalidad. As is evident from the record, on 13 October 2004, the appellant requested administrative file No. 4290 from the Secretary of the Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos. On that occasion, the appellant was unable to gain access to said file because, at that precise moment, it was being analyzed and studied by the Comisión, hence, the aforementioned official verbally explained the situation to him and indicated that he had to make the formal written request to the Secretaría del Concejo. By virtue of the foregoing, on 20 October of the current year the appellant gained access to file No. 4290 and, in addition, obtained photocopies thereof (visible at folio 48). This Tribunal Constitucional finds that the reasons that prevented the appellant from accessing the file on the first occasion are not acceptable. <u>If an interested party in an administrative proceeding requests access to the file, it must be provided to them immediately, without the need to request it in writing, and it is also inappropriate to delay their access on the pretext that it is under study by an administrative body</u>; as in the case under study, the appellant requested access from 13 October and it was not until seven days later that he obtained it –namely, on the following 20 October–, this constitutes a clear denial of access to the administrative file, hence it is necessary to uphold this aspect of the appeal, for violation of Article 30 of the Constitution, solely for purposes of damages (Article 52 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).” (the underlining does not correspond to the original) Considerations that are applicable to the case under study. Hence, while it may be considered reasonable that the Municipalidad has enabled a Plataforma de Servicios, for the purpose of centralizing and systematizing user services and even so that interested parties in a given administrative proceeding can request access to the respective file, what is not admissible, in light of Article 30 of the Constitution, is that such a procedure must be carried out in writing and require the formal approval of the Alcalde, since, as already indicated, in such cases, <i>the Administración has the obligation to guarantee immediate access to the file</i>.

**VI.- CONCLUSION.** As a corollary to the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially grant the appeal, for infringement of Article 30 of the Constitución Política, due to the omission of the respondent authority in guaranteeing the petitioner immediate access to the file that he is processing before the Departamento de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre.”

“I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. El recurrente plantea los siguientes reproches: a) que el nuevo edificio de la Municipalidad de Osa no se ajusta a lo dispuesto en la Ley No. 7600, a fin de garantizar que las personas con algún tipo de discapacidad puedan acceder a la segunda planta; b) que se han instalado unos portones a fin de impedir que los administrados puedan tener acceso a diversas oficinas de la Municipalidad, salvo que se cuente con el visto bueno del Alcalde; y c) que los días 18 y 19 de enero del 2010 se presentó ante la Municipalidad, para poder revisar y fotocopiar un expediente que él tramita, actualmente, ante el Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre, pero se le indicó que para tales efectos debía plantear formal solicitud por escrito y obtener el visto bueno del Alcalde.

III.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A LA IGUALDAD Y EL DEBER DE ELIMINAR TODA DISCRIMINACION EN CONTRA DE LAS PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. Debe indicarse, en primer lugar, que el derecho a la igualdad, así como la prohibición de toda forma de discriminación que sea contraria a la dignidad humana, gozan de profundo reconocimiento y protección por el Derecho de la Constitución. La propia Constitución Política consagra en su artículo 33 que: “Toda persona es igual ante la ley y no podrá practicarse discriminación alguna contraria a la dignidad humana”. En similar sentido habría que citar los artículos 2 y 7 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, el artículo 2 de la Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, los artículos 3 y 26 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, y los artículos 1 y 24 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, de los que se deriva el deber de los Estados de prevenir y eliminar toda forma de distinción o exclusión que sea contraria a la dignidad humana. Lo que adquiere particular significación en el caso de las personas con algún tipo de discapacidad, por lo que, incluso, se han suscrito una serie de instrumentos internacionales con el expreso propósito de garantizarles a tales personas el efectivo goce de sus derechos fundamentales, así como para propiciar su plena integración en la sociedad. Se puede citar, al efecto, la Convención Interamericana para la Eliminación de todas las formas de Discriminación contra las Personas con Discapacidad -y que fue incorporada a nuestro ordenamiento jurídico mediante Ley Nº 7948 del 22 de noviembre de 1999-, que en su artículo 1 define la discriminación en los siguientes términos:

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

Ese mismo instrumento internacional consagra la obligación de los Estados que lo suscribieron, de adoptar las medidas para eliminar progresivamente la discriminación y promover la integración por parte de las autoridades gubernamentales y/o entidades privadas en la prestación o suministro de bienes, servicios, instalaciones, programas y actividades, tales como el empleo, el transporte, las comunicaciones, la vivienda, la recreación, la educación, el deporte, el acceso a la justicia y los servicios policiales, y en las actividades políticas y de administración. Se corrobora, de esta forma, el deber de tales Estados de promover, proteger y asegurar a las personas con algún tipo de discapacidad el goce efectivo y en condiciones de igualdad de todos sus derechos fundamentales, así como su participación e integración plena en la sociedad. En cumplimiento de tal deber -y en relación con el tema específico que motiva la interposición de este amparo-, el artículo 4, inciso b), de la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad (Ley 7600 de 2 de mayo de 1996 y sus reformas) dispone que corresponde al Estado 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. En consonancia con lo anterior, el artículo 41 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, dispone:

"ARTICULO 41.- Especificaciones técnicas reglamentarias. 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." Lo anterior con el propósito de eliminar aquellas barreras arquitectónicas que obstaculizan o impiden que las personas con algún tipo de discapacidad puedan ejercer de forma efectiva y sin discriminación sus derechos fundamentales, y que limitan, por lo demás, su participación e integración plena en la sociedad costarricense. En cuanto a este tema, en sentencia número 2009-001650 de las 11:41 horas del 6 de febrero del 2009, esta Sala recordó:

“(…) En reiterados pronunciamientos, esta Sala se ha referido a la protección especial y trascendental que requieren y merecen las personas discapacitadas, 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 y una obligación del resto de las personas por respetar esos derechos y cumplir con las obligaciones que de ellos se derivan (sentencia N°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 ostentan alguna condición especial, de esa naturaleza, alcancen su plena participación social. Precisamente, por su fundamento, es que deja de ser 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 atención al público, el proveer a los discapacitados, los servicios de apoyo, las ayudas técnicas requeridas y la supresión de todo tipo 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. La tutela efectiva de los derechos de las personas discapacitadas, consagrados, constitucionalmente, es uno de los medios por los cuales este grupo de población puede tener un libre desarrollo de la personalidad y una vida digna y de calidad, facilitando su integración plena a la sociedad.” (el subrayado no corresponde al original) Ahora bien, en la especie, el recurrente plantea –como primer reproche- que el nuevo edificio de la Municipalidad no se ajusta a lo dispuesto en la Ley No. 7600, con el fin de garantizar que las personas con algún tipo de discapacidad puedan acceder a la segunda planta, en donde se ubica la oficina del Alcalde Municipal y algunas otras oficinas administrativas. Por su parte, el Alcalde Municipal refuta el reproche del recurrente e indica en su informe –que es rendido bajo la solemnidad del juramento, con oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional-, que las oficinas destinadas especificadamente a la atención del público, como es el caso de la Plataforma de Servicios y la Contraloría de Servicios, se encuentran en la planta baja del edificio y a ellas puede tener acceso toda persona, incluidas aquellas personas con algún tipo de discapacidad, pues, para tales efectos, se han construido senderos y caminos de adoquines que facilitan el desplazamiento hasta el inmueble. Añade el informante que, además, en la primera planta del edificio también se ha habilitado un salón de reuniones, para aquellos casos en los que él deba reunirse o atender a alguna persona a quien se le dificulte subir a la segunda planta, incluidas aquellas personas con alguna discapacidad. Finalmente, ya se está promoviendo la construcción de una rampa de acceso a la segunda planta, lo que se pretende incluir en el presupuesto del año 2011. Así las cosas, se constata que la Municipalidad recurrida ha adoptado acciones concretas para garantizar que las personas con algún tipo de discapacidad puedan ser atendidas en el primer piso del edificio municipal y, en tal sentido, puedan tener libre y pleno acceso a los servicios municipales. Por lo que procede desestimar el amparo en cuanto a este extremo.

IV.- El recurrente añade, como segundo reproche, que en la Municipalidad de Osa se han instalado unos portones a fin de impedir que los administrados puedan tener acceso a diversas oficinas de la Municipalidad, salvo que se cuente con el visto bueno del Alcalde. Por su parte, la autoridad recurrida indica que tales portones no se han instalado con el propósito de impedir el acceso de los administrados a los servicios municipalidades, sino que, tan sólo para regular o controlar el acceso a determinadas oficinas de la Municipalidad, por razones eminentemente de seguridad, en razón de unos robos que ha sufrido la corporación municipal. Añade que, además, la colocación de tales portones no afecta el libre ingreso de los administrados a las oficinas destinadas, especificadamente, a la atención del público, como es el caso de la Plataforma de Servicios y la Contraloría de Servicios. Finalmente, indica que es falso que en el caso particular del recurrente se le niegue el total acceso a la entidad. En cuanto a este tema, esta Sala tampoco constata una infracción a los derechos fundamentales del amparado. Este Tribunal ya ha reconocido que la Administración, para el mejor cumplimiento de los fines que se le han encomendado, puede reglamentar todo lo referente al acceso y permanencia de las personas a sus instalaciones, siempre y cuando tales medidas sean razonables, proporcionales y no resulten discriminatorias (ver, al efecto, la sentencia número 2007-000259 de las 11:28 horas del 12 de enero del 2007). En el caso en estudio, y a la luz de los elementos de convicción agregados a los autos, esta Sala concluye que las medidas adoptadas por la Municipalidad no resultan discriminatorias –pues son de aplicación general- y resultan razonables y proporcionales, en la medida que no impiden que los administrados puedan tener libre acceso a las oficinas destinadas especificadamente a la atención del público –para así tener acceso a los servicios públicos municipales- y, por el contrario, tan sólo se pretende regular y controlar el paso al resto de oficinas municipales, por evidentes razones de seguridad. Por lo que procede desestimar el recurso en cuanto a este punto.

V.- No obstante lo anterior, esta Sala estima que sí se ha infringido el artículo 30 de la Constitución Política en perjuicio del amparado, en lo referente específicamente a los obstáculos que se le han impuesto para poder revisar el expediente que está tramitando, actualmente, ante el Departamento de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. En cuanto a este extremo, el recurrente reclama que los días 18 y 19 de enero del 2010 se presentó ante la Municipalidad de Osa, para poder revisar y fotocopiar el mencionado expediente, y en la Plataforma de Servicios se le indicó que para tales efectos debía plantear formal solicitud por escrito y obtener el visto bueno del Alcalde. Por su parte, la autoridad recurrida no niega tales hechos y, por el contrario, se limita a indicar que el recurrente debe cumplir el trámite que ha establecido la Municipalidad para que se le pueda facilitar el desproporcionado e irrazonable que la parte interesada en un procedimiento administrativo deba gestionar por escrito y esperar formal visto bueno de parte del Alcalde Municipalidad, a efectos poder revisar el respectivo expediente administrativo. Este Tribunal ha desarrollado los alcances del derecho al acceso a la información administrativa en el marco de un procedimiento administrativo –información ad intra-. Así, en sentencia número 2004-4637 de las 12:15 horas del 30 de abril de 2004, esta Sala resolvió -en lo que interesa- lo siguiente:

“(…) 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 es 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-. Si bien este último 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, no cabe la menor duda que tiene asidero en el ordinal 30 de la Constitución Política y, por ende, goza de los mecanismos de garantía, tutela y defensa previstos en el texto fundamental (artículo 48 de la Constitución Política)y desarrollados por la ley del rito de esta jurisdicción (ordinales 29 y siguientes). Este corolario se impone al reparar en el carácter claramente insuficiente, lento y engorroso del único mecanismo de protección, establecido a nivel infraconstitucional, del derecho de acceso a la información administrativa ad intra de un procedimiento administrativo. En efecto, el numeral 274 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública dispone que contra la resolución que deniegue el conocimiento y acceso a una pieza de un expediente caben los recursos ordinarios previstos por ese cuerpo normativo, esto es, la revocatoria, la apelación y, eventualmente, de tratarse del jerarca, la reposición, sin preverse una vía expedita y célere cuando los recursos sean declarados sin lugar, con lo cual resulta claramente insuficiente al obligar al petente a acudir a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa (artículo 49 de la Constitución Política), para pretender la nulidad de la resolución que le ha denegado el acceso al expediente administrativo, solución que supone un elevado costo económico y temporal para el agraviado y que resulta, a todas luces, tardía.” (el subrayado no corresponde al original) Se corrobora, así, que del artículo 30 de la Constitución Política se deriva el derecho de las partes interesadas en un procedimiento administrativo a tener acceso al expediente en que éste se materializa, lo que incluye, evidentemente, su derecho a poder examinar y conocer su contenido -ya sea de forma personal o por medio de sus representantes-, así como que se les garantice el acceso al expediente de forma inmediata. En este sentido, en sentencia número 2004-13661 de las 18:22 horas del 30 de noviembre del 2004, esta Sala resolvió:

“(…) De otra parte, el amparado acusa vulnerado su derecho consagrado en el artículo 30 de la Constitución Política, pues según su dicho, las autoridades del Concejo Municipal de San José no le han permitido tener acceso al expediente administrativo del trámite presentado ante la Municipalidad recurrida. Según se desprende de los autos, el 13 de octubre del 2004, el recurrente solicitó el expediente administrativo No. 4290 al Secretario de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos. En esa ocasión, el recurrente no pudo tener acceso a dicho expediente debido a que, en ese preciso momento, estaba siendo objeto de análisis y estudio por parte de la Comisión, de allí que, de forma verbal el funcionario anterior le refirió la situación, y le indicó que debía hacer la solicitud formal por escrito ante la Secretaría del Concejo. En virtud de lo anterior, el 20 de octubre del año en curso el recurrente tuvo acceso al expediente No. 4290 y, además, obtuvo fotocopias del mismo (visible a folio 48). Encuentra este Tribunal Constitucional que las razones que le imposibilitaron al recurrente el acceso al expediente en la primera oportunidad, no son atendibles. Si una parte interesada en un procedimiento administrativo solicita el acceso al expediente, éste debe de brindársele inmediatamente, sin necesidad de gestionarlo por escrito siendo, también, improcedente retrasar su acceso so pretexto de encontrarse en estudio por un órgano administrativo, como en el caso bajo estudio el recurrente solicitó el acceso desde el 13 de octubre y fue hasta siete días después que lo obtuvo –a saber, el 20 de octubre siguiente-, se está ante una clara de denegatoria de acceso al expediente administrativo, de allí que sea preciso estimar este extremo del recurso, por violación al artículo 30 constitucional, únicamente para efectos indemnizatorios (artículo 52 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).” (el subrayado no corresponde al original) Consideraciones que son aplicables el caso en estudio. De allí, que si bien puede estimarse razonable que la Municipalidad haya habilitado una Plataforma de Servicios, a efectos de poder centralizar y sistematizar la atención a los usuarios e, incluso, para que las partes interesadas en determinado procedimiento administrativo puedan gestionar el acceso al respectivo es que tal gestión debe realizarse por escrito y deba esperarse formal visto bueno del Alcalde, pues, como ya se indicó, en tales supuestos, la Administración tiene la obligación de garantizar el acceso al expediente de forma inmediata.

VI.- CONCLUSION. Como corolario de lo anterior, procede declarar parcialmente con lugar el recurso, por infracción del artículo 30 de la Constitución Política, ante la omisión de la autoridad recurrida en garantizar al amparado el inmediato acceso al expediente que éste tramita ante el Departamento de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre.”