← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 02025-2006 Tribunal de Familia · Tribunal de Familia · 2006
OutcomeResultado
The Family Court partially reversed the first-instance ruling, ordering PANI to continue the subsidy for the minor daughter and IMAS and CNREE to assume aid for the children upon reaching the age of majority, ensuring a dignified life.El Tribunal de Familia revocó parcialmente la sentencia de primera instancia, ordenando al PANI continuar el subsidio para la hija menor y al IMAS y CNREE asumir la ayuda para los hijos al alcanzar la mayoría de edad, garantizando una vida digna.
SummaryResumen
The Family Court heard an appeal in a special protection proceeding brought by parents, both with disabilities and advanced age, on behalf of their three minor children with serious disabilities. The parents sought restoration and continuation of financial aid from the National Children’s Trust (PANI) that had been suspended. PANI argued that the young people were neither at social risk nor abandoned, and that the Comptroller General required proper use of funds. The Court partially overturned the first-instance ruling that had denied aid. It held that the State's duty to protect the family, minors, and persons with disabilities under Articles 51 and 55 of the Constitution does not depend on a contract. It ordered PANI to continue subsidizing the minor daughter while she remains a minor, and once the children reach the age of majority, the Joint Social Welfare Institute (IMAS) and the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education (CNREE) must assume coordinated responsibility to subsidize all three siblings to ensure a dignified life. Claims for damages were rejected as not proper through this procedural route.El Tribunal de Familia conoció en alzada un proceso especial de protección interpuesto por los padres, ambos con discapacidad y de edad avanzada, en favor de sus tres hijos menores de edad que presentan serias discapacidades. Los progenitores solicitaron que el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (PANI) les restituyera y continuara brindando una ayuda económica que les había sido suspendida. El PANI argumentó que los jóvenes no se encontraban en riesgo social ni en abandono, y que la Contraloría General de la República exigía un uso adecuado de los recursos. El Tribunal revocó parcialmente la sentencia de primera instancia que había denegado la ayuda. Estableció que el deber del Estado de proteger a la familia, personas menores de edad y personas con discapacidad, conforme a los artículos 51 y 55 de la Constitución Política, no depende de la existencia de un contrato. Ordenó que el PANI continuara subsidiando a la hija menor mientras sea menor de edad, y que al alcanzar la mayoría de edad, el IMAS y el CNREE asumieran, coordinadamente, el subsidio de los tres jóvenes para garantizarles una vida digna. Rechazó los daños y perjuicios por no ser la vía procesal adecuada.
Key excerptExtracto clave
TENTH: In the foregoing recitals the doctrine on the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, national and international legislation on the subject, and even case law of the Constitutional Chamber were set forth. All this together with the proven facts of the appealed judgment that have been endorsed by this Court as conforming to the record, and keeping in mind the grievances expressed by the appellants, it is necessarily concluded that the appealed judgment must be partially reversed. The Court cannot share the course taken by the appealed decision regarding the reasons why the obligation of the state entity to pay the financial aid it had been providing in favor of the young persons S.C., J.D. and J.J. is not ordered. The lower court becomes entangled in the thesis that the agreement or contract entered into between the mother of the aforementioned young persons and the National Children’s Trust by means of which that lady received an amount of money that in reality corresponded to aid or a subsidy in favor of her young children, said contract being budgetarily located by the National Children’s Trust in the [Name2] relating to “Family Foster Care.” What is truly important is not in which [Name2] the PANI placed the aid it was giving to the young people because it considered they needed it, but rather that what is truly important is the latter, that the young people require that aid. It is the responsibility of the state entity to properly locate such aid within its budget, but the fact that this is not currently happening does not mean the need does not exist and that the state obligation is not being fulfilled. The National Children’s Trust alleges that the Comptroller General of the Republic urges them to make proper use of resources and therefore they must revoke the different cases of aid and not give it to children and young people who are not in a situation of abandonment or social risk. Indeed, the PANI must devote itself to complying with such directives, which leads it to budgetarily locate in the appropriate [Name2] of its budget the aid it provides to minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty. When this proceeding began the three young people were minors but now one of them is no longer, for that reason the protective measure was brought against the PANI, which is the institution that, as established in Articles 51 and 55 of the Political Constitution, must look after minors, including of course those who, besides being minors, have disabilities. Therefore there is no doubt that this institution is the one responsible for assuming such obligation. The first-instance judge errs in debating the validity and effectiveness or invalidity and ineffectiveness of the mentioned contract. It is clear that the PANI could dissolve or set aside said contract because a clause so permitted, but it is also clear that it is a contract unilaterally drawn up by the PANI and that in that measure it exercised a relationship of power or superiority over minors with disabilities and with great economic needs. Such a situation seems to suggest that the PANI was doing a kind of “favor,” which is not the case, for that institution was simply fulfilling its duty. Now the PANI alleges that it must make good use of public funds and that is why it is withdrawing the financial aid from the young Baltodano Valverde siblings, which the first-instance judge upholds in her substantive reasoning. But in reality safeguarding public funds does not mean failing to comply with its constitutional duties. Precisely, the National Children’s Trust has a budget made up of public funds over which it must properly watch, but one of its responsibilities is to look after minors with disabilities. So then, if the situation of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings does not fit within the characteristics that must be met by the beneficiaries of the “Family Foster Care” program, the PANI must proceed to create a program or other mechanism to fulfill its responsibility toward minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty. It is the PANI’s responsibility to properly address that situation, but inaction, inertia or negligence cannot be justifications for refusing cooperation to that social group. The PANI cannot excuse itself through impersonal formalities that only harm human beings in very difficult personal and economic conditions who require the State’s help, which it must provide as provided in Article 51 of the Political Constitution and through the PANI and other entities as indicated in Article 55 of our Magna Carta. In summary, the State’s duty through the PANI does not arise from a contract between the mother of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings and the responsible body, but rather its obligation arises from the aforementioned Articles 51 and 55. This latter point is clear and basic in the decision we now adopt. ELEVENTH: On the other hand, this Court also cannot share the conclusions reached by the first-instance judge when she assumes that indeed the Baltodano Valverde family is not in a “state of poverty” because both the IMAS and the PANI so concluded. In reality, it cannot be inferred in any way from the record that a “fair” assessment of said family was made under the parameters of a Basic Basket for Families with members who have the disadvantageous conditions of Disability. On the contrary, it is observed that in documentary form the IMAS starts from the premise that said family does not need financial aid by applying the parameters that are usual for all families in the country, information that is captured in a “cold” FORM used for those purposes. Different is the criterion in the assessment carried out by the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education, which, under a clear Disability perspective, applies a Basic Basket that fully takes into account the differences in the amounts required to cover the daily expenses of persons with disabilities, taking into account, for example, the difference in the cost of transportation, food, healthcare, cleaning, etc. Thus it is not possible to reach erroneous conclusions such as those of the PANI and the IMAS that do nothing but further demonstrate the discriminatory nature of the treatment of persons with disabilities and their families. As we saw earlier, the same draft United Nations Convention for persons with disabilities indicates that the parameters for assessing the circumstances of persons with disabilities cannot be the same as those for persons and families that do not suffer any disability.DÉCIMO: En los considerandos anteriores se expuso la doctrina del tema de los derechos fundamentales de las personas con discapacidad, la legislación nacional e internacional sobre el tema, incluso jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional. Todo ello junto con los hechos probados de la sentencia apelada que han sido avalados por este Tribunal por ajustarse a los autos, y teniendo presente los agravios expresados por los recurrentes, se concluye necesariamente que la sentencia venida en alzada debe ser revocada parcialmente. El Tribunal no puede compartir el rumbo que siguió la sentencia recurrida con relación a los motivos por los que no se dispone la obligación de la entidad estatal de sufragar la ayuda económica que venía cubriendo a favor de los jóvenes S.C, J.D. y J.J. El juzgado se enfrasca en la tesis de que el convenio o contrato celebrado entre la madre de los jóvenes mencionados y el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia mediante el cual dicha señora recibía una cantidad de dinero que en realidad correspondía a una ayuda o subsidio a favor de sus jóvenes hijos, siendo que dicho contrato se ubicaba presupuestariamente por el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia en el [Nombre2] relativo a “Acogimiento Familiar”. Lo verdaderamente importante no es en qué [Nombre2] ubicó el Pani la ayuda que daba a los jóvenes porque consideraba que necesitaban de la misma, sino que lo realmente importante es esto último, que los jóvenes requieren esa ayuda. Es responsabilidad del ente estatal ubicar adecuadamente dentro de su presupuesto dicha ayuda, pero el que ello no se de actualmente no significa que la necesidad no existe y que la obligación estatal no se cumpla. Alega el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia que la Contraloría General de la República los insta a que hagan un adecuado manejo de los recursos por lo que deben revocar los distintos casos de ayuda y no darla a los niños y jóvenes que no se encuentran en abandono o riesgo social. Efectivamente el Pani debe avocarse a cumplir con tales directrices, lo que lo lleva a ubicar presupuestariamente en el [Nombre2] adecuado en su presupuesto la ayuda que proporcione a las personas menores de edad con discapacidad que se encuentra en una situación de pobreza. Cuando se inicia este proceso los tres jóvenes eran menores de edad pero ahora uno de ellos ya no lo es, por ello la medida de protección fue planteada contra el Pani que es la institución que conforme lo establecen los artículos 51 y 55 de la Constitución Política debe velar por las personas menores de edad, incluyendo claro está las que aparte de ser menores de edad son discapacitadas. Así entonces no hay duda de que a dicha institución es a la que corresponde asumir tal obligación. Yerra la juzgadora de primera instancia en debatir sobre la validez y eficacia o invalides e ineficacia del contrato en mención. Es claro que el Pani podía deshacer o dejar sin efecto dicho contrato porque asì se lo permitía una de sus cláusulas, pero es claro también que se trata de un contrato confeccionado unilateralmente por el Pani y que en esa medida ejercía una relación de poder o superioridad respecto a las personas menores de edad con discapacidad y con grandes necesidades económicas. Tal situación parece dar a entender que el Pani hacía una especie de “favor” lo cual no es asì, pues simplemente dicha institución cumplía con su deber. Alega ahora el Pani que debe hacer un buen uso de los fondos públicos y que por eso les quita la ayuda económica a los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde, lo cual avala la señora jueza de primera instancia en sus consideraciones de fondo. Pero en realidad cuidar los fondos públicos no significa incumplir con sus deberes constitucionales. Precisamente el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia cuenta con un presupuesto constituido por fondos públicos por los que debe velar adecuadamente, pero es una de sus responsabilidades velar por las personas menores de edad con discapacidad. Así entonces, si la situación de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde no se ubica dentro de las características que deben reunir las personas que son beneficiarias del programa de “Acogimiento Familiar”, debe proceder el Pani a crear un programa u otro mecanismo para cumplir con su responsabilidad con personas menores de edad con discapacidad que se encuentra en una situación de pobreza. Es responsabilidad del Pani ubicar adecuadamente dicha situación, pero la inopia, inercia o negligencia no puede ser justificantes para negar la colaboración a dicho conglomerado social. No puede el Pani excusarse en formalismos impersonales que no hacen más que hacer daño a seres humanos en condiciones personales y económicas muy difíciles que requieren la ayuda del Estado, el cual debe cumplir según dispone el artículo 51 de la Constitución Política y a través del Pani y otras entidades como indica el artículo 55 de nuestra Carta Magna. En resumen, el deber del Estado a través del Pani no deviene de un contrato entre la madre de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde y el órgano encargado, sino que su obligación deviene de los artículos 51 y 55 ya mencionados. Esto último es claro y básico en la decisión que ahora tomamos. DÉCIMO PRIMERO: Por otra parte tampoco puede compartir este Tribunal las conclusiones a que arriba la juzgadora de primera instancia al partir de que en efecto la familia Baltodano Valverde no se encuentra en “estado de pobreza” porque tanto el IMAS como el PANI asì lo concluyeron. En realidad, de los autos no se puede desprender de ninguna manera que se haya realizado una valoración “justa” a dicha familia bajo parámetros de una Canasta Básica para Familias con miembros que ostentan las condiciones desventajosas de la Discapacidad. Por el contrario se observa que documentalmente el IMAS parte de que dicha familia no requiere ayuda económica aplicándole los parámetros que se estilan para todas las familias del país, información que se capta en una FICHA “fría” utilizada para esos efectos. Distinto es el criterio en la valoración que realiza el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial, quienes bajo una perspectiva clara de Discapacidad aplican una Canasta Básica que tiene muy presente las diferencias de los montos que requieren sufragar los gastos diarios de personas con discapacidad, tomando en cuenta por ejemplo la diferencia en el costo de transporte, de alimentación, de asistencia sanitaria, de limpieza, etc. Así entonces no es posible arribar a conclusiones erradas como las del Pani y el Imas que no hacen más que evidenciar aún más lo discriminatorio del trato a las personas con discapacidad y a sus familias. Como vimos anteriormente, el mismo proyecto de Convención de Naciones Unidas para personas con discapacidad indica que los parámetros para valorar las circunstancias de las personas con discapacidad no pueden ser iguales a las de aquellas personas y familias que no sufren alguna discapacidad.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"El deber del Estado a través del Pani no deviene de un contrato entre la madre de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde y el órgano encargado, sino que su obligación deviene de los artículos 51 y 55 ya mencionados."
"The State's duty through PANI does not arise from a contract between the mother of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings and the responsible body, but rather its obligation arises from the aforementioned Articles 51 and 55."
Considerando X
"El deber del Estado a través del Pani no deviene de un contrato entre la madre de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde y el órgano encargado, sino que su obligación deviene de los artículos 51 y 55 ya mencionados."
Considerando X
"Medir las necesidades y posibilidades de las personas con discapacidad y sus familias bajo los mismos parámetros con que se miden tales rubros en las personas y familias sin discapacidad, es motivo de discriminación."
"Measuring the needs and possibilities of persons with disabilities and their families under the same parameters used to measure such items in persons and families without disabilities is grounds for discrimination."
Considerando VII
"Medir las necesidades y posibilidades de las personas con discapacidad y sus familias bajo los mismos parámetros con que se miden tales rubros en las personas y familias sin discapacidad, es motivo de discriminación."
Considerando VII
"No puede el Pani excusarse en formalismos impersonales que no hacen más que hacer daño a seres humanos en condiciones personales y económicas muy difíciles que requieren la ayuda del Estado."
"PANI cannot excuse itself through impersonal formalities that only harm human beings in very difficult personal and economic conditions who require the State's help."
Considerando X
"No puede el Pani excusarse en formalismos impersonales que no hacen más que hacer daño a seres humanos en condiciones personales y económicas muy difíciles que requieren la ayuda del Estado."
Considerando X
Full documentDocumento completo
FOURTH: The analysis of the two specific issues that characterize this matter, namely: the protection of the family by the Costa Rican State through its institutions and the condition of persons with disabilities of the plaintiffs' children; compels us to set forth the approach that the Political Constitution gives to such issues. Article 51 of our Magna Carta not only contemplates a notion of “family” based on marriage, but also recognizes other legally relevant forms of family aggregation. And this is in turn reflected in Article 1 of the Family Code. Said Article 51 states that: “The family, as the natural element and foundation of society, has the right to special protection from the State. The mother, the child, the elderly, and the destitute sick shall also have the right to such protection.” Articles 17.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 16.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have similar content. In that same vein, at the level of ordinary legislation, we have Law 7600, which attempts to provide a regulatory framework for the protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the "Ley Integral para la Persona Adulta Mayor" and Article 13 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code. The “family” in the Political Constitution is a means or channel for its members to fully realize their lives, within a framework of respect for democratic principles of coexistence and for fundamental rights and freedoms. It is the ideal means for boys and girls to achieve integral development and for fathers and mothers to realize their personal aspirations, as well as for the rest of the people that comprise it to achieve their objectives. On the other hand, it should be noted that by contemplating the elderly and the destitute sick, the aforementioned Article 51 opens the door to another family community based on the kinship or biological relationship of persons with that elderly or destitute sick person, although we would also find another type of “family” when, despite the absence of kinship or a biological nexus, the relationship is with an “elderly and destitute sick person” who requires protection, and just as happens with destitute childhood, these persons, in many cases, are not cared for by relatives but rather by neighbors or friends, who, moved by feelings of charity, love, solidarity, and respect for human dignity, provide them with the warmth of a home. The constitutional norm is clear in the sense that the State, through its institutions, must provide aid and protection to these different types of families, and particularly to children, mothers who are heads of household, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. This last point is of vital importance for the final decision in the process before us, because it is not only a case of two parents with disabilities who demand aid from the State for their children through one of its institutions, specifically the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia as the governing body responsible for safeguarding minors, but also that this request for financial aid has as its beneficiaries three minor children who suffer from serious disabilities. Thus, the State’s obligation to help said persons is doubly protected by Article 51 of the Constitution, not only because they are minors in a state of poverty but also because they are persons with different disabilities. From this reasoning, it is clear to this panel of the Tribunal that the party obligated to respond to the request is the State in this matter, through the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, because the beneficiaries of the requested aid were minors at the time of requesting the protective measures. Thus, it is the State that must assume the responsibility incumbent upon it as established by Article 51 of the Constitution, so often cited, a responsibility that it must materialize through the institutions that are competent, whether because some of the beneficiaries are minors or because they are persons with disabilities, as is the case under study.
FIFTH: 10% of the world’s population are persons with disabilities, but 30% or 35% of said world population is affected because this includes the families of such persons. That is, there are close to 600 million persons with disabilities in the world. Despite being such a large social conglomerate, it is one of the collectives at greatest risk and most unprotected, given that poverty, abandonment, and misery in general operate upon them, and such lamentable situations also occur even in developed countries. Such circumstances justify “affirmative measures” because they make it possible to overcome material inequality, as these are persons with a natural individual disadvantage. That is, said “affirmative measures” attempt to overcome the natural disadvantage, thereby resulting in “reverse discrimination.” From that perspective, we understand that when, for example, a scholarship is given to a person with a disability, it is because the family lacks sufficient economic resources, as they face real material inequality. This is precisely the situation of the applicants for the protective measures before us. And that is the justification for why the aid that Mr. Baltodano Valverde requests from the Costa Rican State for three of his children must be granted. The young persons for whom their parents Manuel Baltodano and [Nombre1] request aid from the State suffer from significant disabilities and live in a condition of extreme poverty, which is verified through all the evidence contained in the appealed case file.
SIXTH: While it is true that we are before a family that in the past received a small house from the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and that has several household appliances and other benefits, the truth is that they do not have sufficient income to allow them to live with dignity. It has been clearly demonstrated in the record that said family subsists on various “pensions” or subsidies that some of its members receive from the State. But in reality, none of these individual incomes, nor even adding them all together, correspond to a monthly sum of money that covers the real needs of this family composed of seven members, all of them with disabilities, with the further particularity that the father of the family is elderly. This is a very “complex” and “difficult” family reality to cope with, for if the worldwide percentage of persons affected by the disability of one of their members is approximately 35% globally, this Tribunal concludes without doubt that the case of the Baltodano Valverde family exceeds 100% family impact due to disability problems. Evidently, the Baltodano Valverde family, due to the particular condition of its seven members, requires comprehensive treatment from the State through its various institutions. Thus, the parameters for measuring the poverty condition of said family cannot be the same as those used by institutions such as IMAS to determine the aid provided to other families that do not have any members with disabilities. To measure the poverty condition of this family, an “affirmative measure” is required, as correctly done by the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial through the so-called “Canasta Básica en Discapacidad.” It is understood that this latter institution has crystal-clear clarity on the subject of “disability”; hence, the rest of the institutions obligated to help the Baltodano Valverde family must study such “affirmative measures.” This Tribunal does not dare to set the quota that the distinct State institutions must provide to the Baltodano Valverde family, as it is understood that such entities have technical personnel who must investigate the sums of money and types of aid that correspond in cases like the present one, but it must be pointed out that the parameters to consider for such measurement cannot lose sight of the “persons with disabilities” condition of the beneficiaries. On the other hand, it is also not correct to set the same sum of money that the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia provided years ago to each of the three children of the Baltodano Valverde family for whom their parents requested such financial aid.
SEVENTH: When dealing with the issue of discrimination against persons with disabilities, we normally think that such conduct comes from citizens and employers themselves, but in reality, said discrimination also operates internally within some State and non-governmental institutions, which, despite not deliberately intending to discriminate, are led to it by a lack of knowledge on the subject. This is how we explain the different “treatment” provided by the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial in relation to other institutions of the Costa Rican State. But the problem is not only at the level of Costa Rica; this phenomenon occurs worldwide, which is why the United Nations Organization is trying to ensure that this scourge is overcome. The reality of humanity clearly reflects serious discrimination against persons with disabilities. The poverty margins in said social conglomerate are truly alarming. So indicates the final report of the Ad Hoc Committee charged with preparing a comprehensive and integral international convention to protect and promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. Within that social sector, discrimination based on gender is felt even more. These and other situations motivated the Inter-American Community some years ago to enact a regional Convention seeking to alleviate such discriminatory acts. Now it is the world community that intends to raise a banner through regulations capable of committing subscribing countries so that, in their respective populations, the human rights of persons with disabilities are respected and all discrimination against them is eliminated. Our country has not been alien to this movement, and proof of this is the promulgation of Law 7600 and its regulations, which also seek to eliminate all forms of discrimination against the social conglomerate to which we have referred. Thus, for example, Article 1 of said law states: “The comprehensive development of the population with disabilities is declared of public interest, under equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as the rest of the inhabitants.” Likewise, subsection c) of Article 4 on the “Obligations of the State” to comply with that law states: “c) Eliminate actions and provisions that, directly or indirectly, promote discrimination or prevent persons with disabilities from having access to programs and services.” Also, subsection g) of said norm establishes as an obligation of the State: “g) Guarantee, through the corresponding institutions, the support services required by persons with disabilities to facilitate their permanence within the family.” However, such norms, and others with the same philosophy, have not been sufficient to fulfill their purpose, which to some extent has remained on paper due to the non-compliance of the State and its institutions. That reality must change, and to this end the work of the Committee drafting the United Nations project on the problematic situation of persons with disabilities and their families will contribute, insofar as it points to the need to enact norms that obligate States to take all types of measures against the scourge of discrimination against persons with disabilities, not only in a personal capacity but also in relation to families in which some member faces a disability. This issue is directly related to the core problem of the case before us, which features the particularity that both the plaintiffs are persons with disabilities, as are the three children for whom they request aid from the Costa Rican State. But apart from all this, we have that two of the affected parties are women, that is, the mother and the young woman S. In general, this is a family that cannot fend for itself; not even the parents have the possibility of working and moving forward with the upbringing of their children due to the disability inherent to each one of them, and furthermore because they must face the personal care that each of their children requires. A difficult task for anyone to cope with, and even more difficult when the parents also face a personal disability. It is clear, then, that the Costa Rican State must help each of the members of said family to the extent that they so require, but it must also help that entire family in a comprehensive manner, as a social group protected by Article 51 of the Political Constitution. This latter perspective has been analyzed by the doctrine that investigates these issues, but even further, the Committee charged with drafting the United Nations convention project clearly captures such a situation and so denounces it before the world community. This important report is very revealing, although, of course, it is not binding because it has not yet been approved by the United Nations, but it reflects the conclusions of the most accredited scholars on the matter worldwide. As regards our interest for this particular case, said report states: “PREAMBLE: q) Recognizing that women and girls with disabilities are often at greater risk, both within and outside the home, of violence, injury or abuse, abandonment or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation. r) Recognizing also that boys and girls with disabilities must fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other boys and girls, and recalling the obligations assumed by States Parties in this regard under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. s) Emphasizing the need to incorporate a gender perspective in all activities aimed at promoting the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by persons with disabilities. t) Highlighting the fact that the majority of persons with disabilities live in conditions of poverty and recognizing, in this regard, the critical need to mitigate the negative effects of poverty on persons with disabilities. v) Recognizing the importance of accessibility to the physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education, and to information and communication, for persons with disabilities to be able to fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms. x) Convinced that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State, and that persons with disabilities and their families should receive the necessary protection and assistance so that families can contribute towards the full and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities.” Likewise, the articles provide: “ARTICLE 23 relating to the Home and the Family, in the third section, states: “3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the same rights with respect to family life. To make these rights effective, and to prevent concealment, abandonment, negligence and segregation of children with disabilities, States Parties shall ensure that early and comprehensive information, services and support are provided to minors with disabilities and their families. 4. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with the applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. In no case shall a minor be separated from parents on the basis of a disability of the minor, of both parents, or of one of them.” In turn, Article 28 relating to an Adequate standard of living and social protection states: “1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of their living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the exercise of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability,” and point 2.c) states: “To ensure access by persons with disabilities and their families living in situations of poverty to assistance from the State to cover disability-related expenses, including adequate training, counselling, financial assistance and respite care.” And although said project does not yet have the status of an International Convention, in our continent we have the "Convención Interamericana para la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad," whose concern is basically the discrimination that persons face due to their disability. It is important to highlight that said convention indicates in Article 1. 2. b: “A distinction or preference adopted by a State Party to promote the social integration or personal development of persons with disabilities does not constitute discrimination, provided that the distinction or preference does not, in itself, limit the right to equality of persons with disabilities and that individuals with disabilities are not forced to accept such distinction or preference. In cases where domestic legislation provides for the figure of a declaration of interdiction, when necessary and appropriate for their well-being, this shall not constitute discrimination.” This section allows us to see clearly that States must assume specific, and sometimes different, decisions for persons with disabilities, precisely to ensure that said social sector is not discriminated against. That is, to guarantee equality in difference, it is necessary for measures such as exceptions, privileges, etc., to occur. The Inter-American Convention conceives of it in such terms, as it considers the failure to comply with positive actions to be discriminatory. This is precisely the raison d'être of the "Canasta Básica en Discapacidad" applied by the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial, and which is ignored by both the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. We conclude, therefore, that measuring the needs and possibilities of persons with disabilities and their families under the same parameters used to measure such items in persons and families without disabilities constitutes grounds for discrimination. A topic of equality and inequality that has been dealt with extensively, and along a similar line, by the Constitutional Chamber in ruling number 2006007262 of 14:46 on May 23, 2006. This latter situation occurs because persons with disabilities and their families incur very significant expenses that those who do not suffer from such ailments do not, or at least the economic cost and time involved are considerably lower. Thus, as the evaluation parameters considered by the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial and those considered by both IMAS and PANI are different, the results of the first institution with respect to the two subsequent ones are completely different regarding the qualification of “extreme poverty” for the Baltodano Valverde family.
EIGHTH: The issues of extreme poverty and disability are fundamental to the resolution of this case; hence, we must resume the study of the parameters to consider for evaluating that poverty and disability, as well as that of the State Institutions responsible for helping persons living in such conditions, an issue we referred to briefly in the preceding consideration. On the topic of poverty in our country, we have that the Law for the Creation of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, No. 4760, in its Article 2 states: “IMAS has the purpose of solving the problem of extreme poverty in the country, for which it shall plan, direct, execute, and control a national plan aimed at that end. For that objective, it shall use all the human and economic resources placed at its service by the country's employers and workers, public sector institutions, national or foreign, private organizations of all kinds, religious institutions, and other groups interested in participating in the National Plan to Combat Poverty.” In turn, Article 3 states: “All institutions that use public resources shall participate in the fight against poverty directed by IMAS, through the contribution of economic, personnel, and administrative resources to the extent defined by their governing bodies and in accordance with the nature of each institution, or in the terms determined by this law. For the above effects, the indicated institutions, of whatever legal nature they may be, are hereby authorized to approve programs for participation in the fight against extreme poverty, through IMAS and under its direction, and to make economic contributions to it, destined for the purposes of this law.” Article 4 e) states: “Attend to the needs of social groups or persons who must be provided with means of subsistence when they lack them;” Likewise, the Organic Law of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia establishes that said institution's primary purpose is: “... to especially and comprehensively protect minors and their families, as the natural element and pillar of society. (Article 1).” Furthermore, among its principles is to recognize, defend, and guarantee the rights of childhood, adolescence, and the family; as well as to respect the dignity of the human person and the spirit of solidarity as the basic natural element that will guide the institutional work. (Article 2). This and many other regulatory provisions set forth the commitment and obligation of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia towards minors, with minors and young persons suffering from some disability occupying a very important position within said social conglomerate. Thus, said institution cannot evade its responsibility towards the young Baltodano family members by simply saying that they are not in a situation of social risk, and therefore do not fit into the aid program within which it previously placed them. The constitutional and legal duty of said institution transcends the internal character programs defined by the officials themselves. It is necessary that the responsibility be assumed in the terms established by the Political Constitution itself in Articles 51 and 55 and the Organic Law of said Institution.
NINTH: Having clarified the responsibilities of these State institutions, we can define the functions or services that each of them must provide to the three young Baltodano Valverde family members for whom their parents request aid. While it is true that the process was directed solely against the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia because the three young persons were minors, it is clear that now the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial must also intervene, given that one of said young persons has reached the age of majority and the other two will do so very soon, reasoning based mainly on the Ley General de la Persona Joven, Number 8261. We must reflect on the fact that the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia is the State institution charged with safeguarding minors along with other entities; hence, the true responsible party is the State, for as we determined in previous considerations, it is the Costa Rican State, through its institutions, that is responsible for looking after the family, minors, women heads of household, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Thus, since the State's organizational chart includes other institutions charged with concrete and specific responsibilities, such as the issue of extreme poverty and disability, we must understand that when one of the beneficiaries of the financial aid claimed by the plaintiffs reaches the age of majority, those other institutions charged with those other functions must take on a leading role, all in order to comply with the provisions of Article 51 of the Political Constitution.
TENTH: In the preceding considerations, the doctrine on the subject of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, national and international legislation on the matter, including jurisprudence from the Constitutional Chamber, were set forth. All of this, together with the proven facts of the appealed judgment that have been endorsed by this Tribunal for being in accordance with the record, and bearing in mind the grievances expressed by the appellants, leads necessarily to the conclusion that the judgment under appeal must be partially reversed. The Tribunal cannot share the course followed by the appealed judgment regarding the reasons why the obligation of the State entity to cover the financial aid it had been providing to the young persons S.C, J.D., and J.J. was not ordered. The court becomes entangled in the thesis that the agreement or contract entered into between the mother of the mentioned young persons and the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through which said lady received a sum of money that in reality corresponded to aid or a subsidy in favor of her young children, was budgetarily placed by the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia in the [Nombre2] relative to “Foster Care.” What is truly important is not in which [Nombre2] PANI placed the aid it gave to the young persons because it considered they needed it, but rather that the truly important aspect is the latter: that the young persons require that aid. It is the responsibility of the State entity to properly place said aid within its budget, but the fact that this is not currently happening does not mean that the need does not exist and that the State's obligation is not to be fulfilled. The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia alleges that the Contraloría General de la República urges them to make proper use of resources, and therefore they must revoke the various aid cases and not give aid to children and young persons who are not in a situation of abandonment or social risk. Indeed, PANI must commit to complying with such guidelines, which leads it to budgetarily place the aid it provides to minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty in the appropriate [Nombre2] in its budget. When this process began, the three young persons were minors, but now one of them is no longer a minor; for this reason, the protective measure was brought against PANI, which is the institution that, as established by Articles 51 and 55 of the Political Constitution, must look after minors, including, of course, those who, apart from being minors, are disabled. Thus, there is no doubt that it is that institution that must assume such an obligation. The first-instance judge errs in debating the validity and efficacy or invalidity and ineffectiveness of the contract in question. It is clear that PANI could dissolve or render said contract ineffective because one of its clauses allowed it to do so, but it is also clear that this is a contract unilaterally drafted by PANI and that, to that extent, it exercised a relationship of power or superiority over the minors with disabilities and with great economic needs. Such a situation seems to imply that PANI was doing a kind of “favor,” which is not the case, for said institution was simply fulfilling its duty. PANI now claims that it must make good use of public funds and that this is why it is taking away the financial aid from the young members of the Baltodano Valverde family, which the first-instance judge endorses in her considerations on the merits. But in reality, taking care of public funds does not mean failing to fulfill its constitutional duties. Precisely, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia has a budget constituted by public funds, for which it must properly watch over, but one of its responsibilities is to watch over minors with disabilities.
NINTH: Having clarified the responsibilities of these State institutions, we can define the functions or services that each of them must provide to the three young Baltodano Valverde family members for whom their parents request aid. While it is true that the process was directed solely against the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia because the three young persons were minors, it is clear that now the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial must also intervene, given that one of said young persons has reached the age of majority and the other two will do so very soon, reasoning based mainly on the Ley General de la Persona Joven, Number 8261. We must reflect on the fact that the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia is the State institution charged with safeguarding minors along with other entities; hence, the true responsible party is the State, for as we determined in previous considerations, it is the Costa Rican State, through its institutions, that is responsible for looking after the family, minors, women heads of household, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Thus, since the State's organizational chart includes other institutions charged with concrete and specific responsibilities, such as the issue of extreme poverty and disability, we must understand that when one of the beneficiaries of the financial aid claimed by the plaintiffs reaches the age of majority, those other institutions charged with those other functions must take on a leading role, all in order to comply with the provisions of Article 51 of the Political Constitution.
TENTH: In the preceding considerations, the doctrine on the subject of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, national and international legislation on the matter, including jurisprudence from the Constitutional Chamber, were set forth. All of this, together with the proven facts of the appealed judgment that have been endorsed by this Tribunal for being in accordance with the record, and bearing in mind the grievances expressed by the appellants, leads necessarily to the conclusion that the judgment under appeal must be partially reversed. The Tribunal cannot share the course followed by the appealed judgment regarding the reasons why the obligation of the State entity to cover the financial aid it had been providing to the young persons S.C, J.D., and J.J. was not ordered. The court becomes entangled in the thesis that the agreement or contract entered into between the mother of the mentioned young persons and the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through which said lady received a sum of money that in reality corresponded to aid or a subsidy in favor of her young children, was budgetarily placed by the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia in the [Nombre2] relative to “Foster Care.” What is truly important is not in which [Nombre2] PANI placed the aid it gave to the young persons because it considered they needed it, but rather that the truly important aspect is the latter: that the young persons require that aid. It is the responsibility of the State entity to properly place said aid within its budget, but the fact that this is not currently happening does not mean that the need does not exist and that the State's obligation is not to be fulfilled. The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia alleges that the Contraloría General de la República urges them to make proper use of resources, and therefore they must revoke the various aid cases and not give aid to children and young persons who are not in a situation of abandonment or social risk. Indeed, PANI must commit to complying with such guidelines, which leads it to budgetarily place the aid it provides to minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty in the appropriate [Nombre2] in its budget. When this process began, the three young persons were minors, but now one of them is no longer a minor; for this reason, the protective measure was brought against PANI, which is the institution that, as established by Articles 51 and 55 of the Political Constitution, must look after minors, including, of course, those who, apart from being minors, are disabled. Thus, there is no doubt that it is that institution that must assume such an obligation. The first-instance judge errs in debating the validity and efficacy or invalidity and ineffectiveness of the contract in question. It is clear that PANI could dissolve or render said contract ineffective because one of its clauses allowed it to do so, but it is also clear that this is a contract unilaterally drafted by PANI and that, to that extent, it exercised a relationship of power or superiority over the minors with disabilities and with great economic needs. Such a situation seems to imply that PANI was doing a kind of “favor,” which is not the case, for said institution was simply fulfilling its duty. PANI now claims that it must make good use of public funds and that this is why it is taking away the financial aid from the young members of the Baltodano Valverde family, which the first-instance judge endorses in her considerations on the merits. But in reality, taking care of public funds does not mean failing to fulfill its constitutional duties. Precisely, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia has a budget constituted by public funds, for which it must properly watch over, but one of its responsibilities is to watch over minors with disabilities.
Therefore, if the situation of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings does not fall within the characteristics that must be met by persons who are beneficiaries of the “Acogimiento Familiar” program, Pani must proceed to create a program or other mechanism to fulfill its responsibility toward minors with disabilities who find themselves in a situation of poverty. It is Pani’s responsibility to adequately place this situation, but lack of resources, inertia, or negligence cannot be justifications for denying collaboration to this social group. Pani cannot excuse itself with impersonal formalities that do nothing more than harm human beings in very difficult personal and economic conditions who require the State’s help, which it must fulfill as provided by Article 51 of the Political Constitution and through Pani and other entities as indicated by Article 55 of our Magna Carta. In summary, the State’s duty through Pani does not arise from a contract between the mother of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings and the responsible body, but rather its obligation arises from the aforementioned Articles 51 and 55. This latter point is clear and basic in the decision we now take. ELEVENTH: On the other hand, this Court cannot share the conclusions reached by the trial judge when starting from the premise that, in effect, the Baltodano Valverde family is not in a “state of poverty” because both IMAS and PANI concluded so. In reality, it cannot be inferred in any way from the case file that a “fair” valuation was made of said family under parameters of a Basic Basket for Families with members who bear the disadvantageous conditions of disability. On the contrary, it is observed that documentarily, IMAS assumes that said family does not require economic aid by applying to them the parameters that are common for all families in the country, information that is captured in a “cold” FICHA used for these purposes. The criterion in the valuation carried out by the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education is different, which, under a clear disability perspective, applies a Basic Basket that very much takes into account the differences in the amounts required to cover the daily expenses of persons with disabilities, taking into account, for example, the difference in the cost of transportation, food, healthcare assistance, cleaning, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to reach erroneous conclusions like those of Pani and IMAS, which do nothing more than further evidence the discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities and their families. As we saw previously, the draft United Nations Convention for persons with disabilities itself indicates that the parameters for assessing the circumstances of persons with disabilities cannot be the same as those for persons and families who do not suffer any disability. That is, said project advocates for treatment to be adjusted to the needs and characteristics of persons with disabilities and their families. To achieve that fair treatment, the parameters by which such circumstances are measured must be adjusted to those different characteristics and needs. Evidently, in this case, the conclusions reached with measurement parameters that are equal for different situations are totally misaligned and removed from reality. Likewise, said project advocates that the families of such persons also be helped so that they can, in turn, help the members of their family who have a disability. Ironically, because the parents of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings have not abandoned them nor placed them at social risk, despite themselves suffering from disability and having many material, cultural, and economic limitations, they are punished by not being placed within Acogimiento Familiar groups. Must parents abandon or neglect their children with disabilities so that Pani assumes its economic responsibility and helps them? Would it not be better to help them so that a situation of abandonment or social risk or a state of vulnerability is not reached? The disability suffered by the parents of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings was demonstrated in the case file, which is worthy of note, but even so, they have fought for their children, and this present process is proof of that. The lady trial judge seems to criticize the Baltodano Valverde family negatively and, consequently, the parents for turning to public services and trying to exhaust all possible state aid, which is inappropriate since it is impossible for the mother of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings to go out to seek work outside her home because she has to attend to six persons with disabilities, which evidently entails washing and ironing a lot of clothes, preparing a great deal of food which, it should be noted, must be of high nutritional quality due to the disabilities of her family members, and administering the large quantity of medications they consume, etc. For his part, Mr. Baltodano cannot go out to seek work outside his home either because he evidently must help his wife care for the children; it should be taken into account that some of the disabilities suffered by his children are very difficult to manage in a family, such as autism and mental retardation. Furthermore, Mr. Baltodano is of advanced age and also suffers from a disability. Such persons require great care and constant attention. Sharing day to day with persons with autism, retardation, or other disabilities entails a very great emotional drain, hence, the Costa Rican State should instead give the necessary support to both parents so that they can continue fighting for their children and for themselves due to the disability they suffer. The constant upbringing of so many children with disabilities is in itself “disabling,” and that is how the State and Society should see it so that, with criteria of justice and solidarity, they help this family. While it is true that awareness (Article 6 of Law 7600) is lacking in Costa Rican society on the subject of disability, it is not justifiable that governmental institutions and judges lack such culture in the matter, since we are the ones called upon to respond to the needs of such a social group, as it can be accepted that PANI and IMAS continue applying rules or criteria that ignore the difference in needs between persons with disabilities and those who are not. It is not explained, and even less justified, that Pani denies aid simply because persons with disabilities in a state of poverty are not placed with abandoned persons or those at social risk. On the contrary, Law 7600 establishes as an obligation of the State (Article 4, subsection g) to “Guarantee, by means of the corresponding institutions, the support services required by persons with disabilities to facilitate their permanence in the family.” TWELFTH: Neither can we share the criterion of the trial judge in maintaining that the young Baltodano Valverde siblings are beneficiaries of various state pensions or subsidies. Such a situation is not relevant, but rather what must be analyzed is whether the overall amount that each of these persons receives is really sufficient to cover their needs and allow them to lead a dignified life to which minors have a right for comprehensive development, although the latter must also be applied to persons with disabilities of legal age because in a good number of cases, chronological age is irrelevant. Thus, for example, it is unheard of to consider that receiving one specific pension and another of one thousand seven hundred colones is considered “a lot” of money. Such a quantity of pensions or aid precisely reflects the lack in Costa Rica of an objective policy with a perspective for persons with disabilities. In this matter, it is not about adding two plus two. See that, on the contrary, a very high pension, misaligned with the reality of the beneficiary, could be excessive. Therefore, what is important is the overall amount in relation to the type of disability and the personal and family situation of the beneficiary. Evidently, these have not been the criteria of the lady trial judge. Neither do we share the criticism that the Baltodano family consumes a lot of electricity or has a washing machine or refrigerator or faxes. Fortunately, they have a washing machine because of the enormous use that must be given to said appliance daily, the same regarding the refrigerator. But also regarding the faxes, since as young Felipe said at the hearing held in this instance, one of the three does not work, another only allows receiving faxes, and the other only allows sending faxes, in addition to the fact that they have been means used to exercise their rights, which must be supported in favor of the state of vulnerability in which the applicants find themselves. This family, due to the struggle it has waged at the legal level, requires this instrument, and it does not lift them out of poverty; it simply helps them somewhat to mitigate their transportation and communication problem. FOURTEENTH: Consequently, among the items claimed by the plaintiffs, we find that relating to damages and the retroactive payment of aid that they were no longer paid. In this regard, the Court concludes that in reality, this is not the corresponding procedural avenue to hear such claims, since the avenue chosen by the plaintiffs is precisely the “precautionary” one through a “Proceso Especial de Protección” regulated in the Childhood and Adolescence Code, Article 141 and following and concordant articles of the Childhood and Adolescence Code. Let us remember that this type of process basically seeks to provide a response to a problematic situation that directly and immediately affects a right that has been injured or may soon be so, but in no way does it seek to “Establish” or “Declare” rights, as happens in the declaratory avenue, which is regrettable; however, it falls within the procedural framework that governs the matter. The foregoing is without prejudice to the right held by the interested parties to resort to the pertinent avenue, in accordance with the provisions of Constitutional Article 41 and Article 1045 of the Civil Code. TWELFTH: The appealed judgment is partially revoked. The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia must continue giving a subsidy to the minor S.C. while she has this condition, and upon reaching legal age, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social must continue providing said aid in coordination with the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education. Regarding the young [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], both Baltodano Valverde, both the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education must provide them with the subsidy they require to allow them a dignified life. The first of these entities must cover the necessary housing, food, and clothing needs, and the second of these entities must manage the necessary aid so that the young people have the necessary resources to carry out studies that allow them to develop their skills. In all other appealed matters, the appealed judgment is confirmed.
States Parties shall ensure that children are not separated from their parents against their will, except when competent authorities, subject to judicial review, determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary in the best interest of the child. In no case shall a minor be separated from their parents on the basis of a disability of the minor, of both parents, or of one of them." In turn, Article 28 regarding Adequate standard of living and social protection states: "1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the exercise of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability," and section 2.c) states: "To ensure access by persons with disabilities and their families living in situations of poverty to assistance from the State for disability-related expenses, including adequate training, counselling, financial assistance and respite care." And although said project does not yet have the status of an International Convention, in our continent we have the "Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities," whose concern is fundamentally the discrimination faced by persons based on their disability. It is important to note that said convention states in Article 1. 2. b: "A distinction or preference adopted by a State Party to promote the social integration or personal development of persons with disabilities does not constitute discrimination, provided that the distinction or preference does not in itself limit the right to equality of persons with disabilities and that individuals with disabilities are not forced to accept such distinction or preference. In cases where domestic legislation provides for the declaration of interdiction, when necessary and appropriate for their well-being, this shall not constitute discrimination." This section allows one to clearly see that States must make specific and sometimes different decisions for persons with disabilities, precisely in order to ensure that said social sector is not discriminated against. That is, to guarantee equality in difference, it is necessary that measures such as exceptions, privileges, etc., be implemented. In such terms, the Inter-American Convention conceives it, as it considers failure to comply with positive actions discriminatory. That is precisely the rationale behind the "Basic Disability Basket (Canasta Básica en Discapacidad)" applied by the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education (Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial), which is ignored by both the Joint Institute for Social Assistance (Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social) and the National Child Welfare Agency (Patronato Nacional de la Infancia). We therefore conclude that measuring the needs and possibilities of persons with disabilities and their families using the same parameters with which such items are measured in persons and families without disabilities is grounds for discrimination. The topic of equality and inequality has been extensively addressed along similar lines by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in vote number 2006007262 of 14:46 on May 23, 2006. The latter occurs because persons with disabilities and their families incur very significant expenses not incurred by those who do not suffer such ailments, or at least the economic and time cost is considerably lower. Thus, as the assessment parameters taken into account by the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education and those taken into account by both the IMAS and the PANI are different, the results of the first institution in relation to the following two are completely different regarding the qualification of "extreme poverty" for the Baltodano Valverde family.
**EIGHTH:** The issue of extreme poverty and disability is basic to the resolution of this case, hence we must return to the study of the parameters to be taken into account to assess that poverty and disability, as well as that of the State Institutions responsible for assisting people living in such conditions, a topic we referred to quickly in the previous recital (considerando). Regarding the topic of poverty in our country, we have that the Law Creating the Joint Institute for Social Assistance, No. 4760, in its Article 2 states: "The IMAS has as its purpose to solve the problem of extreme poverty in the country, for which it must plan, direct, execute, and control a national plan aimed at that end. For this objective, it shall use all the human and economic resources made available to it by the country's employers and workers, national or foreign public sector institutions, private organizations of all kinds, religious institutions, and other groups interested in participating in the National Plan to Combat Poverty (Plan Nacional de Lucha contra la Pobreza)." In turn, Article 3 states: "All institutions that use public resources shall participate in the fight against poverty directed by the IMAS, through the contribution of economic, personnel, and administrative resources to the extent defined by their governing bodies and in accordance with the nature of each institution, or in the terms determined by this law. For the aforementioned purposes, the indicated institutions, of whatever legal nature they may be, are hereby authorized to approve programs for participation in the fight against extreme poverty, through the IMAS and under its direction and to make economic contributions to it, destined for the purposes of this law." Article 4 e) states: "Address the needs of social groups or individuals who must be provided with means of subsistence when they lack them;". Likewise, the Organic Law of the National Child Welfare Agency establishes that said institution has as its primary purpose: "... to protect especially and comprehensively minors and their families, as the natural element and pillar of society. (Article 1)." Furthermore, among its principles is recognizing, defending, and guaranteeing the rights of children, adolescents, and the family; as well as respecting the dignity of the human person and the spirit of solidarity as the basic natural element that shall guide the institutional work. (Article 2). This and many other normative provisions set out the commitment and obligation of the National Child Welfare Agency towards minors, with minors and young people who suffer some disability occupying a very important position within that social group. Thus, said institution cannot evade its responsibility to the young Baltodano siblings by simply saying that they are not at social risk, and therefore they do not fit into the aid program where it previously placed them. The constitutional and legal duty of said institution transcends the internal programs defined by its own officials. It is necessary that the responsibility be assumed in the terms established by the Political Constitution itself in Articles 51 and 55 and the Organic Law of said Institution." **NINTH:** Having clarified the responsibilities of these State institutions, we can define the functions or services that each one must provide to the three young Baltodano Valverde siblings for whom their parents request assistance. While it is true that the process was directed solely at the National Child Welfare Agency because the three young people were minors, it is clear that the Joint Institute for Social Assistance and the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education must now also intervene, since one of these young people has reached the age of majority and the other two will do so very soon, reasoning based primarily on the General Law on Young Persons (Ley General de la Persona Joven) number 8261. We must reflect on the fact that the National Child Welfare Agency is the state institution responsible for looking after minors along with other entities, hence the true responsible party is the State, since, as we determined in previous recitals, it is the Costa Rican State, through its institutions, that is responsible for looking after the family, minors, female heads of household, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Therefore, since the State's organizational chart includes other institutions responsible for specific and concrete duties, such as the issue of extreme poverty and disability, we must understand that when one of the beneficiaries of the financial assistance claimed by the plaintiffs reaches the age of majority, those other institutions responsible for those other functions must begin to play a leading role, all in order to comply with the provisions of Article 51 of the Political Constitution.
**TENTH:** In the previous recitals, the doctrine on the topic of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, national and international legislation on the matter, including jurisprudence from the Constitutional Chamber, was presented. All of this, together with the proven facts of the appealed judgment that have been endorsed by this Court for conforming to the case file, and bearing in mind the grievances expressed by the appellants, necessarily leads to the conclusion that the judgment appealed must be partially revoked. The Court cannot share the direction taken by the appealed judgment regarding the reasons why the state entity's obligation to cover the financial assistance it had been providing for the benefit of the young S.C, J.D., and J.J. was not ordered. The lower court becomes entangled in the thesis that the agreement or contract entered into between the mother of the aforementioned young people and the National Child Welfare Agency, through which said woman received an amount of money that actually corresponded to an aid or subsidy for the benefit of her young children, seeing that said contract was budgetarily placed by the National Child Welfare Agency in [Program2] related to "Foster Care (Acogimiento Familiar)." What is truly important is not which [Program2] the PANI placed the aid in because it considered they needed it, but rather what is truly important is the latter, that the young people require that assistance. It is the state entity's responsibility to appropriately place said assistance within its budget, but the fact that this is not currently the case does not mean that the need does not exist and that the state obligation is not fulfilled. The National Child Welfare Agency alleges that the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) urges them to properly manage resources, so they must review the different aid cases and not grant it to children and young people who are not in a state of abandonment or social risk. Indeed, the PANI must address complying with such directives, which leads it to budgetarily place the assistance it provides to minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty in the appropriate [Program2] in its budget. When this process began, the three young people were minors, but now one of them is no longer, which is why the protection measure was brought against the PANI, which is the institution that, as established by Articles 51 and 55 of the Political Constitution, must look after minors, including, of course, those who, besides being minors, are disabled. Thus, there is no doubt that it is that institution's responsibility to assume such obligation. The trial judge errs in debating the validity and effectiveness or invalidity and ineffectiveness of the contract in question. It is clear that the PANI could dissolve or nullify said contract because one of its clauses permitted it, but it is also clear that it concerns a contract unilaterally drafted by the PANI and that, to that extent, it exercised a relationship of power or superiority over the minors with disabilities and with great economic needs. Such a situation seems to suggest that the PANI was doing a kind of "favor," which is not the case, since said institution was simply fulfilling its duty. The PANI now alleges that it must make good use of public funds and that is why it is removing the financial assistance from the young Baltodano Valverde siblings, which the trial judge endorses in her substantive considerations. But in reality, safeguarding public funds does not mean failing to fulfill its constitutional duties. Precisely, the National Child Welfare Agency has a budget constituted by public funds that it must properly oversee, but one of its responsibilities is to look after minors with disabilities. Therefore, if the situation of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings does not fit within the characteristics that must be met by persons who are beneficiaries of the "Foster Care" program, the PANI must proceed to create a program or another mechanism to fulfill its responsibility towards minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty. It is the PANI's responsibility to appropriately address this situation, but inaction, inertia, or negligence cannot be justifications to deny collaboration to said social group. The PANI cannot excuse itself with impersonal formalisms that do nothing but harm human beings in very difficult personal and economic conditions who require the State's assistance, which must comply as provided by Article 51 of the Political Constitution and through the PANI and other entities as indicated by Article 55 of our Magna Carta. In summary, the State's duty through the PANI does not arise from a contract between the mother of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings and the responsible body, but rather its obligation arises from Articles 51 and 55 already mentioned. This latter point is clear and fundamental to the decision we now make.
**ELEVENTH:** Furthermore, this Court cannot share the conclusions reached by the trial judge, starting from the premise that the Baltodano Valverde family is not indeed in a "state of poverty" because both the IMAS and the PANI concluded so. In reality, it cannot be deduced from the case file in any way that a "fair" assessment was made of said family under parameters of a Basic Basket for Families with members who endure the disadvantageous conditions of Disability. On the contrary, it is observed that the IMAS documentarily concludes that said family does not require financial assistance by applying the standard parameters used for all families in the country, information captured in a "cold" FORM used for those purposes. The assessment criterion carried out by the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education is different, which, under a clear perspective of Disability, applies a Basic Basket (Canasta Básica) that fully considers the differences in amounts needed to cover daily expenses for persons with disabilities, taking into account, for example, the difference in the cost of transportation, food, health care, cleaning, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to reach erroneous conclusions like those of the PANI and the IMAS, which do nothing but further evidence the discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities and their families. As we saw previously, the draft United Nations Convention for persons with disabilities itself indicates that the parameters for assessing the circumstances of persons with disabilities cannot be the same as those for persons and families who do not suffer from any disability. That is, said project advocates for treatment that is adjusted to the needs and characteristics of persons with disabilities and their families. To achieve that fair treatment, the parameters by which such circumstances are measured must be adjusted to those different characteristics and needs. Evidently, in this case, the conclusions reached with equal measurement parameters for different situations are completely misadjusted and detached from reality. Likewise, said project advocates for the families of such persons to also be helped so that they can in turn help their family members who have a disability. Ironically, because the parents of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings have not abandoned them nor put them at social risk despite themselves suffering from disability and having many material, cultural, and economic limitations, they are punished by not placing them within the Foster Care groups. Should parents have to abandon or neglect their children with disabilities for the PANI to assume its economic responsibility and help them? Would it not be better to help them so that a situation of abandonment or social risk or a state of vulnerability is not reached? The disability suffered by the parents of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings was demonstrated in the case file, which is worthy of note, yet even so, they have fought for their children, and proof of this is the current process. The trial judge seems to negatively criticize the Baltodano Valverde Family and consequently the parents for turning to public services and trying to exhaust all possible state assistance, which is improper since it is impossible for the mother of the young Baltodano Valverde siblings to go out to seek work outside her home because she has to care for six persons with disabilities, which evidently involves washing and ironing a lot of clothes, preparing large amounts of food—which incidentally must be of high nutritional quality due to her family members' disabilities—and providing the large quantity of medications they consume, etc. For his part, Mr. Baltodano also cannot go out to seek work outside his home because he clearly must help his wife care for the children; it should be considered that some of the disabilities suffered by their children, such as autism and mental retardation, are very difficult to cope with in a family. Furthermore, Mr. Baltodano is of advanced age and also suffers from a disability. Such persons require significant care and constant attention. Sharing day to day with persons with autism or retardation or other disabilities entails a very great emotional toll, hence the Costa Rican State should rather provide the necessary support to both parents so that they can continue fighting for their children and for themselves, due to the disability they suffer. In itself, the constant upbringing of so many children with disabilities is "disabling," and the State and Society must see it that way so that, with criteria of justice and solidarity, they help this family. While it is true that Costa Rican society lacks awareness (Article 6 of Law 7600) on the topic of disability, it is not justified that governmental institutions and judges lack such culture on the matter, since we are the ones called upon to respond to the needs of such social group, it cannot be accepted that the PANI and the IMAS continue applying rules or criteria that ignore the difference in needs between persons with disabilities and those who are not. It is neither explained nor justified that the PANI denies assistance simply because persons with disabilities in a state of poverty do not fit into the category of abandoned persons or those at social risk. On the contrary, Law 7600 establishes as an obligation of the State (Article 4 subsection g) "To guarantee, through the corresponding institutions, the support services required by persons with disabilities to facilitate their permanence within the family." **TWELFTH:** Neither can we share the trial judge's criterion of maintaining that the young Baltodano Valverde siblings are beneficiaries of several state pensions or subsidies. This situation is not relevant; rather, what must be analyzed is whether the overall amount each of these individuals receives is truly sufficient to cover their needs and allow them a dignified life to which minors are entitled for integral development, although the latter must also apply to persons with disabilities of legal age because in a good number of cases, chronological age is irrelevant. Thus, for example, it is unheard of to consider that receiving a specific pension and another of one thousand seven hundred colones constitutes "a lot" of money. Such a number of pensions or aid precisely reflects the lack in Costa Rica of an objective policy with a perspective on persons with disabilities. In this matter, it is not about adding two plus two. Note that, on the contrary, a very high pension, misadjusted to the beneficiary's reality, could be excessive. Therefore, what is important is the overall amount in relation to the type of disability and the personal and family situation of the beneficiary. Evidently, these have not been the criteria of the trial judge. Nor do we share the criticism concerning the fact that the Baltodano family consumes a lot of electricity or has a washing machine or refrigerator or fax machines. Fortunately, they have a washing machine given the enormous daily use that artifact presumably gets, the same regarding the refrigerator. But also regarding the fax machines, since, as the young Felipe stated at the hearing held in this instance, one of the three does not work, the other only allows receiving faxes, and the other only allows sending faxes, besides the fact that they have been a means used to exercise their rights, which should be supported in favor of the state of vulnerability in which the applicants find themselves. This family, due to the legal struggle they have waged, requires said instrument, and this does not lift them out of poverty; it simply helps them slightly mitigate their transportation and communication problem.
**FOURTEENTH:** Consequently, among the items claimed by the plaintiffs, we find the one relating to damages (daños y perjuicios) and the retroactive payment of the aid that was no longer paid to them. In this regard, the Court concludes that, in reality, this is not the appropriate procedural avenue to hear such claims, since the avenue chosen by the plaintiffs is precisely the "precautionary" one through a "Special Protection Process" regulated in the Childhood and Adolescence Code (Código de la Niñez y Adolescencia), Article 141 and following and concordant articles of the Childhood and Adolescence Code. Let us recall that this type of process basically seeks to respond to a problem that directly and immediately affects a right that has been harmed or may soon be, but in no way does it intend to "Establish" or "Declare" rights, as happens in the declaratory avenue, which is regrettable; nonetheless, it is framed within the procedural framework governing the matter. The foregoing is without prejudice to the right held by the interested parties to resort to the pertinent avenue, in accordance with the provisions of Article 41 of the Constitution and Article 1045 of the Civil Code.
**TWELFTH:** The judgment appealed is partially revoked. The National Child Welfare Agency must continue providing a subsidy to the minor S.C. while she holds this status, and upon reaching the age of majority, the Joint Institute for Social Assistance must continue providing said assistance in coordination with the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education. Regarding the young ***. and ***, both Baltodano Valverde, both the Joint Institute for Social Assistance and the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education must provide them with the required subsidy that allows them to lead a dignified life. The first of said entities must cover the necessary housing, food, and clothing needs, and the second of said entities must manage the necessary aid so that the young people have the necessary resources to undertake studies that allow them to develop their skills.
**"FOURTH:** The analysis of the two specific issues that characterize this matter, namely: the protection of the family by the Costa Rican State through its institutions and the condition of persons with disabilities of the plaintiffs' children; obliges us to set forth the approach that the Political Constitution gives to such issues. Article 51 of our Magna Carta not only contemplates a notion of "family" based on marriage, but also recognizes other forms of legally relevant family aggregation. And this is in turn reflected in Article 1 of the Family Code (Código de Familia). Said Article 51 states that: "The family, as a natural element and foundation of society, has the right to the special protection of the State. Likewise, the mother, the child, the elderly, and the destitute sick shall have the right to that protection." Articles 17.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 16.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have a similar content. In that same sense, at the level of ordinary law, we have Law 7600 which seeks to provide a normative framework for the protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the "Comprehensive Law for the Elderly Person (Ley Integral para la Persona Adulta Mayor)" and Article 13 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code (Código de Niñez y Adolescencia). The "family" in the Political Constitution is a means or channel for its members to fully realize their lives, within a framework of respect for democratic principles of coexistence and for fundamental rights and freedoms. It is the ideal means for children to achieve integral development and for fathers and mothers to realize their personal aspirations, as well as for the rest of the persons who comprise it to achieve their objectives. On the other hand, it should be noted that by including in the aforementioned Article 51 the elderly and the destitute sick, the door is opened for another family community based on the kinship or biological relationship of persons with that elderly or destitute sick person, although we would also find ourselves before another type of "family" when, despite the absence of kinship or biological nexus, the relationship is with an "elderly and destitute sick person" who requires protection, and as happens with destitute children, these persons, in many cases, are not cared for by relatives but rather by neighbors or friends, who, moved by feelings of charity, love, solidarity, and respect for human dignity, give them the warmth of a home. The constitutional norm is clear in the sense that the State, through its institutions, must provide aid and protection to these different types of family, and particularly to children, mothers who are heads of household, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. This last point is of vital importance for the definitive decision of the proceeding before us, because it not only involves two parents with disabilities who demand help from the State for their children through one of its institutions, specifically the National Children's Trust (Patronato Nacional de la Infancia) as the governing body in charge of looking after minors, but that this request for economic aid has as beneficiaries three minor children who suffer serious disabilities. Thus, the State's obligation to help said persons is doubly protected by constitutional Article 51, not only because they are minors in a state of poverty but also because they are persons with distinct disabilities. From this reasoning, it is clear to this panel of the Court that the party obligated to respond to the request is the State in this matter, through the National Children's Trust, because the beneficiaries of the requested aid were minors at the time of requesting the protective measures. Thus, it is the State that must assume the responsibility incumbent upon it as established by constitutional Article 51, cited so many times, a responsibility that it must materialize through the institutions that are competent, whether because some of the beneficiaries are minors or because they are persons with disabilities, as is the case under study.
**FIFTH:** 10% of the world's population are persons with disabilities, but 30% or 35% of said world population is affected because it includes the families of such persons. That is, there are nearly 600 million persons with disabilities in the world. Despite being such a large social conglomerate, it is one of the groups at highest risk and most unprotected, given that poverty, abandonment, and general misery operate within it, and such lamentable situations also occur even in developed countries. Such circumstances justify "affirmative actions" (medidas afirmativas) because they make it possible to overcome material inequality, since they are persons with a natural individual disadvantage. That is, said "affirmative actions" try to overcome the natural disadvantage, resulting in "reverse discrimination." Under that perspective, we understand that when, for example, a scholarship is granted to a person with a disability, it is because the family lacks sufficient economic resources, as they face real material inequality. This is precisely the situation of the petitioners of the protective measures before us. And that is the justification for why the aid that Mr. Baltodano Valverde and his wife request from the Costa Rican State for three of their children should be granted. The young persons for whom their parents Manuel Baltodano and [Nombre1] request aid from the State suffer significant disabilities and live in a condition of extreme poverty that is verified through all the evidence in the case file submitted on appeal.
**SIXTH:** While it is true that we are before a family that in the past received a small house from the Joint Institute for Social Assistance (Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social) and that owns several household appliances and other benefits, the truth is that they do not have sufficient economic income to allow them to live with dignity. It has been clearly demonstrated in the case record that said family subsists on distinct "pensions" or subsidies that some of its members receive from the State. But in reality, none of such individual incomes, not even when summed in their entirety, corresponds to a monthly sum of money that covers the real needs of this family composed of seven members, all of them with a disability condition, with the further particularity that the father is of advanced age. This is a very "complex" and "difficult" family reality to cope with, for if the worldwide percentage of persons affected by the disability of one of their members is approximately 35% globally, this Court concludes without a doubt that the case of the Baltodano Valverde family exceeds 100% of family impact due to disability issues. Evidently, the Baltodano Valverde family, due to the particular condition of its seven members, requires comprehensive treatment from the State through its distinct institutions. Thus, the parameters for measuring the poverty condition of said family cannot be the same as those used by institutions such as IMAS to determine the aid it provides to other families that have no member with a disability. Measuring this family's poverty condition requires an "affirmative action," as the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education (Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial) correctly does through the so-called "Basic Basket for Disability" (Canasta Básica en Discapacidad). It is understood that this latter institution has clear insight on the subject of "disability," hence the rest of the institutions obligated to help the Baltodano Valverde family must study such "affirmative actions." This Court does not presume to set the quota that the distinct State institutions must provide to the Baltodano Valverde family, as it is understood that such entities have technical personnel who must investigate the sums of money and types of aid that are appropriate in cases like the present one, but it must be pointed out that the parameters to be taken into account for such measurement cannot lose sight of the condition of the beneficiaries as "persons with disabilities." On the other hand, it is also not correct to set the same sum of money that years ago the National Children's Trust provided to each of the three children of the Baltodano Valverde family for whom their parents requested such economic aid.
**SEVENTH:** When dealing with the topic of discrimination against persons with disabilities, we normally think that such conduct comes from fellow citizens and employers, but in reality, said discrimination also operates within some state and non-governmental institutions, which, despite not purposefully intending discrimination, the lack of knowledge on the subject leads them there. This is how we explain the different "treatment" provided by the National Council of Rehabilitation and Special Education in relation to other institutions of the Costa Rican State. But the problem is not unique to Costa Rica, as such a phenomenon occurs throughout the entire world, which is why the United Nations Organization seeks to overcome this scourge. The reality of humanity clearly reflects serious discrimination against persons with disabilities. The margins of poverty in said social conglomerate are truly alarming. This is indicated in the final report of the Ad Hoc Committee responsible for preparing a comprehensive and integral international convention to protect and promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. Within said social sector, discrimination based on gender is felt even more acutely. These and other situations motivated the Inter-American Community some years ago to enact a regional Convention seeking to alleviate said discriminatory acts. Now it is the worldwide community that seeks to raise the flag through regulations capable of committing subscriber countries so that, in their respective peoples, the human rights of persons with disabilities are respected and all discrimination against them is eliminated. Our country has not been on the sidelines of this movement, and an example of this is the enactment of Law 7600 and its regulation, which also seek to eliminate all forms of discrimination against the social conglomerate to which we have referred. Thus, for example, Article 1 of said law states: "The integral development of the population with a disability is declared to be of public interest, under equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as the rest of the inhabitants." Likewise, subsection c of Article 4 regarding the "Obligations of the State" to comply with that law, states: "c) Eliminate actions and provisions that, directly or indirectly, promote discrimination or prevent persons with disabilities from having access to programs and services." Also, subsection g) of said norm establishes as an obligation of the State: "g) Guarantee, through the corresponding institutions, the support services required by persons with disabilities to facilitate their permanence within the family." Notwithstanding such norms and others with the same philosophy, they have not been sufficient to fulfill their mission, which has to some extent remained on paper due to the non-compliance of the State and its institutions. That reality must change, and the work of the drafting Committee of the United Nations project on the problems of persons with disabilities and their families will contribute to this, as it points to the need to enact norms that oblige States to take all types of measures against the scourge of discrimination against persons with disabilities, not only on an individual basis but also in relation to families in which one of their members faces some disability. This topic is directly related to the core problem of the case before us, which has the particularity that the plaintiffs themselves are persons with disabilities, as are the three children for whom they request aid from the Costa Rican State. But apart from all of this, we have that two of the affected parties are women, that is, the mother and the young woman S. In general, it is a family that cannot fend for itself; not even the parents have the possibility of working and succeeding in raising their children due to each one's own disability, and furthermore because they must cope with the personal care that each of their children requires. A difficult task to bear for any person, and even more difficult when the parents also face some personal disability. It is clear, then, that the Costa Rican State must help each of the members of said family to the extent that they so require, but it must also help the entire family comprehensively, as a social group protected by Article 51 of the Political Constitution. This latter perspective has been analyzed by the doctrine that investigates these topics, but even further, the Committee responsible for drafting the United Nations convention project clearly captures such a situation and thus denounces it before the world community. This important report is very revealing, although of course it is not binding because it has not yet been approved by the United Nations, but it reflects the conclusions of the most accredited scholars on the subject worldwide. For what interests us in this particular case, said report states: "PREAMBLE: q) Recognizing that women and girls with disabilities are often at greater risk, both inside and outside the home, of violence, injury or abuse, abandonment or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation. r) Recognizing also that boys and girls with disabilities must fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other boys and girls, and recalling the obligations assumed in this regard by the States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. s) Underlining the need to incorporate a gender perspective in all activities intended to promote the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by persons with disabilities. t) Highlighting the fact that the majority of persons with disabilities live in conditions of poverty and recognizing, in this regard, the fundamental need to mitigate the negative effects of poverty on persons with disabilities. v) Recognizing the importance of accessibility to the physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education, and to information and communications, so that persons with disabilities can fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms." x) Convinced that the family is the natural and fundamental collective unit of society and is entitled to receive protection from society and the State, and that persons with disabilities and their families must receive the necessary protection and assistance so that families can contribute to persons with disabilities enjoying their rights fully and on an equal basis.” Likewise, the articles provide: “ARTICLE 23 relating to Home and Family, in its third paragraph states: “3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the same rights with respect to family life. To make these rights effective, and to prevent concealment, abandonment, neglect, and segregation of children with disabilities, States Parties shall ensure that early and comprehensive information, services, and support are provided to minors with disabilities and their families. 4. States Parties shall ensure that children are not separated from their parents against their will, except when competent authorities, subject to judicial review, determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. In no case shall a minor be separated from their parents on the basis of a disability of the minor, of both parents, or of one of them.” In turn, article 28 relating to an Adequate standard of living and social protection states: “1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of their living conditions, and shall take appropriate measures to safeguard and promote the exercise of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability”, and point 2.c) states: “To ensure access by persons with disabilities and their families living in situations of poverty to assistance from the State to cover disability-related expenses, including adequate training, counselling, financial assistance and respite care services.” And although said project does not yet have the status of an International Convention, in our continent we have the “Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities,” whose concern is basically the discrimination suffered by persons by reason of their disability. It is important to highlight that said convention states in article 1. 2. b: “A distinction or preference adopted by a State Party to promote the social integration or personal development of persons with disabilities shall not constitute discrimination, provided that the distinction or preference does not in itself limit the right to equality of persons with disabilities and that individuals with disabilities are not forced to accept such distinction or preference. In cases where domestic legislation provides for the declaration of interdiction, when necessary and appropriate for their well-being, this shall not constitute discrimination.” This section makes it clear that States must assume specific and sometimes different decisions for persons with disabilities, precisely to ensure that said social sector is not discriminated against. That is, to guarantee equality in difference, it is necessary for measures such as exceptions, privileges, etc., to be adopted. In such terms, the Inter-American Convention conceives it, since it considers failure to comply with positive actions as discriminatory. That is precisely the reason for the “Basic Basket for Disability” (Canasta Básica en Discapacidad) applied by the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial, and which is ignored by both the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. We conclude then that measuring the needs and possibilities of persons with disabilities and their families under the same parameters used to measure such items in persons and families without disabilities constitutes discrimination. The issue of equality and inequality has been amply addressed along similar lines by the Sala Constitucional in vote number 2006007262 of 14:46 on May 23, 2006. This latter situation occurs because persons with disabilities and their families incur very significant expenses that those who do not suffer such ailments do not incur, or at least the economic and time cost is considerably lower. Thus then, since the valuation parameters taken into account by the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial and those taken into account by both the IMAS and the PANI are different, the results of the first institution compared to the following two are completely different regarding the qualification of “extreme poverty” for the Baltodano Valverde family. **EIGHTH:** The issue of extreme poverty and disability is basic to resolving this case, hence we must resume the study of the parameters to be taken into account for assessing that poverty and disability, as well as that of the State Institutions charged with helping persons living in said conditions, a topic to which we referred briefly in the preceding recital. Regarding the topic of poverty in our country, we have that the Law Creating the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, No. 4760, in its article 2 states: “The IMAS has the purpose of resolving the problem of extreme poverty in the country, for which it shall plan, direct, execute, and control a national plan destined for said end. For that objective, it shall utilize all human and economic resources that are placed at its service by the country's employers and workers, national or foreign public sector institutions, private organizations of all kinds, religious institutions, and other groups interested in participating in the National Plan to Fight Poverty.” In turn, article 3 states: “All institutions that use public resources shall participate in the fight against poverty directed by the IMAS, through the contribution of economic, personnel, and administrative resources to the extent defined by their governing bodies and in accordance with the nature of each institution, or in the terms determined by this law. For the preceding purposes, the indicated institutions of whatever legal nature they may be are hereby authorized to approve programs for participation in the fight against extreme poverty, through the IMAS and under its direction, and to make economic contributions to it, destined for the purposes of this law.” Article 4 e) states: “Address the needs of social groups or persons who must be provided with means of subsistence when they lack them;”. Likewise, the Organic Law of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia establishes that said institution’s primary purpose is: “... to especially and comprehensively protect minors and their families, as the natural element and pillar of society. (article 1)”. Furthermore, among its principles is recognizing, defending, and guaranteeing the rights of children, adolescents, and the family; as well as respecting the dignity of the human person and the spirit of solidarity as the basic natural element that will guide the institutional work. (article 2). This and many other normative provisions expose the commitment and obligation of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia towards minors, with minors and young people suffering from some disability occupying a very important position within said social group. Thus then, said institution cannot evade its responsibility towards the Baltodano youths by simply saying that they are not at social risk, and therefore they do not fit into the aid program where they were previously placed. The constitutional and legal duty of said institution transcends the internal programs defined by the same officials. It is necessary that the responsibility be assumed in the terms established by the Political Constitution itself in articles 51 and 55 and the Organic Law of said Institution." **NINTH:** Having clarified the responsibilities of these State institutions, we can define the functions or services that each one of them must provide to the three Baltodano Valverde youths for whom their parents request help. While it is true that the proceeding was directed solely at the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia because the three youths were minors, it is clear that now the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial must also intervene, given that one of said youths has reached the age of majority and the other two will do so very soon, reasoning based mainly on the General Law of the Young Person, number 8261. We must reflect on the sense that the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia is the state institution charged with watching over minors together with other entities, hence the true responsible party is the State, since as we determined in previous recitals, it is the Costa Rican State, through its institutions, that is responsible for watching over the family, minors, female heads of household, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Thus then, since the State's organizational chart includes other institutions charged with concrete and specific responsibilities such as the issue of extreme poverty and disability, we must understand that upon one of the beneficiaries of the economic aid claimed by the plaintiffs reaching the age of majority, those other institutions charged with those other functions must begin to play a leading role, all with the aim of complying with the provisions of article 51 of the Political Constitution. **TENTH:** In the preceding recitals, the doctrine of the issue of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, national and international legislation on the subject, and even jurisprudence of the Sala Constitucional were set forth. All of this, together with the proven facts of the appealed judgment that have been endorsed by this Court for conforming to the case record, and bearing in mind the grievances expressed by the appellants, necessarily leads to the conclusion that the judgment appealed must be partially reversed. The Court cannot share the path taken by the appealed judgment regarding the reasons why the state entity's obligation to cover the economic aid it had been providing for the youths S.C., J.D., and J.J. is not ordered. The lower court becomes entangled in the thesis that the agreement or contract entered into between the mother of the aforementioned youths and the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through which said lady received an amount of money that actually corresponded to an aid or subsidy for her young children, was said contract being budgetarily placed by the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia under the [Name2] relating to “Family Foster Care” (Acogimiento Familiar). What is truly important is not under which [Name2] the PANI placed the aid it gave to the youths because it considered they needed it, but rather what is truly important is this latter fact, that the youths require that aid. It is the state entity's responsibility to adequately place said aid within its budget, but the fact that this is not currently happening does not mean the need does not exist and that the state obligation is not fulfilled. The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia alleges that the Contraloría General de la República urges them to properly manage resources, so they must revoke various cases of aid and not give it to children and youths who are not abandoned or at social risk. Indeed, the PANI must address complying with such directives, which leads it to budgetarily place the aid it provides to minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty under the appropriate [Name2] in its budget. When this proceeding began, the three youths were minors, but now one of them is no longer a minor; therefore, the protective measure was filed against the PANI, which is the institution that, as established by articles 51 and 55 of the Political Constitution, must watch over minors, including, of course, those who, apart from being minors, are disabled. Thus then, there is no doubt that said institution is the one responsible for assuming such obligation. The trial judge errs in debating the validity and efficacy or invalidity and ineffectiveness of the contract in question. It is clear that the PANI could undo or render said contract ineffective because one of its clauses allowed it to do so, but it is also clear that it concerns a contract drafted unilaterally by the PANI and that, to that extent, it exercised a relationship of power or superiority over minors with disabilities and with great economic needs. Such a situation seems to imply that the PANI was doing a kind of “favor,” which is not the case, since said institution was simply fulfilling its duty. The PANI now alleges that it must make good use of public funds and that is why it is removing economic aid from the Baltodano Valverde youths, a position the trial judge endorses in her substantive considerations. But in reality, safeguarding public funds does not mean failing to comply with their constitutional duties. Precisely, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia has a budget constituted by public funds for which it must diligently watch, but one of its responsibilities is to watch over minors with disabilities. Thus then, if the situation of the Baltodano Valverde youths does not fall within the characteristics that must be met by persons who are beneficiaries of the “Family Foster Care” (Acogimiento Familiar) program, the PANI must proceed to create a program or another mechanism to fulfill its responsibility towards minors with disabilities who are in a situation of poverty. It is the PANI's responsibility to adequately address said situation, but lack of resources, inertia, or negligence cannot be justifications for denying collaboration to said social group. The PANI cannot excuse itself with impersonal formalities that only harm human beings in very difficult personal and economic conditions who require the State's help, which must comply as set forth in article 51 of the Political Constitution and through the PANI and other entities as indicated in article 55 of our Magna Carta. In summary, the State's duty through the PANI does not derive from a contract between the mother of the Baltodano Valverde youths and the responsible body, but rather its obligation derives from the aforementioned articles 51 and 55. This latter point is clear and basic to the decision we now make. **ELEVENTH:** On the other hand, this Court also cannot share the conclusions reached by the trial judge starting from the premise that the Baltodano Valverde family is indeed not in a “state of poverty” because both the IMAS and the PANI concluded so. In reality, it cannot be deduced from the case record in any way that a “fair” assessment was carried out on said family under the parameters of a Basic Basket for Families with members who have the disadvantageous conditions of Disability. On the contrary, it is observed that, documentarily, the IMAS proceeds from the basis that said family does not require economic aid by applying the parameters commonly used for all families in the country, information captured in a “cold” FORM used for those purposes. The criterion in the assessment carried out by the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial is different; they, under a clear Disability perspective, apply a Basic Basket that fully considers the differences in the amounts required to cover the daily expenses of persons with disabilities, taking into account, for example, the difference in the cost of transportation, food, health care, cleaning, etc. Thus then, it is not possible to arrive at erroneous conclusions such as those of the PANI and the IMAS, which only further evidence the discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities and their families. As we saw previously, the UN Convention project for persons with disabilities itself indicates that the parameters for assessing the circumstances of persons with disabilities cannot be the same as those for persons and families who do not suffer any disability. That is, said project advocates for treatment adjusted to the needs and characteristics of persons with disabilities and their families. To achieve that fair treatment, the parameters by which such circumstances are measured must be adjusted to those different characteristics and needs. Evidently, in this case, the conclusions reached with equal measurement parameters for different situations are totally misaligned and far from reality. Likewise, said project advocates for the families of such persons also to be helped so that they can, in turn, help their family members who have a disability. Ironically, because the parents of the Baltodano Valverde youths have not abandoned them nor placed them at social risk despite suffering from disabilities themselves and having many material, cultural, and economic limitations, they are punished by not being placed within Family Foster Care groups. Should parents abandon or neglect children with disabilities so that the PANI assumes its economic responsibility and helps them? Wouldn't it be better to help them so that a situation of abandonment, social risk, or state of vulnerability is not reached? The case record demonstrated the disability suffered by the parents of the Baltodano Valverde youths, which is noteworthy, yet they have still fought for their children, and evidence of this is the present proceeding. The trial judge seems to negatively criticize the Baltodano Valverde Family and consequently the parents for resorting to public services and trying to exhaust all possible state aid, which is inappropriate since it is impossible for the mother of the Baltodano Valverde youths to go out to look for work outside her home because she has to care for six persons with disabilities, which evidently entails washing and ironing a lot of clothes, preparing a large amount of food which, it should be noted, must be of high nutritional quality due to the disabilities of her family members, and supplying the large quantity of medications they consume, etc. For his part, Mr. Baltodano also cannot go out to look for work outside his home because he evidently must help his wife care for the children; it should be taken into account that some of the disabilities suffered by his children are very difficult to cope with within a family, such as autism and mental retardation. Moreover, Mr. Baltodano is of advanced age and also suffers from a disability. Such persons require great care and constant attention. Living with persons with autism, retardation, or other disabilities day after day entails a very great emotional toll, hence the Costa Rican State should rather provide the necessary support to both parents so that they can continue fighting for their children and for themselves, due to the disabilities they suffer. In itself, the constant upbringing of so many children with disabilities is “disabling,” and the State and Society must see it as such so that, with criteria of justice and solidarity, they help this family. While it is true that Costa Rican society lacks awareness (article 6 of Law 7600) on the issue of disability, it is not justifiable for government institutions and judges to lack such cultural understanding on the matter, given that we are the ones called to respond to the needs of such a social group, for it cannot be acceptable that the PANI and the IMAS continue applying rules or criteria that ignore the difference in needs between persons with disabilities and those who are not. It cannot be explained, much less justified, that the PANI denies aid simply because persons with disabilities in a state of poverty do not fall into groups of abandoned persons or those at social risk. On the contrary, Law 7600 establishes as an obligation of the State (article 4, subsection g) “To guarantee, through the corresponding institutions, the support services required by persons with disabilities to facilitate their permanence in the family.” **TWELFTH:** Nor can we share the criterion of the trial judge in holding that the Baltodano Valverde youths are beneficiaries of several state pensions or subsidies. Such a situation is not relevant; rather, what must be analyzed is whether the overall amount each of these persons receives is truly sufficient to cover their needs and allow them to lead a dignified life to which minors are entitled for comprehensive development, although the latter must also be applied to persons with disabilities who are of legal age, because in many cases chronological age is irrelevant. Thus, for example, it is unheard of to consider that receiving a certain pension and another of one thousand seven hundred colones constitutes “a lot” of money. Such a number of pensions or aids precisely reflects the lack in Costa Rica of an objective policy with a perspective for persons with disabilities. In this matter, it is not about adding two plus two. Note that, conversely, a very high pension, misaligned with the reality of the beneficiary, could be excessive. Thus then, what is important is the overall amount in relation to the type of disability and the personal and family situation of the beneficiary. Evidently, these have not been the criteria of the trial judge. Nor do we share the criticism in the sense that the Baltodano family consumes a lot of electricity or has a washing machine, a refrigerator, or fax machines. Fortunately, they have a washing machine, considering the enormous daily use of said appliance, the same regarding the refrigerator. But also regarding the fax machines, since as young Felipe stated in the hearing held in this instance, one of the three does not work, another only allows receiving faxes, and the other only allows sending faxes, besides the fact that they have been means used to exercise their rights, which should be supported in favor of the state of vulnerability in which the applicants are placed. This family, due to the legal battle it has waged, requires such an instrument, and this does not lift them out of poverty; it simply helps them somewhat mitigate their transportation and communication problems. **FOURTEENTH:** Consequently, among the items claimed by the plaintiffs, we find that relating to damages and the retroactive payment of the aids they stopped receiving. In this regard, the Court concludes that this is not actually the appropriate procedural avenue for hearing such claims, since the avenue chosen by the plaintiffs is precisely the “precautionary” one through a “Special Protection Proceeding” (Proceso Especial de Protección) regulated in the Código de la Niñez y Adolescencia, article 141 et seq. and concordant articles of the Código De Niñez y Adolescencia. Let us recall that this type of proceeding essentially seeks to respond to a problem that directly and immediately affects a right that has been harmed or may soon be harmed, but in no way aims to “Establish” or “Declare” rights, as occurs in a declaratory action, which is regrettable; nonetheless, it falls within the procedural framework governing this matter. The foregoing is without prejudice to the right held by the interested parties to resort to the pertinent avenue, in accordance with the provisions of article 41 of the Constitution and article 1045 of the Civil Code. **TWELFTH:** The appealed judgment is partially reversed. The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia must continue providing a subsidy to the minor S.C. as long as she has this status, and upon reaching the age of majority, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social must continue providing said aid in coordination with the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial. In relation to the youths ***. and ***., both Baltodano Valverde, both the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social and the Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial must provide them with the subsidy they require to allow them a dignified life. The first of said entities must cover housing, food, and necessary clothing needs, and the second of said entities must manage the necessary aid so that the youths have the necessary resources to pursue the studies that will allow them to develop their skills. In all other appealed aspects, the appealed judgment is upheld."
"CUARTO: El análisis de los dos temas puntuales que caracterizan este asunto, es decir: la protección a la familia por parte del Estado costarricense a través de sus instituciones y la condición de personas con discapacidad de los hijos de los actores; nos obliga a exponer el planteamiento que la Constitución Política da a tales temas. El artículo 51 de nuestra Carta Magna no solo contempla una noción de “familia” basada en el matrimonio, sino que reconoce otras formas de agregación familiar jurídicamente relevantes. Y ello es recogido a su vez en el artículo 1 del Código de Familia. Dicho artículo 51 dice que: "La familia, como elemento natural y fundamento de la sociedad, tiene derecho a la protección especial del Estado. Igualmente tendrán derecho a esa protección la madre, el niño, el anciano y el enfermo desvalido." Un contenido similar tienen los artículos 17.1 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y 16.3 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos. En ese mismo sentido a nivel de norma ordinaria contamos con la Ley 7600 que trata de brindar un marco normativo de protección de los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, así como la "Ley Integral para la Persona Adulta Mayor" y el artículo 13 del Código de Niñez y Adolescencia. La “familia” en la Constitución Política es un medio o canal para que sus miembros realicen plenamente sus vidas, dentro de un marco de respeto a los principios democráticos de convivencia y a los derechos y libertades fundamentales. Es el medio idóneo para que los niños y niñas logren un desarrollo integral y los padres y madres realicen sus aspiraciones personales, así como para que el resto de personas que la integran logren sus objetivos. Por otra parte cabe señalar que al contemplar el mencionado artículo 51 al anciano y al enfermo desvalido, se abre la puerta para otra comunidad familiar basada en la relación de parentesco o biológico de personas con ese anciano o enfermo desvalido, aunque también nos encontraríamos ante otro tipo de “familia” cuando a pesar de no mediar parentesco o nexo biológico, la relación es con un “anciano y enfermo desvalido” que requiere protección, y al igual que sucede con la niñez desvalida, esas personas, en muchos casos, no son atendidas por parientes sino más bien por vecinos o amigos, que movidos por sentimientos de caridad, amor, solidaridad y respeto a la dignidad humana les dan calor de hogar. La norma constitucional es clara en el sentido que el Estado a través de sus instituciones debe brindar ayuda y protección a estos diferentes tipos de familia, y particularmente a los niños, madres cabeza de hogar, ancianos y personas con discapacidad. Siendo esto último de vital importancia para la decisión definitiva del proceso que nos ocupa, por que no solo se trata de dos padres de familia con discapacidad que demandan ayuda del Estado para sus hijos a través de una de sus instituciones, específicamente del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia como ente rector encargado de velar por las personas menores de edad, sino que esa solicitud de ayuda económica tiene como beneficiarios a tres hijos menores de edad que sufren serias discapacidades. Así entonces la obligación del Estado de ayudar a dichas personas está amparada doblemente por el artículo 51 constitucional no solo por tratarse de personas menores de edad en estado de pobreza sino también por tratarse de personas con distintas discapacidades. Desde este razonamiento es claro para esta integración del Tribunal que la parte obligada a responder la solicitud, es el Estado en este asunto a través del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia por ser los beneficiarios de la ayuda solicitada personas menores de edad al momento de solicitar las medidas de protección. Así entonces es el Estado quien debe asumir la responsabilidad que le compete conforme lo establece el artículo 51 constitucional tantas veces citado, responsabilidad que debe materializar a través de las instituciones que sean competentes, ya sea por ser algunos de los beneficiarios personas menores de edad o por tratarse de personas con discapacidad, como es le caso en estudio. QUINTO: El 10% de la población mundial son personas con discapacidad, pero el 30% o el 35% de dicha población mundial se ve afectada porque incluye a las familias de tales personas. Es decir, en el mundo existen cerca de 600 millones de personas con discapacidad. A pesar de ser un conglomerado social tan numeroso es uno de los colectivos con más riesgo y más desprotegidos, toda vez que en ellos opera la pobreza, el abandono y en general la miseria, siendo que tan lamentables situaciones también se dan aún en los países desarrollados. Tales circunstancias justifican las “medidas afirmativas” porque las mismas permiten superar la desigualdad material, pues son personas con una desventaja individual natural. Es decir, dichas “medidas afirmativas” tratan de superar la desventaja natural, dándose entonces una “discriminación inversa”. Bajo esa perspectiva entendemos que al darse por ejemplo una beca a una persona con discapacidad es porque la familia no tiene recursos económicos suficientes, pues enfrentan una real desigualdad material. Siendo ésta precisamente la situación de los solicitantes de las medidas de protección que nos ocupa. Y es esa la justificación del por qué debe otorgarse la ayuda que los señores Baltodano Valverde solicitan al Estado costarricense para tres de sus hijos. Los jóvenes para quienes sus padres Manuel Baltodano y [Nombre1] solicitan ayuda de parte del Estado sufren importantes discapacidades y viven en una condición de pobreza extrema que se constata a través de toda la aprueba habida en el expediente venido en alzada. SEXTO: Si bien es cierto nos encontramos ante una familia que en el pasado recibió una casita de parte del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social y que cuenta con varios electrodomésticos y otros beneficios, lo cierto es que no cuentan con una entrada económica suficiente que les permita vivir dignamente. Ha quedado claramente demostrado en autos que dicha familia subsiste con distintas “pensiones” o subsidios que algunos de sus miembros reciben de parte del Estado. Pero en realidad ninguna de tales entradas individualmente, ni aún sumándolas en su totalidad, corresponden a una cantidad de dinero mensual que cubra las necesidades reales de esta familia integrada por siete miembros, todos ellos en condiciones de discapacidad, con la particularidad además de que el padre de familia es de edad avanzada. Se trata de una realidad familiar muy “compleja” y “difícil” de sobrellevar, pues si el porcentaje a nivel mundial de personas afectadas por la discapacidad de alguno de sus miembros es de aproximadamente del 35% mundial, este Tribunal concluye sin lugar a dudas que el caso de la familia Baltodano Valverde rebasa el 100% de afectación familiar por problemas de discapacidad. Evidentemente la familia Baltodano Valverde por la condición particular de sus siete miembros, requiere un trato integral por parte del Estado a través de sus distintas instituciones. Así entonces los parámetros para medir la condición de pobreza de dicha familia no pueden ser los mismos que utilizan instituciones tales como el IMAS para determinar la ayuda que brinda a otras familias que no tienen ningún miembro con discapacidad. Para medir la condición de pobreza de esta familia se requiere una “medida afirmativa” tal como lo hace acertadamente el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial a través de la denominada “Canasta Básica en Discapacidad”. Se comprende que esta última institución tiene claridad meridiana sobre le tema de la “discapacidad”, de ahí que el resto de instituciones obligadas a ayudar a la familia Baltodano Valverde deben estudiar tales “medidas afirmativas”. Este Tribunal no osa fijar la cuota que las distintas instituciones del Estado deben brindar a la familia Baltodano Valverde, pues se entiende que tales entidades cuentan con personal técnico que debe investigar los montos de dinero y tipos de ayuda que corresponden en casos como el presente, pero sí debe señalarse que los parámetros a tomar en cuenta para tal medición no pueden perder de vista la condición de “personas con discapacidad” de los beneficiarios. Por otro lado tampoco es correcto que se fije la misma suma de dinero que años atrás proporcionaba el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia a cada uno de los tres hijos de la familia Baltodano Valverde para los que sus padres pidieron tal ayuda económica. SÉTIMO: Cuando se trata el tema de la discrimaciòn de las personas con discapacidad normalmente pensamos en que tales conductas provienen de los mismos ciudadanos y de los patronos, pero en realidad dicha discriminación opera también al interno de algunas instituciones estatales y no gubernamentales, las que a pesar de no proponerse adrede la discriminación, la falta de conocimiento del tema los lleva a la misma. Así es como nos explicamos el “trato” distinto que proporciona el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial con relación a otras instituciones del Estado costarricense. Pero la problemática no es únicamente a nivel de Costa Rica sino que en el mundo entero se da tal fenómeno, razón por la cual la Organización de Naciones Unidas trata de que tal flagelo sea superado. La realidad de la humanidad refleja claramente una seria discriminación respecto a las personas con discapacidad. Los márgenes de pobreza en dicho conglomerado social son realmente alarmantes. Así lo indica el informe final del Comité Especial encargado de preparar una convención internacional amplia e integral para proteger y promover los derechos y la dignidad de las personas con discapacidad. Dentro de dicho sector social se palpa aún más la discriminación por razón del género. Esas y otras situaciones motivó hace algunos años a la Comunidad Interamericana a dictar una Convención regional que busca apaliar dichos actos discriminatorios. Ahora es la comunidad mundial la que pretende levantar bandera a través de una normativa capaz de comprometer a los países suscriptores para que en sus respectivos pueblos se respeten los derechos humanos de las personas con discapacidad y se elimine toda discriminación contra ellos. Nuestro país no ha sido ajeno a este movimiento, y ejemplo de ello es la promulgación de la Ley 7600 y su reglamento que también buscan eliminar toda forma de discriminación contra el conglomerado social ha que nos hemos referido. Así por ejemplo el artículo 1 de dicha ley dice: “Se declara de interés público el desarrollo integral de la población con discapacidad, en iguales condiciones de calidad, oportunidad, derechos y deberes que el resto de los habitantes”. Asimismo el inciso c del artículo 4 sobre las “Obligaciones del Estado” para cumplir esa ley, dice: c)Eliminar las acciones y disposiciones que, directa o indirectamente, promueven la discriminación o impiden a las personas con discapacidad tener acceso a los programas y servicios”. También el inciso g) de dicha norma establece como obligación del Estado “g) Garantizar, por medio de las instituciones correspondientes, los servicios de apoyo requeridos por las personas con discapacidad para facilitarles su permanencia en la familia”. No obstante tales normas y otras con la misma filosofía, no han sido suficientes para cumplir con su cometido, el que en alguna medida ha quedado en el papel por el incumplimiento del Estado y sus instituciones. Esa realidad debe cambiar y a ello contribuirá el trabajo de la Comisión redactora del proyecto de las Naciones Unidas sobre la problemática de las personas con discapacidad y de sus familias, en cuanto apunta la necesidad de dictar normas que obliguen a los Estados a tomar todo tipo de medidas contra el flagelo de la discriminación a personas con discapacidad, pero no sólo a título personal sino también con relación a las familias en las que alguno de sus miembros enfrenta alguna discapacidad. Se relaciona directamente este tema con el problema medular del caso que nos ocupa, el cual reviste la particularidad de que tanto los actores son personas con discapacidad asì como los tres hijos para los que piden ayuda de parte del Estado costarricense. Pero aparte de todo ello tenemos que dos de las partes afectadas son mujeres, es decir, la madre y la joven S. En general se trata de una familia que no puede valerse por sí misma, ni siquiera los padres tienen la posibilidad de trabajar y salir adelante con la crianza de sus hijos por la discapacidad propia de cada uno de ellos, y además por que les corresponde hacer frente a la atención personal que requieren cada uno de sus hijos. Tarea difícil de sobrellevar para cualquier persona y aún más difícil cuando los progenitores también enfrentan alguna discapacidad personal. Es claro entonces que el Estado costarricense debe ayudar a cada uno de los miembros de dicha familia en la medida que asì lo requieran, pero además debe ayudar a toda esa familia en forma integral, como grupo social protegido por el artículo 51 de la Constitución Política. Esta última perspectiva ha sido analizada por la doctrina que investiga estos temas, pero aún más allá la Comisión encargada de redactar el proyecto de la convención de las Naciones Unidas capta claramente tal situación y asì lo denuncia ante la comunidad mundial. Es muy revelador tan importante informe, aunque claro está no es vinculante porque aun no ha sido aprobado por las Naciones Unidas, pero refleja las conclusiones de los estudiosos de la materia más acreditados en todo el mundo. En lo que nos interesa para el caso particular dicho informe dice: “PREÀMBULO: q) Reconociendo que las mujeres y las niñas con discapacidad suelen estar expuestas a un riesgo mayor, dentro y fuera del hogar, de violencia, lesiones o abuso, abandono o trato negligente, malos tratos o explotación. r) Reconociendo también que los niños y las niñas con discapacidad deben gozar plenamente de todos los derechos y las libertades fundamentales en igualdad de condiciones con los demás niños y niñas, y recordando las obligaciones que a este respecto asumieron los Estados Parte en la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño. s)Subrayando la necesidad de incorporar una perspectiva de género en todas las actividades destinadas a promover el pleno goce de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales por las personas con discapacidad. t) Destacando el hecho de que la mayoría de las personas con discapacidad viven en condiciones de pobreza y reconociendo, a este respecto, la necesidad fundamental de mitigar los efectos negativos de la pobreza en las personas con discapacidad. v) Reconociendo la importancia de la accesibilidad al entorno físico, social, económico y cultural, a la salud y a la educación y a la información y las comunicaciones, para que las personas con discapacidad puedan gozar plenamente de todos los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales. x) Convencidos de que la familia es la unidad colectiva natural y fundamental de la sociedad y tiene derecho a recibir protección de ésta y del Estado, y de que las personas con discapacidad y sus familias deben recibir la protección y la asistencia necesarias para que las familias puedan contribuir a que las personas con discapacidad gocen de sus derechos plenamente y en igualdad de condiciones.” Asimismo el articulado dispone: “ARTÌCULO 23 relativo a Hogar y la Familia, en el extremo tercero dice: “3. Los Estados Partes asegurarán que los niños y las niñas con discapacidad tengan los mismos derechos con respecto a la vida en familia. Para hacer efectivos estos derechos, y a fin de prevenir la ocultación, el abandono, la negligencia y la segregación de los niños y las niñas con discapacidad, los Estados Partes velarán por que se proporcione con anticipación información, servicios y apoyo generales a los menores con discapacidad y a sus familias. 4. Los Estados Partes asegurarán que los niños y las niñas no sean separados de sus padres contra su voluntad, salvo cuando las autoridades competentes, con sujeción a un examen judicial, determinen, de conformidad con la ley y los procedimientos aplicables, que esa separación es necesaria en el interés superior del niño. En ningún caso se separará a un menor de sus padres en razón de una discapacidad del menor, de ambos padres o de uno de ellos.” A su vez el artículo 28 relativo al Nivel de vida adecuado y protección social dice: “1. Los Estados partes reconocen el derecho de las personas con discapacidad a un nivel de vida adecuado para ella y sus familias, lo cual incluye alimentación, vestido y vivienda adecuadas, y a la mejora continua de sus condiciones de vida, y adoptarán las medidas pertinentes para salvaguardar y promover el ejercicio de este derecho sin discriminación por motivos de discapacidad”, y el punto 2.c) dice: “Asegurar el acceso de las personas con discapacidad y de sus familias que vivan en situaciones de pobreza a asistencia del Estado para sufragar gastos relacionados con su discapacidad, incluidos capacitación, asesoramiento, asistencia financiera y servicios de cuidados temporales adecuados.” Y si bien dicho proyecto aún no reviste la condición de Convención Internacional, en nuestro continente contamos con la “Convención Interamericana para la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra las personas con discapacidad”, cuya preocupación es básicamente la discriminación de que son objeto las personas en razón de su discapacidad. Es importante rescatar que dicha convención señala en el artículo 1. 2. b: “No constituye discriminación la distinción o preferencia adoptada por un Estado parte a fin de promover la integración social o el desarrollo personal de las personas con discapacidad, siempre que la distinción o preferencia no limite en sí misma el derecho a la igualdad de las personas con discapacidad y que los individuos con discapacidad no se vean obligados a aceptar tal distinción o preferencia. En los casos en que la legislación interna prevea la figura de la declaratoria de interdicción, cuando sea necesaria y apropiada para su bienestar, ésta no constituirá discriminación.” Este apartado permite ver claramente que los Estados deben asumir decisiones específicas y algunas veces diferentes para las personas con discapacidad, precisamente para lograr que dicho sector social no sea discriminado. Es decir, para garantizar la igualdad en la diferencia es necesario que se den medidas tal como excepciones, privilegios, etc. En tales términos lo concibe la Convención Interamericana toda vez que considera discriminatorio no cumplir con las acciones positivas. Es esa precisamente la razón de ser de la ”Canasta Básica en Discapacidad” que aplica el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial, y que es ignorada tanto por el Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social como por el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. Concluimos entonces que medir las necesidades y posibilidades de las personas con discapacidad y sus familias bajo los mismos parámetros con que se miden tales rubros en las personas y familias sin discapacidad, es motivo de discriminación. Tema de la igualdad y desigualdad que ha sido tratado ampliamente y bajo una línea parecida por la Sala Constitucional en el voto número 2006007262 de las 14:46 del 23 de mayo del 2006. Esto último sucede porque las personas con discapacidad y sus familias incurren en gastos importantísimos en los que no incurren quienes no sufren tales dolencias, o al menos el costo económico y en tiempo es considerablemente inferior. Así entonces, al ser distintos los parámetros de valoración tomados en cuenta por el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial y los tomados en cuenta tanto por el IMAS como por el PANI, los resultados de la primera institución con relación a las dos siguientes son completamente diferentes en lo que respecta a la calificación de “pobreza extrema” de la familia Baltodano Valverde. OCTAVO: El tema de la pobreza extrema y discapacidad son básicos en la resolución de este caso, de ahí que debemos retomar el estudio de los parámetros a tomar en cuenta para valorar esa pobreza y la discapacidad, asì como el de las Instituciones del Estado encargadas de ayudar a las personas que viven en dichas condiciones, tema al que nos referimos rápidamente en el considerando anterior. Sobre el tópico de la pobreza en nuestro país tenemos que la Ley de Creación del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, Nº 4760, en su artículo 2 dice: “El IMAS tiene como finalidad resolver el problema de la pobreza extrema en el país, para lo cual deberá planear, dirigir, ejecutar y controlar un plan nacional destinado a dicho fin. Para ese objetivo utilizará todos los recursos humanos y económicos que sean puestos a su servicio por los empresarios y trabajadores del país, instituciones del sector público nacionales o extranjeras, organizaciones privadas de toda naturaleza, instituciones religiosas y demás grupos interesados en participar en el Plan Nacional de Lucha contra la Pobreza.” A su vez el artículo 3 dice: “Todas las instituciones que utilicen recursos públicos participarán en la lucha contra la pobreza dirigida por el IMAS, mediante el aporte de recursos económicos, personales y administrativos en la medida que definan sus órganos directivos y de acuerdo con la naturaleza de cada institución, o en los términos que determina la presente ley. Para los efectos anteriores, las indicadas instituciones de cualquier naturaleza jurídica que sean, quedan por este medio autorizadas para aprobar programas de participación en la lucha contra la pobreza extrema, a través del IMAS y bajo su dirección y para hacer aportes económicos a éste, destinados a los fines de la presente ley.” El artículo 4 e) dice: “Atender las necesidades de los grupos sociales o de las personas que deban ser provistas de medios de subsistencia cuando carezcan de ellos;”. Asimismo la Ley Orgánica del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia establece que dicha institución tiene como fin primordial: “... proteger especialmente y en forma integral a las personas menores de edad y sus familias, como elemento natural y pilar de la sociedad. (artículo 1)”. Además entre sus principios está el reconocer, defender y garantizar los derechos de la infancia, la adolescencia y la familia: así como respectar la dignidad de la persona humana y el espíritu de solidaridad como elemento natural básico que orientarán el quehacer institucional. (artículo 2). Esa y otras muchas disposiciones normativas exponen el compromiso y obligación del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia para con las personas menores de edad, ocupando dentro de dicho conglomerado social una posición muy importante los menores de edad y jóvenes que sufren alguna discapacidad. Así entonces dicha institución no puede evadir su responsabilidad para con los jóvenes Baltodano con sólo decir que no se encuentran en riesgo social, por lo que no calzan en el programa de ayuda dentro de los cuales los ubicó anteriormente. El deber constitucional y legal de dicha institución trascienden los programas de carácter interno que definen los mismos funcionarios. Es necesario que la responsabilidad se asuma en los términos que establece la misma Constitución Política en los artículos 51 y 55 y la Ley Orgánica de dicha Institución." NOVENO: Teniendo claro las responsabilidades de estas instituciones del Estado podemos definir las funciones o servicios que cada una de ellas deberá brindar a los tres jóvenes Baltodano Valverde para quienes sus padres solicitan ayuda. Si bien es cierto fue dirigido el proceso únicamente al Patronato Nacional de la Infancia porque los tres jóvenes eran menores de edad, es claro que ahora deben intervenir también el Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social y el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Enseñanza Especial, toda vez que uno de dichos jóvenes alcanzó su mayoridad y muy pronto los otros dos lo harán, razonamiento fundamentado principalmente en la Ley General de la Persona Joven número 8261. Debemos reflexionar en el sentido de que el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia es la institución estatal encargada de velar por las personas menores de edad junto a otras entidades, de ahí que el verdadero responsable es el Estado, pues como determinamos en considerandos anteriores es al Estado costarricense a través de sus instituciones a quien corresponde velar por la familia, las personas menores de edad, las mujeres cabeza de hogar, los ancianos y las personas con discapacidad. Así entonces, al contar el organigrama del Estado con otras instituciones encargadas de responsabilidades concretas y específicas como lo es el tema de la pobreza extrema y la discapacidad, debemos entender que al alcanzar la mayoridad uno de los beneficiarios de la ayuda económica que reclaman los actores, deben entrar a jugar un papel protagónico esas otras instituciones encargadas de esas otras funciones, todo ello a fin de dar cumplimiento a las disposiciones del artículo 51 de la Constitución Política. DÉCIMO: En los considerandos anteriores se expuso la doctrina del tema de los derechos fundamentales de las personas con discapacidad, la legislación nacional e internacional sobre el tema, incluso jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional. Todo ello junto con los hechos probados de la sentencia apelada que han sido avalados por este Tribunal por ajustarse a los autos, y teniendo presente los agravios expresados por los recurrentes, se concluye necesariamente que la sentencia venida en alzada debe ser revocada parcialmente. El Tribunal no puede compartir el rumbo que siguió la sentencia recurrida con relación a los motivos por los que no se dispone la obligación de la entidad estatal de sufragar la ayuda económica que venía cubriendo a favor de los jóvenes S.C, J.D. y J.J. El juzgado se enfrasca en la tesis de que el convenio o contrato celebrado entre la madre de los jóvenes mencionados y el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia mediante el cual dicha señora recibía una cantidad de dinero que en realidad correspondía a una ayuda o subsidio a favor de sus jóvenes hijos, siendo que dicho contrato se ubicaba presupuestariamente por el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia en el [Nombre2] relativo a “Acogimiento Familiar”. Lo verdaderamente importante no es en qué [Nombre2] ubicó el Pani la ayuda que daba a los jóvenes porque consideraba que necesitaban de la misma, sino que lo realmente importante es esto último, que los jóvenes requieren esa ayuda. Es responsabilidad del ente estatal ubicar adecuadamente dentro de su presupuesto dicha ayuda, pero el que ello no se de actualmente no significa que la necesidad no existe y que la obligación estatal no se cumpla. Alega el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia que la Contraloría General de la República los insta a que hagan un adecuado manejo de los recursos por lo que deben revocar los distintos casos de ayuda y no darla a los niños y jóvenes que no se encuentran en abandono o riesgo social. Efectivamente el Pani debe avocarse a cumplir con tales directrices, lo que lo lleva a ubicar presupuestariamente en el [Nombre2] adecuado en su presupuesto la ayuda que proporcione a las personas menores de edad con discapacidad que se encuentra en una situación de pobreza. Cuando se inicia este proceso los tres jóvenes eran menores de edad pero ahora uno de ellos ya no lo es, por ello la medida de protección fue planteada contra el Pani que es la institución que conforme lo establecen los artículos 51 y 55 de la Constitución Política debe velar por las personas menores de edad, incluyendo claro está las que aparte de ser menores de edad son discapacitadas. Así entonces no hay duda de que a dicha institución es a la que corresponde asumir tal obligación. Yerra la juzgadora de primera instancia en debatir sobre la validez y eficacia o invalides e ineficacia del contrato en mención. Es claro que el Pani podía deshacer o dejar sin efecto dicho contrato porque asì se lo permitía una de sus cláusulas, pero es claro también que se trata de un contrato confeccionado unilateralmente por el Pani y que en esa medida ejercía una relación de poder o superioridad respecto a las personas menores de edad con discapacidad y con grandes necesidades económicas. Tal situación parece dar a entender que el Pani hacía una especie de “favor” lo cual no es asì, pues simplemente dicha institución cumplía con su deber. Alega ahora el Pani que debe hacer un buen uso de los fondos públicos y que por eso les quita la ayuda económica a los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde, lo cual avala la señora jueza de primera instancia en sus consideraciones de fondo. Pero en realidad cuidar los fondos públicos no significa incumplir con sus deberes constitucionales. Precisamente el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia cuenta con un presupuesto constituido por fondos públicos por los que debe velar adecuadamente, pero es una de sus responsabilidades velar por las personas menores de edad con discapacidad. Así entonces, si la situación de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde no se ubica dentro de las características que deben reunir las personas que son beneficiarias del programa de “Acogimiento Familiar”, debe proceder el Pani a crear un programa u otro mecanismo para cumplir con su responsabilidad con personas menores de edad con discapacidad que se encuentra en una situación de pobreza. Es responsabilidad del Pani ubicar adecuadamente dicha situación, pero la inopia, inercia o negligencia no puede ser justificantes para negar la colaboración a dicho conglomerado social. No puede el Pani excusarse en formalismos impersonales que no hacen más que hacer daño a seres humanos en condiciones personales y económicas muy difíciles que requieren la ayuda del Estado, el cual debe cumplir según dispone el artículo 51 de la Constitución Política y a través del Pani y otras entidades como indica el artículo 55 de nuestra Carta Magna. En resumen, el deber del Estado a través del Pani no deviene de un contrato entre la madre de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde y el órgano encargado, sino que su obligación deviene de los artículos 51 y 55 ya mencionados. Esto último es claro y básico en la decisión que ahora tomamos. DÉCIMO PRIMERO: Por otra parte tampoco puede compartir este Tribunal las conclusiones a que arriba la juzgadora de primera instancia al partir de que en efecto la familia Baltodano Valverde no se encuentra en “estado de pobreza” porque tanto el IMAS como el PANI asì lo concluyeron. En realidad, de los autos no se puede desprender de ninguna manera que se haya realizado una valoración “justa” a dicha familia bajo parámetros de una Canasta Básica para Familias con miembros que ostentan las condiciones desventajosas de la Discapacidad. Por el contrario se observa que documentalmente el IMAS parte de que dicha familia no requiere ayuda económica aplicándole los parámetros que se estilan para todas las familias del país, información que se capta en una FICHA “fría” utilizada para esos efectos. Distinto es el criterio en la valoración que realiza el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial, quienes bajo una perspectiva clara de Discapacidad aplican una Canasta Básica que tiene muy presente las diferencias de los montos que requieren sufragar los gastos diarios de personas con discapacidad, tomando en cuenta por ejemplo la diferencia en el costo de transporte, de alimentación, de asistencia sanitaria, de limpieza, etc. Así entonces no es posible arribar a conclusiones erradas como las del Pani y el Imas que no hacen más que evidenciar aún más lo discriminatorio del trato a las personas con discapacidad y a sus familias. Como vimos anteriormente, el mismo proyecto de Convención de Naciones Unidas para personas con discapacidad indica que los parámetros para valorar las circunstancias de las personas con discapacidad no pueden ser iguales a las de aquellas personas y familias que no sufren alguna discapacidad. Es decir, dicho proyecto aboga porque el trato se ajuste a las necesidades y características de las personas con discapacidad y sus familias. Para lograr ese trato justo se requiere que los parámetros mediante los cuales se miden tales circunstancias se ajusten a esas distintas características y necesidades. Evidentemente, en este caso las conclusiones a que se arriba con parámetros de medidas iguales para situaciones diferentes son totalmente desajustadas y alejadas de la realidad. Asimismo aboga dicho proyecto porque las familias de tales personas también sean ser ayudadas para que a la vez puedan ayudar a los miembros de su familia que tiene alguna discapacidad. Irónicamente porque los padres de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde no los han abandonado ni los han puesto en riesgo social a pesar de sufrir ellos mismos discapacidad y tener muchas limitaciones materiales, culturales y económicas, se les castiga al no ubicarlos dentro de grupos de Acogimiento Familiar. ¿Será que los padres deben abandonar o descuidar a los hijos con discapacidad para que el Pani asuma su responsabilidad económica y los ayude? ¿No será mejor ayudarlos para que no se llegue a una situación de abandono o riesgo social o estado de vulnerabilidad?. En autos se demostró la discapacidad que sufren los padres de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde, lo que es digno de rescatar, pero aún así, han luchado por sus hijos, y muestra de ello es el presente proceso. La señora jueza de primera instancia parece criticar negativamente a la Familia Baltodano Valverde y en consecuencia a los progenitores por acudir a los servicios públicos y tratar de agotar toda ayuda estatal que sea posible, lo que resulta impropio toda vez que es imposible para la madre de los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde salir a buscar trabajo fuera de su casa porque tiene que atender a seis personas con discapacidad, lo que evidentemente conlleva lavar y planchar mucha ropa, preparar bastantes alimentos que dicho sea de paso deben ser de un alta calidad nutritiva por la discapacidad de los miembros de su familia y suministrar la gran cantidad de medicamentos que consumen, etc. Por su parte el señor Baltodano tampoco puede salir a buscar trabajo fuera de su hogar porque evidentemente debe ayudar a su esposa a cuidar a los hijos, tómese en cuenta que algunas de las discapacidades que sufren sus hijos son muy difícil es de sobrellevar en una familia tal como lo es el autismo y el retardo mental. Además el señor Baltodano es de edad avanzada y también sufre discapacidad. Tales personas requieren grandes cuidados y una atención constante. El compartir con personas con autismo o retardo u otras discapacidades día a día conlleva un desgaste emocional muy grande, de ahí que más bien el Estado costarricense debe dar el apoyo necesario a ambos progenitores para que puedan continuar luchando por sus hijos y por ellos mismos por la discapacidad que sufren. En sí la crianza constante de tantos hijos con discapacidad es “discapacitante” y así lo debe ver el Estado y la Sociedad para que con criterios de justicia y solidaridad ayuden a ésta familia. Si bien es cierto en la sociedad costarricense falta concientización (artículo 6 de la Ley 7600) en el tema de la discapacidad, no se justifica que las instituciones gubernamentales y los juzgadores carezcan de dicha cultura en la materia, toda vez que somos los llamados a dar respuesta a las necesidades de tal conglomerado social, por puede aceptarse que el PANI y el IMAS continúen aplicando reglas o criterios que ignoran la diferencia de necesidades de personas con discapacidad y aquellas que no lo son. No se explica y menos se justifica que el Pani niegue una ayuda simplemente porque las personas con discapacidad en estado de pobreza no se ubiquen con personas abandonadas o en riesgo social. Por el contrario la Ley 7600 establece como obligación del Estado (artículo 4 inciso g) “Garantizar, por medio de las instituciones correspondientes, los servicios de apoyo requeridos por las personas con discapacidad para facilitarles su permanencia en la familia”. DÈCIMO SEGUNDO: Tampoco podemos compartir el criterio de la juzgadora de primera instancia en sostener que los jóvenes Baltodano Valverde son beneficiarios de varias pensiones o subsidios estatales. No es relevante tal situación, sino que más bien lo que se debe analizar es si el monto global que recibe cada una de esas personas realmente es suficiente para cubrir sus necesidades y le permitan llevar una vida digna a la que tienen derecho las personas menores de edad tengan un desarrollo integral, aunque éste último se debe aplicar también a las personas con discapacidad mayores de edad porque en buen número de casos es irrelevante la edad cronológica. Así por ejemplo es inaudito considerar que por recibir una pensión determinada y otra de mil setecientos colones se considere “mucho” dinero. Tal cantidad de pensiones o ayudas, lo que refleja precisamente la carencia en Costa Rica de una política objetiva y con perspectiva de personas con discapacidad. En esta materia no se trata de sumar dos más dos. Véase que por el contrario una pensión muy alta y desajustada a la realidad del beneficiario podría resultar excesiva. Así entonces lo importante es el monto global en relación al tipo de discapacidad y la situación personal y familiar del beneficiario. Evidentemente éstos no han sido los criterios de la señora jueza de primera instancia. Tampoco compartimos la crítica en el sentido que la familia Baltodano consume mucha electricidad o tiene lavadora o refrigeradora o faxes. Felizmente tienen lavadora porque es de suponer el enorme uso que se le da diariamente a dicho artefacto, lo mismo con relación a la refrigeradora. Pero incluso también con relación a los faxes, pues como dijo el joven Felipe en la audiencia celebrada en esta instancia, uno de los tres no funciona, el otro únicamente permite recibir fax y el otro solamente permite enviar fax, amén de que han sido medios utilizados para ejercitar sus derechos, lo que debe apoyarse a favor del estado de vulnerabilidad en que se ubican los solicitantes. Esta familia por la lucha que ha dado a nivel legal requiere de dicho instrumento, y ello no los saca de la pobreza, simplemente les ayuda un poco a mitigar su problema de transporte y comunicación. DÈCIMO CUARTO: En consecuencia entre los rubros que reclaman los actores nos encontramos con el relativo a los daños y perjuicios y el pago retroactivo de las ayudas que les dejaron de pagar. Al respecto concluye el Tribunal que en realidad no es ésta la vía procesal correspondiente para conocer de tales reclamos, toda vez que la vía escogida por los actores y que es precisamente la “cautelar” a través de un “Proceso Especial de Protección” regulado en el Código de la Niñez y Adolescencia artículo 141 siguientes y concordantes del Código De Niñez y Adolescencia. Recordemos que este tipo de proceso busca básicamente dar respuesta a una problemática que afecta directa e inmediatamente un derecho que ha sido lesionado o puede llegar a serlo muy pronto, pero de manera alguna pretende “Establecer” o “Declarar” derechos, tal como sucede en la vía declarativa, lo cual resulta lamentable, no obstante se enmarca dentro del marco procesal que rige la materia. Lo anterior sin perjuicio del derecho que ostentan los interesados de acudir a la vía pertinente, acorde con lo dispuesto en el artículo 41 Constitucional y 1045 del Código Civil. DÈCIMO SEGUNDO: Se revoca parcialmente la sentencia venida en alzada. El Patronato Nacional de la Infancia debe continuar dando un subsidio a la menor S.C. mientras tenga esta condición, y al cumplir la mayoridad el Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social debe continuar proporcionando dicha ayuda en coordinación con el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial. Con relación a los jóvenes ***. y ***, ambos Baltodano Valverde tanto el Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social como el Consejo Nacional de Rehabilitación y Educación Especial, deben proporcionarles el subsidio que requieran que les permita tener una vida digna. La primera de dichas entidades deberá cubrir las necesidades de carácter habitacional, alimentarias, de vestuario necesarias y la segunda de dichas entidades deberá gestionar las ayudas necesarias para que los jóvenes cuenten con los recursos necesarios para realizar los estudios que les permitan desarrollar sus habilidades. En lo demás apelado se confirma la sentencia apelada."
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.