Notary officiating marriage between foreigners abroadCelebración de matrimonio entre extranjeros en el extranjero por notario costarricense

V.- This collegiate body considers that none of the arguments, except as will be stated below, is sufficient to vary the ruling of the instance authority. The catalog of fundamental rights and freedoms and human rights are enshrined in the Political Constitution and the international treaties and conventions that the country has signed or to which it has adhered. The integration and interpretation in accordance therewith permeates the entire legal system, providing protection and guarantee at the national level by all powers and organs of the State that are party to the international instruments, in accordance with their own competence through established procedures. However, that shield operates within the absolute sovereignty of the State in favor of all persons who are in its territory, whether nationals or foreigners. A person cannot allege the violation of a right or freedom if the State party to an international instrument has provided the means to make them effective. The Costa Rican State provided for the possibility that every marriage celebrated in the national territory must be registered in the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) and that the marriage between two Costa Ricans or between a Costa Rican person and a foreign person who marry abroad have the power or the option to register it if they so wish, upon petition of a party (Article 55 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Civil Registry – Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil). Likewise, the Costa Rican State can guarantee to two foreigners who marry abroad that their marriage will produce all civil effects, provided that it is not among marriages that are legally impossible and they complete the registration procedure through a duly legalized document. The appellant alleges in grievance a) that there was an erroneous interpretation by the judge of numerals 31 and 77 of the Migration and Aliens Act (Ley de Migración y Extranjería), because the contracting party is a foreigner with permanent resident status in Costa Rica, and by not allowing him to marry, endorsing what was reported by the Civil Registry in its denial of registration, it contravenes the provisions of the Political Constitution, and Articles 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 17 and 23.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 11.2 and 17 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and copious jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), among which is vote number 3656 of fourteen hours fifty-four minutes of April six, two thousand five. In this matter, the appearing party [Name1], of Chinese nationality, a rentista resident in Costa Rica, maintains that migratory status while he remains in the country, with the enjoyment and guarantee of all the rights and freedoms that the Costa Rican State has committed to respect; however, when he left the national territory, said rights and guarantees are of mandatory compliance in the new State in which he remains under the protection of its absolute State sovereignty. This Tribunal considers that no constitutional or conventional right has been violated, and if the appellant considers that this has been the case, she must resort to the corresponding legal avenue for the restoration of the violated rights and freedoms. Finally, regarding the possible violation of a legal right, it must be concluded that no right of the administered party has been violated, because by virtue of the principle of the permanence of law, as long as it has not been removed from the legal system, the national judge is obliged to apply it. It must be said that the norm has been correctly interpreted, because pursuant to Articles 31 and 77 of the Migration and Aliens Act, the foreigner enjoys the status granted in the previously established procedure while he remains in the country, therefore this grievance must be denied.

VI.- In grievances b), c), and d), the appellant notary claims an erroneous interpretation by the a quo judge of Articles 32, 40, and 41 of the Notarial Code (Código Notarial), 28 and following of the Family Code (Código de Familia), 55 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Civil Registry, and 30 of the Regulation of the Civil Status Registry (Reglamento del Registro del Estado Civil), because in her opinion, a notary person can exercise notarial function beyond the national territory with the intervention of foreign citizens if the act is to produce effects in the country. In this matter, what is analyzed is whether, through her action, the notary Carmen Adriana Álvarez Castro violated the legal precepts established in Article 32 of the Notarial Code in relation to numerals 30 of the Regulation of the Civil Status Registry and 55 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Civil Registry. In the notarial instrument that is the object of the proceeding, it is established that the accused celebrated, in the Republic of Panama, the marriage of Mr. [Name2] and [Name3], both with a single surname by reason of their Chinese nationality. Article 55 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Civil Registry states that: "(e)very marriage that in accordance with the law is celebrated in Costa Rican territory must be registered in the Civil Department; those celebrated abroad, between Costa Ricans or between a Costa Rican and a foreigner, may be registered at the request of an interested party." This article provides for two different legal prerequisites (presupuestos) for the registration of marriages in the Civil Registry, which are that they must be celebrated in the national territory or outside of it between two Costa Rican persons or a Costa Rican person and a foreign person. In the first prerequisite, registration is mandatory, and in the second prerequisite, it is optional at the request of a party. Article 30 of the Regulation of the Civil Status Registry states that: "(t)he marriage celebrated outside of the Republic between Costa Ricans or between a Costa Rican person and a foreign person may be registered in the Civil Registry at the request of an interested party and by virtue of a duly legalized document, for which the respective translation must be provided if it is not in the Spanish language." The prerequisites provided in the law for the efficacy of the act did not occur, given that the contracting parties were foreigners and married in another country. That being so, pursuant to Article 29 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) "(t)he marriage contracted by foreigners outside of Costa Rica, in accordance with the laws of the country in which it is celebrated, shall produce all the civil effects of a legitimate marriage, provided that it is not among marriages that are legally impossible," that is, the marriage of foreigners celebrated outside of Costa Rica must be performed before the competent authority in that country. The accused notary only has the power to celebrate marriages in Costa Rica or abroad between two Costa Rican persons or between a Costa Rican person and a foreign person, because the possibility of its registration in the country is the legal prerequisite for her competence. If two foreigners marry in another country, they must do so before the competent authority in application of the Principle of Reciprocity, by which a foreign notary could not celebrate in Costa Rica the marriage of two Costa Ricans residing in the country where the foreign notary has his competence, but rather would have to celebrate it in his country where he enjoys the corresponding attributions, register it before the corresponding authority, and the interested parties would proceed to its registration in Costa Rica through the use of a duly legalized document in accordance with the powers of the state organs and in accordance with the established legal procedures. The appellant is correct that a notary person can exercise notarial function beyond the national territory with the intervention of foreign citizens if the act is to produce effects in the country, but in this case, the marriage was not going to be effective due to non-compliance with the previously established legal prerequisites. The notary, as guarantor of the legality of acts and knowledgeable of the law, should have refrained from performing the act, as established in Article 36 of the Notarial Code, and provided the corresponding advice to the contracting parties so that they would celebrate their marriage before the competent authority in the Republic of Panama and register their marriage in Costa Rica through a legalized document. The appellant's grievance that points out that the later Notarial Code repeals the earlier Organic Law of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Civil Registry is also not admissible, because both form part of the Costa Rican legal system and there is no contradiction between them, but rather both regulations admit the celebration of marriage abroad as long as it is to produce effects in the country, and this happens only when the marriage is celebrated between two Costa Ricans or a Costa Rican person and a foreign person; otherwise, in the case of two foreigners outside the country, they must marry before the competent authority of the country in which they are located and the interested party must expressly request its registration in the Civil Registry through a legalized document. Likewise, she alleges that the foreign appearing parties in the act she celebrated outside the country possessed the legal capacity required to marry, which she verified, checked, and confirmed at the time of performing the notarial diligence; however, it was the notary who did not have legal competence, because the act lacked the legal prerequisites for its celebration, which is why said grievance is denied.

VII.- Finally, the appellant claims the incorrect application of Article 144 subsection b) of the Notarial Code as the basis for the sanction, because it refers to the fault incurred by a notary when authorizing an ineffective act or contract, and in her opinion, she authorized an instrument relating to an entirely lawful and effective marital union, because it is contemplated in the legislation contained in the Family Code and treaties and conventions signed in the country, and public faith (fe pública), without failing to comply with any duty or guideline imposed by the correct notarial practice, a constitutive element of a serious fault, which is why she does not understand why the maximum of the sanctioning margin contained in said article is imposed on her, when the appropriate course of action is to be exonerated of responsibility or to have the minimum of the sanctioning range imposed. Vote number 11014-2008 of eleven hours forty-three minutes of July four, two thousand eight, the Constitutional Chamber established that "(i)n the case of Article 144 b) which does not determine whether the Notary's conduct is intentional (dolosa) or negligent (culposa), it shall be the Notarial Judge who, in light of the evidence provided and in accordance with the facts presented, determines it and consequently sets the corresponding sanction. In this sense, it is opportune to remember that an intentional conduct is not necessarily more serious than a negligent conduct; hence the sanction to be imposed takes into consideration not only the intent, but also the consequences generated by the notary's conduct. Given that an interpretation like that proposed by the claimant is not possible, it is necessary to determine if the sanctioned conducts are the same, or if, on the contrary, there is some element that differentiates them, in a way that justifies a more severe sanction. A comparative analysis of both norms yields the result that the challenged Article 145 c) refers to a negligent conduct of the Notary in relation to a specific legal document, the 'public instrument (instrumento público)', while Article 144 b) only refers to acts or contracts. Articles 369 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), 70, 80, and 101 of the Notarial Code define that public instruments shall be the deed granted before a notary public, as well as any other document to which the law expressly gives that character. The public instrument is, then, a category of the genus notarial document, which would also be composed of notarial certificates (actas notariales) (Article 101 Notarial Code) and protocolizations (protocolizaciones) (insofar as they are constituted through public deeds). The reference to this category of document allows considering that the legislator, in use of its discretionary power, determined to sanction more rigorously the Notary's conduct that directly affects this type of document, to which the law grants specific effects and consequences, by reason of their condition as documents that have full evidentiary effect. These are documents through which the Notary records the negotiating will of the parties, or attests to facts that occur at a given moment, in which the notarial public faith is essential to give them legal existence," with erga omnes effects. As was proven in the case file, the appellant authorized a notarial instrument, so the norm applicable to the reported facts is Article 145 subsection c) of the Notarial Code, and not as the instance authority incorrectly did when setting the sanction by applying Article 144 subsection b) of that normative body; therefore, the appropriate course is to reclassify the fault and maintain the sanction of six months of suspension, which corresponds to the lower end of the sanctioning range of the applicable Article 145 subsection c) of the Notarial Code, because the reform in prejudice is prohibited, pursuant to Article 565 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the notary is the sole appellant.- Thus, the appealed judgment is confirmed.- <span style="font-family:Arial"> “</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">V.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">This collegiate body considers that none of the arguments, except as will be stated below, is sufficient to vary what was decided by the lower authority. The catalog of fundamental rights and freedoms</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> and human rights are positivized in the Political Constitution and the international treaties and conventions that the country has signed or to which it has adhered. Integration and conforming interpretation permeates the entire legal system, providing protection and guarantee at the national level by all powers and organs of the State party to international instruments, according to their own competence through established procedures. However, that shield operates within the absolute sovereignty of the State in favor of all persons who are in its territory, whether nationals or foreigners. A person cannot allege the violation of a right or freedom if the State party to an international instrument has provided them with the means to make them effective. The Costa Rican State provided for the possibility that every marriage celebrated in the national territory must be registered in the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) and that the marriage between two Costa Ricans or between a Costa Rican person and a foreign person who contract marriage abroad have the power or the option to register it if they wish, upon party request (Article 55 of the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil). Likewise, the Costa Rican State can guarantee two foreigners who contract marriage abroad that their marriage will produce all civil effects, provided that it is not among the marriages that are legally impossible and they carry out the registration procedure through a duly legalized document. The appellant alleges in grievance a) that there was an erroneous interpretation by the judge of numerals 31 and 77 of the Ley de Migración y Extranjería, since the contracting party is a foreigner with permanent resident status in Costa Rica, and that by not allowing him to contract marriage, endorsing what was reported by the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) in its denial of registration, what is stipulated in the Political Constitution is contravened, along with Articles 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 17 and 23.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 11.2 and 17 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and copious jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), among which is the vote number 3656 of fourteen hours fifty-four minutes of April sixth, two thousand five. In this matter, the appearing party [Name1], of Chinese nationality, a rentista resident in Costa Rica, maintains that migratory status while he remains in the country, with the enjoyment and guarantee of all the rights and freedoms that the Costa Rican State has committed to respect; however, when he left the national territory, said rights and guarantees are of mandatory observance in the new State in which he remains under the protection of its absolute state sovereignty. This Tribunal considers that no constitutional or conventional right has been violated, and if the appellant considers that this has been the case, she must resort to the corresponding legal channel for the reestablishment of the violated rights and freedoms. Finally, regarding the possible violation of a legal right, it must be concluded that no right of the administered party has been violated, because by virtue of the principle of permanence of the law, while it has not been expelled from the legal system, the national judge is obligated to apply it. It must be said that the norm has been interpreted correctly, because in accordance with Articles 31 and 77 of the Ley de Migración y Extranjería, the foreigner enjoys the status granted in a prior established procedure while he remains in the country, for which reason this grievance must be denied.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VI.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">In grievances b), c) and d) the appellant notary grieves an erroneous interpretation by the judge a quo of Articles 32, 40 and 41 of the Código Notarial, 28 and following of the Código de Familia, 55 of the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil and 30 of the Reglamento del Registro del Estado Civil, since in her view, a notary public can exercise notarial function beyond the national territory with the intervention of foreign citizens if the act is to produce effects in the country. In this matter, what is analyzed is whether, with her action, the notary Carmen Adriana Álvarez Castro violated the legal precepts established in Article 32 of the Código Notarial in relation to numerals 30 of the Reglamento del Registro del Estado Civil and 55 of the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil. In the notarial instrument (instrumento notarial) subject to the proceeding, the accused celebrated in the Republic of Panama the marriage of Mr. [Name2] and [Name3], both with a single surname by reason of their Chinese nationality.</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Article 55 of</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil states that: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">"(a)ny marriage that according to the law is celebrated in Costa Rican territory must be registered in the Civil Department; those celebrated abroad, between Costa Ricans or between a Costa Rican and a foreigner may be registered at the request of an interested party". </span><span style="font-family:Arial">This article provides for two different prerequisites for the registration of marriages in the Civil Registry (Registro Civil), which are that they must be celebrated in the national territory or outside of it between two Costa Rican persons or a Costa Rican person and a foreign person. In the first prerequisite, registration is mandatory, and in the second prerequisite, it is optional upon party request. Article 30 of the Reglamento del Registro</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> del Estado Civil states that: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">"(m)arriage celebrated outside the Republic between Costa Ricans or between a Costa Rican person and a foreign person may be registered in the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) at the request of an interested party and by virtue of a duly legalized document, for which the respective translation must be provided if it is not in the Spanish language"</span><span style="font-family:Arial">.</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The prerequisites provided in the law for the effectiveness of the act did not occur, given that the contracting parties were foreigners and contracted marriage in another country. This being so, in accordance with Article 29 of the Código Civil </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">"(m)arriage contracted by foreigners outside Costa Rica, in accordance with the laws of the country where it is celebrated, shall produce all the civil effects of a legitimate marriage, provided that it is not included among the marriages that are legally impossible", </span><span style="font-family:Arial">that is, the marriage of foreigners celebrated outside Costa Rica must be performed before the competent authority in that country. The denounced notary only has the power to celebrate marriages in Costa Rica or abroad between two Costa Rican persons or between a Costa Rican person and a foreign person, since the possibility of its registration in the country is the legal prerequisite for her competence. If two foreigners contract marriage in another country, they must do so before the competent authority in application of the Principle of Reciprocity, by which a foreign notary could not celebrate in Costa Rica the marriage of two Costa Ricans residing in the country where the foreign notary has his competence; rather, he would have to celebrate it in his country where he enjoys the corresponding attributions, register it before the corresponding authority, and the interested parties would proceed with its registration in Costa Rica through the use of a duly legalized document in accordance with the powers of the state organs and in accordance with the established legal procedures. The appellant is correct that a notary public can exercise notarial function beyond the national territory with the intervention of foreign citizens if the act is to produce effects in the country, but in this case, the marriage was not going to be effective due to non-compliance with the previously established legal prerequisites. The notary, as guarantor of the legality of the acts and knowledgeable in law, should have abstained from performing the act, in accordance with Article 36 of the Código Notarial, and provided the corresponding advice to the contracting parties so that they celebrated their marriage before the competent authority in the Republic of Panama and registered their marriage in Costa Rica through a legalized document. Neither is the appellant's grievance procedurally correct that states that the later Código Notarial repeals the earlier Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil, since both form the Costa Rican legal system and there is no contradiction between them, but rather both regulations allow the celebration of marriage abroad provided that it will produce effects in the country, and this occurs only when the marriage is celebrated between two Costa Ricans or a Costa Rican person and a foreign person; otherwise, in the case of two foreigners outside the country, they must contract marriage before the competent authority of the country in which they are and the interested party must expressly request the registration thereof in the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) through a legalized document. Likewise, she alleges that the foreign appearing parties in the act that she celebrated outside the country possessed the required legal capacity to contract marriage; which she verified, confirmed, and proved at the moment of carrying out the notarial proceeding; however, it was the notary herself who lacked the legal competence, since the act lacked the legal prerequisites for its celebration, for which reason said grievance is denied.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VII.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Finally, the appellant grieves the incorrect application of Article 144 subsection b) of the Código Notarial as the basis for the sanction, since it refers to the fault incurred by a notary when authorizing an ineffective act or contract, and in her view, she authorized an instrument relating to an entirely lawful and effective marriage bond, as contemplated by the legislation contained in the Código de Familia and treaties and conventions signed in the country—and notarial public faith (fe pública), without failing in any duty or guideline imposed by correct notarial practice—a constitutive element of a serious fault, for which reason she does not understand why the maximum of the sanctioning margin contained in said article is imposed on her, when what is procedurally correct is that she be exonerated of responsibility or that the minimum of the sanctioning range be imposed. Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) vote number 11014-2008 of eleven hours forty-three minutes of July fourth, two thousand eight established that </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">"(i)n the case of Article 144 b) which does not determine whether the Notary's conduct is willful (dolosa) or negligent (culposa), it will be the Notarial Judge who, in light of the evidence provided and in accordance with the facts presented, determines it and consequently sets the corresponding sanction. In this sense, it is appropriate to recall that a willful conduct is not necessarily more serious than a negligent conduct; hence, the sanction to be imposed should take into consideration not only the intentionality, but also the consequences generated by the notary's conduct. Given that it is not possible to make an interpretation like the one proposed by the petitioner, it is necessary to determine whether the conducts being sanctioned are the same, or whether, on the contrary, there exists some element that differentiates them, such that a more severe sanction is justified. A comparative analysis of both norms yields the result that the challenged Article 145 c) alludes to a negligent (culposa) conduct of the Notary in relation to a specific legal document, the 'public instrument (instrumento público)', while Article 144 b) only alludes to acts or contracts. Articles 369 of the Código Procesal Civil, 70, 80 and 101 of the Código Notarial define that public instruments (instrumentos públicos) shall be the deed (escritura) executed before a notary public, as well as any other document to which the law expressly gives that character. The public instrument (instrumento público) is, then, a category of the genus notarial document (documento notarial), which would also be composed of notarial certificates (actas notariales) (Article 101 Código Notarial) and protocolizations (protocolizaciones) (insofar as they are constituted through public deeds (escrituras públicas)). The reference to this category of document allows us to consider that the legislator, in use of its discretionary power, determined to sanction more rigorously the conduct of the Notary that directly affects this type of documents, to which the law grants specific effects and consequences, by reason of their condition as documents that have full evidentiary value (efecto probatorio pleno). These are documents through which the Notary embodies the business will of the parties, or attests to facts that occur at a specific moment, in which notarial public faith (fe pública notarial) is essential to give them legal existence.\", </span><span style="font-family:Arial">with effects erga omnes. As accredited in the case file (expediente), the appellant authorized a notarial instrument (instrumento notarial), therefore the applicable norm to the denounced facts is Article 145 subsection c) of the Código Notarial, and not as incorrectly done by the lower authority when setting the sanction by applying Article 144 subsection b) of that normative body, for which reason it is procedurally correct to reclassify the fault and maintain the sanction of six months of suspension that corresponds to the lower extreme of the sanctioning range of the applicable Article 145 subsection c) of the Código Notarial, because reform to the detriment of the appellant is prohibited, in accordance with Article 565 of the Código Procesal Civil, as the notary is the sole appellant.- Thus, the appealed judgment is confirmed.-”</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span> </span></p>

“V.- Estima este cuerpo colegiado que ninguno de los argumentos, salvo en lo que más adelante se dirá, es suficiente para variar lo resuelto por la autoridad de instancia. El catálogo de derechos y libertades fundamentales y los derechos humanos se encuentran positivizados en la Constitución Política y los tratados y convenios internaciones que el país ha suscrito o al que se ha adherido. La integración e interpretación conforme se impregna en todo el ordenamiento jurídico, brindando una protección y garantía en la sede nacional por parte de todos los poderes y órganos del Estado parte de los instrumentos internacionales, conforme la propia competencia a través de los procedimientos establecidos. No obstante, ese blindaje opera dentro de la soberanía absoluta del Estado a favor de todas las personas que se encuentren en su territorio, sean nacionales o extranjeros. La persona no puede alegar la violación de un derecho o libertad si el Estado parte de un instrumento internacional le ha brindado la forma de hacerlos efectivos. El Estado costarricense previó la posibilidad de que todo matrimonio que se celebre en el territorio nacional tiene que inscribirse en el Registro Civil y que el matrimonio entre dos costarricenses o entre una persona costarricense y una persona extranjera que contraigan matrimonio en el extranjero tienen la potestad o la opción de inscribirlo si lo desean a gestión de parte (artículo 55 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil). Asimismo, el Estado costarricense puede garantizarle a dos extranjeros que contraen matrimonio en el extranjero, que su matrimonio surtirá todos los efectos civiles, siempre que no esté comprendido entre los matrimonios que son legalmente imposibles y efectúen el trámite de inscripción mediante documento debidamente legalizado. La apelante alega en el agravio a) que existió por parte del juzgador una errónea interpretación de los numerales 31 y 77 de la Ley de Migración y Extranjería, pues el contrayente, es un extranjero con estatus de residente permanente en Costa Rica, y que al no permitirle contraer matrimonio, avalando lo denunciado por el Registro Civil en su denegatoria de inscripción, se contraviene lo estipulado en la Constitución Política, y los artículos 12 y 16 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 17 y 23.2 del Pacto Internacional de los Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 11.2 y 17 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, y copiosa jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional, entre la que se encuentra el voto número 3656 de las catorce horas cincuenta y cuatro minutos del seis de abril del dos mil cinco. En este asunto, el compareciente [Nombre1] , de nacionalidad china, residente rentista en Costa Rica, mantiene ese estatus migratorio mientras permanezca en el país, con el disfrute y garantía de todos los derechos y libertades que el estado costarricense se ha comprometido a respetar, no obstante, cuando salió del territorio nacional, dichos derechos y garantía son de acatamiento obligatorio en el nuevo Estado en el que permanezca bajo la protección en su soberanía estatal absoluta. Este Tribunal considera que no se ha conculcado ningún derecho constitucional o convencional, y si la recurrente considera que ha sido así, debe acudir a la vía legal correspondiente para el restablecimiento de los derechos y libertades violadas. Finalmente, en cuanto a la posible violación de un derecho legal, debe concluirse que no se le ha violentado ningún derecho al administrado, pues en virtud del principio de permanencia de la ley, mientras no haya sido arrojada del ordenamiento jurídico, el juez nacional está en la obligación de aplicarla. Debe decirse que la norma ha sido interpretada correctamente, pues conforme a los artículos 31 y 77 de la Ley de Migración y Extranjería, el extranjero goza de el estatus otorgado en procedimiento previo establecido mientras permanezca en el país, por lo que este agravio debe denegarse.

VI.- En los agravios b), c) y d) la notaria apelante agravia una errónea interpretación por parte del juez a quo de los artículos 32, 40 y 41 del Código Notarial, 28 y siguientes del Código de Familia, 55 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil y 30 del Reglamento del Registro del Estado Civil, pues en su criterio, una persona notaria puede ejercer función notarial más allá del territorio nacional con la intervención de ciudadanos extranjeros si el acto va a surtir efectos en el país. En este asunto, lo que se analiza, es si con su actuación, la notaria Carmen Adriana Álvarez Castro violentó los preceptos legales establecidos en los artículo 32 del Código Notarial en relación a los numerales 30 del Reglamento del Registro del Estado Civil y 55 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil. En el instrumento notarial objeto del proceso se tiene que la acusada celebró en la República de Panamá, el matrimonio del señor [Nombre2] y [Nombre3] , ambos con un solo apellido en razón de su nacionalidad china. El artículo 55 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil señala que: "(t)odo matrimonio que de acuerdo con la ley se celebre en el territorio costarricense, debe inscribirse en el Departamento Civil; los que se celebren en el extranjero, entre costarricenses o entre un costarricense y un extranjero pueden inscribirse a solicitud de parte interesada". Este artículo prevé dos presupuestos diferentes para la inscripción de los matrimonios en el Registro Civil y es que deben ser celebrados en el territorio nacional o fuera de él entre dos personas costarricenses o una persona costarricense y una persona extranjera. En el primer presupuesto, la inscripción es obligatoria, y en el segundo presupuesto, es potestativo a solicitud de parte. El artículo 30 del Reglamento del Registro del Estado Civil señala que: "(e)l matrimonio celebrado fuera de la República entre costarricenses o entre una persona costarricense y una persona extranjera, podrá inscribirse en el Registro Civil a requerimiento de parte interesada y en virtud de documento debidamente legalizado, del que deberá aportar la respectiva traducción si no viniese en idioma español". Los presupuestos previstos en la ley para la eficacia del acto no se dieron, dado que los contrayentes eran extranjeros y contrajeron matrimonio en otro país. Siendo así, conforme el artículo 29 del Código Civil "(e)l matrimonio contraído por extranjeros fuera de Costa Rica, con arreglo a las leyes del país en que se celebre, surtirá todos los efectos civiles del matrimonio legítimo, siempre que no esté comprendido entre los matrimonios que son legalmente imposibles", es decir, el matrimonio de extranjeros celebrado fuera de Costa Rica debe efectuarse ante autoridad competente en ese país. La notaria denunciada únicamente tiene la potestad de celebrar matrimonios en Costa Rica o en el extranjero entre dos personas costarricenses o entre una persona costarricense y una persona extranjera, pues la posibilidad de su inscripción en el país es el presupuesto legal para su competencia. Si dos extranjeros contraen matrimonio en otro país, deben efectuarlo ante la autoridad competente en aplicación del Principio de Reciprocidad, por el cual un notario extranjero no podría celebrar en Costa Rica el matrimonio de dos costarricenses residentes en el país donde el notario extranjero tiene su competencia, sino que tendría que celebrarlo en su país donde goza de las atribuciones correspondientes, inscribirlo ante la autoridad correspondiente y proceder los interesados a su inscripción en Costa Rica mediante el uso de un documento debidamente legalizado conforme las potestades de los órganos estatales y conforme los procedimientos legales establecidos. Bien dice la apelante que una persona notaria puede ejercer función notarial más allá del territorio nacional con la intervención de ciudadanos extranjeros si el acto va a surtir efectos en el país, pero en este caso, el matrimonio no iba a ser efectivo por incumplimiento de los presupuestos legales previamente establecidos. La notaria como garante de la legalidad de los actos y conocedora del derecho debió abstenerse de realizar el acto, conforme lo establece el artículo 36 del Código Notarial, y brindar la correspondiente asesoría a los contrayentes para que celebraran su matrimonio ante la autoridad competente en la República de Panamá e inscribieran su matrimonio en Costa Rica mediante documento legalizado. Tampoco es procedente el agravio de la recurrente que señala que el Código Notarial posterior deroga la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Registro Civil anterior, pues ambas conforman el sistema jurídico costarricense y no existe contradicción entre ambas, sino que ambas regulaciones admiten la celebración del matrimonio en el extranjero siempre y cuando vaya a surtir efectos en el país y esto sucede únicamente cuando el matrimonio sea celebrado entre dos costarricenses o una persona costarricense y una persona extranjera, de lo contrario, en el caso de dos extranjeros fuera del país, deberán contraer matrimonio ante autoridad competente del país en el que se encuentren y solicitar expresamente la parte interesada la inscripción del mismo en el Registro Civil mediante documento legalizado. Asimismo, alega que los comparecientes extranjeros en el acto que celebró fuera del país poseían la capacidad legal requerida para contraer matrimonio; lo que constató, verificó y comprobó al momento de efectuar la diligencia notarial, no obstante, era la cartularia quien no contaba con la competencia legal, pues el acto carecía los presupuestos legales para su celebración, motivo por el cual se deniega dicho agravio.

VII.- Finalmente, agravia la apelante la incorrecta aplicación del artículo 144 inciso b) del Código Notarial como fundamento de la sanción, pues este se refiere a la falta en la que incurre un notario cuando autoriza un acto o contrato ineficaz, y en su criterio, ella autorizó un instrumento relativo a un enlace matrimonial enteramente lícito y eficaz, por contemplarlo la legislación contenida en el Código de Familia y tratados y convenciones suscritas en el país, y la fe pública, sin incumplir deber o lineamiento alguno que le imponga el correcto ejercicio notarial, elemento constitutivo de una falta grave, motivo por el cual no comprende por qué se le impone el máximo del margen sancionatorio contenido en dicho artículo, cuando lo procedente es que se le exonere de responsabilidad o se le imponga el mínimo de la franja sancionatoria. El voto número 11014-2008 de las once horas cuarenta y tres minutos del cuatro de julio del dos mil ocho la Sala Constitucional estableció que "(e)n el caso del artículo 144 b) que no determina si la conducta del Notario es dolosa o culposa, será el Juez Notarial quien frente a la prueba aportada y de conformidad con los hechos expuestos, lo determine y fije en consecuencia la sanción que corresponde. En este sentido es oportuno recordar que no necesariamente una conducta dolosa es más grave que una conducta culposa; de ahí que la sanción a imponer, tome en consideración no solo la intencionalidad, sino las consecuencias que de la conducta del notario se generen. Dado que no cabe hacer una interpretación como la propuesta por el accionante, es preciso determinar si las conductas que se sancionan son iguales, o si por el contrario, existe algún elemento que las diferencia, de manera que se justifique una sanción más gravosa. Un análisis comparativo de ambas normas arroja como resultado que el artículo 145 c) impugnado alude a una conducta culposa del Notario en relación con un documento jurídico determinado, el “instrumento público”, mientras el artículo 144 b) solo alude a actos o contratos. Los artículos 369 del Código Procesal Civil, 70, 80 y 101 del Código Notarial definen que serán instrumentos públicos la escritura otorgada ante un notario público, así como cualquier otro documento al cual la ley le dé expresamente ese carácter. El instrumento público es, entonces, una categoría del género documento notarial, que estaría integrada además por las actas notariales (artículo 101 Código Notarial) y las protocolizaciones (en tanto se constituyen a través de escrituras públicas). La referencia a esta categoría de documento permite considerar que el legislador, en uso de su potestad discrecional, determinó sancionar de manera más rigurosa la conducta del Notario que incida en forma directa sobre este tipo de documentos, a los cuales la ley otorga efectos y consecuencias determinadas, en razón de su condición de documentos que tienen efecto probatorio pleno. Se trata de documentos a través de los cuales el Notario plasma la voluntad negocial de las partes, o da fe de hechos que ocurren en un momento determinado, en los cuales es esencial la fe pública notarial para darles existencia jurídica.", con efectos erga omnes. Como se acreditó en el expediente, la apelante autorizó un instrumento notarial, por lo que la norma aplicable a los hechos denunciados es el artículo 145 inciso c) del Código Notarial, y no como incorrectamente hizo la autoridad de instancia al fijar la sanción aplicando el artículo 144 inciso b) de ese cuerpo normativo, por lo que lo que procedente es recalificar la falta y mantener la sanción de seis meses de suspensión que corresponde al extremo menor de la franja sancionatoria del artículo 145 inciso c) del Código Notarial aplicable, por encontrarse prohibida la reforma en perjuicio, conforme el artículo 565 del Código Procesal Civil, al ser la notaria la única recurrente.- Así las cosas, se confirma la sentencia recurrida.-”