Teacher requirements in indigenous community: being native prevails over academic suitabilityRequisitos para docente en comunidad indígena: prevalece ser nativo sobre idoneidad académica

**IV.- ON THE PRIOR CONSULTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE COUNCIL.-** The national interest regarding the situation of indigenous peoples resulted in the ratification of ILO Convention 169 through Law 7316 in 1992. Upon ratifying the convention, the state committed to fulfilling the obligations and respecting the rights contained therein. The pillar of Convention 169 is the recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to have their forms of organization respected, to conserve and transmit their knowledge and traditions, as well as to develop economically and strengthen their identities in the States where they live. In that sense, Article 2 of the aforementioned convention establishes that “Governments shall have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity.” Article 6 constitutes a commitment by the adopting States to establish effective mechanisms for the consultation and participation of indigenous peoples regarding matters that concern them. In this way, Convention 169 promotes the integral development of indigenous peoples without affecting their cultural identity. Regarding the binding nature of international treaties, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, approved by Law No. 7615, of July 24, 1996, and duly ratified by Costa Rica, in its articles 26 and 27 obligates the State Parties to comply in good faith with the conventions in force. By judgment number 3003-92 of 11:30 a.m. on October 7, 1992, on the occasion of the mandatory constitutionality review of ILO Convention 169, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled on the constitutional relevance of the protection of indigenous peoples as follows: “a) That it is necessary to recognize for indigenous people, in addition to the fullness of their rights and freedoms as human beings, other legally guaranteed conditions, through which the inequality and discrimination to which they are subjected can be compensated, with the purpose of guaranteeing their real and effective equality in all aspects of social life; b) That it is also necessary to guarantee respect for and the conservation of the historical and cultural values of indigenous populations, recognizing their peculiarity, without any limitation other than the need to preserve, at the same time, the dignity and fundamental values of every human being recognized today by the civilized world—which implies that respect for the traditions, language, religion, and culture in general of these peoples only admits exceptions necessary to eradicate practices universally considered inhuman, such as cannibalism—; c) Without prejudice to the foregoing, indigenous people must also be recognized the rights and means necessary to access, freely and with dignity, the spiritual and material benefits of the predominant civilization—means among which access to education and the official language stands out for its importance.” Likewise, it concluded that far from containing conflicts with the Political Constitution, “Convention 169 reflects the dearest values of our democratic nationality, developing the human rights of Costa Rican indigenous people and can be a starting point to begin a review of secondary legislation to adapt it to these needs.” In application of Convention 169, on February 25, 1993, the Indigenous Education Subsystem (Subsistema Educación Indígena) was created through Executive Decree No. 22072, which in its article 9 establishes: “Educators of the Indigenous Reserves shall belong to the local ethnic group (etnia local) and be, preferably, natives of the respective Indigenous Reserve. The Ministry of Public Education (Ministerio de Educación Pública) shall agree with the Directive Councils (Consejos Directivos) on plans to promote pedagogical studies for youth from the reserves who show interest…” For its part, article 11 contemplates the obligation of the Ministry of Public Education to consult with the respective Directive Council on the suitability (idoneidad) of the teaching staff before making any appointment. From the analyzed regulations, it is clear that consultation with the respective directive councils (consejos directivos) constitutes a mechanism that guarantees the safeguarding of the cultural specificity (especificidad cultural) of indigenous communities and their right to participate effectively in decision-making on educational projects that affect them. Therefore, the aforementioned consultation has a substantive and formal character, as the ad quem points out, and the State must ensure that its acts are adjusted as much as possible to the requirements of the indigenous communities, taking into account the observations made.

V.- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE.- The principal reproach of the appellants, as well as the heart of the matter in question, lies in the qualification that the Court gave to the requirements for being an educator in an indigenous zone. The Court, after analyzing article 9 of Executive Decree 22072, points out the existence of two indispensable requirements to hold the position: being an educator and belonging to the local ethnic group (etnia local). On the other hand, it assigns a qualification of “not indispensable” to the characteristic of “being a native of the respective community.” However, to reach this conclusion, the Court established a suitability (idoneidad) parameter based on a merely academic criterion, foreign to indigenous culture. When it comes to appointments of teaching staff in educational centers located in indigenous zones, the same parameters established for any other educational center in the country cannot be used; rather, the needs of the zone must be observed in strict safeguarding of the cultural specificity (especificidad cultural). In that sense, the principle of suitability (idoneidad) cannot be applied to the detriment of the human rights of indigenous communities. The foregoing does not seek to disregard academic preparation for evaluating suitability (idoneidad) for a position, but an educator who does not have the approval of their representatives cannot be imposed on such communities, when these representatives have invoked substantive rights inherent to cultural specificity (especificidad cultural) as the basis for their recommendation, since doing so would constitute an act violating their fundamental rights. For this reason, the plaintiff must be considered as not qualified to hold the position, over the person recommended by the representatives of the indigenous community, since the plaintiff, unlike the designated person, lacks the requirement, fundamental in this case, of being a native of the community. Given this circumstance, the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil) in its article 97 establishes the possibility of appointing applicants despite having a different classification and even if their academic credentials are not equal to those of a professional, which is why the designation of the applicant [Name1] cannot be considered illegitimate. One must not lose sight of the fact that each community is considered unique in terms of its customs and identities, hence the reason to give preference to people who possess the greatest cultural and ethnic affinity with the respective community. A ruling to the contrary would imply ignoring both national and international norms, as well as a setback in the human rights of the indigenous communities of our country.

By judgment number 3003-92 of 11:30 a.m. on October 7, 1992, on the occasion of the mandatory constitutional review concerning Convention 169 of the ILO, the Constitutional Chamber ruled on the constitutional relevance of the protection of indigenous peoples as follows: “a) That it is necessary to recognize indigenous peoples, in addition to the fullness of their rights and freedoms as human beings, other legally guaranteed conditions, through which the inequality and discrimination to which they are subjected may be compensated, with the purpose of guaranteeing their real and effective equality in all aspects of social life; b) That it is also necessary to guarantee the respect for and conservation of the historical and cultural values of indigenous populations, recognizing their uniqueness, without any limitation other than the need to preserve, at the same time, the dignity and fundamental values of every human being recognized today by the civilized world—which implies that respect for the traditions, language, religion, and generally the culture of these peoples only admits exceptions necessary to eradicate practices universally considered inhuman, such as cannibalism—; c) Without prejudice to the foregoing, indigenous peoples must also be recognized the rights and means necessary to access, freely and with dignity, the spiritual and material benefits of the predominant civilization—means among which access to education and the official language stands out due to its importance.” Likewise, it concluded that far from containing conflicts with the Political Constitution, “Convention 169 reflects the dearest values of our democratic nationality, developing the human rights of Costa Rican indigenous people and can be a starting point to initiate a revision of secondary legislation to adapt it to these needs.” In application of Convention 169, on February 25, 1993, the Indigenous Education Subsystem was created, by means of Executive Decree No. 22072, which in its article 9 establishes: “Educators of Indigenous Reserves must belong to the local ethnic group and, preferably, be natives of the respective Indigenous Reserve. The Ministry of Public Education shall agree with the Boards of Directors on plans to promote pedagogical studies for young people from the reserves who show interest…” For its part, article 11 contemplates the obligation of the Ministry of Public Education to consult the respective Board of Directors regarding the suitability of the teaching staff before making any appointment. From the legislation analyzed, it emerges that consultation with the respective boards of directors constitutes a mechanism that guarantees the safeguarding of the cultural specificity of indigenous communities and their right to participate, effectively, in the decision-making regarding educational projects that affect them. Therefore, the aforementioned consultation has a substantive and formal character, as the lower court indicates, and the State must ensure that its acts conform as much as possible to the requirements of the indigenous communities, taking into account the observations made.

**V.- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE.-** The main objection of the appellants, as well as the substance of the matter in question, lies in the classification that the Court granted to the requirements for being an educator in an indigenous zone. The Court, after analyzing article 9 of Executive Decree 22072, noted the existence of 2 indispensable requirements to hold the position: being an educator and belonging to the local ethnic group. On the other hand, it granted the characteristic of “being a native of the respective community” a classification of “not indispensable.” However, to reach this conclusion, the Court established a suitability standard based on a merely academic criterion, alien to the indigenous culture. When dealing with appointments of teaching staff in educational centers located in indigenous zones, the same parameters established for any other educational center in the country cannot be used; instead, the needs of the zone must be observed in strict safeguarding of the cultural specificity. In this sense, the principle of suitability cannot be applied to the detriment of the human rights of indigenous communities. The foregoing is not intended to disregard the academic preparation to evaluate suitability for a position, but it is not possible to impose on said communities an educator who does not have the approval of their representatives, when these have invoked substantial rights inherent to cultural specificity as the basis for their recommendation, because doing so would constitute an act violating their fundamental rights. For this reason, the plaintiff must be considered as unqualified to hold the position, above the person recommended by the representatives of the indigenous community, since the plaintiff, unlike the designated person, lacks the requirement, which is fundamental in this case, of being a native of the community. Given this circumstance, the Civil Service Statute in its article 97 establishes the possibility of appointing candidates despite possessing a different classification and that their academic credentials are not equal to those of a professional, reason for which the appointment of the candidate [Name1] cannot be considered illegitimate. One must not lose sight of the fact that each community is considered unique in terms of its customs and identities, hence the reason for giving preference to persons who possess the greatest cultural and ethnic affinity with the respective community. A ruling to the contrary would imply disregarding both national and international norms, as well as representing a setback in the human rights of the indigenous communities of our country.”

“IV.- SOBRE LA CONSULTA PREVIA AL CONSEJO DIRECTIVO.- El interés nacional respecto de la situación de los pueblos indígenas resultó en la ratificación del Convenio 169 de la OIT mediante la Ley 7316 en 1992. Al ratificar el convenio, el estado se comprometió a cumplir las obligaciones y respetar los derechos contenidos en este. El pilar del convenio 169 es el reconocimiento al derecho que tienen los pueblos indígenas a que se respeten sus formas de organización, a conservar y trasmitir sus conocimientos y tradiciones, así como desarrollarse económicamente y fortalecer sus identidades en los Estados en que habitan. En ese sentido el artículo 2 del mencionado convenio establece “los Gobiernos deberán asumir la responsabilidad de desarrollar, con la participación de los pueblos interesados, una acción coordinada y sistemática con miras a proteger los derechos de esos pueblos y a garantizar el respeto de su integridad”. El artículo 6 constituye un compromiso de los Estados adoptantes a establecer mecanismos eficaces para la consulta y participación de los pueblos indígenas en relación con las cuestiones que les conciernen. De esta manera, el Convenio 169 fomenta el desarrollo integral de los pueblos indígenas sin afectar su identidad cultural. En cuanto al carácter vinculante de los tratados internacionales, la Convención de Viena sobre Derecho de los Tratados, aprobada por Ley nº 7615, del 24 de julio de 1996 y debidamente ratificada por Costa Rica, en sus numerales 26 y 27 obligan a los Estados parte a cumplir de buena fe los convenios en vigor. Por sentencia número 3003-92 de las 11:30 horas del 7 de octubre de 1992, con motivo de la consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad relativa al Convenio 169 de la OIT, la Sala Constitucional se pronunció sobre la relevancia constitucional de la protección a los pueblos indígenas de la siguiente forma:“a) Que es necesario reconocer a los indígenas, además de la plenitud de sus derechos y libertades como seres humanos, otras condiciones jurídicamente garantizadas, mediante las cuales se logren compensar la desigualdad y discriminación a que están sometidos, con el propósito de garantizar su real y efectiva igualdad en todos los aspectos de la vida social; b) Que es también necesario garantizar el respeto y la conservación de los valores históricos y culturales de las poblaciones indígenas, reconociendo su peculiaridad, sin otra limitación que la necesidad de preservar, al mismo tiempo, la dignidad y valores fundamentales de todo ser humano reconocidos hoy por el mundo civilizado -lo cual implica que el respeto a las tradiciones, lengua, religión y en general cultura de esos pueblos solo admite como excepciones las necesarias para erradicar prácticas universalmente consideradas inhumanas, como el canibalismo-; c) Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, debe también reconocerse a los indígenas los derechos y medios necesarios para acceder, libre y dignamente, a los beneficios espirituales y materiales de la civilización predominante - medios entre los cuales destaca por su importancia el acceso a la educación y a la lengua oficial”. Asimismo, concluyó que lejos de contener enfrentamientos con la Constitución Política, “el Convenio 169 refleja los más caros valores de nuestra nacionalidad democrática, desarrollando los derechos humanos de los indígenas costarricenses y puede ser un punto de partida para iniciar una revisión de la legislación secundaria para adaptarla a estas necesidades”. En aplicación del convenio 169, el 25 de febrero de 1993 se crea el Subsistema Educación Indígena, mediante decreto ejecutivo n. ° 22072 el cual en su numeral 9 establece “Los educadores de las Reservas Indígenas deberán pertenecer a la etnia local y ser, preferiblemente, nativos de la respectiva Reserva Indígena. El Ministerio de Educación Pública acordará con los Consejos Directivos planes de promoción de estudios pedagógicos para jóvenes de las reservas que muestren interés…” p or su parte el numeral 11 contempla la obligación del Ministerio de Educación Pública a consultar al respectivo Consejo Directivo sobre la idoneidad del personal docente antes de realizar cualquier nombramiento. De la normativa analizada se desprende que la consulta a los respectivos consejos directivos constituye un mecanismo que garantiza el resguardo de la especificidad cultural de las comunidades indígenas y su derecho a participar, de forma efectiva, en la toma de decisiones sobre los proyectos educativos que les afectan. Por lo tanto, la mencionada consulta tiene carácter sustantivo y formal, como señala el ad quem, y el Estado debe velar para que sus actos se ajusten en la medida de lo posible a los requerimientos de las comunidades indígenas, tomando en cuenta las observaciones que se hagan.

V.- ANÁLISIS DEL CASO CONCRETO.- El principal de los reproches de los recurrentes, así como el fondo del asunto en cuestión, radica en la calificación que el Tribunal otorgó a los requisitos para ser educador en una zona indígena. El Tribunal, tras analizar el numeral 9 del decreto ejecutivo 22072, señala la existencia de 2 requisitos indispensables para ostentar el puesto: ser educador y pertenecer a la etnia local. Por otro lado a la característica de “ser nativo de la respectiva comunidad” le otorga una calificación de “no indispensable”. No obstante, para llegar a esta conclusión el Tribunal estableció un parámetro de idoneidad basado en un criterio meramente académico, ajeno a la cultura indígena. Cuando se trata de nombramientos de personal docente en centros educativos ubicados en zonas indígenas, no se pueden utilizar los mismos parámetros establecidos para cualquier otro centro educativo del país, sino que se deben observar las necesidades de la zona en estricto resguardo de la especificidad cultural. En ese sentido, el principio de idoneidad no puede aplicarse en detrimento de los derechos humanos de las comunidades indígenas. Con lo anterior no se busca desconocer la preparación académica para evaluar la idoneidad para un puesto, pero no se puede imponer a dichas comunidades un educador que no cuenta con el visto bueno de sus representantes, cuando estos han invocado como fundamento de su recomendación derechos sustanciales propios de la especificidad cultural, pues hacerlo así constituiría un acto violatorio de sus derechos fundamentales. Por tal razón, la accionante debe considerarse como no calificada para ocupar el puesto, por encima de la persona recomendada por los representantes de la comunidad indígena, puesto que la actora, a diferencia de la persona designada, carece del requisito, en este caso fundamental, de ser nativa de la comunidad. Ante dicha circunstancia, el Estatuto de Servicio Civil en su numeral 97 establece la posibilidad de nombrar a aspirantes a pesar de poseer una clasificación diferente y que sus atestados académicos no sean iguales a los de un profesional, razón por la cual no puede considerarse como ilegítima la designación de la aspirante [Nombre1] . No debe perderse de vista que cada comunidad se considera única en cuanto a sus costumbres e identidades, de aquí la razón para dar preferencia a las personas que posean la mayor afinidad cultural y étnica con la respectiva comunidad. Un fallo en sentido contrario implicaría desconocer tanto las normas nacionales como internacionales, así como un retroceso en los derechos humanos de las comunidades indígenas de nuestro país.”