Non-Contributory Pension for a Minor with Deep Cerebral PalsyPensión del Régimen No Contributivo por parálisis cerebral profunda en menor de edad

I.- BACKGROUND: Ms. Laydi María Rojas Matarrita, representing her son, [Nombre1], filed a pension claim, requesting that the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social be compelled to grant him the disability benefit under the Régimen No Contributivo, from the date of the administrative application. She explained that the minor suffers from cerebral palsy and that the family unit’s income is insufficient to cover his basic needs (brief filed on 26/11/2015). The response was rendered in negative terms. The defenses of lack of right and lack of standing (falta de legitimación activa) were raised (memorial filed on 08/03/2016). The trial judge upheld the action and ordered the defendant to grant the petitioner a disability pension under the Régimen no Contributivo, from the filing of the claim. The Caja was also ordered to pay legal interest on overdue payments and the costs of the proceeding, with personal costs set at the prudential sum of ¢200,000.00 (document filed on 21/08/2017). Upon appeal, the Labor Tribunal of the First Judicial Circuit of San José partially reversed the judgment solely regarding the effective date of the benefit granted. Instead, it granted the benefit from the administrative application, that is, February 15, 2013. Similarly, it varied the effective date of interest, setting it on the outstanding installments from the time each became due until actual payment (decision added to the virtual case file on 12/10/2017).

II.- APPELLANT'S GRIEVANCES: The general judicial representative of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social expresses her disagreement with the decision. She criticizes the granting of a pension under the Régimen No Contributivo to the plaintiff, despite the socioeconomic study carried out by her client suggesting that the income received by the minor's family unit exceeds the limits established by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos to consider a person economically vulnerable. She notes that the Tribunal has no authority to decide outside those parameters. Secondly, she criticizes the effective date of both the retirement benefit and the corresponding interest. She argues that giving it retroactive effect of more than sixty months distorts the purpose of the pension, because it is equivalent to paying a sum of money to satisfy basic needs that have already been met in one way or another. Based on these arguments, she requests the appealed judgment be reversed (brief filed on 26/02/2018).

III.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE: The appellant challenges the Tribunal's judgment, considering that the lower court erred in upholding the claim, since in light of the evidence admitted to the case file, the petitioning minor did not meet the requirements for granting a pension under that system, specifically, he is not in a state of economic necessity (necesidad económica). Before analyzing the defendant's grievances, it is important to cite the norms and provisions applicable to the specific case in order to determine if they are appropriate. The Régimen No Contributivo de Pensiones por Monto Básico was created by Law No. 5662 of December 23, 1974 (Ley de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares), whose Article 4 states: "Twenty percent of the Fund shall be taken to form capital intended to finance a non-contributory basic-amount pension program for those citizens who, being in need of immediate economic assistance, have not contributed to any of the existing contributory regimes or have not met the required number of installments or waiting periods in such regimes. This percentage shall be transferred to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, an institution entrusted with the administration of this regime as an additional program to the Invalidity, Old Age, and Death Insurance. The corresponding regulations for granting such benefits shall be the responsibility of said institution (as amended by section 14 of Law No. 7018 of December 20, 1985)" (underlining added). For its part, Article 2 of that law provides: "The beneficiaries of this Fund are Costa Ricans and legal foreign residents of the country, as well as minors, who, despite lacking a regular immigration status in the national territory, are in a situation of poverty or extreme poverty, in accordance with the requirements established in this and other current laws and their regulations" (emphasis not in original). The Board of Directors of the defendant entity, in Article 17 of Session No. 6921, held on April 27, 1995, approved the "Reglamento del Régimen no Contributivo de Pensiones por Monto Básico," which has undergone some reforms since then. Thus, in Article 16 of Session 7715 of December 12, 2002, which came into effect upon its publication in La Gaceta on January 15, 2003, the Board of Directors enacted a comprehensive reform to the regulation and expressly repealed the one adopted in 1995. This norm was in turn repealed by Article 10 of Session No. 8151, held on May 17, 2007, by the Board of Directors of the defendant entity, with a new version of the Reglamento coming into effect upon its publication in La Gaceta on May 29, 2007. In this vein, to resolve the specific case, the provisions contained in that version of the regulation, which was in effect at the time the plaintiff filed the pension application, must be followed. The case file shows that the denial—at the administrative stage—of the pension under the invoked regime was based on non-compliance with the condition of "necesidad de amparo económico inmediato" (need for immediate economic assistance), a position the defendant maintains before this Chamber. This is by virtue of the fact that, according to its assertion, from the socioeconomic study carried out by the Caja, the income received by the minor's family unit exceeds the limits established by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case under review, it was shown that the minor applicant, represented by Ms. [Nombre2] in her capacity as mother exercising parental authority (patria potestad), was 3 years and 8 months old at the time of the administrative application (currently over 9 years old). Likewise, in the medical-legal report (dictamen médico legal) DML No. 2016-0001314 dated July 18, 2016 (filed on 30/11/2016), it is concluded that "In accordance with the Ley de Pensión Vitalicia for persons suffering from profound cerebral palsy No. 7125 of January 24, 1989, with the reform of Article 1 and 2 of September 1, 2009, the patient [Nombre1] does meet the disability criterion." At the administrative stage, through resolution No. 1530-120540918-2013-10-07, issued by the Gestión Pensiones Régimen No Contributivo Area of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, it was determined that the pension application did not conform to current regulations, "since despite the family income you form being lower than the standard parameter, you have solid support networks that allow you to satisfy your basic subsistence needs, because the extended family poverty line of your family group shows there are sufficient economic resources to cover all expenses" (emphasis supplied by the drafter) (document filed on 27/11/2015). In view of the above, it was concluded that the applicant did not comply with Articles 2 and 3(c) of the Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo. However, it must be emphasized that, from the transcribed resolution, it is inferred that the family income was indeed considered to be lower than the standard parameter. Subsequently, at the judicial stage, a socioeconomic study was carried out by the Department of Social Work and Psychology, by virtue of the fact that this instance conducts a review of the administrative act to corroborate the conclusion or to reach a different one. This expert study established: "Regarding the economic condition of this household, its dependence on the work carried out by the father is identified, from which it is noted that his gross salary totals ¢502,085.96, while the net amount received totals 324,872.78 colones (...) Taking into account the total INEC cost in relation to the poverty line for the month of February 2017, the Poverty Line item is ¢[Dirección1] for rural zones, while according to the calculation of the Extended Family Poverty Line considering [Nombre1]'s special needs, it totals ¢[Dirección2], an amount according to which, based on this household's gross income, it is not considered a poor household. Despite what was previously described, it must be considered that current expenses are greater than the income received, a condition that places the plaintiff and the members of her household in a situation of vulnerability, insofar as even though they manage to satisfy their basic needs, there is mainly an economic deficit for paying [Nombre1]'s special needs due to his disability condition (...) Therefore, it is identified that, from the net income received by this household, it is not possible to afford the special needs and required assistive technical aids, a reason why limitations are identified regarding specialized care that could improve the quality of life for [Nombre1] in his daily activities" (document filed on 06/04/2017). Under this scenario, it is not possible to think that the plaintiff's father, with his scarce income, can satisfy the family's normal needs (food, clothing, health, education, etc.), and simultaneously fully and decently satisfy the particular requirements of a minor with paralysis. For this Chamber, the CCSS's reproach regarding the income received by the minor's family unit exceeding that established by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos to consider a person in economic vulnerability does not constitute a rule that can be applied generally and rigidly, for under that logic, even if there is suitable evidence reflecting the minor's deficiencies or needs, there would be an obligation to deny State coverage, even if this nullifies the granting of a dignified life. Therefore, this Chamber shares the arguments provided by the Ad-Quem, insofar as it indicated that "...it emerges from said forensic social study that, despite the family income managing to satisfy basic needs, there is an economic deficit to satisfy [Nombre1]'s special needs due to his disability condition, such as speech therapy, physical therapy, and assistive technical aids (wheelchair for his build and size, a bathing stretcher, a standing frame for weight-bearing, etc.), care that can improve his quality of life. According to the indicated forensic study, access to the petitioner minor's home is limited; there is no public transport, so it is only possible to travel by taxi or walking on the rural road to [Dirección3], which makes transporting the minor difficult due to the need to use a wheelchair." To this, it must be added that considering only the father's salary, he is obliged to pay child support (pensión alimentaria) to a person outside the family group, which amounts to the sum of ¢78,871.00 colones per month. Furthermore, it has been correctly stated that the social security system is conceived as a set of rules, principles, policies, and instruments aimed at protecting and recognizing benefits for people when states of vulnerability arise that prevent them from satisfying their basic needs and those of their dependents. In this context, the Constitutional Chamber in vote 16300-09 at 15:07 hours on October 21, 2009, noted that the basic needs a person with a disability must cover are not the same as those of a person without that condition, due to the particular circumstances of vulnerability in which they find themselves. For example, a person with a disability requires special elements and equipment for their care and transport, such as wheelchairs, stretchers, special transportation, diapers, caregivers, bandages, food, medications, medical treatments, therapies, among others; all these needs not possessed by a non-disabled person. The Constitutional Court expressed in that vote that even when the family per capita income of a person with a disability exceeds—by the minimum—the limit established by the norm, this does not necessarily mean that the person has sufficient resources to face their needs and lead a dignified life. In addition, the norm assumes the dependence of the person with a disability on a family member or member, however, in light of the provisions of Law No. 7600 and the international instruments on the rights of persons with disabilities, the State must seek and adopt the appropriate measures that allow persons with disabilities to have their own resources to function in society and develop independently, instead of compelling them to depend on others. In a case similar to the present one, this Chamber resolved that it is essential to consider all the current legislation in the country that protects the development and special protection necessary for minors. Within these rules is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in our country by Law 7184, which establishes in its Article 4 the obligation of States to adopt all administrative, legislative, and other measures to give effect to the rights recognized in that Convention. It also establishes that "With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation." Among these measures, Article 6 points out the importance of the development of the minor, stating: "1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child" (emphasis supplied). Likewise, in Article 23, referring to minors with some type of disability, it states: "ARTICLE 23 1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community. 2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child's condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. 3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development. (...)" (emphasis supplied). From the highlighted text, it emerges that the State has the obligation to ensure the development of minors, with special attention to those who suffer from some type of disability. To this end, it must use all the resources at its disposal to provide assistance to the minor who requires it, so that they can integrate into society and develop all aspects of their life in the best possible way. This is where the way in which the regulatory provisions of the Régimen No Contributivo are to be interpreted and applied to the case of the minor for whom the sub examine pension is requested resides (see ruling of this Chamber 657-16 at 10:10 hours on June 29, 2016). According to the above, it is indispensable to grant the requested pension, because the money received from his family unit is evidently insufficient to provide for the special needs that the claimant has, and whose adequate satisfaction the State must ensure, considering that these needs must be guaranteed to him in accordance with the comprehensive development vision that international related norms guarantee to the minor. The opposite would be to rule against the fundamental rights that he possesses, according to the indicated instruments. In this sense, the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia mentions, in its Article 4: "Article 4°- State Policies. It shall be a general obligation of the State to adopt administrative, legislative, budgetary, and any other measures to guarantee the full effectiveness of the fundamental rights of minors. In the formulation and execution of policies, access to public services, and their provision, the best interest of these persons shall always be kept in mind. Any action or omission contrary to this principle constitutes a discriminatory act that violates the fundamental rights of this population. In accordance with the special protection regime that the Political Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this Code, and related laws guarantee to minors, the State may not allege budgetary limitations to neglect the obligations established herein." Thus, the special legislation obliges ensuring the comprehensive development of the minor, which, in cases such as the one under analysis, implies the possibility of developing taking into account the person's particular capacities, as well as the other physical ailments they have, which, if not adequately addressed, will imply a limitation on their right to development and a full life. Therefore, considering the minor's family economic situation, whose development requires adequate attention, it is concluded that they are indeed in need of economic assistance (amparo económico). Consequently, the decision regarding this aspect must be upheld, with the aggrieved party having no basis in its arguments. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo approved by the Board of Directors of the defendant entity in Article 16 of Session 7715, held on December 12, 2002, the appropriate course is to confirm the judgment insofar as it granted the plaintiff a disability pension under the Régimen No Contributivo.

IV.- REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PENSION: The appealing entity has no basis in its grievances regarding the effective date; since, in light of the technical evidence assessed in accordance with Section 493 of the Labor Code, the petitioner's situation of economic and social vulnerability was already a constant from the moment he applied for the pension through administrative channels, a situation that persisted during the judicial proceedings. In repeated pronouncements, this Chamber has determined to set the effective date from the administrative application, for example in votes No. 227 at 10:20 hours on March 2, 2016, and No. 1098 at 11:25 hours on June 29, 2018. In that latter precedent, it was considered that the plaintiff met the required conditions to receive the benefit from that application, since the need for economic assistance (amparo económico) required was configured. The same must be resolved regarding interest, as it also applies for the interest, which was set from the moment each of the sums became due until their actual payment. In sum, it cannot be concluded that setting the effective date from that date is equivalent to paying a sum of money to satisfy basic needs that had already been met.

In administrative proceedings, through resolution no. 1530-120540918-2013-10-07, issued by the Pension Management Area of the Non-Contributory Regime of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, it was determined that the pension application does not conform to current regulations, “since even though the family income you belong to is below the regulated parameter, you have solid support networks that allow you to meet your basic subsistence needs, because through the expanded family poverty line of your family group it is evident that there are sufficient economic resources to cover all expenses” (emphasis added by the editor) (document incorporated on 27/11/2015). In view of the foregoing, it was concluded that the applicant did not comply with articles 2 and 3 subsection c) of the Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo. However, it must be emphasized that, from the transcribed resolution, it can be inferred that it was indeed considered that the family income is below the regulated parameter.

Then, in judicial proceedings, a socioeconomic study was carried out by the Department of Social Work and Psychology, by virtue of the fact that at this instance what is conducted is a review of the administrative act to corroborate the conclusion or to lead to a different one. In said expert report, it was established: “From the economic condition of this household, its dependence on the work performed by the father is identified, whereby it is noted that his gross salary totals ¢502,085.96, while the net amount received totals 324,872.78 colones (…) Considering the total cost established by INEC regarding the poverty line for the month of February 2017, the Poverty Line item is at ¢[Dirección1] for rural areas, while according to the calculation of the Expanded Family Poverty Line considering the special needs of [Nombre1], it totals ¢[Dirección2], an amount with which, according to the gross income of this household, it is not considered a poor household. Despite what has been previously described, it must be considered that current expenditures are greater than the income received, a condition that places the plaintiff and the members of her household in a situation of vulnerability, since although she manages to meet their basic needs, there is mainly an economic deficit for the payment of the special needs of [Nombre1] due to his disability condition (…) Therefore, it is identified that from the net income received by this household, it is not possible to afford the special needs as well as the required technical aids, which is why limitations are identified regarding specialized care that could improve the quality of life of [Nombre1] in his daily activities” (document added on 06/04/2017).

Under this panorama, it is not possible to think that the applicant's father, with his scarce income, can meet the normal needs of the family (food, clothing, health, education, etc.), and at the same time fully and decently satisfy the particular requirements of a minor with paralysis. For this Chamber, the CCSS's reproach that the income received by the minor's family nucleus is higher than that established by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos to consider a person economically vulnerable is not a rule that can be applied in a general and rigid manner, because under that logic, even if there is suitable evidence reflecting the minor's deficiencies or needs, there would be an obligation to deny State coverage, even if this renders the granting of a dignified life nugatory.

Therefore, this Chamber shares the arguments provided by the Ad-Quem, insofar as it indicated that “...it is clear from said forensic social study, that despite the fact that the family income manages to meet basic needs, there is an economic deficit to meet the special needs of [Nombre1] due to his disability condition, such as speech therapy, physical therapy, and technical aids (wheelchair for his build and size, stretcher for bathing him, standing frame for weight-bearing exercises, etc.), care that can improve his quality of life. According to the indicated forensic study, access to the managing minor's home is limited, there is no public transportation, so it is only possible to travel by taxi or walking on the rural road to [Dirección3], which hinders the transport of the minor due to the necessity of using a wheelchair.” To this must be added that taking into consideration only the family father's salary, it is observed that he has the obligation to pay alimony in favor of a person outside the family group, which amounts to the sum of ¢78,871.00 colones per month.

Furthermore, it has been rightly stated that the social security system is conceived as a set of norms, principles, policies, and instruments intended to protect and recognize benefits for people at the moment when states of vulnerability arise, which prevent them from meeting their basic needs and those of their dependents. In this context, the Sala Constitucional in vote 16300-09 at 15:07 hours on October 21, 2009, pointed out that the basic needs that a person with a disability must cover are not the same as those of a person without that condition, due to the particular circumstances of vulnerability in which they find themselves. For example, a person with a disability requires special elements and equipment for their care and transport, such as wheelchairs, stretchers, special transportation, diapers, caregivers, bandages, food, medications, medical treatments, therapies, among others; all these are needs that a non-disabled person does not have. The Constitutional Court in that vote expressed that even when the per capita family income of a person with a disability exceeds –by a minimum– the limit established by the regulation, that does not necessarily mean the person has sufficient resources to face their needs and lead a dignified life. Added to this, the regulation assumes the dependence of the person with a disability on some family member or member of the household; however, in light of the provisions of Law 7600 and international instruments on the rights of persons with disabilities, the State must seek and adopt pertinent measures that allow persons with disabilities to have their own resources enabling them to function in society and develop independently, instead of compelling them to depend on other persons.

In a case similar to the present one, this Chamber resolved that it is essential to consider all current legislation in the country, where the development and special protection necessary for minors is safeguarded. Within this regulatory framework is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in our country through Law 7184, which establishes in its article 4 the obligation of States to adopt all administrative, legislative, and other measures to give effect to the rights recognized in that Convention. It also establishes that “With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.” Within these measures, article 6 points out the importance of the development of the minor, stating: “1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child” (emphasis added). Likewise, in article 23, referring to minors with some type of disability, it states: “ARTICLE 23 1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community. 2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child's condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. 3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development (…)” (emphasis added).

From the highlighted text, it is evident that the State has the obligation to ensure the development of minors, with special attention to those who suffer from some type of disability. To this end, it must use all resources at its disposal to provide assistance to the minor who requires it, so that they can integrate into society and develop all areas of their life in the best possible way. It is there that the way in which the regulatory provisions of the Régimen No Contributivo are to be interpreted and applied resides, in the case of the minor for whom the pension sub examine is requested (see ruling of this Chamber 657-16 at 10:10 hours on June 29, 2016).

According to what has been stated above, it is essential to grant the requested pension, since the money he receives from his family nucleus is evidently insufficient to provide for the special needs that the petitioner has, and for the adequate satisfaction of which the State must ensure, weighing that these needs must be guaranteed to him in accordance with the vision of integral development guaranteed to the minor by the related international norms. The contrary would be to rule against the fundamental rights he possesses, according to the indicated instruments. In this sense, the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia mentions, in its article 4: “Article 4- State policies. It shall be the general obligation of the State to adopt administrative, legislative, budgetary, and any other measures to guarantee the full effectiveness of the fundamental rights of minors. In the formulation and execution of policies, access to public services and their provision shall always keep the best interests of these persons in mind. Any action or omission contrary to this principle constitutes a discriminatory act that violates the fundamental rights of this population. In accordance with the special protection regime that the Constitución Política, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this Code, and related laws guarantee to minors, the State may not allege budgetary limitations to neglect the obligations established herein.” Thus, the special regulations obligate ensuring the integral development of the minor, which, in cases like the one under analysis, implies the possibility of developing taking into account the particular capacities of the person, as well as the other physical ailments they have and which, if not adequately attended to, will imply a limitation on their right to development and to a full life. Therefore, taking into consideration the minor's family economic situation, whose development requires adequate attention, it is concluded that he is indeed in need of economic protection. Hence, the resolution regarding this aspect must be upheld, and the appellant party's arguments lack merit.

Given the circumstances, in accordance with the provisions of article 2 of the Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo approved by the Junta Directiva of the defendant entity in article 16 of session 7715, held on December 12, 2002, the proper course is to confirm the ruling insofar as it granted the plaintiff a disability pension from the Régimen No Contributivo.

IV.- REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PENSION: The appellant entity does not have reason in its grievances regarding the effective date; since, in light of the technical proofs evaluated according to numeral 493 of the Código de Trabajo, the situation of economic and social vulnerability of the petitioner was already a constant from the moment he requested the pension in administrative proceedings, a situation that continued during the processing of the judicial case. In reiterated pronouncements, this Chamber has determined to set the effective date from the administrative procedure, for example in votes no. 227 at 10:20 hours on March 2, 2016, and no. 1098 at 11:25 hours on June 29, 2018. In this last precedent, it was considered that the plaintiff, from that procedure, met the conditions required to receive the benefit, because the need for required economic protection was configured. The same must be resolved regarding the interest, because it also applies to the interest, which was set from the moment each sum becomes due until its effective payment. In sum, it cannot be concluded that setting the effective date from that date is equivalent to paying an amount of money to meet basic needs that had already been covered.” In administrative proceedings, through resolution No. 1530-120540918-2013-10-07, issued by the Pension Management Area, Non-Contributory Scheme of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, it was determined that the pension application does not conform to current regulations, "since despite the fact that the family income you comprise is lower than the regulated parameter, you have solid support networks that allow you to meet your basic subsistence needs, because through the expanded family poverty line of your family group it is evident that there are sufficient economic resources to cover all expenses" (emphasis supplied by the editor) (document incorporated on 27/11/2015). In view of the foregoing, it was concluded that the applicant did not comply with Articles 2 and 3, subsection c) of the Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo. However, it must be emphasized that, from the transcribed resolution, it is inferred that it was indeed considered that the family income is lower than the regulated parameter. Subsequently, in judicial proceedings, a socio-economic study was carried out by the Department of Social Work and Psychology, by virtue of the fact that at this instance what is carried out is a review of the administrative act that allows corroborating the conclusion or leads to reaching a different one. In said expert report, it was established: "Regarding the economic condition of this household, its dependence on the work performed by the father is identified, in which it is noted that his gross salary corresponds to a total of ¢502,085.96, while the net amount received corresponds to a total of 324,872.78 colones (…) Taking into account the total cost of the INEC in relation to the poverty line for the month of February 2017, the Poverty Line item is at ¢[Dirección1] for rural areas, while according to the calculation of the Expanded Family Poverty Line considering the special needs of [Nombre1], it corresponds to a total of ¢[Dirección2], an amount with which, according to the gross income of this household, it is not considered a poor household. Despite what was previously described, it must be considered that current expenses are greater than the income received, a condition that places the plaintiff and the members of her household in a situation of vulnerability, insofar as despite being able to meet her basic needs, there is mainly an economic deficit for the payment of the special needs of [Nombre1] due to her disability condition (…) Therefore, it is identified that it is not possible, based on the net income received by this household, to afford the special needs as well as the required technical aids, which is why limitations are identified regarding specialized care that could improve the quality of life of [Nombre1] in her daily activities" (document added on 06/04/2017). Under this panorama, it is not possible to think that the plaintiff's father, with his scarce income, can satisfy the normal needs of the family (food, clothing, health, education, etc.), and at the same time fully and adequately satisfy the particular requirements of a minor with paralysis. For this Chamber, the CCSS's reproach that the income received by the minor's family nucleus is higher than that established by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos to consider a person in economic vulnerability is not a rule that can be applied in a general and rigid manner, since under that logic, even if there is suitable evidence reflecting the minor's deficiencies or needs, there would be an obligation to deny State coverage, even if this renders the granting of a dignified life nugatory. Therefore, this Chamber shares the arguments provided by the Ad-Quem, insofar as it indicated that "... it is evident from said forensic social study, that despite the fact that with the family income basic needs can be met, there is an economic deficit to satisfy the special needs of [Nombre1] due to her disability condition, such as speech therapy, physical therapy and technical aids (wheelchair for her build and size, stretcher for bathing her, standing frame for weight-bearing, etc.), care that can improve her quality of life. According to the forensic study indicated, access to the minor petitioner's home is limited, there is no public transportation, so it is only possible to travel by taxi or walking on the rural road to [Dirección3], which hinders the minor's transfer due to the need to use a wheelchair." To this must be added that, taking only the father's salary into consideration, it is observed that he has the obligation to pay child support in favor of a person outside the family group, which amounts to the sum of ¢78,871.00 monthly colones. Furthermore, it has been correctly stated that the social security system is conceived as a set of norms, principles, policies and instruments aimed at protecting and recognizing benefits to people at the moment when states of vulnerability arise, which prevent them from satisfying their basic needs and those of their dependents. In this context, the Constitutional Chamber in Voto 16300-09 of 3:07 p.m. on October 21, 2009, pointed out that the basic needs that a person with a disability must cover are not the same as those of a person who does not have that condition, due to the particular circumstances of vulnerability in which they find themselves. For example, a person who has a disability requires special elements and equipment for their care and transfer, such as wheelchairs, stretchers, special transportation, diapers, people for their care, bandages, food, medications, medical treatments, therapies, among others; all these needs that a non-disabled person does not have. The Constitutional Court in that vote expressed that even when the per capita family income of a person with a disability exceeds -at a minimum- the limit established by the norm, this does not necessarily mean that the person has sufficient resources to be able to meet their needs and lead a dignified life. Added to this, the norm assumes the dependence of the person with a disability on some member or component of the family; however, in light of the provisions of Law 7600 and international instruments on the rights of persons with disabilities, the State must seek and adopt pertinent measures that allow persons with disabilities to have their own resources that allow them to function in society and develop independently, instead of compelling them to depend on other people. In a case similar to the present one, this Chamber resolved that it is essential to consider all the legislation in force in the country, where the necessary development and special protection for minors are protected. Within this regulatory framework is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in our country through Law 7184, which establishes in its Article 4 the obligation of the States to adopt all administrative, legislative and other measures to give effect to the rights recognized in that Convention. It also establishes that "With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation." Within these measures, Article 6 points out the importance of the development of the minor, indicating: "1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child" (emphasis supplied). Likewise, in Article 23, in reference to minors with some type of disability, it indicates: "ARTICLE 23 1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community. 2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child's condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. 3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development (…)" (emphasis supplied). From what has been highlighted, it is evident that the State has the obligation to ensure the development of minors, with special attention to those who suffer from some type of disability. To this end, it must use all resources within its reach to provide assistance to the minor who requires it, so that they can integrate into society and develop all areas of their life in the best possible way. That is where the manner in which the regulatory provisions of the Régimen No Contributivo are to be interpreted and applied to the case of the minor for whom the pension sub examine is requested resides (see ruling of this Chamber 657-16 of 10:10 a.m. on June 29, 2016). According to what was stated above, it is essential to grant the requested pension, since the money the minor receives from his family nucleus is evidently insufficient to provide for the special needs that the petitioner has, and for whose adequate satisfaction the State must ensure, pondering that these needs must be guaranteed to him in accordance with the vision of integral development that international norms guarantee the minor. To do otherwise would be to resolve against the fundamental rights he possesses, in accordance with the indicated instruments. In this sense, the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia mentions, in its Article 4: "Article 4- State policies. It shall be the general obligation of the State to adopt administrative, legislative, budgetary and any other measures to guarantee the full effectiveness of the fundamental rights of minors. In the formulation and execution of policies, access to public services and their provision, the best interests of these persons shall always be kept present. Any action or omission contrary to this principle constitutes a discriminatory act that violates the fundamental rights of this population. In accordance with the special protection regime that the Political Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this Code and related laws guarantee to minors, the State may not allege budgetary limitations to neglect the obligations established herein." Thus, the special regulatory framework obliges one to ensure the integral development of the minor, which, in cases such as the one being analyzed, implies the possibility of developing considering the person's particular capacities, as well as the other physical ailments they have and which, if not adequately addressed, will imply a limitation on their right to development and to a full life. Therefore, considering the minor's family economic situation, whose development requires adequate attention, it is concluded that he is indeed in need of economic protection. Therefore, what was resolved regarding this aspect must be upheld, without the aggrieved party being correct in its arguments. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo approved by the Board of Directors of the defendant entity in Article 16 of Session 7715, held on December 12, 2002, it is appropriate to confirm the ruling insofar as it granted the plaintiff a disability pension under the Régimen No Contributivo. IV.- REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PENSION: The appellant entity is not correct in its grievances regarding the effective date; since, in light of the technical evidence assessed in accordance with Section 493 of the Código de Trabajo, the situation of economic and social vulnerability of the petitioner was already a constant from the moment he applied for the pension through administrative channels, a situation that was maintained during the processing of the judicial process. In repeated pronouncements, this Chamber has determined to establish the effective date from the administrative application, for example in Votos No. 227 of 10:20 a.m. on March 2, 2016, and No. 1098 of 11:25 a.m. on June 29, 2018. In this latter precedent, it was considered that the plaintiff met, from that application, the conditions required to receive the benefit, since the need for required economic protection was configured. The same must be resolved regarding interest, which also applies to interest, which were set from the moment each of the sums became due and until their effective payment. In short, one cannot reach the conclusion that setting the effective date from that date is equivalent to paying a sum of money to meet basic needs that had already been covered.

"I.- ANTECEDENTES: La señora Laydi María Rojas Matarrita, en representación de su hijo, [Nombre1] , interpuso una demanda de pensión, solicitando que se conmine a la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social a concederle el beneficio por invalidez del Régimen No Contributivo, a partir de la gestión administrativa. Explicó que el menor de edad padece parálisis cerebral y que los ingresos del núcleo familiar resultan insuficientes para cubrir sus necesidades básicas (escrito incorporado el 26/11/2015). La contestación fue rendida en términos negativos. Se opusieron las excepciones de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación activa (memorial agregado el 08/03/2016). La señora jueza de primera instancia declaró con lugar la acción y condenó a la demandada a concederle al promovente una pensión de invalidez, del Régimen no Contributivo, a partir de la interposición de la demanda. También se obligó a la Caja al pago de los intereses legales sobre las rentas vencinas y las costas del proceso, fijándose las personales en la suma prudencial de ¢200.000,00 (documento incorporado el 21/08/2017). Ante las apelaciones, el Tribunal de Trabajo del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José revocó parcialmente el fallo, únicamente en cuanto al rige del beneficio concedido. En su lugar lo otorgó a partir de la solicitud administrativa, o sea, el 15 de febrero de 2013. En igual sentido, varió el rige de los intereses para fijarlos sobre las cuotas insolutas a partir del momento de la exigibilidad de cada una de éstas y hasta el efectivo pago (resolución agregada al expediente virtual el 12/10/2017). II.- AGRAVIOS DE LA RECURRENTE: La apoderada general judicial de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, muestra su disconformidad con lo resuelto. Recrimina que se otorgara una pensión por el Régimen No Contributivo a la actora, a pesar de que del estudio socioeconómico llevado a cabo por su representada se infiere que los ingresos percibidos por el núcleo familiar del menor de edad son superiores a los establecidos por el Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos para considerar a una persona en vulnerabilidad económica. Apunta que el Tribunal no tiene potestad para decidir fuera de esos parámetros. En segundo lugar, recrimina la fecha de rige tanto del beneficio jubilatorio como de los respectivos intereses. Aduce que al dársele una vigencia retroactiva de más de sesenta meses, se desnaturaliza el objetivo de la pensión porque equivale a cancelarle una cifra de dinero para satisfacer necesidades básicas que ya han sido cubiertas de una u otra forma. Con base en esos alegatos solicita la revocatoria del fallo venido en alzada (escrito incorporado el 26/02/2018). III.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO: La recurrente impugna el fallo del Tribunal por considerar que dicho órgano yerra al acoger la demanda, ya que a la luz de la prueba evacuada en autos, el menor gestionante no cumplía con los requisitos para el otorgamiento de una pensión de ese sistema, concretamente no se encuentra en estado de necesidad económica. Antes de entrar a analizar los agravios de la parte demandada es importante citar las normas y disposiciones aplicables al caso concreto, a efecto de determinar si aquellos resultan procedentes. El Régimen No Contributivo de Pensiones por Monto Básico fue creado mediante la Ley n.° 5662, de 23 de diciembre de 1974 (Ley de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares), cuyo artículo 4 reza: “Del Fondo se tomará un veinte por ciento para la formación de un capital destinado a financiar un programa no contributivo de pensiones por monto básico, en favor de aquellos ciudadanos que, encontrándose en necesidad de amparo económico inmediato, no hayan cotizado para ninguno de los regímenes contributivos existentes, o no hayan cumplido con el número de cuotas reglamentarias o plazos de espera requeridos en tales regímenes. Este porcentaje se girará a la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, institución a la cual se le encomendará la administración de este régimen, a título de programa adicional al Seguro de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte. La reglamentación correspondiente para el otorgamiento de tales beneficios, quedará a cargo de dicha institución (así reformado por el inciso 14 de la Ley N° 7018 de 20 de diciembre de 1985)” (el subrayado es agregado). Por su parte el artículo 2 de esa ley dispone: “Son beneficiarios de este Fondo los costarricenses y extranjeros residentes legales del país, así como las personas menores de edad, quienes a pesar de carecer de una condición migratoria regular en el territorio nacional, se encuentren en situación de pobreza o pobreza extrema, de acuerdo con los requisitos que se establezcan en esta y las demás leyes vigentes y sus reglamentos” (énfasis no pertenece al original). La Junta Directiva de la entidad demandada, en el artículo 17 de la sesión n.° 6921, celebrada el 27 de abril de 1995, aprobó el “Reglamento del Régimen no Contributivo de Pensiones por Monto Básico”, el cual ha sufrido algunas reformas desde entonces. Así, en el artículo 16 de la sesión 7715, del 12 de diciembre de 2002, que entró a regir desde su publicación en La Gaceta, el 15 de enero de 2003, la Junta Directiva dictó una reforma integral al reglamento y derogó expresamente el que se había adoptado en 1995. Esta norma a su vez fue derogada por el artículo 10º de la sesión n.º 8151, celebrada el 17 de mayo del año 2007, por la Junta Directiva de la entidad accionada, entrando a regir una nueva versión del Reglamento a partir de su publicación en La Gaceta, el 29 de mayo de 2007. En ese orden de ideas, para resolver el caso concreto, debe estarse a lo dispuesto en el contenido de esa versión del reglamento, la cual estaba vigente al momento en que la parte actora realizó la solicitud de la pensión. En autos consta que la denegatoria –en sede administrativa- de la pensión por el régimen invocado, se fundamentó en no cumplir la condición de “necesidad de amparo económico inmediato”, posición que sostiene la demandada ante esta Sala. Ello en virtud de que, según su decir, del estudio socio económico llevado a cabo por la Caja, los ingresos percibidos por el núcleo familiar del menor de edad, son superiores a los establecidos por el Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos. No obstante lo anterior, en el caso bajo examen, quedó demostrado que el solicitante menor de edad, representado por la señora [Nombre2] en su condición de madre en el ejercicio de la patria potestad, contaba con 3 años, 8 meses de edad al momento de la solicitud administrativa (actualmente supera los 9 años de edad). Asimismo, en el dictamen médico legal DML n.º 2016-0001314 de fecha 18 de julio de 2016 (incorporado el 30/11/2016) se concluye que “De acuerdo a la Ley de Pensión Vitalicia para personas que padecen parálisis cerebral profunda Nº 7125 del 24 de enero de 1989 con la reforma del artículo 1 y 2 del 1º de setiembre de 2009, el paciente [Nombre1] sí cumple con el criterio de invalidez”. En sede administrativa, por medio de la resolución n.º 1530-120540918-2013-10-07, emitida por el Área de Gestión Pensiones Régimen No Contributivo de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, se determinó que la solicitud de pensión no se ajusta a la reglamentación vigente, “ya que a pesar de que el ingreso familiar que usted conforma es inferior al parámetro normado, usted cuenta con redes de apoyo sólidas, que le permiten satisfacer sus necesidades básicas de subsistencia, debido a que mediante la línea de pobreza familiar ampliada de su grupo familiar se evidencia existen recursos económicos suficientes para cubrir todos los gastos” (énfasis suplido por el redactor) (documento incorporado el 27/11/2015). En vista de lo anterior, se concluyó que la parte solicitante no cumplía con los artículos 2 y 3 inciso c) del Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo. No obstante ha de recalcarse que, de la resolución transcrita, se infiere que sí se consideró que el ingreso familiar es inferior al parámetro normado. Luego, en sede judicial, se procedió a realizar un estudio socioeconómico por parte del Departamento de Trabajo Social y Psicología, ello en virtud de que en esta instancia lo que se realiza es una revisión del acto administrativo que permita corroborar la conclusión o que lleve a arribar a otra distinta. En dicha pericia se estableció: “De la condición económica de este hogar, se identifica su dependencia a las labores desempeñadas por el progenitor, ante la cual se denota que su salario bruto corresponde a un total de ¢502.085,96, mientras que el líquido recibido corresponde a un total de 324.872,78 colones (…) Tomando en cuenta el costo total del INEC en relación a la línea de pobreza para el mes de febrero de 2017, el rubro de la Línea de Pobreza se encuentra en ¢[Dirección1] para zona rural, mientras que según el cálculo de la Línea de Pobreza Familiar Ampliada considerando las necesidades especiales de [Nombre1] , corresponde a un total de ¢[Dirección2], monto con el cual según los ingresos brutos de este hogar, éste no se encuentra como hogar pobre. A pesar de lo descrito previamente, debe considerarse que los egresos actuales son mayores a los ingresos percibidos, condición que coloca a la actora y los miembros de su hogar en una situación de vulnerabilidad, en tanto a pesar de que logra satisfacer sus necesidades básicas, existe principalmente un déficit económico para el pago de las necesidades especiales de [Nombre1] por su condición de discapacidad (…) Por tanto se identifica que no es posible a partir del ingreso líquido percibido por este hogar, poder costear las necesidades especiales así como las ayudas técnicas requeridas, motivo por el cual se identifican limitaciones en cuanto a cuidados especializados que podrían mejorar la calidad de vida de [Nombre1] en sus actividades cotidianas” (documento agregado el 06/04/2017). Bajo ese panorama no es posible pensar que el padre del demandante, con sus escasos ingresos pueda satisfacer las necesidades normales de la familia (alimentación, vestido, salud, estudio, etc.), y a la vez satisfacer plena y dignamente los requerimientos particulares de un menor con parálisis. Para esta Sala, el reproche de la CCSS respecto de que los ingresos percibidos por el núcleo familiar del menor de edad son superiores a los establecidos por el Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos para considerar a una persona en vulnerabilidad económica, no son una regla que pueda aplicarse de manera general y pétrea, pues bajo esa lógica, aunque exista prueba idónea que refleje las carencias o necesidades del menor, habría una obligación de denegar la cobertura del Estado, aunque esto haga nugatorio el otorgamiento de una vida digna. Por ello, esta Sala comparte los argumentos brindados por el Ad-Quem, en tanto indicó que “...se desprende de dicho estudio social forense, que a pesar de que con el ingreso familiar se logra satisfacer necesidades básicas, existe un déficit económico para satisfacer las necesidades especiales de [Nombre1] por su condición de discapacidad, como lo es la terapia de lenguaje, terapia física y ayudas técnicas (silla de ruedas para su contextura y tamaño, camilla para bañarlo, mueble en pie para realizar descargas de peso, etc), cuidados que pueden mejorar su calidad de vida. De acuerdo con el estudio forense indicado, el acceso al domicilio del menor gestionante, es limitado, no hay transporte público, por lo que solamente es posible trasladarse en taxi o caminando en la vía rural hasta la [Dirección3] , lo que dificulta el traslado del menor debido a la necesidad de utilización de silla de ruedas". A esto debe añadirse que tomando únicamente en consideración el salario del padre de familia, se aprecia que este tiene la obligación de pagar una pensión alimentaria a favor de una persona ajena al grupo familiar, la cual asciende a la suma de ¢78.871,00 colones mensuales. Además se ha dicho con acierto, que se concibe al sistema de seguridad social como un conjunto de normas, principios, políticas e instrumentos destinados a proteger y reconocer prestaciones a las personas en el momento en que surgen estados de vulnerabilidad, que le impidan satisfacer sus necesidades básicas y las de sus dependientes. En tal contexto, la Sala Constitucional en el voto 16300-09 de las 15:07 horas del 21 de octubre de 2009, apuntó que las necesidades básicas que debe cubrir una persona con discapacidad no son las mismas que tiene una persona que no tiene esa condición, debido a las circunstancias particulares de vulnerabilidad en la que se encuentran. Por ejemplo, una persona que posee alguna discapacidad, requiere de elementos y equipos especiales para su atención y traslado, tales como sillas de ruedas, camillas, transporte especial, pañales, personas para su cuidado, vendajes, alimentación, medicamentos, tratamientos médicos, terapias, entre otros; todas estas necesidades que no posee una persona no discapacitada. El Tribunal Constitucional en ese voto expresó, que aún cuando el ingreso per cápita familiar de una persona con discapacidad, supere -por lo mínimo- el tope establecido por la norma, no necesariamente eso significa que la persona cuenta con los recursos suficientes para poder hacer frente a sus necesidades y llevar una vida digna. Aunado a ello, la norma asume la dependencia de la persona con discapacidad, hacia algún miembro o integrante de la familia, sin embargo, a la luz de lo establecido en la Ley número 7600 y en los instrumentos internacionales de derechos de las personas con discapacidad, el Estado debe procurar y adoptar las medidas pertinentes que permita a las personas que presentan discapacidades contar con recursos propios que le permitan desenvolverse en sociedad y desarrollarse de forma independiente, en vez de compelerlos a depender de otras personas. En un caso similar al presente, esta Sala resolvió que es medular considerar toda la legislación vigente en el país, donde se tutela el desarrollo y la protección especial necesarios para las personas menores de edad. Dentro de esta normativa se encuentra la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, ratificada en nuestro país mediante la Ley 7184, que establece en su artículo 4 la obligación de los Estados de adoptar todas las medidas administrativas, legislativas y de cualquier otra índole para dar efectividad a los derechos reconocidos en esa Convención. Establece también que “En lo que respecta a los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales, los Estados Partes adoptarán esas medidas hasta el máximo de los recursos de que dispongan y, cuando sea necesario, dentro del marco de la cooperación internacional”. Dentro de estas medidas, el artículo 6 señala la importancia del desarrollo de la persona menor de edad, al indicar: “1. Los Estados Partes reconocen que todo niño tiene el derecho intrínseco a la vida. 2. Los Estados Partes garantizarán en la máxima medida posible la supervivencia y el desarrollo del niño” (énfasis suplido). Asimismo, en el artículo 23, en referencia a las personas menores de edad con algún tipo de discapacidad, señala: “ARTICULO 23 1. Los Estados Partes reconocen que el niño mental o físicamente impedido deberá disfrutar de una vida plena y decente en condiciones que aseguren dignidad, permitan llegar a bastarse a sí mismo y faciliten la participación activa del niño en la comunidad. 2. Los Estados Partes reconocen el derecho del niño impedido a recibir cuidados especiales y alentarán y asegurarán, con sujeción a los recursos disponibles, la prestación al niño que reúna las condiciones requeridas y a los responsables de su cuidado de la asistencia que se solicite y que sea adecuada al estado del niño y a las circunstancias de sus padres o de otras personas que cuiden de él. 3. En atención a las necesidades especiales del niño impedido, la asistencia que se preste conforme al párrafo 2, será gratuita siempre que sea posible, habida cuenta de la situación económica de los padres o de las otras personas que cuiden del niño, y estará destinada a asegurar que el niño impedido tenga un acceso efectivo a la educación, la capacitación, los servicios sanitarios, los servicios de rehabilitación la preparación para el empleo y las oportunidades de esparcimiento y reciba tales servicios en forma conducente a que el niño logre la integración social y el desarrollo individual, incluido su desarrollo cultural y espiritual, en la máxima medida posible. (…)” (énfasis suplido). De lo resaltado se desprende que el Estado tiene la obligación de procurar el desarrollo de las personas menores de edad, con atención especial de aquellas que padecen de algún tipo de discapacidad. Para ello, debe utilizar todos los recursos que estén a su alcance para proveer de asistencia a la persona menor de edad que lo requiera, con el fin de que pueda integrarse a la sociedad y desarrollar todos los ámbitos de su vida de la mejor manera. Es ahí donde reside la forma como han de interpretarse y aplicarse las disposiciones reglamentarias del Régimen No Contributivo, al caso del menor para quien se solicita la pensión sub examine (consúltese fallo de esta Sala 657-16 de las 10:10 horas del 29 de junio de 2016). Según lo expuesto líneas atrás, es indispensable otorgar la pensión solicitada, pues el dinero que recibe de su núcleo familiar es evidentemente insuficiente para proveer a las necesidades especiales que tiene el petente, y por cuya satisfacción adecuada el Estado debe velar, ponderando que estas necesidades deben serle garantizadas acorde con la visión de desarrollo integral que le garantizan al menor las normas internacionales relacionadas. Lo contrario sería resolver en contra de los derechos fundamentales con los que cuenta, de acuerdo con los indicados instrumentos. En este sentido, el Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia menciona, en su artículo 4: “Artículo 4°- Políticas estatales. Será obligación general del Estado adoptar las medidas administrativas, legislativas, presupuestarias y de cualquier índole, para garantizar la plena efectividad de los derechos fundamentales de las personas menores de edad. En la formulación y ejecución de políticas, el acceso a los servicios públicos y su prestación se mantendrá siempre presente el interés superior de estas personas. Toda acción u omisión contraria a este principio constituye un acto discriminatorio que viola los derechos fundamentales de esta población. De conformidad con el régimen de protección especial que la Constitución Política, la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, este Código y leyes conexas garantizan a las personas menores de edad, el Estado no podrá alegar limitaciones presupuestarias para desatender las obligaciones aquí establecidas”. Así, la normativa especial obliga a velar por el desarrollo integral de la persona menor de edad, que, en los casos como el que se analiza, implica la posibilidad de desarrollarse tomando en cuenta las capacidades particulares de la persona, así como los demás padecimientos físicos que tiene y que de no ser atendida adecuadamente, implicarán una limitación en su derecho al desarrollo y a una vida plena. Por ello, tomando en consideración la situación económica familiar del menor, cuyo desarrollo requiere de una atención adecuada, se concluye que sí está en necesidad de amparo económico. Por ello, lo resuelto en cuanto a este aspecto debe mantenerse, sin que lleve razón la parte agraviada en sus alegatos. Así las cosas, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 2 del Reglamento del Régimen No Contributivo aprobado por la Junta Directiva de la entidad accionada en el artículo 16 de la sesión 7715, celebrada el 12 de diciembre de 2002, lo procedente es confirmar el fallo en cuanto concedió a la parte accionante una pensión por invalidez del Régimen No Contributivo. IV.- EN CUANTO AL RIGE DE LA PENSIÓN: No lleva razón el ente recurrente en sus agravios respecto a la fecha de rige; ya que, a la luz de las probanzas técnicas valoradas conforme al numeral 493 del Código de Trabajo, la situación de vulnerabilidad económica y social del peticionario ya era una constante desde el momento en que solicitó la pensión en vía administrativa, situación que se mantuvo durante la tramitación del proceso judicial. En reiterados pronunciamientos esta Sala ha determinado establecer el rige a partir de la gestión administrativa, por ejemplo en los votos n.° 227 de las 10:20 horas del 2 de marzo de 2016 y n.° 1098 de las 11:25 horas del 29 de junio de 2018. En este último antecedente se consideró que la parte accionante cumplía desde esa gestión con las condiciones requeridas para recibir el beneficio, por cuanto se configuraba la necesidad de amparo económico requerida. En igual sentido debe resolverse respecto de los intereses, pues lo cual aplica también para los intereses, los cuales se fijaron a partir del momento de la exigibilidad de cada una de las sumas y hasta su efectivo pago. En suma, no se puede arribar a la conclusión de que fijar el rige desde esa data, equivale a cancelarle una cifra de dinero para satisfacer necesidades básicas que ya habían sido cubierta." s.