Nullity of evidence obtained without a court order for violation of tax secrecyNulidad de prueba obtenida sin orden judicial por violación al secreto tributario

**III.-** [...] First, it is necessary to recall the scope of the realm of privacy (ámbito de intimidad) in relation to the secrecy of certain documents and information, a fundamental basis for resolving the complaint raised. Thus, it must be noted that Article 24 (numeral 24) of the Constitución Política enshrines the fundamental right to privacy, which corresponds to a protective sphere (fuero de protección) for the private life of individuals. Said privacy is composed of all those phenomena, behaviors, data, and situations of a subject that, under normal circumstances, are beyond the reach of third parties. This special, and enhanced, protection exists because in a Social and Democratic State of Law, all individuals have the right to maintain reserve over certain activities, data, documents, or opinions of theirs, with the aim of achieving adequate coexistence and the development of the goals a person sets for themselves; a goal for which a minimum framework of privacy, protected from interference by the State or other persons, is indispensable. Even at a supra-constitutional level, this protection finds support in Article 11.2.3 (numeral 11.2.3) of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos or Pacto de San José; a provision that, related to constitutional Article 24 (numeral 24), allows us to derive that one of the manifestations of this fundamental right is the inviolability of private data and documents; a restriction that manifests itself both in the impossibility of third parties discovering the content of private documents or information, as well as in the prohibition for both public and private law subjects to supply it to third parties. On this matter, because we share what has been stated, and without it being an argument from authority (falacia de autoridad), it is appropriate to indicate that the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia has considered that: “(...) Article 24 of the Constitución Política guarantees all persons an intangible sphere of privacy from other legal subjects, such that those intimate, sensitive, or nominative data that a public entity or body has collected, processed, and stored, as they appear in its files, records, and physical or automated dossiers (expedientes), cannot be accessed by any person because that would constitute an external and unconstitutional intrusion or interference. Obviously, the foregoing is even more applicable when the individual administered to (administrado) has brought confidential information to the knowledge of a public administration, as required, for the purpose of obtaining a specific result or benefit (...)” –bold and underlining supplied– (judgment number 2005-02703 at 10:17 a.m. on March 10, 2005, and, in a similar vein, vote (voto) number 2003-00136 at 3:22 p.m. on January 15, 2003). The restriction on access to certain information and documents finds its specific regulatory sphere, pursuant to Articles 198 and 201 of the Código Procesal Penal, in the special law called “Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones” (number 7425), which establishes: “Article 1. For the purposes of this Law, private documents are considered to be: correspondence by letter, fax, telex, telematics, or any other means; videos, cassettes, magnetic tapes, disks, diskettes, writings, books, memorials, records, plans, drawings, charts, radiographs, photographs, and any other form of recording information of a private nature, used in a representative or declarative manner, to illustrate or prove something.” and “Article 2. When it is essential to ascertain the truth, the Judge may order, ex officio, at the request of the police authority in charge of the investigation, the Ministerio Público, or any of the parties to the proceeding, the registration, seizure, and examination of any private document, provided it can serve as essential evidence of the commission of a criminal act. The Judge shall personally carry out the diligence, except in exceptional cases in which, at his discretion, it may be delegated to members of the Organismo de Investigación Judicial or the Ministerio Público, who must inform him of the result of the diligence.” On the other hand, and specifically regarding the so-called “tax secrecy (secreto tributario)”, it should be noted that it is based on the right to privacy outlined above, and can be defined as “(...) a doctrinally coined expression used to designate the regime of protection and reserve of information obtained by the Tax Administration against its disclosure to third parties and misuse thereof (…)” (J. [Nombre1], El derecho de los contribuyentes al secreto tributario, Editorial Netbiblo, Spain, 2009, page 16). In the specific Costa Rican case, it is found in the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, insofar as it establishes “Article 115.- Use of information. The information obtained or collected may only be used for tax purposes by the Tax Administration itself, which is prevented from transferring or sending it to other offices, dependencies, or public or private institutions, except for the transfer of information to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, in accordance with Article 20 of Law No. 17, of October 22, 1943, and its amendments. Information and general evidence obtained or collected as a result of illegal acts carried out by the Tax Administration shall not produce any legal effect against the audited subject. However, information on the names of natural and legal persons that have tax debts with the Public Treasury and the amount of said debts shall be of public access. The Tax Administration is authorized to publish the lists of persons owing debts to the Public Treasury and the amounts owed, as well as the names of natural or legal persons who have not filed their tax returns or who carry out economic activities without having registered as taxpayers. Notwithstanding the duty of secrecy provided in the first paragraph of this article, as well as in Article 117 of this Code, when the Tax Administration, in the exercise of the legal powers attributed to it for the application of the tax system, becomes aware of transactions aimed at legitimizing capital, it is empowered to communicate it to the Ministerio Público, for the appropriate purposes.” and “Article 117.- Confidential nature of information. The information that the Tax Administration obtains from taxpayers, responsible parties, and third parties, by any means, is confidential in nature; and its officials and employees may not disclose in any way the amount or origin of income, nor any other data appearing in the tax returns, nor may they allow these returns or their copies, books, or documents containing extracts or references to them to be seen by anyone other than the persons in charge within the Administration of ensuring compliance with the legal provisions regulating the taxes under its charge. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the taxpayer, his legal representative, or any other person duly authorized by the former, may examine the data and annexes recorded in their respective sworn declarations, as well as any dossier (expediente) that contemplates adjustments or claims formulated regarding said declarations. The prohibition set forth in this article does not prevent the inspection of declarations by the Common Courts. Nor does the secrecy of declarations prevent the publication of statistical data or the registry of real estate values, as well as tax jurisprudence pursuant to the provisions of Article 101 of this Code, or the provision of reports to representatives of the Public Powers (Poderes Públicos), provided that this is done in such a way that individuals cannot be identified.

Thus, from the harmonious relationship of the cited provisions, the content of the right to privacy; from the consideration that certain documents may be deemed private, it can be concluded, following what was stated by the Costa Rican constitutional court, and its jurisprudence binding erga omnes, that “Thus, the assumptions provided by the legislator for the so-called tax secrecy (secreto tributario) are quite clear, circumscribing it to that type of information that the tax administrations obtain from taxpayers –for example, through declarations–, and not to information prepared by the administration itself regarding the tax obligations of taxpayers, whence it is valid to conclude that this latter type of information can indeed be recognized as public in character and, therefore, there is an obligation to provide it when so required by an interested party. This has been recognized by the jurisprudence of this Chamber (Sala), when ruling on the application of the cited Article 117 of the Code of procedure, it stated in judgment 2001-12894 that: “In the case at hand, the Chamber (Sala) considers that the information requested from the Tax Administration by the appellant is of a public nature, since we are in the presence of a study carried out by the Administration itself that underpinned the enactment of an executive decree (decreto ejecutivo), that is, a general provision affecting the activity of the sector that the protected company represents. Therefore, there exists, on the part of the respondent entity, a misinterpretation of the confidentiality of the information referred to in the cited article, since it refers to the data appearing in the declarations. Consequently, the court finds a violation, to the detriment of the claimant, of the provisions of both Article 27 and Article 30 of the Constitución Política, as none of the limitations indicated in the second considering clause (considerando) of this judgment apply for not providing the requested information.” –the highlighting is not from the original–“ (judgment of the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, number 004676-16 at 10:30 a.m. on April 8, 2016). Furthermore, the Ley General de Aduanas, regarding the subject under study, is closely linked to the tax matter, as it specifies in its Article 8 (numeral 8): “To establish comprehensive oversight activities, the Dirección General de Aduanas, the Dirección General de Tributación, the Dirección General de Hacienda, and other bodies of the Customs Tax Administration, attached to the Ministerio de Hacienda, shall be legally empowered to exchange the tax or customs information they obtain, by any lawful means, from taxpayers, responsible parties, third parties, auxiliaries of the customs public function, importers, exporters, producers, and consignees. Said authorities must maintain confidentiality of the information provided, under the terms ordered by tax legislation and, in the event of non-compliance, shall be subject to the legally established responsibilities.”; a regulation that contains the duty of confidentiality under the assumptions of the tax regulations studied above.

Having clearly established the regulatory framework governing the matter submitted for consideration, it is appropriate to evaluate the content of the evidentiary elements that the appellant considers were private and, therefore, had to be seized by means of a jurisdictional order. Thus, in relation to case number 11-000022-612-PE, there was a certificate issued by the Dirección General de Tributación of the Ministerio de Hacienda (folio 113), official letter number DGT-ER-211-2013 from the Dirección General de Aduanas (folio 325), and the certification issued by the Administración Tributaria de San José (folio 326). In addition, report number 428-F-11-CI, dated July 8, 2011, visible at folios 114 to 119; an addendum to the previous report (dated May 15, 2013), at folios 305 to 307 and, finally, report number 687-F-14-CI, at folios 709 to 717. Regarding dossier (expediente) number 12-000090-612-PE, there was the evidence observed at folios 763 to 767, which correspond to official letter number DGT-ER-0418-2013 issued by the Dirección General de Aduanas; certification ATC-CERT-178-2013 from the Administración Tributaria de Cartago; certification from the Administración Tributaria de San José; official letter VUCE-162-2013 from Procomer; and an official letter from the Departamento de Certificación Fitosanitaria of the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado. From a simple reading of the content of the evidentiary collection just mentioned, this chamber (cámara) concludes that none of the data reflected therein corresponds to information provided or declared by the accused (sindicado) or by any of his companies; on the contrary, it concerns information prepared by the tax and customs administration itself in the proper exercise of its functions, and without it meaning the disclosure of any sensitive data or data within the realm of privacy of [Nombre2] or of any legal entity represented by him. In addition to this, the actions of the Ministerio Público and the judicial police, in requesting the respective reports from the different State institutions and offices, conform to the requirements contained in Articles 226 and 290 (numerales 226 and 290) of the Código Procesal Penal; that is, they were carried out in the exercise of their power of investigation and evidence gathering, without the prior authorization of any jurisdictional authority having been necessary. Moreover, in the lower court judgment (fallo de instancia), as seen at folio 1469, a non-current law (Ley para Mejorar la Lucha Contra el Fraude Fiscal) was erroneously applied for the moment when the evidentiary elements were collected, and the rejection of the objection raised by the defense was based on it; however, this in no way changes the circumstance that the evidence gathering, according to the analysis in the preceding lines, was entirely proper and adjusted to the principle of legality of evidence. Therefore, the ground must be dismissed.

The prohibitions and limitations established in this article also extend to the members and employees of the Administrative Tax Court, as well as to the personnel of the banks of the National Banking System, the non-bank special investment and credit financial companies, and the other entities regulated by the General Audit of Financial Entities.” Thus, from the harmonious relationship of the cited norms, the content of the right to privacy; from the consideration that certain documents may be considered private, it can be concluded, following the reasoning of the Costa Rican constitutional court and its binding *erga omnes* jurisprudence, that “In this way, the scenarios provided by the legislator for the so-called tax secrecy (secreto tributario) are quite clear, limiting it to that type of information that tax administrations obtain from taxpayers—for example, through declarations—and not to information prepared by the administration itself regarding the tax obligations of taxpayers, from which it is valid to conclude that this latter type of information can indeed be recognized as having a public character and, therefore, the obligation to provide it when so required by any interested person. This has been recognized by the jurisprudence of this Chamber, when ruling on the application of the cited Article 117 of the procedural Code, it stated in judgment 2001-12894 that: ‘In the case before us, this Chamber considers that the information requested from the Tax Administration by the appellant is of a public nature, since we are in the presence of a study carried out by the same Administration that served as the basis for the promulgation of an executive decree, that is, a general provision that affects the activity of the sector represented by the protected company. Therefore, there exists, on the part of the respondent entity, a misinterpretation of the confidentiality of the information referred to in the cited article, as it refers to the data appearing in the declarations. Consequently, it is deemed that the provisions of both Article 27 and Article 30 of the Political Constitution have been violated to the detriment of the plaintiff, since none of the limitations indicated in the second whereas clause (considerando) of this judgment apply to refuse to provide the requested information.’ –emphasis not in original–” (judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, No. 004676-16 of 10:30 a.m. on April 8, 2016). On the other hand, the General Customs Law, regarding the subject under study, is closely linked to the tax matter, as it specifies in its Section 8: “In order to establish comprehensive oversight activities, the General Directorate of Customs, the General Directorate of Taxation, the General Directorate of the Treasury and the other bodies of the Customs Tax Administration, attached to the Ministry of Finance, shall be legally authorized to exchange the tax or customs information they obtain, by any lawful means, from taxpayers, responsible parties, third parties, auxiliary customs public servants, importers, exporters, producers, and consignees. Said authorities must maintain the confidentiality (confidencialidad) of the information provided, under the terms ordered by the tax legislation and, in the event of non-compliance, shall be subject to the legally established responsibilities.”; a regulation that contains the duty of confidentiality under the assumptions of the tax regulations studied *supra*. Having clearly established the regulatory framework governing the matter submitted for consideration, it is appropriate to assess the content of the evidentiary elements that the appellant considered were private and, therefore, subject to seizure (secuestro) by means of a jurisdictional order. Thus, in relation to case No. 11-000022-612-PE, there was a certificate issued by the General Directorate of Taxation of the Ministry of Finance (folio 113), official letter No. DGT-ER-211-2013 from the General Directorate of Customs (folio 325), and the certification issued by the Tax Administration of San José (folio 326). Furthermore, report No. 428-F-11-CI, dated July 8, 2011, visible on folios 114 to 119; an addendum to the previous report (dated May 15, 2013), on folios 305 to 307, and finally, report No. 687-F-14-CI, on folios 709 to 717. Regarding case file No. 12-000090-612-PE, the evidence observed on folios 763 to 767 was available, corresponding to official letter No. DGT-ER-0418-2013 issued by the General Directorate of Customs; certification ATC-CERT-178-2013 from the Tax Administration of Cartago; certification from the Tax Administration of San José; official letter VUCE-162-2013 from Procomer; and an official letter from the Department of Phytosanitary Certification of the State Phytosanitary Service. From a simple reading of the content of the evidentiary collection just mentioned, this Chamber concludes that none of the data recorded therein corresponds to information provided or declared by the accused or by any of his companies; on the contrary, it involves information prepared by the tax and customs administration itself in the proper exercise of its functions, and without implying the disclosure of any sensitive data or data belonging to the private sphere of [Name2] or of any legal entity represented by him. In addition to this, the actions of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the judicial police, in requesting the respective reports from the various institutions and offices of the State, conform to the assumptions contained in Sections 226 and 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that is, they were carried out in the exercise of their investigative and evidence-gathering power, without prior authorization from any judicial authority having been necessary. On the other hand, in the trial court's ruling, as seen on folio 1469, legislation that was not in force (Law to Improve the Fight Against Tax Fraud) at the time the evidentiary elements were collected was erroneously applied, and the rejection of the objection raised by the defense was based on it; however, this in no way alters the fact that the collection of the evidence, as analyzed above, was entirely proper and in accordance with the principle of legality of the evidence. Therefore, this ground must be declared without merit." The prohibitions and limitations established in this article also extend to the members and employees of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, as well as to the employees of the banks of the National Banking System, the non-bank special investment and credit financial companies, and the other entities regulated by the General Audit of Financial Entities. Thus, from the harmonious relationship of the cited norms, the content of the right to privacy; from the consideration that certain documents may be considered private, it can be concluded, following what was stated by the Costa Rican Constitutional Court and its binding *erga omnes* jurisprudence, that “In this way, the scenarios foreseen by the legislator for the so-called tax secrecy (secreto tributario) are quite clear, limiting it to that type of information that tax administrations obtain from taxpayers –for example, through tax returns (declaraciones)–, and not to the information prepared by the administration itself regarding the tax obligations of taxpayers, from which it is valid to conclude that this latter type of information can plausibly be recognized as having a public nature and, therefore, the obligation to provide it when so required by any interested person. This has been recognized by the jurisprudence of this Chamber, when ruling on the application of the aforementioned article 117 of the Code of Procedure, it stated in judgment 2001-12894 that: ‘In the case before us, the Chamber considers that the information requested from the Tax Administration by the appellant is of a public nature, since we are in the presence of a study carried out by the Administration itself that underpinned the enactment of an executive decree, that is, a general provision that affects the activity of the sector that the represented company represents. Thus, there exists, on the part of the respondent entity, a misinterpretation of the confidentiality of the information referred to in the cited article, as it refers to the data contained in the tax returns. Consequently, it is deemed that the provisions of both Article 27 and Article 30 of the Political Constitution have been violated to the detriment of the plaintiff, since none of the limitations indicated in the second whereas clause (considerando) of this judgment are present to justify not providing the requested information.’ –emphasis not in the original– ” (judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, number 004676-16 of 10:30 hours on April eighth, two thousand sixteen). On the other hand, the General Customs Law, regarding the subject matter under study, is closely linked to the tax issue, since it specifies in its section 8: “To establish comprehensive control activities, the General Directorate of Customs, the General Directorate of Taxation, the General Directorate of the Treasury, and the other bodies of the Customs Tax Administration, attached to the Ministry of Finance, shall be legally empowered to exchange the tax or customs information they obtain, by any lawful means, from taxpayers, responsible parties, third parties, auxiliaries of the public customs function, importers, exporters, producers, and consignees. Said authorities must maintain the confidentiality of the information provided, in the terms ordered by the tax legislation and, in case of non-compliance, shall be subject to the legally established responsibilities.”; a regulation that contains the duty of confidentiality under the assumptions of the tax regulations studied supra. Having clearly established the regulatory framework that governs the matter submitted for consideration, it is appropriate to assess the content of the evidentiary elements that the appellant considered were private and, therefore, subject to seizure by means of a jurisdictional order. Thus, in relation to case number 11-000022-612-PE, there was a certification issued by the General Directorate of Taxation of the Ministry of Finance (folio 113), official communication number DGT-ER-211-2013 from the General Directorate of Customs (folio 325), and the certification issued by the Tax Administration of San José (folio 326). Furthermore, report number 428-F-11-CI, dated July eighth, 2011, visible on folios 114 to 119; an addendum to the previous report (from May fifteenth, 2013), on folios 305 to 307, and, lastly, report number 687-F-14-CI, on folios 709 to 717. Regarding case file number 12-000090-612-PE, there was the evidence observed on folios 763 to 767, which correspond to official communication number DGT-ER-0418-2013 issued by the General Directorate of Customs; the certification ATC-CERT-178-2013 from the Tax Administration of Cartago; certification from the Tax Administration of San José; official communication VUCE-162-2013 from Procomer; and official communication from the Department of Phytosanitary Certification of the State Phytosanitary Service. From a simple reading of the content of the evidentiary record just mentioned, this chamber concludes that none of the data reflected therein corresponds to information provided or declared by the accused or by any of his companies; on the contrary, it concerns information prepared by the treasury and customs administration itself in the proper exercise of its functions, and without it signifying the revelation of any sensitive data or data pertaining to the sphere of privacy of [Name2] or of any legal entity he represents. In addition to this, the actions of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the judicial police, when requesting the respective reports from the different State institutions and offices, conform to the provisions contained in sections 226 and 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code; that is, they were carried out in the exercise of their power of investigation and collection of evidence, without prior authorization by any jurisdictional authority having been necessary. On the other hand, in the lower court's ruling, as seen on folio 1469, non-current legislation (Law to Improve the Fight Against Tax Fraud) was erroneously applied for the time when the evidentiary elements were collected, and used to base the rejection of the objection raised by the defense; however, this in no way changes the circumstance that the collection of evidence, according to what was analyzed above, was entirely proper and in accordance with the principle of legality of evidence. Therefore, the ground for appeal must be declared without merit."

"III.- [...] Cabe recordar, primeramente, los alcances del ámbito de intimidad en relación con el secreto de determinados documentos e información, base fundamental para resolver la queja planteada. Así, debe acotarse que el numeral 24 de la Constitución Política, consagra el derecho fundamental a la intimidad, el cual corresponde a un fuero de protección a la vida privada de las personas. Dicha intimidad se compone de todos aquellos fenómenos, comportamientos, datos y situaciones de un sujeto que, en la normalidad de los casos, están fuera del alcance de terceras personas. Esta protección especial, y potenciada, existe por cuanto en un Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, todos los individuos tienen derecho a mantener reserva sobre ciertas actividades, datos, documentos u opiniones suyas, esto con el afán de lograr la adecuada convivencia y desarrollo de los fines que una persona se propone; meta para la cual es indispensable un marco mínimo de intimidad, protegido de injerencias del Estado o de otras personas. Incluso, a nivel supra constitucional, esta protección encuentra respaldo en el numeral 11.2.3 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos o Pacto de San José; norma que relacionada con el numeral 24 constitucional, permite derivar que una de las manifestaciones de este derecho fundamental, es la inviolabilidad de los datos y documentos privados; restricción que se manifiesta tanto en la imposibilidad de que terceras personas se impongan del contenido de documentos o informaciones privadas, así como en la prohibición para que tanto los sujetos de derecho público como privado la suministren a terceros. Sobre ello, por compartir lo expuesto, y sin que se trate de una falacia de autoridad, es adecuado indicar que la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha considerado que: “(...) El artículo 24 de la Constitución Política le garantiza a todas las personas una esfera de intimidad intangible para el resto de los sujetos de derecho, de tal forma que aquellos datos íntimos, sensibles o nominativos que un ente u órgano público ha recolectado, procesado y almacenado, por constar en sus archivos, registros y expedientes físicos o automatizados, no pueden ser accedidos por ninguna persona por suponer ello una intromisión o injerencia externa e inconstitucional. Obviamente, lo anterior resulta de mayor aplicación cuando el propio administrado ha puesto en conocimiento de una administración pública información confidencial, por ser requerida, con el propósito de obtener un resultado determinado o beneficio (...)” -negrita y subrayado es suplido- (sentencia número 2005-02703 de las 10:17 horas diecisiete minutos del 10 de marzo del 2005 y, en sentido similar, el voto número 2003-00136 de las 15:22 horas del 15 de enero del 2003). La restricción al acceso de determinadas informaciones y documentos, encuentra su ámbito de regulación específico, según los artículos 198 y 201 del Código Procesal Penal, en la ley especial denominada “Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones” (número 7425), la cual, establece: “Artículo 1. Para los efectos de esta Ley, se consideran documentos privados: la correspondencia epistolar, por fax, te´lex, telema´tica o cualquier otro medio; los videos, los casetes, las cintas magnetofo´nicas, los discos, los disquetes, los escritos, los libros, los memoriales, los registros, los planos, los dibujos, los cuadros, las radiografi´as, las fotografi´as y cualquier otra forma de registrar informacio´n de cara´cter privado, utilizados con cara´cter representativo o declarativo, para ilustrar o comprobar algo.” y “Artículo 2. Cuando resulte indispensable para averiguar la verdad, el Juez podra´ ordenar, de oficio, a peticio´n de la autoridad policial a cargo de la investigacio´n, del Ministerio Pu´blico o de alguna de las partes del proceso, el registro, el secuestro y el examen de cualquier documento privado, siempre que pueda servir como prueba indispensable de la comisio´n de alguna conducta delictiva. El Juez realizara´ personalmente la diligencia, salvo en casos de excepcio´n, en los que, segu´n su criterio, pueda ser delegada en miembros del Organismo de Investigacio´n Judicial o del Ministerio Pu´blico, quienes debera´n informarle sobre el resultado de la diligencia.” Por otra parte, y específicamente en lo relacionado al denominado “secreto tributario”, debe señalarse que el mismo se funda en el derecho a la intimidad expuesto líneas atrás, pudiendo definirse como “(...) una expresio´n de cun~o doctrinal utilizada para designar el re´gimen de proteccio´n y reserva de la informacio´n obtenida por la Administracio´n Tributaria frente a su revelacio´n a terceros y uso desviado de la misma (…)" (J. [Nombre1], El derecho de los contribuyentes al secreto tributario, Editorial Netbiblo, España, 2009, página 16). En el caso específico costarricense, se encuentra en el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, en el tanto establece “Artículo 115.- Uso de la información La información obtenida o recabada solo podrá usarse para fines tributarios de la propia Administración Tributaria, la cual está impedida para trasladarla o remitirla a otras oficinas, dependencias o instituciones públicas o privadas, salvo el traslado de información a la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, de conformidad con el artículo 20 de la Ley N.º 17, de 22 de octubre de 1943, y sus reformas. La información y las pruebas generales obtenidas o recabadas como resultado de actos ilegales realizados por la Administración Tributaria no producirán ningún efecto jurídico contra el sujeto fiscalizado. Sin embargo, será de acceso público la información sobre los nombres de las personas físicas y jurídicas que tienen deudas tributarias con la Hacienda Pública y el monto de dichas deudas . Se faculta a la Administración Tributaria para publicar las listas de las personas deudoras con la Hacienda Pública y los montos adeudados, así como los nombres de las personas físicas o jurídicas que no han presentado sus declaraciones o que realizan actividades económicas sin haberse inscrito como contribuyentes. Sin perjuicio del deber de sigilo dispuesto en el primer párrafo de este artículo, así como en el artículo 117 de este Código, cuando la Administración Tributaria , en el ejercicio de las potestades legales que tiene atribuidas para la aplicación del sistema tributario, llegue a conocer transacciones encaminadas a legitimar capitales está facultada a comunicarlo al Ministerio Público, para los fines que procedan.” y “Artículo 117.- Carácter confidencial de las informaciones. Las informaciones que la Administración Tributaria obtenga de los contribuyentes, responsables y terceros, por cualquier medio, tienen carácter confidencial; y sus funcionarios y empleados no pueden divulgar en forma alguna la cuantía u origen de las rentas, ni ningún otro dato que figure en las declaraciones, ni deben permitir que estas o sus copias, libros o documentos, que contengan extractos o referencia de ellas sean vistos por otras personas que las encargadas en la Administración de velar por el cumplimiento de las disposiciones legales reguladoras de los tributos a su cargo. No obstante lo dispuesto en el párrafo anterior, el contribuyente, su representante legal, o cualquier otra persona debidamente autorizada por aquel, pueden examinar los datos y anexos consignados en sus respectivas declaraciones juradas, lo mismo que cualquier expediente que contemple ajustes o reclamaciones formuladas sobre dichas declaraciones. La prohibición que señala este artículo no impide la inspección de las declaraciones por los Tribunales Comunes. Tampoco impide el secreto de las declaraciones, la publicación de datos estadísticos o del registro de valores de los bienes inmuebles, así como de la jurisprudencia tributaria conforme a lo previsto en el artículo 101 de este Código, o el suministro de informes a los personeros de los Poderes Públicos, siempre que se hagan en tal forma que no pueda identificarse a las personas. Las prohibiciones y las limitaciones establecidas en este artículo alcanzan también a los miembros y empleados del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, así como a los servidores de los bancos del Sistema Bancario Nacional, las sociedades financieras de inversión y crédito especial de carácter no bancario y las demás entidades reguladas por la Auditoría General de Entidades Financieras.” Así, de la relación armónica de las normas citadas, el contenido del derecho a la intimidad; de la consideración que ciertos documentos pueden tener como privados, puede concluirse, siguiendo lo expuesto por el tribunal constitucional costarricense, y su jurisprudencia vinculante erga omnes, que “De tal forma, son bastante claros los supuestos previstos por el legislador para el denominado secreto tributario, circunscribiéndolo a aquél tipo de información que las administraciones tributarias obtengan de los contribuyentes –por ejemplo, a través de las declaraciones-, y no a la información elaborada por la propia administración respecto de las obligaciones tributarias de los contribuyentes, de donde resulta válido concluir que a este último tipo de información sí es plausible reconocerle carácter público y, por tanto, la obligación de ser suministrada cuando así llegare a requerirse por parte de alguna persona interesada. Así lo ha reconocido la jurisprudencia de esta Sala, cuando al pronunciarse sobre la aplicación del citado artículo 117 del Código de rito, señaló en la sentencia 2001-12894 que: “En el caso que nos ocupa, estima la Sala que la información solicitada a la Administración Tributaria por parte del recurrente es de carácter público, pues estamos en presencia de un estudio realizado por la misma Administración que fundamentó la promulgación de un decreto ejecutivo, es decir, una disposición general que afecta la actividad del sector que la empresa amparada representa. De manera que existe, por parte de la entidad recurrida, una mala interpretación de la confidencialidad de las informaciones a las que se refiere el artículo citado, pues el mismo se refiere a los datos que figuren en las declaraciones. Consecuentemente, se estima violentado en perjuicio del accionante, lo dispuesto tanto en el artículo 27, como en el artículo 30 de la Constitución Política, por cuanto no se dan ninguna de las limitaciones indicadas en el considerando segundo de esta sentencia, para no proporcionar la información requerida.” –el destacado no es del original-“ (sentencia de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte de Suprema de Justicia, número 004676-16 de las 10:30 horas del ocho de abril de 2016). Por otra parte, la Ley General de Aduanas, sobre el objeto de estudio, está estrechamente vinculada con el tema tributario, ya que especifica en su numeral 8: “Para establecer actividades integrales de fiscalización, la Dirección General de Aduanas, la Dirección General de Tributación, la Dirección General de Hacienda y los demás órganos de la Administración Tributaria Aduanera, adscritos al Ministerio de Hacienda, estarán facultados legalmente para intercambiar la información tributaria o aduanera que obtengan, por cualquier medio lícito, de los contribuyentes, responsables, terceros, auxiliares de la función pública aduanera, importadores, exportadores, productores y consignatarios. Dichas autoridades deberán guardar confidencialidad de la información suministrada, en los términos ordenados por la legislación tributaria y, en caso de incumplimiento, quedarán sujetas a las responsabilidades legalmente establecidas.”; regulación que contiene el deber de confidencialidad bajo los supuestos de la normativa tributaria supra estudiados. Establecido de forma clara el marco normativo que regula la materia sometida a consideración, cabe valorar el contenido de los elementos probatorios que el recurrente considera, eran privados y, por ende, secuestrador por medio de una orden jurisdiccional. Así, en relación con la causa número 11-000022-612-PE se contó con constancia emitida por la Dirección General de Tributación del Ministerio de Hacienda (folio 113), el oficio número DGT-ER-211-2013 de la Dirección General de Aduanas (folio 325) y la certificación expedida por Administración Tributaria de San José (folio 326). Además, el informe número 428-F-11-CI, de fecha ocho de julio del 2011, visible a folios 114 a 119; ampliación del anterior informe (del 15 de mayo del 20139), de folios 305 a 307 y, por último, el informe número 687-F-14-CI, de folios 709 a 717. Referente al expediente número 12-000090-612-PE, se contó con la prueba que se observa a folios 763 a 767, que corresponden a el oficio número DGT-ER-0418-2013 emitido por la Dirección General de Aduanas; la certificación ATC-CERT-178-2013 de la Administración Tributaria de Cartago; certificación de la Administración Tributaria de San José; oficio VUCE-162-2013 de Procomer; y oficio del Departamento de Certificación Fitosanitaria del Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado. De la simple lectura del contenido del acervo probatorio recién señalado, concluye esta cámara que ninguno de los datos ahí plasmados corresponde a información suministrada o declarada por el sindicado o por alguna de sus empresas; por el contrario, se trata de informaciones elaboradas por la propia administración de hacienda y aduanal en ejercicio propio de sus funciones, y sin que signifique la revelación del algún dato sensible o propio del ámbito de intimidad de [Nombre2] o de alguna persona jurídica por él representada. Aunado a ello, la actuación del Ministerio Público y de la policía judicial, al solicitar los informes respectivos a las distintas instituciones y oficinas del Estado, se ajustan a los presupuestos contenidos en los numerales 226 y 290 del Código Procesal Penal; es decir, se realizaron en ejercicio de su facultad de investigación y recolección de prueba, sin que hubiese sido necesaria la autorización previa por parte de autoridad jurisdiccional alguna. Por otra parte, en el fallo de instancia, según se aprecia a folio 1469, de manera errónea se aplicó normativa no vigente (Ley para Mejorar la Lucha Contra el Fraude Fiscal) para el momento en que los elementos probatorios fueron recolectados, y fundar en ella el rechazo de la protesta llevada a cabo por la defensa, sin embargo, ello en nada varía la circunstancia de que la recolección de la prueba, según lo analizado líneas atrás, era totalmente procedente y ajustada al principio de legalidad de la prueba. Por ello, el motivo debe declararse sin lugar."