Constitutionality of Development Associations as Representatives of Indigenous CommunitiesConstitucionalidad de las asociaciones de desarrollo como representantes de comunidades indígenas

*090076880007CO* Res. No. 2010018714 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at ten hours and ten minutes of November twelfth, two thousand ten.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Pablo Sibas Sibas, bearer of identity card number 6-123-262, against Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law, number 8487-G of April twenty-sixth, nineteen seventy-eight, and Executive Decree number 13568-C-G, of April thirtieth, nineteen eighty-two, Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government.

Resultando:

1.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at fourteen hours fifty-three minutes of May twenty-first, two thousand nine, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law and Executive Decree number 13568-C-G, on Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, be declared. He states that according to Article 2 of Law No. 5251, the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) shall be comprised of a delegate from each development association that exists in the indigenous communities. He adds that Article 4 of the Indigenous Law (Law No. 6172) provides that “The population of each of the reserves constitutes a single community, administered by a board of directors representative of the entire population.” He points out that the Regulation to the Indigenous Law (Executive Decree No. 8447) establishes development associations as local governments, so that non-members of the associations, who are the majority in the reserves, cannot participate in the election of the board of directors, nor in the election of the delegate to CONAI. He adds that indigenous people were never given the opportunity to choose the legal figure they wanted in their communities, as established by Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but rather a legal figure was imposed on them, thus violating the Political Constitution in its Article 25 and Article 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Article 6 of ILO Convention number 169. He considers that by establishing that development associations are those that judicially and extrajudicially represent indigenous communities, a non-traditional system was imposed on them, which obliges indigenous people to become members in order to enjoy certain rights that the rest of the Costa Rican population enjoys without needing to do so, which produces inequality before the law in the reserves. Thus, those who wish to be part of CONAI are required to be members of an integral development association, which is not democratic, since not all indigenous people are allowed, by natural right, to participate in that election. Although the law that governs associations - Law No. 3859 -, in its Article 24, provides that no one can be forced to be part of an association, in reality, indigenous people who want to fully enjoy their rights in a reserve must become members. He points out that Executive Decree 13568-C-G, in its Article 1, provides that development associations have the legal representation of indigenous communities and act as local governments. He considers that said provisions violate numeral 33 of the Political Constitution, and Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which establish the principle of equality, since in indigenous reserves there is inequality before the law between members and non-members of the indigenous development associations. The inequality consists of the fact that the former have the right to housing bonds, to be granted land, to elect and be elected, and to be eligible for delegate to CONAI, while non-member indigenous people do not. He adds that, together with a group of indigenous people, he requested membership in the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la Reserva de Térraba, which was denied by its Board of Directors under the pretext of having obstructed its functioning and having affected the good name and development of the community. He requests: a) that Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law number 8487-G of May 10, 1978, and Executive Decree number 13568-C-G, of April 30, 1982, Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, be declared unconstitutional for being contrary to Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution; Article 4 of the Indigenous Law; Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Article 6 of the ILO Convention, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and b) that indigenous communities be permitted to freely and democratically elect the organizational structure that represents them, in which the entire indigenous population can participate, through a free election by means of the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones or supervised by the Defensoría de los Habitantes.

2.- By resolution at fifteen hours forty-five minutes of July ninth, two thousand nine (folio 37), the petitioner was warned that, within three days: a) authenticate his signature on the initial brief and add the stamp of the Colegio de Abogados; b) specify what the prior pending matter to be resolved is on which he bases the action, providing a certified copy of the brief in which he invoked the unconstitutionality of the questioned regulations in said base proceeding, or else indicate what reasons confer legitimacy upon him to bring a direct action, and c) present seven sets of copies of all documentation for the Magistrates of the Chamber, one for the Procuraduría General de la República, as well as an additional set of copies for each counterparty that has appeared in the base matter, if any.

3.- In a brief filed on August third, two thousand nine (folio 40), the petitioner states that there is no prior case, as this concerns injury to a collective interest that affects indigenous people in an indigenous reserve who are not part of the development association in said reserve. He adds that the injury is produced by the direct application of the contested norms. He considers that there is no judicial or administrative channel to bring his claim, so there is no base matter. Likewise, he provided ten sets of copies of the filing brief and proceeded to authenticate his signature on the original filing brief (folio 39).

4.- By resolution at ten hours and thirty minutes of September seventeenth, two thousand nine (folio 43), the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas.

5.- In a brief filed on October twentieth, two thousand nine (folio 49), the petitioner reiterates that the mandatory nature of belonging to a development association, as well as the individual and collective representation it holds, abandons the indigenous community's own structure with its traditions and customs and violates their right to free association. He insists that the development associations are made up of members who, in the majority of the territories, represent the minority of the indigenous population. He states that it is this minority that makes the decisions on all the political, economic, and cultural life of the indigenous communities. He points out that, despite it being contrary to the Political Constitution and various international conventions, he requested his membership from the development association of Térraba, which was denied both by the Board of Directors and by an irregular General Assembly. He adds that the resolution of the Board of Directors was issued extemporaneously, since the time limits had expired, so he should have been automatically made a member, like the other applicants. He states that on September twenty-first, two thousand nine, the National Director of the Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO) responded to his request for intervention of the Asociación de Desarrollo de Térraba, filed on March sixteenth, two thousand nine, where he was told that in order to request a rendering of accounts, bring an action for nullity, or denounce a director, one must be a member.

6.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at nineteen hours thirty-five minutes of October twentieth, two thousand nine (folio 79), Manuel Villanueva Villanueva, identity card number 6-0096-0467; Rafael Flores Reyes, identity card number 6-0216-0683; Rómulo Flores Gómez, identity card number 6-0046-0571; Fabio Flores Reyes, identity card number 6-0241-0823; Leonel Villanueva Villanueva, identity card number 6-0223-0629; Glen Villanueva Vega, identity card number 1-1421-0388; Cipriano Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0194-0462; Guido Rivera Fernández, identity card number 1-0918-0224; Marcos Rivera Fernández, identity card number 1-1144-0710; Paulino Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0175-0488; Enrique Rivera Rivera, identity card number 6-071-0255, and Antonio Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0160-0388, all indigenous residents of the indigenous reserve Térraba, present a joinder. They indicate that the development association fails in its purpose of safeguarding the defense of the interests of indigenous people and, in its actions, attacks and discriminates against the majority of the inhabitants of the reserve who are not part of said association. They point out as examples the denial of a construction permit for a church; the granting of operating permits for liquor stores or bars within the territories of the reserve, and the illegal extraction of materials without the respective permit from the competent environmental authorities. They add that the cited development association interferes with its criterion so that government authorities grant or deny the benefit of the family housing bond, which limits the access of the indigenous people of Térraba to decent housing and injures the right not to be discriminated against as a consequence of the application of the white man's law against indigenous people. They consider that the integral association, through its actions, contravenes the Political Constitution by assuming legal competencies that the unconstitutional norms assign to it.

7.- The Procuraduría General de la República rendered its report, visible on folios 102 to 120. It points out that the central theme of the discussion relates to the participation and integration of indigenous collectivities in CONAI. It adds, regarding the standing to file the action of unconstitutionality, that the action has been admitted insofar as the concurrence of a diffuse interest has been proven, since the petitioner acts in defense of the interests of the indigenous collectivity. It points out that various international human rights instruments recognize that indigenous peoples have a fundamental right to participate in and belong to the public bodies that exercise competencies in indigenous matters. It adds that Article 6 of ILO Convention 169 ensures the right of indigenous peoples to participate, under conditions of freedom, in the decisions agreed upon by the administrative bodies holding competencies directly related to indigenous matters. It states that Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peoples also recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to participate in the decisions agreed upon by the administrative bodies that hold competencies in matters directly related to the development policy of indigenous peoples. It adds that the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 3003-1992, determined that the right established in the aforementioned Article 6 of ILO Convention 169 is a right of participation and also a right of protection for minorities. It indicates that constitutional jurisprudence, judgments numbers 2253-96 and 3485-2003, has recognized that the right of participation grants indigenous peoples the right to have broad representation within CONAI, which must be sufficiently broad to allow the will of the indigenous communities to determine the course of the decisions of said Commission. It states that the aforementioned right of participation can be exercised through representatives of the indigenous communities, who must always be designated through an elective process that ensures the possibility of participation for the individuals that make up each indigenous community, as provided by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It considers that there is no possibility of admitting in CONAI, or in any other administrative body with competencies over matters pertaining to indigenous peoples, a representation that lacks the democratic legitimacy that is based on an elective process founded on the democratic principle and the principle of autonomy of indigenous peoples; a process which, according to constitutional jurisprudence, must guarantee broad and organized participation of all indigenous people of the respective community. It considers that the questioned norms, as well as Article 2 of the Law of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, cannot be interpreted as a means that illegitimately restricts the right of participation guaranteed in international conventions; nor do they contain any type of unconstitutionality reproach that would lead to their annulment. It states that, for the purpose of guaranteeing the right of indigenous peoples to participate in the decisions of the administrative body for indigenous affairs, the existence of some means must be ensured by which indigenous communities can legally represent themselves and express their collective will. Likewise, they must be provided with a means that guarantees that indigenous communities enjoy a certain degree of autonomy from the central State. It indicates that the right of participation presupposes the obligation of the State to provide indigenous communities with a means to exercise their representation, acquire rights, and assume obligations; ensuring them a certain degree of autonomy in the administration of local affairs and their territories; an obligation recognized in Article 2 of the Indigenous Law. It adds that the mentioned international instruments leave the State a certain power of legal configuration to establish the means by which indigenous communities could exercise their right to represent themselves. In the Costa Rican case, the Law of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas has opted for indigenous communities to adopt the legal form of development associations to obtain legal personality. Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law establish various measures so that indigenous communities adopt the figure of a development association as a form of legal representation and exercising the administration of their local affairs. These norms, it continues, establish: a) the territorial scope of the development associations, which is identified with the territory of the indigenous communities; b) provisions aimed at preventing the intervention of non-indigenous development associations in the affairs of said communities; c) powers for the development associations to coordinate with various public institutions the measures necessary to protect their historical, archaeological, and natural heritage, and d) the guarantee that traditional organizations can continue to function within the development association that represents the community; as well as the possibility of establishing specific development associations and auxiliary committees for objectives of the community's development association. It points out that Articles 1, 2, and 5 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law establish that in order to guarantee the integrity and unity of the local government of the indigenous communities, it must be ensured that only one development association exists for each indigenous community. It considers that neither Article 2 of the Law of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas nor the infra-legal norms that develop it violate the right of indigenous persons to participate in the elective process of designating the community's representatives. It warns that the fact that, in the Costa Rican system, a person must be a member of an indigenous development association to exercise the right of participation in local indigenous affairs is not an unreasonable or illegitimate requirement. On the contrary, it continues, in order to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to the administration of their own affairs, the obligation of the State is imposed to establish the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the intervention of non-indigenous persons or particular groups in the affairs of indigenous communities. This includes that it is also the duty of the State to establish the means through which a person can and must prove their indigenous status to exercise the rights of participation established in international conventions. In the Costa Rican case, the State has opted, as a means to guarantee the exercise of the right of participation, for the person to be a member of an indigenous development association. It is the responsibility of said association to certify the indigenous status of the persons who request membership. It considers that it cannot be argued, as the petitioner does, that the legal system leaves unprotected those persons who, having requested membership, are denied it, since, once the status of indigenous person is proven, the development associations do not enjoy discretionary freedom to accept or reject their membership; unless objective and serious causes, previously established in the association's statute, concur that justify the denial, as provided by the Chamber in judgment number 13994-2009. It adds that associations also do not enjoy discretionary freedom to limit the right of participation of indigenous persons in the elective process of designating the community's representatives. In conclusion, it points out that in the Costa Rican legal system, the necessary legal provisions exist to protect the right of indigenous persons to participate in the elective process of designating the representatives of their community, and therefore it finds no basis to declare the norms challenged here unconstitutional.

8.- Mr. Victor Julio Mena, Mena, in his capacity as President of the Board of Directors of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, responds on folios 121 to 126 to the hearing granted. He states, in relation to Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution, that individually or collectively, indigenous people as citizens can make use of their rights without needing to resort to development associations or be part of them, like any Costa Rican. He adds that the system of development associations was not imposed arbitrarily on indigenous communities, but rather, thanks to this system, a type of organization that existed informally in all communities since before the arrival of the Spanish was formalized. He points out that development associations have a democratic composition, by virtue of which every individual over twelve years of age, man or woman, belongs to the group and elects its representatives. He considers that it does not follow from the contested regulations that every person, by the mere fact of residing in an indigenous territory and being part of a community of that same nature, is ipso jure a member of the corresponding development association. Nor do they prevent an indigenous person or group thereof from forming associations different from those of community development, such as cooperatives, unions, or commercial companies. He indicates that the contested norms have done nothing other than concretize and formalize the type of organization that responds to the bases established by the legislator in the Indigenous Law, which is also in accordance with ILO Convention 169, insofar as it materializes the State's obligation to ensure that indigenous communities adopt a legal organization in accordance with traditions. He states that incorporation into development associations is not automatic but requires an act of membership that can only be the fruit of a free decision by each of the individuals that make up the community. The refusal of an indigenous person to join the association has never brought about any consequence contrary to their dignity as a human being, nor does it impose an arbitrary restriction on the enjoyment of their fundamental rights. It is false, he continues, that only members of development associations have the right to housing bonds or a plot of land; development associations are not the ones that deliver or build the dwellings, but rather said activity is carried out by state agents once the required requisites are fulfilled. He requests that the action be dismissed.

9.- By resolution at nine hours forty minutes of November sixth, two thousand nine (folio 127), the joinder presented was admitted.

10.- The notices referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 195, 196, and 197 of the Boletín Judicial, of the seventh, eighth, and ninth of October, two thousand nine (folio 48).

11.- The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, as this resolution is deemed sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.

12.- The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.

Judge Mora Mora writes; and,

Considerando:

I.- On admissibility. The action of unconstitutionality is a process with certain formalities, which must be satisfied so that the Chamber can validly hear the merits of the challenge. In Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the prerequisites of admissibility for actions of unconstitutionality are established, and three different situations are regulated: in the first paragraph, it requires the existence of a pending matter to be resolved, whether in a judicial venue, including habeas corpus or amparo appeals, or in an administrative venue – in the administrative exhaustion phase –, in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right that is considered injured in the main matter. In the second and third paragraphs, the direct action is regulated – the base matter is not required –, in the following cases: a) when by the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury, or it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, or those that pertain to the community as a whole; and b) when the action is brought by the Procurador General de la República, the Contralor General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, and the Defensor de los Habitantes. Regarding diffuse interests, this Court has indicated that:

“Diffuse interests, although difficult to define and more difficult to identify, cannot be in our law – as this Chamber has already stated – merely collective interests; nor so diffuse that their ownership is confused with that of the national community as a whole, nor so concrete that in light of them, determined persons, or personalized groups, are identified or easily identifiable, whose standing would derive, not from diffuse interests, but from corporate interests that pertain to a community as a whole. It is then a matter of individual interests, but at the same time, diluted in more or less extensive and amorphous sets of persons who share an interest and, therefore, receive harm, actual or potential, more or less equal for all, so it is rightly said that they are equal interests of the groups that find themselves in certain circumstances and, at the same time, of each one of them. That is, diffuse interests partake of a double nature, since they are at once collective – for being common to a generality – and individual, for which reason they can be claimed in such character. (...) In synthesis, diffuse interests are those whose ownership belongs to groups of persons not formally organized, but united based on a determined social need, a physical characteristic, their ethnic origin, a certain personal or ideological orientation, the consumption of a certain product, etc.” (Judgment number 8239-01 of sixteen hours and seven minutes of August fourteenth, two thousand one).

In the present case, the petitioner claims his standing through the abstract constitutional review channel and invokes, in his condition as an indigenous person, interests that pertain to the indigenous community. The hearing and resolution of this action of unconstitutionality through abstract review is admissible, since the petitioner holds a diffuse interest, as it concerns a specific community – the indigenous community – and the alleged norms affect them in said condition.

II.- In the present matter, the petitioner complains, among other questions, that the Board of Directors of the Asociación de Desarrollo de Térraba denied his membership application; a decision upheld by a General Assembly held irregularly. Likewise, that the Director of the Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO), in response to a request for intervention of the mentioned Association, indicated to him that to request a rendering of accounts, an action for nullity, or to denounce a director, one must be a member of said Association. In this regard, this Court recalls that the object of an unconstitutionality proceeding is not to address an individual injury that the actor may allege; on the contrary, it has as its object a general interest that the acts subject to public law and the norms that make up the legal system are in conformity with the Law of the Constitution. Said challenges do not actually have a normative character, since they do not contain provisions aimed at regulating any legal situation in a general manner. On the contrary, as can be deduced from the filing brief itself and from one subsequently filed by the petitioner, some of his claims through this channel are to compel the Asociación de Desarrollo de Térraba to accept him as a member and for DINADECO to intervene in said Association; claims that entail concrete actions, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, are not appropriate to be heard by this Jurisdiction through an action of unconstitutionality proceeding.

By virtue of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 48 of the Political Constitution and Article 29 and following of the Law governing this Jurisdiction, such claims are appropriate for analysis in an amparo appeal. Consequently, the proper course is to detach the filing brief and the brief attached at folios 49 to 78 and certify them, so that they may be processed as an amparo appeal with respect to this challenge.

III.- Object of the challenge. The petitioner challenges Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena and the Decreto Ejecutivo regarding the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, for violating the right of association and the principle of equality—Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution—as well as Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, and Articles 3 and 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He considers that these norms force indigenous people to be part of development associations and prevent indigenous communities from freely and democratically electing the members who represent them on the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas. In short, the petitioner considers the figure of the development associations as the organization that represents indigenous communities before CONAI to be contrary to Constitutional Law. The challenged norms provide as follows:

Reglamento a la Ley Indígena, Decreto Ejecutivo number 8487-G of April twenty-sixth, nineteen seventy-eight, published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 89 of May tenth, nineteen seventy-eight:

"Article 3.- For the exercise of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations referred to in Article 2 of the Ley Indígena, the Indigenous Communities shall adopt the form of organization provided for in Law No. 3859 of the Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad and its Regulations.

Article 4.- The Presidents of the respective Indigenous Development Associations, legally registered, and with the powers of general agents thereof, shall appear before the Procuraduría General de la República, for the granting of the deed and registration in the Public Registry, of the Reservations in the name of the respective Indigenous Communities.

Article 5.- The traditional community structures referred to in Article 4 of the Law, shall operate within the respective Communities; and the Development Associations, once legally registered, shall represent said Communities judicially and extrajudicially.

Article 6.- The Comprehensive Community Development Associations shall designate the Auxiliary Committees as bodies subordinate to them and with their own powers for the fulfillment of the assigned purposes.

Article 7.- In the cases referred to in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Law, or when the dispersion and remoteness of the population so warrant, the traditional organization must affiliate with the Comprehensive Development Associations, forming Specific Development Associations, for the fulfillment of the specific objectives of the Indigenous Community.

Article 15.- The Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, and the Comprehensive Development Associations or their legal representatives, shall coordinate, at the Ministerial level, and with the other autonomous entities of the State, the application of the preventive and repressive actions established by Articles 6 and 7 of the Ley Indígena, to safeguard the Archaeological, Mineral, Hydrological, and Forestry (flora and fauna) Heritage of all the reservations." Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, Decreto Ejecutivo number 13568-C-G of April thirtieth, nineteen eighty-two, published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 94 of May seventeenth, nineteen eighty-two:

"Article 1.- The Comprehensive Development Associations have the legal representation of the Indigenous Communities and act as their local government.

Article 2.- There may only be a single Indigenous Development Association for each Indigenous Reservation. In the event that the size of the Reservation so warrants, there may be local committees and/or specific associations, for specific purposes, but these bodies remain dependent on the Comprehensive Development Association.

Article 3.- The jurisdictional limits of the Comprehensive Development Associations of the Indigenous Communities must coincide with the limits of the Reservations as defined by the decrees that established these Reservations. Non-Indigenous Community Development Associations may not have jurisdiction over areas located within the Indigenous Reservations; Indigenous Community Development Associations may not have jurisdiction over areas located outside the Indigenous Reservations.

Article 4.- Comprehensive Development Associations, whether indigenous or not, must henceforth conform to the provisions established in Articles 2 and 3 of this decree, particularly regarding their jurisdictional limits.

Article 5.- In the event that several Comprehensive Development Associations currently exist in the same Indigenous Reservation, the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) must process before the Executive Branch a project for the division of the current reservation into a number of reservations equal to the number of existing Comprehensive Development Associations.

In the event that the foregoing cannot be carried out, the Development Associations must merge, in such a way that a single reservation remains, in accordance with the preceding provisions.

Article 6.- Shall be effective upon its publication." IV.- On the merits. This Tribunal has already ruled on Article 3 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena in the following terms:

"V.- JURISPRUDENTIAL BACKGROUND.

In ruling number 5483-95, this Chamber conducted a detailed analysis of the right of association in its various aspects, in which it stated:

“II ).- THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION RECOGNIZED BY ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION.- As a matter of principle, the essential content of the right of association developed by Article 25 of the Constitution recognizes for every person a fundamental protection in the dual pathway through which such right can manifest itself, that is, through the so-called positive freedom to found and participate in associations or to adhere to and belong to them, as well as in the negative exercise of freedom, by virtue of which it is not possible to compel any person to form part of associations or to remain in them.- This norm constitutes, in very general terms, the common law, of general application and constitutional origin, of all associations, unless, due to special reasons and the peculiar nature of some activities, the contrary is provided by law. It must be clear, as doctrine has held, that public liberties are nothing other than the constitutional recognition of personal autonomy; precisely because it is a sphere of autonomy, the faculties that comprise it may or may not be exercised with identical power of self-determination. Based on these ideas, Costa Rican doctrine has considered the following to be characteristic features of the right of association: a) that it must arise as a free manifestation of the human being's will, and therefore a coercive association would not be a true expression of such right, but a true negation thereof; b) that the intended purpose be the promotion and defense of lawful common goals; c) that it have a collective character, due to the plurality of members that make up the association; d) that it have permanence, for being a stable organization and due to the existence of a permanent bond among its members; and e) that the internal structure and functioning of the association be, permanently, based on the democratic promotion of its members. Article 25 of the Constitution imposes upon the Legislative Branch a natural and insurmountable limit of respect in its legislative function, by virtue of which the possibility of individuals to create associations with lawful private purposes cannot be restricted, a limit that could not be transgressed without emptying the right itself of content; that is, as long as the purposes of the association are private and lawful, the activity would be outside the action of the law, given that the exercise of this right is a pure expression of the autonomous sphere of every person and is thus protected by the explicit content provided in the second paragraph of Article 28 of the Constitution. From the foregoing, it follows that Article 25 develops a genus that we might call 'pure association' and which responds to the broadest constitutional recognition of personal autonomy, the reason why that freedom is exercised with power of self-determination, without forgetting that in the final part of this Article 25 it is established that no one is obliged to form part of any association. However, this genus does not exclude the juridical possibility that other modalities of association exist, and in the Political Constitution itself there are other manifestations of that right with special recognition and with distinct legal regimes, such as, for example, political parties (Article 98), employer and worker unions (Article 60), and cooperativism (Article 64). That is why it can be inferred that the Political Constitution has provided several options for expressing the right of association. By virtue of the foregoing, what is appropriate is to analyze the nature of mandatory professional membership, in order to define whether the institution corresponds to the 'pure association' or if, on the contrary, it is a type of organization of a different nature, and if so, to determine to what extent it is constitutionally possible for the State to regulate those activities; whether it involves the exercise of liberties of private interest, or if, on the contrary, the exercise of delegated public interest powers or to exercise public functions of an administrative nature; and of course, also to define the very origin of the structure of the institution of professional membership, confronting it with the free expression of will to form or create an association and thus determining the legal origin of professional colleges." VI.- NORMATIVE ANALYSIS. The Ley Sobre El Desarrollo De La Comunidad No. 3859, in Chapter III 'On Community Development Associations', Articles 14 and 16 provide:

"Article 14.- The constitution and operation of Community Development Associations are hereby declared of public interest, as a means of encouraging populations to organize themselves to fight alongside State bodies for the economic and social development of the country." Article 15 (...)

Article 16.- In order to constitute Comprehensive Development Associations, it shall be necessary for at least one hundred persons, and no more than one thousand five hundred, over the age of fifteen, interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and the social and cultural progress of a specific area of the country, to assemble. The jurisdictional area of a Development Association shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural foundation of community grouping.

In exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of Development Associations made up of a number lower or higher than that indicated above.

In no case may Associations be created with fewer than twenty-five persons." For its part, the Ley Indígena No. 6172 indicates, regarding what concerns the merits of the matter, the following:

"Article 2.- Indigenous communities have full legal capacity to acquire rights and contract obligations of all kinds. They are not state entities.

The reservations mentioned in Article one of this law are hereby declared property of the indigenous communities.

The Procuraduría General de la República shall register these reservations in the Public Registry in the name of the respective indigenous communities.

The reservations shall be registered free of all encumbrance. Transfers from the State to the indigenous communities shall be gratuitous, shall not pay Registry fees, and shall be exempt from all other types of tax burden in accordance with the terms established in the CONAI Law.

Article 3.- Indigenous reservations are inalienable and imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them. Non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or properties comprised within these reservations. Indigenous persons may only negotiate their lands with other indigenous persons. Any transfer or negotiation of lands or improvements thereon in indigenous reservations, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null, with the legal consequences of the case. The lands and their improvements and the products of indigenous reservations shall be exempt from all kinds of national or municipal taxes, present or future." In relation to the establishment of a community structure, the same normative body states:

"Article 4.- The reservations shall be governed by the indigenous people in their traditional community structures or by the laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advisement of CONAI.

The population of each of the reservations constitutes a single community administered by a Board of Directors representing the entire population; auxiliary committees shall depend on the main board if the geographic extension so warrants." Regarding indigenous property, Articles 8 and 9 provide:

"Article 8.- The ITCO, in coordination with CONAI, shall be the body in charge of carrying out the territorial demarcation of the indigenous reservations, in accordance with the legally established limits." "Article 9.- The lands belonging to ITCO included in the demarcation of the indigenous reservations, and the Reservations of Boruca-Térraba, Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra, must be transferred by that institution to the indigenous communities." For its part, Article 3 of the Decreto Ejecutivo No. 848-G of April 26, 1978, which is being challenged, literally states:

"For the exercise of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations referred to in Article 2 of the Ley Indígena, the Indigenous Communities shall adopt the form of organization provided for in Law number 3859 of the Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad and its Regulations." In the petitioner's opinion, this last provision conflicts with Article 25 of the Constitution, insofar as it conditions the exercise of the rights of indigenous persons on the adoption of a Community Development Association.

VII.- LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ON INDIGENOUS GROUPS. In the international sphere, norms have been issued that seek for States to establish certain mechanisms to favor the situation of indigenous groups, given the need to preserve the customs and traditions of these groups, which in some countries are clearly minority groups. On this point, the Chamber ruled in judgment No. 2253-96 of 3:39 p.m. on May 14, 1996, in which it stated:

"...There are various legal instruments aimed at promoting this real equality among subjects; among them can be situated the particular situation of aboriginal peoples, who traditionally have been marginalized for historical, social, economic, and cultural reasons. They suffer the consequences of a society that neither understands nor respects their differences; and that at times, tends to see them as beings incapable of directing their own lives and destinies. Given this situation, the international community felt the need to adopt measures in favor of indigenous peoples. Thus, Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization—ILO—, called 'Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries', incorporated into our legal system through Law No. 7316 of November 3, 1992, established the special protection of indigenous peoples and their culture." It is of interest, for the purposes of the merits of the action, to keep in mind that the signatory States of the aforementioned international instrument assumed commitments in the following terms:

"Article 2 1. Governments shall have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity.

2. Such action shall include measures:

• a)ensuring that members of these peoples benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population; b) promoting the full realisation of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions; c) assisting the members of the peoples concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may exist between indigenous and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible with their aspirations and ways of life.

(....)

Article 6 1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:

• a)consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly; b) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors of the population, at all levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them; c) establish means for the full development of these peoples' own institutions and initiatives, and in appropriate cases provide the resources necessary for this purpose.

2. The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures.

Article 7:

1. The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly.

2. The improvement of the conditions of life and work and levels of health and education of the peoples concerned, with their participation and co-operation, shall be a matter of priority in plans for the overall economic development of the areas they inhabit. Special projects for development of the areas in question shall also be so designed as to promote such improvement.

(3....)

4. Governments shall take measures, in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to protect and preserve the environment of the territories they inhabit.

Article 8:

1. In applying national laws and regulations to the peoples concerned, due regard shall be had to their customs or customary laws.

2. These peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, where these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system and with internationally recognised human rights. Procedures shall be established, whenever necessary, to resolve conflicts which may arise in the application of this principle.

3. The application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not prevent members of these peoples from exercising the rights granted to all citizens and from assuming the corresponding duties." (The emphasis is not from the original).

As can be deduced from the transcribed norms, the State has the obligation to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to organize and participate in the decision-making that concerns them, as well as to constitute representative bodies and participate in the election of the persons who will hold those positions. Article 6 of the cited Convention established the obligation of States to establish the means through which the peoples concerned can participate freely and to consult indigenous groups—through their representative institutions—whenever the issuance of legislative or administrative measures that may affect them is discussed, which does not imply, as is alleged in the action, an obligation to form part of those groups; rather, it is a free decision that involves taking part in the direction of the community. Expressly, the Convention provides that the adoption of a specific organization does not prevent members of said peoples 'from exercising the rights granted to all citizens of the country and from assuming the corresponding obligations.' VIII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER:

Having determined the essential elements of the right of association and the legal regime of indigenous peoples, it falls to elucidate whether the obligation contained in Article 3 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena is contrary to Constitutional Law. This Chamber, in ruling No. 5486-95, transcribed in what is of interest, indicated in Considerando V that the right of association has two aspects: the positive, which refers to the freedom to found and participate in associations and to adhere to them, and the negative, which implies the prohibition of compelling a person to be a member of a specific private group, as well as to remain in it. The petitioner alleges the negative aspect of his right has been violated, insofar as he considers that the provision of Article 3 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 848-G of April 26, 1978 obliges him to belong to a Community Development Association as a necessary condition for the exercise of rights and obligations; however, this Chamber finds that the petitioner is not correct in his argument, as will be expressed below. This Chamber is clear that, as the petitioner indicates, the Regulations establish that for the exercise of the rights and obligations established in the Ley Indígena (Article 2)—basically rights and duties related to the administration of the reservation—indigenous communities shall adopt the organization of a Community Development Association, which, however, they are not obliged to join. Indeed, the fact of forming part of an indigenous community does not automatically oblige one to belong to the Community Development Association; the by-laws of these associations regulate the modalities of affiliation and disaffiliation, information that is recorded in the corresponding Registry and can be consulted by the person who wishes to join or disaffiliate, which in no way prevents them, in the exercise of their fundamental rights, from joining another organization of their interest or exercising, in general, the rights recognized for all citizens of the country. The Reglamento a la Ley de las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal reinforces what has been stated by expressly indicating that 'no one can be obliged to form part of an association or not to form part of it, and therefore, the clauses of the by-laws that establish limitations on the freedom to associate or withdraw from the organization are absolutely null...' (Art. 22). As the Procuraduría General de la República correctly notes in its report, the refusal of the indigenous person to become a member of an association of this type entails no further consequences than that of diminishing their participation in the adoption of indigenous decisions related to the administration of the indigenous reservation, over which a property right with collective characteristics, typical of their culture, is exercised. The exercise of rights—participation in the control of the collective property of the reservation—and obligations—submission to control over the public funds destined for them—that the Regulations condition on the integration into this type of organization are those arising from the Ley Indígena, which provided for the free transmission of lands that belonged to ITCO—public domain assets—to the indigenous reservations, and the Chamber does not find that the communal destination of the land established by the Ley Indígena—not by the Regulations—and the limitations established therein on this type of community property—prohibition of transfer of ownership or lease—is disproportionate or unreasonable, insofar as it is feasible that the State—upon awarding the ownership of the assets in the name of the indigenous communities free of charge—may impose certain conditions so that said communities exercise their rights over those lands; this to the extent that it involves the legitimate exercise of a power of the State in its capacity as transferor of ownership. The situation would be different if the existence of private property over these lands were asserted, in which case the exercise of the attributes of ownership could not be conditioned on integration into a Community Development Association.

IX.- On the other hand, from a simple reading of the provisions of the Ley Indígena that have been transcribed, it is derived that it is the Law—not the regulations—that establishes community property and organization. The second paragraph of Article 2 regulates this community property by indicating: '...The reservations mentioned in Article one of this law are hereby declared property of the indigenous communities...'" Regarding the organization, the same regulatory body establishes that "...the reserves shall be governed by the indigenous people in their traditional community structures or by the Laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advisory of CONAI" (emphasis not in the original). That said, it is the Community Development Law (Ley Sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad, N° 3859) that regulates the Community Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad), and Article 3 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law (Reglamento a la Ley Indígena) being challenged has merely specified the type of organization that meets the bases established by the legislator in the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena) that serves as its framework, which also conforms to Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, insofar as it materializes the State's obligation to ensure that indigenous communities adopt a legal organization in accordance with their traditions, allowing them to exercise the rights and obligations recognized by law. It should not be overlooked that Community Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal) – more than any other legal figure – are the ones that most closely resemble the community nature of traditional indigenous organization; additionally, this type of legal structure allows this sector of the population to enjoy special benefits (Article 19 of Law 3859) that they would not enjoy with another type of legal structuring – for example, receiving services, donations, subsidies, and annual transfers of money, both from the State and its institutions – which of course entails the ordinary oversight of those public resources." (Judgment number 2002-02623 of fourteen hours and forty-one minutes on March thirteenth, two thousand two). In the same sense, judgment number 2009-013994, of eleven hours and thirty-nine minutes on August twenty-eighth, two thousand nine.

V.- From the transcribed judgments and the regulatory analysis conducted, the Chamber, in its case law, has considered that the fact that the comprehensive development associations are responsible for legally and extrajudicially representing the indigenous communities, as representative institutions of the inhabitants of the reserves, is not contrary to Constitutional Law. Likewise, the challenged norms also do not prevent indigenous people from being part of any other legal organization of their interest. Finally, it should be clarified that it is the Bylaws of each of the comprehensive development associations that establish the internal process in each association for designating its representative before CONAI, and not the norms challenged by the petitioner.

VI.- Conclusion. In short, Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law (Reglamento a la Ley Indígena) and the Executive Decree concerning the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, are not contrary to Constitutional Law. On the other hand, the action must be declared inadmissible regarding the remaining challenges made by the petitioner.

Por tanto:

The action is declared without merit in relation to Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law, Executive Decree number 8487-G of April twenty-sixth, nineteen seventy-eight, and the Decree concerning the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, Executive Decree number 13568-C-G of April thirtieth, nineteen eighty-two. The brief of filing and the brief attached at folios 49 to 78 shall be detached and certified, so that they may be processed as an amparo action.

Gilbert Armijo S. Presidente a.i.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Rosa María Abdelnour G.

Jorge Araya G. José Paulino Hernández G.

San José, at ten hours and ten minutes on the twelfth of November, two thousand ten.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Pablo Sibas Sibas, holder of identity card number 6-123-262, against Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena, number 8487-G of the twenty-sixth of April, nineteen seventy-eight, and Decreto Ejecutivo number 13568-C-G, of the thirtieth of April, nineteen eighty-two, Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo) and as Local Government.

**Resultando:** **1.-** By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at fourteen hours and fifty-three minutes on the twenty-first of May, two thousand nine, the claimant requests that the unconstitutionality of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena and Decreto Ejecutivo number 13568-C-G, on Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo) and as Local Government, be declared. He states that according to Article 2 of Law No. 5251, the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) shall be composed of a delegate from each development association (asociación de desarrollo) that exists in the indigenous communities. He adds that Article 4 of the Ley Indígena (Law No. 6172) provides that "The population of each of the reserves constitutes a single community, administered by a directive council representing the entire population." He points out that the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 8447) establishes the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) as local governments, such that non-members of the associations, who are the majority in the reserves, cannot participate in the election of the board of directors, nor in the election of the delegate to CONAI. He adds that indigenous people were never given the opportunity to choose the legal form they wanted in their communities, as established by Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but rather a legal form was imposed on them, thus violating the Political Constitution in its Article 25 and Article 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Article 6 of Convention number 169 of the ILO. He considers that by establishing that the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) are those that judicially and extrajudicially represent the indigenous communities, a non-traditional system was imposed on them, which forces indigenous people to become members in order to enjoy certain rights that the rest of the Costa Rican population enjoys without needing to do so, which produces inequality before the law in the reserves. Thus, those who wish to be part of CONAI are required to be members of a comprehensive development association (asociación de desarrollo integral), which is not democratic, since all indigenous people are not permitted, by natural right, to participate in that election. Although the law governing associations -Law No. 3859-, in its Article 24, provides that no one can be forced to be part of an association, in reality indigenous people who want to fully enjoy their rights in a reserve must become members. He points out that Decreto Ejecutivo 13568-C-G, in its Article 1, provides that the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) have the legal representation of the indigenous communities and act as local governments. He believes that said provisions violate numeral 33 of the Political Constitution, and Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which establish the principle of equality, since in the indigenous reserves there is inequality before the law between members and non-members of the indigenous development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo indígena). The inequality consists in that the former have the right to housing bonds, to be granted land, to elect and be elected, and to opt for delegate to CONAI, while non-member indigenous people do not. He adds that, together with a group of indigenous people, he requested membership in the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la Reserva de Térraba, which was denied by its Board of Directors under the pretext of having hindered its functioning and having affected the good name and development of the community. He requests: a) that Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena number 8487-G of May 10, 1978, and Decreto Ejecutivo number 13568-C-G, of April 30, 1982, Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo) and as Local Government, be declared unconstitutional for being contrary to Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution; Article 4 of the Ley Indígena; Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Article 6 of the ILO Convention, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and b) that indigenous communities be allowed to freely and democratically elect the organizational structure that represents them, in which the entire indigenous population can participate, through a free election by means of the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones or supervised by the Defensoría de los Habitantes.

**2.-** By resolution at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on the ninth of July, two thousand nine (folio 37), the claimant was warned that, within three days, he must: a) authenticate his signature on the initial brief and add the Colegio de Abogados stamp; b) specify which is the prior pending matter to be resolved on which the action is based, providing a certified copy of the brief in which he invoked the unconstitutionality of the questioned regulations in said base proceeding, or else indicate which grounds confer legitimacy upon him to act directly; and c) present seven sets of copies of all the documentation for the Magistrates of the Chamber, one for the Procuraduría General de la República, as well as an additional set of copies for each counterparty that may have appeared in the base matter, if any.

**3.-** In a brief filed on the third of August, two thousand nine (folio 40), the claimant states that there is no prior case as this concerns an injury to a collective interest that affects indigenous people in an indigenous reserve who are not part of the development association (asociación de desarrollo) in that reserve. He adds that the injury is produced by the direct application of the challenged norms. He believes that there is no judicial or administrative avenue to file his claim, so there is no base matter. He also provided ten sets of copies of the initial brief and proceeded with the authentication of his signature on the original initial brief (folio 39).

**4.-** By resolution at ten hours and thirty minutes on the seventeenth of September, two thousand nine (folio 43), the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas.

**5.-** In a brief filed on the twentieth of October, two thousand nine (folio 49), the claimant reiterates that the obligation to belong to a development association (asociación de desarrollo), as well as the individual and collective representation it holds, abandons the indigenous community's own structure with its traditions and customs and violates their right to free association. He insists that the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) are composed of members who, in the majority of the territories, represent a minority of the indigenous population. He states that it is this minority that makes decisions on the entire political, economic, and cultural life of the indigenous communities. He points out that, despite being contrary to the Political Constitution and various international conventions, he requested membership from the development association (asociación de desarrollo) of Térraba, which was denied by both the Board of Directors and by an irregular General Assembly. He adds that the resolution of the Board of Directors was issued extemporaneously, as the deadlines had expired, and therefore he should have been affiliated automatically, like the other applicants. He states that on the twenty-first of September, two thousand nine, the National Director of the Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO) responded to his request for intervention of the Asociación de Desarrollo de Térraba, filed on the sixteenth of March, two thousand nine, where he was informed that to request a rendering of accounts, bring an action for nullity, or denounce a director, one must be a member.

**6.-** By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at nineteen hours thirty-five minutes on the twentieth of October, two thousand nine (folio 79), Manuel Villanueva Villanueva, identity card number 6-0096-0467; Rafael Flores Reyes, identity card number 6-0216-0683; Rómulo Flores Gómez, identity card number 6-0046-0571; Fabio Flores Reyes, identity card number 6-0241-0823; Leonel Villanueva Villanueva, identity card number 6-0223-0629; Glen Villanueva Vega, identity card number 1-1421-0388; Cipriano Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0194-0462; Guido Rivera Fernández, identity card number 1-0918-0224; Marcos Rivera Fernández, identity card number 1-1144-0710; Paulino Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0175-0488; Enrique Rivera Rivera, identity card number 6-071-0255, and Antonio Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0160-0388, all indigenous residents of the Térraba indigenous reserve, present a joinder (coadyuvancia). They indicate that the development association (asociación de desarrollo) fails to fulfill its purpose of ensuring the defense of the indigenous people's interests and in its actions attacks and discriminates against the majority of residents of the reserve who are not part of said association. They cite as examples the denial of a building permit for a church; the granting of operating permits to liquor establishments or bars within the territories of the reserve; and the illegal extraction of materials without having the respective permit from the competent environmental authorities. They add that the cited development association (asociación de desarrollo) interferes with its judgment so that government authorities grant or deny the family housing bond benefit, which limits the access of the indigenous people of Térraba to decent housing and injures the right not to be discriminated against as a consequence of the application of white law against indigenous people. They believe that the comprehensive association (asociación integral), through its conduct, contravenes the Political Constitution by assuming legal competencies that the unconstitutional norms assign to it.

**7.-** The Procuraduría General de la República issued its report, visible on folios 102 to 120. It points out that the central theme of the discussion relates to the participation and integration of indigenous collectivities in CONAI. It adds, regarding the standing to file the action of unconstitutionality, that the action has been admitted insofar as the concurrence of a diffuse interest has been verified, as the claimant appears in defense of the interests of the indigenous collectivity. It points out that various international human rights instruments recognize that indigenous peoples have a fundamental right to participate in and integrate the public bodies that exercise powers in indigenous affairs. It adds that Article 6 of Convention 169 of the ILO ensures indigenous peoples the right to participate, under conditions of freedom, in the decisions agreed upon by the administrative bodies holding powers directly related to indigenous affairs. It states that Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to participate in the decisions agreed upon by the administrative bodies that hold powers in matters directly related to the development policy of indigenous peoples. It adds that the Sala Constitucional, in judgment number 3003-1992, determined that the right established in the mentioned Article 6 of Convention 169 of the ILO is a right of participation and also a right for the protection of minorities. It indicates that constitutional jurisprudence, judgments numbers 2253-96 and 3485-2003, has recognized that the right of participation grants indigenous peoples the right to have broad representation within CONAI, which must be sufficiently broad to allow the will of the indigenous communities to determine the course of the decisions of said Commission. It states that the aforementioned right of participation can be exercised through representatives of the indigenous communities, who must always be designated through an elective process that ensures the possibility of participation for the persons that make up each indigenous community; as provided in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It considers that it is not possible to admit in CONAI, or in any other administrative body with powers over matters pertaining to indigenous peoples, a representation that lacks the democratic legitimacy grounded in an elective process based on the democratic principle and the principle of autonomy of indigenous peoples; a process that, according to constitutional jurisprudence, must guarantee a broad and organized participation of all indigenous people of the respective community. It considers that the questioned norms, as well as Article 2 of the Ley de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, cannot be interpreted as a means that illegitimately restricts the right of participation guaranteed in international conventions; nor do they contain any type of reproach of unconstitutionality that leads to their annulment. It states that, for the purpose of guaranteeing the right of indigenous peoples to participate in the decisions of the administrative body for indigenous affairs, the existence of some means must be ensured by which indigenous communities can legally represent themselves and express their collective will. Likewise, they must be provided with a means that guarantees that indigenous communities enjoy a certain degree of autonomy with respect to the central State. It indicates that the right of participation presupposes the obligation of the State to provide indigenous communities with a means to exercise their representation, acquire rights, and assume obligations; ensuring them a certain degree of autonomy in the administration of local affairs and their territories; an obligation recognized in Article 2 of the Ley Indígena. It adds that the international instruments mentioned leave the State a certain power of legal configuration to establish the means by which indigenous communities could exercise their right to represent themselves. In the Costa Rican case, the Ley de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas has opted for the indigenous communities to adopt the legal form of development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) to obtain legal personality (personería jurídica). Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena establish various measures so that indigenous communities adopt the form of a development association (asociación de desarrollo) as a way to legally represent themselves and exercise the administration of their local affairs. Those norms, it continues, establish: a) the territorial scope of the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) which is identified with the territory of the indigenous communities; b) provisions aimed at preventing the intervention of non-indigenous development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) in the affairs of said communities; c) powers for the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) to coordinate with various public institutions the necessary measures to protect their historical, archaeological, and natural heritage; and d) the guarantee that traditional organizations can continue to function within the development association (asociación de desarrollo) that represents the community; as well as the possibility of establishing specific development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo específico) and auxiliary committees for the objectives of the community's development association (asociación de desarrollo). It points out that Articles 1, 2, and 5 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena establish that to guarantee the integrity and unity of the local government of the indigenous communities, it must be ensured that only one development association (asociación de desarrollo) exists per indigenous community. It considers that neither Article 2 of the Ley de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas nor the sub-legal norms that develop it violate the right of indigenous persons to participate in the elective process for designating the community's representatives. It notes that the fact that, in the Costa Rican system, a person must be a member of an indigenous development association (asociación de desarrollo indígena) to exercise the right of participation in indigenous local affairs is not an unreasonable or illegitimate requirement. On the contrary, it continues, in order to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to the administration of their own affairs, the obligation is imposed on the State to establish the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the intervention of non-indigenous persons or private groups in the affairs of indigenous communities. This includes that it is also the State's duty to establish the means through which a person can and must accredit their status as indigenous to exercise the participation rights established in international conventions. In the Costa Rican case, the State has opted, as a means to guarantee the exercise of the right of participation, for the person to be a member of an indigenous development association (asociación de desarrollo indígena). It is incumbent upon said association to accredit the indigenous status of the persons who request membership. It considers that it cannot be argued either, as the claimant does, that the legal system leaves unprotected those persons whose membership request has been denied, since, once the status of an indigenous person is verified, the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) do not have discretionary freedom to accept or reject their membership; unless objective and serious causes previously established in the association's bylaws exist that justify the denial, as the Chamber held in judgment number 13994-2009. It adds that the associations also do not have discretionary freedom to limit the right of participation of indigenous persons in the elective process for designating the community's representatives. In conclusion, it points out that in the Costa Rican legal system, the necessary legal provisions exist to protect the right of indigenous persons to participate in the elective process for designating the representatives of their community, and therefore it finds no grounds to declare the norms challenged here unconstitutional.

**8.-** Mr. Victor Julio Mena, Mena, in his capacity as President of the Board of Directors of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, answers on folios 121 to 126 the hearing granted. He states, in relation to Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution, that individually or collectively, indigenous people as citizens can make use of their rights without needing to resort to the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) or be part of them, like any Costa Rican. He adds that the system of development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) was not arbitrarily imposed on the indigenous communities, but rather thanks to this system a type of organization that existed informally in all communities since before the arrival of the Spanish was formalized. He points out that the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) have a democratic composition, by virtue of which every individual over twelve years of age, man or woman, belongs to the group and elects their representatives. He considers that it does not follow from the challenged norms that every person, by the mere fact of residing in an indigenous territory and forming part of such a community, is ipso jure a member of the corresponding development association (asociación de desarrollo). Nor do they prevent an indigenous person or group of them from forming associations different from community development ones, such as cooperatives, unions, or commercial companies. He indicates that the challenged norms have done nothing other than concretize and formalize the type of organization that responds to the bases established by the legislator in the Ley Indígena, which also conforms to Convention 169 of the ILO, insofar as it materializes the State's obligation to ensure that indigenous communities adopt a legal organization in accordance with traditions. He states that incorporation into the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) is not automatic but requires an act of affiliation that can only be the result of a free decision of each of the individuals that make up the community. An indigenous person's refusal to join the association has never brought them any consequence contrary to their dignity as a human being, nor imposes an arbitrary restriction on the enjoyment of their fundamental rights. It is false, he continues, that only members of the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) have the right to housing bonds or a parcel of land; the development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo) are not the ones that deliver or build the housing, but rather said activity is carried out by state agents once the required requirements are met. He requests that the action be declared without merit.

**9.-** By resolution at nine hours forty minutes on the sixth of November, two thousand nine (folio 127), the joinder (coadyuvancia) submitted was admitted.

**10.-** The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in numbers 195, 196, and 197 of the Boletín Judicial, of the seventh, eighth, and ninth of October, two thousand nine (folio 48).

**11.-** The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, considering this resolution to be sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.

**12.-** In the proceedings, the prescriptions of law have been complied with.

Drafted by **Magistrate Mora Mora**; and, **Considerando:** **I.- On admissibility.** The action of unconstitutionality is a process with certain formalities, which must be satisfied so that the Chamber can validly hear the merits of the challenge. Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes the admissibility requirements for actions of unconstitutionality, and regulates three different situations: in the first paragraph, it requires the existence of a matter pending resolution, either in judicial sede, including writs of habeas corpus or amparo, or in the administrative sede –in the administrative exhaustion phase–, in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked as a reasonable means of protecting the right that is deemed injured in the main matter. In the second and third paragraphs, the direct action is regulated –no base matter is required–, in the following cases: a) when by the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct injury, or it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, or those that pertain to the collectivity as a whole; and b) when the action is brought by the Procurador General de la República, the Contralor General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, and the Defensor de los Habitantes.

Regarding diffuse interests, this Court has indicated that:

“Diffuse interests, although difficult to define and even more difficult to identify, cannot be in our law – as this Chamber has already stated – merely collective interests; nor so diffuse that their ownership is confused with that of the national community as a whole, nor so concrete that before them identified or easily identifiable specific persons, or personalized groups, are identified, whose standing would derive, not from diffuse interests, but from corporate interests that concern a community as a whole. They are, then, individual interests, but at the same time, diluted in more or less extensive and amorphous sets of persons who share an interest and, therefore, suffer an injury, actual or potential, more or less the same for all, which is why it is rightly said that they are equal interests of the sets that find themselves in certain circumstances and, at the same time, of each one of them. That is, diffuse interests partake of a dual nature, since they are at once collective – being common to a generality – and individual, for which reason they can be claimed in such capacity. (…) In sum, diffuse interests are those whose ownership belongs to groups of persons not formally organized, but united based on a specific social need, a physical characteristic, their ethnic origin, a specific personal or ideological orientation, the consumption of a certain product, etc.” (Judgment number 8239-01 of sixteen hours seven minutes of August fourteenth, two thousand one).

In the present case, the plaintiff pleads his standing by way of abstract constitutional review and invokes, in his condition as an indigenous person, interests that concern the indigenous community. The hearing and resolution of this action of unconstitutionality by way of abstract review is admissible, since the plaintiff holds a diffuse interest, as it involves a specific community – the indigenous community – and the alleged norms affect them in said condition.

**II.-** In the present matter, the plaintiff claims, among other challenges, that the Board of Directors of the Térraba Development Association denied his membership application; a decision confirmed by a General Assembly held irregularly. Likewise, that the Director of the National Directorate for Community Development (DINADECO), before a request for intervention in the mentioned Association, indicated that to request an accounting of funds, an annulment action, or to denounce a director, one must be a member of said Association. In this regard, this Court recalls that the object of an unconstitutionality proceeding is not to address an individual injury that the plaintiff may allege; on the contrary, its object is a general interest that the acts subject to public law and the norms that make up the legal system are in conformity with the Law of the Constitution. Said challenges do not actually have a normative character, since they do not contain provisions tending to regulate in a general manner any legal situation. On the contrary, as is evident from the filing brief itself and from one subsequently submitted by the plaintiff, some of his claims through this avenue are that the Térraba Development Association be obliged to have him as a member and that DINADECO intervene said Association; claims that involve concrete actions, which in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, do not correspond to be heard by this Jurisdiction through an action of unconstitutionality proceeding. By virtue of the foregoing and according to the provisions of Article 48 of the Political Constitution and Article 29 and following of the Law governing this Jurisdiction, said claims are properly analyzed in an amparo action. Consequently, the appropriate course is to detach the filing brief and the brief attached on folios 49 to 78 and certify them, so that they may be processed as an amparo action with respect to what corresponds to this challenge.

**III.- Object of the challenge.** The plaintiff challenges Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulations to the Indigenous Law and the Executive Decree regarding the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government for violating the right of association and the principle of equality – Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution –; as well as Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, and Articles 3 and 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He considers that said norms oblige indigenous people to form part of development associations and prevent indigenous communities from freely and democratically electing the members that represent them in the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs. In short, the plaintiff considers the figure of development associations as the organization that represents indigenous communities before CONAI to be contrary to the Law of the Constitution. The challenged norms provide the following:

Regulations to the Indigenous Law, Executive Decree number 8487-G of April twenty-sixth, nineteen seventy-eight, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 89 of May tenth, nineteen seventy-eight:

*“Article 3.-* *For the exercise of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations referred to in Article 2 of the Indigenous Law, Indigenous Communities shall adopt the organization foreseen in Law No. 3859 on the National Directorate for Community Development Associations and its Regulations.* *Article 4.-* *The Presidents of the respective Indigenous Development Associations, legally registered, and with the powers of general agents thereof, shall appear before the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, for the execution of the public deed and registration in the Public Registry, of the Reserves in the name of the respective Indigenous Communities.* *Article 5.-* *The traditional community structures referred to in Article 4 of the Law, shall operate within the respective Communities; and the Development Associations, once legally registered, shall represent said Communities judicially and extrajudicially.* *Article 6.-* *The Integral Community Development Associations shall designate Auxiliary Committees as bodies subordinate to them and with their own attributions for the fulfillment of the assigned purposes.* *Article 7.-* *In the cases referred to in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Law, or when the dispersion and remoteness of the population merits it, the traditional organization must affiliate with the Integral Development Associations, forming Specific Development Associations, for the fulfillment of the specific objectives of the Indigenous Community.* *Article 15.-* *The National Commission for Indigenous Affairs, and the Integral Development Associations or their legal representatives, shall coordinate, at the Ministerial level, and with the other autonomous entities of the State, the application of the preventive and repressive actions established by Articles 6 and 7 of the Indigenous Law, to safeguard the Archaeological, Mineral, Hydrological, and forest (flora and fauna) Heritage of all the reserves.”* Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, Executive Decree number 13568-C-G of April thirtieth, nineteen eighty-two, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 94 of May seventeenth, nineteen eighty-two:

*“Article 1.-* *The Integral Development Associations have the legal representation of the Indigenous Communities and act as their local government.* *Article 2.-* *There may only be one single Indigenous Development Association for each Indigenous Reserve. In the event that the extension of the Reserve merits it, there may be local committees and/or specific associations, for specific purposes, but these bodies remain dependent on the Integral Development Association.* *Article 3.-* *The jurisdictional limits of the Integral Development Associations of Indigenous Communities must coincide with the limits of the Reserves as they were defined by the decrees that established these Reserves. Non-Indigenous Community Development Associations may not have jurisdiction over areas located within the Indigenous Reserves; Indigenous Community Development Associations may not have jurisdiction over areas located outside the Indigenous Reserves.* *Article 4.-* *Integral Development Associations, whether indigenous or not, must adjust henceforth to the provisions established in Articles 2 and 3 of this decree, particularly regarding their jurisdictional limits.* *Article 5.-* *In the event that several Integral Development Associations currently exist within the same Indigenous Reserve, the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs (CONAI) must process before the Executive Branch a project for the division of the current reserve into a number of reserves equal to the number of existing Integral Development Associations.* *In the event that the foregoing cannot be carried out, the Development Associations must merge, in such a way that a single reserve remains, in accordance with the foregoing provisions.* *Article 6.- Effective as of its publication.”* **IV.- On the merits.** This Court has already ruled on Article 3 of the Regulations to the Indigenous Law in the following terms:

“**V.- JURISPRUDENTIAL BACKGROUND.** In vote number 5483-95, this Chamber conducted a detailed analysis of the right of association in its various aspects, in which it expressed:

*“II ).- THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION RECOGNIZED BY ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION.- As a principle thesis, the essential content of the right of association developed by Article 25 of the Constitution recognizes for every person a fundamental protection in the dual way in which such right can manifest itself, be it through the so-called positive freedom to found and participate in associations or to adhere to and belong to them, as well as in the negative exercise of the freedom, by virtue of which it is not possible to oblige any person to form part of associations or to remain in them.- This norm constitutes, in very general terms, the common law, of general application and of constitutional origin for all associations, unless, attending to special reasons and the peculiar nature of some activities, the contrary is provided by law. It must be clear, as the doctrine has sustained, that public liberties are nothing other than the constitutional recognition of personal autonomy; precisely because it is a sphere of autonomy, the faculties that integrate it can be exercised or not with identical power of self-determination. Based on these ideas, Costa Rican doctrine has considered that the characteristic notes of the right of association are the following: a) that it must arise as a free manifestation of the will of the human being and therefore a coercive association would not be a true expression of such right, but rather a true negation of it; b) that the purpose proposed is the promotion and defense of lawful common ends; c) that it has a collective character, by reason of the plurality of members that make up the association; d) that it has permanence, being a stable organization and due to the existence of a permanent bond among its members; and e) that the internal structure and functioning of the association are, permanently, grounded in the democratic promotion of its members. Article 25 of the Constitution imposes on the Legislative Power a natural and insurmountable limit of respect in its legislative function, by virtue of which the possibility for individuals to create associations with lawful private purposes cannot be restricted, a limit that could not be crossed without emptying the right itself of content; that is to say, as long as the purposes of the association are private and lawful, the activity would be outside the action of the law, given that the exercise of this right is a pure expression of the autonomous sphere of every person and thus it is protected by the explicit content provided in the second paragraph of Article 28 of the Constitution. From what has been said, it follows that Article 25 develops a genre that we could call "pure association" and that responds to the broadest constitutional recognition of personal autonomy, a reason why that freedom is exercised with power of self-determination, without forgetting that in the final part of this Article 25 it is established that no one is obligated to form part of any association. However, this genre does not exclude the legal possibility that other modalities of association may exist, and in the Political Constitution itself there are other manifestations of that right with special recognition and with distinct legal regimes, such as, for example, political parties (Article 98), employers' and workers' unions (Article 60), and cooperativism (Article 64). That is why it can be inferred that the Political Constitution has foreseen various options to express the right of association. By virtue of the aforementioned, what is appropriate is to analyze the nature of mandatory membership, to define whether the institution corresponds to "pure association" or if, on the contrary, it is a type of organization of a diverse nature, and if so, to determine to what extent it is constitutionally possible for the State to regulate those activities; whether it concerns the exercise of liberties of private interest, or if, on the contrary, the exercise of delegated public interest competencies or to exercise public functions of an administrative character; and of course, also to define the very origin of the structure of the institution of mandatory membership, confronting it with the free expression of the will to form or create an association and thus determine the legal origin of professional associations.”* **VI.- NORMATIVE ANALYSIS**. Law on Community Development No. 3859, in Chapter III *“On Community Development Associations”*, Articles 14 and 16 provide:

*“Article 14.- The constitution and functioning of Associations for Community Development are declared of public interest, as a means to stimulate populations to organize themselves to fight alongside State bodies for the economic and social development of the country.“* *Article 15 (...)* *Article 16.- To constitute Integral Development Associations, it will be necessary that at least one hundred persons, and no more than fifteen hundred, over fifteen years of age, interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and the social and cultural progress of a determined area of the country, meet. The jurisdictional area of a Development Association shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural foundation for community grouping.* *In exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of Development Associations composed of a number lower or higher than indicated above.* *In no case may Associations be created with a number of persons less than twenty-five.”* For its part, Indigenous Law No. 6172 indicates, with regard to what is of interest to the merits of the matter, the following:

*“**Article 2.-** Indigenous communities have full legal capacity to acquire rights and contract obligations of all kinds.* They are not state entities.

The reserves mentioned in article one of this law are declared the property of the indigenous communities.

The Procuraduría General de la República shall register these reserves in the Public Registry in the name of the respective indigenous communities.

The reserves shall be registered free of all encumbrances. The transfers from the State to the indigenous communities shall be free of charge, shall not pay Registry fees, and shall be exempt from any other type of tax burden in accordance with the terms established in the CONAI Law.

Article 3°- The indigenous reserves are inalienable and imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them. Non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or farms within these reserves. Indigenous persons may only negotiate their lands with other indigenous persons. Any transfer or negotiation of lands or improvements thereon in the indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null, with the legal consequences of such case. The lands and their improvements and the products of the indigenous reserves shall be exempt from all kinds of national or municipal taxes, present or future.” Regarding the establishment of a community structure, the same regulatory body states:

“Article 4°.- The reserves shall be governed by the indigenous peoples in their traditional community structures or by the laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advisory guidance of CONAI.

The population of each of the reserves constitutes a single community administered by a Directive Council representing the entire population; auxiliary committees shall depend on the principal council if the geographical extent so warrants.” Regarding indigenous property, numerals 8° and 9° provide:

“Article 8°.- ITCO, in coordination with CONAI, shall be the body responsible for carrying out the territorial demarcation of the indigenous reserves, in accordance with the legally established limits.” Article 9°.- The lands belonging to ITCO included in the demarcation of the indigenous reserves, and the Reservas de Boruca-Térraba, Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra, must be ceded by that institution to the indigenous communities.” For its part, article 3 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 848-G of April 26, 1978, which is challenged, states verbatim:

"For the exercise of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations referred to in article 2 of the Ley Indígena, the Indigenous Communities shall adopt the form of organization provided for in Law number 3859 on the Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad and its Regulations." In the petitioner's view, this last provision contradicts Constitutional numeral 25, insofar as it conditions the exercise of indigenous peoples' rights on the adoption of a Community Development Association.

VII INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ON INDIGENOUS GROUPS. In the international sphere, norms have been enacted that seek for States to establish certain mechanisms to favor the situation of indigenous groups, given the need to preserve the customs and traditions of these groups, which in some countries are clearly minorities. On this matter, the Court ruled in judgment N° 2253-96 at 3:39 p.m. on May 14, 1996, in which it stated:

“...There are various legal instruments aimed at fostering that real equality among subjects; among them can be located the particular situation of the aboriginal peoples, who have traditionally been marginalized, for historical, social, economic, and cultural reasons. They suffer the consequences of a society that does not understand or respect their differences; and that at times, tends to see them as beings incapable of directing their own lives and destinies. In light of that situation, the international community felt the need to adopt measures in favor of indigenous peoples. Thus, Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization -ILO-, called the 'Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries', incorporated into our legal system through Ley Nº 7316 of November 3, 1992, established the special protection of indigenous peoples and their culture." It is of interest, for the purposes of the merits of the action, to bear in mind that the signatory States of the aforementioned international instrument assumed commitments in the following terms:

"Article 2° 1. Governments shall have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, co-ordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity.

2. Such action shall include measures:

• a)ensuring that members of these peoples benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national legislation grants to other members of the population; b) promoting the full realisation of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions; c) assisting the members of the peoples concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may exist between indigenous members and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible with their aspirations and ways of life.

(....)

“Article 6 1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:

• a)consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly; b) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors of the population, at all levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them; c) establish means for the full development of these peoples' own institutions and initiatives, and in appropriate cases provide the resources necessary for this purpose.

2. The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures.

Article 7:

1. The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly.

2. The improvement of the conditions of life and work and levels of health and education of the peoples concerned, with their participation and co-operation, shall be a matter of priority in plans for the overall economic development of the areas they inhabit. Special projects for development of the areas in question shall also be so designed as to promote such improvement.

(3....)

4. Governments shall take measures, in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to protect and preserve the environment of the territories they inhabit.

Article 8:

1. In applying national laws and regulations to the peoples concerned, due regard shall be had to their customs or customary laws.

2. These peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, where these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system and with internationally recognised human rights. Procedures shall be established, whenever necessary, to resolve conflicts which may arise in the application of this principle.

3. The application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not prevent members of these peoples from exercising the rights granted to all citizens of the country and from assuming the corresponding duties." (The emphasis is not in the original).

As is evident from the transcribed norms, the State has the obligation to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to organize and participate in the decision-making that concerns them, as well as to constitute representative bodies and participate in the election of the persons who will occupy those positions. In article 6 of the cited Convention, the obligation of the States was established to establish the means through which the peoples concerned can participate freely and to consult the indigenous groups – through their representative institutions – whenever the issuance of legislative or administrative measures that may affect them is discussed, which does not entail, as indicated in the action, an obligation to be part of those groups; rather, it is a free decision that involves taking part in the direction of the community. The Convention expressly provides that the adoption of a particular organization does not prevent the members of said peoples from “exercising the rights granted to all citizens of the country and from assuming the corresponding duties.” VIII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER:

Once the essential elements of the right of association and the legal regime of indigenous peoples have been determined, it is appropriate to elucidate whether the obligation contained in article 3 of the Regulations to the Ley Indígena is contrary to Constitutional Law. This Court, in vote N° 5486-95, transcribed in pertinent part, indicated in Considerando V that the right of association has two aspects: the positive aspect, which refers to the freedom to found and participate in associations and to join them, and the negative aspect, which implies the prohibition of compelling a person to be a member of a particular group of a private nature, as well as to remain in it. The petitioner alleges that the negative aspect of his right has been violated, as he considers that the provision of numeral 3 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 848-G of April 26, 1978 obliges him to belong to a Community Development Association as a necessary condition for the exercise of rights and obligations; however, this Court considers that the petitioner is not correct in his argument, as will be explained below. This Court is clear that, as the petitioner points out, the Regulations establish that for the exercise of the rights and obligations established in the Ley Indígena (article 2) – basically rights and duties related to the administration of the reserve – the indigenous communities shall adopt the organization of a Community Development Association, to which, however, they are not obliged to belong. In effect, the fact of being part of an indigenous community does not automatically oblige one to belong to the Community Development Association; the bylaws of these associations regulate the modalities of affiliation and disaffiliation, information that is recorded in the corresponding Registry and can be consulted by the person who wishes to join or disaffiliate, which in no way prevents them, in the exercise of their fundamental rights, from joining another organization of their interest or exercising, in general, the rights recognized to all citizens of the country. The Regulations to the Law on Community Development Associations reinforce the foregoing by expressly stating that “no one may be compelled to form part of an association or not to form part of it and, therefore, clauses in the bylaws that establish limitations on the freedom to associate or withdraw from the organization are absolutely null...” (art. 22). As the Procuraduría General de la República rightly points out in its report, the refusal of the indigenous person to join an association of this type entails no consequences other than that of diminishing their participation in the adoption of indigenous decisions related to the administration of the indigenous reserve, over which a property right with collective traits, characteristic of their culture, is exercised. The exercise of rights – participation in the control of the collective property of the reserve – and obligations – subjection to control over the public funds destined for them – that the Regulations condition upon the integration of this type of organization, are those that arise from the Ley Indígena, which provided for the gratuitous transmission of lands that belonged to ITCO – public domain assets – to the indigenous reserves, and the Court does not find that the communal purpose of the land established by the Ley Indígena – not by the Regulations – and the limitations established therein on this type of community property – prohibition on transferring ownership or leasing – is disproportionate or unreasonable, insofar as it is viable for the State – upon adjudicating the ownership of the assets in the name of the indigenous communities free of charge – to impose certain conditions so that said communities exercise their rights over those lands; this to the extent that it is a matter of the legitimate exercise of a power of the State in its capacity as transferor of ownership. The situation would be different if the existence of private property over these lands were claimed, in which case the exercise of the attributes of ownership could not be conditioned upon joining a Community Development Association.

IX.- Furthermore, from a simple reading of the provisions of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena) that have been transcribed, it is evident that it is the Law—not the regulation—that establishes community property and organization. The second paragraph of section 2° regulates this community property by stating: "...The reserves mentioned in article one of this law are declared property of the indigenous communities...". Regarding organization, the same regulatory body establishes that "...the reserves shall be governed by the indigenous peoples in their traditional community structures or by the Laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advisory of CONAI" (emphasis not in original). However, it is the Law on Community Development (Law No. 3859) that regulates the Community Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad), and Article 3 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law being challenged has done nothing more than specify the type of organization that conforms to the bases established by the legislator in the Indigenous Law that serves as its framework, which, moreover, conforms to Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, insofar as it materializes the State's obligation to ensure that indigenous communities adopt a legal organization in accordance with their traditions, which allows them to exercise the rights and obligations that the law recognizes for them. It should not be lost sight of that the Community Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal)—more than any other legal figure—is the one that most closely resembles the community nature of the traditional indigenous organization; additionally, this type of legal structure allows this sector of the population to enjoy special benefits (Article 19 of Law 3859) that they would not enjoy with another type of legal structuring—for example, receiving services, donations, subsidies, and annual transfers of money, both from the State and its institutions—which entails, of course, the ordinary control of those public resources." (Judgment number 2002-02623 of fourteen hours forty-one minutes of March thirteenth, two thousand two). In the same vein, judgment number 2009-013994, of eleven hours and thirty-nine minutes of August twenty-eighth, two thousand nine.

V.- From the transcribed judgments and the regulatory analysis carried out, the Chamber in its jurisprudence has considered that the fact that the comprehensive development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo integral) are responsible for judicially and extrajudicially representing the indigenous communities, as representative institutions of the inhabitants of the reserves, is not contrary to the Constitution. Likewise, the challenged norms also do not prevent indigenous people from forming part of any other legal organization of their interest. Finally, it is necessary to clarify that it is the Bylaws (Estatutos) of each of the comprehensive development associations that establish the internal process in each association for designating its representative before CONAI, and not the norms challenged by the plaintiff.

VI.- Conclusion. In summary, Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law and the Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) concerning the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, are not contrary to the Constitution. On the other hand, the action must be declared inadmissible regarding the remaining challenges made by the plaintiff.

Por tanto:

The action is dismissed in relation to Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law, Executive Decree number 8487-G of April twenty-sixth, nineteen seventy-eight, and the Decree concerning the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, Executive Decree number 13568-C-G of April thirtieth, nineteen eighty-two. Detach the filing brief and the brief added to folios 49 to 78 and certify them, so that they are processed as an amparo (recurso de amparo).

Gilbert Armijo S.

Presidente a.i.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Rosa María Abdelnour G.

Jorge Araya G. José Paulino Hernández G.

Legal representation of Indigenous Communities by the Development Associations and as Local Government <br>\r\n" }, "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [] } ], "contenidosInteresOrden": "4", "despacho": "Sala Constitucional", "despachoOrden": "8", "enteSistematizador": "SALA CONSTITUCIONAL", "esCambioCriterio": "0", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "esNotaSeparada": "0", "esProtegida": "0", "esResolucionClave": "0", "esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "1", "esVotoSalvado": "0", "expediente": "090076880007CO", "fecha": "2010-11-12", "formatoDocumento": "ESCRITO", "hora": "10:10", "id": "sen-1-0007-508046", "numeroDocumento": "18714", "redactor": "Luis Paulino Mora Mora", "sentenciasRelacionadas": [ "sen-1-0007-643681", "sen-1-0007-902655", "sen-1-0034-1006112", "sen-1-0034-668952" ], "sourceName": "Documentos", "subNumeroDocumento": "1", "tipoDocumento": "SNT", "tipoInformacion": "Resolución Judicial", "tipoResolucion": "De Fondo", "tipoTexto": "1", "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [], "html": "<html xmlns:v=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml\"\r\nxmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns:m=\"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\" xml:lang=\"en\">\r\n\r\n<head>\r\n<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\">\r\n<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>\r\n<meta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 12\">\r\n<meta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 12\">\r\n<link rel=File-List href=\"AB777_archivos/filelist.xml\">\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <o:DocumentProperties>\r\n <o:Author>rbadillaa</o:Author>\r\n <o:Template>Normal</o:Template>\r\n <o:LastAuthor>rbadillaa</o:LastAuthor>\r\n <o:Revision>2</o:Revision>\r\n <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>\r\n <o:Created>2011-05-05T16:25:00Z</o:Created>\r\n <o:LastSaved>2011-05-05T16:25:00Z</o:LastSaved>\r\n <o:Pages>2</o:Pages>\r\n <o:Words>8937</o:Words>\r\n <o:Characters>49155</o:Characters>\r\n <o:Company>Poder Judicial</o:Company>\r\n <o:Lines>409</o:Lines>\r\n <o:Paragraphs>115</o:Paragraphs>\r\n <o:CharactersWithSpaces>57977</o:CharactersWithSpaces>\r\n <o:Version>12.00</o:Version>\r\n </o:DocumentProperties>\r\n</xml><![endif]-->\r\n<link rel=themeData href=\"AB777_archivos/themedata.thmx\">\r\n<link rel=colorSchemeMapping href=\"AB777_archivos/colorschememapping.xml\">\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <w:WordDocument>\r\n <w:TrackMoves/>\r\n <w:TrackFormatting/>\r\n <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>\r\n <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>\r\n <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>\r\n <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>\r\n <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>\r\n <w:DoNotPromoteQF/>\r\n <w:LidThemeOther>ES-CR</w:LidThemeOther>\r\n <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>\r\n <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>\r\n <w:Compatibility>\r\n <w:BreakWrappedTables/>\r\n <w:SnapToGridInCell/>\r\n <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>\r\n <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>\r\n <w:DontGrowAutofit/>\r\n <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>\r\n <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>\r\n <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>\r\n <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>\r\n <w:Word11KerningPairs/>\r\n <w:CachedColBalance/>\r\n </w:Compatibility>\r\n <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>\r\n <m:mathPr>\r\n <m:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"/>\r\n <m:brkBin m:val=\"before\"/>\r\n <m:brkBinSub m:val=\"--\"/>\r\n <m:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"/>\r\n <m:dispDef/>\r\n <m:lMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n <m:rMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n <m:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"/>\r\n <m:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"/>\r\n <m:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"/>\r\n <m:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"/>\r\n </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>\r\n</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\r\n DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\r\n LatentStyleCount=\"267\">\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"/>\r\n </w:LatentStyles>\r\n</xml><![endif]-->\r\n<style>\r\n<!--\r\n /* Font Definitions */\r\n @font-face\r\n\t{font-family:\"Cambria Math\";\r\n\tpanose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;\r\n\tmso-font-charset:0;\r\n\tmso-generic-font-family:roman;\r\n\tmso-font-pitch:variable;\r\n\tmso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}\r\n@font-face\r\n\t{font-family:\"WASP 39 L\";\r\n\tpanose-1:2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;\r\n\tmso-font-charset:2;\r\n\tmso-generic-font-family:auto;\r\n\tmso-font-pitch:variable;\r\n\tmso-font-signature:-2147483648 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;}\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-unhide:no;\r\n\tmso-style-qformat:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0cm;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\",\"serif\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}\r\np\r\n\t{mso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-priority:99;\r\n\tmso-margin-top-alt:auto;\r\n\tmargin-right:0cm;\r\n\tmso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;\r\n\tmargin-left:0cm;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\",\"serif\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}\r\n.MsoChpDefault\r\n\t{mso-style-type:export-only;\r\n\tmso-default-props:yes;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tmso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tmso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;\r\n\tmargin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:35.4pt;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:35.4pt;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n-->\r\n</style>\r\n<!--[if gte mso 10]>\r\n<style>\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Tabla normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-priority:99;\r\n\tmso-style-qformat:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0cm;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\",\"serif\";}\r\n</style>\r\n<![endif]-->\r\n<meta http-equiv=Content-Style-Type content=\"text/css\">\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <o:shapedefaults v:ext=\"edit\" spidmax=\"1026\"/>\r\n</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <o:shapelayout v:ext=\"edit\">\r\n <o:idmap v:ext=\"edit\" data=\"1\"/>\r\n </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->\r\n</head>\r\n\r\n<body lang=ES-CR style='tab-interval:35.4pt'>\r\n\r\n<div class=Section1>\r\n\r\n<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p align=right style='text-align:right'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;\r\nfont-family:\"WASP 39 L\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>*</span><span\r\nlang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:\"WASP 39 L\";mso-ansi-language:EN'>090076880007<span\r\nstyle='color:#010101'>CO*</span></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:4.5pt;margin-left:0cm'><b><span\r\nlang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Exp: </span></b><b><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'>09-007688-0007-CO<span style='color:#010101'>\r\n</span></span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><b><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Res. Nº\r\n2010018714</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><b><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>SALA\r\nCONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas con\r\ndiez minutos del doce de noviembre de dos mil diez.</span></b><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'>Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida\r\npor Pablo Sibas Sibas, portador de la cédula de identidad número 6-123-262,\r\ncontra los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena,\r\nnúmero 8487-G del veintiséis de abril de mil novecientos setenta y ocho&nbsp; y\r\nel Decreto Ejecutivo número 13568-C-G, del treinta de abril de mil novecientos\r\nochenta y dos, Representación Legal de las Comunidades Indígenas por las\r\nAsociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local<span style='color:#010101'>. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p align=center style='text-align:center'><b><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>Resultando:</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<div>\r\n\r\n<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:25.5pt;line-height:150%'><b><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:#010101;\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;\r\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.- </span></b><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'>Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las catorce horas con\r\ncincuenta y tres minutos del veintiuno de mayo de dos mil nueve, el accionante\r\nsolicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7\r\ny 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena y el Decreto Ejecutivo número 13568-C-G,\r\nsobre Representación Legal de las Comunidades Indígenas por las Asociaciones de\r\nDesarrollo y como Gobierno Local. Manifiesta que según el artículo 2 de la Ley\r\nNo. 5251, la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) estará conformada\r\npor un delegado de cada asociación de desarrollo que exista en las comunidades\r\nindígenas. Agrega que el artículo 4 de la Ley Indígena (Ley No. 6172) dispone\r\nque “La población de cada una de las reservas constituye una sola comunidad, administrado\r\npor un consejo directivo representante de toda la población”. Señala que el\r\nReglamento a la Ley Indígena (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 8447) establece las\r\nasociaciones de desarrollo como gobiernos locales, de manera que los no\r\nafiliados a las asociaciones, que son mayoría en las reservas, no pueden\r\nparticipar en la elección de la junta directiva, ni en la elección del delegado\r\na la CONAI. Agrega que a los indígenas nunca se les dio oportunidad de elegir\r\nla figura jurídica que querían en sus comunidades, como lo establece el\r\nConvenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) y la\r\nDeclaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas,\r\nsino que se les impuso una figura jurídica, violando así la Constitución\r\nPolítica en su artículo 25 y el artículo 16 de la Convención Americana Sobre\r\nDerechos Humanos, el artículo 3 de la Declaración de Naciones Unidas sobre los\r\nDerechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y el articulo 6 del Convenio número 169 de la\r\nOIT. Considera que al establecer que las asociaciones de desarrollo sean las\r\nque representan judicial y extrajudicialmente a las comunidades indígenas, se\r\nles impuso un sistema no tradicional, que obliga a los indígenas a asociarse\r\npara gozar de ciertos derechos que el resto de la población costarricense goza\r\nsin necesidad de hacerlo, lo que produce una desigualdad ante la ley en las\r\nreservas. Así, a quienes deseen formar parte de la CONAI, se les exige estar\r\nafiliados a una asociación de desarrollo integral, que no es democrática, pues\r\nno se le permite, por derecho natural a todos los indígenas participar en esa\r\nelección.</span> Although the law governing associations – Law No. 3859 – in its Article 24 provides that no one can be forced to join an association, in reality indigenous people who wish to fully enjoy their rights in a reserve must become members. It points out that Executive Decree 13568-C-G, in its Article 1, provides that the development associations hold the legal representation of indigenous communities and act as local governments. It considers that these provisions violate Article 33 of the Political Constitution, and Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which establish the principle of equality, because in indigenous reserves there is inequality before the law between members and non-members of the indigenous development associations. The inequality consists in that the former have the right to housing vouchers, to be granted land, to elect and be elected, and to stand for delegate to the CONAI, while non-member indigenous people do not. It adds that, together with a group of indigenous people, he requested membership in the Integrated Development Association of the Térraba Reserve (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la Reserva de Térraba), which was denied by its Board of Directors under the pretext of having obstructed its functioning and having affected the good name and development of the community. He requests: a) that Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law number 8487-G of May 10, 1978, and Executive Decree number 13568-C-G of April 30, 1982, Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by the Development Associations and as Local Government, be declared unconstitutional for being contrary to Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution; Article 4 of the Indigenous Law; Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Article 6 of the ILO Convention, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and b) that indigenous communities be allowed to freely and democratically elect the organizational structure that represents them, in which the entire indigenous population can participate, through a free election conducted by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal or supervised by the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes).

**2.-** By resolution at fifteen forty-five hours on July nine, two thousand nine (folio 37), the claimant was warned that, within three days: a) authenticate his signature on the initial brief and attach the stamp of the Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados); b) specify the prior pending matter to be resolved on which he bases the action, providing a certified copy of the brief in which he invoked the unconstitutionality of the questioned regulations in that underlying proceeding, or indicate which reasons confer standing upon him to bring the action directly, and c) submit seven sets of copies of all documentation for the Magistrates of the Chamber, one for the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República), as well as an additional set of copies for each counterparty that has appeared in the underlying matter, if any.

**3.-** In a brief filed on August three, two thousand nine (folio 40), the claimant states that there is no prior case as it concerns harm to a collective interest affecting indigenous people in an indigenous reserve who are not part of the development association in that reserve. He adds that the harm is caused by the direct application of the challenged norms. He considers that there is no judicial or administrative avenue to bring his claim, and thus there is no underlying matter. He also provided ten sets of copies of the filing brief and proceeded to authenticating his signature on the original filing brief (folio 39).

**4.-** By resolution at ten thirty hours on September seventeen, two thousand nine (folio 43), the action was granted leave to proceed, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General and the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs (Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas).

**5.-** In a brief filed on October twenty, two thousand nine (folio 49), the claimant reiterates that the compulsory nature of belonging to a development association, as well as the individual and collective representation it holds, abandons the indigenous community’s own traditional structure with its customs and violates their right to free association. He insists that the development associations are constituted by members who, in most territories, represent the minority of the indigenous population. He states that it is this minority that makes decisions regarding the entire political, economic, and cultural life of the indigenous communities. He points out that, despite being contrary to the Political Constitution and various international conventions, he requested membership from the development association of Térraba, which was denied by both the Board of Directors and by an irregular General Assembly. He adds that the resolution of the Board of Directors was issued extemporaneously, since the deadlines had expired, meaning he should have been automatically affiliated, like the other applicants. He states that on September twenty-one, two thousand nine, the National Director of the National Directorate of Community Development (Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, DINADECO) responded to his request for intervention of the Development Association of Térraba, filed on March sixteen, two thousand nine, indicating that to request an accounting, bring a nullity action, or denounce a director, one must be a member.

**6.-** By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at nineteen thirty-five hours on October twenty, two thousand nine (folio 79), Manuel Villanueva Villanueva, identity card number 6-0096-0467; Rafael Flores Reyes, identity card number 6-0216-0683; Rómulo Flores Gómez, identity card number 6-0046-0571; Fabio Flores Reyes, identity card number 6-0241-0823; Leonel Villanueva Villanueva, identity card number 6-0223-0629; Glen Villanueva Vega, identity card number 1-1421-0388; Cipriano Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0194-0462; Guido Rivera Fernández, identity card number 1-0918-0224; Marcos Rivera Fernández, identity card number 1-1144-0710; Paulino Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0175-0488; Enrique Rivera Rivera, identity card number 6-071-0255, and Antonio Nájera Rivera, identity card number 6-0160-0388, all indigenous residents of the Térraba indigenous reserve, filed a coadjuvancy (coadyuvancia). They indicate that the development association fails to fulfill its purpose of safeguarding the interests of indigenous people, and in its actions attacks and discriminates against the majority of the reserve's inhabitants who are not part of said association. They cite as examples the denial of a building permit for a church; the granting of operating permits for liquor establishments or bars within the territory of the reserve; and the illegal extraction of materials without the respective permit from the competent environmental authorities. They add that the aforementioned development association interferes with its criteria to determine whether government authorities grant or not the benefit of a family housing voucher, which limits the access of Térraba indigenous people to dignified housing and injures the right not to be discriminated against as a result of the application of white law against indigenous people. They consider that the integral association, through its actions, contravenes the Political Constitution by assuming legal powers that the unconstitutional norms assign to it.

**7.-** The Office of the Attorney General rendered its report visible on folios 102 to 120. It points out that the central theme of the discussion relates to the participation and integration of indigenous collectivities in the CONAI. It adds, regarding the standing to file the unconstitutionality action, that the action has been admitted insofar as the concurrence of a diffuse interest has been verified, as the claimant acts in defense of the interests of the indigenous collectivity. It points out that various instruments of international human rights law recognize that indigenous peoples have a fundamental right to participate in and form part of public bodies that exercise competencies in indigenous affairs. It adds that Article 6 of ILO Convention 169 ensures indigenous peoples the right to participate, under conditions of freedom, in the decisions agreed upon by administrative bodies holding competencies directly related to indigenous affairs. It states that Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to participate in decisions agreed upon by administrative bodies that hold competencies in matters directly related to the development policy of indigenous peoples. It adds that the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 3003-1992, determined that the right established in the mentioned Article 6 of ILO Convention 169 is a right to participation and also a right to protection of minorities. It indicates that constitutional jurisprudence, in judgments number 2253-96 and 3485-2003, has recognized that the right to participation grants indigenous peoples the right to have broad representation within the CONAI, which must be sufficiently broad to allow the will of the indigenous communities to determine the course of the decisions of said Commission. It states that the mentioned right to participation can be exercised through representatives of the indigenous communities, who must always be designated through an electoral process that ensures the possibility of participation for the persons who make up each indigenous community; as provided in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It considers that there is no possibility of admitting in the CONAI, or in any other administrative body with competencies over matters concerning indigenous peoples, a representation that lacks the democratic legitimacy based on an electoral process founded on the democratic principle and the principle of autonomy of indigenous peoples; a process that, according to constitutional jurisprudence, must guarantee broad and organized participation of all indigenous people of the respective community. It considers that the questioned norms, as well as Article 2 of the Law of the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs, cannot be interpreted as a means that illegitimately restricts the right to participation guaranteed in international conventions; nor do they contain any kind of unconstitutional reproach leading to their annulment. It states that, with the purpose of guaranteeing the right of indigenous peoples to participate in the decisions of the administrative body for indigenous affairs, the existence of some means must be ensured by which indigenous communities can legally represent themselves and express their collective will. Likewise, they must be provided with a means that guarantees indigenous communities enjoy a certain degree of autonomy from the central State. It indicates that the right to participation presupposes the State's obligation to provide indigenous communities with a means to exercise their representation, acquire rights, and assume obligations; ensuring them a certain degree of autonomy in the administration of local affairs and their territories; an obligation recognized in Article 2 of the Indigenous Law. It adds that the mentioned international instruments leave the State a certain power of legal configuration to establish the means through which indigenous communities can exercise their right to represent themselves. In the Costa Rican case, the Law of the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs has opted for indigenous communities to adopt the legal form of development associations to obtain legal personality. Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law establish various measures for indigenous communities to adopt the figure of a development association as a way to represent themselves legally and to exercise the administration of their local affairs. These norms, it continues, establish: a) the territorial scope of the development associations, which is identified with the territory of the indigenous communities; b) provisions aimed at preventing the intervention of non-indigenous development associations in the affairs of said communities; c) powers for the development associations to coordinate necessary measures for protecting their historical, archaeological, and natural heritage with various public institutions; and d) the guarantee that traditional organizations can continue functioning within the development association that represents the community; as well as the possibility of establishing specific development associations and auxiliary committees for the objectives of the community's development association. It points out that Articles 1, 2, and 5 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law establish that, to guarantee the integrity and unity of the local government of indigenous communities, it must be ensured that only one development association exists per indigenous community. It considers that neither Article 2 of the Law of the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs nor the infra-legal norms that develop it violate the right of indigenous persons to participate in the electoral process for designating the community's representatives. It warns that the fact that, in the Costa Rican system, a person must be a member of an indigenous development association to exercise the right to participation in local indigenous affairs is neither an unreasonable nor an illegitimate requirement. On the contrary, it continues, in order to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to administer their own affairs, the State's obligation is imposed to establish necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the intervention of non-indigenous particular persons or groups in the affairs of indigenous communities. This includes that it is also the State's duty to establish the means through which a person may and must accredit their status as indigenous to exercise the participation rights established in international conventions. In the Costa Rican case, the State has opted, as a means to guarantee the exercise of the right to participation, for the person to be enrolled as a member within an indigenous development association. It is the responsibility of that association to accredit the indigenous status of persons requesting membership. It considers that it cannot be argued, as the claimant does, that the legal system leaves unprotected those persons whose membership request has been denied, since, once the status of an indigenous person is proven, development associations do not enjoy discretionary freedom to accept or reject their membership; unless objective and serious causes exist, previously established in the association's bylaws, that justify the denial, as the Chamber established in judgment number 13994-2009. It adds that associations also do not enjoy discretionary freedom to limit the right of indigenous persons to participate in the electoral process for designating the community's representatives. In conclusion, it points out that in the Costa Rican legal system, there exist the necessary legal provisions to protect the right of indigenous persons to participate in the electoral process for designating their community's representatives; therefore, it finds no basis to declare the norms challenged here unconstitutional.

**8.-** Mr. Victor Julio Mena Mena, in his capacity as President of the Board of Directors of the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs, responds to the granted hearing on folios 121 to 126. He states, regarding Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution, that individually or collectively, indigenous people as citizens can make use of their rights without needing to resort to development associations or to be part of them, like any Costa Rican. He adds that the development association system was not arbitrarily imposed on indigenous communities, but rather that thanks to this system, a type of organization that existed informally in all communities since before the arrival of the Spanish was formalized. He points out that the development associations have a democratic composition, by virtue of which every individual over twelve years of age, man or woman, belongs to the group and elects their representatives. He considers that it cannot be inferred from the challenged regulations that every person, by the mere fact of residing in an indigenous territory and forming part of a community of that same nature, is ipso jure a member of the corresponding development association. Nor do they prevent an indigenous person or group of them from forming associations different from community development ones, such as cooperatives, unions, or commercial companies. He indicates that the challenged norms have done nothing more than concretize and formalize the type of organization that responds to the bases established by the legislator in the Indigenous Law, which is also in accordance with ILO Convention 169, as it materializes the State's obligation to ensure that indigenous communities adopt a legal organization in accordance with their traditions. He states that incorporation into the development associations is not automatic but requires an act of membership that can only be the result of a free decision by each of the individuals that make up the community. An indigenous person's refusal to join the association has never brought them any consequence contrary to their dignity as a human being, nor does it impose an arbitrary restriction on the enjoyment of their fundamental rights. It is false, he continues, that only members of the development associations have the right to housing vouchers or a plot of land; the development associations are not the ones who deliver or build the houses, but rather said activity is carried out by state agents once the required requisites are fulfilled. He requests that the action be dismissed.

**9.-** By resolution at nine forty hours on November six, two thousand nine (folio 127), the coadjuvancy filed was admitted.

**10.-** The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 195, 196, and 197 of the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial), on October seven, eight, and nine, two thousand nine (folio 48).

**11.-** The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numera1 9 ibidem, considering this resolution sufficiently founded on evident principles and norms, as well as on the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.

**12.-** In the proceedings, the prescriptions of the law have been complied with.

Written by **Magistrate Mora Mora**; and, **Considering:** **I.- On admissibility.** The unconstitutionality action is a process with certain formalities that must be satisfied so that the Chamber can validly examine the merits of the challenge. Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the admissibility prerequisites for unconstitutionality actions, and regulates three different situations: in the first paragraph, it requires the existence of a pending matter to be resolved, whether in a judicial venue, including habeas corpus or amparo remedies, or in the administrative venue – in the administrative exhaustion phase – in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked as a reasonable means of protecting the right considered harmed in the principal matter. In the second and third paragraphs, the direct action is regulated – no underlying matter is required – in the following cases: a) when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct harm, or it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, or those concerning the collectivity as a whole; and b) when the action is brought by the Attorney General, the Comptroller General, the Prosecutor General, and the Ombudsman. In relation to diffuse interests, this Tribunal has stated that:

“Diffuse interests, although difficult to define and even more difficult to identify, cannot be in our law – as this Chamber has already stated – merely collective interests; nor so diffuse that their ownership is confused with that of the national community as a whole, nor so concrete that identified or easily identifiable specific persons, or personalized groups, emerge in relation to them, whose standing would derive, not from diffuse interests, but from corporate interests concerning a community as a whole. It therefore concerns individual interests, but at the same time, diluted in more or less extensive and amorphous groups of people who share an interest and, therefore, suffer an actual or potential harm, more or less equal for all, which is why it is rightly said that they are equal interests of the groups that find themselves in certain circumstances and, at the same time, of each one of them. That is, diffuse interests share a dual nature, as they are both collective – for being common to a generality – and individual, for which they can be claimed in such character. (...) In summary, diffuse interests are those whose ownership belongs to groups of people not formally organized, but united based on a certain social need, a physical characteristic, their ethnic origin, a specific personal or ideological orientation, the consumption of a certain product, etc.” (Judgment number 8239-01 at sixteen hours seven minutes on August fourteen, two thousand one).

In the present case, the claimant bases his standing on the abstract constitutional review channel and invokes, in his capacity as an indigenous person, interests concerning the indigenous collectivity. The examination and resolution of this unconstitutionality action via abstract review is admissible, because the claimant holds a diffuse interest, given that it concerns a specific community – the indigenous community – and the alleged norms affect them in that condition.

**II.-** In the present matter, the claimant complains, among other challenges, that the Board of Directors of the Development Association of Térraba denied his membership application; a decision confirmed by an irregularly held General Assembly. Likewise, that the Director of DINADECO, faced with a request for intervention of the mentioned Association, indicated that to request an accounting, bring a nullity action, or denounce a director, one must be a member of said Association. In this regard, this Tribunal recalls that the object of an unconstitutionality proceeding is not to address an individual harm that the claimant may allege; on the contrary, its object is a general interest that acts subject to public law and the norms that make up the legal system are in conformity with Constitutional Law. Such challenges do not actually have a normative character, since they do not contain provisions tending to regulate any legal situation in a general manner.

On the contrary, as is evident from the filing brief itself and from another brief subsequently submitted by the plaintiff, some of his claims through this avenue are that the Térraba Development Association be compelled to have him as a member and that DINADECO intervene in said Association; claims that entail concrete actions, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, are not appropriate for this Jurisdiction to hear through an action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) proceeding. By virtue of the foregoing and as provided in Article 48 of the Political Constitution and Article 29 et seq. of the Law governing this Jurisdiction, such claims are properly for examination in an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo). Consequently, the proper course is to detach the filing brief and the brief added at folios 49 to 78 and certify them, so that they may be processed as an amparo appeal regarding this challenge.

III.- Subject of the challenge. The plaintiff challenges Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law and the Executive Decree concerning the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government for violating the right of association and the principle of equality - Articles 25 and 33 of the Political Constitution -; as well as Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, and Articles 3 and 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He considers that said norms force indigenous people to form part of development associations and prevent indigenous communities from freely and democratically electing the members who represent them on the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs. Ultimately, the plaintiff considers the figure of development associations as the organization that represents indigenous communities before CONAI to be contrary to Constitutional Law. The challenged norms state the following:

Regulation to the Indigenous Law, Executive Decree No. 8487-G of April twenty-sixth, nineteen seventy-eight, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 89 of May tenth, nineteen seventy-eight:

"Article 3.- For the exercise of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations referred to in Article 2 of the Indigenous Law, the Indigenous Communities shall adopt the organization provided for in Law No. 3859 on the National Directorate for Community Development Associations and its Regulation.

Article 4.- The Presidents of the respective Indigenous Development Associations, legally registered, and with the powers of general attorneys-in-fact thereof, shall appear before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, for the granting of the deed and registration in the Public Registry, of the Reserves in the name of the respective Indigenous Communities.

Article 5.- The traditional community structures referred to in Article 4 of the Law, shall operate within the respective Communities; and the Development Associations, once legally registered, shall judicially and extrajudicially represent said Communities.

Article 6.- The Comprehensive Community Development Associations shall designate the Auxiliary Committees as bodies subordinate to them and with their own attributions for the fulfillment of the assigned purposes.

Article 7.- In the cases referred to in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Law, or when the dispersion and remoteness of the population so warrant, the traditional organization must affiliate with the Comprehensive Development Associations, forming Specific Development Associations, for the fulfillment of the specific objectives of the Indigenous Community.

Article 15.- The National Commission on Indigenous Affairs, and the Comprehensive Development Associations or their legal representatives, shall coordinate, at the Ministerial level, and with other autonomous entities of the State, the application of the preventive and repressive actions established in Articles 6 and 7 of the Indigenous Law, to safeguard the Archaeological, Mineral, Hydrological and forest (flora and fauna) Heritage of all the reserves." Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, Executive Decree No. 13568-C-G of April thirtieth, nineteen eighty-two, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 94 of May seventeenth, nineteen eighty-two:

"Article 1.- The Comprehensive Development Associations have the legal representation of the Indigenous Communities and act as the local government thereof.

Article 2.- There can only be a single Indigenous Development Association for each Indigenous Reserve. In the event the size of the Reserve so warrants, there may be local committees and/or specific associations, for specific purposes, but these bodies remain dependent on the Comprehensive Development Association.

Article 3.- The jurisdictional boundaries of the Comprehensive Development Associations of the Indigenous Communities must coincide with the boundaries of the Reserves as defined by the decrees that established these Reserves. Non-Indigenous Community Development Associations cannot have jurisdiction over areas located within the Indigenous Reserves; Indigenous Community Development Associations cannot have jurisdiction over areas located outside the Indigenous Reserves.

Article 4.- Comprehensive Development Associations, whether indigenous or not, must henceforth adhere to the provisions established in Articles 2 and 3 of this decree, particularly regarding their jurisdictional boundaries.

Article 5.- In the event that several Comprehensive Development Associations currently exist in the same Indigenous Reserve, the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs (CONAI) must process before the Executive Branch a project to divide the current reserve into a number of reserves equal to the number of existing Comprehensive Development Associations. In the event the foregoing cannot be carried out, the Development Associations must merge, such that a single reserve remains, in accordance with the preceding provisions.

Article 6.- Effective upon publication." IV.- On the merits. This Court has already ruled on Article 3 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law in the following terms:

"V.- JURISPRUDENTIAL BACKGROUND. In vote number 5483-95, this Chamber conducted a detailed analysis of the right of association in its various aspects, in which it stated:

"II ).- THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION RECOGNIZED BY ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION.- As a thesis of principle, the essential content of the right of association developed by Article 25 of the Constitution recognizes for every person a fundamental protection in the dual manner in which such right can manifest itself, that is, through the so-called positive freedom to found and participate in associations or to adhere to and belong to them, as well as in the negative exercise of the freedom, by virtue of which it is not possible to compel any person to form part of associations or to remain in them.- This norm constitutes, in very general terms, the common law, of general application and of constitutional origin for all associations, unless, for special reasons and the peculiar nature of some activities, the law provides otherwise. It must be clearly understood, as doctrine has maintained, that public freedoms are nothing other than the constitutional recognition of personal autonomy; precisely because it is a sphere of autonomy, the faculties that comprise it can be exercised or not with identical power of self-determination. Based on these ideas, Costa Rican doctrine has considered that the characteristic notes of the right of association are the following: a) that it must arise as a free manifestation of the will of the human being and therefore a coercive association would not be a true expression of such right, but a true negation of it; b) that the proposed objective is the promotion and defense of lawful common purposes; c) that it has a collective character, due to the plurality of members that make up the association; d) that it has permanence, for being a stable organization and for the existence of a permanent link among its members; and e) that the internal structure and functioning of the association are, permanently, grounded in the democratic promotion of its members. Article 25 of the Constitution imposes on the Legislative Branch a natural and insurmountable limit of respect in its legislative function, by virtue of which the possibility for private individuals to create associations for lawful private purposes cannot be restricted, a boundary that could not be crossed without emptying the right itself of its content; that is, as long as the purposes of the association are private and lawful, the activity would be beyond the action of the law, given that the exercise of this right is a pure expression of the autonomous sphere of every person and is thus protected by the explicit content provided in the second paragraph of Article 28 of the Constitution. From what has been said, it follows that Article 25 develops a genus that we might call "pure association" and that corresponds to the broadest constitutional recognition of personal autonomy, which is why that freedom is exercised with the power of self-determination, without forgetting that the final part of this Article 25 establishes that no one is obliged to form part of any association. However, this genus does not exclude the legal possibility that other modalities of association exist, and in the Political Constitution itself there are other manifestations of that right with special recognition and with different legal regimes, such as, for example, political parties (Article 98), employers' and workers' unions (Article 60), and the cooperative movement (Article 64). Therefore, it can be inferred that the Political Constitution has provided several options to express the right of association. Based on the foregoing, what is appropriate is to analyze the nature of mandatory professional membership (colegiatura obligatoria), to define whether the institution corresponds to "pure association" or if, on the contrary, it is a type of organization of a different nature and, if so, to determine to what extent it is constitutionally possible for the State to regulate those activities; whether it concerns the exercise of freedoms of private interest, or if, on the contrary, the exercise of delegated public interest powers or to exercise public administrative functions; and of course, also to define the very origin of the structure of the institution of professional membership, confronting it with the free expression of will to form or create an association and thus determine the legal origin of professional colleges." VI.- NORMATIVE ANALYSIS. Law on Community Development No. 3859 in Chapter III "On Community Development Associations", Articles 14 and 16 provide:

"Article 14.- The constitution and operation of Associations for Community Development are hereby declared to be of public interest, as a means of encouraging populations to organize to fight alongside State bodies for the economic and social development of the country." Article 15 (...)

Article 16.- To constitute Comprehensive Development Associations, it shall be necessary for at least one hundred persons, and no more than one thousand five hundred, over fifteen years of age, interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and the social and cultural progress of a specific area of the country, to assemble. The jurisdictional area of a Development Association shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural foundation of community grouping. In exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of Development Associations composed of a number lower or higher than that indicated above. In no case may Associations be created with a number of persons less than twenty-five." For its part, Indigenous Law No. 6172 states, regarding what is relevant to the merits of the matter, the following:

"Article 2°.- Indigenous communities have full legal capacity to acquire rights and contract obligations of all kinds. They are not state entities. The reserves mentioned in Article one of this law are hereby declared the property of the indigenous communities. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic shall register these reserves in the Public Registry in the name of the respective indigenous communities. The reserves shall be registered free of any encumbrance. The transfers from the State to the indigenous communities shall be free of charge, shall not pay registration fees, and shall be exempt from all other types of tax burdens in accordance with the terms established in the Law of CONAI.

Article 3°- Indigenous reserves are inalienable and imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them. Non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire land or farms comprised within these reserves. Indigenous persons may only negotiate their land with other indigenous persons. Any transfer or negotiation of land or improvements thereon in the indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null, with the legal consequences of the case.

The lands and their improvements and the products of the indigenous reserves shall be exempt from all kinds of national or municipal taxes, present or future.

Regarding the establishment of a community structure, the same regulatory body states:

"Article 4.- The reserves shall be governed by the indigenous people in their traditional community structures or by the laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advisory assistance of CONAI.

The population of each of the reserves constitutes a single community administered by a Board of Directors representing the entire population; auxiliary committees shall depend on the main council if the geographic extent so warrants." Regarding indigenous property, articles 8 and 9 provide:

"Article 8.- ITCO, in coordination with CONAI, shall be the body responsible for carrying out the territorial demarcation of the indigenous reserves, in accordance with the legally established limits." "Article 9.- The lands belonging to ITCO included in the demarcation of the indigenous reserves, and the Boruca-Térraba, Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra Reserves, must be transferred by that institution to the indigenous communities." For its part, Article 3 of Executive Decree No. 848-G of April 26, 1978, which is being challenged, states verbatim:

"For the exercise of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations referred to in Article 2 of the Indigenous Law, the Indigenous Communities shall adopt the form of organization provided for in Law No. 3859 on the National Directorate of Community Development Associations and its Regulations." In the opinion of the plaintiff, this last provision is contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution, as it conditions the exercise of indigenous rights upon the adoption of a Community Development Association.

VII.LEGAL INSTRUMENTS CONCERNING INDIGENOUS GROUPS. At the international level, rules have been enacted that seek for States to establish certain mechanisms to favor the situation of indigenous groups, given the need to preserve the customs and traditions of these groups, which in some countries are clearly minorities. On this point, this Chamber ruled in judgment N° 2253-96 at 15:39 hours on May 14, 1996, in which it stated:

"...There are various legal instruments aimed at promoting real equality among subjects; among them, the particular situation of aboriginal peoples can be identified, who have traditionally been marginalized for historical, social, economic, and cultural reasons. They suffer the consequences of a society that does not understand or respect their differences, and which, on occasion, tends to view them as beings incapable of directing their own lives and destinies. Given this situation, the international community felt the need to adopt measures in favor of indigenous people. Thus, Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization -ILO-, called "Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries," incorporated into our legal system through Law No. 7316 of November 3, 1992, established the special protection of indigenous people and their culture." It is of interest, for the purposes of the merits of the action, to bear in mind that the signatory States of the aforementioned international instrument assumed commitments in the following terms:

"Article 2 1. Governments shall assume the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity.

2. This action shall include measures:

• a)ensuring that members of these peoples benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities that national legislation grants to other members of the population; b) promoting the full effectiveness of the social, economic, and cultural rights of these peoples, respecting their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions, and their institutions; c) helping members of the peoples concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may exist between indigenous members and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible with their aspirations and ways of life.

(....)

"Article 6 1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:

• a)consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly; b) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, at least to the same extent as other sectors of the population, at all levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes that concern them; c) establish means for the full development of these peoples' own institutions and initiatives, and in appropriate cases provide the resources necessary for this purpose.

2. The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent regarding the proposed measures.

Article 7:

1. The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of national and regional development plans and programmes which may affect them directly.

2. The improvement of the conditions of life and work and levels of health and education of the peoples concerned, with their participation and cooperation, shall be a priority in the overall economic development plans of the regions where they live. Special development projects for these regions shall also be designed so as to promote such improvement.

(3....)

4. Governments shall take measures, in cooperation with the peoples concerned, to protect and preserve the environment of the territories they inhabit.

Article 8:

1. In applying national laws and regulations to the peoples concerned, due account shall be taken of their customs or customary law.

2. These peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, provided these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system nor with internationally recognized human rights. Procedures shall be established, whenever necessary, to resolve conflicts which may arise in the application of this principle.

3. The application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall not prevent members of these peoples from exercising the rights recognized to all citizens of the country and from assuming the corresponding obligations." (The emphasis is not in the original).

As can be deduced from the transcribed norms, the State has the obligation to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to organize and participate in decision-making that concerns them, as well as to constitute representative bodies and participate in the election of the persons who will hold those positions. Article 6 of the cited Convention established the obligation of States to establish means through which the peoples concerned can participate freely and to consult indigenous groups—through their representative institutions—whenever the issuance of legislative or administrative measures that may affect them is being discussed, which does not, as stated in the action, imply an obligation to be part of those groups; rather, it is a free decision involving taking part in the direction of the community. The Convention expressly provides that the adoption of a specific organization does not prevent members of these peoples from "exercising the rights recognized to all citizens of the country and from assuming the corresponding obligations." VIII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER:

Once the essential elements of the right of association and the legal regime of indigenous peoples have been determined, it is necessary to elucidate whether the obligation contained in Article 3 of the Regulations to the Indigenous Law is contrary to the Constitution. This Chamber, in ruling N° 5486-95, transcribed for the relevant part, indicated in Considering Clause V that the right of association has two aspects: the positive one, which refers to the freedom to found and participate in associations and to join them, and the negative one, which implies the prohibition of compelling a person to be a member of a specific private nature group, as well as to remain in it. The appellant alleges that the negative aspect of his right has been violated, as he considers that the provision of Article 3 of Executive Decree No. 848-G of April 26, 1978, obliges him to belong to a Community Development Association as a necessary condition for the exercise of rights and obligations; however, this Chamber considers that the appellant's argument is unfounded, as will be explained below. This Chamber is clear that, as the plaintiff points out, the Regulation establishes that for the exercise of the rights and obligations established in the Indigenous Law (Article 2)—basically rights and duties related to the administration of the reserve—the indigenous communities shall adopt the organization of a Community Development Association, to which, however, it does not oblige them to belong. Indeed, being part of an indigenous community does not automatically oblige membership in the Community Development Association; the bylaws of these associations regulate the modalities of affiliation and disaffiliation, information that is recorded in the corresponding Registry and can be consulted by any person wishing to join or disaffiliate, which in no way prevents them, in the exercise of their fundamental rights, from joining another organization of their interest or from exercising, in general, the rights recognized to all citizens of the country. The Regulations to the Law of Community Development Associations reinforce the foregoing by expressly stating that "no one can be obliged to be part of an association or not to be part of it, and therefore, clauses in the bylaws that establish limitations on the freedom to associate or withdraw from the organization... are absolutely null and void" (Art. 22). As the Office of the Attorney General correctly points out in its report, the refusal of an indigenous person to join an association of this type does not bring about any further consequences than that of reducing their participation in the adoption of indigenous decisions relating to the administration of the indigenous reserve, over which a form of ownership with collective features, characteristic of their culture, is exercised. The exercise of rights—participation in the control of the collective ownership of the reserve—and obligations—subjection to control over the public funds allocated to them—that the Regulation conditions upon integration into this type of organization, are those deriving from the Indigenous Law, which provided for the free transfer of lands that belonged to ITCO—public domain property—to the indigenous reserves, and this Chamber does not find that the communal purpose of the land established by the Indigenous Law—not by the Regulation—and the limitations established therein for this type of communal property—prohibition of transfer of ownership or lease—is disproportionate or unreasonable, inasmuch as it is viable for the State—when awarding the ownership of the property in the name of the indigenous communities free of charge—to impose certain conditions for said communities to exercise their rights over those lands; this to the extent that it is a legitimate exercise of State authority in its capacity as transferor of ownership. The situation would be different if the existence of private ownership over these lands were asserted, in which case the exercise of the attributes of ownership could not be conditioned upon integration into a Community Development Association.

IX.- Furthermore, from a simple reading of the provisions of the Indigenous Law that have been transcribed, it is evident that it is the Law—not the regulation—that establishes communal ownership and organization. The second paragraph of Article 2 regulates this communal ownership by indicating: "...The reserves mentioned in Article 1 of this law are declared the property of the indigenous communities...". Regarding the organization, the same regulatory body establishes that "...the reserves shall be governed by the indigenous people in their traditional community structures or by the Laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advisory assistance of CONAI" (the emphasis is not in the original). Now, it is the Law on Community Development (No. 3859) that regulates Community Development Associations, and Article 3 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law being challenged has done nothing more than specify the type of organization that responds to the bases established by the legislator in the Indigenous Law that serves as its framework, which, moreover, conforms to Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, insofar as it materializes the State's obligation to ensure that indigenous communities adopt a legal organization in keeping with their traditions, enabling them to exercise the rights and obligations that the law recognizes for them. It should not be overlooked that Community Development Associations—more than any other legal figure—are the ones that most closely resemble the communal nature of traditional indigenous organization; additionally, this type of legal structure allows this sector of the population to enjoy special benefits (Article 19 of Law 3859) that they would not enjoy with another type of legal structuring—for example, receiving services, donations, subsidies, and annual transfers of money, both from the State and from its institutions—which entails, of course, the ordinary control of those public resources." (Judgment number 2002-02623 at fourteen forty-one hours on March thirteen, two thousand two).

In the same vein, judgment number 2009-013994, of eleven hours and thirty-nine minutes of the twenty-eighth of August of two thousand nine.

**V.-** From the transcribed judgments and the normative analysis carried out, the Chamber in its jurisprudence has considered that the fact that the integral development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo integral) are the entities responsible for representing indigenous communities judicially and extrajudicially, as representative institutions of the inhabitants of the reserves, is not contrary to Constitutional Law. Likewise, the challenged norms also do not prevent indigenous people from forming part of any other legal organization of their interest. Finally, it is necessary to clarify that it is the Bylaws of each of the integral development associations that establish the internal process in each association for designating its representative before the CONAI, and not the norms challenged by the petitioner.

**VI.- Conclusion.** Ultimately, Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena and the Decreto Ejecutivo regarding the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government are not contrary to Constitutional Law. On the other hand, the action must be declared inadmissible regarding the remaining challenges made by the petitioner.

**Por tanto:** The action is declared without merit in relation to Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15 of the Reglamento a la Ley Indígena, Decreto Ejecutivo number 8487-G of the twenty-sixth of April of nineteen seventy-eight, and the Decreto regarding the Legal Representation of Indigenous Communities by Development Associations and as Local Government, Decreto Ejecutivo number 13568-C-G of the thirtieth of April of nineteen eighty-two. Separate the filing brief and the brief added at folios 49 to 78 and have them certified, so that they may be processed as an amparo appeal.

**Gilbert Armijo S.** **Presidente a.i.** **Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.** **Fernando Castillo V. Rosa María Abdelnour G.** **Jorge Araya G. José Paulino Hernández G.**

*090076880007CO* Res. Nº 2010018714 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas con diez minutos del doce de noviembre de dos mil diez.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Pablo Sibas Sibas, portador de la cédula de identidad número 6-123-262, contra los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena, número 8487-G del veintiséis de abril de mil novecientos setenta y ocho y el Decreto Ejecutivo número 13568-C-G, del treinta de abril de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, Representación Legal de las Comunidades Indígenas por las Asociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las catorce horas con cincuenta y tres minutos del veintiuno de mayo de dos mil nueve, el accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena y el Decreto Ejecutivo número 13568-C-G, sobre Representación Legal de las Comunidades Indígenas por las Asociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local. Manifiesta que según el artículo 2 de la Ley No. 5251, la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) estará conformada por un delegado de cada asociación de desarrollo que exista en las comunidades indígenas. Agrega que el artículo 4 de la Ley Indígena (Ley No. 6172) dispone que “La población de cada una de las reservas constituye una sola comunidad, administrado por un consejo directivo representante de toda la población”. Señala que el Reglamento a la Ley Indígena (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 8447) establece las asociaciones de desarrollo como gobiernos locales, de manera que los no afiliados a las asociaciones, que son mayoría en las reservas, no pueden participar en la elección de la junta directiva, ni en la elección del delegado a la CONAI. Agrega que a los indígenas nunca se les dio oportunidad de elegir la figura jurídica que querían en sus comunidades, como lo establece el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) y la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, sino que se les impuso una figura jurídica, violando así la Constitución Política en su artículo 25 y el artículo 16 de la Convención Americana Sobre Derechos Humanos, el artículo 3 de la Declaración de Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y el articulo 6 del Convenio número 169 de la OIT. Considera que al establecer que las asociaciones de desarrollo sean las que representan judicial y extrajudicialmente a las comunidades indígenas, se les impuso un sistema no tradicional, que obliga a los indígenas a asociarse para gozar de ciertos derechos que el resto de la población costarricense goza sin necesidad de hacerlo, lo que produce una desigualdad ante la ley en las reservas. Así, a quienes deseen formar parte de la CONAI, se les exige estar afiliados a una asociación de desarrollo integral, que no es democrática, pues no se le permite, por derecho natural a todos los indígenas participar en esa elección. Si bien la ley que rige las asociaciones -Ley No. 3859-, en su artículo 24 dispone que a nadie se le puede obligar a formar parte de una asociación, en realidad los indígenas que quieran gozar plenamente de sus derechos en una reserva deben afiliarse. Señala que el Decreto Ejecutivo 13568-C-G, en su artículo 1 dispone que las asociaciones de desarrollo tienen la representación legal de las comunidades indígenas y actúan como gobiernos locales. Estima que dichas disposiciones violan el numeral 33 de la Constitución Política, y el artículo 24 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, que establecen el principio de igualdad, pues en las reservas indígenas existe desigualdad ante la ley entre afiliados y no afiliados a las asociaciones de desarrollo indígena. La desigualdad consiste en que los primeros tienen derecho a bonos de vivienda, a que se les otorgue tierra, a elegir y ser electos, y optar para delegado a la CONAI, mientras que los indígenas no afiliados no. Añade que, junto con un grupo de indígenas, solicitó la afiliación a la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la Reserva de Térraba la cual fue denegada por su Junta Directiva so pretexto de haber entrabado su funcionamiento y haber afectado el buen nombre y el desarrollo de la comunidad. Solicita: a) se declaren inconstitucionales los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena número 8487-G del 10 de mayo de 1978 y el Decreto Ejecutivo número 13568-C-G, del 30 de abril de 1982, Representación Legal de las Comunidades Indígenas por las Asociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local por ser contrarios a los artículos 25 y 33 de la Constitución Política; artículo 4 de la Ley Indígena; artículos 16 y 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; artículo 6 del Convenio de la OIT, y la Declaratoria de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, y b) se permita a las comunidades indígenas elegir libremente y democráticamente la estructura organizativa que los represente donde pueda participar toda la población indígena, a través de una elección libre por medio del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones o supervisado por la Defensoría de los Habitantes.

2.- Por resolución de las quince horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del nueve de julio de dos mil nueve (folio 37) se previno al accionante que, dentro de tercero día: a) autenticara su firma en el escrito inicial y agregue el timbre del Colegio de Abogados; b) especificara cuál es el asunto previo pendiente de resolver sobre el que basa la acción, aportando copia certificada del libelo en el que invocó la inconstitucionalidad de la normativa cuestionada en dicho proceso base, o bien señale cuáles motivos le confieren legitimación para accionar directamente, y c) presentara siete juegos de copias de toda la documentación para los Magistrados de la Sala, una para la Procuraduría General de la República, así como un juego adicional de copias por cada contraparte que se hubiere apersonado en el asunto base, si lo hubiere.

3.- En escrito presentado el tres de agosto de dos mil nueve (folio 40) el accionate manifiesta que no existe caso previo al tratarse de la lesión a un interés colectivo que afecta a los indígenas en una reserva indígena que no forman parte de la asociación de desarrollo en dicha reserva. Agrega que la lesión la produce la aplicación directa de las normas impugnadas. Estima que no existe una vía judicial o administrativa para incoar su reclamo por lo que no hay asunto base. Asimismo aportó diez juegos de copias del escrito de interposición y procedió a la autenticación de su firma en el escrito original de interposición (folio 39).

4.- Por resolución de las diez horas y treinta minutos del diecisiete de setiembre de dos mil nueve (folio 43), se le dio curso a la acción, confiriéndole audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República y a la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas.

5.- En escrito presentado el veinte de octubre de dos mil nueve (folio 49) el accionante reitera que la obligatoriedad de pertenecer a una asociación de desarrollo así como la representación individual y colectiva que ella ostenta, abandona la estructura comunitaria indígena propia con sus tradiciones y costumbres y violenta su derecho de libre asociación. Insiste en que las asociaciones de desarrollo están constituidas por asociados que en la mayoría de los territorios representan la minoría de la población indígena. Manifiesta que es esta minoría la que toma las decisiones sobre toda la vida política, económica y cultural de las comunidades indígenas. Señala que, pese a ser contrario a la Constitución Política y a distintos convenios internacionales, solicitó a la asociación de desarrollo de Térraba su afiliación, la cual denegada tanto por la Junta Directiva como por una irregular Asamblea General. Añade que la resolución de la Junta Directiva fue dictada de manera extemporánea, pues habían vencidos los plazos, por lo que se le debió afiliar automáticamente, como a los otros solicitantes. Manifiesta que el veintiuno de setiembre de dos mil nueve la Directora Nacional de Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO) respondió su solicitud de intervención de la Asociación de Desarrollo de Térraba, presentada el dieciséis de marzo de dos mil nueve, donde se le indicó que para solicitar una rendición de cuentas, accionar de nulidad o denunciar a un directivo se debe ser afiliado.

6.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las diecinueve horas treinta y cinco minutos del veinte de octubre de dos mil nueve (folio 79), Manuel Villanueva Villanueva, cédula de identidad número 6-0096-0467; Rafael Flores Reyes, cédula de identidad número 6-0216-0683; Rómulo Flores Gómez, cédula de identidad número 6-0046-0571; Fabio Flores Reyes, cédula de identidad número 6-0241-0823; Leonel Villanueva Villanueva, cédula de identidad número 6-0223-0629; Glen Villanueva Vega, cédula de identidad número 1-1421-0388; Cipriano Nájera Rivera, cédula de identidad número 6-0194-0462; Guido Rivera Fernández, cédula de identidad número 1-0918-0224; Marcos Rivera Fernández, cédula de identidad número 1-1144-0710; Paulino Nájera Rivera, cédula de identidad número 6-0175-0488; Enrique Rivera Rivera, cédula de identidad número 6-071-0255, y Antonio Nájera Rivera, cédula de identidad número 6-0160-0388, todos indígenas vecinos de la reversa indígena Térraba presentan coadyuvancia. Indican que la asociación de desarrollo incumple su finalidad de velar por la defensa de los intereses de los indígenas y en su accionar ataca y discrimina a la mayoría de pobladores de la reserva que no forman parte de dicha asociación. Señalan como ejemplos la negativa de un permiso de construcción para una iglesia; el otorgamiento de permisos de funcionamiento a expendios de licor o cantinas dentro de los territorios de la reserva, y la extracción ilegal de materiales sin contar con el permiso respectivo de las autoridades ambientales competentes. Agregan que la citada asociación de desarrollo interfiere con su criterio para que las autoridades de gobierno otorguen o no el beneficio del bono familiar lo que limita el acceso de los indígenas de Térraba a vivienda digna y lesiona el derecho a no ser discriminado como consecuencia de la aplicación de la ley blanca contra los indígenas. Estiman que la asociación integral con su actuar contraviene la Constitución Política al asumir competencias jurídicas que las normas inconstitucionales le asignan.

7.- La Procuraduría General de la República rindió su informe visible a folios 102 a 120. Señala que el tema central de la discusión se relaciona con la participación e integración de las colectividades indígenas en la CONAI. Agrega, en cuanto a la legitimación para interponer la acción de inconstitucionalidad, que la acción ha sido admitida en cuanto se ha comprobado la concurrencia de un interés difuso, pues el accionante acude en defensa de los intereses de la colectividad indígena. Señala que diversos instrumentos de derecho internacional de los derechos humanos reconocen que a los pueblos indígenas les asiste un derecho fundamental a participar e integrar los organismos públicos que ejerzan competencias en asuntos indígenas. Añade que el artículo 6 del Convenio 169 de la OIT asegura a los pueblos indígenas en derecho de participar, en condiciones de libertad, en las decisiones que acuerden los organismos administrativos titulares de competencias directamente relacionadas con asuntos indígenas. Manifiesta que el artículo 18 de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos también reconoce el derecho de los pueblos indígenas a participar en las decisiones que acuerden los organismos administrativos que sean titulares de competencias en materias directamente relacionadas con la política de desarrollo de los pueblos indígenas. Añade que la Sala Constitucional, en la sentencia número 3003-1992, determinó que el derecho establecido en el mencionado artículo 6 del Convenio 169 de la OIT es un derecho de participación y también un derecho de protección de las minorías. Indica que la jurisprudencia constitucional, sentencias números 2253-96 y 3485-2003, ha reconocido que el derecho de participación otorga a los pueblos indígenas el derecho a contar con una amplia representación dentro de la CONAI, la cual debe ser lo suficientemente amplia como para permitir que sea la voluntad de las comunidades indígenas la que determine el rumbo de las decisiones de dicha Comisión. Manifiesta que el mencionado derecho de participación puede ser ejercido a través de representantes de las comunidades indígenas, quienes deben ser siempre designados a través de un proceso electivo que asegure la posibilidad de participación a las personas que integran cada comunidad indígena; tal y como lo dispone el artículo 18 de la Declaración Universal sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Estima que no cabe la posibilidad de admitir en la CONAI, o en cualquier otro organismo administrativo con competencias sobre asuntos atinentes a los pueblos indígenas, una representación que no cuente con la legitimidad democrática que se sustenta en un proceso electivo con fundamento en el principio democrático y el principio de autonomía de los pueblos indígenas; proceso que según la jurisprudencia constitucional debe garantizar una amplia y organizada participación de todos los indígenas de la comunidad respectiva. Considera que las normas cuestionadas, así como el artículo 2 de la Ley de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, no pueden interpretarse como un medio que restrinja ilegítimamente el derecho de participación garantizado en lo convenios internacionales; ni tampoco contienen algún tipo de reproche de inconstitucionalidad que conduzca a su anulación. Manifiesta que, con el propósito de garantizar el derecho de los pueblos indígenas a participar en las decisiones del organismo administrativo de asuntos indígenas, debe asegurarse la existencia de algún medio por le cual las comunidades indígenas puedan representarse jurídicamente y expresar su voluntad colectiva. Asimismo debe dotárseles de un medio que garantice que las comunidades indígenas gocen de cierto grado de autonomía con respecto del Estado central. Indica que el derecho de participación presupone la obligación del Estado de facilitar a las comunidades indígenas de un medio para ejercer su representación, adquirir derechos y asumir obligaciones; asegurándoles un cierto grado de autonomía en la administración de los asuntos locales y sus territorios; obligación reconocida en el artículo 2 de la Ley Indígena. Añade que los instrumentos internacionales mencionados dejan al Estado un cierto poder de configuración legal para establecer los medios por los cuales las comunidades indígenas podrían ejercer su derecho a representarse. En el caso costarricense, la Ley de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas ha optado porque las comunidades indígenas adopten la forma jurídica de las asociaciones de desarrollo para obtener personería jurídica. Los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena establecen diversas medidas par que las comunidades indígenas adopten la figura de una asociación de desarrollo como forma de representarse jurídicamente y de ejercer la administración de sus asuntos locales. Dichas normas, continua, establecen: a) el ámbito territorial de las asociaciones de desarrollo el cual se identifica con el territorio de las comunidades indígenas; b) disposiciones tendientes a evitar la intervención de asociaciones de desarrollo no indígenas en los asuntos de dichas comunidades; c) potestades a las asociaciones de desarrollo para la coordinación con diversas instituciones públicas de las medidas necesarias para proteger sus patrimonio histórico, arqueológico y natural, y d) la garantía de que las organizaciones tradicionales puedan seguir funcionando dentro de la asociación de desarrollo que representa a la comunidad; así como la posibilidad de establecer asociaciones de desarrollo específico y comités auxiliares para objetivos de la asociación de desarrollo de la comunidad. Señala que los artículos 1, 2 y 5 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena establecen que para garantizar la integridad y unidad del gobierno local de las comunidades indígenas debe asegurarse que solamente exista una asociación de desarrollo por cada comunidad indígena. Considera que ni el artículo 2 de la Ley de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas ni las normas infra legales que lo desarrollan violan el derecho de las personas indígenas a participar en el proceso electivo de designación de los representantes de la comunidad. Advierte que el hecho de que, en el sistema costarricense, la persona deba estar afiliada a una asociación de desarrollo indígena para ejercer el derecho de participación en asuntos locales indígenas no es una exigencia irrazonable ni ilegítima. Por el contrario, continua, a efectos de garantizar el derecho de los pueblos indígenas a la administración de sus propios asuntos, se impone la obligación del Estado de establecer las medidas necesarias y razonables para evitar la intervención de personas o grupos particulares no indígenas en los asuntos de las comunidades indígenas. Esto comprende que sea también deber del Estado establecer los medios a través de los cuales una persona pueda y deba acreditar su condición de indígena para ejercer los derechos de participación establecido en los convenios internacionales. En el caso costarricense el Estado ha optado, como medio para garantizar el ejercicio del derecho de participación, que la persona se encuentre afiliada dentro de una asociación de desarrollo indígena. Corresponde a dicha asociación acreditar la condición de indígena de las personas que pidan su afiliación. Estima que tampoco puede argumentarse, como lo hace el accionante, que el ordenamiento desproteja a aquellas personas que habiendo solicitado la afiliación les sea negada, ya que, una vez comprobada la condición de persona indígena, las asociaciones de desarrollo no gozan de libertad discrecional para aceptar o rechazar su afiliación; a menos que concurran causas objetivas y graves establecidas previamente en el estatuto de la asociación que justifiquen la denegatoria tal y como lo dispuso la Sala en la sentencia número 13994-2009. Agrega que las asociaciones tampoco gozan de la libertad discrecional para limitar el derecho de participación de las personas indígenas en el proceso electivo de designación de los representantes de la comunidad. Como conclusión señala que en el ordenamiento costarricense existen las disposiciones jurídicas necesarias para proteger el derecho de las personas indígenas a participar en el proceso electivo de designación de los representantes de su comunidad, por lo que no encuentra fundamento para declara inconstitucionales las normas aquí impugnadas.

8.- El señor Victor Julio Mena, Mena, en su condición de Presidente de la Junta Directiva de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, contesta a folios 121 a 126 la audiencia concedida. Manifiesta, en relación con los artículos 25 y 33 de la Constitución Política, que individual o colectivamente, los indígenas como ciudadanos pueden hacer uso de sus derechos sin necesidad de recurrir a las asociaciones de desarrollo ni formar parte de las mismas, como cualquier costarricense. Agrega que el sistema de asociaciones de desarrollo no fue impuesto de manera arbitraria a las comunidades indígenas, sino que gracias a este sistema se oficializó un tipo de organización que existía de manera informal en todas las comunidades desde antes de la llegada de los españoles. Señala que las asociaciones de desarrollo tienen una composición democrática, en virtud de la cual cada individuo mayor de doce años, hombre o mujer, pertenece a la agrupación y elige a sus representantes. Estima que de la normativa impugnada no se desprende que toda persona, por el hecho de residir en un territorio indígena y formar parte de una comunidad de ese misma naturaleza, sea ipso jure miembro de la correspondiente asociación de desarrollo. Tampoco impiden a un indígena o grupo de ellos la conformación de asociaciones diferentes a las de desarrollo comunal, como cooperativas, sindicatos o sociedades comerciales. Indica que las normas impugnadas no han hecho otra cosa que concretar y oficializar el tipo de organización que responde a las bases establecidas por el legislador en la Ley Indígena, lo que se ajusta, además, al Convenio 169 de la OIT, en tanto materializa la obligación del Estado de velar porque las comunidades indígenas adopten una organización jurídica acorde a las tradiciones. Manifiesta que la incorporación a las asociaciones de desarrollo no es automática sino que requiere de un acto de afiliación que sólo puede ser el fruto de una decisión libre de cada uno de los individuos que componen la comunidad. La negativa del indígena de incorporarse en la asociación nunca le ha acarreado ninguna consecuencia contraria a su dignidad como ser humano, ni le impone una restricción arbitraria al disfrute de sus derechos fundamentales. Es falso, continua, que solo los asociados a las asociaciones de desarrollo tienen derecho a bonos de vivienda o a una parcela de tierra; las asociaciones de desarrollo no son las que entregan o construyen las viviendas sino que dicha actividad la realizan agentes estatales una vez cumplidos los requisitos exigidos. Solicita se declare sin lugar la acción 9.- Por resolución de las nueve horas cuarenta minutos del seis de noviembre de dos mil nueve (folio 127), se admitió la coadyuvancia presentada.

10.- Los edictos a que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en los números 195, 196 y 197 del Boletín Judicial, de los días siete, ocho y nueve de octubre de dos mil nueve (folio 48).

11.- Se prescinde de la vista señalada en los artículos 10 y 85 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, con base en la potestad que otorga a la Sala el numeral 9 ibídem, al estimar suficientemente fundada esta resolución en principios y normas evidentes, así como en la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal.

12.- En los procedimientos se han cumplido las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta el Magistrado Mora Mora; y,

Considerando:

I.- Sobre la admisibilidad. La acción de inconstitucionalidad es un proceso con determinadas formalidades, que deben ser satisfechas a efecto de que la Sala pueda válidamente conocer el fondo de la impugnación. En el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se establece los presupuestos de admisibilidad para las acciones de inconstitucionalidad, y se regulan tres situaciones distintas: en el párrafo primero, exige la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sea en sede judicial, incluyendo los recursos de habeas corpus o de amparo, o en la administrativa –en fase de agotamiento administrativo-, en el que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad de la norma cuestionada, como medio razonable de amparar el derecho que se considera lesionado en el asunto principal. En los párrafos segundo y tercero, se regula la acción directa -no se requiere del asunto base-, en los siguientes supuestos: a) cuando por la naturaleza del asunto no exista lesión individual y directa, o se trate de la defensa de intereses difusos, o que atañen a la colectividad en su conjunto; y b) cuando la acción sea promovida por el Procurador General de la República, el Contralor General de la República, el Fiscal General de la República y el Defensor de los Habitantes. En relación con los intereses difusos, este Tribunal ha señalado que:

“Los intereses difusos, aunque de difícil definición y más difícil identificación, no pueden ser en nuestra ley -como ya lo ha dicho esta Sala- los intereses meramente colectivos; ni tan difusos que su titularidad se confunda con la de la comunidad nacional como un todo, ni tan concretos que frente a ellos resulten identificados o fácilmente identificables personas determinadas, o grupos personalizados, cuya legitimación derivaría, no de los intereses difusos, sino de los corporativos que atañen a una comunidad en su conjunto. Se trata entonces de intereses individuales, pero a la vez, diluidos en conjuntos más o menos extensos y amorfos de personas que comparten un interés y, por ende reciben un perjuicio, actual o potencial, más o menos igual para todos, por lo que con acierto se dice que se trata de intereses iguales de los conjuntos que se encuentran en determinadas circunstancias y, a la vez, de cada una de ellas. Es decir, los intereses difusos participan de una doble naturaleza, ya que son a la vez colectivos -por ser comunes a una generalidad- e individuales, por lo que pueden ser reclamados en tal carácter. (...) En síntesis, los intereses difusos son aquellos cuya titularidad pertenece a grupos de personas no organizadas formalmente, pero unidas a partir de una determinada necesidad social, una característica física, su origen étnico, una determinada orientación personal o ideológica, el consumo de un cierto producto, etc." (Sentencia número 8239-01 de las dieciséis horas siete minutos del catorce de agosto de dos mil uno).

En el presente caso, el accionante aduce su legitimación por vía del control de constitucionalidad abstracto e invoca, en su condición de indígena, intereses que atañen a la colectividad indígena. Resulta admisible el conocimiento y resolución de la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad por vía del control abstracto, por cuanto el accionante ostenta un interés difuso, al tratarse de una comunidad específica -la indígena- y las normas alegadas les afecta en dicha condición.

II.- En el presente asunto el accionante reclama, entre otros cuestionamientos, que la Junta Directiva de la Asociación de Desarrollo de Térraba denegó su solicitud de afiliación; decisión confirmada por una Asamblea General celebrada de manera irregular. Asimismo que la Directora de la Dirección Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO), ante una solicitud de intervención de la mencionada Asociación, le indicó que para solicitar una rendición de cuentas, acción de nulidad o denunciar a un directivo se debe ser afiliado a dicha Asociación. Al respecto, este Tribunal recuerda que el objeto de un proceso de inconstitucionalidad no es atender una lesión individual que pueda alegar el actor, por el contrario, tiene como objeto un interés general de que los actos sujetos al derecho público y las normas que integran el ordenamiento jurídico, sean conformes con el Derecho de la Constitución. Dichas impugnaciones no tienen en realidad un carácter normativo, toda vez, que no contiene disposiciones tendentes a regular en forma general alguna situación jurídica. Por el contrario, como se desprende del propio escrito de interposición y de uno presentado con posterioridad por el accionante, algunas de sus pretensiones a través de esta vía son que se obligue a la Asociación de Desarrollo de Térraba a tenerlo como afiliado y que DINADECO intervenga dicha Asociación; pretensiones que comportan actuaciones concretas, que de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 73 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, no corresponde ser conocida por esta Jurisdicción a través de un proceso de acción de inconstitucionalidad. En virtud de lo anterior y según lo dispuesto en el artículo 48 de la Constitución Política y el numeral 29 y siguientes de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción, dichos reclamos son propios de analizar en un recurso de amparo. En consecuencia, lo procedente es desglosar el escrito de interposición y el escrito que corre agregado a folios 49 a 78 y certifíquense, con el fin de que sean tramitados como recurso de amparo en lo que corresponde a esta impugnación.

III.- Objeto de la impugnación. El accionante impugna los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena y el Decreto Ejecutivo relativo a la Representación Legal de Comunidades Indígenas por Asociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local al violar el derecho de asociación y el principio de igualdad -artículos 25 y 33 de la Constitución Política-; así como los artículos 16 y 23 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el artículo 6 del Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, y los artículos 3 y 32 de la Declaratoria de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas. Estima que dichas normas obligan a los indígenas a formar parte de asociaciones de desarrollo e impiden a las comunidades indígenas elegir libremente y democráticamente a los miembros que los representen en la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas. En definitiva, el accionante considera contrario al Derecho de la Constitución la figura de las asociaciones de desarrollo como aquella organización que representa a las comunidades indígenas ante la CONAI. Las normas impugnadas disponen lo siguiente:

Reglamento a la Ley Indígena, Decreto Ejecutivo número 8487-G del veintiséis de Abril de mil novecientos setenta y ocho, publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 89 del diez de mayo de mil novecientos setenta y ocho:

“Artículo 3.- Para el ejercicio de los derechos y cumplimiento de las obligaciones a que se refiere el artículo 2 de la Ley Indígena, las Comunidades Indígenas adoptarán la organización prevista en la Ley No. 3859 de la Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad y su Reglamento.

Artículo 4.- Los Presidentes de las respectivas Asociaciones de Desarrollo Indígenas, legalmente inscritas, y con las facultades de apoderados generales de las mismas, comparecerán ante la Procuraduría General de la República, para el otorgamiento de la escritura e inscripción en el Registro Público, de las Reservas a nombre de las respectivas Comunidades Indígenas.

Artículo 5.- Las Estructuras comunitarias tradicionales que se refiere el artículo 4º de la Ley, operarán en el interior de las respectivas Comunidades; y la Asociaciones de Desarrollo, una inscritas legalmente, representarán judicial y extrajudicialmente a dichas Comunidades.

Artículo 6.- Las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral de la Comunidad, designarán a los Comités Auxiliares como organismos subordinados a las mismas y con atribuciones propias para el cumplimiento de los fines asignados.

Artículo 7.- En los casos a que se refiere el articulo 4º párrafo 2 de la Ley, o cuando la dispersión y alejamiento de la población lo amerite, la organización tradicional deberá afiliarse a las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral, formando Asociaciones de Desarrollo Específico, para el cumplimiento de los objetivos específicos de la Comunidad Indígena.

Artículo 15.- La Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, y las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral o sus representantes legales, coordinarán, a nivel Ministerial, y de los otros entes autónomos del Estado, la aplicación de las acciones preventivas y represivas que establecen los artículos 6º y 7º de la Ley Indígena, para resguardar el Patrimonio Arqueológico, Mineral, Hidrológico y forestal (flora y fauna) de todas las reservas.” Representación Legal de Comunidades Indígenas por Asociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local, Decreto Ejecutivo número 13568-C-G del treinta de Abril de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 94 del diecisiete de mayo de mil novecientos ochenta y dos:

“Artículo 1.- Las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral tienen la representación legal de las Comunidades Indígenas y actúan como gobierno local de estas.

Artículo 2.- Únicamente puede existir una sola Asociación de Desarrollo Indígena para cada Reserva Indígena. En caso de que la extensión de la Reserva lo amerite, pueden existir comités locales y/o asociaciones especificas, para fines específicos, pero estos organismos quedan dependientes de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral.

Artículo 3.- Los límites de jurisdicción de las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral de las Comunidades Indígenas deben coincidir con los límites de las Reservas tal como fueron definidos por los decretos que establecieron estas Reservas. Las Asociaciones de Desarrollo de Comunidades no Indígenas no pueden tener jurisdicción sobre reas situadas dentro de las Reservas Indígenas; las Asociaciones de Desarrollo de Comunidades Indígenas no pueden tener jurisdicción sobre reas situadas fuera de las Reservas Indígenas.

Artículo 4.- Las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral sean indígenas o no, deben de ajustarse en adelante a las disposiciones establecidas en los artículos 2 y 3 del presente decreto, en particular en cuanto a sus límites de jurisdicción.

Artículo 5.- En caso de que existan actualmente varias Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral en una misma Reserva Indígena, la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) deben tramitar ante le Poder Ejecutivo un proyecto de división de la reserva actual en un número de reservas igual al número de Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral existentes.

En caso de que lo anterior no se pueda realizar, las Asociaciones de Desarrollo deben fusionarse, de tal manera que quede una sola reserva, conforme a las disposiciones anteriores.

Artículo 6.- Rige a partir de su publicación.” IV.- Sobre el fondo. Este Tribunal ya se ha pronunciado sobre el artículo 3 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena en los siguientes términos:

“V.- ANTECEDENTES JURISPRUDENCIALES.

En el voto número 5483-95 esta Sala hizo una análisis detallado sobre el derecho de asociación en sus diversas vertientes, en el que expresó:

“II ).- EL DERECHO DE ASOCIACION RECONOCIDO POR EL ARTICULO 25 CONSTITUCIONAL.- Como tesis de principio, el contenido esencial del derecho de asociación que desarrolla el artículo 25 constitucional le reconoce a toda persona una protección fundamental en la doble vía como tal derecho se puede manifestar, sea mediante la llamada libertad positiva de fundar y participar en asociaciones o de adherirse y pertenecer a ellas, así como en el ejercicio negativo de la libertad, en virtud del cual no es posible obligar a ninguna persona a formar parte de asociaciones ni a permanecer en ellas.- Esta norma constituye, en términos muy generales, el derecho común, de general aplicación y de origen constitucional de todas las asociaciones, salvo que atendiendo a razones especiales y a la peculiar naturaleza de algunas actividades, por vía de ley se disponga lo contrario. Debe tenerse en claro, como lo ha sostenido la doctrina, que las libertades públicas no son otra cosa que el reconocimiento constitucional de la autonomía personal; precisamente por ser un ámbito de autonomía, las facultades que lo integran pueden ser ejercidas o no con idéntico poder de autodeterminación. A partir de estas ideas, la doctrina costarricense ha considerado que son notas características del derecho de asociación las siguientes : a) que deba surgir como una manifestación libre de la voluntad del ser humano y por ello una asociación coactiva no sería una verdadera expresión de tal derecho, sino una verdadera negación del mismo; b) que el objeto que se propone sea la promoción y defensa de fines comunes lícitos; c) que tenga carácter colectivo, en razón de la pluralidad de miembros que componen la asociación; d) que tenga permanencia, por ser una organización estable y por la existencia de un vínculo permanente entre sus miembros; y e) que la estructura interna y el funcionamiento de la asociación estén, permanentemente, fundamentados en la promoción democrática de sus miembros. El artículo 25 constitucional le impone al Poder Legislativo un natural e insalvable límite de respeto en su función legisladora, en virtud del cual, no puede ser restringida la posibilidad de los particulares de crear asociaciones con fines privados lícitos, confín que no podría ser traspasado sin vaciar de contenido el derecho mismo; es decir, en tanto los fines de la asociación sean privados y lícitos, la actividad estaría fuera de la acción de la ley, dado que el ejercicio de este derecho es expresión pura del ámbito autonómico de toda persona y así se protege por el contenido De lo dicho se tiene que el artículo 25 desarrolla un género que podríamos llamar como "asociación pura" y que responde al más amplio reconocimiento constitucional de la autonomía personal, razón por la que esa libertad se ejerce con poder de autodeterminación, sin olvidar que en la parte final de este artículo 25 se establece que nadie está obligado a formar parte de asociación alguna. Sin embargo, este género no excluye la posibilidad jurídica de que existan otras modalidades de asociación y en la misma Constitución Política existen otras manifestaciones de ese derecho con reconocimiento especial y con regímenes jurídicos distintos, como por ejemplo, los partidos políticos (artículo 98), los sindicatos de patronos y trabajadores (artículo 60) y el cooperativismo (artículo 64). Por ello es que se puede inferir que la Constitución Política ha previsto varias opciones para expresar el derecho de asociación. En virtud de lo dicho, lo que corresponde es analizar la naturaleza de la colegiatura obligatoria, para definir si la institución corresponde a la "asociación pura" o si por el contrario, es un tipo de organización de diversa naturaleza y si así fuera, determinar en qué medida es constitucionalmente posible que el Estado pueda regular esas actividades; si se trata del ejercicio de libertades de interés privado, o si por el contrario, del ejercicio de competencias de interés público delegadas o para ejercer funciones públicas de carácter administrativo; y desde luego, también definir el origen mismo de la estructura de la institución de la colegiatura, confrontándola con la libre expresión de la voluntad para formar o crear una asociación y determinar así el origen legal de los colegios profesionales”.

VI.- ANÁLISIS NORMATIVO. La Ley Sobre El Desarrollo De La Comunidad N° 3859 en el Capítulo III “De las Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad”, artículos 14 y 16 dispone:

“Artículo 14.- Declárese de interés público la constitución y funcionamiento de Asociaciones para el Desarrollo de las Comunidades, como un medio de estimular a las poblaciones a organizarse para luchar a la par de los organismos del Estado por el desarrollo económico y social del país“ Artículo 15 (...)

Artículo 16.- Para constituir las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral será necesario que se reúnan por lo menos cien personas, y no más de mil quinientas, mayores de quince años, interesados en promover, mediante el esfuerzo conjunto y organizado, el desarrollo económico y el progreso social y cultural de un área determinada del país. El área jurisdiccional de una Asociación de Desarrollo, corresponderá a aquel territorio que constituye un fundamento natural de agrupación comunitaria.

En casos excepcionales, la Dirección podrá autorizar la existencia de asociaciones de Desarrollo integradas por un número inferior o superior al indicado anteriormente.

En ningún caso se podrán crear Asociaciones con un número de personas inferior a veinticinco”.

Por su parte, la Ley Indígena n. 6172 señala en, en lo que interesa al fondo del asunto lo siguiente:

“Artículo 2°.- Las comunidades indígenas tienen plena capacidad jurídica para adquirir derechos y contraer obligaciones de toda clase. No son entidades estatales.

Declárase propiedad de las comunidades indígenas las reservas mencionadas en el artículo primero de esta ley.

La Procuraduría General de la República inscribirá en el Registro Público esas reservas a nombre de las respectivas comunidades indígenas.

Las reservas serán inscritas libres de todo gravamen. Los traspasos del Estado a las comunidades indígenas serán gratuitos, no pagarán derechos de Registro y estarán exentos de todo otro tipo de carga impositiva conforme a los términos establecidos en la Ley de CONAI.

Artículo 3°- Las reservas indígenas son inalienables e imprescriptibles, no transferibles y exclusivas para las comunidades indígenas que las habitan. Los no indígenas no podrán alquilar, arrendar, comprar o de cualquier otra manera adquirir terrenos o fincas comprendidas dentro de estas reservas.Los indígenas solo podrán negociar sus tierras con otros indígenas. Todo traspaso o negociación de tierras o mejoras de éstas en las reservas indígenas, entre indígenas y no indígenas, es absolutamente nulo, con las consecuencias legales del caso. Las tierras y sus mejoras y los productos de las reservas indígenas estarán exentos de toda clase de impuestos nacionales o municipales, presentes o futuros” En relación con el establecimiento de una estructura comunitaria el mismo cuerpo normativo señala:

“Artículo 4°.- Las reservas serán regidas por los indígenas en sus estructuras comunitarias tradicionales o de las leyes de la República que los rijan, bajo la coordinación y asesoría de CONAI.

La población de cada una de las reservas constituye una sola comunidad administrada por un Consejo directivo representante de toda la población; del consejo principal dependerán comités auxiliares si la extensión geográfico lo amerita” Sobre los propiedad indígena los numerales 8° y 9° disponen:

“Artículo 8°.-El ITCO, en coordinación con la CONAI, será el organismo encargado de efectuar la demarcación territorial de las reservas indígenas, conforme a los límites legalmente establecidos”.

Artículo 9°.- Los terrenos pertenecientes al ITCO incluidos en la demarcación de las reservas indígenas, y las Reservas de Boruca-Térraba, Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra, deberán ser cedidos por esa institución a las comunidades indígenas” Por su parte, el artículo 3º del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 848-G de 26 de abril de 1978 que se impugna a la letra señala:

"Para el ejercicio de los derechos y cumplimiento de las obligaciones a que se refiere el artículo 2 de la Ley Indígena, las Comunidades Indígenas adoptarán la forma de organización prevista en la Ley número 3859 de la Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad y su Reglamento" En criterio del accionante esta última disposición se enfrenta al numeral 25 Constitucional, en tanto condiciona el ejercicio de los derechos de los indígenas a la adopción de una Asociación de Desarrollo Comunal.

VII INSTRUMENTOS JURÍDICOS SOBRE LOS GRUPOS INDÍGENAS. En el ámbito internacional se han dictado normas que buscan que los Estados instauren ciertos mecanismos para favorecer la situación de los grupos indígenas, habida cuenta de la necesidad de preservar las costumbres y tradiciones de estos grupos que en algunos países son claramente minoritarios. Sobre este extremo se pronunció la Sala en la sentencia N° 2253-96 de las 15:39 horas de 14 de mayo de 1996, en la que indicó:

“...Existen diversos instrumentos jurídicos tendientes a fomentar esa igualdad real entre los sujetos; entre ellos puede ubicarse la situación particular de los aborígenes, quienes tradicionalmente han sido marginados, por razones históricas, sociales, económicas y culturales. Ellos sufren las consecuencias de una sociedad que no comprende ni respeta sus diferencias; y que en ocasiones, tiende a verlos como seres incapaces de dirigir sus propias vidas y destinos. Ante esa situación, la comunidad internacional sintió la necesidad de adoptar medidas a favor de los indígenas. Así, el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo -OIT-, denominado “Convenio sobre pueblos indígenas y tribales en países independientes”, incorporado a nuestro ordenamiento jurídico mediante Ley Nº 7316 de 3 de noviembre de 1992, estableció la especial protección de los indígenas y de su cultura." Resulta de interés, a los efectos del fondo de la acción, tener presente que los Estados firmantes del referido instrumento internacional asumieron compromisos en los términos siguientes:

"Artículo 2° 1. Los gobiernos deberán asumir la responsabilidad desarrollar, con la participación de los pueblos interesados, una acción coordinada y sistemática con miras a proteger los derechos de esos pueblos y a garantizar el respeto de su integridad.

2. Esta acción deberá incluir medidas:

• a)que aseguren a los miembros de dichos pueblos gozar, en pie de igualdad, de los derechos y oportunidades de la legislación nacional otorga a los demás miembros de la población; b) que promuevan la plena efectividad de los derechos sociales, económicos y culturales de estos pueblos, respetando su identidad social y cultural, sus costumbres y tradiciones, y sus instituciones; c) que ayuden a los miembros de los pueblos interesados a eliminar las diferencias socioeconómicas que puedan existir entre los miembros indígenas y los demás miembros de la comunidad nacional, de una manera compatible con sus aspiraciones y formas de vida.

(....)

“Artículo 6 1. Al aplicar las disposiciones del presente Convenio, los gobiernos deberán:

• a)Consultar a los pueblos interesados, mediante procedimientos apropiados y en particular a través de sus instituciones representativas, cada vez que se prevean medidas legislativas o administrativas susceptibles de afectarles directamente; b) establecer los medios a través de los cuales los pueblos interesados puedan participar libremente, por lo menos en la misma medida que otros sectores de la población, y a todos los niveles en la adopción de decisiones en instituciones electivas y organismos administrativos y de otra índole responsables de políticas y programas que les conciernen; c) establecer los medios para el pleno desarrollo de las instituciones e iniciativas de esos pueblos, y en los casos apropiados proporcionar los recursos necesarios para este fin.

2. Las consultas llevadas a cabo en aplicación de este Convenio deberán efectuarse de buena fe y de una manera apropiada a las circunstancias, con la finalidad de llegar a un acuerdo o lograr el consentimiento acerca de las medidas propuestas.

Artículo 7:

1. Los pueblos interesados deberán tener el derecho a decidir sus prioridades en lo que atañe al proceso de desarrollo, en la medida en que éste afecte a sus vidas, creencias, instituciones y bienestar espiritual y a las tierras que ocupan o utilizan de alguna manera, y de controlar, en la medida de lo posible, su propio desarrollo económico, social y cultural. Además, dichos pueblos deberán participar en la formulación, aplicación y evaluación de los planes y programas de desarrollo nacional y regional susceptibles de afectarles directamente.

2. El mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida y de trabajo y de nivel de salud y educación de los pueblos interesados, con su participación y cooperación, deberá ser prioritario en los planes de desarrollo económico global de las regiones donde habitan . Los proyectos especiales de desarrollo para estas regiones deberán también elaborarse de modo que promuevan dicho mejoramiento.

(3....)

4. Los gobiernos deberán tomar medidas, en cooperación con los pueblos interesados, para proteger y preservar el medio ambiente de los territorios que habitan.

Artículo 8:

1. Al aplicar la legislación nacional a los pueblos interesados deberán tomarse debidamente en consideración sus costumbres o su derecho consuetudinario.

2. Dichos pueblos deberán tener el derecho de conservar sus costumbres e instituciones propias, siempre que éstas no sean incompatibles con los derechos fundamentales definidos por el sistema jurídico nacional ni con los derechos humanos internacionalmente reconocidos. Siempre que sea necesario, deberán establecerse procedimientos para solucionar los conflictos que puedan surgir en la aplicación de este principio.

3. La aplicación de los párrafos 1 y 2 de este artículo no deberá impedir a los miembros de dichos pueblos ejercer los derechos reconocidos a todos los ciudadanos del país y asumir las obligaciones correspondientes. (Lo resaltado no es del original).

Como se desprende de las normas transcritas, el Estado tiene la obligación de garantizar el derecho de los pueblos indígenas de organizarse y participar en la toma de decisiones que les conciernen, así como de constituir órganos de representación y participar en la elección de las personas que ocuparán esos cargos. En el artículo 6° del citado Convenio se estableció la obligación de los Estados de establecer los medios a través de los cuales los pueblos interesados puedan participar libremente y de consultar a los grupos indígenas –por medio de sus instituciones representativas- cada vez que se discuta la emisión de medidas legislativas o administrativas que puedan afectarlos, lo que no supone como se señala en la acción una obligación de formar parte de esas agrupaciones, antes bien, es una decisión libre que involucra tomar parte en el rumbo de la comunidad. De manera impide a los miembros de dichos pueblos “ejercer los derechos reconocidos a todos los ciudadanos del país y asumir las obligaciones correspondientes”.

VIII.- SOBRE EL FONDO DEL ASUNTO:

Una vez determinados los elementos esenciales del derecho de asociación y el régimen jurídico de los pueblos indígenas, corresponde dilucidar si la obligación contenida en el artículo 3° del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena es contraria al Derecho de la Constitución. Esta Sala en el voto N° 5486-95, transcrito en lo de interés, señaló en el considerando V que el derecho de asociación, tiene dos vertientes: la positiva que se refiere a la libertad de fundar y participar en asociaciones y de adherirse a ellas y, la negativa, que implica la prohibición de obligar a una persona a ser miembro de una determinada agrupación de naturaleza privada, así como de permanecer en ella. El recurrente alega vulnerada la vertiente negativa de su derecho, en tanto considera que la disposición del numeral 3 del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 848-G de 26 de abril de 1978 le obliga a pertenecer a una Asociación de Desarrollo Comunal como condición necesaria para el ejercicio de derechos y obligaciones; sin embargo, esta Sala estima que no lleva razón el recurrente en su argumentación, tal y como se expresará a continuación. Esta Sala tiene claro que tal y como lo señala el accionante, el Reglamento establece que para el ejercicio de los derechos y obligaciones establecidos en la Ley Indígena (artículo 2) -básicamente derechos y deberes relacionados con la administración de la reserva – las comunidades indígenas adoptarán la organización de una Asociación de Desarrollo Comunal, a la que, sin embargo, no los obliga a pertenecer. En efecto, el hecho de formar parte de una comunidad indígena no obliga automáticamente a pertenecer a la Asociación de Desarrollo Comunal; los estatutos de estas asociaciones regulan las modalidades de afiliación y desafiliación, información que consta en el correspondiente Registro y puede ser consultado por la persona que desee ingresar o desafiliarse, lo que de manera alguna le impide, en el ejercicio de sus derechos fundamentales, integrarse a otra organización de su interés o ejercer, en general, los derechos reconocidos a todos los ciudadanos del país. El Reglamento a la Ley de las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal refuerza lo parte de una asociación o a no formar parte de ella y por tanto, son absolutamente nulas las cláusulas del estatuto en que se establezcan limitaciones a la libertad de asociarse o retirarse de la organización...” (art. 22). Como con acierto lo señala la Procuraduría General de la República en su informe, la negativa del indígena de incorporarse en una asociación de este tipo, no le acarrea más consecuencias que la de disminuir su participación en la adopción de las decisiones indígenas relativas a la administración de la reserva indígena, sobre la cual se ejerce una propiedad con rasgos colectivos, característico de su cultura. El ejercicio de derechos – participación en el control de la propiedad colectiva de la reserva- y obligaciones – sometimiento al control sobre los fondos públicos que se les destinen- que el Reglamento condiciona a la integración de este tipo de organización, son aquellos que provienen de la Ley Indígena, que dispuso la transmisión gratuita de tierras que pertenecieron al ITCO –bienes demaniales- a la reservas indígenas y la Sala no encuentra que el destino comunal de la tierra establecido por la Ley Indígena – no por el Reglamento- y las limitaciones que allí se establecen a este tipo de propiedad comunitaria – prohibición de transmisión del dominio o arriendo - sea desproporcionado o irrazonable, en tanto resulta viable que el Estado –al adjudicar la titularidad de los bienes a nombre de las comunidades indígenas de manera gratuita- pueda imponer ciertas condiciones para que dichas comunidades ejerzan sus derechos sobre esas tierras; ello en la medida que se trata del ejercicio legítimo de una potestad del Estado en su condición de transmitente del dominio. Diversa sería la situación si se planteara la existencia de propiedad privada sobre estos terrenos, en cuyo caso no podría condicionarse el ejercicio de los atributos del dominio, a la integración de una Asociación de Desarrollo Comunal.

IX.- Por otra parte, de la simple lectura de las disposiciones de la Ley Indígena que se han transcrito, se extrae que es la Ley –no el reglamento- es la que establece la propiedad y organización comunitarias. El párrafo segundo del numeral 2° regula esa propiedad comunitaria al indicar: “...Declárase propiedad de las comunidades indígenas las reservas mencionadas en el artículo primero de esta ley..”. En cuanto a la organización el mismo cuerpo normativo establece que “...las reservas serán regidas por los indígenas en sus estructuras comunitarias tradicionales o de las Leyes de la República que los rijan, bajo la coordinación y asesoría del CONAI” (el destacado no es del original). Ahora bien, es la Ley Sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad ( N° 3859), la que regula las Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad y el artículo 3° del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena que se impugna, no ha hecho más que concretar el tipo de organización que responde a las bases establecidas por el legislador en la Ley Indígena que le sirve de marco, lo que además, se ajusta al Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, en tanto materializa la obligación del Estado de velar porque las comunidades indígenas adopten una organización jurídica acorde a sus tradiciones, que les permita el ejercicio de los derechos y obligaciones que la ley les reconoce. No debe perderse de vista que las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal –más que ninguna otra figura jurídica- es la que más se asemeja a naturaleza comunitaria de la organización tradicional indígena; adicionalmente, este tipo de estructura jurídica le permite disfrutar a este sector de la población de especiales beneficios (artículo 19 de la Ley 3859) de los que no disfrutarían con otro tipo de estructuración jurídica –verbigracia recibir servicios, donaciones, subvenciones, y transferencias anuales de dinero, tanto del Estado como de sus instituciones-, lo que conlleva, desde luego, el control ordinario de esos recursos públicos”. (Sentencia número 2002-02623 de las catorce horas cuarenta y un minutos del trece de marzo de dos mil dos). En el mismo sentido, sentencia número 2009-013994, de las once horas y treinta y nueve minutos del veintiocho de agosto del dos mil nueve.

V.- De las sentencias trascritas y del análisis normativo realizado, la Sala en su jurisprudencia ha considerado que el hecho de que sean las asociaciones de desarrollo integral las encargadas de representar judicial y extrajudicialmente a las comunidades indígenas, como instituciones representativas de los habitantes de las reservas, no es contrario al Derecho de la Constitución. Asimismo, las normas impugnadas tampoco impiden a los indígenas formar parte de cualquier otra organización jurídica de su interés. Finalmente, cabe aclarar que son los Estatutos de cada una de las asociaciones de desarrollo integral los que establecen el proceso interno en cada asociación para designar a su representante ante la CONAI y no las normas impugnadas por el accionante.

VI.- Conclusión. En definitiva, los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena y el Decreto Ejecutivo relativo a la Representación Legal de Comunidades Indígenas por Asociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local, no son contrarios al Derecho de la Constitución. Por otra parte, la acción debe ser declarada inadmisible en cuanto a las restantes impugnaciones hechas por el accionante.

Por tanto:

Se declara sin lugar la acción en relación con los artículos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 y 15 del Reglamento a la Ley Indígena, Decreto Ejecutivo número 8487-G del veintiséis de Abril de mil novecientos setenta y ocho, y el Decreto relativo a la Representación Legal de Comunidades Indígenas por Asociaciones de Desarrollo y como Gobierno Local, Decreto Ejecutivo número 13568-C-G del treinta de Abril de mil novecientos ochenta y dos. Desglósese el escrito de interposición y el escrito que corre agregado a folios 49 a 78 y certifíquense, con el fin de que sean tramitados como recurso de amparo.

Gilbert Armijo S.

Presidente a.i.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Rosa María Abdelnour G.

Jorge Araya G. José Paulino Hernández G.

2295-3712. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional