Mandatory Constitutional Review of EU-Central America Association Agreement and CITES AmendmentConsulta preceptiva sobre Acuerdo de Asociación Centroamérica-Unión Europea y Enmienda CITES

*130060080007CO* *130060080007CO* Res. No. 2013-008252 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine o'clock on the twenty-first of June of two thousand thirteen.

Mandatory constitutional review consultation submitted by the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly regarding the bill processed in legislative file No. 18.563, entitled “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983.” Recitals:

1.- By official communication received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 2:21 p.m. on May 29, 2013, the Secretariat of the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly submitted this consultation in compliance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, together with a certified copy of the legislative file.

2.- By resolution of 3:14 p.m. on May 29, 2013, the legislative file was deemed received, and this consultation was transferred, according to the corresponding assignment, to the drafting Magistrate.

3.- The legal requirements have been observed in this proceeding, and this resolution is issued within the respective legal deadline, which expires on June 29, 2013.

Drafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,

Considering:

I.- Purpose and admissibility of the consultation. This mandatory constitutional consultation is submitted by the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly in compliance with the provisions of Articles 10, subsection b), of the Political Constitution and 96, subsection a), of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. It refers to the bill entitled “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983,” which is being processed under legislative file No. 18.563. This is a bill for the approval of two international instruments and other provisions, which has already been submitted to a vote in the first debate in Plenary Session No. 12 of May 21, 2013 (see folios 12,155 and 12,387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

II.- General aspects of bill No. 18.563 “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983.” According to the statement of purposes of the legislative file under review, this bill aims to approve 5 different articles. The first provision itself establishes the approval of the Association Agreement between Central America and the European Union. This Association Agreement, in turn, is structured into 5 main parts, as will be explained: the first and last parts contain traditional provisions of Treaty Law. For example, Part I “General and Institutional Provisions” (Articles 1 through 11) sets forth the principles, objectives, and scope of application of the Agreement, as well as the institutional framework for its implementation. Part V “Final Provisions” (Articles 352 through 363) establishes the rules regarding entry into force, duration, new accessions, contents forming part of the treaty (appendices, notes, joint declarations, and annexes), the impossibility of applying reservations or unilateral declarations, and authentic texts. Part II of the Agreement (Articles 12 through 23) is dedicated to “Political Dialogue” and replaces the former “Agreement on Political Dialogue and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, of the other part,” signed in the city of Rome on December 15, 2003, and ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 8919 of December 16, 2010. This part of the Agreement aims to create a privileged political association between both regions (Central America and the European Union) based on common values and interests. Part III (Articles 24 through 76) is dedicated to “Cooperation,” mainly aimed at enabling certain cooperation mechanisms necessary within the areas of interest identified by mutual agreement between the Parties. Finally, Part IV, entitled “Trade” (Articles 77 through 351), contains elements typical of a free trade agreement, which, in 21 titles, regulates components such as “trade in goods” (GATT), “trade in services” (GATS), “investment” (current payments and capital movements -TRIMs-), “intellectual property” (TRIPs), and “dispute settlement” (DSU). This Part IV also includes aspects related to the interregional nature of the Agreement and other topics such as the title on Trade and Sustainable Development, the one on Trade and Competition, and the annexed Protocol on Cultural Cooperation.

The second article of the bill submitted for consultation provides for the approval of an Amendment to the “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,” as its ratification has been part of the political negotiation with the European Union. Costa Rica is already a Party to said Convention, and the Amendment is intended to allow the participation of regional blocs or supranational organizations (such as the EU) in said Convention, and not only States in their individual conception.

Articles three and four of the bill expressly create a Council of Land Border Crossings (Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres) and provide it with the necessary financial resources, for which purpose an exit tax at land ports and a tax on each customs export declaration (also at land border crossings) are created.

Finally, the fifth provision decides to assign the Ministry of Foreign Trade the representation of the country before the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

III.- Preliminary considerations. First, it is necessary to recall the necessary distinction that must be made in this type of matter between the aspects of political, economic, and social opportunity or convenience, on the one hand, and the questions of constitutionality of these international instruments, on the other. In ruling number 2007-09469 of 10:00 a.m. on July 3, 2007, it was stated: “(…) this Constitutional Court, by virtue of the constitutional and legal powers conferred upon it, which are summarized in the purpose or objective of guaranteeing the supremacy of the Constitution (Article 10 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), does not have jurisdiction to weigh the opportunity, convenience, or merit of a Free Trade Agreement. The constitutional bodies responsible for the political or governmental direction and the responsibility of designing and implementing the main public social and economic policies are the primary ones called upon to carry out that assessment. Thus, the Executive Branch in the strict sense - the President and the Minister of the sector -, prior to exercising the power contained in Article 140, subsection 10), of the Constitution to conclude public agreements and treaties, is the one that must carry out this analysis. Likewise, the Legislative Assembly, in the exercise of legislative power - which resides in the people and is delegated to it through suffrage, Article 105, paragraph 1, of the Constitution - is a body called upon, before exercising its competence under Article 121, subsection 4), to approve or reject public agreements or treaties, to assess the social, economic, and political opportunity and convenience of an instrument of that nature (…)

In summary, this Constitutional Court is solely and exclusively responsible, in light of the text of the Treaty signed by the Executive Branch, for determining whether there is any rule or provision that violates the Law of the Constitution, understanding by such the constitutional principles, values, precepts, and jurisprudence. This Court is constitutionally disqualified and prevented, by the very distribution of competencies and organization established by the Political Constitution, from determining whether an international instrument is socially, economically, and politically convenient and opportune for the country, since the purpose of constitutional jurisdiction, as established by Article 1 of the law that regulates it, is ‘(…) to guarantee the supremacy of constitutional norms and principles and of International or Community Law in force in the Republic, their uniform interpretation and application, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution or in international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica’ (…) Therefore, in response to the consultations presented, only those aspects that may in some way raise doubts of constitutionality will be analyzed, making it clear that everything related to the convenience or otherwise of the approval, as well as the economic aspects surrounding the Treaty, are not matters that can be discussed through this channel. On this point, this Chamber has already ruled on the occasion of the approval of the Free Trade Agreement signed with Mexico (…)” (the underlining does not correspond to the original).

The ruling cited above is fully applicable to this case, in which no pronouncement can be issued beyond the control of constitutionality, without intervening in aspects specific to political opportunity.

Having clarified this point, the first thing to do, for the purpose of addressing this consultation, is to verify the legislative procedures followed in the sub lite matter, in accordance with what Article 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction indicates, by providing that the consultation must be made after the bill has been approved in the first debate and before final approval, and that, when addressing it, the Chamber shall rule on any aspects or reasons it deems relevant from a constitutional point of view, but in a binding manner only regarding procedural steps (Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction). For the above purposes, the following recital provides a chronological summary of the legislative processing of the bill under consultation.

IV.- The processing of file No. 18.563 in the Legislative Assembly. The bill entitled “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983,” processed in legislative file No. 18.563, has followed the following iter:

• 1)On June 29, 2012, the Minister of Foreign Trade, Anabel González Campabadal, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enrique Castillo Barrantes, signed the “Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other” (see folios 453 and 454 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 2)On September 6, 2012, the Minister of the Presidency, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, sent to the Legislative Assembly the bill entitled “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983,” for the formal procedure to be given (see folio 1 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 3)On September 6, 2012, the bill “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983,” file No. 18.563, was referred to the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade (see folio 4,990 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 4)On October 9, 2012, a certified copy of file No. 18.563 was sent to the Department of Studies, References, and Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly for the corresponding action (see folio 4,991 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 5)On November 13, 2012, the Director of the Department of Archives, Research, and Processing of the Legislative Assembly sent the bill in question to the Imprenta Nacional for its publication (see folio 4,992 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 6)On November 14, 2012, in Supplement No. 180 of the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 220, the bill “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983,” file No. 18.563, was published (see http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-1_14_11_2012.pdf, consulted on May 31, 2013).
• 7)On November 21, 2012, several Deputies of the Legislative Assembly presented a motion (to which number 3 – 19 was assigned) to send legislative file No. 18.563 for consultation to the following institutions: all municipalities and District Municipal Councils, all autonomous institutions, University of Costa Rica, National University, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, State Distance University, National Technical University, National Council of Rectors, CONESUP, Supreme Court of Justice, Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Office of the Ombudsman, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ministry of Governance, Police and Public Security, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Ministry of Health, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Justice and Peace, Ministry of Labor and Social Security, General Directorate of Migration and Immigration, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, National Horticultural Corporation, National Banana Corporation, ICE Group, Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, National Animal Health Service, State Plant Health Service, Integral Agricultural Marketing Program, General Directorate of Customs, Regulatory Authority for Public Services, Superintendency of Telecommunications, Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery S.A., National Council of Concessions, all Professional Associations, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector, Chamber of Exporters of Costa Rica, Chamber of Industries, Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of the Food Industry, Chamber of Information and Communication Technologies, CRECEX, Livestock Corporation, Chamber of Poultry Farmers, Chamber of Pig Farmers (see folios 4,996 and 4,997 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 8)On November 22, 2012, at ordinary session No. 19 of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the aforementioned motion was approved (see folio 4,997 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 9)On November 21, 2012, several Deputies of the Legislative Assembly presented a motion (to which number 4–19 was assigned) to summon officials and representatives of the following institutions to a hearing: Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, National Chamber of Pig Farmers, Chamber of Exporters of Costa Rica, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Chamber of the Food Industry, National Chamber of Poultry Farmers, and Livestock Corporation (see folio 1068 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 10)On November 22, 2012, at ordinary session No. 19 of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, said motion was approved (see folio 4,998 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 11)On November 29, 2012, the Minister of the Presidency notified the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly that through Executive Decree No. 37.411-MP, the Executive Branch had convened extraordinary sessions as of the date indicated in the Decree; among the projects included was file No. 18.563 (see folio 5,402 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 12)The Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade received a response from the following consultees: Municipality of Bagaces, Municipality of Belén, Municipal Council of Lepanto, CONESUP, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, General Directorate of Migration and Immigration, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, Costa Rican Electricity Institute, General Directorate of Customs, Regulatory Authority for Public Services, Superintendency of Telecommunications, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Costa Rican Chamber of the Food Industry, National Bank of Costa Rica, National Production Council, Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, Institute of Municipal Promotion and Advisory Services, National Institute of Women, National Insurance Institute, Social Protection Board of San José, National Child Welfare Agency (see folios 5,804 through 5,817 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 13)The Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade received in hearing: National Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, CADEXCO, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Chamber of the Food Industry, Livestock Corporation, National Chamber of Poultry Farmers (see folios 5,817 through 5,832 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 14)On December 17, 2012, the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly delivered the legal report related to the bill processed under legislative file No. 18.563 (see folio 5,689 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 15)On December 17, 2012, through official communication number DM-00743-12, the Minister of Foreign Trade submitted to the President of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade several diplomatic notes referring to specific formal errors that were detected in the texts of the Agreement related to the other Central American countries (excepting the case of Costa Rica); in addition, she clarifies that such formal corrections do not modify the rights and obligations assumed by our country and the European Union (see folio 5,743 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 16)On December 18, 2012, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade issued a unanimous affirmative report on the bill entitled “Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983,” legislative file No. 18.563 (see folio 5,792 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 17)On January 21, 2013, the unanimous affirmative report of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade was delivered to the Legislative Plenary (see folio 10,836 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 18)On February 5, 2013, in session No. 127, the Legislative Plenary began the discussion on the merits of file No. 18.563; however, it had motions filed via Article 137 that were referred to the Reporting Commission (see folio 10,910 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 19)On February 7, 2013, in ordinary session No. 29 of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the motions filed were discussed and were finally rejected (see folio 10,932 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 20)On February 7, 2013, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered to the Legislative Board of Directors the first report on the referred motions (see folio 10,930 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 21)On February 7, 2013, in session No. 129, the Legislative Plenary continued the discussion on the merits; however, new motions were filed via Article 137 and referred to the Reporting Commission (see folio 11,007 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 22)On February 11, 2013, in extraordinary session No. 31, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade discussed the motions filed and, finally, rejected them (see folio 11,020 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 23)On February 12, 2013, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the second report on motions referred by the Legislative Plenary (see folio 11,018 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 24)On February 12, 2013, in plenary session No. 131, the Legislative Plenary continued the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18.563; however, it had new motions filed that were referred to the Reporting Commission (see folio 11,043 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 25)On February 13, 2013, in ordinary session No. 33 of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the motions filed were discussed and were finally rejected (see folio 11,061 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 26)On February 14, 2013, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered to the Legislative Board of Directors the third report on the referred motions (see folio 11,059 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 27)On February 19, 2013, in session No. 134, the Legislative Plenary continued the discussion on the merits; however, new motions were filed and referred to the Reporting Commission (see folio 11,081 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 28)On February 20, 2013, in extraordinary session No. 35, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade discussed the motions filed and, finally, rejected them (see folio 11,117 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 29)On February 21, 2013, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the fourth report on motions referred by the Legislative Plenary (see folio 11,115 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 30)On February 28, 2013, in plenary session No. 140, the Legislative Plenary continued the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18.563, with the fourth report on motions via Article 137 (see folio 11,267 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).
• 31)On March 4, 2013, in plenary session No. 141, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563, and the first session for the presentation of reiteration motions (mociones de reiteración) was counted (see folio 11,274 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 32)On March 5, 2013, in plenary session No. 142, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563, and the second session for the presentation of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,280 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 33)On March 7, 2013, in plenary session No. 144, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563, and the third session for the presentation of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,286 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 34)On March 11, 2013, the Minister of the Presidency notified the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that, through Executive Decree No. 37,585-MP, the Executive Branch had withdrawn several legislative files from consideration in extraordinary sessions, including file No. 18,563 (see folio 11,292 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 35)On March 11, 2013, the Minister of the Presidency notified the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that, through Executive Decree No. 37,586-MP, the Executive Branch had expanded the call to extraordinary sessions as of the date indicated in the Decree; among the projects included was file No. 18,563 (see folio 11,294 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 36)On March 18, 2013, in plenary session No. 149, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 3 motions were rejected, the first via Article 154, the second via Article 155, and the third via Article 153; this last one was subject to a motion for review (moción de revisión) that was also rejected, among other rejected motions (see folio 11,320 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 37)On March 19, 2013, in plenary session No. 150, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 1 motion for review regarding a motion via Article 153 was rejected; additionally, a motion via Article 153 was rejected, and a review of that motion was rejected, among other rejected motions (see folio 11,400 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 38)On March 21, 2013, in plenary session No. 152, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 2 motions were rejected, one for consultation (consulta) and another via Article 155; subsequently, 1 consultation motion and another via Article 153 were rejected (see folio 11,481 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 39)On April 1, 2013, in plenary session No. 153, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 7 procedural motions (mociones de orden) via Article 153 were rejected, and 6 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were also rejected (see folio 11,506 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 40)On April 2, 2013, in plenary session No. 154, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 2 procedural motions via Article 153 were rejected, and 2 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were also rejected, among other various proceedings related to motions (see folio 11,608 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 41)On April 4, 2013, in plenary session No. 156, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 1 procedural motion via Article 153 was rejected; likewise, 1 motion for review of the aforementioned motion was rejected (see folio 11,707 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 42)On April 8, 2013, in plenary session No. 157, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 7 reiteration motions were rejected; also, 8 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,731 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 43)On April 9, 2013, in plenary session No. 158, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 4 reiteration motions were rejected; in addition, 4 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,860 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 44)On April 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 161, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 1 postponement motion (moción de posposición) was rejected; then, 1 motion for review was approved, whereby the postponement motion was approved (see folio 11,985 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 45)On April 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 161, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; a motion was approved to alter the order of the day for the Plenary sessions, so that in the second part of the session, file No. 18,563 would occupy the first place of the First Debates (see folios 11,998 and 11,999 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 46)On May 1, 2013, Deputy María Jeanette Ruiz Delgado requested that the bill be placed on the dispatch list (see folio 12,009 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 47)On May 6, 2013, Deputy Edgardo Araya Pineda requested that the bill be placed on the dispatch list (see folio 12,010 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 48)On May 9, 2013, Deputy Edgardo Araya Pineda again requested that the bill be placed on the dispatch list (see folio 12,011 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 49)On May 9, 2013, in plenary session No. 6, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; a postponement motion was approved to postpone the consideration of file 18,563, which is in the first place of First Debates, and to consider the rest of the Order of the Day in its subsequent order (see folio 12,012 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 50)On May 13, 2013, in plenary session No. 7, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 1 motion for review of a reiteration motion was rejected, and reiteration motion number 14-1 and its respective review were also rejected (see folio 12,020 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 51)On May 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 10, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; additionally, the motion for review of reiteration motion number 25 was announced (see folio 12,058 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 52)On May 14, 2013, in plenary session No. 8, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of bill No. 18,563; 6 reiteration motions were rejected, and 6 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were also rejected; subsequently, 4 reiteration motions were withdrawn (see folio 12,066 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 53)On May 21, 2013, in plenary session No. 12, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of the bill "Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983", file No. 18,563, which was voted on in first debate with thirty-seven Deputies in favor and four against (see folio 12,387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 54)On May 24, 2013, the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting (Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción) received file No. 18,563 from the Directorate Secretariat to continue with the respective procedure (see folio 12,390 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 55)On May 28, 2013, the Department of Technical Services presented a Report for the Special Committee on Drafting, with some observations for legislative file No. 18,563 (see folio 12,399 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 56)On May 28, 2013, in ordinary session No. 1, the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting discussed matters relating to bill No. 18,563 and approved its final text (see folios 12,403 and 12,430 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 57)On May 28, 2013, the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting delivered the Final Text of file No. 18,563 to the Directorate Secretariat (see folio 12,441 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).

V.- Regarding the legislative procedure in the specific case. In accordance with the provisions of Article 98 of the law governing this Jurisdiction, this Court reviewed the legislative procedure for the processing of the bill entitled "Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983". This Agreement was signed by the Minister of Foreign Trade, Anabel González Campabadal, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enrique Castillo Barrantes. The former was empowered to proceed in such a manner, by virtue of the provisions of Article 2, subsections b) and d), of Law No. 7638 of October 30, 1996, which created the Ministry of Foreign Trade and the Foreign Trade Promoter, and as indicated by the Constitutional Court in ruling number 8190-2002 of 11:12 a.m. on August 23, 2002:

"(…) IV.- Signing of the Treaty. This Chamber considers that the signing of the Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica and Canada by the Minister of Foreign Trade, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic, is not contrary to Constitutional Law. From the reading of Article 140, subsection 10), it follows that the signing of international treaties is a power of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the Minister of the relevant field. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties itself, approved by Law number 7615 of July twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-six, provides in its Article 7, as relevant:

"ARTICLE 7.- Full powers. 1. For the adoption or authentication of the text of a treaty or for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, a person is considered as representing a State: (a) If he produces appropriate full powers; or (b) If it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers. (...)" In the present case, we are dealing with the situation described in subsection b) of paragraph 2 transcribed above, when referring to "other circumstances" that demonstrate the State's will to be represented by a specific official. This is because Law number 7638 of October thirty, nineteen ninety-six gives the Minister of Foreign Trade sufficient competence to negotiate and sign, without the concurrence of the person exercising the Presidency of the Republic, agreements such as the one brought for consultation, even without a full powers letter. In the relevant part, Article 2 states: "ARTICLE 2.- Powers The powers of the Ministry of Foreign Trade shall be: (...) b) To direct bilateral and multilateral trade and investment negotiations, including matters related to Central America, and to sign treaties and agreements on these matters. By agreement, the Executive Branch may authorize that treaties and agreements, as well as their amendments, be signed by the heads of other ministries or public entities of the State that have specific legal competence on the subject matter of the treaty or agreement. (...)

• d)To represent the country at the World Trade Organization and at other international trade forums where treaties, agreements, and, in general, trade and investment issues are discussed. (...)" Furthermore, in ruling number 6224-94, of nine o'clock on November eleventh, nineteen ninety-four, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participates with his will in subsequent procedural stages—sanction and deposit of the Treaty—allows any defect that existed in the effective representation held by the Minister to be remedied. To this, we can add that the President has two other opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the bill: at the time of its presentation to the Legislative Assembly and in the call to extraordinary sessions, moments at which he could assert his constitutional powers. If in this case it was the Minister of Foreign Trade who signed the agreement whose approval is being discussed, this does not imply any defect of unconstitutionality (…)" (emphasis not in original).

As for the second official (the Minister of Foreign Affairs), the Chamber considers that he was also empowered to proceed with the signing of the Association Agreement under analysis. In this regard, this Constitutional Court has admitted the legitimacy of the approval procedure for an international treaty or agreement when it is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic, even when he lacks a letter expressly granting him full powers to do so. Thus, in consultative opinion number 2000-08974 of 9:01 a.m. on October 13, 2000, this Chamber resolved the following:

"(...) In this respect, the only potentially controversial point would be the fact that the Agreement was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic. From the reading of Article 140, subsection 10), it follows that the signing of international treaties is a power of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the Minister of the relevant field. However, this Chamber has recognized the possibility that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, in his capacity as a collaborator of the President in matters of international relations, may sign international treaties even without having a letter that expressly grants him full powers to do so. In rulings number 06224-94, of nine o'clock on November eleventh, nineteen ninety-four, and 06725-99 of fifteen hours and nine minutes on September first, nineteen ninety-nine, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participated with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction and deposit of the treaty, allows any defect that existed in the effective representation held by the Chancellor to be remedied. To this, we can add that the President has two other opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the bill: at the time of its presentation to the Legislative Assembly and in the call to extraordinary sessions, moments at which he could assert his constitutional powers. If in this case it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship who signed the agreement whose approval is being discussed, this does not imply the unconstitutionality of the legislative procedure followed up to now. Not having found in this Chamber the presence of unconstitutional procedures in the bill under consultation, it is now appropriate to address the merits of the initiative under consultation (...)" (the underlining does not correspond to the original).

Subsequently, the text of the bill was referred to the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, and the respective unanimous affirmative report was issued. Likewise, as can be verified from the examination of the legislative file, the referred bill was sent for consultation to the following institutions: all municipalities and District Municipal Councils, all autonomous institutions, University of Costa Rica, National University, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, State Distance University, National Technical University, National Council of Rectors, CONESUP, Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General's Office, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Office of the Ombudsperson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ministry of the Interior, Police and Public Security, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Ministry of Health, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Justice and Peace, Ministry of Labor and Social Security, General Directorate of Immigration and Foreigners, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, National Horticultural Corporation, National Banana Corporation, ICE Group, Comptroller General of the Republic, National Animal Health Service, State Phytosanitary Service, Integral Agricultural Marketing Program, General Directorate of Customs, Public Services Regulatory Authority, Telecommunications Superintendency, Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery S.A., National Council of Concessions, all Professional Associations, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Business Sector, Chamber of Exporters of Costa Rica, Chamber of Industries, Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of the Food Industry, Chamber of Information and Communication Technologies, CRECEX, Livestock Corporation, Chamber of Poultry Producers, Chamber of Pig Producers.

Furthermore, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade received responses from the following consultees: Municipality of Bagaces, Municipality of Belén, Municipal Council of Lepanto, CONESUP, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, General Directorate of Immigration and Foreigners, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, Costa Rican Electricity Institute, General Directorate of Customs, Public Services Regulatory Authority, Telecommunications Superintendency, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Costa Rican Chamber of the Food Industry, National Bank of Costa Rica, National Production Council, Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory, National Institute of Women, National Insurance Institute, Social Protection Board of San José, National Children's Trust.

In addition to this, the cited Committee received in hearing: National Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, CADEXCO, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Chamber of the Food Industry, Livestock Corporation, National Chamber of Poultry Producers.

With the foregoing, it is verified that the bill was brought to the attention of a wide range of sectors that could be affected. Likewise, no infringement of the rights and powers of the legislators is observed.

Thus, regarding the above, no unconstitutionality whatsoever is noted.

VI.- In particular, regarding the vote required for the approval of the bill. The bill was considered by the Legislative Plenary as required, as it involves an international treaty and, to that extent, could not be delegated to a Legislative Committee with Full Powers, according to Article 124, paragraph 3, of the Political Constitution, in relation to Article 121, subsection 4), ibidem. In the same vein, it can be observed that bill No. 18,563 was summoned by the Executive Branch to be considered in extraordinary sessions, respecting the provisions of Article 118 of the Political Charter.

Now, for its approval in first debate, the bill received the vote of the absolute majority of the members present in the Assembly (37 Deputies). In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, certainly, Article 121, subsection 4), of the Political Constitution requires a qualified vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies when dealing with public treaties and international agreements that attribute or transfer certain powers to a community legal order, for the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives. In this regard, in ruling number 2013-003655 of 9:05 a.m. on March 15, 2013, "II.- Characteristics of Community Law: Doctrinally, it is defined as an organized and structured set of legal norms, which has its own sources, is endowed with organs and appropriate procedures to issue, interpret, apply, and enforce them. While international law promotes international cooperation, Community Law promotes the integration of the countries involved, and for this reason, it has been said that it forms a new legal order of international law, characterized by its independence and primacy, which are inherent characteristics of its existence.

Community law has great penetration into the domestic legal order of the Member States, manifested in its immediate applicability, its direct effect, and its primacy. Indeed, the Community constitutes a new international legal order, for whose benefit the State Parties have limited, albeit in a restricted manner, their sovereign rights. From Community Law arise rights and obligations, not only for the Member States but also for their citizens. It is precisely because of the transcendence of the norms to be approved—which, as indicated, can transfer powers—that it is desirable for specialists in the subject to analyze, prior to the signing of the treaties to be concluded in this field, the scope and compatibility of those instruments with the domestic order and system. This is especially important considering that the mandatory consultation reaches the Chamber once the treaty has been negotiated and when it has already been approved in first debate, in addition to the fact that this Court limits its analysis to aspects of constitutional relevance.

Without any doubt, the core of integration lies in the treaties, which can be of two types: those of an institutional nature, which articulate and structure the system and its institutions, and those that develop them in a uniform, clear, and concrete manner and that usually contain the norms by which the States transfer powers to the community organization, for the fulfillment of the purposes of common interest («) It is worth noting that the transfer of powers to the community legal order must be express and through a treaty, such that the attribution of regulatory authority (which in this case is done) to community bodies can only be exercised on matters expressly defined or outlined in a treaty. In a treaty of an institutional nature, that authority could not be exercised until an express transfer of powers is made through an agreement that must be approved by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly (Article 121, subsection 4, of the Political Constitution), and subjected to mandatory constitutionality consultation (Article 10, ibidem). Consequently, it is important to note that all the norms approved in the integration process gradually constitute an authentic legal order, which, by its nature and the purposes it pursues, fits within what has been defined as Community Law.

III.- Transfer of Powers: Given the need for the Community Law that was being produced in the Central American region to find an adequate constitutional framework in Costa Rica, by Law No. 4123 of May 30, 1968, Articles 7 and 121 of the Political Constitution were reformed, and more recently, by Law 7128 of August eighteenth, nineteen eighty-nine, Article 105 of the same normative body. Article 7, first paragraph, established: 'Public treaties, international agreements, and concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly shall have, from their promulgation or from the day they designate, authority superior to laws.' Article 121, subsection 4, second paragraph, provided:

'Public treaties and international agreements which attribute or transfer specific powers to a community legal order, for the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, shall require the approval of the Legislative Assembly by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the total number of its members' («) Regarding Community Law, the Political Constitution has provided, as evidenced by a simple reading of the transcribed provisions, for the transfer of certain specific national powers to a different legal order—the Community order—which otherwise could not achieve the common goals that the State Parties of the integration system have set for themselves. Now, for the Chamber, as expressed in the dissenting vote of Justices Jacobo, Blanco, Odio, Porter, and Benavides, issued in the Plenary Court session of ten o'clock on March twenty-eighth, nineteen seventy-three—which resolved an action of unconstitutionality against various articles of the Central American Uniform Customs Code—the delegation of powers to the community legal order is in no way unrestricted; rather, it has concrete limits.

Indeed, as was indicated in that opinion: "...It is not permissible to exceed the Political Constitution, in its letter or in its spirit, given that it sets the fundamental principles of the State and establishes, consequently, the limits of action of the Public Powers, both in substance and in form, and both internally and externally," and for the Chamber, powers that are essential for the Costa Rican constitutional legal order are not transferable, as we will analyze below.

The delegation of powers produces a very important modification to the internal legal order. It is necessary to indicate that this delegation finds its first limit in "the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives," that is, there could not be a delegation of powers for purposes and objectives other than those the constituent power has indicated. On the other hand, there must be absolute respect for the principles and values enshrined in the Political Constitution, which permeates the rest of the legal system and the various fields of human endeavor; social, economic, cultural, religious, political, etc. For the Chamber, the Legislative Assembly could not validly approve international treaties that reduce the levels of protection of fundamental rights. (...)

VI.- Given the institutional nature of the agreement before us, the Chamber does not find norms that are unconstitutional, nor does it observe infractions of the legislative approval procedure. However, since this treaty is an integral part of a system of transfer of powers, which as stated results in a community system, even though the transfer of powers has not been made expressly, although provided for in the Tegucigalpa Protocol, all of this implies that its approval requires a qualified vote, under the terms set forth in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution (emphasis not original).

On the other hand, in vote number 1079-93 of 14:48 hours on March 2, 1993, the Chamber referred to various important aspects contained in Article 121 subsection 4) of the Political Constitution, in relation to the aggravated procedure for the approval of the international instruments provided for in that norm. In this regard, it was stated that:

"VI.- Article 121 subsection 4º of the Constitution, when defining the exclusive attributions of the Legislative Assembly, that of '4) Approve or disapprove international agreements, public treaties, and concordats.' 'Public treaties and international agreements that attribute or transfer specific powers to a community legal order, with the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, shall require the approval of the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total of its members.' This norm raises three types of important doubts, namely: a) what is the meaning of the concepts 'attribute' or 'transfer,' in relation to 'powers'; b) what should be understood there by 'community order'; and c) what scope should be given to the 'regional and common objectives' that in the text constitute the end of that same order.

Regarding the first question, the Chamber observes that in the context of constitutional law, the transcribed norm has the clear purpose of making the approval procedure for treaties or international agreements more arduous, when they attribute to extra-state bodies public powers that would otherwise correspond to the Costa Rican State in the exercise of its sovereignty. In other words, it seems evident that there would be no sense in imposing a qualified majority for the approval of some treaties, and not for others where the constituent power's reservation had equal or greater justification; and it is that, in reality, taking into account that every international treaty contains, by definition, a diminution or affectation of sovereignty, what that reservation is concerned with is, quite clearly, to surround with the guarantee implied in the qualified majority of the Legislative Assembly those cases in which the international instrument implies, in addition to that diminution or affectation directly established in it, the possibility that new obligations are imposed on the Costa Rican State, without its will, by extra-national bodies, and in matters that, otherwise, would correspond exclusively to it. B) The foregoing obliges one to recognize that the expression 'community order,' although not felicitous, only acquires meaning in the context of that subsection if one understands by 'community' that set of norms which, although created through typical sources of the Law of Nations, such as treaties, actually have a 'supranational' character, in that it is capable of imposing on the States Parties obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations beyond those agreed upon and even against their will, for example, by means of decisions adopted by a majority; something completely different from those merely international orders, in which the States commit only to what they commit to by treaty, or, if the latter additionally creates some type of international body, the decisions in that body are either not binding, or if they are, they must be taken by unanimity, that is, with the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State, through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose. It is true that the inclusion of the concept 'community order' in said constitutional norm was made by the Legislative Assembly acting as a constituent power (by Law No. 4123 of May 30, 1968), having in mind the integration process or Central American Common Market, but it would be contradictory and, therefore, unconstitutional to deduce from that that the Constitution imposes an aggravated procedure for the approval of the instruments of that process, desired by Costa Rica and closer and more natural because it occurs in the geopolitical and historical sphere of the Central American Great Homeland, than in other more distant and less intense cases where powers of the Costa Rican State are also assigned or transferred to an extra-national order. C) In the same context, the 'regional and common objectives' must be interpreted in harmony with the preceding considerations and, therefore, the conjunction 'and' that separates them must be understood as disjunctive-copulative, so that the provision must be applied, whether it concerns regional objectives or simply common objectives" (emphasis not original).

Finally, through judgment number 4640-96 of 09:09 hours on September 6, 1996, the Chamber heard a mandatory constitutional review concerning the draft Law for the approval of the Protocol to the General Treaty on Central American Economic Integration (known as the Guatemala Protocol), signed by the Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, in Guatemala City on October 29, 1993. On that occasion, this Court referred to the same legal foundations set forth in vote number 4638-96 of 09:03 hours on September 6, 1996, and it was considered that since the cited Protocol was an integral part of a system of transfer of powers, which results in a community system (even though the transfer of powers was not occurring expressly in that specific case, although provided for in the Tegucigalpa Protocol), this implied that its approval required a qualified vote, under the terms set forth in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution. Now then, it is worth noting that the concept of "community legal order" in said norm is different from that of "multilateral treaty," given that the former requires a ratio iuris tending towards the formation of a "community," that is, a regional integration system with supranational qualities tending towards different parts constituting, at least progressively, a whole (as was the case in the European Coal and Steel Community), in which a transfer of sovereign powers has occurred from the Member States towards a sui generis legal order, whose bodies enjoy independence and full authority in the exercise of their functions. Such a transfer, in the case of Costa Rica and by virtue of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, can only be made towards a true community legal order, unlike other conventional instruments." Consequently, the requirement for a qualified vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies set forth in Article 121 subsection 4) of the Political Constitution refers only to those treaties or agreements that attribute or transfer specific powers to a community legal order. This latter concept refers to an order that, beyond promoting mere international cooperation among States, actually seeks the full integration of the countries involved, and therefore aspires to configure a new legal order of international law (the Community) characterized by its independence and primacy, consubstantial characteristics of its existence.

A fundamental quality of that type of order consists of the possibility that new obligations may be imposed on a State, even against its will, by extra-national bodies, in matters that otherwise would be exclusively for it to decide. Consequently, it is a situation very different from those treaties or agreements in which international bodies, in order to bind a country with their resolutions, require the express acceptance of the affected State, through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose.

Thus, the constitutional concept of “community legal order” is very different from that of “multilateral treaty,” given that the former requires a ratio iuris directed towards the formation of a “Community,” that is, a regional integration system with supranational qualities tending towards different parts constituting, at least progressively, a whole (as was the case in its time with the European Coal and Steel Community), in which a transfer of sovereign powers has occurred from the Member States towards a sui generis legal order, whose bodies enjoy independence and full authority in the exercise of their functions, and can even impose their will on their Member States. Such a community goes beyond a new international legal order, as it even aspires to interweave cultural ties in order to create a community with a certain common identity, something that economic institutions that only seek integration, commercial exchange, and economic cooperation among States are far from aiming for. It is worth adding that when Article 121 subsection 4) of the Political Constitution refers to the transfer of specific powers to a community legal order, the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, also mentioned by that norm, rather than consisting of an additional requirement, actually signifies a natural effect of the proper legal nature of any community order. There is no community order that does not tend to achieve regional and common objectives.

In the specific case, this Chamber considers that the Association Agreement under review is in no way directed at creating a community legal order. Indeed, Article 2 subsection a) of the Agreement indicates as an objective to strengthen and consolidate relations between the Parties through an association, and subsection b) underlines that it is a privileged political association. This concept of association is set forth in a context in which both regions (Central America and Europe) remain in their respective regional spheres of action, without there being at any moment the aspiration to create a single region. Neither is the establishment of a community order intended internally within the Central American Party, since Article 3 of the Agreement establishes that none of its provisions shall be interpreted in such a way as to undermine the sovereignty of any Republic of the CA Party. The fact that, in order to apply the Agreement, it is positive to promote regional integration does not go beyond the creation of a favorable political environment for bi-regional cooperation and commercial relations, as well as for the execution of the Agreement in general, which in no way implies either the establishment of a community legal order, or a new legal order of international law, much less the erection of a Community in the Central American sphere. Likewise, even though in numeral 72 of the Agreement, regional integration and progressively achieving an economic union in Central America are objectives of cooperation, the truth is that reference is made to possible destinations of cooperation from a potential perspective, not to the current realization of a Community through the approval of the Agreement, much less to a new legal order of international law.

This thesis becomes even more palpable because, according to Article 6.4 of the Agreement, the Association Council can only adopt decisions and recommendations by common agreement between the Parties, and, in the case of the Republics of the CA Party, the adoption of decisions and recommendations shall require consensus. Ergo, without the acquiescence of the Costa Rican State, it cannot be compelled to comply with any resolution, which implies that there is no transfer of sovereign powers from the Member States towards a sui generis legal order, whose bodies enjoy such a degree of independence and full authority as to be able to impose a resolution on Costa Rica against our country's will (A more extensive explanation of that Council is made in Considering IX of this judgment).

Consequently, since the scenario of Article 120 subsection 4) of the Political Constitution is not configured, this Treaty does not require for its approval the vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies, but rather it can be voted on as provided by article 119 of the Fundamental Law, that is, by an absolute majority of the votes present.

VII.- Regarding the violation of the principle of publicity. Recently, through judgment number 2013-006969 of 15:05 hours on May 22, 2013, this Court declared the following:

“IV.- ON THE PROCEDURE IN THE SPECIFIC CASE. From the breakdown contained in the previous point, it is possible to verify that, on December 5, 2011, the Executive Branch presented before the Legislative Assembly the draft 'Approval of the Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189),' for its respective study and approval, in application of Articles 121, subsection 4, and 140, subsections 5, 10, and 12, of the Political Constitution. This convention had been adopted, in turn, at the 100th Meeting of the International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO), held in June 2011. As part of the corresponding legislative procedure, the draft was published in Digital Supplement No. 51 of La Gaceta No. 78 of April 23, 2012. Likewise, a legal report was issued by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly, the draft was ordered to be consulted with various bodies and institutions, and finally, after its study by the Special Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs, a first affirmative opinion was issued. Subsequent to that, the draft was approved in the first debate, unanimously, in plenary session of the Legislative Assembly number 64 of September 13, 2012, with 40 votes. For which the file passed to the Special Permanent Drafting Committee. However, in that stage or phase of the procedure, it was detected that the certified copy of the text of the 'Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189),' which had initially been provided by the Executive Branch, did not contain the complete text corresponding to Article 22. This led to the decision to return the legislative file to the Legislative Plenary. In session of the Legislative Plenary number 72, of September 27, 2012, a motion was approved, in application of Article 154 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, to refer the draft back to the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs for a new opinion. As a result of the foregoing, the referred Committee again proceeded to study the draft and confirmed that, indeed, the certified copy of the text of the 'Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)' that had been forwarded by the Executive Branch did not contain the complete or full text of the cited international instrument, due to an apparent material error in the photocopying process of the text. This prompted that, through official communication No. CJ-863-10-12, of October 24, 2012, the President of the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs requested the Minister of Labor and Social Security 'so that, in order to correct the material error found in the opinion of the Draft Law approving the convention on decent work for domestic workers (Convention 189), File No. 18335, initially transmitted and approved by this Committee, I request the interposition of your good offices, and respecting the right of initiative, since it is required to forward the document and all communications sent to the country, with the signatures of the members of the Executive Branch, which attest to the commitment of the Republic of Costa Rica regarding that international legal instrument.' In response to that request, by means of official communication DP-0643-2012, dated October 26, 2012, signed by the President of the Republic and the Minister of Labor and Social Security, a new certified copy of the complete text of the 'Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)' was forwarded to the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs. Based on that second certified copy, the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs issued a new affirmative opinion, and in session of the Legislative Plenary number 106, of November 29, 2012, the draft was approved again, in the first debate, with 43 votes. Now then, contrasting or comparing both documents, that is, the certified copies forwarded by the Executive Branch to the Legislative Assembly on December 5, 2011, and those forwarded through official communication DP-0643-2012, of October 26, 2012, it is confirmed that, certainly, the first set of certified copies did not contain the full or complete text of Convention 189, because, due to an apparent material error, when photocopying the text that would be sent to the Legislative Assembly, the last line of several pages of the international instrument was omitted from the photocopy, which caused several of the articles contained in such copies to be incomplete, mutilated, or unfinished. Specifically: i) Article 2, second paragraph, subsection b), was missing the phrase: 'substantive special measures'; ii) Article 6, sole paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'for the household for which they work, decent living conditions that respect their privacy'; iii) Article 9, sole paragraph, was missing subsection c), which has the following content: '(c) are entitled to keep their travel and identity documents in their possession'; iv) Article 13, second paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'domestic workers, where such organizations exist'; v) Article 16, sole paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'national practice, to ensure that all domestic workers, either'; and vi) Article 22, first paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'one year after the date on which it has been registered.' In view of that, it was appropriate for the Legislative Assembly to seek the correction of the legislative procedure and, in particular, to retrace the procedure, so that the Executive Branch could provide a new certified copy of the referred convention, but this time complete or full, so that it could again be the object of study, discussion, and, eventually, legislative approval. This Chamber has insisted in its jurisprudence on the due distribution, delimitation, and respect of the constitutional powers attributed to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Assembly, regarding the process of discussion, negotiation, and signing of international treaties by the Executive Branch (Article 140 subsection 10, of the Political Constitution), and their subsequent approval or disapproval by the Legislative Assembly (Article 121, subsection 4, of the Political Constitution). Thus, regarding this topic, in judgment number 2005-07428 of 16:47 hours on June 14, 2005, this Chamber clarified: (“) it is clear from the constitutional text that the primary competence for the formulation and negotiation of international treaties, public agreements, and concordats, corresponds to the Executive Branch and, indeed, it is this branch that is responsible for their negotiation, signing, and ratification. The Legislative Assembly, for its part, only has the function of approving or disapproving them.” In line with the foregoing, this Chamber has pointed out that it is indispensable that the text submitted for approval be a complete, correct, and exact text, because otherwise a substantial defect is produced in the legislative procedure and in the expression of the will of the parliamentary body…

… Finally, it is clear from Judgment No. 2006-06011 that the Chamber held that:

“In this regard, this Court reiterates that it is indispensable that the text submitted for approval be complete, clear, exact, and delimited, so that there is no doubt as to the object of the international law obligation that our country assumes, and as a guarantee of the principles of legal certainty, publicity, and transparency.” (bold not from original)” Therefore, it is reiterated that the determination of the Legislative Assembly was appropriate, in the sense of retracing the legislative procedure and urging the Executive Branch to provide a new certified copy of the convention, with its complete and full text, in order to seek the rectification of the procedure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be indicated that even so, an essential defect in the legislative procedure is noted. This is because, upon reviewing the draft that was published in Digital Supplement No. 51 of La Gaceta No. 78 of April 23, 2012 (see it at http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/alcances/ALCA_2012.html), it is verified that the text published at that time contained the errors or omissions already noted (that is, several of the published articles were incomplete, mutilated, or unfinished). With the detriment that, having reviewed the legislative file, there is no accreditation that the draft was published again in the Official Gazette, but this time complete or full, or that any type of correction or clarification was published, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 116, 117, and 121 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly. This, prior to the draft being the object of new study, discussion, and opinion by the mentioned Committee, and of discussion and approval by the Legislative Plenary. From which it can be derived that an infraction of the principle of publicity has been incurred.” Consequently, regarding the aforementioned precedent, it is appropriate to highlight the following characteristics that explain the ratio iuris of the judgment:

1. The certified copy of the Agreement to be approved (Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers) was ab initio transmitted incomplete by the Executive Branch, and the corresponding publication in La Gaceta was equally defective.

2. The Chamber admitted as appropriate that the Legislative Assembly sought the correction of the legislative procedure and, in particular, to retrace the procedure, so that the Executive Branch could provide a new certified copy of the referred convention.

3. The publication of the Agreement occurred only once, before the Committee received the new correctly certified copy, without proceeding with a new publication in La Gaceta; quite the opposite, it contented itself with the first publication that contained the errors noted from the beginning (several of the published articles were incomplete, mutilated, or unfinished). Thus, the intended correction of the procedure ordered by the same Legislative Assembly did not actually occur.

In the sub examine, first it must be emphasized that the error of the Committee on International Relations analyzing the draft in question based on an incomplete certified copy did not occur. On the contrary, it is clear from the record that such Committee and the hearings granted to the various agencies and persons consulted were based on a correct version of the draft in question. Now then, in the electronic publication of La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Supplement No. 180, (http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf) 2 folios corresponding to the First Annex are missing. Indeed, in the digital La Gaceta, the absence is confirmed in the publication of the page described as EU/CENTR-AM/Anexo I/es 544, visible at folio 1006 of the certified copy transmitted by the Assembly in Volume III of the draft in question, as well as folio 1572 of the certified copy transmitted by the Assembly in Volume V. Both folios correspond to Annex I, which deals with the elimination of customs duties pursuant to the Agreement.

Regarding page 1006 of the certified copy, the omission of its publication means that the following products from the EU Party list were not published:

5515 91 -- Mixed mainly or solely with synthetic or artificial filaments:

5515 91 10 --- Unbleached or bleached 8 A 5515 91 30 --- Printed 8 A 5515 91 90 --- Other 8 A 5515 99 -- Other:

5515 99 20 --- Unbleached or bleached 8 A 5515 99 40 --- Printed 8 A 5515 99 80 --- Other 8 A 5516 Woven fabrics of artificial staple fibres:

- Containing 85 % or more by weight of artificial staple fibres:

5516 11 00 -- Unbleached or bleached 8 A 5516 12 00 -- Dyed 8 A 5516 13 00 -- Of yarns of different colours 8 A 5516 14 00 -- Printed 8 A - Containing less than 85 % by weight of artificial staple fibres, mixed mainly or solely with synthetic or artificial filaments:

5516 21 00 -- Unbleached or bleached 8 A 5516 22 00 -- Dyed 8 A 5516 23 -- Of yarns of different colours:

For its part, regarding page 1572 of the certified copy, the omission resulted in the following products from the CA Party List not being published:

However, in the printed version of La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Alcance No. 180 (which is only distributed to certain libraries), this Tribunal confirms that the page described as EU/CENTR-AM/Annex I/es 544 was indeed duly published in that version. As matters stand, in the printed version, there would only be an error regarding the omission to publish page 1572 of the certified copy sent by the Assembly in Volume V.

In any case, it is clear that both the International Relations Committee and the consulted bodies and individuals had at their disposal from the outset the integral and complete version of the Agreement under review.

Now then, this Tribunal has repeatedly noted the importance of publicizing the legislative bills that have been submitted for its consideration. However, it is no less true that the Chamber has interpreted the requirement for the publication of a bill in light of what is truly sought: its publicity. Thus, in Judgment No. 2002-8190 of 11:12 a.m. on August 23, 2002, it stated:

“V.- Publication of the Treaty approval bill. Publication in La Gaceta of bills discussed in the Legislative Assembly is an instrument that can encourage popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions, besides constituting a guarantee of transparency in the law-making function. Although the Political Constitution omits any reference to this requirement, the Legislative Assembly’s Rules of Procedure do so in its articles 116, 117, and 121. Of these, 117 is the one containing the general rule, in the following sense:

"Article 117.- Filing Decrees In the Archive Department, the filing decrees for the matters shall be drafted and the original file shall be formed, as well as the files for the members of the respective Committee. This Department shall send a copy of those matters to the Imprenta Nacional for publication in the Diario Oficial." As can be seen, the Legislative Assembly’s Rules of Procedure expressly provide for the publication of the legislative bills considered by the Legislative Assembly, as a self-regulation rule approved by the Assembly itself to guarantee the transparency of its actions when carrying out the legislative function. Publicity must be understood as an essential requirement of the legislative procedure, as it directly involves the democratic principle inherent to the creation of general norms. The foregoing does not imply that the requirement of publicity can only be satisfied by publishing the full text of the bill, since eventually, upon the approval of a motion to waive procedures, a summary of the bill's existence in the Diario Oficial could be sufficient to give effective publicity to the bill.” Furthermore, in Judgment No. 2002-03458 of 3:54 p.m. on April 16, 2002, this Tribunal stated the following:

“V.- Regarding the publication of the bill in the Diario Oficial. Moreover, it is worth discussing whether the approval of a motion to waive the publication and waiting procedures in session number 91 of the Legislative Plenary on November fourteenth, two thousand one, regarding the bill for the approval of the "International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism," as well as five other initiatives (cfr. folio 37 of legislative file number 14,556), is consistent with the constitutionality parameter. After the Chamber conducted a search in the editions of La Gaceta, it was determined that this bill, although not published in full, was indeed the subject of a notice informing about the legislative agreement that waived the aforementioned procedures, and indicating the size and location of the legislative file, for anyone who wished to consult it. (La Gaceta number 230 of November thirtieth, two thousand one, page 7) This action, in the Chamber's judgment, prevented a violation of essential rules of the legislative procedure. Publication in La Gaceta of bills discussed in the Legislative Assembly is an instrument that can encourage popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions, besides constituting a guarantee of transparency in the law-making function. Although the Political Constitution omits any reference to this requirement, the Legislative Assembly’s Rules of Procedure do so in its articles 116, 117, and 121. Of these, 117 is the one containing the general rule, in the following sense:

"Article 117.- Filing Decrees In the Archive Department, the filing decrees for the matters shall be drafted and the original file shall be formed, as well as the files for the members of the respective Committee. This Department shall send a copy of those matters to the Imprenta Nacional for publication in the Diario Oficial." As can be seen, the Legislative Assembly’s Rules of Procedure expressly provide for the publication of the legislative bills considered by the Legislative Assembly. This requirement must be understood as essential, as it directly involves the democratic principle inherent to the legislative function. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in this instance, the Legislative Assembly has not harmed this procedural requirement, because although the Assembly agreed to relieve this bill of the publication procedure, it decided that a notice regarding the existence of the bill in question be published in La Gaceta, inviting anyone interested in reading it to consult it at the Assembly, where it would be made available to the public. This Chamber is of the opinion that this latter determination allowed access, by the public, to legislative file 14,556, thus enabling popular participation in the discussion of the aforementioned bill. It is worth highlighting that, although the waiver of procedures referred to in article 35.5.d) of the Legislative Assembly’s Rules of Procedure must be understood in light of the more explicit rule in article 177 ibid., in the sense that such waiver is for the procedure of consideration in committee, and not a generic waiver of "all" legislative procedures, since those provided for in the Political Constitution and the Rules of Procedure themselves, minimum guarantees of respect for the democratic principle, cannot be waived, not even by agreement of the Assembly itself. Obviously, what happened in this case is that—as already stated above—the "full" publication of the bill in the Diario Oficial was waived; the publicity of the same was not waived, which would be unconstitutional, as it would constitute an excuse for non-compliance with an essential procedure. As matters stand, this Chamber considers that in the procedure followed for the discussion of this bill, essential procedures have not been violated, and therefore, it is appropriate to proceed to discuss the merits of the proposal.” Still related to the issue of publicity, Judgment No. 2008-018218 of 6:26 p.m. on December 10, 2008, indicated:

“Having examined the documentation sent by the Executive Branch, the seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship is observed on the twenty-two pages of the copy of the Convention, from which a clear inaccuracy is inferred in the aforementioned certification, which only refers to "the aforementioned seven photocopies." This situation obliges the Chamber to determine the nature and scope of the error in said certification and its relevance from a constitutional point of view based on the special circumstances of the specific case. Firstly, it is noted that the text of the Convention published on the official website of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (see http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Convencion_de_Antigua_Jun_2003.pdf), is identical to the text thereof attached to the legislative file, which contains the same number of pages, twenty-two in total. This verifies that the certification in question contains a material defect, since instead of indicating "the aforementioned seven photocopies," it should have recorded "the aforementioned twenty-two photocopies." Despite such an error, it is clear that both within the Permanent Special Committee on the Environment and in the Plenary, the deputies had at their disposal the complete text of the Convention, which was published in full in La Gaceta number 187 of September 29, 2006, which is why there was not the slightest hint of doubt on the part of the legislators regarding its total content. Furthermore, no confusion was caused to the private organizations and public bodies consulted, since the corresponding consultations specified the date of publication of said bill in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta (see folios 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 92, and 106 of the legislative file), which in turn rules out an injury to the principle of publicity. For these reasons, this Tribunal concludes that at no time did the Executive Branch fail to comply with its obligation to submit the complete documentation to the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of allowing it to clearly approve the perfectly delimited object of what is being sought to be elevated to a legal norm with a rank superior to law. Hence, in the specific case, the mistake made constituted a mere material defect that cannot lead to the nullity of the legislative procedure and, therefore, does not require the implementation of any rectification mechanism. The foregoing does not prevent a call of attention so that in the future, this type of mistake be prevented, given the legal value of the certifications issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, which must be entirely accurate so that there is no doubt whatsoever regarding the absolute fidelity of the texts of the conventions submitted for approval in the Legislative Assembly.” Consequently, in consideration of the publication requirement in La Gaceta provided for in Article 117 of the Legislative Assembly’s Rules of Procedure and the Chamber's case law, it is extracted that the crux of the matter consists of analyzing, according to the specific case, to what extent a mistake in the publication leads to a defect in publicity, from which the general citizenry has a confused knowledge of the content of a bill to be approved in the Legislative Assembly or their informed participation in the discussion thereof is restricted. It is therefore not a matter of applying a rigid formalism, alien to the circumstances of the case, but of employing legal hermeneutics in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, so that norms are interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the end or ends they pursue.

In this case, unlike the subject of Judgment No. 2013-006969, there is no injury whatsoever to the principle of publicity that affects its essential content, that is, that actually gives rise to a state of current and real confusion regarding the content of the legislative bill under discussion, in such a way as to hinder popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions. Precisely, the publicity of the procedure aims to safeguard that the power to legislate resides in the people and that the deputies are only their representatives (Article 105 of the Constitution), as well as the projection of parliamentary activity outward as a guarantee established in Article 117 of the Political Constitution (see Judgment No. 2000-3220). In this context, it must be emphasized that following the reform of Article 9 of the Political Constitution (Law No. 8364 of July 1, 2003, published in La Gaceta No. 146 of July 31, 2003), the characteristic of "participatory" was introduced as a constitutive element of the Government of the Republic. This quality constitutionally strengthens the fundamental purpose of publicity: promoting the intervention of the citizenry in the fundamental decisions of the State. If this end is not violated and it is observed that there has been no real obstruction to popular participation, then an error in publication cannot, by itself, constitute an essential defect in the legislative procedure. In the sub iudice, unlike what occurred in Judgment No. 2013-006969, the International Relations Committee always had the correct and complete version of the text of the “Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other.” Likewise, it is fully verifiable that the deputies of the Legislative Assembly at all times had the full text of the Agreement available and based their discussions, motions, and the will expressed in their reports and votes on it. Furthermore, the authorities and persons to whom the respective hearings were granted always had the complete text of the Agreement at their disposal. As matters stand, it is not observed that the error in publication resulted in an injury to the essential content of the principle of publicity, and therefore, a defect of unconstitutionality has not occurred. The case is different when not even in Parliament itself was the full text of the bill to be approved available, or it contains errors, or when the legislator itself has introduced significant changes to the original version of a bill while it is being discussed in a committee (which in this instance would have been, in any case, improper because Article 361 of the Agreement does not allow unilateral reservations or interpretative declarations to it).

Corollary to the foregoing, regarding the “Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other,” no essential defects in the legislative procedure are observed.

VIII.- Regarding the merits of the bill. Before making some observations on the merits of the legislative bill “Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other,” it must be emphasized that, according to the provisions of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this Chamber's advisory opinion shall only be binding insofar as it establishes the existence of unconstitutional procedures.

IX.- The “Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other,” far from being merely a typical Free Trade Agreement between the involved regions, was born under the figure of an “Association Agreement” to which, in addition to the commercial component, two more elements that complement and accompany it were added: “Political Dialogue” and “Cooperation.” Under that understanding, this international instrument seeks to establish an interregional association between Central America and the European Union based on three fundamental pillars: 1) “Political Dialogue”: it aims to create a privileged political partnership between both regions based on common values and interests enunciated in the Agreement (among them, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction, the fight against terrorism, serious crimes of international concern, development financing, migration, environment, citizen security, good governance in fiscal matters, among others); 2) “Cooperation”: the Agreement is oriented toward enabling the necessary cooperation mechanisms within the areas of interest of the Parties (e.g., Democracy, Human Rights and Good Governance; Justice, Freedom and Security; Social Development and Social Cohesion; Migration; Environment, Natural Disasters and Climate Change; Economic and Commercial Development; Regional Integration; Culture and Audiovisual Cooperation; Knowledge Society); 3) “Trade”: as stated, this section constitutes a free trade agreement. This final commercial pillar has the following content: Titles I, XII, and XIII contain the initial and institutional provisions; Title II regulates matters related to Trade in Goods; Title III establishes Trade in Services and Establishment; Title IV refers to Current Payments and Capital Movements; Title V is responsible for regulating matters related to Government Procurement; Title VI governs Intellectual Property; Title VII contains provisions relating to Trade and Competition; Title VIII regulates matters pertaining to Trade and Sustainable Development; Title IX is responsible for governing Regional Economic Integration; Titles X and XI refer to the topic of Dispute Settlement and Mediation; finally, Title XIV contains provisions related to Exceptions.

In addition to the three pillars previously described, the text of the Association Agreement also enshrines several common rules or provisions that apply to each of these three components. These rules are typical of all international treaties and are called in doctrine “Rules of the Law of Treaties.” In this agreement, said rules are laid out in the first and fifth parts of the Agreement.

In addition to matters relating to the approval of the Association Agreement, the legislative bill submitted for consultation contemplates the ratification by our country of an Amendment to the “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,” since its approval is part of the political negotiation with the European Union and was a commitment derived from the Association Agreement (see statement of reasons for legislative file No. 18,563 and Article 287.3 of the Association Agreement).

Likewise, in bill No. 18,563, a Land Border Posts Council is created and provided with the necessary financial resources, creating an exit tax for land ports and a tax on each export customs declaration filed at land border posts. Finally, the bill decides to grant the Ministry of Foreign Trade the country's representation before the international organization known as the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)".

After clarifying the content of the bill in question, it is necessary to go into detail on each of the Parts that make up the Association Agreement.

Preamble:

The motivations and general considerations in the preamble to the Agreement constitute part thereof, for despite not generating direct legal obligations, they are useful for the purposes of interpreting the corresponding legal instrument.

Among such considerations, the following merits special mention:

"RECOGNIZING the progress made in the Central American economic integration process, such as the ratification of the Framework Convention for the Establishment of the Central American Customs Union and the Treaty on Investment and Trade in Services, as well as the implementation of a jurisdictional mechanism that guarantees compliance with regional economic legislation throughout the Central American region;" In this regard, it is worth highlighting that no express reference is made to the Central American Court of Justice, but rather an indeterminate reference to "a jurisdictional mechanism," such that the mere approval of the Agreement does not imply that Costa Rica recognizes the competence of said court.

Parts I and V of the Agreement:

As is traditional in this type of international agreement, Parts I and V of the Association Agreement contain common norms or rules that apply to each of the three pillars of the Agreement, which are usually known as norms of the Law of Treaties.

Title I of Part I brings together the principles from which the Agreement must be interpreted and read; some of these are: the democratic principle, respect for fundamental rights, sustainable development, good governance, the Rule of Law, the rule of law, separation of Powers, transparency and accountability, efficiency, prevention and combating of corruption (article 1). On the other hand, the main objectives of the Agreement are cited: strengthening relations between the Parties, developing a privileged political association, improving bi-regional cooperation, expanding the trade relationship, strengthening the progressive process of regional integration, relations of good neighborliness and the principle of peaceful conflict resolution, improving the level of good governance, promoting an increase in trade and investment (article 2).

Title II of this Part I covers the topic of the institutional framework, which is composed of the creation of an Association Council, an Association Committee, a Parliamentary Association Committee, a Joint Consultative Committee, and various subcommittees. The Association Council shall be composed of representatives of the European Union Party and of each of the Republics of the Central American State Parties at the ministerial level, in accordance with the internal provisions of each State. The Presidency of said body shall be held alternately by a representative of the European Union Party and a representative of Central America (article 5). It is granted the power to issue its own rules of procedure and its primary task is to supervise the fulfillment of the objectives of this Agreement and its application. To this end, a meeting at the ministerial level is planned every two years, with the possibility of meeting at the level of Heads of State when the Parties so agree (article 4). Among its most relevant powers, we can cite the following:

1. Examine any major issue arising within the framework of the Agreement, as well as any other bilateral, multilateral or international issue of common interest. (article 4.2) 2. Examine the proposals and recommendations of the Parties aimed at improving the relations established within the framework of the Agreement. (article 4.3) 3. Formulate the recommendations it deems appropriate. (article 6.3) 4. Elaborate and adopt the "Rules of Procedure" that shall govern the dispute settlement procedures set out in the Association Agreement. (article 319) 5. It shall adopt the Rules of Procedure and the Code of Conduct at its first session and may subsequently modify them. (article 328) 6. When dealing with trade-related matters, it may:

• a)modify, in compliance with the objectives of Part IV of this Agreement:
• i)the lists of goods established in Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties), in order to incorporate one or more goods into the tariff elimination schedule; ii) the lists established in Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties), in order to accelerate tariff elimination; iii) Appendices 1, 2, and 3 of Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties); iv) Appendices 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Annex II (Concerning the definition of the concept of "originating products" and methods of administrative cooperation); v) Annex XVI (Public Procurement); vi) Annex XVIII (Protected Geographical Indications); vii) Annex XIX (List of products referred to in Article 306, paragraph 4); viii) Annex XXI (Subcommittees); b) issue interpretations on the provisions of Part IV of this Agreement; and c) take any other action in the exercise of its functions as agreed by the Parties. (article 345) It is important to highlight that the decisions adopted by said body shall be binding on the Parties, and shall be taken by mutual agreement; and in the case of the Central American countries, their consensus is required for the adoption of decisions and recommendations (article 6). That is, no obligation is imposed on a country to comply with a specific decision or recommendation without its prior express consent.

To fulfill such tasks, the Association Council shall receive the collaboration of subsidiary bodies also created in the Association Agreement. Some of these bodies are: the Association Committee (which shall also adopt its decisions in accordance with the conditions established in articles 4 to 6); and the specific Subcommittees by subject matter (articles 7 and 8). Likewise, a Parliamentary Association Committee is created, which shall be composed of members of the European Parliament and the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN). In the case of the republics that are not part of PARLACEN (such as our country), it is provided that each State shall designate its own representatives (article 9). A Joint Consultative Committee is also established, which shall have advisory functions and, as important information, must present to the Association Council the opinions of civil society organizations related to the application of the Agreement (article 10). Finally, reference is made to civil society, indicating that meetings of civil society representatives shall be promoted to inform them about the application of the Agreement (article 11). Due to the particular interest this topic arouses, the participation of civil society will be developed further on.

Having described the proposed organizational structure, it is pertinent to refer specifically to the powers held by the Association Council formed for the Agreement under study and the similarity of powers and differences it holds in relation to other instruments of the same nature that have been previously adopted by our country and also been the subject of pronouncement by this Court.

In the case of the "Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica and the Caribbean Community" approved by Law No. 8455, provision had been made for the creation of a Joint Council with powers almost identical to those also granted in the Free Trade Agreement between Central America and Chile approved by Law No. 8055, and very similar to those under study, which consisted of:

"…this Joint Council is responsible for ensuring compliance with and the correct application of the provisions thereof, for which it shall issue recommendations; it may evaluate the results achieved in its application; resolve disputes that arise regarding its interpretation or application; supervise the work of the established or created committees and address any other matter that could affect its functioning. This Council, as stated in article I.06, may modify, in pursuit of the fulfillment of the objectives of the Treaty: a) the list of goods of a party contained in Annex III.04.2 (Tariff Elimination) with the purpose of incorporating one or more excluded goods into the Tariff Elimination Schedule; b) the timeframes established in Annex III.04.02 (Tariff Elimination) in order to accelerate tariff elimination; c) the specific rules of origin in Annex IV.03; d) the uniform regulations on Customs Procedures." In a similar vein, in the Free Trade Agreement between the Dominican Republic, Central America and the United States approved by Costa Rica according to Law No. 8622, the Free Trade Commission has the following powers:

"Article 19.1: The Free Trade Commission 1. The Parties establish the Free Trade Commission, composed of the representatives of each Party at the Ministerial level, as referred to in Annex 19.1, or by the persons they designate.

2. The Commission shall:

(a) supervise the implementation of the Treaty; (b) supervise the further development of the Treaty; (c) seek to resolve disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Treaty; (d) supervise the work of all committees and working groups established under this Treaty; and (e) address any other matter that may affect the functioning of the Treaty.

3. The Commission may:

(a) establish and delegate responsibilities to committees and working groups; (b) modify, in compliance with the objectives of this Treaty:

(i) the tariff elimination schedules subject to Annex 3.3 (Tariff Elimination), to accelerate tariff reduction; (ii) the rules of origin established in Annex 4.1 (Specific Rules of Origin); (iii) the Common Guidelines referred to in Article 4.21 (Common Guidelines); and (iv) Annexes 9.1.2(b)(i), 9.1.2(b)(ii) and 9.1.2(b)(iii) (Public Procurement); (c) issue interpretations on the provisions of this Treaty; (d) seek the advice of non-governmental persons or groups; and (e) take any other action for the exercise of its functions as agreed by the Parties. 19-2 4. Each Party shall implement, in accordance with its applicable legal procedures, any modification pursuant to subparagraph 3(b) within the period agreed by the Parties.

5. The Commission shall establish its rules and procedures. All its decisions shall be taken by consensus, unless the Commission decides otherwise.

6. The Commission shall meet at least once a year in regular session, unless the Commission decides otherwise. The regular sessions of the Commission shall be chaired successively by each of the Parties.

Article 19.2: Free Trade Coordinators 1. Each Party shall designate a Free Trade Coordinator, in accordance with the provisions of Annex 19.2.

2. The coordinators shall work jointly on the development of agendas and other preparations for the Commission meetings and shall provide appropriate follow-up to the decisions of the Commission…" Thus, the Association Council planned to administer the agreements signed in this negotiation are not very different from those previously approved by our country, which even has less interference in dispute resolution than the bodies cited above. In addition to the foregoing, this Court, referring to the scope of this type of powers and the binding nature of its decisions for the country, stated in particular:

"On this point, it is clear from a reading of the Treaty that the Free Trade Commission is a collegiate body composed of the representatives of each Party at the ministerial level or by the persons each designates, and its function is to supervise the implementation of the treaty, supervise its further development, resolve disputes that may arise from the interpretation or application of the treaty, supervise the work of the established committees and working groups, and address any other matter that could affect the functioning of the agreement. Among its powers is also to issue interpretations on the provisions of the treaty, but not to modify its content as indicated by the consulting deputies. It is clear that such power was not granted in the Treaty, as can be deduced from article 19.1, so this Chamber cannot conclude anything beyond what the text of the trade agreement establishes. Furthermore, even though the consultants consider that said Commission assumes legislative and regulatory powers, this Chamber has already referred on other occasions to the legal nature of the norms issued by this type of Commission, understanding that they constitute protocols of lesser rank in accordance with the provisions of article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution. Reaffirming the above, the Free Trade Agreement establishes in Annex 19.1.4 that: 'In the case of Costa Rica, the decisions of the Commission pursuant to article 19.2.3(b) shall be equivalent to the instrument referred to in article 121.4, third paragraph (protocol of lesser rank), of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica.' Taking this nature into account, it cannot be considered that these are unconstitutional powers, and this Chamber so noted in ruling 2000-8404 at ten o'clock on September twenty-second, two thousand, in which it stated:

'V.- On the Free Trade Commission: Article 18.01 of the Treaty establishes a Free Trade Commission that shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with and the correct application of the provisions of this Treaty; for evaluating the results achieved in the application of the Treaty; for resolving disputes that arise regarding the interpretation or application of the Treaty; for supervising the work of the committees established or created under the Treaty; and for addressing any other matter that might affect the functioning of that Treaty. This Commission, as stated in the article, may modify, in pursuit of the fulfillment of the objectives of the Treaty: a) the list of goods of a party contained in Annex 3.04 (Tariff Elimination Schedule) for the purpose of incorporating one or more goods excluded from the Tariff Elimination Schedule; b) the timeframes established in Annex 3.04 (Tariff Elimination Schedule) in order to accelerate tariff elimination; c) the specific rules of origin in Annex 4.03; d) the uniform regulations; e) Annex 9.01 of service sectors or subsectors for the purpose of incorporating new service sectors or subsectors; f) Annexes I, II, and III of Chapter 11 (Cross-Border Trade in Services) and the list of entities of a Party contained in Annex 16.01 (Entities) for the purpose of incorporating one or more entities into the scope of application of Chapter 16 (Public Procurement). The Commission official, in the specific case of Costa Rica, is the Minister of Foreign Trade or his successor. Now, in Annex 18.01 (4), it is expressly established that for the case of Costa Rica, the agreements reached by the Parties shall be equivalent to the instrument referred to in article 121.4, third paragraph of the Political Constitution; an instrument that has been called "Protocol of Lesser Rank." On this, the Chamber has stated:

"Protocols of lesser rank are those that, without adding substantial commitments or limitations to the activity of the states, develop and even modify merely procedural norms that do not affect the substance of the treaty. A typical case of protocols of lesser rank are modifications to compliance deadlines and other similar measures, provided that such modifications are, as stated, provided for in the main treaty" (Ruling No. 03388-98 at sixteen thirty-nine on May twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-eight).

In relation to the specific case, the Chamber finds that both the Free Trade Commission being created in the Treaty under study, and the powers granted to it therein, are not unconstitutional to the extent that they can be considered as protocols of lesser rank in the terms indicated supra, or, and to the extent, that through the exercise of those powers, substantial decisions are not being taken that must necessarily be analyzed by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the constitutional powers held by this Branch of the Republic. From this perspective, it is not unconstitutional for the representative of Costa Rica to participate and speak on behalf of the National Government on matters related to the Treaty, as long as the country is not committed to decisions that necessarily require legislative approval and, of course, subsequent constitutional review exercised by the Constitutional Chamber. (ruling No. 2000-8404) The foregoing precedent is fully applicable to the specific case, since the norm analyzed is very similar to the one under discussion here, which leads the Chamber to conclude that the functions or powers established for the Free Trade Commission in the Free Trade Agreement are not in themselves unconstitutional, as it cannot be inferred from the articles of the Treaty that the intention is for said Commission to be able to alter its provisions, but only to interpret them. Moreover, there is always the guarantee that the representative of Costa Rica could not in any way commit our country to any matter that requires legislative approval.

Now, an aspect that must be analyzed carefully is the one argued by the Ombudsman's Office in that said Commission can impose obligations on Costa Rica even against its will, as it is a supranational body. On this particular point, it must be kept in mind that in light of the provisions of numeral 19.1.5 of the Free Trade Agreement, the decisions adopted by said Commission are taken by consensus, unless the Commission itself decides otherwise. Although the Treaty does not clarify what is meant by "consensus," the preamble itself expressly recognizes the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which does clarify the meaning of that concept. In light of the provisions of Article IX, paragraph 1, footnote 1, of the Marrakesh Agreement, 'the body concerned shall be deemed to have decided by consensus on a matter submitted for its consideration, if no Member, present at the meeting when the decision is taken, formally objects to the proposed decision.' This means that in the trade environment established by the Free Trade Agreement and the WTO, the consent of all Parties present is required to adopt a decision, that is, there is a kind of veto power, no matter how small and weak a country may be, if it opposes what the others decide against its will. For practical purposes, this means that no decision affecting Costa Rica can be adopted if its representative opposes it, whereby the State is not ceding its sovereignty. It is for this reason that said Commission is not considered a supranational body either, as it cannot impose obligations beyond the will of the States, neither in the process of 'administering' the treaty, nor when it intervenes in the State-to-State dispute resolution mechanism, given that in this latter case it only issues recommendations. On a similar matter, through ruling 1079-93 at fourteen forty-eight on March second, nineteen ninety-three, the Chamber stated:

'B) The foregoing forces us to recognize that the expression "community legal order," although not felicitous, only makes sense, in the context of that subsection, if "community" is understood as that body of norms which, although created through typical sources of the Law of Nations, such as treaties, actually have a "supranational" character, in that it is capable of imposing obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations on the States Parties beyond those agreed upon and even against their will, for example, through decisions adopted by a majority; this is completely different from that of merely international orders, in which States commit only to what they commit to by treaty, or, if the treaty also creates some type of international organization, the decisions in that organization are either not binding, or if they are binding, they must be taken by unanimity, that is, with the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State, through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose. It is true that the inclusion of the concept "community legal order" in said constitutional norm was made by the Legislative Assembly acting as a constituent power (by Law No. 4123 of May 30, 1968), having in mind the Central American integration or Common Market process, but it would be contradictory and, therefore, unconstitutional to deduce from that that the Constitution imposes an aggravated procedure for the approval of the instruments of that process, desired by Costa Rica and closer and more natural as it occurs in the geopolitical and historical sphere of the Great Central American Fatherland, than in other more distant and less intense scenarios in which competencies of the Costa Rican State are also assigned or transferred to an extra-national order.' (The bold is not part of the original) For the foregoing reasons, and taking into consideration that the Commission's decisions cannot be imposed beyond the will of the States as they are adopted by consensus, this Chamber finds no unconstitutionality regarding this aspect.

Even though the consulting deputies claim that the Commission's decisions are not necessarily adopted by consensus since article 19.1.5 establishes that said body may agree on another form of voting, this Chamber also does not find this to be unconstitutional. It is clear that any decision of the Commission that intends to vary the form of voting must be adopted by consensus, so the voting mechanism could not be changed if the representative of our country does not agree, which obviously maintains the power to ensure that no decision is imposed on Costa Rica against its interests. That said, a warning is made that said representative could not authorize a change in the form of voting if this could force a decision contrary to the will of our State and as long as it does not commit the country to decisions that necessarily require legislative approval. Therefore, the issue in question then lies in the obligations and controls that the State imposes on its representative. Likewise, the argument of the consultants that there is no guarantee that the decisions made by the Free Trade Commission are in accordance with the Constitution is not acceptable, for that is precisely where the importance of the function performed by our representative lies, who could not at any time commit our country beyond what our Fundamental Charter allows. In any case, if the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction was not included as a 'non-conforming measure,' it does not mean that the review by this Chamber provided for in the Political Constitution (articles 10 and 48) has been repealed, but rather, on the contrary, it was not considered incompatible with the Treaty, and therefore its inclusion was not necessary. The consultants must be clear, as will be seen throughout this ruling, that the list of non-conforming measures only includes that national legislation which, despite being contrary to the provisions of the Treaty, is intended to be kept in force.

This does not mean that anything not included therein is understood to be repealed.” (Judgment No. 2007-9469) In accordance with the foregoing, the International Agreement under review does not present any defect of unconstitutionality, given that, as has been demonstrated, the Association Council does not have the capacity to impose obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations on the States Parties beyond those agreed upon and never against their will, since this requires consensus, that is, the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State through its legitimate representatives competent for this purpose, in addition to the fact that its decisions revolve around the administration and implementation of the negotiated commercial matter.

Regarding the final provisions, Part V of the Agreement clarifies issues such as the definition of the Parties (where what draws attention is the enumeration of the cases in which the Central American countries must act jointly (in decision-making through the bodies contemplated in Title II (Institutional Framework) of Part I of this Agreement, in the implementation of the obligations provided for in Title IX (Regional Economic Integration) of Part IV of this Agreement, in the implementation of the obligation to establish a Central American Regulation on Competition and a competition authority, and in the implementation of the obligation to establish a single access point at the regional level, in accordance with Article 212, paragraph 2, of Title V (Public Procurement) of Part IV of this Agreement); otherwise, for any other matter, the Central American countries shall assume obligations and act individually - Article 352 -), entry into force, which explains that the rule is that the Trade Agreement (Part IV) can govern independently between the European Union and each Central American country that ratifies it, but not the entirety of the Association Agreement, which does require the accession and ratification of all Parties (Article 353), its indefinite duration and the possibility of being denounced by any country at any time, ceasing to govern six months later (Article 354), fulfillment of obligations (Article 355), rights and obligations (Article 356), exceptions (Article 357), an evolutionary clause referring to the possibility of expanding or supplementing the Agreement through the conclusion of other agreements on specific activities (Article 358), accession of new members and their particular rules (Article 359), territorial application, expressly clarifying that for the case of Central America, said Agreement would apply in “the territories of the Republics of the CA Party, in accordance with their respective national legislations and International Law” (Article 360), and the impossibility of formulating unilateral reservations or interpretative declarations, which responds to the logic of the multilateral nature of the Agreement (Article 361). Consequently, the concept of territory, in the terms of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, is respected. Finally, the rule of the integrality of the Agreement is established (that is, that the annexes, appendices, notes, footnotes, among others, form part of the Agreement), as well as that relating to the authentic languages (all the official languages of the Parties).

This Constitutional Court, after reading these first two sections, does not perceive evident and manifest clashes with unconstitutionality.

Part II of the Agreement:

This Part II of the Agreement corresponds to the first fundamental axis of the international negotiation reached. It sets forth the necessary norms to give content to the “Political Dialogue” agreed upon by both regions. In principle, it is a treaty that replaces the former “Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, on the other part,” signed in the city of Rome on December 15, 2003, and ratified by Costa Rica through Law number 8919 of December 16, 2010.

This section of the Agreement synthesizes the objectives that this political dialogue will have. It highlights the establishment of a privileged political association, in which the exchange of opinions, positions, and information can be fostered, as well as the discussion of matters of mutual interest (Articles 12 and 13). Numeral 13 defines a list of topics on which it is intended to reach a common basis between both regions; however, this list is not exhaustive, as it allows for any other topic to be added as an area of political dialogue. The political commitments undertaken by our country in this Part II of “Political Dialogue” include rules on matters in which Costa Rica has shown a very advanced level of commitment, in some cases corresponding to areas whose protection has been promoted by the jurisprudence of this Chamber. For instance, on the topic of Disarmament (Article 14), there are several international instruments cited in the Association Agreement that our country had previously signed and ratified, among them: the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction” (approved through Law No. 7859), and the “Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols” (approved through Law No. 7820).

In that same vein, regarding the topic of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Article 15) or nuclear weapons, Costa Rica is already a Party to the most relevant international instruments that have been created (e.g., the “Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and its Protocol,” approved through Law No. 8094; or the “Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America,” approved through Law No. 4369).

In the matter of the Fight against Terrorism (Article 16), our country also complies with the rules set forth in the Association Agreement, since it has signed various conventions at the international level on this topic (e.g., the “Inter-American Convention against Terrorism,” approved through Law No. 8446, the “International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,” approved through Law No. 8257, among others).

On the other hand, numeral 17 of the Association Agreement reaffirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community must not go unpunished, and grants a fundamental role to the functioning of the International Criminal Court, to which Costa Rica acceded through the approval of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Law No. 8083).

In the subsequent Articles 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Association Agreement, general rules applicable to topics such as migration, environment (an area in which Costa Rica has demonstrated serious international commitment, approving a multitude of conventions), citizen security, and good governance in fiscal matters are recognized. Finally, the commitment undertaken regarding the creation of a Common Economic and Financial Credit Fund has even more concrete reach, because its postulates establish the need for a common mechanism that includes the intervention, for example, of the European Investment Bank, the Latin America Investment Facility, and other technical assistance, all aimed at reducing poverty and supporting development in Central America.

As with Parts I and V, the Chamber does not consider that the conventional rules set forth in this “Political Dialogue” section directly and clearly threaten the content of the Political Constitution.

Part III of the Agreement:

Firstly, the “Cooperation” Part states the objectives and general principles of cooperation between both regions, presented in a generic manner. It is clarified that such cooperation would materialize in the contribution of resources, mechanisms, tools, and procedures (Article 24). Additionally, it is explained that all entities involved in the cooperation process are subject to transparent management of the resources provided to them, as well as to the duty of accountability (Article 26). Part III details a non-exhaustive list of priority areas of interest in which both regions would apply cooperation practices (areas classified in Titles I to IX); however, it is recalled that if the Parties so decide, any other area or activity consistent with the spirit of the Association Agreement may be included under the heading of cooperation (Article 27).

Title I of this Part III seeks to establish the main scope of intraregional cooperation in the sectors of Democracy, Human Rights, and Good Governance. In these areas, fundamental aspects such as the universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights are reiterated; likewise, it is agreed that cooperation in this area shall aim to improve and modernize public management, as well as to support a comprehensive peace policy that includes the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Regarding Title II, the Association Agreement concerned itself with regulating interregional cooperation concerning Justice, Freedom, and Security. Thus, it speaks of collaboration on the topic of personal data protection and the free circulation of such data between the Parties, provided the regulations established in the internal legislations of each country are respected. Also, in reducing the supply and demand of illicit drugs, from both a repressive and preventive perspective. Similarly, on the topic of money laundering (including the financing of terrorism), organized crime, and citizen security (exchanging best practices), the fight against corruption in the public and private sector due to the serious threat it constitutes to the internal institutional framework of each country, preventing (among other issues) bribery in international transactions and following up on policies implemented at the local, regional, and international level. In turn, cooperation is extended to prevent and combat the illicit trafficking of small arms.

Regarding Title III, it must be expressed that it was the section designated to regulate cooperation in the field of Development and Social Cohesion. Referring to this theme, the interest of both regions in cooperating in the fight against important social problems such as poverty, social inequality, and exclusion can be highlighted, having as a guide a better distribution of wealth and the establishment of employment policies oriented towards decent work for all persons (Article 41). Regarding education and training (Article 43), the Parties agreed to cooperate to achieve equitable access to education, as well as to improve its quality. In public health (Article 44), various pathologies of special attention for cooperation are listed, among other issues. Cooperation will also be sought in the protection and promotion of the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, as fostered by various international instruments created around this population (Article 45). The Association Agreement is also interested in cooperating in favor of socially vulnerable groups and strengthening the gender perspective and equality between men and women in each of the internally relevant areas, without neglecting matters concerning youth (Articles 46, 47, and 48).

In Title IV related to the Migration issue, the norm establishing cooperation for the return, in humane conditions, of persons who do not possess a legal residence permit draws attention (Article 49). In that sense, it was agreed that the Central American republics committed to “readmit, upon request and without any formality,” all their nationals with irregular migratory status in the territory of any member of the European Union (Article 49.2.a); the same readmission applies to nationals of any EU country who are irregularly in Central America (Article 49.2.b). However, in accordance with Article 49.4 of the Association Agreement, such readmission shall be regulated through a multilateral agreement (between Parties), which would regulate the obligations of each State in this matter. In line with what was explained by the Department of Technical Services, the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens of our country (in response to a query on draft law No. 18.563), pronounced favorably regarding this readmission and the regulations contained in the Association Agreement, indicating that it “does not present clashes with current migration legislation.” In another vein, Title V of this Part III of the Agreement refers to the Environment, Natural Disasters, and Climate Change, defining which environmental areas would be covered by interregional cooperation (Article 50). Similarly, it seeks to reduce the vulnerability of the Central American region to natural disasters (Article 51).

Title VI applies to cooperation in the field of Economic and Commercial Development. Specifically, this section is responsible for regulating the issue of cooperation and technical assistance in matters such as competition policy and its promotion (Article 52), customs and trade facilitation (Articles 53 and 54), intellectual property and technology transfer (Article 55), trade in services and electronic commerce (Article 56), public procurement (Article 58), sustainable fisheries and aquaculture (Article 59), market access for artisanal goods and their preservation (Article 60), facilitating trade in organic products (Article 61), food safety, sanitary and phytosanitary measures as well as animal welfare (Article 62), trade and sustainable development, supporting environmental protection and decent working conditions (Article 63), modernization and restructuring of Central American industry (Article 64), energy and renewable energies, their saving and environmental impact (Article 65), mining taking into account internal legislations and sustainable development (Article 66), fair and sustainable tourism that includes the protection and promotion of cultural heritage and natural resources, all with the participation of local communities, promoting rural, community, and ecological tourism (Article 67), modernization and restructuring of transport in all its modalities, including border posts, facilitating the movement of persons and goods (Article 68), support for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, so they can participate in local and international goods and services markets (Article 70), and access to microcredits and microfinancing (Article 71).

In relation to Title VII, it can be stated that it is destined to regulate cooperation in the matter of Regional Integration, strengthening this process in the Central American sphere, especially in the application of its common market, development of its common institutions, and participation of civil society through consultation and awareness campaigns (Article 72).

For its part, Title VIII refers to Audiovisual and Cultural Cooperation. In that sense, it is highlighted that the Parties committed to fostering the circulation of cultural activities, goods, and services, and of cultural artists and professionals (Article 74). Also included is the promotion of cultural diversity, including that of indigenous peoples and the cultural practices of other groups, incorporating education in native languages. In the audiovisual area, cooperation in communication media, such as radio and press, is mentioned. Finally, it is clarified that a Protocol on Cultural Cooperation is annexed in the final provisions, which is also relevant for the interpretation of this Title.

The Final Title IX of this Part III is related to the Knowledge Society. This section intends to enshrine cooperation between both regions regarding information and communication technologies, seeking to reduce the digital divide and ensure equitable and inclusive access (Article 75). Topics such as digital government, electronic commerce, digital signature, telework, among others, are also focused on. Likewise, cooperation would be directed towards the scientific and technological sector, as well as to concretizing joint research actions (Article 76). The promotion of nuclear science and technology for medical applications in areas such as health is affirmed, particularly radiology and nuclear medicine for radiodiagnosis and radiotherapy treatment, as well as other areas the Parties establish by mutual agreement. Emphasis is also placed on training, scholarships, and exchanges.

Having analyzed each of the Titles that make up this Part III of the Association Agreement, the Chamber concludes that – in general terms – evident and manifest unconstitutionalities were also not found regarding the substance of its rules and texts.

Part IV of the Agreement:

As has been explained, Part IV of the Association Agreement constitutes, properly, the Free Trade Agreement between Central America and the European Union.

In accordance with Articles 353.2 and 353.4 of the Agreement, unlike the other parts of the Association Agreement that will enter into force when the Parties from both regions have notified the completion of their internal procedures, this Part IV can enter into force for each Central American country that ratifies it, independently of the others, once it has been approved by the European Union.

In general, this commercial section follows the traditional structure of World Trade Organization Agreements, developing in 14 Titles the areas of trade in goods (Title II), trade in services and electronic commerce (Title III), and includes provisions on common themes: investment protection regarding financial flows (Title IV), public procurement (Title V), intellectual property protection (Title VI), and dispute settlement mechanisms (Title X).

Titles I and XIV contain the general provisions applicable to the entire Trade Agreement, and state the basic objective of the Parties (establishment of a free trade zone), the technical definitions, and the general exceptions commonly applicable in this type of treaty (Title XIV), following the rules of the WTO GATT Agreement, agreements approved by Costa Rica at the time of its incorporation into the World Trade Organization (Law No. 7475 of December 20, 1994).

These are, then, objectives of economic policy that may be shared or not, but whose definition, in any case, corresponds to a criterion of political opportunity under the charge of the Legislative and Executive Branches, not to a jurisdictional criterion. The constitutional review under the responsibility of the Constitutional Chamber cannot substitute for said Branches, but must limit itself to verifying that the constitutional order is not violated, all in respect for the principle of self-restraint of the constitutional judge.

Regarding the rules of Titles XII and XIII (on Transparency and Administrative Procedures), these are common provisions in the creation of institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the Agreement, whether with the obligation to publicize internal administrative procedures, to provide the possibility within the legal system to appeal, administratively or judicially, the acts of the bodies responsible for implementing the Agreement (customs and sanitary authorities, among others), or to maintain a point of contact for fluid communication between the Parties. Properly, Title XIII limits itself to distributing competences and functions within the distinct bodies that are created, to administer and implement the Agreement itself.

This Trade Agreement includes some novel topics, such as the regulations relating to the Title called “Trade and Sustainable Development” (Title VIII), in addition to the commitments on regional economic integration (Title IX).

In general terms, all these topics and commitments implied by Trade Agreements of this type have already been assumed by the country in previous treaties. For this reason, and given the eminently technical nature of the contents of the Trade Agreement, which in principle respond to discretionary criteria of commercial policy, the Chamber deems it necessary to recall some jurisprudence issued by this constitutional jurisdiction in cases analogous to the present one, in which it was explained that: “(…) However, from the point that interests us to point out now, this means that the State, or more properly, the bodies that have strictly political and management competences under their charge, must always act in function of stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth. It must be understood, then, that the Executive Branch has negotiated this Treaty, having these constitutional objectives as its guide. And it must be understood, also, that the Legislative Branch, upon knowing the substance of said instrument, shall act in accordance with the same objectives. That is why we can conclude, in principle, that the advantages or disadvantages that the Treaty as such may have for some sector, or some of its provisions, discussed and debatable, do not necessarily entail a constitutional aspect, in the sense in which the Chamber must rule, since they reside at the level of mere convenience or opportunity. For example, some point out that despite the benefit of this type of commercial instruments, a country would not derive immediate or short-term advantages if the old model (of import substitution, of subsidies) and the new model of commercial opening coincide in it. (…) In any case, the Chamber warns that those aspects revolve around the policies that are behind the philosophy of the Treaty, but they do not have the constitutional connotation to which the Chamber must confine its opinion” (see judgments number 07005-94 of 09:21 hours on December 2, 1994, and 9469-2007 of 10:00 hours on July 3, 2007, among others). Consequently, in accordance with the various pronouncements that this Chamber has issued on the Free Trade Agreements already in force in our country, it is clear that, in general terms, the commercial and technical clauses contained therein obey the commercial policy that the Executive Branch had at the time of signing the international instrument. Likewise, it is also noted that many of the norms contained in this Trade Agreement are basically limited to reaffirming the rights and obligations of the Parties, already previously contained in other international agreements ratified by Costa Rica (e.g., in the area of Intellectual Property, Article 233 of the Agreement lists several international instruments that the Parties must comply with, all of which have already been ratified by our country: the Rome Convention (Law No. 4727), the Berne Convention (Law No. 6083), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (Law No. 7968) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (Law No. 7967).

Thus, this Court will limit itself to the study of certain novel aspects or those it considers relevant from a constitutional perspective.

The International Agreement under review, in relation to Title V of Part IV, establishes as its main objective the effective, reciprocal, and gradual opening of their respective procurement markets, based on transparent, competitive, and open contracts that contribute to sustainable development. Precisely for this reason, Article 211 establishes, just as has been provided in previous treaties of the same nature, the need for the States Parties to grant treatment no less favorable than that granted by the Party, as well as the duty to manage procurement in a transparent and impartial manner, seeking to avoid conflicts of interest and corrupt practices. By reason of the foregoing, the agreement contemplates different forms of administrative contracting, similar to those contemplated in our legal system (denominated in this case open tendering (licitación abierta), selective tendering (licitación selectiva), and restricted tendering (licitación restringida)), which aims to guarantee minimum principles of participation and equality that protect the companies that may eventually participate in the States Parties. The foregoing is reasonable, based on the fact that not every State Party has said guarantees contemplated in its legal system, as ours does, even at the constitutional level, in accordance with the provisions of Article 182 of the Political Constitution:

“Article 182.- The contracts for the execution of public works entered into by the Branches of the State, the Municipalities, and the autonomous institutions, the purchases made with funds from those entities, and the sales or leases of property belonging to the same, shall be made through a call for bids, in accordance with the law regarding the respective amount.” In particular, the text of the agreement under review provides the following definitions in Article 209.2:

“…f) “restricted tendering (licitación restringida)” means a procurement method through which a contracting entity contacts a supplier or suppliers of its choice;…

…k) “open tendering (licitación abierta)” means a procurement method through which all interested suppliers may submit a tender;…

…n) “selective tendering (licitación selectiva)” means a procurement method through which a contracting entity only invites qualified or registered suppliers to tender;…” Likewise, this Agreement regulates the need for the publication of information on procurement in a timely, complete, and transparent manner (see Articles 212, 217, and 223) and seeks due access under conditions of equality for participation in the procurement processes, pointing out that for the selection of the tenderer, its suitability must be taken into consideration, in relation to financial, commercial, and technical skills, without granting privileged treatment to those that have previously participated, valuing the offer solely by reason of territory (Article 214). In accordance with said objectives, Article 220 stipulates that provided that the procurement procedures are not used as a means to avoid competition or to protect national suppliers, a contracting entity may award contracts through direct awarding or other equivalent procurement procedures under certain circumstances specified therein.

The foregoing serves precisely as a guarantee that a State Party will not indiscriminately justify the use of a direct contracting mechanism to the detriment of the other States Parties, thereby harming the principle of good faith governing the negotiation in question. Therefore, far from diminishing the controls already existing in our legal system for carrying out administrative contracting, minimum conditions are established, at least regarding the object to be contracted, for resorting to this direct contracting mechanism. All of the above is fully consistent with the principles governing administrative contracting in our country and in no way affects the domestic public contracting regime, since there is no agreement to diminish or harm the controls and principles of administrative contracting observed in our country; rather, it seeks to guarantee that these are carried out with all applicable guarantees.

Likewise, Article 225 provides that each Party shall establish or maintain administrative or judicial review procedures that allow for the control of administrative decisions affecting procurement, and such processes must be timely, effective, transparent, and non-discriminatory, and it refers to our own jurisdiction for the resolution of conflicts of this nature. Furthermore, this Chamber, in rulings No. 2007-9469 and No. 2008-12590, has reiterated, regarding conditions agreed upon such as those under study, that the control exercised by the Contraloría General de la República equally prevails, as a guarantee not only for nationals but also for nationals of the States Parties:

“… the Treaty under study leaves to the discretion of each Party the designation of its competent administrative or judicial authority in this matter, imposing as the sole requirement that it be an impartial body. This is why, in the case of Costa Rica, it must be understood in light of our country's domestic regulations that the Contraloría General de la República retains all its powers of control and oversight in matters of public procurement, and if it is not expressly mentioned in the Treaty, it is not because its exclusion is intended, but because such designation will depend on the regulations of each Party. The fact that the Organic Law of the Contraloría General de la República was not included in the list of non-conforming measures does not mean that the oversight power of said body is being excluded. On the contrary, it means that said control was not considered incompatible with the Treaty in light of the provisions of Article 9.15, and therefore its inclusion as a non-conforming measure was not warranted. Thus, as there is no provision to the contrary in the treaty, the Contraloría General de la República retains all its powers in this matter, and consequently, it can even ensure that the exceptional mechanisms to ‘open tendering’ (licitación abierta) are not used for abuses and identify when one is truly faced with one of those cases.” Furthermore, this Chamber verifies that although Article 214 of the Agreement, which refers to the conditions for participation, in paragraph 4, second subparagraph, provides that: “Each Party may adopt or maintain procedures for declaring the ineligibility to participate in the Party’s procurement, either indefinitely or for a stated period, of suppliers that the Party has determined have engaged in illegal or fraudulent activities related to procurement”; this norm is not harmful to our legal system, despite establishing the possibility of imposing a sanction indefinitely—such as ineligibility—, because the cited norm contemplates two scenarios divided by the conjunction “or,” which in this case has a disjunctive function, implying that the State Party may choose to declare ineligibility indefinitely or for a stated period. Regarding our country, Article 40 of the Political Constitution prohibits the existence of perpetual sanctions, so when the corresponding procedures are regulated, the indicated ground simply could not be subject to an indefinite sanction, but rather to a determined period, which is also consistent with what is provided in the international Agreement under study.

Furthermore, Title VII of this Part IV, entitled: “Trade and Competition,” expresses some principles that would govern competition in trade relations between each region (Article 278). In that sense, it was recorded that the Parties recognized the importance of free and undistorted competition; furthermore, that anti-competitive practices may affect the proper functioning of markets and the benefits of trade liberalization. Subsequently, the Parties agreed on a list of practices that would be incompatible with the Agreement. However, they also recorded important clarifying or safeguard clauses such as the one contemplated in numeral 280: “No provision of this Title shall prevent a Republic of the CA Party or a Member State of the European Union from designating or maintaining public undertakings, undertakings with special or exclusive rights, or monopolies in accordance with their respective national legislation” (emphasis not in the original). As is well known, Costa Rica already has normative regulations related to competition matters (Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, Ley 7472 of December 20, 1994); likewise, in recent years, the national market has been liberalized in certain specific sectors (e.g., the General Telecommunications Law, Ley 8642, which imposes a competition regime in that area).

In Title VIII, related to “Trade and Sustainable Development,” a series of principles on labor and environmental standards are established, considering not only current but future generations. The right of the Parties to regulate their own level of protection is recognized, in accordance with their respective Constitutions (Article 285), while reaffirming the commitment to implement, in their legislation and in practice, the ILO Conventions listed in numeral 286 of the Agreement (Convention 138 on Minimum Age for Admission to Employment (Ley 5594), Convention 182 on the Prohibition of the Worst Forms of Child Labour and Immediate Action for their Elimination (Ley 8122), Convention 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour (Ley 2330), Convention 111 on Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (Ley 2848), as well as Conventions 29: on Forced or Compulsory Labour, 100: on Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, 87: on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, and 98: on the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively (all jointly approved by Ley 2561)), as well as the multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party, listed in Article 287 of the Agreement (Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Ley 7228), Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Ley 7438), Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Ley 8538), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna “CITES” (Ley 5605), Convention on Biological Diversity (Ley 7416), Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Ley 8537), Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Ley 8219).

It is precisely in this section of the Agreement (Article 287.3) where the Parties “(…) undertake to ensure that they will have ratified, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the Amendment to Article XXI of the CITES, adopted in Gaborone (Botswana) on April 30, 1983”. As has been seen, this obligation assumed by the State constitutes the second article of the bill consulted before this Chamber, whose constitutionality will be addressed later. Subsequently, it is also indicated in the Agreement that the Parties undertook to ratify the “Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade,” an instrument that has already been ratified by Costa Rica through Ley 8705. In that same vein, numeral 290.2.a of the Agreement indicates that, in the matter of Trade in Fishery Products, the Parties undertake to adhere to the principles of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Ley 8059).

Particular mention deserves numeral 290.3 of the Agreement, which regulates the following: “The Parties agree, to the extent they have not already done so, to adopt port State measures in accordance with the Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (…)”. In accordance with what was verified in the Asamblea Legislativa, the Accession to said Agreement is being processed through legislative file 18.320, and the bill is entitled as follows: “APPROVAL OF THE ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT ON PORT STATE MEASURES TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING (PSMA) AND ITS ANNEXES”. As was confirmed, said Agreement related to port State measures and Illegal Fishing has not yet been approved by that parliamentary body. The last legislative action verified on this international agreement was its entry into the Plenary’s Order of the Day on September 10, 2012, without the legislative procedure having been concluded to date in order to obtain accession (http://www.asamblea.go.cr/Centro_de_Informacion/Consultas_SIL/Pginas/Detalle%20Proyectos%20de%20Ley.aspx?Numero_Proyecto=18320). It is important to remember that regarding the figure of “accession” to an international agreement, this Tribunal has noted the following in its jurisprudence:

“ACCESSION TO AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT. Prior to considering the merits of the bill consulted, it is appropriate to refer to the figure of accession as a mechanism for ratifying an international instrument that was not negotiated directly by the Government of Costa Rica, but which the latter subsequently decides, in a sovereign manner, to commit to its content. The figure of accession is established in Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Ley 7615 of July 24, 1996, when it indicates, as relevant, that ‘“ratification”, “acceptance”, “approval” and “accession” mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty’. Likewise, Article 11 regulates the forms of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, consent that may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. In relation to this numeral, the Government of Costa Rica made the reservation to the effect that the constitutional legal system of our country does not authorize any form of consent that is not subject to the approval of the Asamblea Legislativa. The foregoing, of course, in light of what is indicated in Article 121 of the Political Constitution, which provides in subsection 4 that it corresponds exclusively to the Asamblea Legislativa to approve or disapprove international conventions, public treaties, and concordats. That is to say, the consent of the Costa Rican State is always linked to the authorization of the parliamentary body. Furthermore, the Vienna Convention establishes in Article 15 the possibility of a State acceding to an international instrument and regulates it in the following sense: “Article 15.- Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by accession. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by accession: a) When the treaty provides that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession; b) When it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession; or c) When all the parties have subsequently agreed that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession.” From said numeral, it is clear that the possibility of acceding to the text of an international agreement not directly negotiated and signed is legitimate, provided that the negotiating Parties of the convention so authorize or that possibility is provided for in the convention itself” (see ruling number 2011-001308 at 15:10 hours on February 02, 2011).

In this case, as indicated, the Costa Rican State, through the approval of the Association Agreement, commits to adopting measures aimed at implementing port State measures, in accordance with the cited Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in order to establish control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems in the long term. In this regard, we must specify that the Association Agreement does not impose, as a sine qua non condition of validity, the approval of the accession to the Agreement on Port State Measures. It merely indicates that the State that has not adopted it, such as ours, must at least adopt the corresponding measures that refer to the content of that Agreement to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing and implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems in the long term, and that in the event of choosing its adoption, it does not exempt it from following the procedures set forth in our legal system. Likewise, from the comprehensive reading of Article 290, it is clear that its objective is for the Parties to recognize the need to promote sustainable fisheries, in order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks and the sustainable trade of fishery resources, which is fully consistent with the protection that safeguards the right to a healthy and balanced environment in our State; and the reference made to this Convention in subsection c) was not made with the imperative that, for example, is established in point 2 concerning other principles.

Continuing with the analysis of the substance of the Association Agreement, it is observed that its Article 295 expresses the consent to facilitate interregional relations through dialogue forums with civil society, with balanced representation, from environmental, economic, and social actors. Likewise, this Title establishes a Panel of Experts responsible for “examining whether a Party has failed to comply with the obligations established under Articles 286, paragraph 2; 287, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; and 291 of this Title, and formulating non-binding recommendations to resolve the matter (…)” (Article 299).

Throughout the Agreement, as has been seen, there are a series of norms that allow for the participation of civil society in certain matters of significant relevance. In this Chamber’s consideration, it is necessary to note this particularity of the Agreement since it finds a connection with a transcendental principle of constitutional standing, namely citizen participation, contemplated in Article 9 of the Constitution. The jurisprudence of this Tribunal has been extensive in developing this right and highlighting its relevance in our legal system. Thus, it has been held that this principle of citizen participation in decision-making has become one of the fundamental pillars upon which the democratic system rests. In that sense, Article 9 of the Political Constitution establishes, among other characteristics, that the Government of the Republic must be participatory. With the reform effective since July 31, 2003, to numeral 9 of the Fundamental Law, it was established that the Government of the Republic must be, among other aspects, participatory, which implies that the incumbent government is an articulator of what is established by popular deliberation. In other words, it is the citizens who have greater participation in political decision-making; they can and must exert direct influence on public decisions. This principle, seen as a fundamental right of citizen participation, establishes that the people must be enabled to express themselves equally on both majority and minority viewpoints (see ruling number 015763-2011 of 09:46 hours on November 16, 2011). Thus, this Chamber considers that the Association Agreement sub examine contains a set of norms that promote the advancement of this constitutional right, hence it is worth highlighting this virtue in its text.

In Title IX, called “Regional Economic Integration,” commitments acquired by the Central American region in this area are described, mainly focused on the area of customs procedures, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, among others, for all of which a series of previously agreed deadlines was established to comply with such integration requirements. It should be remembered that the Central American region has assumed many of these duties based on the integration process that has been developing for several years; however, for some matters, the Agreement orders the fulfillment of commitments within duly defined deadlines.

A section to highlight in this Part IV of the Agreement is that set forth in Titles X and XI, concerning “Dispute Settlement”. There, a dispute settlement mechanism is established based on an arbitration procedure or Special Group (Title X). This procedure applies only to the Trade Agreement (Part IV), and it is not possible to execute it in disputes between Central American countries. In this Title X, there is freedom of choice of the forum to raise the dispute, but obviously not through both avenues. In that sense, Article 326 of the Agreement establishes the possibility that if a complaining Party wishes to remedy the infringement of an obligation under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes of the WTO, it may resort to the rules of the WTO Agreement.

On the other hand, it is explained that prior consultations must be mandatorily raised, and once that procedure is exhausted without reaching a solution, the request for a Special Group is made, which is formed from the List of Experts defined by the parties. This Special Group issues a decision, and if a party is reluctant to comply with it, it entitles the counterparty to compensation or suspension of benefits in equivalent terms (Article 314). Additionally, a mediation mechanism is proposed for non-tariff measures, which produces legal effects in the event of a mutually agreed solution. This mediation procedure is contemplated in Title XI of the Agreement. Specifically, Article 334 explains that mediation is independent of Title X (Dispute Settlement) and is not intended to serve as a basis for dispute settlement procedures under that Title. That is, the request for mediation that any of the Parties may raise will not exclude recourse to Title X.

As Article 308 of the Agreement well establishes, the dispute settlement provided in Title X will only serve to “(…) resolve any dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of Part IV of the Agreement (…)”. That is, arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are established so that the Parties (the States) can enforce the obligations acquired by their counterparty, provided that these are obligations that do not go beyond the patrimonial scope protected in Article 43 of the Political Constitution.

Furthermore, Article 319 of the Agreement provides that the Rules of Procedure that will govern dispute resolution will be adopted by the Association Council, unless the contesting Parties agree otherwise. In Article 321 of the Agreement, the figure of “amicus curiae” is recognized, through which the possibility is granted for natural or legal persons with an interest in the matter to submit briefs for possible consideration by the Special Group, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. In Article 323.2 of the Agreement, it is clarified that any decision of the Special Group shall be final and binding on the Parties, which—as has been explained—is a logical consequence of the prior signing and acceptance by the States of the arbitration clause in this type of international instruments, a clause that has been accepted by this Chamber on previous occasions.

Finally, from the reading of both Title X and XI, it is not apparent that this Association Agreement contemplated the establishment of mechanisms for disputes between investors of one Party and States of another; neither is it observed that there is any section within the Agreement specifically designated to regulate Dispute Settlement between a Party and an investor of the other party. On the contrary, in Title X (Dispute Settlement) only the term “Parties” is mentioned in each of its rules. It is clear that the notion of “Parties” must be read in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the Agreement, where the final provisions of the convention are outlined, among which is Article 352 that, precisely, refers to the “Definition of the Parties” for the purposes of the Agreement. In that article, only the Central American Republics, on the one hand, and the Member States or the European Union, on the other, are cited. In this way, no other interpretation would be possible than to conclude that the dispute settlement mechanism is only for disputes between States. The same is verified from the reading of Article 329.3 of the Agreement, which indicates that “this Title shall apply bilaterally between the EU Party, on the one hand, and each of the Republics of the CA Party, on the other.” This norm is contained within Title XI, which regulates the “Mediation Mechanism for Non-Tariff Measures.” Thus, for the resolution of the sub lite, it is not appropriate to base arguments on the reasons set forth in ruling number 2007-09469 (FTA with the US) regarding this subject of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, since on that occasion such reasons were specifically referred to the scope of Investor-State Dispute Settlement, a scenario that, as seen, was omitted in the present Association Agreement.

Leaving the topic of Dispute Settlement behind, the Association Agreement under study also undertook to regulate, in its Title XII, a special section called “Transparency and Administrative Procedures.” In Article 338, the agreement between the Parties is developed in order to cooperate in relevant bilateral and multilateral forums to increase transparency, including eliminating bribery and corruption in matters covered by Part IV of the Agreement (Trade Part). The remaining rules contained in this Title are those necessary to implement and fulfill this mission between both regions.

Finally, in Title XIV, called “Exceptions,” the common exceptions of temporary restrictions by virtue of balance-of-payments problems are set forth. Similarly, this section clarifies that the fiscal or tax power of the States is not affected in any way by virtue of the Agreements.

X.- Based on the foregoing, regarding the substance of the Association Agreement examined, no manifest unconstitutionalities are detected, which does not hinder highlighting the following: 1) by virtue of the fact that numeral 290.3 of the Agreement provides: “The Parties agree, to the extent they have not already done so, to adopt port State measures in accordance with the Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems in the long term.” and Costa Rica has not yet approved said convention, we must specify that the Association Agreement does not impose, as a sine qua non condition of validity, the approval of the accession to the Agreement on Port State Measures. It merely indicates that the State that has not adopted it, such as ours, must at least adopt the corresponding measures that refer to the content of that Agreement to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing and implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems in the long term, and that in the event of choosing its approval, it does not exempt it from following the procedures set forth in our legal system. Likewise, from the comprehensive reading of Article 290, it is clear that its objective is for the Parties to recognize the need to promote sustainable fisheries, in order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks and the sustainable trade of fishery resources, which is fully consistent with the protection that safeguards the right to a healthy and balanced environment in our State; and the reference made to this Convention in subsection c) was not made with the imperative that, for example, is established in point 2 concerning other principles; 2) the mere approval of the Agreement does not imply that Costa Rica recognizes the jurisdiction of the Corte Centroamericana de Justicia; and 3) Article 214 of the Agreement proposes as a sanction for a supplier that has engaged in illegal or fraudulent activities related to procurement, the sanction of ineligibility to participate in the Party’s procurement, either indefinitely or for a stated period; consequently, each Party may opt for one of these two variants, but in the case of Costa Rica the option would be ineligibility for a stated period, given that indefinite sanctions are improper.

XI.- The other articles contained in bill No. 18.563.

As indicated supra, in addition to the ratification of the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," legislative bill number 18.563 proposes the approval of the following norms: 1) the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983; 2) the Creation of the Council of Land Border Posts (Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres); 3) the Creation of two taxes to defray, primarily, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts; 4) finally, the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is intended to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX). Each of the aforementioned provisions will be examined in the order in which they were presented.

XII.- Regarding the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983, it must be noted that from the explanatory memorandum of this bill and the reading of the Association Agreement, as part of the political negotiation between both regions, it was agreed that along with the ratification of the Agreement, the obligation of the Central American States to approve the cited Amendment to Article XXI would be included. This amendment seeks the recognition of any regional economic integration organization constituted by sovereign States as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In general terms, it is also necessary to recall that CITES is an international instrument aimed at the protection of wild fauna and flora through the regulation and limitation of international trade in protected species. The Legislative Assembly approved this convention through Ley Nº 5605 of October 30, 1974. The approval of said amendment in the bill under study is reasonable, since the necessary validation of this Amendment has been the product of a political negotiation inherent to the Association Agreement to be approved. At the Central American level, only Guatemala, Panama, and Nicaragua have ratified the Gaborone Amendment (see website: http://www.cites.org/esp/disc/parties/gaborone.php), hence it has been deemed necessary for the remaining three countries of our region (El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica) to proceed in the same manner. It is noted that in the publication in Volume V of Alcance No 180 of the Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 220 ( http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-5_14_11_2012.pdf ), at the end of article 3 and before article 4, the following paragraph was introduced: "Administered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme." After comparing those lines with the text of the Amendment in the bill (folio 4980 of the certified copy of the legislative file sent to the Court, Volume XV), it is observed that the referred lines do not correspond to the original discussed and approved in the first debate in the Legislative Assembly. However, the foregoing does not constitute an essential procedural defect. As indicated in Considerando VII of this pronouncement, with regard to the publication requirement in La Gaceta per Article 117 of the Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, it is drawn from the Court's jurisprudence that the crux of the matter consists of analyzing, according to the specific case, to what extent an error in publication leads to a defect in publicity, from which the citizenry in general would have a confused understanding of the content of a bill to be approved in the Legislative Assembly, or their informed participation in its discussion would be restricted. It is not, therefore, a matter of applying a rigid formalism, alien to the circumstances of the case, but of employing legal hermeneutics in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, such that norms are interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the purpose or purposes they pursue. In this case, the aforementioned defect—a separate addition between Articles 3 and 4 of the Amendment—does not alter the content of the latter nor distract from the correct meaning of what is regulated in said articles, which is why no impediment is perceived regarding popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions through the publicity of legislative projects. Likewise, the extra incorporated lines have no meaning on their own, do not succeed in completing an idea, and their syntax confirms this. Under this understanding, this Court does not consider that the inclusion of the approval of the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983 (bill processed in legislative file Nº 18.563) raises any conflict with the Law of the Constitution.

XIII.- In relation to the creation of the Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres (contemplated in Article three of the bill), the creation of two taxes to defray, primarily, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts (Article four of the bill), and the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE) that is intended to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX), provided for in Article five and final of legislative bill Nº 18.563, it is pertinent to clarify that, in the opinion of this Court, said provisions become a typical manifestation of the ordinary legislative activity assigned to the Legislature. As can be readily drawn from a simple reading of such norms, they are not matters that must be analyzed by this Constitutional Court under the figure of a mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality (consulta legislativa preceptiva de constitucionalidad), given that, in accordance with Article 96, subsection a) of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, the Court is called upon to issue its advisory opinion, mandatorily, only in those cases where it is intended to approve projects for constitutional amendments, amendments to the Law governing this jurisdiction, or in those cases aimed at the approval of international agreements or treaties. For the purposes of this consultation, it is important to highlight the last of these cases: the approval of international agreements or treaties. As has been observed, Articles one and two of bill Nº 18.563 concern the approval by our country of two international instruments, respectively: the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other" (in Article one), and the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983 (Article two). In both cases, the mandatory consultation was appropriate since it concerns the approval of international agreements or treaties, under the terms provided by subsection a) of Article 96 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. However, the Court considers that the mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality is not appropriate regarding the other provisions contained in the bill processed under legislative file number 18.563, since none of them possess the legal nature of an international treaty or agreement, under the terms required by subsection a) of the cited Article 96. Although they could be considered as norms that contribute to the implementation of the Agreement, the truth is that they are norms of domestic national law. Consequently, regarding Articles 3, 4, and 5 of legislative file Nº 18.563, the consultation is inadmissible and non-evacuable.

XIV.- Corollary. By virtue of the foregoing, with regard to the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," and the "approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983," no essential procedural defects or unconstitutional provisions are found. It is noted that both the Agreement and the Amendment require for their approval a vote by an absolute majority of the votes present. Concerning the Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres (contemplated in Article three of the bill), the creation of two taxes to defray, primarily, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts (Article four of the bill), and the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE) that is intended to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX), provided for in Article five and final of bill Nº 18.563, the consultation is inadmissible and non-evacuable.

XV.- Separate note by Judge Castillo Víquez. In relation to the vote required for the approval of the consulted bill, it is necessary to keep in mind that the qualified majority is required for its definitive approval, not in the first debate, that is, after the conclusion of the second debate, as the majority of this Court has held.

Moreover, I share the thesis that the Convention does not require a qualified majority but for other reasons. In the first place, because competencies are not being transferred to a supranational entity, such that its decisions are of imperative compliance for the State of Costa Rica. Secondly, Article 6, paragraph 2, is clear in the sense that the decisions adopted by the Association Council are binding on the Parties, but for their execution, the internal norms and legal procedures of each Party must be respected. The foregoing means, no more and no less, that the decisions of that Council, which are adopted by consensus, are not of automatic application, but rather, for this purpose, they must observe the constitutional competencies enshrined in the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms) held by the constitutional organs, for example: if it involves a substantial modification to the convention, whether because its purpose or objective is expanded or modified, or because new obligations are imposed on the State of Costa Rica, legislative approval will be required, just as with those decisions that do not derive expressly or implicitly—theory of implied powers—from the Convention and that affect fundamental rights, given that their legal regime is reserved to the Law. When it concerns the exercise of coercive powers (potestades de imperio) that the Law of the Constitution confers on the organs of the State, and whose exercise is partially transferred to supranational entities—a typical case of the exercise of domestic competencies by an international organ—the matter is resolved through the aggravated approval of the Convention. On the contrary, if the obligations or other duties derive from the Convention itself, the Executive Branch possesses the competence to fully comply with them through lower-ranking protocols, the exercise of regulatory power, and other powers-duties that the legal system attributes to it.

A different scenario is when, by the very fact of being a party to the treaty or convention, an organ created by it, in the exercise of the competencies attributed to it in the international instrument, adopts an act that, in accordance with the convention, is binding on all contracting parties—a typical case of the exercise of international competencies by an international organ. In this scenario, a qualified majority is not required, given that there is no transfer of competencies from internal organs to supranational organs, and therefore, the majority required for its approval is the absolute majority of the votes present, pursuant to Article 121, subsection 4, first paragraph, in relation to Article 119 of the Carta Fundamental.

Finally, I do not endorse the assertion that the qualified majority is only required when dealing with a community model, because although it is true that the partial reform of the Political Constitution, through Ley n.° 4123 of May 31, 1968, was carried out adopting the Central American Common Market as a frame of reference, the reality of the matter is that today, the dynamics of the international economy and global politics, which drive a series of economic integration, trade exchange, and economic cooperation institutions among States, and between these States and international organizations at the global, regional, or bilateral level, have created new modalities of economic integration that are in accordance with the Law of the Constitution, and in the event that sovereign competencies are transferred to the organizations or institutions created in international treaties, the qualified majority established by Article 121, subsection 4, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution is required for their approval; a situation that does not arise in the present case for the reasons noted supra.

Therefore:

The consultation is evacuated in the sense that Articles 1 and 2 of legislative file Nº 18.563, corresponding respectively to the "Law Approving the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983" contain no essential procedural defects or unconstitutional provisions. Concerning Articles 3, 4, and 5 of legislative file Nº 18.563, as they are not matters subject to a mandatory consultation of constitutionality, this is inadmissible and non-evacuable. Judge Castillo Víquez records a separate note. Judges Armijo Sancho and Cruz Castro dissent in a dissenting vote (salvan el voto) and evacuate this legislative consultation in the sense that they find procedural and substantive defects. Let this resolution be notified to the Directorio of the Legislative Assembly.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.

Aracelly Pacheco S. José Paulino Hernandez G.

Dissenting vote of Judges Armijo Sancho and Cruz Castro, drafted by Judge Armijo:

Regarding the procedure:

Upon reviewing the process followed by the bill processed in legislative file No. 18.563, the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, the following procedural defect is observed:

• A)Violation of the legislative procedure for approval of this international treaty, due to the majority obtained in the vote in the first debate:

The undersigned Judges consider that in the present case, regarding the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, legislative file No. 18.563, Article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution has been violated, insofar as said bill was not approved by a qualified majority, despite clearly attributing or transferring certain competencies to a community legal order, for the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives. In this sense, it is entirely evident that Community Law covers both scenarios where various States join through integration mechanisms, and those where, as a prior step, they initiate collaboration and cooperation relationships, as is the specific case, all of which undoubtedly justifies the requirement of the qualified majority of Article 121, subsection 4) of the Constitution for the approval of international treaties of this type. Indeed, upon reviewing the minutes of plenary session No. 12 on Tuesday, May 21, 2013, it is deduced with complete clarity that the bill was only approved by 37 deputies out of 41 present (4 deputies voted against), see folio 12387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563, thus failing to achieve the majority provided for in the Constitution for norms of this class. In this regard, among the competencies transferred to supranational organs, it is necessary to mention those pertaining to the Association Council (see Articles 4 to 6 of the Agreement), primarily Article 6 which stipulates: "1.- In order to achieve the objectives of this Agreement, the Association Council shall have the power to adopt decisions in the cases provided for in this Agreement. 2.- The decisions adopted shall be binding on the Parties, which shall take the necessary measures to implement them in accordance with each Party's internal rules and legal procedures," as well as those relating to the Association Committee, which under the terms of the Treaty shall be the body responsible for the general implementation of this Agreement, which shall also be empowered to adopt decisions in the cases provided for in the Treaty, or when the Association Council has delegated such power to it (see points 2 and 4 of Article 7 of the Agreement). For this reason, and given the seriousness of the defect observed on this occasion, the undersigned Judges dissent in a dissenting vote and evacuate the consultation formulated in the sense that this bill for the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, harms the Law of the Constitution, because it did not attain the majority provided for in Article 121, subsection 4) of the Fundamental Norm for the approval of norms of this type.

Regarding the substance of the bill:

The undersigned Judges dissent from the majority vote on several of the issues raised on the merits and consider that the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, contains some unconstitutionalities, as will be explained below. We consider that regarding some of its provisions, the consulted bill is unconstitutional with respect to certain principles of the Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law (Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho). To support each of these aspects, they will be addressed separately.

Before analyzing the specific regulations on each theme, we consider it important to examine, as was done on the occasion of the dissenting vote to advisory opinion No. 2007-09469 of 10:00 a.m. on July 3, 2007, the concept of the Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho and its impact on some of the provisions governing the multilateral Convention under examination.

I- GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ESTADO SOCIAL Y DEMOCRATICO DE DERECHO The Costa Rican State is a Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law. This statement is not devoid of content but has its implications and its transcendence, especially because such denomination has been derived by reiterated Constitutional Jurisprudence founded on the very Text of Our Magna Carta.

• A)General Concept of the Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho:

The theory of the Rule of Law State (Estado de Derecho) emerged at the end of the 19th century with the objective of subjecting the State to the Law, of putting a brake on arbitrariness, and of recognizing and guaranteeing a series of fundamental rights for individuals. This theory was consolidated in democratic political systems, such that it came to be maintained that every democracy, in order to be one, must in turn be framed within a Rule of Law State. Thus, it was then spoken of more properly as the Democratic State under the Rule of Law (Estado Democrático de Derecho). Subsequently, from the second half of the 19th century, when States assumed a more prominent role within modern societies, and when States were endowed with a series of economic policy instruments to seek greater equity in societies, the previous concept was completed and named the Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law. For this reason, it is said that this latter concept is more complete than the former, as it alludes not only to the subjection of the State to the rule of Law (Estado de Derecho), but also to the actions that the State must undertake as a manager of public policies aimed at achieving greater social equity (Social), and to doing so within a procedural framework that allows for the mitigation of asymmetries of social, political, and economic order, thus propitiating the effective validity of the fundamental values of democracy. Despite the division of this agreement into three parts: political dialogue, cooperation, and trade, the truth is that a large part of its provisions ignore the scope of the Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law, as will be discussed below.

• B)Costa Rica as a Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law:

The Costa Rican State is a Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law founded on what was established by the Original Constituent Power (Actas de la Asamblea Constituyente of 1949) and on constitutional jurisprudence, even though there is no constitutional norm that says so literally.

• 1)According to what was established in the Actas de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente "A Constitution is made for a people with fundamentally different points of view" (Acta N°49) and the Draft Constitution discussed in 1949 "far from establishing an exclusivist economic thesis, establishes a flexible system so that in the future governments of opposing tendencies, different ideologies, can come, which may, despite this, carry out their activities within the constitutional framework, without needing to reform the Political Charter... the drafting Commission tried to establish a Constitution that contemplates the aspirations of different groups and sectors, flexible - since - as the North American Justice Holmes expressed in his dissenting vote of 1905 which I permitted myself to read here, no Constitution should encompass a specific economic theory, be it that of interventionism, be it that of classical liberalism, on the contrary, the Constitution must be malleable, flexible, so that in the future the country can legally accommodate new tendencies and can continue its life uninterruptedly, especially in economic and social matters, without the need for constant reforms of the Political Charter." (see Acta number 50) reason why it was said later in that same act that "The contemporary world demands that political freedoms be complemented by social security institutions that guarantee the dignity of the human person." Thus, our Political Constitution has maintained a complement between freedoms and social rights, for even if it had been treated entirely of one (freedoms) or the other (social rights), it would cease to be a Democratic Constitution, as is also mentioned in the same act 50 of the Constituent Assembly, when it was again maintained that: "no Constitution should encompass a specific economic theory, be it that of interventionism, be it that of classical liberalism, unless it is the Constitution of a totalitarian or dictatorial country. On the contrary, the Constitution of democratic countries must be flexible, so that in the future it can accommodate new tendencies..." for as Constituent Rodrigo Facio says: "It is a matter of a balance, in my judgment, a very healthy one, Social Justice with Economic Efficiency: so that justice does not kill efficiency, nor efficiency kill justice." Such a tendency is also denoted in our Political Constitution when the chapter relating to social guarantees is discussed (Acta N°115) particularly in the drafting of the current Article 50 which reads: "The State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth..." for note that, faced with the proposal that sought to change the word "organizing" for the word "orienting," the former was preferred because it was said that the contrary "comes to mutilate a fundamental principle, which is that the State must participate in the orientation of the national economy." This text and its content have special relevance, because it implies that the State must participate in the orientation of the national economy and that there must not be legal provisions that limit, in the abstract, without any nuance, State intervention or that justify its generalized and unlimited intervention. It would not be admissible for legislation to define, without limiting it to a concrete situation, a liberal or interventionist orientation.
• 2)Constitutional Jurisprudence:

This Constitutional Court has been systematically reiterating in its rulings that our country is an Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, basically founded on the values derived from Articles 50 and 74 of the constitutional text. In this regard, only to mention some rulings, there are the following: 1993-3464, 1995-0550, 1995-1273, 1995-3067, 1995-4286, 1995-4286, 1995-5545, 1995-6347, 1996-1029, 1997-6469, 1996-2379, 1996-3250, 1996-2810, 1997-1019, 1997-1625, 1997-5035, 1997-8325, 2004-14247, 2003-2794, 2003-2771, 2005-16962, 2006-9565, 2006-17113. From all of these, several conclusions can be drawn: first, that the basic general principle of the Political Constitution is embodied in Article 50, which provides that "the State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth," which together with the declaration of the Costa Rican State's adherence to the Christian principle of social justice, included in Article 74 ibidem, determines the very essence of the political and social system that we have chosen for our country and that defines it as a Social State under the Rule of Law. Second, that the current Constitution, in its Article 50, provides a constitutional basis for a certain degree of State intervention in the economy, postulating economic freedom but with a certain degree of reasonable, proportional, and non-discriminatory State intervention, allowing the State, within such limits, to organize and stimulate production, as well as to ensure an "adequate" distribution of wealth.

Third, that freedom of commerce is not an absolute individual guarantee, but rather finds its limits in those that the State legitimately establishes, for the benefit of its citizens in general, always within the global context of the Law of the Constitution. Fourth, that one of the basic connotations of the Costa Rican State, like any Social State under the Rule of Law (Estado Social de Derecho), is the intervention of the governing authorities to solve social problems. The Political Constitution itself obliges the State to participate actively, not only in production processes (Article 50), but also in those related to the development of the individual's fundamental rights (housing, education, clothing, food, etc.) that guarantee them a dignified and useful existence for society. Fifth, that public administrations, far from fulfilling a passive role of solely and exclusively fostering the individual exercise of fundamental rights, have a duty of provision and assistance in order to procure for all persons who make up the community a minimum vital sphere and, of course, to eradicate all obstacles and impediments to the achievement of real and effective equality among them. Sixth, that from the definition of the Costa Rican State as a Social State derives the power of the State to deploy a series of limitations on fundamental rights in consideration of the greater benefit of the community, in order to guarantee public order, social morals, the rights of third parties (Article 28 of the Constitution), and the validity of democratic and constitutional values. Seventh, that the Social State under the Rule of Law (Estado Social de Derecho) produces the phenomenon of incorporating into the foundational text a series of political objectives of great social relevance and the introduction of an important number of social rights that ensure the common good and the satisfaction of people's basic needs. These conceptual determinations are important and of great transcendence, because constitutional jurisprudence has recognized a special strength in fundamental rights and in the political and economic system, which undoubtedly encompasses the social and democratic State under the Rule of Law (Estado social y democrático de Derecho). In Considerando VII of ruling 03-2771, it is stated that "....In the case of the reform of the Constitution, a great and important difference is presented: those constitutional norms relating to fundamental rights or to transcendent political decisions can only be reformed by a Constituent Assembly in accordance with Article 196 of the Political Constitution. For the sake of the forcefulness of the statement, we repeat that the original norms regarding fundamental rights and the political and economic systems can only be diminished by a constituent assembly. ..."; in this same Considerando it is reiterated that the partial reform of the Constitution can be carried out by the Legislative Assembly, "...provided that its activity does not negatively affect fundamental rights, nor the political and economic system, which Costa Ricans substantially gave themselves through the constituent power...". These interesting observations on the value of the political and economic system, which is linked to the social and democratic State under the Rule of Law (Estado social y democrático de Derecho), have an impact on some of the topics of the Treaty, because State intervention is limited beyond what is constitutionally permitted.

• C)Instruments of the Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law (Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho):

For the Costa Rican State to be able to fulfill that duty of provision and assistance to procure for all inhabitants a minimum vital sphere, and to eradicate all obstacles that impede social equity, it is endowed with a series of tools, such as economic policy instruments to support and protect the national producer, and mechanisms that allow the State to intervene in the economy to promote a fairer and more adequate distribution of wealth, among many others. All these instruments, as will be stated below, are diminished, weakened, and neutralized by certain provisions contained in the consulted project, as explained below.

II.- CONFRONTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CENTRAL AMERICA, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES, ON THE OTHER, WITH THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE SOCIAL AND DEMOCRATIC STATE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW (ESTADO SOCIAL Y DEMOCRÁTICO DE DERECHO):

• A)On the unconstitutionality of the power provided for in Article 6.2 of the Treaty, which confers binding character on the decisions adopted by the Association Council.

Just as was stated in the dissenting vote (voto salvado) of ruling No. 2007-09469, in which the accumulated Consultations number 07-005632-0007-CO and 07- 007153-0007-CO were resolved, filed respectively by Lisbeth Quesada Tristán and the deputies Rafael Elías Madrigal Brenes, Alberto Salom Echeverría, José Merino del Río, Ronald Solís, Marvin Rojas Rodríguez, José Joaquín Salazar, Nidia M. González, Leda Zamora Chaves, Andrea Morales, Sadie Bravo de Maroto, Grettel Ortiz Alvarez, Patricia Quirós Quirós, Francisco Molina Gamboa, Lesvia Villalobos Salas, José Rosales, Olivier Pérez González, Oscar López, Elizabeth Fonseca, and Orlando Murillo, regarding the project for the approval of the "Free Trade Treaty between the Dominican Republic, Central America, and the United States," a substantive defect is noted in the content of the Treaty, to the extent that binding character is given to the decisions of the Association Council. In this regard, on that occasion it was considered:

"According to subsection 2 of Article 10.23 of the consulted Treaty, the decisions of this Commission are binding on our Courts. Literally, that provision states:

"Article 10.23: Interpretation of the Annexes ... 2. The decision issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be binding on the tribunal, and any decision or award issued by the tribunal shall be consistent with that decision. If the Commission does not issue such a decision within the 60-day period, the tribunal shall decide on the matter." This provision inserted in this Treaty establishes such binding force, unlike other Free Trade Treaties signed and ratified by Costa Rica where no clause is established determining that the interpretations regarding legal provisions made by the Commission are binding on the Parties. Precisely this addition has a qualitative impact vis-à-vis the Constitution, a situation that makes this provision unconstitutional. Thus, then, this Commission would not only have broad powers of interpretation, but these would also be of mandatory observance for the Judicial Courts and administrative bodies, as established in Article 20.20.2:

"Article 20.20: Procedures before Internal Judicial and Administrative Instances ...

2. The Party in whose territory the court or administrative body is located shall present to them any interpretation agreed upon by the Commission, in accordance with the procedures of that forum." In the specific case, it is observed, as in the aforementioned case, that the decisions of the Association Council have binding character, which constitutes a breach of the Nation's sovereignty. The foregoing is aggravated by the fact that the decisions of said Council, in the case of the Central American countries, are adopted by consensus, meaning it could happen that a decision is taken with which the representative of Costa Rica has not agreed (bearing in mind that consensus is not synonymous with unanimity). All of which is openly contrary to Constitutional norms, principles, and values, since not only can this Association Council exercise powers exclusive to the Powers of the Republic (such as modifying and interpreting the provisions of the Treaty), but also its recommendations are materially obligatory, even for the Judicial Courts. The infringement of the provisions of the aforementioned Agreement against the Law of the Constitution is evident, which is why its unconstitutionality must be declared.

• B)On the unconstitutionality of the provisions in environmental matters.

As in the case decided in ruling No. 2007-09469, it is considered that the existing regulations in the Treaty under study regarding environmental matters are violative of the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. In this sense, although the Treaty insists on the obligation of the State Parties to respect internal environmental legislation, as well as to pursue sustainable development, the truth is that trade in forest resources is permitted, without major limitation. In this order, Article 289 idem stipulates:

"Article 289. Trade in forest products.

In order to promote the sustainable management of forest resources, the parties undertake to work jointly to improve the application of forest legislation and governance, through instruments that may include, among other things: the effective use of CITES with respect to endangered timber species: certification schemes for sustainably harvested forest products, and regional or bilateral voluntary partnership agreements on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (hereinafter FLEGT)." By which, in a veiled manner, the trade of sensitive or endangered forest products is permitted, commerce in which should not occur under any circumstance, in strict adherence to the environmental provisions in force in the country, as well as to the International Instruments on Human Rights matters applicable in the Republic. It is clear that the regulations of the present agreement are somewhat complex and constitute a perverse mechanism that conceals situations in which the guarantee provided for in Article 50 of the Constitution is clearly violated. In relation to the previous statement, what was indicated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in Voto nº 1304-93 is pertinent:

"All human life occurs in an inevitable relationship with its environment, especially with the improvement of the quality of life, which is the central objective that development requires, but this must be in harmony with the environment in such a way that it is balanced and sustainable.

The environment must be understood as a potential for development to be used appropriately, and actions must be taken in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations, since, otherwise, its productivity is degraded for the present and the future, and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the methods of exploiting natural resources lead to a degradation of ecosystems exceeding their capacity for regeneration, which results in broad sectors of the population being harmed and generates a high environmental and social cost that leads to a deterioration in the quality of life; precisely because the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life..., but more important than that is understanding that although man has the right to make use of the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations." In this way, all infra-constitutional norms must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Constitution, the precedents, and jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (rulings 1185-95, 1893-95, 6192-95, 1056-96, 4256-99, 1999-07181, 07371-99, 2000-08193, and 2002-01228). For this reason, the present mandatory constitutional consultation must be resolved in the sense that the provisions of Article 289 of the Treaty violate the Law of the Constitution.

• C)On the unconstitutionality of the mechanism provided for in the Association Agreement between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its member states, on the other, with respect to dispute settlement.

It is deemed that Articles 308 and following of the referenced Association Agreement are unconstitutional, insofar as they oblige the Costa Rican State to resolve its disputes with respect to another non-Central American Party to the Treaty regarding the interpretation or application of Part IV of the Agreement, first, through the Consultation mechanism (see Article 310 idem), as well as before the Special Group (see Article 311 ibidem), violating the sovereign power of the State to decide whether or not to resort and which matters it will submit to these processes proposed by a Party to the Agreement. What these provisions mean is that the Costa Rican State is giving a kind of prior, generic consent for all cases that are presented to it; evidently it would be an unconstitutional provision, basically because these procedures, to be so, must be absolutely voluntary, and it cannot be interpreted that this will is established once and for all, but rather it must be manifested in each specific case, especially taking into account that there are certain matters – which by their nature – cannot be subject to these dispute settlement processes, such as the exercise of certain public powers. In the specific case, it is clear that the airing of the matter before a Special Group constitutes submitting the dispute mandatorily to an arbitration process. It should be borne in mind that the jurisprudence of this Constitutional Court itself has determined that Article 43 of the Political Constitution establishes that every person has the right to terminate their disputes, of a patrimonial nature, by means of arbitrators; and that the exercise of such a right is strictly voluntary since it requires a meeting of the minds between the conflicting parties. As this Chamber has well pointed out on a previous occasion:

"(...) in parallel to the right that private parties have to resort to the Courts of Justice to obtain a 'fulfilled' pronouncement, that is, a correct, useful one, the constituent provided for in Article 43 'the right' of every person to resort, of course, voluntarily, to the arbitral procedure to elucidate their patrimonial differences. The use of this alternative route presupposes a meeting of the minds between the parties. (...)" (Ruling No. 2307-95, from 4:00 p.m. on May 9, 1995).

From the foregoing, it follows that the essence of arbitration lies in the autonomy of the will of the parties. Indeed, it is the parties in conflict who must select both the arbitrators (in this case, the members of the Special Group) and the procedure within which those are going to subject their actions and the effects that the final resolution will have. Thus then, arbitration is a method of alternative dispute resolution, with constitutional character, but for it to be so, it must be voluntary (resolution number 2005-02995 from two forty-five in the afternoon on March sixteenth, two thousand five). To the extent that arbitration is established mandatorily (or with prior, generic, and unconditional consent), this figure would be distorted, and therefore, violating not only Article 43 of the Constitution, but also the principle of national sovereignty according to which the government - which acts as the representative of the people - has the right to decide, by itself, which controversies are resolved through an arbitral process (that is, through the use of the Special Group figure) and which are not. A question to be determined on a case-by-case basis and that prevents a kind of consent given in advance in a generic manner for all types of controversies. It is, for this reason, that the mechanism provided for starting from Articles 308 and following of the Association Agreement with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism is unconstitutional.

• D)On the reference to the Central American Court of Justice as an organ of Central American integration, despite the fact that the Republic of Costa Rica has at no time admitted the jurisdiction or the competence of that Jurisdictional Body: finally, the preamble of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, is unconstitutional, insofar as it literally provides: "RECOGNIZING the progress achieved in the process of Central American economic integration, such as the ratification of the Framework Convention for the strengthening of the Central American Customs Union and the Treaty on Investment and Trade in Services, as well as the application of a jurisdictional mechanism that guarantees compliance with regional economic legislation throughout the Central American region," insofar as it constitutes a direct, explicit, and unequivocal reference to the Central American Court of Justice, which is the Supranational Jurisdictional Body of the Central American Integration System and is responsible for ensuring the interpretation and application of Central American Community Law, whose jurisdiction and competence, however, has not yet been recognized by the Republic of Costa Rica. For this reason, and in view that our country has not yet endorsed the Jurisdiction of that Court, any explicit reference made to it in an international treaty approved by the country is unconstitutional, for circumventing the scope of Articles 7 and 121 subsection 4) of the Fundamental Text.
• E)On the violation of the Constitution by the progressive liberalization clause for establishment and trade in services: For the same reasons indicated previously, the progressive liberalization clause for establishment and trade in services provided for in Article 159 of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, is contrary to Article 50 of the Political Constitution and to the scope of the Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law (Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho), insofar as it disregards state policies that seek an equitable distribution of wealth among the least favored sectors. Based on the foregoing, the consultation filed must be resolved in the sense that the provisions of Article 159 of the Agreement are unconstitutional.
• III)IN CONCLUSION.- In accordance with the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrates issue a dissenting vote (salvan el voto) and resolve the consultation filed in the sense that the present project for the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, legislative file No. 18,563 contains procedural and substantive defects.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Dissenting vote of Magistrate Armijo Sancho.

On the violation of the principle of publicity because the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, was not published in its entirety.

Regarding this matter, the undersigned Magistrate considers that the fact that the present Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, and its annexes, was not published in its entirety constitutes a gross violation of the principle of publicity, as well as of the due legislative process. Indeed, after reviewing the publication made of the project in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Scope (Alcance) No. 180 (see webpage: http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf, consulted on June 19, 2013), 2 folios corresponding to the First Annex are missing. In this line of thought, after reviewing the text of the Agreement in La Gaceta, the absence in the publication of the visible page at folio 1006 of the certified copy (EU/CENTR-AM/Annex I/es 544), as well as folio 1572, is verified, which correspond to Annex I of the Agreement, which deals with the elimination of customs tariffs on the occasion of the Agreement. For this reason, and in view that the consulted project was not published in its entirety, the undersigned Magistrate considers that this constitutes a substantial defect in the legislative procedure, which must be noted on this occasion.

Consequently, the consultation submitted must be resolved in the sense that the approval process for the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, is unconstitutional.

Gilbert Armijo S.

13-006008-0007-CO", "html": "<html xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\" xmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\" xml:lang=\"en\"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"> <meta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"> <link rel=File-List href=\"C0EBD_archivos/filelist.xml\"> <title>*130060080007CO*</title> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties> <o:Author>vgranados</o:Author> <o:Template>Normal</o:Template> <o:LastAuthor>ioviedo</o:LastAuthor> <o:Revision>3</o:Revision> <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Created>2013-07-04T17:36:00Z</o:Created> <o:LastSaved>2013-09-25T20:00:00Z</o:LastSaved> <o:Pages>2</o:Pages> <o:Words>35263</o:Words> <o:Characters>193947</o:Characters> <o:Company>Poder-Judicial</o:Company> <o:Lines>1616</o:Lines> <o:Paragraphs>457</o:Paragraphs> <o:CharactersWithSpaces>228753</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:Version>11.5606</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:Zoom>80</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:\"WASP 39 L\"; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-2147483648 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:\"\"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:205456598; mso-list-template-ids:-1883461834;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1 {mso-list-id:658270695; mso-list-template-ids:249865468;} @list l1:level1 {mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level2 {mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level3 {mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level5 {mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level6 {mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level8 {mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l1:level9 {mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2 {mso-list-id:1148129872; mso-list-template-ids:1742368836;} @list l2:level1 {mso-level-start-at:2; mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level2 {mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level3 {mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level5 {mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level6 {mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level8 {mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} @list l2:level9 {mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:\"Tabla normal\"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:\"\"; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <meta http-equiv=Content-Style-Type content=\"text/css\"> </head> <body lang=ES link=blue vlink=blue style='tab-interval:35.4pt'> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p align=right style='text-align:right'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt; font-family:\"WASP 39 L\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>*</span><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:\"WASP 39 L\";mso-ansi-language:EN'>130060080007<span style='color:#010101'>CO*</span></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language: EN'>Exp: </span></b><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language: EN'>13-006008-0007-CO<span style='color:#010101'> </span></span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language: EN'>Res. Nº 2013-008252</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language: EN'>SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas del veintiuno de junio de dos mil trece.</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Mandatory constitutional review (consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad) filed by the Directing Board of the Legislative Assembly regarding the bill processed under legislative file No. 18.563, entitled <i>"Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983".</i></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:1.0cm; line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>Whereas:</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>1.-</span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'> By official communication received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:21 on May 29, 2013, the Secretariat of the Directing Board of the Legislative Assembly submitted this consultation in compliance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), together with a certified copy of the legislative file.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>2.- </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>By resolution issued at 15:14 on May 29, 2013, the legislative file was deemed received and this consultation was transferred, in accordance with the corresponding rotation, to the Reporting Magistrate.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>3.- </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>In this proceeding, the prescriptions of law have been observed, and this resolution is issued within the respective legal timeframe, which expires on June 29, 2013.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <p><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Drafted by the<b> </b>Magistrate <b>Rueda Leal</b>; and,</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Considering:</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>I.-</span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'> <b>Object and admissibility of the consultation. </b>This mandatory constitutional review (consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad) is filed by the Directing Board of the Legislative Assembly in compliance with the provisions of Articles 10, subsection b), of the Political Constitution and 96, subsection a), of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. It concerns the bill entitled "<i>Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983</i>", which is being processed under legislative file No. 18.563. It is a bill for the approval of two international instruments and other provisions, which has already been submitted to a vote in the first debate (primer debate) at Plenary Session No. 12 of May 21, 2013 (see folios 12,155 and 12,387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563). </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>II.- General aspects of bill No. 18,563 <i>"Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983"</i>. </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>According to the statement of motives (exposición de motivos) of the legislative file under study, this bill aims to approve 5 different articles. In the first numeral, the approval of the Association Agreement between Central America and the European Union is properly provided for. This Association Agreement, in turn, is structured into 5 main sections, as will be explained: the first and last sections contain traditional provisions of Treaty Law. For instance, in Part I on <i>"General and Institutional Provisions"</i> (Articles 1 through 11), the principles, objectives, and scope of application of the Agreement are set forth, as well as the institutional framework for its implementation. In Part V on <i>"Final Provisions"</i> (Articles 352 through 363), the rules regarding entry into force, duration, new accessions, contents that form part of the treaty (appendices, notes, joint declarations, and annexes), the impossibility of applying reservations or unilateral declarations, and authentic texts are established. Part II of the Agreement (Articles 12 through 23) is dedicated to <i>"Political Dialogue" </i>and replaces the former "<i>Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, on the other part</i>", signed in the city of Rome on December 15, 2003, and ratified by Costa Rica through Law number 8919 of December 16, 2010. This part of the Agreement aims to create a privileged political association between both regions (Central America and the European Union) based on common values and interests. Part III (Articles 24 through 76) is dedicated to <i>"Cooperation,"</i> mainly aimed at enabling certain cooperation mechanisms necessary within the areas of interest identified by mutual agreement between the Parties.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'> </span><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt; line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Finally, Part IV, called <i>"Trade"</i> (Articles 77 through 351), contains elements typical of a free trade agreement, which, in 21 titles, regulates components such as "trade in goods" (GATT), "trade in services" (GATS), "investment" (current payments and capital movements -TRIMs-), "intellectual property" (TRIPS), and "dispute settlement" (DSU). This Part IV also includes aspects relating to the interregional nature of the Agreement and other topics such as the Trade and Sustainable Development title, the one relating to Trade and Competition, and the annexed Protocol on Cultural Cooperation.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>In the second article of the bill submitted for consultation, the approval of an Amendment to the "<i>Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora</i>" is provided for, as its ratification has been part of the political negotiation with the European Union. Costa Rica is already a Party to said Convention, and the Amendment is intended to allow the participation of regional blocs or supranational organizations (such as the EU) in said Convention, and not only States in their individual conception.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>In articles three and four of the bill, a Land Border Posts Council (Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres) is expressly created and provided with the necessary financial resources, for which purpose an exit tax for land ports and a tax on each customs export declaration (likewise for land border posts) are created. </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Lastly, in the fifth ordinal, it is decided to assign the Ministry of Foreign Trade the representation of the country before the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>III.- Preliminary matter.</span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'> Firstly, it is necessary to recall the necessary delimitation that must be made in this type of matter between aspects of economic and socio-political opportunity or convenience, on the one hand, and questions of constitutionality of these international instruments, on the other. In ruling number 2007-09469 of 10:00 a.m. on July 3, 2007, it was indicated: <i>"(...) this Constitutional Court, by the constitutional and legal powers conferred upon it, which are summarized in the purpose or aim of guaranteeing the supremacy of the Constitution (Article 10 of the Constitution and 1 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), <u>does not have jurisdiction to weigh the opportunity, convenience, or merit of a Free Trade Agreement</u>. It is the constitutional bodies that are responsible for the political or governmental direction and the responsibility of drawing up and implementing the main public social and economic policies that are primarily called upon to make that assessment. Thus, the Executive Branch in the strict sense -President and Minister of the sector-, prior to exercising the power contained in Article 140, subsection 10), of the Constitution to conclude public agreements and treaties, is the one that must carry out that analysis. Similarly, the Legislative Assembly, in exercise of the legislative power -which resides in the people and is delegated to it through suffrage, Article 105, paragraph 1, of the Constitution- is a body called upon, before exercising its competence under Article 121, subsection 4, to approve or disapprove public agreements or treaties, to assess the social, economic, and political opportunity and convenience of an instrument of that nature (...)</i></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>In sum, this Constitutional Court is responsible, <u>solely and exclusively</u>, in light of the text of the Treaty signed by the Executive Branch, <u>to determine if there exists any rule or provision that violates the Law of the Constitution, understood as the constitutional principles, values, precepts, and jurisprudence</u>. This Court is constitutionally disqualified and prevented, by the very distribution of competences and organization provided for by the Political Constitution, from determining whether an international instrument is socially, economically, and politically convenient and opportune for the country, given that the object of constitutional jurisdiction, as established by Article 1 of the law that regulates it, is "(...) to guarantee the supremacy of constitutional norms and principles and of the International or Community Law in force in the Republic, their uniform interpretation and application, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution or in the international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica" (...) Therefore, in response to the consultations presented, only those aspects that may somehow generate doubts of constitutionality will be analyzed, making it clear that everything related to the convenience or otherwise of the approval, as well as the economic aspects surrounding the Treaty, are not extremes that can be discussed through this channel. On this point, this Chamber already ruled on the occasion of the approval of the Free Trade Agreement signed with Mexico (...)" </span></i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(the underlining does not correspond to the original).</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:25.5pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'> The ruling cited above is fully applicable in this case, in which a pronouncement cannot be issued beyond the control of constitutionality, without intervening in aspects inherent to political opportunity.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:25.5pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Having clarified this point, the first step, for the purpose of resolving this consultation, is to verify the legislative procedures followed in the case at hand (sub lite), in accordance with what is indicated in Article 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which provides that the consultation must be made after the bill is approved in the first debate (primer debate) and before its final approval, and that, when resolving it, the Chamber will rule on any aspects or grounds it deems relevant from a constitutional standpoint, but in a binding manner only regarding procedural matters (ordinal 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction). For the foregoing purposes, in the following considering clause, a chronological summary of the legislative procedure of the bill under consultation will be made.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>IV.- The processing of file No. 18,563 in the Legislative Assembly. </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>The bill entitled "<i>Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983</i>", which is processed under legislative file No. 18.563, has followed the following path (íter):</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>1) </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>On <b>June 29, 2012, </b>the Minister of Foreign Trade, Anabel González Campabadal, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enrique Castillo Barrantes, signed the <i>"Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other"</i> (see folios 453 and 454 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563). <b> </b></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>2) </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>On <b>September 6, 2012, </b>the Minister of the Presidency, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, submitted to the Legislative Assembly the bill entitled <i>"Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983"</i>, for it to be given the customary procedure (trámite de rigor) (see folio 1 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563). </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>3) </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>On <b>September 6, 2012, </b>the bill <i>"Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983"</i>, file No. 18.563, was referred to the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade (Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y de Comercio Exterior) (see folio 4,990 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> **4)** On **October 9, 2012,** a certified copy of case file No. 18.563 was sent to the Department of Studies, References, and Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly for the appropriate action (see folio 4,991 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**5)** On **November 13, 2012,** the Director of the Archives, Investigation, and Processing Department of the Legislative Assembly sent the draft law in question to the National Printing Office for publication (see folio 4,992 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**6)** On **November 14, 2012,** in Supplement No. 180 to Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 220, the draft law *"Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983"*, case file No. 18.563, was published (see [http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-1_14_11_2012.pdf](http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-1_14_11_2012.pdf), consulted on May 31, 2013).

**7)** On **November 21, 2012,** several Deputies of the Legislative Assembly presented a motion (to which the number 3 – 19 was assigned) for legislative file No. 18.563 to be sent for consultation to the following institutions: all municipalities and District Municipal Councils, all autonomous institutions, University of Costa Rica, National University, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, State Distance University, National Technical University, Consejo Nacional de Rectores, CONESUP, Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General's Office, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ombudsman's Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ministry of Governance, Police and Public Security, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Ministry of Health, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Justice and Peace, Ministry of Labor and Social Security, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo, Corporación Hortícola Nacional, Corporación Bananera Nacional, Grupo ICE, Comptroller General of the Republic, Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, Programa Integral de Mercadeo Agropecuario, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo S.A., Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, all Professional Associations, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial, Cámara de Exportadores de Costa Rica, Cámara de Industrias, Cámara de Agricultura y Agroindustria, Cámara de Comercio, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Cámara de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación, CRECEX, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara de Avicultores, Cámara de Porcicultores (see folios 4,996 and 4,997 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**8)** On **November 22, 2012,** in ordinary session No. 19 of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the referred motion was approved (see folio 4,997 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**9)** On **November 21, 2012,** several Deputies of the Legislative Assembly presented a motion (to which the number 4-19 was assigned) to convene a hearing for senior officials and representatives of the following institutions: Cámara de Agricultura y Agroindustria, Cámara Nacional de Porcicultores, Cámara de Exportadores de Costa Rica, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Cámara Nacional de Avicultores, and Corporación Ganadera (see folio 1068 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**10)** On **November 22, 2012,** in ordinary session No. 19 of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, said motion was approved (see folio 4,998 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**11)** On **November 29, 2012,** the Minister of the Presidency informed the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly that, through Decreto Ejecutivo No. 37.411-MP, the Executive Branch had convened extraordinary sessions starting from the date indicated in the Decree; among the included projects was case file No. 18.563 (see folio 5,402 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**12)** The Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade received responses from the following entities consulted: Municipalidad de Bagaces, Municipalidad de Belén, Concejo Municipal de Lepanto, CONESUP, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas del Desarrollo, Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara Costarricense de la Industria Alimentaria, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Consejo Nacional de Producción, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal, Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres, Instituto Nacional de Seguros, Junta de Protección Social de San José, Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (see folios 5,804 to 5,817 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**13)** The Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade received in hearing: Cámara Nacional de Agricultura y Agroindustria, CADEXCO, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara Nacional de Avicultores (see folios 5,817 to 5,832 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**14)** On **December 17, 2012,** the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly delivered the legal report related to the draft law being processed under legislative file No. 18.563 (see folio 5,689 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**15)** On **December 17, 2012,** via official letter number DM-00743-12, the Minister of Foreign Trade presented to the President of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade several diplomatic notes referring to specific formal errors detected in the texts of the Agreement related to the other Central American countries (except for the case of Costa Rica); in addition, she clarified that such formal corrections do not modify the rights and obligations assumed by our country and the European Union (see folio 5,743 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**16)** On **December 18, 2012,** the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade issued an affirmative and unanimous opinion on the draft law titled *"Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983"*, legislative file No. 18.563 (see folio 5,792 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**17)** On **January 21, 2013,** the unanimous affirmative opinion of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade was delivered to the Legislative Plenary (see folio 10,836 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**18)** On **February 5, 2013,** in session No. 127, the Legislative Plenary began the substantive discussion of case file No. 18.563; however, it had motions presented via article 137 that were sent to the Reporting Commission (see folio 10,910 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**19)** On **February 7, 2013,** in ordinary session No. 29 of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the formulated motions were discussed, and they were ultimately rejected (see folio 10,932 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**20)** On **February 7, 2013,** the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the first report on the motions referred by the Legislative Plenary to the Legislative Board of Directors (see folio 10,930 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**21)** On **February 7, 2013,** in session No. 129, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion; however, new motions were presented via article 137 that were sent to the Reporting Commission (see folio 11,007 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**22)** On **February 11, 2013,** in extraordinary session No. 31, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade discussed the formulated motions and finally rejected them (see folio 11,020 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**23)** On **February 12, 2013,** the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the second report on motions referred by the Legislative Plenary (see folio 11,018 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**24)** On **February 12, 2013,** in plenary session No. 131, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion of project No. 18.563; however, it had new motions presented that were sent to the Reporting Commission (see folio 11,043 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**25)** On **February 13, 2013,** in ordinary session No. 33 of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the formulated motions were discussed and finally rejected (see folio 11,061 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**26)** On **February 14, 2013,** the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the third report on the referred motions to the Legislative Board of Directors (see folio 11,059 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

**27)** On **February 19, 2013,** in session No. 134, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion; however, new motions were presented that were sent to the Reporting Commission (see folio 11,081 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563).

• 28)On February 20, 2013, in extraordinary session No. 35, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade discussed the motions formulated and, finally, rejected them (see folio 11,117 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 29)On February 21, 2013, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the fourth report of motions referred by the Legislative Plenary (see folio 11,115 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 30)On February 28, 2013, in plenary session No. 140, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, with the fourth report of motions via article 137 (see folio 11,267 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 31)On March 4, 2013, in plenary session No. 141, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, and the first session for the presentation of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,274 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 32)On March 5, 2013, in plenary session No. 142, the Legislative Plenary continued the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, and the second session for the presentation of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,280 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 33)On March 7, 2013, in plenary session No. 144, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, and the third session for the presentation of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,286 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 34)On March 11, 2013, the Minister of the Presidency communicated to the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly that, through Executive Decree No. 37,585-MP, the Executive Branch had withdrawn several legislative files from consideration in extraordinary sessions, among them No. 18,563 (see folio 11,292 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 35)On March 11, 2013, the Minister of the Presidency communicated to the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly that, through Executive Decree No. 37,586-MP, the Executive Branch had expanded the call for extraordinary sessions as of the date indicated in the Decree; among the bills included was file No. 18,563 (see folio 11,294 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 36)On March 18, 2013, in plenary session No. 149, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 3 motions were rejected, the first via article 154, the second via article 155, and the third via article 153; a motion for review was presented to this last one, which was also rejected, among other rejected motions (see folio 11,320 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 37)On March 19, 2013, in plenary session No. 150, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 motion for review of a motion via article 153 was rejected; in addition, a motion via article 153 was rejected and a review of that motion was rejected, among other rejected motions (see folio 11,400 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 38)On March 21, 2013, in plenary session No. 152, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 2 motions were rejected, one for consultation and another via article 155; subsequently, 1 motion for consultation and another via article 153 were rejected (see folio 11,481 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 39)On April 1, 2013, in plenary session No. 153, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 7 procedural motions via article 153 were rejected; likewise, 6 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,506 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 40)On April 2, 2013, in plenary session No. 154, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 2 procedural motions via article 153 were rejected; likewise, 2 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected, among other various procedures related to motions (see folio 11,608 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 41)On April 4, 2013, in plenary session No. 156, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 procedural motion via article 153 was rejected; likewise, 1 motion for review of the aforementioned motion was rejected (see folio 11,707 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 42)On April 8, 2013, in plenary session No. 157, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 7 reiteration motions were rejected; also, 8 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,731 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 43)On April 9, 2013, in plenary session No. 158, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 4 reiteration motions were rejected; in addition, 4 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,860 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 44)On April 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 161, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 motion for postponement was rejected; then, 1 motion for review was presented and approved, so the motion for postponement was approved (see folio 11,985 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 45)On April 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 161, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; a motion was approved to alter the agenda for the Plenary sessions, so that in the second part of the session, file No. 18,563 would occupy the first place of the First Debates (see folios 11,998 and 11,999 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 46)On May 1, 2013, Deputy María Jeanette Ruiz Delgado requested that the bill be placed on the docket (see folio 12,009 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 47)On May 6, 2013, Deputy Edgardo Araya Pineda requested that the bill be placed on the docket (see folio 12,010 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 48)On May 9, 2013, Deputy Edgardo Araya Pineda again requested that the bill be placed on the docket (see folio 12,011 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 49)On May 9, 2013, in plenary session No. 6, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; a motion for postponement was approved to postpone consideration of file 18,563, which is in the first place of first debates, and to consider the rest of the Agenda in subsequent order (see folio 12,012 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 50)On May 13, 2013, in plenary session No. 7, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 motion for review of a reiteration motion was rejected; likewise, reiteration motion number 14-1 and its respective review were rejected (see folio 12,020 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 51)On May 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 10, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; in addition, the motion for review of reiteration motion number 25 was announced (see folio 12,058 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 52)On May 14, 2013, in plenary session No. 8, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 6 reiteration motions were rejected; likewise, 6 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected; subsequently, 4 reiteration motions were withdrawn (see folio 12,066 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 53)On May 21, 2013, in plenary session No. 12, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of the bill "Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983", file No. 18,563, which was voted on in first debate with thirty-seven Deputies in favor and four against (see folio 12,387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 54)On May 24, 2013, the Permanent Special Drafting Committee received file No. 18,563 from the Secretariat of the Board of Directors to continue with the respective procedure (see folio 12,390 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 55)On May 28, 2013, the Department of Technical Services submitted a Report for the Special Drafting Committee, with some observations for legislative file No. 18,563 (see folio 12,399 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 56)On May 28, 2013, in ordinary session No. 1, the Permanent Special Drafting Committee discussed matters related to legislative bill No. 18,563 and approved its final wording (see folios 12,403 and 12,430 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 57)On May 28, 2013, the Permanent Special Drafting Committee delivered the Final Wording of file No. 18,563 to the Secretariat of the Board of Directors (see folio 12,441 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).

V.- Regarding the legislative procedure in the specific case. In accordance with the provisions of article 98 of the law governing this Jurisdiction, this Court reviewed the legislative procedure for the processing of the bill entitled "Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983". This Agreement was signed by the Minister of Foreign Trade, Anabel González Campabadal, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enrique Castillo Barrantes. The former was empowered to proceed in this manner, by virtue of the provisions of article 2, subsections b) and d), of Law No. 7638 of October 30, 1996, which created the Ministry of Foreign Trade and the Foreign Trade Promoter, and what was stated by the Constitutional Court in ruling number 8190-2002 at 11:12 a.m. on August 23, 2002:

"(…) IV.- Signing of the Treaty. This Chamber believes that the signing of the Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica and Canada by the Minister of Foreign Trade, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic, is not contrary to the Law of the Constitution. From a reading of article 140, subsection 10), it appears that the signing of international treaties is an attribution of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the relevant Minister. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties itself, approved by Law number 7615 of July twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-six, in its article 7 provides, as relevant:

"ARTICLE 7.- Full powers. 1.- For the adoption or authentication of the text of a treaty, or for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, a person is considered as representing a State: a) If he produces appropriate full powers, or b) If it appears from the practice of the States concerned, or from other circumstances, that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers.(...)" In the present case, we are faced with the situation described in subsection b) of paragraph 2 transcribed above, referring to "other circumstances" that demonstrate the will of the State to be represented by a specific official. This is because Law number 7638 of October thirtieth, nineteen ninety-six gives the Minister of Foreign Trade sufficient competence to negotiate and sign, without the concurrence of the person exercising the Presidency of the Republic, agreements such as the one brought for consultation, even without a letter of full powers. As relevant, article 2 states: "ARTICLE 2.- Attributions The attributions of the Ministry of Foreign Trade shall be:(...) b) Direct bilateral and multilateral trade and investment negotiations, including matters related to Central America, and sign treaties and agreements on these matters. By agreement, the Executive Branch may authorize that treaties and agreements, as well as their modifications, be signed by the heads of other ministries or public entities of the State that have specific legal competence over the subject matter of the treaty or agreement. (...)

• d)Represent the country at the World Trade Organization and in other international trade forums where treaties, agreements, and, in general, trade and investment issues are discussed.(...)" On the other hand, in judgment number 6224-94, at nine o'clock on November eleventh, nineteen ninety-four, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participates with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction and deposit of the Treaty, allows for the correction of any defect that might have existed in the effective representation held by the Minister. To the above, we can add that the President has two other opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the bill: at the time of its presentation to the Legislative Assembly and in the call for extraordinary sessions, times when he could assert his constitutional attributions. If, in this specific case, it was the Minister of Foreign Trade who signed the agreement whose approval is under discussion, this does not imply any defect of unconstitutionality (…)" (the emphasis is not in the original).

Regarding the second official (the Minister of Foreign Affairs), the Chamber believes that he was also empowered to proceed with the signing of the Association Agreement under analysis. In that sense, this Constitutional Court has admitted the legitimacy of the procedure for approving a treaty or international agreement when it is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic, even when lacking a letter in which full powers are expressly granted to him for this purpose. Thus, in advisory opinion number 2000-08974 at 9:01 a.m. on October 13, 2000, this Chamber resolved the following:

"(...) In this regard, the only potentially controversial point would be the fact that the Agreement was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Culture, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic. From a reading of article 140, subsection 10), it appears that the signing of international treaties is an attribution of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the relevant Minister. However, this Chamber has recognized the possibility that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Culture, in his capacity as collaborator of the President in matters of international relations, may sign international treaties even without a letter expressly granting him full powers to do so.

In judgments number 06224-94, at nine o'clock on November eleventh, nineteen ninety-four, and 06725-99 at three o'clock and nine minutes on September first, nineteen ninety-nine, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participated with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction and deposit of the treaty, allows for the correction of any defect that existed in the effective representation held by the Chancellor. To the above we can add that the President has two other opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the bill: at the time of its presentation to the Legislative Assembly and in the call for extraordinary sessions, moments in which he could assert his constitutional powers. If in this case it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship who signed the agreement whose approval is under discussion, this does not imply the unconstitutionality of the legislative procedure followed so far. Not having found in this Chamber the presence of unconstitutional procedures in the legislative bill under consultation, it is now appropriate to address the merits of the initiative under consultation (...)” (the underlining does not correspond to the original).

Subsequently, the text of the bill was referred to the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, rendering the respective unanimous affirmative report. Likewise, as can be verified from the examination of the legislative file, the referred bill was sent for consultation to the following institutions: all municipalities and District Municipal Councils, all autonomous institutions, University of Costa Rica, National University, Technological Institute of Costa Rica, State Distance University, National Technical University, National Council of Rectors, CONESUP, Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General's Office of the Republic, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ombudsman's Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ministry of the Interior, Police and Public Security, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Ministry of Health, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Justice and Peace, Ministry of Labor and Social Security, General Directorate of Migration and Immigration, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, National Horticultural Corporation, National Banana Corporation, ICE Group, Comptroller General of the Republic, National Animal Health Service, State Phytosanitary Service, Integral Agricultural Marketing Program, General Directorate of Customs, Regulatory Authority of Public Services, Superintendency of Telecommunications, Costa Rican Oil Refinery S.A., National Council of Concessions, all Professional Associations, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Business Sector, Chamber of Exporters of Costa Rica, Chamber of Industries, Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, Chamber of Commerce, Food Industry Chamber, Information and Communication Technologies Chamber, CRECEX, Livestock Corporation, Poultry Farmers Chamber, Swine Farmers Chamber.

On the other hand, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade received responses from the following consulted entities: Municipality of Bagaces, Municipality of Belén, Municipal Council of Lepanto, CONESUP, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, General Directorate of Migration and Immigration, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, Costa Rican Institute of Electricity, General Directorate of Customs, Regulatory Authority of Public Services, Superintendency of Telecommunications, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Costa Rican Food Industry Chamber, National Bank of Costa Rica, National Production Council, Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, Institute of Municipal Development and Advisory, National Institute of Women, National Insurance Institute, Social Protection Board of San José, National Children's Trust.

In addition to this, the aforementioned Commission received in hearing: National Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, CADEXCO, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Food Industry Chamber, Livestock Corporation, National Chamber of Poultry Farmers.

With the foregoing, it is verified that the legislative bill was made known to a wide range of sectors that could be affected. Likewise, no infringement of the rights and powers of the legislators is observed.

Thus, regarding the foregoing, no unconstitutionality is noted.

**VI.-** **In particular regarding the vote required for the approval of the bill.** The legislative bill was heard by the Legislative Plenary as was appropriate, since it is an international treaty and, to that extent, could not be delegated to a Legislative Commission with Full Powers, as established in Article 124, paragraph 3, of the Political Constitution, in relation to Article 121, subsection 4), *ibidem*. In that same order of ideas, it can be observed that legislative bill No. 18,563 was called by the Executive Branch to be heard in extraordinary sessions, respecting the provisions of Article 118 of the Political Charter.

Now, the legislative bill counted for its approval in the first debate with the vote of the absolute majority of the members present in the Assembly (37 Deputies). In this regard, it is worth noting that, certainly, Article 121 subsection 4) of the Political Constitution requires a qualified vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies when it concerns public treaties and international agreements that attribute or transfer certain competencies to a community legal order, for the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives. In this regard, in judgment number 2013-003655 at 9:05 a.m. on March 15, 2013, “*II.- Characteristics of Community Law: Doctrinally it is defined as an organized and structured set of legal norms, which possesses its own sources, is equipped with adequate organs and procedures to issue them, interpret them, apply them, and enforce them. While international law promotes international cooperation, Community Law promotes the integration of the countries involved, and for this reason it has been said that it forms a new legal order of international law, characterized by its independence and primacy, characteristics consubstantial to its existence.* *Community law has great penetration in the internal legal order of the Member States, which is manifested in immediate applicability, its direct effect, and its primacy. And it is that the Community constitutes a new international legal order, for whose benefit the State parties have limited, albeit in a restricted manner, their sovereign rights. From Community Law arise rights and obligations, not only for the Member States, but also for their citizens. It is precisely because of the transcendence of the norms intended to be approved—which, as indicated, can transfer competencies—that it is desirable for specialists in the subject to analyze, prior to the signing of the treaties intended to be subscribed in this field, the scope and compatibility of those instruments with the internal order and system. This is especially important considering that the mandatory consultation reaches the Chamber once the treaty has been negotiated and when it has already been approved in the first debate, in addition to the fact that this Court limits its analysis to aspects of constitutional relevance.* *Without any doubt, the central core of integration are the treaties, which can be of two kinds: those of an institutional nature, which articulate and structure the system and its institutions, and those that develop them in a uniform, clear, concrete manner and that usually contain the norms in which the States transfer competencies to the community organization, for the fulfillment of the purposes that are of interest to them («)* *It is worth indicating that the transfer of competencies to the community legal order must be express and by means of a treaty, so that the attribution of regulatory power (which in this case is done) to community organs can only be exercised over matters expressly defined or outlined in a treaty. In the one of an institutional nature, that power could not be exercised as long as there is no express transfer of competencies through an agreement that must be approved by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly (Article 121, subsection 4 of the Political Constitution), and subjected to mandatory consultation of constitutionality (Article 10, ibidem). Consequently, it is important to note that all norms approved in the integration process are constituting an authentic legal order, which due to its nature and the purposes it pursues falls within what has been defined as Community Law.* *III.- Transfer of Competencies: Given the need for the Community Law that was being produced in the Central American region to find an adequate constitutional framework in Costa Rica, by Law No. 4123 of May 30, 1968, Articles 7 and 121 of the Political Constitution were reformed, and more recently, by Law 7128 of August eighteenth, nineteen eighty-nine, Article 105 of the same normative body. Article 7, first paragraph, established: "Public treaties, international agreements, and concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly, shall have, from their enactment or from the day they designate, authority superior to the laws"* *Article 121, subsection 4, second paragraph provided:* *"Public treaties and international agreements that attribute or transfer certain competencies to a community legal order, for the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, shall require the approval of the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total number of its members" («)* *In the case of Community Law, the Political Constitution has provided, as evidenced by the simple reading of the transcribed provisions, for the transfer of certain national competencies proper to a different legal order—the Community one—which otherwise could not achieve the common goals that the State parties of the integration system have proposed. Now, for the Chamber, as expressed in the dissenting vote of Magistrates Jacobo, Blanco, Odio, Porter, and Benavides, issued in the Full Court session at ten o'clock on March twenty-eighth, nineteen seventy-three—which resolved an action of unconstitutionality against various articles of the Central American Uniform Customs Code—the delegation of competencies to the community legal order is in no way unrestricted; rather, it has specific limits. Indeed, as indicated in that opinion: "...It is not possible to exceed the Political Charter, in its letter or in its spirit, since it establishes the fundamental principles of the State and sets, consequently, the limits of action of the Public Powers, both substantially and formally, and both internally and externally", and for the Chamber, competencies that are essential for the Costa Rican constitutional legal order are not transferable, as we will analyze below.* *The delegation of competencies produces a very important modification to the internal legal order. It is necessary to indicate that this delegation finds its first limit in "the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives", that is, there could be no delegation of competencies for purposes and objectives that are not those that the constituent has indicated. On the other hand, there must be absolute respect for the principles and values that the Political Constitution enshrines, which permeates the rest of the legal order and the various fields of human endeavor; social, economic, cultural, religious, political, etc. For the Chamber, the Legislative Assembly could not validly approve international treaties that reduce the levels of protection of fundamental rights. («)* *VI.- Given the institutional nature of the agreement before us, the Chamber does not find norms that are unconstitutional, nor does it note infringements of the legislative approval procedure. However, as this treaty is an integral part of a system of transfer of competencies, which as stated results in a community system, even though the transfer of competencies has not been given expressly, although provided for in the Tegucigalpa Protocol, all of this implies that for its approval a qualified vote is required, under the terms indicated in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution (the highlighted text does not correspond to the original)* *On the other hand, in vote number 1079-93 at 2:48 p.m. on March 2, 1993, the Chamber referred to various important aspects contained in Article 121 subsection 4) of the Political Constitution, in relation to the aggravated procedure for the approval of the international instruments provided for in that norm. In this regard, it was stated that:* *"VI.- Article 121, subsection 4 of the Constitution, when defining the exclusive powers of the Legislative Assembly, that of "4) Approve or disapprove international agreements, public treaties, and concordats. "Public treaties and international agreements that attribute or transfer certain competencies to a community legal order, for the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, shall require the approval of the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total number of its members«" This norm raises three types of important doubts, namely: a) what meaning do the concepts of "attribute" or "transfer" have, in relation to that of "competencies"; b) what should be understood there by "community order"; and c) what scope should be given to the "regional and common objectives" that in the text constitute the purpose of the same order.* *Regarding the first question, the Chamber observes that in the context of Constitutional Law, the transcribed norm has the clear purpose of aggravating the approval procedure for international treaties or agreements, when in them public competencies that otherwise correspond to the Costa Rican State in the exercise of its sovereignty are attributed to extra-state bodies. Put another way, it seems evident that it would make no sense to impose a qualified majority for the approval of some treaties, and not others in which the constituent's reservation had equal or greater justification; and it is that, in reality, given that in every international treaty there is contained, by definition, a reduction or affectation of sovereignty, what that reservation is concerned with is, with all clarity, to surround with the guarantee implied in the qualified majority of the Legislative Assembly the cases in which the international instrument implies, in addition to that reduction or affectation directly established in it, the possibility that new obligations may be imposed on the Costa Rican State, without its will, by extra-national bodies and in matters that, otherwise, would correspond exclusively to it. B) The foregoing obliges us to recognize that the expression "community order", although not fortunate, only acquires meaning, in the context of this subsection, if "community" is understood as that set of norms that, although created through typical sources of the Law of Nations, such as treaties, in reality have a "supranational" character, insofar as it is capable of imposing on the State Parties obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations beyond those agreed upon and even against their will, for example, through decisions adopted by a majority; this being something completely different from that of merely international orders, in which the States commit only to what they commit to by treaty, or, if this also creates some type of international body, the decisions in that body are either not binding, or if they are, must be taken by unanimity, that is, with the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State, through its legitimate representatives competent for this purpose. It is true that the inclusion of the concept "community order" in said constitutional norm was made by the Legislative Assembly acting as a constituent assembly (by Law No. 4123 of May 30, 1968), bearing in mind the process of integration or Central American Common Market, but it would be contradictory and, therefore, unconstitutional to deduce from this that the Constitution imposes an aggravated procedure for the approval of the instruments of that process, desired by Costa Rica and closer and more natural because it occurs in the geopolitical and historical sphere of the Great Central American Homeland, than in other more distant and less intense cases in which competencies of the Costa Rican State are also assigned or transferred to an extra-national order. C) In the same context, the "regional and common objectives" must be interpreted in harmony with the foregoing considerations and, therefore, the conjunction, "and" that separates them, must be understood as disjunctive-copulative, so that the provision must be applied, whether it concerns regional objectives, or merely common objectives (the highlighted text does not correspond to the original)* *Finally, through judgment number 4640-96 at 9:09 a.m. on September 6, 1996, the Chamber heard a mandatory consultation of constitutionality regarding the bill of Law for the approval of the Protocol to the General Treaty of Central American Economic Integration (known as the Guatemala Protocol), signed by the Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, in Guatemala City on October 29, 1993. On that occasion, this Court referred to the same legal grounds consigned in vote number 4638-96 at 9:03 a.m. on September 6, 1996, and it was considered that since the cited Protocol was an integral part of a system of transfer of competencies, which results in a community system (even though the transfer of competencies was not given expressly in that specific case, although provided for in the Tegucigalpa Protocol), this implied that for its approval a qualified vote was required, under the terms indicated in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution. Now, it is worth noting that the concept of "community legal order" of said norm is different from that of "multilateral treaty", since the former requires a ratio iuris tending to the formation of a "community", that is, a regional integration system with qualities of supranationality tending so that distinct parts constitute, at least progressively, a whole (as it was in the European Coal and Steel Community), in which there has operated a transfer of sovereign powers by the Member States, towards a sui generis legal order, whose organs enjoy independence and full authority in the exercise of their functions. Such transfer, in the case of Costa Rica and by virtue of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, can only be made to a true community legal order, unlike other conventional instruments.” Consequently, the requirement of a qualified vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies provided for in Article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution, only refers to those treaties or agreements that attribute or transfer certain competencies to a community legal order. This latter concept refers to an order that, beyond promoting mere international cooperation among States, actually seeks the full integration of the countries involved, thus aspiring to configure a new legal order of international law (the Community) characterized by its independence and primacy, characteristics consubstantial to its existence.

A fundamental quality of that type of order consists in the possibility that new obligations may be imposed on a State even against its will by extra-national bodies, in matters that, otherwise, would exclusively correspond to it to decide.

Consequently, this is a situation very different from those treaties or conventions in which international bodies, in order to bind a country with their resolutions, require the express acceptance of the affected State, through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose.

Thus, the constitutional concept of “community legal order” is very different from that of a “multilateral treaty,” since the former requires a *ratio iuris* aimed at the formation of a “Community,” that is, a system of regional integration with qualities of supranationality tending to ensure that different parts constitute, at least progressively, a whole (as the European Coal and Steel Community was in its time), in which a transfer of sovereign powers by the Member States has operated toward a *sui generis* legal order, whose bodies enjoy independence and full authority in the exercise of their functions, and may even impose their will on their Member States. Such a community goes beyond a new international legal order, as it even aspires to intertwine cultural ties in order to create a community with a certain common identity, a matter that is far from the aims of economic institutions that only seek integration, commercial exchange, and economic cooperation among States. It is worth adding that when Article 121(4) of the Political Constitution alludes to the transfer of certain competences to a community legal order, the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, also mentioned by that provision, rather than constituting an additional assumption, actually signifies a natural effect of the specific legal nature of every community legal order. There is no community legal order that does not tend to achieve regional and common objectives.

In the present case, this Chamber considers that the Association Agreement under review is in no way aimed at creating a community legal order. Indeed, Article 2(a) of the Agreement indicates as an objective to strengthen and consolidate relations between the Parties through an association, and subsection (b) emphasizes that it is a privileged political association. This concept of association is presented in a context in which both regions (Central America and Europe) remain in their respective regional spheres of action, without there ever being an aspiration to create a single region. Nor is the establishment of a community legal order intended internally within the Central American Party, since Article 3 of the Agreement establishes that none of its provisions shall be interpreted in such a way as to undermine the sovereignty of any Republic of the CA Party. The fact that, in order to apply the Agreement, it is positive to promote regional integration does not go beyond the creation of a political environment favorable to bi-regional cooperation and commercial relations as well as the general execution of the Agreement, which in no way implies the establishment of a community legal order, nor a new international law legal order, much less the erection of a Community in the Central American sphere. Likewise, although numeral 72 of the Agreement sets regional integration and progressively achieving an economic union in Central America as an objective of cooperation, the truth is that it refers to possible destinations of cooperation from a potential perspective, not to the current materialization of a Community through the approval of the Agreement, much less to a new international law legal order.

This thesis becomes even more palpable because, according to Article 6.4 of the Agreement, the Association Council may only adopt decisions and recommendations by mutual agreement between the Parties, and, in the case of the Republics of the CA Party, the adoption of decisions and recommendations shall require consensus. Ergo, without the acquiescence of the Costa Rican State, it cannot be forced to comply with any resolution, which implies that there is no transfer of sovereign powers by the Member States toward a *sui generis* legal order, whose bodies enjoy such a degree of independence and full authority as to be able to impose a resolution on Costa Rica against our country's will (A more extensive explanation regarding that Council is provided in Considerando IX of this judgment).

Consequently, since the situation set forth in Article 120(4) of the Political Constitution is not configured, this Treaty does not require the vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies for its approval, but may be voted on as provided in Article 119 of the Fundamental Law, that is, by an absolute majority of the votes present.

**VII.- On the violation of the principle of publicity**. Recently, through judgment number 2013-006969 at 15:05 on May 22, 2013, this Court declared the following:

*"IV.- ON THE PROCEDURE IN THE SPECIFIC CASE. Based on the breakdown contained in the previous point, it is possible to verify that, on December 5, 2011, the Executive Branch submitted to the Legislative Assembly the draft for "Approval of the Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)", for its respective study and approval, in application of Articles 121(4) and 140(5), (10), and (12) of the Political Constitution. Such convention had been adopted, in turn, at the 100th Meeting of the International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO), held in June 2011. As part of the corresponding legislative procedure, the draft was published in Digital Supplement No. 51 of La Gaceta No. 78 of April 23, 2012. Likewise, a legal report was rendered by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly, it was ordered to consult the draft with various bodies and institutions, and, finally, after its study by the Permanent Special Committee on Legal Affairs, a first affirmative opinion was rendered. Subsequent to that, the draft was approved in the first debate, unanimously, in plenary session number 64 of the Legislative Assembly on September 13, 2012, with 40 votes. The file then passed to the Permanent Special Drafting Committee. However, at that stage or phase of the procedure, it was detected that the certified copy of the text of the "Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)", which had initially been provided by the Executive Branch, did not contain the complete text corresponding to Article 22. This led to the decision to return the legislative file to the Legislative Plenary. In session number 72 of the Legislative Plenary, on September 27, 2012, a motion was approved, in application of Article 154 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, to send the draft back to the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs to issue a new opinion. As a result of the above, the aforementioned Committee proceeded again to study the draft and confirmed that, indeed, the certified copy of the text of the "Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)", which had been sent by the Executive Branch, did not contain the full or complete text of the cited international instrument, due to an apparent material error in the photocopying process of the text. This led to the President of the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs, by means of official letter No. CJ-863-10-12, dated October 24, 2012, requesting the Minister of Labor and Social Security that "in order to correct the material error found in the opinion on the Bill for the approval of the convention concerning decent work for domestic workers (Convention 189), File No. 18335, initially submitted and approved by this Committee, I request your good offices and respecting the right of initiative, as it is necessary to send the document and all communications sent to the country, with the signatures of the members of the Executive Branch, which attest to the commitment of the Republic of Costa Rica regarding that international legal instrument." In response to this request, by means of official letter DP-0643-2012, dated October 26, 2012, signed by the President of the Republic and the Minister of Labor and Social Security, a new certified copy of the complete text of the "Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)" was sent to the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs. Based on this second certified copy, the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs rendered a new affirmative opinion, and in session number 106 of the Legislative Plenary, on November 29, 2012, the draft was approved again, in the first debate, with 43 votes. Now, contrasting or comparing both documents, that is, the certified copies sent by the Executive Branch to the Legislative Assembly on December 5, 2011, and those sent through official letter DP-0643-2012, dated October 26, 2012, it is verified that, certainly, the first set of certified copies did not contain the full or complete text of Convention 189, because, due to an apparent material error, at the time of photocopying the text to be sent to the Legislative Assembly, the last line of several pages of the international instrument was omitted from the photocopy, causing several of the articles contained in those copies to be incomplete, mutilated, or inconclusive. Specifically: i) Article 2, second paragraph, subsection b), was missing the phrase: "substantive special characteristics"; ii) Article 6, sole paragraph, was missing the phrase: "for whom they work, decent living conditions that respect their privacy"; iii) Article 9, sole paragraph, was missing subsection c), which has the following content: "c) are entitled to keep their travel and identity documents in their possession"; iv) Article 13, second paragraph, was missing the phrase: "of domestic workers, where such organizations exist"; v) Article 16, sole paragraph, was missing the phrase: "national practice, to ensure that all domestic workers, whether"; and vi) Article 22, first paragraph, was missing the phrase: "one year after the date on which it has been registered". Given this, it was appropriate for the Legislative Assembly to seek the correction of the legislative procedure and, in particular, to retract the procedure, so that the Executive Branch would provide a new certified copy of the aforementioned convention, but this time complete or fully intact, so that it could be the subject of new study, discussion, and, eventually, legislative approval. This Chamber has insisted in its jurisprudence on the proper distribution, delimitation, and respect of the constitutional competences attributed to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Assembly, regarding the process of discussion, negotiation, and signing of international treaties by the Executive Branch (Article 140(10) of the Political Constitution), and their subsequent approval or disapproval by the Legislative Assembly (Article 121(4) of the Political Constitution). Thus, regarding this issue, in judgment number 2005-07428 at 16:47 on June 14, 2005, this Chamber clarified: ('it is clear from the constitutional text that the main competence' for the formulation and negotiation of international treaties, public agreements, and concordats, corresponds to the Executive Branch and, in effect, it is this branch that is responsible for their negotiation, signing, and ratification. The Legislative Assembly, for its part, is only responsible for the function of approving or disapproving them." In accordance with the above, this Chamber has indicated that it is essential that the text submitted for approval be a complete, correct, and exact text, otherwise a substantial defect occurs in the legislative procedure and in the expression of the will of the parliamentary body…* *… Finally, it is clear from judgment No. 2006-06011 that the Chamber ordered that: "In this regard, this Court reiterates that it is essential that the text submitted for approval be complete, clear, exact, delimited, so that there is no doubt whatsoever as to the object of the International Law obligation that our country assumes, and as a guarantee of the principles of legal certainty, publicity, and transparency." (the bold is not in the original)"* *Therefore, it is reiterated that the determination of the Legislative Assembly was appropriate, in the sense of retracting the legislative procedure and urging the Executive Branch to provide a new certified copy of the convention, with its full and complete text, in order to seek the rectification of the procedure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be indicated that an essential defect in the legislative procedure is still noted. This is because, upon reviewing the draft that was published in Digital Supplement No. 51 of La Gaceta No. 78 of April 23, 2012 (see it at http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/alcances/ALCA_2012.html), it is verified that the text published at that time contained the errors or omissions already noted (that is, several of the articles published were incomplete, mutilated, or inconclusive). To the detriment that, upon reviewing the legislative file, it is not accredited that the draft was published again in the Official Gazette, but this time fully or completely intact, or that any kind of correction or clarification was published, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 116, 117, and 121 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly. This prior to the draft being the subject of new study, discussion, and opinion by the aforementioned Committee and discussion and approval by the Legislative Plenary. From which it can be derived that an infringement of the principle of publicity has been incurred."* Consequently, regarding the antecedent cited above, it is appropriate to highlight the following characteristics that explain the *ratio iuris* of the judgment:

1. The certified copy of the Convention to be approved (Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers) was sent incomplete *ab initio* by the Executive Branch, and the corresponding publication in La Gaceta was equally defective. 2. The Chamber admitted as appropriate that the Legislative Assembly sought the correction of the legislative procedure and, in particular, to retract the procedure, so that the Executive Branch would provide a new certified copy of the aforementioned convention. 3. The publication of the Convention only occurred once, before the Committee received the new certified copy correctly, without proceeding with a new publication in La Gaceta; quite the opposite, it settled for the first publication that contained the errors noted from the outset (several of the articles published were incomplete, mutilated, or inconclusive). Thus, the intended correction of the procedure ordered by the Legislative Assembly itself did not actually occur.

In the case *sub examine*, it must first be emphasized that the error of the International Relations Committee analyzing the draft in question based on an incomplete certified copy did not occur. On the contrary, it is clear from the case file that such Committee and the hearings granted to the various agencies and persons consulted were based on a correct version of the draft in question. However, in the electronic publication of La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Supplement No. 180, (http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf) 2 folios corresponding to the First Annex are missing. Indeed, in the digital La Gaceta, the absence in the publication of the page described as EU/CENTR-AM/Annex I/es 544, visible at folio 1006 of the certified copy sent by the Assembly in Volume III of the draft in question, is verified, as well as folio 1572 of the certified copy sent by the Assembly in Volume V. Both folios correspond to Annex I, which deals with the elimination of customs tariffs by reason of the Agreement.

In the case of folio 1006 of the certified copy, the omission of its publication implies that the following products from the EU Party list were not published:

| 5515 91 | -- Mixed exclusively or principally with synthetic or artificial filaments: | | | | | 5515 91 10 | --- Raw or bleached | 8 | A | | | 5515 91 30 | --- Printed | 8 | A | | | 5515 91 90 | --- Others | 8 | A | | | 5515 99 | -- Others: | | | | | 5515 99 20 | --- Raw or bleached | 8 | A | | | 5515 99 40 | --- Printed | 8 | A | | | 5515 99 80 | --- Others | 8 | A | | | 5516 | Woven fabrics of artificial staple fibres: | | | | | | - Containing 85 % or more by weight of artificial staple fibres: | | | | For its part, regarding folio 1572 of the certified copy, the omission meant that the following products from the CA Party's List were not published:

IRON ORES AND CONCENTRATES, INCLUDING ROASTED IRON PYRITES (PYRITE ASH) - Iron ores and concentrates, other than roasted iron pyrites (pyrite ash):

- - Non-agglomerated - - Agglomerated 2601.20.00 - Roasted iron pyrites (pyrite ash) | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2602.00.00 MANGANESE ORES AND CONCENTRATES, INCLUDING FERRUGINOUS MANGANESE ORES AND CONCENTRATES WITH A MANGANESE CONTENT OF 20% OR MORE BY WEIGHT, CALCULATED ON THE DRY PRODUCT | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2603.00.00 COPPER ORES AND CONCENTRATES | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2604.00.00 NICKEL ORES AND CONCENTRATES | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2605.00.00 COBALT ORES AND CONCENTRATES | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | | 2604.00.00 | MINERALES DE ALUMINIO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp; | | 2605.00.00 | MINERALES DE PLOMO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp; | Nonetheless, in the printed version of La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Supplement No. 180 (which is only distributed to certain libraries), this Tribunal confirms that the page described as EU/CENTR-AM/Anexo I/es 544 was indeed duly published in that version.

Thus, in the printed version there would only be an error regarding the omission of publishing folio 1572 of the certified copy sent by the Assembly in Volume V.

In any case, it is clear that both the International Relations Committee and the consulted agencies and persons had at their disposal from the outset the integral and complete version of the Agreement under study.

Now, this Court has repeatedly pointed out the importance of making known the bills that have been submitted for its consideration. However, it is no less true that the Chamber has interpreted the requirement for the publication of a bill in light of what is truly sought: its publicity. Thus, in judgment number 2002-8190 of 11:12 a.m. on August 23, 2002, it was stated:

"*V.- Publication of the bill approving the Treaty. Publication in La Gaceta of the bills discussed in the Legislative Assembly is an instrument that can foster popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions, in addition to constituting a guarantee of transparency in the law-making function. Although the Political Constitution omits any reference to this requirement, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly does so in its articles 116, 117, and 121. Of these, 117 is the one containing the general rule, as follows:* *"Article 117.- Filing Decrees* *In the Archives Department, filing decrees for matters shall be drafted and the original case file shall be formed, as well as the files for the members of the respective Committee. This Department shall send a copy of these matters to the Imprenta Nacional for publication in the Official Gazette."* *As can be appreciated, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly expressly provides for the publication of the bills that the Legislative Assembly hears, as a self-regulation rule approved by the Assembly itself to guarantee the transparency of its actions when performing legislative functions. Publicity must be understood as an essential requirement of the legislative procedure, as it directly involves the democratic principle inherent to the creation of general norms. The foregoing does not imply that the publicity requirement can only be satisfied by the publication of the complete text of the bill, since eventually, upon the approval of a motion to dispense with formalities (moción para la dispensa de trámites), a summary of the bill's existence in the Official Gazette could be sufficient to give effective publicity to the bill."* Furthermore, in judgment number 2002-03458 of 3:54 p.m. on April 16, 2002, this Court stated the following:

"*V.- On the publication of the bill in the Official Gazette. On the other hand, it is worth discussing whether the approval of a motion to dispense with formalities (moción de dispensa de trámites) of publication and waiting period in Legislative Plenary session number 91 of November fourteenth, two thousand one, regarding the bill approving the "International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism", as well as five other initiatives (cf. folio 37 of legislative file number 14,556), is consistent with the constitutionality parameter. After the Chamber conducted a search through the editions of La Gaceta, it was determined that this bill, although not published in its entirety, was the subject of a notice reporting on the legislative agreement that dispensed with the referred formalities, and indicating the size and location of the legislative file, for anyone who wished to consult it. (La Gaceta number 230 of November thirty, two thousand one, page 7). In the Chamber's view, this action prevented a violation of essential rules of the legislative procedure. Publication in La Gaceta of the bills discussed in the Legislative Assembly is an instrument that can foster popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions, in addition to constituting a guarantee of transparency in the law-making function. Although the Political Constitution omits any reference to this requirement, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly does so in its articles 116, 117, and 121. Of these, 117 is the one containing the general rule, as follows:* *"Article 117.- Filing Decrees* *In the Archives Department, filing decrees for matters shall be drafted and the original case file shall be formed, as well as the files for the members of the respective Committee. This Department shall send a copy of these matters to the Imprenta Nacional for publication in the Official Gazette."* *As can be appreciated, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly expressly provides for the publication of the bills that the Legislative Assembly hears. This requirement must be understood as essential, as it directly involves the democratic principle inherent to the legislative function. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in this case the Legislative Assembly has not harmed this procedural requirement, because although the Assembly agreed to relieve this bill of the formality of its publication, it decided that a notice regarding the existence of the bill in question be published in La Gaceta, inviting anyone interested in reading it to consult it at the Assembly, where it would be made available to the public. This Chamber is of the opinion that this latter determination allowed access, by the public, to legislative file 14,556, thus enabling popular participation in the discussion of the referred bill. It is not superfluous to highlight that, although the dispensation with formalities (dispensa de trámites) mentioned in article 35.5.d) of the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly must be understood in light of the more explicit rule of article 177 ibidem, in the sense that said dispensation is of the formality of review in committee, and not a generic dispensation of "all" legislative formalities, since those provided for in the Political Constitution and in the same Regulation, as minimum guarantees of respect for the democratic principle, cannot be dispensed with, not even by agreement of the Assembly itself. Obviously what happened in this case is that—as was already stated above—the "integral" publication of the bill in the Official Gazette was dispensed with; giving it publicity was not dispensed with, which would be unconstitutional, as it would constitute an excuse for non-compliance with an essential formality. Therefore, this Chamber considers that in the procedure followed for the discussion of this bill, no essential formalities have been violated, so it is appropriate to proceed to discuss the merits of the proposal.*" Always related to the issue of publicity, in judgment number 2008-018218 of 6:26 p.m. on December 10, 2008, it was indicated:

"*Having examined the documentation sent by the Executive Branch, the seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship is noted on the twenty-two pages of the copy of the Convention, from which a clear inaccuracy in the aforementioned certification can be inferred, which only refers to "the foregoing seven photocopies." This situation requires the Chamber to determine the nature and scope of the error in said certification and its relevance from a constitutional point of view, based on the special circumstances of the specific case. Firstly, it is noted that the text of the Convention published on the official website of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (see http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Convencion_de_Antigua_Jun_2003.pdf), is identical to the text of it attached to the legislative file, which contains the same number of pages, twenty-two in total. This verifies that the certification in question contains a material defect, as instead of stating "the foregoing seven photocopies" it should have stated "the foregoing twenty-two photocopies." Despite this error, it is clear that both within the Special Permanent Committee on the Environment and in the Plenary, the deputies had at their disposal the complete text of the Convention, which was published in its entirety in La Gaceta number 187 of September 29, 2006, for which reason not the slightest hint of doubt arose on the part of the legislators regarding its total content. Furthermore, no confusion was caused to the private organizations and public agencies consulted, given that the corresponding consultations specified the date of publication of said bill in the Official Gazette La Gaceta (see folios 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 92 and 106 of the legislative file), which in turn rules out an injury to the principle of publicity. For these reasons, this Court concludes that at no time did the Executive Branch fail in its obligation to submit the complete documentation to the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of allowing it to clearly approve the perfectly defined object of what is being sought to elevate to a legal norm with a rank higher than law. Hence, in the specific case, the mistake committed constituted a mere material defect that cannot lead to the nullity of the legislative process and, therefore, does not require the implementation of any corrective mechanism. The foregoing does not prevent a call for attention so that in the future, this type of mistake be prevented, given the legal value of the certifications issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, which must be entirely exact so that there is no doubt whatsoever about the absolute fidelity of the texts of the conventions submitted for approval in the Legislative Assembly.*" Consequently, regarding the publication requirement in La Gaceta established by article 117 of the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly and the jurisprudence of the Chamber, it is inferred that the crux of the matter consists of analyzing, according to the specific case, to what extent a mistake in publication leads to a defect in publicity, from which the general public has a confused understanding of the content of a bill to be approved in the Legislative Assembly or their informed participation in its discussion is restricted. It is not, then, a matter of applying a rigid formalism, alien to the circumstances of the case, but of employing legal hermeneutics in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, so that the norms are interpreted in the way that best guarantees the achievement of the purpose or purposes they pursue.

In this case, unlike the subject of judgment number 2013-006969, there is no injury to the principle of publicity affecting its essential content, that is, that actually gives rise to a state of current and real confusion regarding the content of the legislative bill under discussion, in such a way that popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions is hindered. Precisely, the publicity of the procedure seeks to safeguard that the power to legislate resides in the people and that the deputies are only their representatives (article 105 of the Constitution), as well as the projection of parliamentary activity outward as a guarantee established in article 117 of the Political Constitution (see Judgment No. 2000-3220). In this context, it must be emphasized that from the amendment to article 9 of the Political Constitution (Law N° 8364 of July 1, 2003, published in La Gaceta N° 146 of July 31, 2003), the characteristic of "participatory" was introduced as a constitutive element of the Government of the Republic. This quality enhances at the constitutional level the fundamental purpose of publicity: to promote the intervention of the citizenry in the fundamental decisions of the State. If this purpose is not violated and it is noted that there has been no actual obstruction to popular participation, then an error in the publication cannot by itself constitute an essential defect in the legislative procedure. In the case at hand, contrary to what occurred in judgment number 2013-006969, the International Relations Committee always had the correct and complete version of the text of the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other". Likewise, it is fully verifiable that the deputies of the Legislative Assembly at all times had the full text of the Agreement and based their discussions, motions, and the will expressed in their reports and votes on it. Likewise, the authorities and persons who were granted the respective hearings always had the complete text of the Agreement at their disposal. Thus, it is not seen that an injury to the essential content of the principle of publicity derived from the error in publication, so no defect of unconstitutionality has occurred. The case is different when not even within Parliament itself the full text of the bill to be approved has been available, or when it contains errors, or when the legislator itself has introduced important changes to the original version of a bill while it is being discussed in a committee (which in this case would have been, in any event, improper because article 361 of the Agreement does not permit unilateral reservations or interpretative declarations to it).

As a corollary to the foregoing, regarding the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other" no essential defects in the legislative procedure are noted.

**VIII.- On the merits of the bill.** Before making some observations on the merits of the bill "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," it must be emphasized that, according to the provisions of article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the opinion of this Chamber will only be binding insofar as it establishes the existence of unconstitutional formalities.

**IX.-** The "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," far from being solely a typical Free Trade Agreement between the regions involved, was born under the figure of an "Association Agreement" to which, in addition to the commercial component, two more elements that complement and accompany it were added: "Political Dialogue" and "Cooperation." Under this understanding, this international instrument seeks to establish an interregional association between Central America and the European Union based on three fundamental pillars: **1) "Political Dialogue"**: it seeks to create a privileged political association between both regions based on common values and interests set forth in the Agreement (among them, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction, fight against terrorism, serious crimes of international concern, financing for development, migration, environment, citizen security, good governance in fiscal matters, among others); **2) "Cooperation"**: the Agreement is oriented to enable the necessary cooperation mechanisms within the areas of interest of the Parties (e.g., Democracy, Human Rights, and Good Governance; Justice, Freedom, and Security; Social Development and Social Cohesion; Migration; Environment, Natural Disasters, and Climate Change; Economic and Commercial Development; Regional Integration; Culture and Audiovisual Cooperation; Knowledge Society); **3) "Trade"**: as stated, this section constitutes a free trade agreement. This last commercial pillar has the following content: Titles I, XII, and XIII contain the initial and institutional provisions; Title II regulates matters related to Trade in Goods; Title III establishes Trade in Services and Establishment; Title IV refers to Current Payments and Capital Movements; Title V regulates matters related to Public Procurement; Title VI governs Intellectual Property; Title VII contains provisions related to Trade and Competition; Title VIII regulates matters concerning Trade and Sustainable Development; Title IX governs Regional Economic Integration; Titles X and XI refer to the topic of Dispute Settlement and Mediation; finally, Title XIV contains provisions related to Exceptions.

In addition to the three pillars described above, the text of the Association Agreement also enshrines several common rules or norms that apply to each of these three components. These rules are characteristic of all international treaties and are called in doctrine "Rules of the Law of Treaties." In this agreement, these rules are set forth in the first and fifth parts of the Agreement.

In addition to the matter of the approval of the Association Agreement, the bill submitted for consultation contemplates the ratification by our country of an Amendment to the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna", since its approval is part of the political negotiation with the European Union and was a commitment derived from the Association Agreement (see explanatory memorandum of legislative file No. 18,563 and article 287.3 of the Association Agreement). Likewise, in bill No. 18,563 a Council of Land Border Posts is created and is endowed with the necessary financial resources, creating an exit tax for land ports and a tax on each customs export declaration filed at land border posts.

Finally, in the bill, it is decided to entrust the Ministry of Foreign Trade with the country's representation before the international organization known as the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)".

After clarifying the content of the bill in question, it is necessary to go into detail on each of the Parts that make up the Association Agreement.

**Preamble:** The motivations and general considerations in the Preamble of the Agreement form part of it, since although they do not generate direct legal obligations, they are useful for the purposes of interpreting the corresponding legal instrument.

Among such considerations, the following merits special reference:

"*RECOGNIZING the progress achieved in the Central American economic integration process, such as the ratification of the Framework Agreement for the Establishment of the Central American Customs Union and the Treaty on Investment and Trade in Services, as well as the implementation of a jurisdictional mechanism that guarantees compliance with regional economic legislation throughout the Central American region;*" In this regard, it should be noted that no express reference is made to the Central American Court of Justice, but rather an indeterminate reference to "a jurisdictional mechanism", so that the mere approval of the Agreement does not imply that Costa Rica recognizes the competence of said court.

**Parts I and V of the Agreement:** As is traditional in this type of international convention, Parts I and V of the Association Agreement contain common norms or rules that apply to each of the three pillars of the Agreement, and which are usually known as rules of the Law of Treaties.

Title I of Part I brings together the principles from which the Agreement must be interpreted and read; some of them are: the democratic principle, respect for fundamental rights, sustainable development, good governance, the Rule of Law, the rule of law, separation of Powers, transparency and accountability, efficiency, prevention and fight against corruption (Article 1). On the other hand, the main objectives of the Agreement are cited: to strengthen relations between the Parties, to develop a privileged political partnership, to improve bi-regional cooperation, to expand the trade relationship, to strengthen the progressive process of regional integration, good neighborly relations and the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, to improve the level of good governance, to promote the increase of trade and investment (Article 2).

In Title II of this Part I, the topic of the institutional framework is covered, which is formed by the creation of an Association Council, an Association Committee, a Parliamentary Association Committee, a Joint Consultative Committee, and different subcommittees. The Association Council will be composed of representatives of the European Union Party and of each of the Republics of the Central American State Parties at the ministerial level, in accordance with the internal provisions of each State. The Presidency of said body will be exercised alternately by a representative of the European Union Party and another representative of Central America (Article 5). It is granted the power to issue its own regulations and its primary task is to supervise the fulfillment of the objectives of this Agreement and its application. For this purpose, a meeting at the ministerial level is planned every two years, with the possibility of meeting at the level of Heads of State when the Parties so agree (Article 4). Among its most relevant powers, we can cite the following:

1. Examine any major issue arising under the framework of the Agreement, as well as any other bilateral, multilateral, or international issue of common interest. (Article 4.2) 2. Examine the proposals and recommendations of the Parties aimed at improving the relations established under the framework of the Agreement. (Article 4.3) 3. Formulate such recommendations as it may deem appropriate. (Article 6.3) 4. Elaborate and adopt the "Rules of Procedure" that will govern the dispute settlement procedures set out in the Association Agreement. (Article 319) 5. It shall adopt the Rules of Procedure and the Code of Conduct at its first session and may subsequently modify them. (Article 328) 6. When dealing with trade-related issues, it may:

• a)modify, in fulfillment of the objectives of Part IV of this Agreement:
• i)the lists of goods established in Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties), in order to incorporate one or more goods into the tariff elimination program; ii) the lists established in Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties), in order to accelerate the tariff elimination; iii) Appendices 1, 2, and 3 of Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties); iv) Appendices 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Annex II (Concerning the definition of the concept of "originating products" and methods of administrative cooperation); v) Annex XVI (Public procurement); vi) Annex XVIII (Protected geographical indications); vii) Annex XIX (List of products referred to in Article 306, paragraph 4); viii) Annex XXI (Subcommittees); b) issue interpretations of the provisions of Part IV of this Agreement; and c) take any other action in the exercise of its functions as agreed by the Parties. (Article 345) It is important to highlight that the decisions adopted by said body will be binding for the Parties, and will be taken by common agreement; and in the case of the Central American countries, their consensus is required for the adoption of decisions and recommendations (Article 6). That is, the obligation is not imposed on a country to comply with a certain decision or recommendation if it has not previously given its express consent.

To fulfill such tasks, the Association Council will receive the collaboration of smaller units also created in the Association Agreement. Some of these units are: the Association Committee (which will also adopt its decisions in accordance with the conditions established in Articles 4 to 6); and the specific Subcommittees by subject matter (Articles 7 and 8). Likewise, a Parliamentary Association Committee is created, which will be constituted by members of the European Parliament and the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN). In the case of republics that are not part of PARLACEN (such as our country), it is provided that each State will designate its own representatives (Article 9). A Joint Consultative Committee is also established, which will have consultative functions and, as an important fact, must present to the Association Council the opinions of civil society organizations related to the application of the Agreement (Article 10). Lastly, reference is made to civil society, indicating that meetings of representatives of civil societies will be promoted to inform them about the application of the Agreement (Article 11). Due to the particular interest this topic generates, the participation of civil society will be developed later.

Once the proposed organizational structure is described, it is pertinent to refer specifically to the powers held by the Association Council formed for the Agreement under study and the similarity of attributions and differences it holds in relation to other instruments of the same nature that have been previously adopted by our country and also the subject of pronouncements by this Court.

In the case of the "Free Trade Treaty between Costa Rica and the Caribbean Community" approved by Ley 8455, the creation of a Joint Council had been provided with powers almost identical to those also granted in the Free Trade Treaty between Central America and Chile approved by Ley 8055, and very similar to those under study, which consisted of:

"**…** *this Joint Council is responsible for ensuring the fulfillment and correct application of the provisions thereof, for which it will issue recommendations; it may evaluate the results achieved in its application; resolve disputes that arise regarding its interpretation or application; supervise the work of the established or created committees and hear any other matter that could affect its operation. This Council, states Article I.06, may modify, in the interest of fulfilling the objectives of the Treaty: a) the list of goods of a party contained in Annex III.04.2 (Tariff Elimination) with the purpose of incorporating one or more excluded goods into the Tariff Elimination Program; b) the timeframes established in Annex III.04.02 (Tariff Elimination) in order to accelerate the tariff elimination; c) the specific rules of origin of Annex IV.03; d) the uniform regulations of the Customs Procedures*." In a similar sense, in the Free Trade Treaty between the Dominican Republic, Central America and the United States approved by Costa Rica according to Ley 8622, the Free Trade Commission has the following powers:

"*Article 19.1: The Free Trade Commission* *1. The Parties establish the Free Trade Commission, made up of the representatives of each Party at the Ministerial level, referred to in Annex 19.1, or by the persons they designate.* *2. The Commission shall:* *(a) supervise the execution of the Treaty;* *(b) supervise the further development of the Treaty;* *(c) seek to resolve disputes that could arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Treaty;* *(d) supervise the work of all committees and working groups established in accordance with this Treaty; and* *(e) hear any other matter that could affect the operation of the Treaty.* *3. The Commission may:* *(a) establish and delegate responsibilities to committees and working groups;* *(b) modify in compliance with the objectives of this Treaty:* *(i) the tariff elimination schedules subject to Annex 3.3 (Tariff Elimination), in order to accelerate the tariff reduction;* *(ii) the rules of origin established in Annex 4.1 (Specific Rules of Origin);* *(iii) the Common Guidelines referred to in Article 4.21 (Common Guidelines); and* *(iv) Annexes 9.1.2(b)(i), 9.1.2(b)(ii) and 9.1.2(b)(iii) (Public Procurement);* *(c) issue interpretations on the provisions of this Treaty;* *(d) seek the advice of non-governmental persons or groups; and* *(e) adopt any other action for the exercise of its functions as agreed by the Parties. 19-2* *4. Each Party shall implement, in accordance with its applicable legal procedures, any modification pursuant to subparagraph 3(b) within the period agreed upon by the Parties.* *5. The Commission shall establish its rules and procedures. All its decisions shall be taken by consensus, unless the Commission decides otherwise.* *6. The Commission shall meet at least once a year in ordinary session, unless the Commission decides otherwise. The ordinary sessions of the Commission shall be chaired successively by each of the Parties.* *Article 19.2: Free Trade Treaty Coordinators* *1. Each Party shall designate a Free Trade Treaty Coordinator, in accordance with the provisions of Annex 19.2.* *2. The coordinators shall work jointly in developing agendas and other preparations for the Commission meetings and shall provide appropriate follow-up to the Commission's decisions…"* So the Association Council envisaged to administer the agreements signed in this negotiation is not very different from those previously approved by our country, which even has less involvement in dispute settlement than the bodies cited above.

In addition to the above, this Court, referring to the scope of this type of authority and the binding nature of its decisions for the country, specifically stated:

"*On this point, it is clear from a reading of the Treaty that the Free Trade Commission is a collegial body composed of representatives of each Party at the ministerial level or by the persons each one designates, and its function is to supervise the execution of the treaty, supervise its further development, resolve disputes that may arise over the interpretation or application of the treaty, supervise the work of the committees and working groups established, and hear any other matter that might affect the functioning of the agreement. Among its powers is also issuing interpretations of the treaty's provisions, but not modifying its content as the consulting deputies claim. It is clear that such authority was not granted in the Treaty as derived from Article 19.1, so this Chamber cannot conclude anything beyond what the text of the trade agreement establishes. Furthermore, even though the consulting parties consider that said Commission assumes legislative and regulatory powers, this Chamber has referred on other occasions to the legal nature of the norms issued by this type of Commission, understanding that they are lesser-rank protocols in accordance with the provisions of Article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution. Reaffirming the above, the Free Trade Treaty establishes in Anexo 19.1.4 that: "In the case of Costa Rica, the decisions of the Commission pursuant to Article 19.2.3(b) shall be equivalent to the instrument referred to in Article 121.4, third paragraph (lesser-rank protocol), of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica." Considering that nature, it cannot be considered that these are unconstitutional powers, and so warned this Chamber in ruling 2000-8404 of ten o'clock on September twenty-second, two thousand, in which it stated:* ***"V.- On the Free Trade Commission:** In Article 18.01 of the Treaty, a Free Trade Commission is established which shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with and the correct application of the provisions of this Treaty; for evaluating the results achieved in the application of the Treaty; for resolving disputes that arise regarding the interpretation or application of the Treaty; for supervising the work of the committees established or created pursuant to the Treaty; and for hearing any other matter that might affect the functioning of this Treaty. This Commission, the article indicates, may modify, in order to fulfill the objectives of the Treaty: a) a Party's list of goods contained in anexo 3.04 (Tariff Elimination Program) in order to incorporate one or more goods excluded from the Tariff Elimination Program; b) the timeframes established in Anexo 3.04 (Tariff Elimination Program) in order to accelerate tariff elimination; c) the specific rules of origin of Anexo 4.03; d) the uniform regulations; e) Anexo 9.01 of services sectors or subsectors in order to incorporate new services sectors or subsectors; f) anexos I, II, and III of Chapter 11 (Cross-Border Trade in Services) and the list of entities of a Party contained in Anexo 16.01 (Entities) in order to incorporate one or more entities into the scope of application of Chapter 16 (Public Procurement). The Commission official, in the specific case of Costa Rica, is the Minister of Foreign Trade or its successor. Now, in Anexo 18.01 (4), it is expressly established that for the case of Costa Rica, the agreements reached by the Parties shall be equivalent to the instrument referred to in Article 121.4, third paragraph of the Political Constitution; an instrument which has been called "Menor-Rango Protocol". On this matter, the Chamber has stated:* *"Lesser-rank protocols are those which, without adding substantial commitments or limitations to the activity of states, develop and even modify purely procedural norms that do not affect the substance of the treaty. Typical cases of lesser-rank protocols are modifications to compliance deadlines and other similar measures, provided that these modifications are, as stated, foreseen in the main treaty" (Ruling No. 03388-98 of sixteen hours thirty-nine minutes on May twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-eight).* *In relation to the specific case, the Chamber considers that both the Free Trade Commission being created in the Treaty under study, and the powers granted to it therein, are not unconstitutional to the extent that they can be considered as lesser-rank protocols in the terms indicated supra, or well, and to the degree and insofar as through the exercise of these powers, substantive and fundamental decisions are not being made that must necessarily be analyzed by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the constitutional powers held by this Branch of the Republic. From this perspective, it is not unconstitutional for the representative of Costa Rica to participate and carry the voice of the National Government on matters related to the Treaty, as long as the country is not committed to decisions that necessarily require legislative approval and, of course, subsequent constitutional oversight exercised by the Constitutional Chamber. (ruling No. 2000-8404)* *The previous precedent is fully applicable to the specific case, since the norm analyzed is very similar to the one discussed here, which leads the Chamber to conclude that the functions or powers established for the Free Trade Commission in the Free Trade Treaty are not unconstitutional per se, since it cannot be inferred from the articles of the Treaty that the intention is for said Commission to alter its provisions, but only to interpret them. Furthermore, the guarantee always exists that the representative of Costa Rica could in no way commit our country to any matter requiring legislative approval.* *Now, one aspect that must be carefully analyzed is the accusation by the Defensoría to the effect that said Commission can impose obligations on Costa Rica even against its will, as it is a supranational body. On this particular point, it must be taken into account that in light of the provisions of numeral 19.1.5 of the Free Trade Treaty, the decisions adopted by said Commission are taken by consensus, unless the Commission itself decides otherwise. While the Treaty does not clarify what is meant by "consensus," the preamble itself expressly recognizes the Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which does clarify the meaning of said concept. In light of the provisions of Article IX, paragraph 1, footnote 1, of the Marrakech Agreement, "the body concerned shall be deemed to have decided by consensus on a matter submitted for its consideration, if no Member present at the meeting when the decision is taken, formally objects to the proposed decision." This means that in the commercial sphere established by the Free Trade Treaty and the WTO, the consent of all Parties present is required to adopt a decision, that is, there is a kind of veto power, no matter how small and weak a country may be, if it opposes what the others decide against its will. For practical purposes, this means that no decision affecting Costa Rica can be adopted if its representative opposes it, meaning the State is not ceding its sovereignty. It is for this reason that the Commission is not considered a supranational body either, since it cannot impose obligations beyond the will of the States, neither in the process of "administration" of the treaty, nor when it intervenes in the State-State dispute resolution mechanism, and in this latter case, it only issues recommendations. On a similar matter, through ruling 1079-93 of fourteen hours forty-eight minutes on March second, nineteen ninety-three, the Chamber indicated:* *"B) The foregoing forces recognition that the expression "community legal order" (ordenamiento comunitario), although unfortunate, only acquires meaning, in the context of that subsection, if "community" is understood as that normative body which, although created through typical sources of the Law of Nations, such as treaties, actually has a "supranational" character, in that it is capable of imposing on the State Parties obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations beyond those agreed upon and even against their will, for example, through decisions adopted by a majority; this is something completely different from merely international orders, in which States commit only to what they agree to by treaty, or, if the treaty also creates some type of international body, the decisions in that body are either not binding, or if they are, they must be taken by unanimity, that is, with the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State, through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose. It is true that the inclusion of the concept "community legal order" (ordenamiento comunitario) in said constitutional norm was made by the Legislative Assembly acting as a constituent power (by Law Nº 4123 of May 30, 1968), having in mind the Central American integration or Common Market process, but it would be contradictory, and therefore unconstitutional, to deduce from this that the Constitution imposes an aggravated procedure for the approval of the instruments of that process, desired by Costa Rica and closer and more natural as it occurs in the geopolitical and historical sphere of the Great Central American Homeland, than in other, more distant and less intense cases where competences of the Costa Rican State are also assigned or transferred to an extra-national order." (The bold text is not part of the original)* *For the foregoing reasons, and taking into consideration that the decisions of the Commission cannot be imposed beyond the will of the States because they are adopted by consensus, this Chamber finds no unconstitutionality whatsoever regarding this aspect.* *Even though the consulting deputies claim that the decisions of the Commission are not necessarily adopted by consensus because Article 19.1.5 establishes that said body may agree on another form of voting, the Chamber also does not consider this unconstitutional. It is clear that any decision of the Commission that seeks to vary the voting method must be adopted by consensus, so the voting mechanism could not be varied if our country's representative does not agree, thereby obviously maintaining the power to guarantee that no decision is imposed on Costa Rica against its interests. However, a warning is made that said representative could not authorize a change in the voting method if it can force a decision contrary to the will of our State, and provided that it does not commit the country to decisions that necessarily require legislative approval. Therefore, the issue in question lies in the obligations and controls that the State imposes on its representative. Likewise, the argument of the consulting parties is not acceptable that there is no guarantee that the decisions made by the Free Trade Commission will be in accordance with the Constitution, for precisely therein lies the importance of the role played by our representative, who could not at any time commit our country beyond what our Fundamental Charter permits. In any case, if the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law was not included as a "non-conforming measure," it does not mean that the oversight of this Chamber provided for in the Political Constitution (Articles 10 and 48) has been repealed, but rather, on the contrary, it was not considered incompatible with the Treaty, and therefore its inclusion was not necessary. The consulting parties must be clear, as will be seen throughout this ruling, that in the list of non-conforming measures, only that national legislation which, despite being contrary to the provisions of the Treaty, is intended to be kept in force, is included. This does not mean that what is not included there is understood to be repealed.*" (ruling No. 2007-9469) In accordance with the foregoing, the International Agreement under study presents no defect of unconstitutionality whatsoever, since as has been accredited, the Association Council does not have the capacity to impose on the State Parties obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations beyond those agreed upon and never against their will, because this requires consensus, that is, the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose, besides the fact that its decisions revolve around the administration and implementation of the negotiated commercial matters.

As for the final provisions, Part V of the Agreement clarifies issues such as the definition of the Parties (where what draws attention is the enumeration of the cases in which the Central American countries must act jointly (in decision-making through the bodies contemplated in Title II (Institutional Framework) of Part I of this Agreement, in the implementation of the obligations set forth in Title IX (Regional Economic Integration) of Part IV of this Agreement, in the implementation of the obligation to establish a Central American Regulation on Competition and a competition authority, and in the implementation of the obligation to establish a single point of access at the regional level, in accordance with Article 212, paragraph 2, of Title V (Public Procurement) of Part IV of this Agreement); otherwise, for any other matter, the Central American countries will assume obligations and act individually -Article 352-), entry into force, where it is explained that the rule is that the Trade Agreement (Part IV) may govern independently between the European Union and each Central American country that ratifies it, but not the entirety of the Association Agreement, which requires the accession and ratification of all Parties (Article 353), its indefinite duration and the possibility of being denounced by any country at any time, ceasing to be in force six months later (Article 354), fulfillment of obligations (Article 355), rights and obligations (Article 356), exceptions (Article 357), evolutive clause referring to the possibility of expanding or complementing the Agreement through the conclusion of other agreements on specific activities (Article 358), accession of new members and their particular rules (Article 359), territorial application, expressly clarifying that for the case of Central America, said Agreement would apply in *"the territories of the Republics of the Central American Party, in accordance with their respective national laws and International Law"* (Article 360), and the impossibility of formulating unilateral reservations or interpretative declarations, which responds to the logic of the multilateral nature of the Agreement (Article 361). Consequently, the concept of territory, in the terms of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, is respected. Finally, the rule of the integrity of the Agreement is established (meaning that the annexes, appendices, notes, footnotes, among others, form part of the Agreement), as well as matters relating to authentic languages (all the official languages of the Parties).

This Constitutional Court, after reading these first two sections, does not observe evident and manifest conflicts with the Constitution.

**Part II of the Agreement:** This Part II of the Agreement corresponds to the first fundamental axis of the international negotiation achieved. It sets out the necessary norms to give content to the "Political Dialogue" agreed upon by both regions. In principle, it is a treaty that replaces the previous "*Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, on the other part*", signed in the city of Rome on December 15, 2003, and ratified by Costa Rica through Law Number 8919 of December 16, 2010.

This section of the Agreement synthesizes the objectives of that political dialogue. The establishment of a privileged political partnership is emphasized, in which the exchange of opinions, positions, and information can be fostered, as well as the discussion of matters of mutual interest (Articles 12 and 13). In numeral 13, a list of topics is defined on which the aim is to reach a common ground between both regions; however, this list is not exhaustive, as it is permitted to add any other topic as an area for political dialogue. The political commitments made by our country in this Part II on "Political Dialogue" include rules on matters in which Costa Rica has shown a very advanced level of commitment, in some cases responding to areas whose protection has been promoted by the jurisprudence of this Chamber. For example, on the topic of Disarmament (Article 14), there are several international instruments cited in the Association Agreement that our country had previously signed and ratified, among them: the *"Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction"* (approved by Law Nº 7859), and the *"Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols"* (approved through Law Nº 7820).

In that same vein, regarding the topic of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Article 15) or nuclear weapons, Costa Rica is already a Party to the most relevant international instruments that have been developed (e.g., the *"Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and its Protocol"*, approved by Law Nº 8094; or the "*Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America*", approved by Law Nº 4369).

In the matter of the Fight Against Terrorism (Article 16), our country also complies with the rules set forth in the Association Agreement, since it has signed various conventions at the international level on this topic (e.g., the *"Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism"*, approved by Law N° 8446, the "*International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism"*, approved by Law N° 8257, among others).

On the other hand, numeral 17 of the Association Agreement reaffirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community must not go unpunished, and grants a fundamental role to the functioning of the International Criminal Court, to which Costa Rica gave its adherence through the approval of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Law N° 8083).

In the subsequent Articles 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Association Agreement, general application norms are recognized for topics such as: migration, environment (an area in which Costa Rica has demonstrated a serious international commitment, approving a multitude of agreements), citizen security, and good governance in fiscal matters. Finally, the commitment made regarding the creation of a Common Economic and Financial Credit Fund has even more concrete implications, because its postulates establish the need to have a common mechanism that includes the intervention, for example, of the European Investment Bank, the Latin America Investment Facility, and other technical assistance, all aimed at reducing poverty and supporting development in Central America.

As in Parts I and V, the Chamber does not consider that the conventional rules set forth in this "Political Dialogue" section directly and clearly violate the content of the Political Constitution.

**Part III of the Agreement:** In the first place, the "Cooperation" Part sets out the objectives and general principles of cooperation between both regions, presented in a generic manner. It is clarified that such cooperation would materialize through the contribution of resources, mechanisms, tools, and procedures (Article 24). Additionally, it explains that all entities involved in the cooperation process are subject to transparent management of the resources delivered to them, as well as the duty of accountability (rendición de cuentas) (Article 26). Part III details a non-exhaustive list of the priority interest areas in which both regions would apply cooperation practices (areas that are classified in Titles I to IX); however, it is recalled that if the Parties so decide, any other area or activity in accordance with the spirit of the Association Agreement may be included in the cooperation category (Article 27).

In Title I of this Part III, the aim is to establish the main scope of intra-regional cooperation in the sectors of Democracy, Human Rights, and Good Governance. In these areas, fundamental aspects such as the universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights are reiterated; likewise, it is agreed that cooperation in this area shall aim to improve and modernize public management, as well as support a comprehensive peace policy that includes the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Regarding Title II, the Association Agreement focused on regulating interregional cooperation concerning Justice, Freedom, and Security. Thus, collaboration is discussed on the topic of personal data protection and the free flow of this data between the Parties, provided the regulations established in each country's domestic legislation are respected.

Also in the reduction of the supply and demand of illicit drugs, both from a repressive and preventive perspective. The same applies to the topic of money laundering (including the financing of terrorism), organized crime and citizen security (exchanging good practices), the fight against corruption in the public and private sector due to the grave threat it constitutes to the internal institutions of each country, preventing (among other issues) bribery in international transactions and monitoring policies implemented at the local, regional, and international level. In turn, cooperation is extended to prevent and combat the illicit trafficking of light weapons.

Regarding Title III, it must be stated that it was the section designated to regulate cooperation in the field of Development and Social Cohesion. Concerning this subject matter, the interest of both regions in cooperating to combat important social problems such as poverty, social inequality, and exclusion can be highlighted, with the goal of a better distribution of wealth and the establishment of employment policies aimed at decent work for all persons (Article 41). Regarding education and training (Article 43), the Parties agreed to cooperate to achieve equitable access to education, as well as to improve its quality. In public health (Article 44), several pathologies of special attention for cooperation are listed, among other issues. Cooperation will also be sought in the protection and promotion of the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, as has been fostered by various international instruments created around this population (Article 45). The Association Agreement is also interested in cooperating in favor of socially vulnerable groups and strengthening the gender perspective and equality between men and women in each of the internally relevant areas, without neglecting matters pertaining to youth (Articles 46, 47, and 48).

In Title IV related to the Migration topic, attention is drawn to the rule establishing cooperation for the return, in humane conditions, of persons who do not possess a legal residence permit (Article 49). In that sense, it was agreed that the Central American republics committed to “*readmit, upon request and without further formalities*,” all of their nationals with irregular migratory status in the territory of any member of the European Union (Article 49.2.a); the same readmission applies to nationals of any EU country who are irregularly in Central America (Article 49.2.b). However, in accordance with Article 49.4 of the Association Agreement, such readmission shall be regulated via a multilateral agreement (between Parties), in which the obligations of each State in this matter would be regulated. In line with what was explained by the Department of Technical Services, the Directorate General of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) of our country (in response to a query about bill No. 18.563), pronounced favorably regarding this readmission and the regulations contained in the Association Agreement, indicating that *“it does not present conflicts with current migration legislation.”* In another vein, Title V of this Part III of the Agreement refers to the Environment, Natural Disasters, and Climate Change, defining which environmental areas would be covered by interregional cooperation (Article 50). Likewise, it seeks to reduce the vulnerability of the Central American region to natural disasters (Article 51).

Title VI applies to cooperation in the field of Economic and Commercial Development. Specifically, this section is responsible for regulating the topic of cooperation and technical assistance in matters such as competition policy and its promotion (Article 52), customs and trade facilitation (Articles 53 and 54), intellectual property and technology transfer (Article 55), trade in services and electronic commerce (Article 56), public procurement (Article 58), sustainable fisheries and aquaculture (Article 59), access to markets for artisanal goods and their preservation (Article 60), facilitating trade in organic products (Article 61), food safety, sanitary and phytosanitary measures as well as animal welfare (Article 62), trade and sustainable development, supporting environmental protection and decent working conditions (Article 63), modernization and restructuring of the Central American industry (Article 64), energy and renewable energies, their saving and environmental impact (Article 65), mining taking into account internal legislation and sustainable development (Article 66), fair and sustainable tourism that includes the protection and promotion of cultural heritage and natural resources, all with the participation of local communities, promoting rural, community-based, and ecological tourism (Article 67), modernization and restructuring of transportation in all its modalities, including border posts, facilitating the movement of people and goods (Article 68), support for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, so that they can participate in goods and services markets at the local and international level (Article 70), and access to microcredits and microfinancing (Article 71).

In relation to Title VII, it can be stated that it is intended to regulate cooperation in matter of Regional Integration, strengthening this process in the Central American sphere, especially in the application of its common market, development of its common institutions, and participation of civil society through consultation and awareness campaigns (Article 72).

For its part, Title VIII refers to Audiovisual and Cultural Cooperation. In that sense, it is highlighted that the Parties committed to promoting the circulation of cultural activities, goods, and services, and of artists and cultural professionals (Article 74). Also included is the promotion of cultural diversity, including that of indigenous peoples and the cultural practices of other groups, incorporating education in native languages. In the audiovisual area, cooperation in communication media, such as radio and press, is mentioned. Finally, it is clarified that a Protocol of Cultural Cooperation is annexed in the final provisions, which is also relevant for the interpretation of this Title.

Final Title IX of this Part III is related to the Knowledge Society. This section intends to record the cooperation between both regions regarding information and communication technologies, seeking to reduce the digital divide and ensure equitable and inclusive access (Article 75). Topics such as: digital government, electronic commerce, digital signature, telework, among others, are also addressed. Likewise, cooperation would be directed towards the scientific and technological sector, as well as to carrying out joint research actions (Article 76). The promotion of nuclear science and technology for medical applications in areas such as health is affirmed, in particular radiology and nuclear medicine for radiodiagnosis and radiotherapy treatment, as well as other areas that the Parties establish by mutual agreement. The topic of training, scholarships, and exchanges is also emphasized.

Having analyzed each of the Titles that compose this Part III of the Association Agreement, the Chamber concludes that –in general terms– no evident and manifest unconstitutionalities were found concerning the substance of its rules and texts.

***Part IV of the Agreement:*** As has been explained, Part IV of the Association Agreement constitutes, properly, the Free Trade Agreement between Central America and the European Union.

In accordance with Articles 353.2 and 353.4 of the Agreement, unlike the other parts of the Association Agreement which will enter into force when the Parties from both regions have notified the completion of their internal procedures, this Part IV may enter into force for each Central American country that ratifies it, independently of the others, once it has been approved by the European Union.

In general, this commercial section follows the traditional structure of the World Trade Organization Agreements, developing in 14 Titles the areas of trade in goods (Title II), trade in services and electronic commerce (Title III), and includes provisions on common topics: investment protection concerning financial flows (Title IV), public procurement (Title V), protection of intellectual property (Title VI), and dispute settlement mechanisms (Title X).

Title I and XIV contain the general provisions applicable to the entire Commercial Agreement, and state the basic objective of the Parties (establishment of a free trade zone), the technical definitions, and the general exceptions that commonly apply in this type of treaties (Title XIV), following the rules specific to the GATT Agreement of the WTO, agreements approved by Costa Rica at the time of its incorporation into the World Trade Organization (Law No. 7475 of December 20, 1994).

These are, then, objectives of economic policy that may or may not be shared, but in any case, their definition corresponds to a criterion of political opportunity under the responsibility of the Legislative and Executive Branches, not a jurisdictional criterion. The constitutionality control exercised by the Constitutional Chamber cannot substitute for said Branches but must limit itself to verifying that the constitutional order is not violated, all in respect for the principle of self-restraint of the constitutional judge.

Regarding the rules of Titles XII and XIII (on Transparency and Administrative Procedures), they are common provisions in the creation of institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the Agreement, whether with the obligation to publicize internal administrative procedures themselves, to provide the possibility within the legal system to appeal, administratively or judicially, the acts of the bodies responsible for implementing the Agreement (customs and sanitary authorities, among others), or to maintain a point of contact for fluid communication between the Parties. Properly, Title XIII is limited to distributing competencies and functions within the different bodies that are created, to administer and implement the Agreement itself.

This Commercial Agreement includes some novel topics, such as the regulations relating to the Title called “Trade and Sustainable Development” (Title VIII), in addition to the commitments of regional economic integration (Title IX).

In general, all these topics and commitments that Commercial Agreements of this type imply have already been assumed by the country in previous treaties. For this reason, and given the eminently technical nature of the contents of the Commercial Agreement, which in principle respond to discretionary criteria of commercial policy, the Chamber deems it necessary to recall some case law issued by this constitutional jurisdiction in cases analogous to the present one, in which it was explained that: “(…) *However, from the point that now concerns us, this means that the State, or more properly, the bodies that have strictly political and management competencies under their charge, must always act with the purpose of stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth. <u>It should be understood, then, that the Executive Branch has negotiated this Treaty with these constitutional objectives as its guide</u>. And it must also be understood that the Legislative Branch, when examining the substance of said instrument, will act in accordance with the same objectives. That is why we can conclude, in principle, that <u>the advantages or disadvantages that the Treaty as such, or some of its provisions, debated and debatable, may have for some sector do not necessarily entail an aspect of constitutionality</u>, in the sense on which the Chamber must rule, because they lie at the level of mere convenience or opportunity. For example, some point out that despite the merits of this type of commercial instruments, a country would not derive immediate or short-term advantages if the old model (of import substitution, of subsidies) and the new model of commercial openness coincide within it. (…) In any case, the Chamber warns that these aspects revolve around the policies behind the philosophy of the Treaty but do not have the constitutional connotation to which the Chamber must circumscribe its opinion*” (see judgments number 07005-94 of 09:21 hours on December 2, 1994 and 9469-2007 of 10:00 hours on July 3, 2007, among others). Consequently, in accordance with the various pronouncements that this Chamber has issued on the Free Trade Agreements already in force in our country, it is clear that, in general terms, the commercial and technical clauses contained therein respond to the commercial policy that the Executive Branch had at the time of signing the international instrument. Likewise, it is also observed that many of the norms contained in this Commercial Agreement are basically limited to reaffirming the rights and obligations of the Parties, already previously contained in other international conventions ratified by Costa Rica (e.g., in the area of Intellectual Property, Article 233 of the Agreement lists several international instruments that the Parties must comply with, all of which have already been ratified by our country: the Rome Convention (Law No. 4727), the Berne Convention (Law No. 6083), and the WIPO Treaties on Copyright (WCT) (Law No. 7968) and on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) (Law No. 7967).

Thus, this Tribunal will limit itself to the study of certain novel aspects or those it considers relevant from a constitutional perspective.

The International Agreement under study, in relation to Title V of Part IV, establishes the main objective of the effective, reciprocal, and gradual opening of their respective procurement markets, supported by transparent, competitive, and open procurement that contributes to sustainable development. Precisely for this reason, Article 211 establishes, as has been provided in previous treaties of the same nature, the need for the Party States to provide treatment no less favorable than that granted by the Party, as well as the duty to manage procurement in a transparent and impartial manner, seeking to avoid conflicts of interest and corrupt practices. In view of the foregoing, the agreement contemplates different forms of administrative procurement, similar to those contemplated in our legal system (denominated in this case open tendering (licitación abierta), selective tendering (licitación selectiva), and restricted tendering (licitación restringida)) which aim to guarantee minimum principles of participation and equality to protect companies that may eventually participate in the Party States. The foregoing is reasonable based on the fact that not every Party State has contemplated such guarantees in its legal system, as ours does, even at the constitutional level, in accordance with the provisions of Article 182 of the Political Constitution:

“Article 182.- The contracts for the execution of public works entered into by the Branches of the State, the Municipalities, and the autonomous institutions, the purchases made with funds from those entities, and the sales or leases of goods belonging to them, shall be made through public tendering (licitación), in accordance with the law regarding the respective amount.” In particular, the text of the agreement under study provides the following definitions in Article 209.2:

“…f) “Restricted tendering” (licitación restringida) means a procurement method whereby a contracting entity contacts a supplier or suppliers of its choice;…

…k) “open tendering” (licitación abierta) means a procurement method whereby all interested suppliers may submit a tender;…

…n) “selective tendering” (licitación selectiva) means a procurement method whereby a contracting entity invites only qualified or registered suppliers to tender;…” Likewise, this Agreement regulates the need for publication of information about procurement in a timely, complete, and transparent manner (see Articles 212, 217, and 223) and seeks due access under equal conditions for participation in procurement processes, stating that for the selection of the tenderer, its suitability must be taken into consideration, in relation to financial, commercial, and technical abilities, without giving privileged treatment to those that have previously participated, valuing the offer solely based on territory (Article 214). In accordance with said objectives, Article 220 establishes that provided the procurement procedures are not used as a means to avoid competition or to protect national suppliers, a contracting entity may award contracts through direct contracting or other equivalent procurement procedures in certain circumstances specified therein. The foregoing precisely as a guarantee that a Party State does not indiscriminately justify the use of a direct contracting mechanism to the detriment of the other Party States, thereby harming the principle of good faith governing the negotiation at hand, so that far from diminishing the controls already existing in our legal system for conducting administrative procurement, minimum conditions are established, at least regarding the object to be contracted, to resort to this direct contracting mechanism. All of the above is fully consistent with the principles governing administrative procurement in our country and in no way affects the internal public procurement regime, as there is no agreement to diminish or harm the controls and principles of administrative procurement observed in our country; rather, it seeks to guarantee that these are carried out with all the guarantees of the case. Likewise, Article 225 provides that each Party shall establish or maintain administrative or judicial review procedures that allow for the control of administrative decisions affecting procurement, so that said processes must be timely, effective, transparent, and non-discriminatory, and it refers to our own jurisdiction for the resolution of conflicts of this nature. On the other hand, the Chamber, in judgments No. 2007-9469 and No. 2008-12590, has reiterated, in the face of conditions agreed upon like those under study, that the control exercised by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) equally prevails, as a guarantee not only for nationals but also for nationals of the Party States:

“… *the Treaty under study leaves to the discretion of each Party the designation of its competent administrative or judicial authority in this matter, imposing only the requirement that it be an impartial body. This is why in the case of Costa Rica, it must be understood in light of our country's internal regulations that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic retains all its powers of control and oversight in matter of public procurement, and if it is not mentioned expressly in the Treaty, it is not because its exclusion is intended, but because said designation will depend on the regulations of each Party. The fact that the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General was not included in the list of non-conforming measures does not mean that the oversight power of said body is being excluded. On the contrary, it means that said control was not considered incompatible with the Treaty in light of the provisions of Article 9.15, and therefore did not warrant its inclusion as a non-conforming measure.*” Thus, since there is no provision to the contrary in the treaty, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) retains all its powers in this matter, and consequently, it can even ensure that the exceptional mechanisms to the “open tendering” process are not conducive to abuses and identify when one is truly facing one of those cases.</i> On the other hand, the Chamber notes that although Article 214 of the Agreement, which refers to the conditions for participation, in point 4, second paragraph, provides that: “<i>Each Party may adopt or maintain procedures to declare the ineligibility to participate in the procurements of the Party, either indefinitely or for a stated period, of suppliers that the Party has determined have engaged in illegal or fraudulent activities related to procurement</i>”; this rule is not harmful to our legal system, despite establishing the possibility of imposing a sanction indefinitely—as would be the case with ineligibility—because the cited rule contemplates two scenarios divided by the conjunction “o” [or], which in this case serves a disjunctive function, implying that the State Party may choose to declare ineligibility indefinitely or for a stated period. Regarding our country, Article 40 of the Political Constitution prohibits the existence of perpetual sanctions, so when the corresponding procedures are regulated, the indicated ground simply could not be subject to an indefinite sanction, but rather to a determined timeframe, which is also consistent with the provisions of the international Agreement under study.

Furthermore, in Title VII of this Part IV, called: “Trade and Competition,” some principles are expressed that would govern competition in trade relations between each region (Article 278). In that sense, it was recorded that the Parties recognized the importance of free and undistorted competition; also, that anti-competitive practices can affect the proper functioning of markets and the benefits of trade liberalization. Next, the Parties agreed on a list of practices that would be incompatible with the Agreement. However, they also included important clarifying or safeguard clauses such as the one set forth in numeral 280: “<i>No provision of this Title shall prevent a Republic of the CA Party or a Member State of the European Union <u>from designating or maintaining public undertakings, undertakings with special or exclusive rights or monopolies in accordance with their respective domestic legislation</u>” </i>(emphasis is not from the original)<i>. </i>As is well known, Costa Rica already has normative regulation related to the matter of competition (Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, Law No. 7472 of December 20, 1994); likewise, in recent years, the national market has been liberalized in certain specific sectors (e.g., the General Telecommunications Law, No. 8642, which imposes a competition regime in that area).

In Title VIII, related to “Trade and Sustainable Development,” a series of principles on labor and environmental standards are established, considering not only current generations but also future ones. The right of the Parties to regulate their own level of protection, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, is recognized (Article 285), but reaffirming the commitment to implement, in their law and practice, the ILO Conventions listed in numeral 286 of the Agreement (Convention 138 concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment (Law No. 5594), Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (Law No. 8122), Convention 105 concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour (Law No. 2330), Convention 111 concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (Law No. 2848), as well as Conventions 29: concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, 100: concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, 87: concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, and 98: concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively (all approved jointly by Law No. 2561)), as well as the multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party, listed in Article 287 of the Agreement (Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Law No. 7228), Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Law No. 7438), Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Law No. 8538), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna “CITES” (Law No. 5605), Convention on Biological Diversity (Law No. 7416), Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Law No. 8537), Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Law No. 8219)).

It is precisely in this section of the Agreement (Article 287.3) where the Parties “<i>(…) commit to ensuring that they will have ratified, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the Amendment to Article XXI of CITES, adopted in Gaborone (Botswana) on April 30, 1983”. </i>As has been seen, this obligation assumed by the State constitutes the second article of the draft law submitted for consultation before this Chamber, the constitutionality of which will be addressed later. Next, it is also indicated in the Agreement that the Parties committed to ratifying the “<i>Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade”, </i>an instrument that has already been ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 8705. In the same vein, numeral 290.2.a of the Agreement states that, regarding Trade in Fishery Products, the Parties commit to adhering to the principles of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Law No. 8059).

Particular mention deserves numeral 290.3 of the Agreement, which regulates the following: <i>“The Parties agree, to the extent they have not yet done so, to take port state measures in conformity with the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (…).” </i>According to what was verified in the Legislative Assembly, the Accession to said Agreement is being processed through legislative file 18.320, and the draft law is titled as follows: “<i>APPROVAL OF ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT ON PORT STATE MEASURES TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING (PSMA) AND ITS ANNEXES”. </i>As was confirmed, said Agreement related to Port State Measures and Illegal Fishing has not yet been approved by that parliamentary body. The last legislative proceeding verified for this international agreement was its entry into the Plenary Agenda on September 10, 2012, without the legislative procedure having concluded to date in order to obtain accession. It is important to recall that regarding the figure of “accession” to an international agreement, this Court has indicated the following in its jurisprudence:

<b><i>“ACCESSION TO AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT</i></b><i>. Prior to the substantive review of the draft law under consultation, it is appropriate to refer to the figure of accession as a mechanism for ratifying an international instrument that was not negotiated directly by the Government of Costa Rica, but which the latter subsequently decides, in a sovereign manner, to commit to its content. The figure of accession is established in Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Law No. 7615 of July 24, 1996, when indicating, as relevant, that “‘Ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’ and ‘accession’ mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty”. Likewise, Article 11 regulates the forms of manifestation of the State's consent to be bound by a treaty, consent that may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Regarding this numeral, the Government of Costa Rica made a reservation to the effect that the constitutional legal system of our country does not authorize any form of consent that is not subject to the approval of the Legislative Assembly. This, of course, in light of what is indicated in Article 121 of the Political Constitution which provides in subsection 4° that it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly to approve or reject international agreements, public treaties, and concordats. That is, the consent of the Costa Rican State is always linked to the authorization of the parliamentary body. Furthermore, the Vienna Convention establishes in Article 15 the possibility of a State to accede to an international instrument and regulates it in the following sense: “<b>Article 15</b>.- Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by accession. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by accession when: </i> <i>a) The treaty provides that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession; b) It is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession; or c) All the parties have subsequently agreed that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession.” It follows from this numeral that the possibility of acceding to the text of an international agreement that was not directly negotiated and signed is legitimate, provided that the negotiating Parties to the convention so authorize it or that possibility is provided for in the convention itself” </i>(see judgment number 2011-001308 of 15:10 hours of February 02, 2011).

In the present case, as indicated, the Costa Rican State, through the approval of the Association Agreement, undertakes to adopt measures aimed at implementing port state measures, in accordance with the cited Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, so that control and inspection systems are established, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fishing and coastal ecosystems in the long term. In this regard, we must specify that the Association Agreement does not impose, as a *sine qua non* condition of validity, the approval of the accession to the Agreement on Port State Measures. It merely indicates that the State that has not adopted it, like ours, must at least adopt corresponding measures that refer to the content of that Agreement to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing, and implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fishing and coastal ecosystems in the long term, which in the event of choosing its adoption, does not exempt it from following the procedures established in our legal system. Likewise, from an integral reading of Article 290, it is clear that its objective is for the Parties to recognize the need to promote sustainable fishing, in order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks and the sustainable trade of fishery resources, which is fully consistent with the protection that safeguards the right to a healthy and balanced environment in our State; and the reference made to this Convention in subsection c) was not made with the imperative that, for example, point 2 establishes in relation to other principles.

Continuing with the substantive analysis of the Association Agreement, it is observed that Article 295 expresses the consent to facilitate interregional relations through dialogue forums <u>with civil society</u>, with balanced representation, of environmental, economic, and social actors. Likewise, in this Title, a Panel of Experts is established, which is responsible for “<i>examining whether a Party has failed to comply with the obligations established under Articles 286, paragraph 2; 287, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; and 291 of this Title, and formulating non-binding recommendations to resolve the matter (…)” </i>(Article 299).

Throughout the Agreement, as has been seen, there exist a series of norms that allow the <u>participation of civil society</u> in certain issues of important relevance. In the Chamber's consideration, it is necessary to note this particularity of the Agreement since it finds connection with a transcendental principle of constitutional root such as citizen participation, contemplated in numeral 9 of the Constitution. The jurisprudence of this Court has been extensive in developing this right and highlighting its relevance in our legal system. Thus, it has been held that this principle of citizen participation in decision-making has become one of the fundamental pillars on which the democratic system rests. In that sense, Article 9 of the Political Constitution establishes, among other characteristics, that the Government of the Republic must be participatory. With the reform in force since July 31, 2003, to numeral 9 of the Fundamental Law, it was established that the Government of the Republic must be, among other aspects, participatory, which implies that the incumbent government is an articulator of what is established by popular deliberation. In other words, it is the citizens who have greater participation in political decision-making; they can and must exert direct influence on public decisions. This principle, seen as a fundamental right of citizen participation, establishes that the people must be enabled to express themselves equally on both majority and minority viewpoints (see judgment number 015763-2011 of 09:46 hours of November 16, 2011). Thus, the Chamber considers that the Association Agreement *sub examine* contains a set of norms that promote the advancement of this constitutional right, hence it is worth highlighting this virtue in its text.

In Title IX called “Regional Economic Integration,” commitments acquired by the Central American region in this area are described, focused mainly on the area of customs procedures, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, among others, for all of which a series of previously agreed-upon deadlines were provided to fulfill such integration requirements. It should be remembered that the Central American region has assumed many of these duties stemming from the integration process that has been developing for several years; however, for some matters, the Agreement orders the fulfillment of commitments within duly defined periods.

A section to highlight in this Part IV of the Agreement is that set forth in Titles X and XI, concerning “Dispute Settlement”. There, a dispute settlement mechanism based on an arbitration procedure or Special Group is established (Title X). This procedure applies only to the Trade Agreement (Part IV), and it is not possible to execute it in disputes between Central American countries. In this Title X, there is freedom of choice of forum to raise the dispute, but obviously not through both avenues. In that sense, Article 326 of the Agreement establishes the possibility that if a disputing Party wishes to redress the infringement of an obligation under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes of the WTO, it may resort to the rules of the WTO Agreement.

On the other hand, it is explained that prior consultations must mandatorily be raised, and once that procedure is exhausted without reaching a solution, the request for a Special Group is made, which is formed from the List of Experts defined by the parties. This Special Group issues a decision, and if a party is reluctant to comply with it, it gives the counterparty the right to compensation or suspension of benefits in equivalent terms (Article 314). Additionally, a mediation mechanism is proposed for non-tariff measures that produces legal effects in the event of a mutually agreed solution. This mediation procedure is contemplated in Title XI of the Agreement. Specifically, Article 334 explains that mediation is independent of Title X (Dispute Settlement) and is not intended to serve as a basis for dispute settlement procedures under that Title. That is, the request for mediation that any of the Parties may raise shall not exclude recourse to Title X.

As is well established in Article 308 of the Agreement, the dispute settlement provided for in Title X shall only serve to <i>“(…) resolve any dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of Part IV of the Agreement (…).” </i>That is, arbitration, mediation, and other alternative means of settlement are established so that the Parties (the States) can enforce the obligations acquired by their counterparty, provided that these are obligations that do not go beyond the patrimonial scope protected in numeral 43 of the Political Constitution.

On the other hand, Article 319 of the Agreement provides that the Rules of Procedure that will govern the settlement of disputes shall be adopted by the Association Council, unless the disputing Parties agree otherwise. In numeral 321 of the Agreement, the figure of the “<i>amicus curiae</i>” is recognized, through which the possibility is granted for natural or legal persons with an interest in the matter to submit written statements for the possible consideration of the Special Group, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. In Article 323.2 of the Agreement, it is clarified that any decision of the Special Group shall be final and binding on the Parties, which –as has been explained– is a logical consequence of the prior signing and acceptance by the States of the arbitration clause in this type of international instruments, the same that has been accepted by this Chamber on previous occasions.

Finally, from the reading of both Title X and XI, it is not evident that this Association Agreement has contemplated the establishment of mechanisms for disputes between <u>investors of one Party and States of another</u>; nor is it observed that any section or portion exists within the Agreement, especially called to regulate the Settlement of Disputes between a Party and an investor of the other party. On the contrary, in Title X (Dispute Settlement) only the term “Parties” is mentioned in each of its rules. It is clear that the notion of “Parties” must be read in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the Agreement, where the final provisions of the convention are outlined and among which is Article 352 that, precisely, refers to the “Definition of the Parties” for the purposes of the Agreement. In that article, only the Central American Republics are cited, on one side, and the Member States or the European Union, on the other. In this way, no other interpretation would be possible than to conclude that the dispute settlement mechanism is only for disputes between States. The same is verified from the reading of Article 329.3 of the Agreement, in which it is indicated that “<i>this Title shall apply bilaterally between the EU Party, on the one hand, and each of the Republics of the CA Party, on the other</i>.” This rule is contained within Title XI, which regulates the “Mediation Mechanism for Non-Tariff Measures.” Thus, for the resolution of the *sub lite*, it is not appropriate to rely on the reasons set forth in judgment number 2007-09469 (CAFTA-DR with the USA) regarding this topic of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, since on that occasion such reasons were referred <u>specifically</u> to the scope of the Settlement of Disputes between <u>Investor-State</u>, a scenario that, as has been seen, was omitted in this Association Agreement.

Leaving behind the topic of Dispute Settlement, the Association Agreement under study also undertook to regulate in its Title XII a special section called “Transparency and Administrative Procedures.” Article 338 develops the agreement between the Parties to cooperate in relevant bilateral and multilateral forums to increase transparency, including the elimination of bribery and corruption in matters covered by Part IV of the Agreement (Trade Part). The remaining rules contained in this Title are those necessary to implement and fulfill this mission between both regions.

Finally, in Title XIV called “Exceptions,” common exceptions for temporary restrictions by virtue of balance-of-payment problems are set forth. Likewise, in this section, it is clarified that the fiscal or taxing power of the States is not affected in any way by virtue of the Agreements.

X.- Based on the foregoing, regarding the substance of the Association Agreement examined, no manifest unconstitutionalities are detected, which does not preclude highlighting the following: 1) by virtue of the fact that numeral 290.3 of the Agreement provides: "The Parties agree, to the extent that they have not already done so, to adopt port State measures in accordance with the Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems in the long term." and Costa Rica has not yet approved said convention, we must clarify that the Association Agreement does not impose, as a sine qua non condition of validity, the approval of adherence to the Agreement on Port State Measures. It is limited to indicating that the State that has not adopted it, like ours, must at least adopt the corresponding measures that refer to the content of that Agreement to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing and implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable long-term management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems, and that in the case of opting for its approval, it does not exempt it from following the procedures established in our legal system. Likewise, from a comprehensive reading of Article 290, it is clear that its objective is for the Parties to recognize the need to promote sustainable fishing, in order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks and the sustainable trade of fishery resources, which is fully consistent with the protection that safeguards the right to a healthy and balanced environment in our State; and the reference made to this Convention in subsection c) was not made with the imperative that, for example, is established in point 2 regarding other principles; 2) the mere approval of the Agreement does not imply that Costa Rica recognizes the jurisdiction of the Central American Court of Justice (Corte Centroamericana de Justicia); and 3) Article 214 of the Agreement proposes, as a sanction for a supplier who has engaged in illegal or fraudulent activities related to procurement, the sanction of ineligibility to participate in the Party's procurements, either indefinitely or for a set period; consequently, each Party may opt for one of these two variants, but in the case of Costa Rica, the option would be ineligibility for a set period, given that indefinite sanctions are inadmissible.

XI.- The other articles contained in bill No. 18.563. As indicated above, besides the ratification of the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," bill number 18.563 proposes the approval of the following norms: 1) the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983; 2) the Creation of the Council of Land Border Posts (Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres); 3) the Creation of two taxes to defray, primarily, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts; 4) finally, the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is intended to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX). Each of the aforementioned provisions will be studied in the order in which they were presented.

XII.- Regarding the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983, it must be noted that from the statement of purpose of this bill and the reading of the Association Agreement, as part of the political negotiation between both regions, it was agreed that along with the ratification of the Agreement, the obligation of the Central American States to approve the cited Amendment to Article XXI would be included. This amendment seeks the recognition of any regional economic integration organization constituted by sovereign States as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In general terms, it is also necessary to recall that CITES is an international instrument aimed at the protection of wild fauna and flora through the regulation and limitation of international trade in protected species. The Legislative Assembly approved this convention through Law No. 5605 of October 30, 1974. The approval of said amendment in the bill under study is reasonable, since the necessary validation of this Amendment has been the product of a political negotiation inherent to the Association Agreement to be approved. In the Central American sphere, only Guatemala, Panama, and Nicaragua have ratified the Gaborone Amendment (see webpage: http://www.cites.org/esp/disc/parties/gaborone.php), hence it was deemed necessary for the remaining three countries in our region (El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica) to proceed in the same manner. It is noted that in the publication in volume V of Supplement No 180 of the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 220 ( http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-5_14_11_2012.pdf ), at the end of article 3 and before article 4, the following paragraph was introduced: "Administered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme." After comparing those lines with the text of the Amendment in the bill (folio 4980 of the certified copy of the legislative file sent to the Chamber, volume XV), it is observed that the referenced lines do not correspond with the original discussed and approved in the first debate in the Legislative Assembly. However, the foregoing does not constitute an essential procedural defect. As indicated in Considering VII of this pronouncement, in attention to the publication requirement in La Gaceta under Article 117 of the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly (Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa), from the Chamber's jurisprudence it is extracted that the crux of the matter consists of analyzing, according to the specific case, to what extent an error in publication leads to a defect in publicity, from which the general citizenry has a confused understanding of the content of a bill to be approved in the Legislative Assembly or their informed participation in its discussion is restricted. It is not, therefore, a matter of applying a rigid formalism, foreign to the circumstances of the case, but of employing legal hermeneutics in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, such that the norms are interpreted in the way that best guarantees the realization of the purpose or purposes they pursue. In the present case, the aforementioned defect –a separate addition in articles 3. and 4. of the Amendment– does not alter the content of the latter nor distract from the correct meaning of what is regulated in said numerals, which is why no impediment whatsoever to popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions through the publicity of legislative projects is observed. Likewise, the added lines make no sense by themselves, fail to complete an idea, and their syntax confirms this. Under this reasoning, this Court does not consider that the inclusion of the approval of the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983 (bill processed in legislative file No. 18.563) raises any conflict whatsoever with Constitutional Law.

XIII.- Regarding the creation of the Council of Land Border Posts (contemplated in the third article of the bill), the creation of two taxes to defray, primarily, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts (fourth article of the bill), and the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is intended to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX), established in the fifth and final article of bill No. 18.563, it is pertinent to clarify that, in this Chamber's opinion, said provisions become a typical manifestation of the ordinary legislative activity assigned to the Legislative Branch. As can be clearly extracted from a simple reading of such norms, they are not matters that must be analyzed by this Constitutional Court under the figure of a mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality, since, in accordance with Article 96, subsection a) of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the Chamber is called to issue its advisory opinion, mandatorily, only in those cases where the approval of bills for constitutional reforms, reforms to the Law governing this jurisdiction, or those cases aimed at the approval of international agreements or treaties is intended. For the purposes of this consultation, it is important to highlight the last of these cases: the approval of international agreements or treaties. As has been possible to appreciate, the first and second articles of bill No. 18.563 concern the approval by our country of two international instruments, respectively: the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other" (in the first article), and the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983 (second article). In both cases, the mandatory consultation was appropriate since it concerns the approval of international agreements or treaties, in the terms established by subsection a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. However, the Chamber considers that the mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality is not applicable for the other provisions contained in the bill processed under legislative file number 18.563, since none of them possesses the legal nature of an international treaty or agreement, in the terms required by subsection a) of the cited Article 96. Although they could be considered as norms that contribute to the implementation of the Agreement, the truth is that they are norms of domestic national law. Consequently, regarding Articles 3, 4, and 5 of legislative file No. 18.563, the consultation is inadmissible and cannot be addressed.

XIV.- Corollary. Based on the foregoing, regarding the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," and the "approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983," no essential procedural defects or unconstitutional provisions are observed. It is noted that both the Agreement and the Amendment require an absolute majority vote of the members present for their approval. Regarding the Council of Land Border Posts (contemplated in the third article of the bill), the creation of two taxes to defray, primarily, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts (fourth article of the bill), and the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is intended to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX), established in the fifth and final article of bill No. 18.563, the consultation is inadmissible and cannot be addressed.

XV.- Separate note of Judge Castillo Víquez. Regarding the vote required for the approval of the consulted bill, it is necessary to keep in mind that the qualified majority is required for its final approval, not in the first debate, that is, after the conclusion of the second debate, just as the majority of this Court has maintained. On the other hand, I share the thesis that the Agreement does not require a qualified majority but for other reasons. Firstly, because competencies are not being transferred to a supranational entity, in such a way that its decisions are of imperative compliance for the State of Costa Rica. Secondly, Article 6, subsection 2, is clear in the sense that the decisions adopted by the Association Council are binding for the parties, but for their execution, the internal rules and legal procedures of each Party must be respected. The foregoing means, neither more nor less, that the decisions of that Council, which are adopted by consensus, are not of automatic application, but rather must observe the constitutional competencies that are in Constitutional Law (values, principles, and norms) in the ownership of the constitutional bodies, for example: if it involves a substantial modification to the agreement, either because its object or purpose is expanded or modified, or because new obligations are imposed on the State of Costa Rica, legislative approval will be required, just as for those decisions that do not derive expressly or implicitly –theory of implied powers– from the Agreement and that affect fundamental rights, since their legal regime is reserved to the Law. When it concerns the exercise of sovereign powers (potestades de imperio) that Constitutional Law confers on the State bodies, and whose exercise is partially transferred to supranational bodies –a typical case of the exercise of domestic competencies by an international body–, the matter is resolved through the aggravated approval of the Agreement. On the contrary, if the obligations or other duties derive from the Agreement itself, the Executive Branch possesses the competence to fully comply with them through lower-ranking protocols, the exercise of regulatory power, and other powers-duties that the legal system attributes to it. The scenario is different when, by virtue of being a party to the treaty or agreement, a body created by it, in the exercise of the competencies attributed to it in the international instrument, adopts an act that, according to the agreement, is binding for all contracting parties –a typical case of the exercise of international competencies by an international body–. In this scenario, the qualified majority is not required, since there is no transfer of competencies from internal bodies to supranational bodies, and therefore the majority required for its approval is the absolute majority of the members present, as provided in Article 121, subsection 4, first paragraph, in relation to numeral 119 of the Constitution. Finally, I do not endorse the statement that the qualified majority is only required when it involves a community model, because while it is true that the partial reform to the Political Constitution, through Law No. 4123 of May 31, 1968, was made adopting the Central American Common Market as a frame of reference, the truth of the matter is that today the dynamics of the international economy and global politics drive a series of economic institutions for integration, commercial exchange, and economic cooperation among States themselves, and between them and international organizations on a global, regional, or bilateral scale, have created new modalities of economic integration that are in accordance with Constitutional Law, and in the event that sovereign competencies are transferred to the organizations or institutions created in international treaties, the qualified majority established in numeral 121, subsection 4, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution is required for their approval; a situation that does not arise in the present case for the reasons noted above.

Por Tanto: The consultation is addressed in the sense that Articles 1 and 2 of legislative file No. 18.563, corresponding respectively to the "Law Approving the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983," contain no essential procedural defects or unconstitutional provisions. Regarding Articles 3, 4, and 5 of legislative file No. 18.563, as they are not matters subject to a mandatory consultation of constitutionality, such consultation is inadmissible and cannot be addressed. Judge Castillo Víquez sets down a separate note. Judges Armijo Sancho and Cruz Castro dissent and address this legislative consultation in the sense that they observe defects of form and substance. Let this resolution be notified to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.

Aracelly Pacheco S. José Paulino Hernandez G.

**Dissenting vote of Judges Armijo Sancho and Cruz Castro, drafted by Judge Armijo:** ***Regarding the procedure:*** Once the process followed by the bill processed in legislative file No.

18.563, the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, the following procedural defect is observed:

**A) Violation of the legislative procedure for approval of this international treaty, due to the majority obtained in the vote in the first debate:** The undersigned Magistrates consider that in the present case, regarding the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, legislative file No. 18.563, Article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution has been violated, insofar as said bill was not approved by a qualified majority, even though it clearly attributes or transfers certain competencies to a community legal order, with the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives. In this sense, it is evidently clear that Community Law covers both cases where various States adhere through integration mechanisms, and those where, as a prior step to these, they initiate collaborative and cooperative relationships, as is the specific case, all of which undoubtedly justifies the requirement of the qualified majority of Article 121, subsection 4) of the Constitution for the approval of international treaties of this type. Indeed, upon reviewing the minutes of plenary session No. 12 of Tuesday, May 21, 2013, it is clearly deduced that the bill was only approved by 37 deputies out of 41 present (4 deputies voted against), see folio 12387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563, thus failing to obtain the majority provided for in the Constitution for norms of this class. In this regard, among the competencies transferred to supranational bodies, it is necessary to mention those pertaining to the Association Council (see articles 4 to 6 of the Agreement), mainly Article 6 which stipulates: *"1.- To achieve the objectives of this Agreement, the Association Council shall have the power to adopt decisions in the cases provided for in this Agreement. 2.- The decisions adopted shall be binding on the Parties, which shall take the necessary measures to implement them in accordance with the internal rules and legal procedures of each party"*, as well as those relating to the Association Committee, which under the terms of the Treaty shall be the body responsible for the general application of this Agreement, and which shall also be empowered to adopt decisions in the cases provided for in the Treaty, or when the Association Council has delegated such power to it (see points 2 and 4 of Article 7 of the Agreement). For this reason, and given the seriousness of the defect observed on this occasion, the undersigned Magistrates issue a dissenting vote and resolve the consultation formulated in the sense that the present bill for the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, injures the Law of the Constitution, since it does not achieve the majority provided for in Article 121, subsection 4) of the Fundamental Norm for the approval of norms of this type.

***Regarding the substance of the bill:*** The undersigned Magistrates dissent from the majority vote on several of the issues raised on the substance and consider that the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, contains some unconstitutionalities, as will be explained. We believe that regarding some of the provisions, the consulted bill is unconstitutional with respect to certain premises of the Social and Democratic State of Law. To support each of these aspects, we will proceed to address each one separately.

Before analyzing the specific regulations on each of the topics, we consider it important to examine, as was done in the Dissenting Vote to advisory opinion No. **2007-09469** of 10:00 a.m. on July 3, 2007, the concept of the Social and Democratic State of Law and its impact on some of the provisions regulating the multilateral Convention under examination.

**I- GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SOCIAL AND DEMOCRATIC STATE OF LAW** The Costa Rican State is a Social and Democratic State of Law. This statement is not empty of content but has its implications and its transcendence, especially because such a designation has been derived by reiterated Constitutional Jurisprudence based on the very Text of Our Magna Carta.

**A) General Concept of the Social and Democratic State of Law:** The theory of the State of Law was developed at the end of the 19th century with the objective of subjecting the State to the Law, to put a brake on arbitrary actions, and to recognize and guarantee a series of fundamental rights to individuals. This theory was consolidated in democratic political systems, to the extent that it came to be maintained that any democracy, in order to be one, must be framed within a State of Law. Thus, it was more properly referred to as the *Democratic State of Law*. Subsequently, from the second half of the 19th century, when States assumed a more predominant role within modern societies, and when States were endowed with a series of economic policy instruments to seek greater equity in societies, the previous concept was completed by being called the *Social and Democratic State of Law*. That is why it is said that this latter concept is more complete than the former, as it alludes not only to the subjection of the State to the rule of Law (*State of Law*), but also to the actions the State must undertake as a manager of public policies aimed at achieving greater social equity (*Social*), and to doing so within a procedural framework that allows for the mitigation of asymmetries in the social, political, and economic order, thus fostering the effective validity of the fundamental values of democracy. Despite the division of this agreement into three parts: political dialogue, cooperation, and trade, the reality is that a large part of its provisions circumvent the scope of the Social and Democratic State of Law, as will be seen below.

**B) Costa Rica as a Social and Democratic State of Law:** The Costa Rican State is a *Social and Democratic State of Law* based on what was established by the Original Constituent Power (Minutes of the 1949 Constituent Assembly) and on constitutional jurisprudence, and even though there is no constitutional norm that states it literally.

**1) According to what was established in the <u>Minutes of the National Constituent Assembly</u>** *"A Constitution is made for a people with fundamentally different points of view"* (Minute No. 49) and the Draft Constitution discussed in 1949 *"far from establishing an exclusivist economic thesis, establishes a flexible system so that in the future governments of opposing tendencies, different ideologies, may come, which may, despite this, exercise their activities within the constitutional framework, without needing to reform the Political Charter… the drafting Commission tried to establish a Constitution that contemplates the aspirations of different groups and sectors, flexible - therefore - as North American Justice Holmes expressed in his dissenting vote of 1905, which I allowed myself to read here, no Constitution should encompass a specific economic theory, whether that of interventionism, or that of classic liberalism; on the contrary, the Constitution must be malleable, flexible, so that in the future the country can legally accommodate new tendencies and can continue its life uninterrupted, especially in economic and social matters, without needing constant reforms of the Political Charter."* (see Minute number 50) reason why it was subsequently stated in that same minute that *"The contemporary world demands that political liberties be complemented with social security institutions that guarantee the dignity of the human person."* Thus, our Political Constitution has maintained a complement between liberties and social rights, since even if it were entirely about one (liberties) or the other (social rights), it would cease to be a Democratic Constitution, as also mentioned in the same minute 50 of the Constituent Assembly, when it was again maintained that: *"no Constitution should encompass a specific economic theory, be it that of interventionism or that of classic liberalism, unless it is the Constitution of a totalitarian or dictatorial country. On the contrary, the Constitution of democratic countries must be flexible, so that in the future it can accommodate new tendencies…"* for as Constituent Delegate Rodrigo Facio says: *"It is a matter of a balance, in my opinion, a very healthy one, Social Justice with Economic Efficiency: so that justice does not kill efficiency, nor efficiency kill justice."* This tendency is also denoted in our Political Constitution when the chapter relating to social guarantees is discussed (Minute No. 115), particularly in the drafting of the current Article 50, which states: *"The State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth..."* for note that against the proposal that sought to change the word "organizing" to the word "guiding," the former was preferred because it was said the contrary *"comes to mutilate a fundamental principle, which is that the State must participate in the orientation of the national economy."* This text and its content are especially relevant because it implies that the State must participate in the orientation of the national economy and that there must not be legal provisions that limit, in the abstract, without any nuance, the intervention of the State or that justify its generalized and unlimited intervention. It would not be admissible for legislation to define, without limiting it to a specific situation, a liberal or interventionist orientation.

**2) <u>Constitutional Jurisprudence</u>:** This Constitutional Court has been systematically reiterating in its resolutions that our country is a *Social and Democratic State of Law*, essentially based on the values derived from Articles 50 and 74 of the constitutional text. In this regard, just to mention some rulings, there are the following: 1993-3464, 1995-0550, 1995-1273, 1995-3067, 1995-4286, 1995-4286, 1995-5545, 1995-6347, 1996-1029, 1997-6469, 1996-2379, 1996-3250, 1996-2810, 1997-1019, 1997-1625, 1997-5035, 1997-8325, 2004-14247, 2003-2794, 2003-2771, 2005-16962, 2006-9565, 2006-17113. From all of them, several conclusions can be drawn: *first,* that the basic general principle of the Political Constitution is embodied in Article 50, by providing that *"the State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth,"* which, together with the declaration of the Costa Rican State's adherence to the Christian principle of social justice, included in Article 74 ibidem, determines the very essence of the political and social system we have chosen for our country and that defines it as a Social State of Law. *Second,* that the current Constitution, in its Article 50, gives constitutional basis to a certain degree of State intervention in the economy, postulating economic freedom but with a certain reasonable, proportionate, and non-discriminatory degree of state intervention, allowing the State, within such limits, to organize and stimulate production, as well as to ensure an "adequate" distribution of wealth. *Third,* that freedom of commerce is not an absolute individual guarantee but rather finds its limits in those that the State legitimately establishes, for the benefit of the generality of its citizens, always within the global context of the Law of the Constitution. *Fourth,* that one of the basic connotations of the Costa Rican State, like any *Social State of Law*, is the intervention of the rulers to provide solutions to social problems. The Political Constitution itself obliges the State to actively participate, not only in production processes (Article 50), but also in those related to the development of fundamental rights of the individual (housing, education, clothing, food, etc.) that guarantees them a dignified and useful existence for society. *Fifth,* that public administrations, far from fulfilling a passive role of solely and exclusively fostering the individual exercise of fundamental rights, have a duty of service provision and assistance in order to secure for all persons who make up the community a minimum vital sphere and, of course, to eradicate all obstacles and impediments to the achievement of real and effective equality among them. *Sixth,* that from the definition of the Costa Rican State as a *Social State* derives the faculty of the State to deploy a series of limitations on fundamental rights in consideration of the greater benefit of the community, in order to guarantee public order, social morality, the rights of third parties (Article 28 of the Constitution), and the validity of democratic and constitutional values. *Seventh,* that the *Social State of Law* produces the phenomenon of incorporation into the fundamental text of a series of political objectives of great social relevance and the introduction of an important number of social rights that ensure the common good and the satisfaction of the elementary needs of individuals. These conceptual determinations are important and of great transcendence, because in constitutional jurisprudence, a special strength has been recognized for fundamental rights and for the political and economic system, which undoubtedly encompasses the *Social and Democratic State of Law*. In Considerando VII of ruling 03-2771, it is stated that "…*<i>In the case of constitutional reform, a great and important difference arises: those constitutional norms relating to fundamental rights or transcendental political decisions can only be reformed by a Constituent Assembly in accordance with Article 196 of the Political Constitution. For the sake of the forcefulness of the statement, we repeat that the original norms regarding fundamental rights and the political and economic systems can only be diminished by a constituent assembly. …*"; in this same Considerando, it is reiterated that partial reform of the Constitution can be carried out by the Legislative Assembly, "…*<i>as long as its activity does not negatively affect fundamental rights, nor the political and economic system, which Costa Ricans substantively gave themselves through the constituent power…*". These interesting appreciations about the value of the political and economic system, which is linked to the *Social and Democratic State of Law*, have an impact on some of the topics of the Treaty, because the intervention of the State is limited beyond what is constitutionally permitted.

**C) Instruments of the Social and Democratic State of Law:** In order for the Costa Rican State to fulfill that duty of service provision and assistance to secure for all inhabitants a minimum vital sphere, and to eradicate all obstacles that impede social equity, it is endowed with a series of tools, such as economic policy instruments to support and protect the national producer, and mechanisms that allow the State to intervene in the economy to promote a more just and adequate distribution of wealth, among many others. All these instruments, as will be discussed below, are diminished, weakened, and neutralized by certain provisions contained in the consulted bill, as explained further below.

**II.- CONFRONTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CENTRAL AMERICA, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES, ON THE OTHER, WITH THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE SOCIAL AND DEMOCRATIC STATE OF LAW:** **A) On the unconstitutionality of the faculty provided for in Article 6.2 of the Treaty, which confers binding character on the decisions adopted by the Association Council.** As stated in the dissenting vote to ruling No. 2007-09469, in which the accumulated Consultations number 07-005632-0007-CO and 07-007153-0007-CO, filed respectively by Lisbeth Quesada Tristán and deputies Rafael Elías Madrigal Brenes, Alberto Salom Echeverría, José Merino del Río, Ronald Solís, Marvin Rojas Rodríguez, José Joaquín Salazar, Nidia M. González, Leda Zamora Chaves, Andrea Morales, Sadie Bravo de Maroto, Grettel Ortiz Alvarez, Patricia Quirós Quirós, Francisco Molina Gamboa, Lesvia Villalobos Salas, José Rosales, Olivier Pérez González, Oscar López, Elizabeth Fonseca, and Orlando Murillo, were resolved, regarding the approval bill for the "*Free Trade Agreement between the Dominican Republic, Central America and the United States*", a substantive defect is noted in the content of the Treaty, insofar as binding character is given to the decisions of the Association Council. In this regard, on that occasion it was considered:

*"According to subsection 2 of Article 10.23 of the consulted Treaty, the decisions of this Commission are binding for our Courts. Literally, such provision states:* *"Article 10.23: Interpretation of the Annexes* *… 2. The decision issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be binding on the tribunal, and any decision or award issued by the tribunal shall be consistent with that decision. If the Commission fails to issue such a decision within the 60-day period, the tribunal shall decide the matter."* *This provision inserted in this Treaty establishes such binding nature, unlike other Free Trade Agreements signed and ratified by Costa Rica where no clause is established determining that the interpretations regarding legal provisions made by the Commission are binding on the Parties. Precisely this addition has a qualitative impact against the Constitution, a situation that makes this provision unconstitutional. Thus, this Commission would not only have broad powers of interpretation, but these would be of mandatory compliance for the Judicial Courts and administrative bodies, as established in Article 20.20.2:* *"Article 20.20: Proceedings before Internal Judicial and Administrative Instances* *…* *2. The Party in whose territory the tribunal or administrative body is located shall present to them any interpretation agreed upon by the Commission, in accordance with the procedures of that forum. "* In the specific case, it is observed, as in the aforementioned case, that the decisions of the Association Council are binding, which constitutes a breach of the sovereignty of the Nation. The foregoing is aggravated by the fact that the decisions of said Council, in the case of the Central American countries, are adopted by consensus, which could lead to a decision being made with which Costa Rica's representative has not agreed (taking into consideration that consensus is not synonymous with unanimity). All of which is openly contrary to Constitutional norms, principles, and values, since not only can this Association Council exercise powers exclusive to the Powers of the Republic (such as modifying and interpreting the provisions of the Treaty), but also its recommendations are materially binding, including for the Judicial Courts. The infringement of the provisions of the aforementioned Agreement against the Law of the Constitution is evident, which is why its unconstitutionality must be declared.

**B) On the unconstitutionality of what is provided for in environmental matters.** As in the case decided in ruling No. 2007-09469, it is considered that the existing regulations in the Treaty under study regarding environmental matters are violative of the provisions of numeral 50 of the Political Constitution.

In this regard, although the Treaty insists on the obligation of States Parties to respect domestic environmental laws, as well as to pursue sustainable development, the truth is that trade in forest resources is permitted without further limitation. In this vein, article 289 thereof stipulates:

"Article 289. Trade in forest products.

In order to promote the sustainable management of forest resources, the parties undertake to work together to improve the application of forest legislation and governance, through instruments that may include, among other things: the effective use of CITES with respect to endangered timber species; certification schemes for sustainably harvested forest products; and regional or bilateral voluntary partnership agreements on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (hereinafter FLEGT)." With which the movement of sensitive or endangered forest products is covertly permitted, trade that should not occur under any circumstances, in strict compliance with the environmental provisions in force in the country, as well as with the International Human Rights Instruments applicable in the Republic. It is clear that the regulations of this agreement are somewhat complex and constitute a perverse mechanism that conceals situations in which the guarantee provided for in constitutional article 50 is clearly violated. In relation to the foregoing assertion, what the Constitutional Chamber stated in Voto nº 1304-93 is pertinent:

"All of human life occurs in an inevitable relationship with its environment, especially with the improvement of the quality of life, which is the central objective that development requires, but this must be related to the environment in such a way that it is harmonious and sustainable.

The environment must be understood as a development potential to be used appropriately, and actions must be taken in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations, since otherwise its productivity for the present and the future is degraded and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems arise when the methods of exploiting natural resources lead to a degradation of ecosystems beyond their capacity for regeneration, which results in broad sectors of the population being harmed and generates a high environmental and social cost that leads to a deterioration in the quality of life; precisely because the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life…, but more important than that is to understand that although man has the right to use the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations." In this way, all infra-constitutional norms must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Constitution, the precedents, and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (ruling 1185- 95, 1893-95, 6192-95, 1056-96, 4256-99, 1999-07181, 07371-99, 2000-08193, and 2002-01228). For this reason, the present mandatory consultation of constitutionality must be resolved to the effect that what is provided in article 289 of the Treaty violates the Law of the Constitution.

• C)Regarding the unconstitutionality of the mechanism provided in the Association Agreement between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, with respect to dispute settlement.

It is considered that articles 308 and following of the alluded Association Agreement are unconstitutional, in that they obligate the Costa Rican State to resolve its disputes with respect to another non-Central American Party to the Treaty regarding the interpretation or application of Part IV of the Agreement, first, to the mechanism of Consultations (see article 310 thereof), as well as before the Special Group (see article 311 ibidem), violating the sovereign power of the State to decide whether or not to accede and what matters it will submit to these processes proposed by a Party to the Agreement. What these provisions mean is that the Costa Rican State is granting a type of prior, generic consent for all cases presented to it; this would evidently be an unconstitutional provision, basically because these procedures, in order to be so, must be absolutely voluntary, and it cannot be interpreted that this will is established once and for all, but rather it must be manifested in each specific case, especially taking into account that there are certain matters – which by their nature – cannot be subject to these dispute settlement processes, such as the exercise of certain public powers. In the specific case, it is clear that the ventilation of the matter before a Special Group constitutes obligatorily submitting the dispute to an arbitration process. It should be taken into account that the same jurisprudence of this Constitutional Court has determined that article 43 of the Political Constitution establishes that everyone has the right to terminate their disputes, of a patrimonial nature, through arbitrators; and that the exercise of such right is strictly voluntary as it requires a meeting of the minds between the conflicting parties. As this Chamber has correctly pointed out on a previous occasion:

"(…) parallel to the right that individuals have to resort to the Courts of Justice to obtain a 'fulfilled' pronouncement, that is, correct, useful, the constituent provided in article 43 'the right' of every person to resort, of course, voluntarily, to the arbitral procedure to settle their patrimonial differences. The use of this alternative route presupposes a meeting of the minds between the parties. (…)" (Sentencia n.º 2307-95, of 16:00 hours on May 9, 1995).

It follows from the foregoing that the essence of arbitration lies in the autonomy of the will of the parties. Indeed, it is the conflicting parties who must select both the arbitrators (in this case, the members of the Special Group) and the procedure within which they will govern their actions and the effects that the final resolution will have. Thus then, arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method, with constitutional character, but for it to be so, it must be voluntary (resolución número 2005-02995 of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on March sixteen, two thousand five). To the extent that arbitration is established in a mandatory manner (or with a prior, generic consent without exception), this figure would be denatured, and therefore, violating in addition to Constitutional article 43, the principle of national sovereignty according to which the government - acting as the representative of the people - has the right to decide, by itself, which disputes are resolved through an arbitral process (that is, through the use of the Special Group figure) and which are not. A question to be determined on a case-by-case basis and that prevents a type of consent given in advance generically for all types of disputes. It is for this reason that the mechanism provided from articles 308 and following of the Association Agreement with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism is unconstitutional.

• D)Regarding the reference to the Central American Court of Justice as an organ of Central American integration, despite the fact that the Republic of Costa Rica has never admitted the jurisdiction or competence of that Jurisdictional Body: finally, the preamble of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, is unconstitutional, insofar as it literally states: "RECOGNIZING the progress achieved in the Central American economic integration process, such as the ratification of the Framework Agreement for the strengthening of the Central American Customs Union and the Treaty on Investment and Trade in Services, as well as the application of a jurisdictional mechanism that guarantees compliance with regional economic legislation throughout the Central American region", as it constitutes a direct, explicit, and unequivocal reference to the Central American Court of Justice, which is the Supranational Jurisdictional Body of the Central American Integration System and is responsible for ensuring the interpretation and application of Central American Community Law, whose jurisdiction and competence, however, has not yet been recognized by the Republic of Costa Rica. For that reason, and in view that our country has not yet endorsed the Jurisdiction of that Court, any explicit reference made to it in an international treaty approved by the country is unconstitutional, for circumventing the scope of articles 7 and 121 subsection 4) of the Fundamental Text.
• E)Regarding the violation of the Constitution by the progressive liberalization clause for establishment and trade in services: For the same reasons set forth previously, the progressive liberalization clause for establishment and trade in services provided in article 159 of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, is contrary to article 50 of the Political Constitution and to the scope of the Social and Democratic State of Law, insofar as it disregards state policies that seek an equitable distribution of wealth among less favored sectors. Based on the foregoing, the consultation made must be resolved to the effect that what is provided in article 159 of the Agreement is unconstitutional.
• III)IN CONCLUSION.- In accordance with the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrates dissent and resolve the consultation made to the effect that the present bill for the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, legislative file No. 18.563 contains defects of form and substance.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Dissenting vote of Magistrate Armijo Sancho.

Regarding the violation of the principle of publicity because the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, was not published in its entirety.

On this matter, the undersigned Magistrate considers that the fact that this Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, and its annexes were not published in their entirety constitutes a gross violation of the principle of publicity, as well as of legislative due process. Indeed, after reviewing the publication of the bill in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Alcance Nº 180 (see website: http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf, consulted on June 19, 2013), 2 folios corresponding to the First Annex are missing. In this vein, after reviewing the text of the Agreement in La Gaceta, the absence in the publication of the page visible at folio 1006 of the certified copy (EU/CENTR-AM/Annex I/es 544), as well as folio 1572, is verified, which correspond to Annex I of the Agreement, which deals with the elimination of customs duties on the occasion of the Agreement. For that reason, and in view that the consulted bill was not published in its entirety, the undersigned Magistrate considers that this constitutes a substantial defect in the legislative procedure, which must be warned on this occasion. Consequently, the consultation made must be resolved to the effect that the approval process of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States is unconstitutional.

Gilbert Armijo S.

In this context, it should be underscored that following the amendment to Article 9 of the Political Constitution (Law No. 8364 of July 1, 2003, published in La Gaceta No. 146 of July 31, 2003), the characteristic of "participatory" was introduced as a constitutive element of the Government of the Republic. This quality enhances, at a constitutional level, the fundamental purpose of publicity: to promote the intervention of the citizenry in the fundamental decisions of the State. If this purpose is not undermined and it is observed that there has been no true obstruction to popular participation, then an error in the publication cannot, by itself, constitute an essential defect (vicio esencial) of the legislative procedure. In the sub iudice case, contrary to what occurred in judgment number 2013-006969, the International Relations Committee always had the correct and complete version of the text of the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other". Likewise, it is fully verifiable that the deputies of the Legislative Assembly at all times had the full text of the Agreement at their disposal and based their discussions, motions, and the will expressed in their reports (dictámenes) and votes on it. Likewise, the authorities and persons to whom the respective hearings were granted always had the complete text of the Agreement at their disposal. Thus, it is not observed that the error in the publication derived in harm to the essential content of the principle of publicity, and therefore no defect of unconstitutionality has occurred. The case is different when not even Parliament itself has had the full text of the project to be approved, or when it contains errors, or when the legislator itself has introduced important changes to the original version of a project while it is being discussed in a committee (which in the instant case would have been, in any case, improper because Article 361 of the Agreement does not allow unilateral reservations or interpretative declarations to it)..." Judgment 8252-13 Part III (articles 24 to 76) is dedicated to <i>“Cooperation,”</i> mainly oriented towards enabling certain cooperation mechanisms necessary within the areas of interest identified by mutual agreement between the Parties. Finally, Part IV, called <i>“Trade”</i> (articles 77 to 351), contains elements typical of a free trade agreement, which in 21 titles regulates components such as “trade in goods” (GATT), “trade in services” (GATS), “investment” (current payments and capital movements -TRIMs-), “intellectual property” (TRIPS), and “dispute settlement” (DSU). This Part IV also includes aspects related to the interregional nature of the Agreement and other topics such as the title on Trade and Sustainable Development, the one on Trade and Competition, and the annexed Protocol on Cultural Cooperation.

In the second article of the bill submitted for consultation, the approval of an Amendment to the <i>“Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora</i>” is ordered, since its ratification has been part of the political negotiation with the European Union. Costa Rica is already a Party to said Convention and the Amendment is intended to allow the participation of regional blocs or supranational organizations (such as the EU) in said Convention, and not only States in their individual conception.

In articles three and four of the bill, a Land Border Posts Council is expressly created and provided with the necessary financial resources, for which purpose an exit tax through land ports and a tax on each customs export declaration (likewise through land border posts) are created.

Lastly, in the fifth ordinal, it is decided to assign the Ministry of Foreign Trade the representation of the country before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

**III.- Preliminary considerations.** First, it is necessary to recall the necessary distinction that must be made in this type of matter between aspects of opportunity or economic and socio-political convenience, on one hand, and the questions of constitutionality of these international instruments, on the other. In ruling number 2007-09469 of 10:00 a.m. on July 3, 2007, it was stated: <i>“(…) this Constitutional Court, by virtue of the constitutional and legal powers conferred upon it, which are summarized in the goal or purpose of guaranteeing the supremacy of the Constitution (article 10 of the Constitution and article 1° of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), <u>does not have jurisdiction to weigh the opportunity, convenience, or merit of a Free Trade Agreement</u>. The constitutional bodies in charge of political or governmental direction and responsible for designing and implementing the main public social and economic policies are the primary ones called upon to carry out that assessment. Thus, the Executive Branch in the strict sense—President and Minister of the sector—prior to exercising the power contained in article 140, subsection 10), of the Constitution to conclude public agreements and treaties, is the one that must carry out this analysis. Likewise, the Legislative Assembly, in exercise of the legislative power—which resides in the people and is delegated to it through suffrage, article 105, paragraph 1°, of the Constitution—is a body called upon, before exercising its competence under article 121, subsection 4°, to approve or disapprove public agreements or treaties, to assess the social, economic, and political opportunity and convenience of an instrument of that nature (…)” <i>In short, this Constitutional Court is responsible, <u>solely and exclusively</u>, in light of the text of the Treaty signed by the Executive Branch, <u>to determine if there is any norm or provision that violates the Law of the Constitution, understanding by this the constitutional principles, values, precepts, and jurisprudence</u>. This Court is constitutionally disqualified and prevented, by the very distribution of competences and organization established by the Political Constitution, from determining whether an international instrument is socially, economically, and politically convenient and opportune for the country, since the object of the constitutional jurisdiction, as established in article 1° of the law that regulates it, is “(…) to guarantee the supremacy of the constitutional norms and principles and of the International or Community Law in force in the Republic, their uniform interpretation and application, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution or in the international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica” (…) Therefore, given the consultations presented, only the aspects that may somehow generate doubts of constitutionality will be analyzed, making it clear that everything related to the convenience or otherwise of the approval, as well as the economic aspects surrounding the Treaty, are not extremes that can be discussed in this forum. On this point, this Chamber already ruled on the occasion of the approval of the Free Trade Agreement signed with Mexico (…)” </i> (the underlining is not original).

The ruling cited above is fully applicable in this case, where no pronouncement can be issued beyond the control of constitutionality, without intervening in aspects specific to political opportunity.

Having clarified the point, the first thing that must be done, in order to answer this consultation, is to verify the legislative procedures followed in the <i>sub lite</i> case, in accordance with what is indicated in article 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, by providing that the consultation must be made after the bill is approved in the first debate and before final approval and that, when answering it, the Chamber will rule on any aspects or reasons it deems relevant from the constitutional point of view, but in a binding manner only with regard to procedural steps (ordinal 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction). For the above purposes, a chronological summary of the legislative process of the bill under consultation will be made in the following recital.

**IV.- The processing of file Nº 18.563 in the Legislative Assembly.** The bill called “<i>Law Approving the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983</i>”, being processed in legislative file Nº 18.563, has followed the following <i>iter</i>:

**1)** On **June 29, 2012,** the Minister of Foreign Trade, Anabel González Campabadal, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enrique Castillo Barrantes, signed the <i>“Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other”</i> (see folios 453 and 454 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**2)** On **September 6, 2012,** the Minister of the Presidency, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, referred to the Legislative Assembly the bill called <i>“Law Approving the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983”</i>, for its rigorous processing (see folio 1 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**3)** On **September 6, 2012,** the bill <i>“Law Approving the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983”</i>, file Nº 18.563, was referred to the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade (see folio 4.990 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**4)** On **October 9, 2012,** a certified copy of file Nº 18.563 was referred to the Department of Studies, References, and Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly for the appropriate purpose (see folio 4.991 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**5)** On **November 13, 2012,** the Director of the Department of Archive, Research, and Processing of the Legislative Assembly referred the bill in question to the National Printing Office for its publication (see folio 4.992 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**6)** On **November 14, 2012,** in Supplement Nº 180 of the Official Gazette La Gaceta Nº 220, the bill <i>“Law Approving the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983”</i>, file Nº 18.563, was published (see http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-1_14_11_2012.pdf, consulted on May 31, 2013).

**7)** On **November 21, 2012,** several Deputies of the Legislative Assembly filed a motion (to which number 3 – 19 was assigned) for legislative file Nº 18.563 to be sent for consultation to the following institutions: all municipalities and District Municipal Councils, all autonomous institutions, University of Costa Rica, National University, Costa Rica Institute of Technology, State Distance University, National Technical University, National Council of Rectors, CONESUP, Supreme Court of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ombudsman's Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ministry of Governance, Police and Public Security, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, Ministry of Health, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Justice and Peace, Ministry of Labor and Social Security, Directorate General of Migration and Foreigners, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, National Horticultural Corporation, National Banana Corporation, Grupo ICE, Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, National Animal Health Service, State Phytosanitary Service, Integral Agricultural Marketing Program, Directorate General of Customs, Regulatory Authority for Public Services, Superintendency of Telecommunications, Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery S.A., National Concessions Council, all Professional Associations, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector, Chamber of Exporters of Costa Rica, Chamber of Industries, Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of the Food Industry, Chamber of Information and Communication Technologies, CRECEX, Livestock Corporation, Chamber of Poultry Farmers, Chamber of Pig Farmers (see folios 4.996 and 4.997 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**8)** On **November 22, 2012,** in ordinary session Nº 19 of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, said motion was approved (see folio 4.997 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**9)** On **November 21, 2012,** several Deputies of the Legislative Assembly filed a motion (to which number 4–19 was assigned) to summon to a hearing the heads and representatives of the following institutions: Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, National Chamber of Pig Farmers, Chamber of Exporters of Costa Rica, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Chamber of the Food Industry, National Chamber of Poultry Farmers, and Livestock Corporation (see folio 1068 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**10)** On **November 22, 2012,** in ordinary session Nº 19 of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, this motion was approved (see folio 4.998 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**11)** On **November 29, 2012,** the Minister of the Presidency informed the Directory of the Legislative Assembly that through Executive Decree Nº 37.411-MP, the Executive Branch had convened extraordinary sessions beginning on the date indicated in the Decree; among the projects included was file Nº 18.563 (see folio 5.402 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**12)** The Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade received responses from the following entities consulted: Municipality of Bagaces, Municipality of Belén, Municipal Council of Lepanto, CONESUP, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy, Ministry of Science and Technology, Directorate General of Migration and Foreigners, Costa Rican Coalition of Development Initiatives, Costa Rican Institute of Electricity, Directorate General of Customs, Regulatory Authority for Public Services, Superintendency of Telecommunications, Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Costa Rican Chamber of the Food Industry, National Bank of Costa Rica, National Production Council, Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory, National Institute of Women, National Insurance Institute, Social Protection Board of San José, National Children's Trust (see folios 5.804 to 5.817 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**13)** The Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade received in hearing: National Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, CADEXCO, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica, Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, Chamber of the Food Industry, Livestock Corporation, National Chamber of Poultry Farmers (see folios 5.817 to 5.832 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**14)** On **December 17, 2012,** the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly delivered the legal report related to the bill being processed under legislative file Nº 18.563 (see folio 5.689 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**15)** On **December 17, 2012,** through official communication number DM-00743-12, the Minister of Foreign Trade presented to the President of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade several diplomatic notes referring to specific formatting errors that were detected in the texts of the Agreement related to the other Central American countries (excepting the case of Costa Rica); furthermore, she clarified that such formatting corrections do not modify the rights and obligations assumed by our country and the European Union (see folio 5.743 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**16)** On **December 18, 2012,** the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade issued an affirmative and unanimous opinion on the bill called <i>“Law Approving the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other; and the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983”</i>, legislative file Nº 18.563 (see folio 5.792 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**17)** On **January 21, 2013,** the unanimous affirmative opinion of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade was delivered to the Legislative Plenary (see folio 10.836 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**18)** On **February 5, 2013,** in session Nº 127, the Legislative Plenary began the substantive discussion of file Nº 18.563; however, it had motions filed via article 137 that were sent to the Reporting Committee (see folio 10.910 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**19)** On **February 7, 2013,** in ordinary session Nº 29 of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the motions filed were discussed, and these were ultimately rejected (see folio 10.932 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**20)** On **February 7, 2013,** the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered to the Legislative Directory the first report on the motions referred (see folio 10.930 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

**21)** On **February 7, 2013,** in session Nº 129, the Legislative Plenary continued with the substantive discussion; however, new motions were filed via article 137 that were sent to the Reporting Committee (see folio 11.007 of the certified copy of legislative file Nº 18.563).

• 22)On February 11, 2013, in extraordinary session No. 31, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior discussed the motions formulated and, finally, rejected them (see folio 11,020 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 23)On February 12, 2013, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior delivered the second report on motions referred by the Legislative Plenary (see folio 11,018 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 24)On February 12, 2013, in plenary session No. 131, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; however, it had new motions filed that were referred to the Drafting Committee (Comisión Dictaminadora) (see folio 11,043 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 25)On February 13, 2013, in ordinary session No. 33 of the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, the motions formulated were discussed and, finally, were rejected (see folio 11,061 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 26)On February 14, 2013, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior delivered the third report on the referred motions to the Legislative Directorate (see folio 11,059 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 27)On February 19, 2013, in session No. 134, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits; however, new motions were filed that were referred to the Drafting Committee (Comisión Dictaminadora) (see folio 11,081 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 28)On February 20, 2013, in extraordinary session No. 35, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior discussed the motions formulated and, finally, rejected them (see folio 11,117 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 29)On February 21, 2013, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior delivered the fourth report on motions referred by the Legislative Plenary (see folio 11,115 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 30)On February 28, 2013, in plenary session No. 140, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, with the fourth report on motions via article 137 (see folio 11,267 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 31)On March 4, 2013, in plenary session No. 141, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, and the first session for the filing of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,274 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 32)On March 5, 2013, in plenary session No. 142, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, and the second session for the filing of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,280 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 33)On March 7, 2013, in plenary session No. 144, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563, and the third session for the filing of reiteration motions was counted (see folio 11,286 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 34)On March 11, 2013, the Minister of the Presidency communicated to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that, through Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 37.585-MP, the Executive Branch had withdrawn several legislative files from consideration in extraordinary sessions, among them No. 18,563 (see folio 11,292 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 35)On March 11, 2013, the Minister of the Presidency communicated to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that, through Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 37.586-MP, the Executive Branch had extended the call to extraordinary sessions as of the date indicated in the Decreto; among the projects included was file No. 18,563 (see folio 11,294 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 36)On March 18, 2013, in plenary session No. 149, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 3 motions were rejected, the first via article 154, the second via article 155, and the third via article 153, to which a motion for review was presented that was also rejected, among other rejected motions (see folio 11,320 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 37)On March 19, 2013, in plenary session No. 150, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 motion for review of a motion via article 153 was rejected; in addition, a motion via article 153 was rejected, and a review of that motion was rejected, among other rejected motions (see folio 11,400 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 38)On March 21, 2013, in plenary session No. 152, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 2 motions were rejected, one for consultation and another via article 155; subsequently, 1 consultation motion and another via article 153 were rejected (see folio 11,481 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 39)On April 1, 2013, in plenary session No. 153, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 7 procedural motions via article 153 were rejected; likewise, 6 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,506 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 40)On April 2, 2013, in plenary session No. 154, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 2 procedural motions via article 153 were rejected; likewise, 2 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected, among various other procedures relating to motions (see folio 11,608 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 41)On April 4, 2013, in plenary session No. 156, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 procedural motion via article 153 was rejected; equally, 1 motion for review of the aforementioned motion was rejected (see folio 11,707 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 42)On April 8, 2013, in plenary session No. 157, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 7 reiteration motions were rejected; also, 8 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,731 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 43)On April 9, 2013, in plenary session No. 158, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 4 reiteration motions were rejected: in addition, 4 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected (see folio 11,860 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 44)On April 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 161, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 postponement motion was rejected; then, 1 motion for review was presented and approved, consequently, the postponement motion was approved (see folio 11,985 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 45)On April 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 161, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; a motion was approved to alter the order of business for the Plenary sessions, so that in the second part of the session, file No. 18,563 would occupy the first position among the First Debates (see folio 11,998 and 11,999 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 46)On May 1, 2013, Deputy María Jeanette Ruiz Delgado requested that the bill be put on the agenda (see folio 12,009 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 47)On May 6, 2013, Deputy Edgardo Araya Pineda requested that the bill be put on the agenda (see folio 12,010 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 48)On May 9, 2013, Deputy Edgardo Araya Pineda again requested that the bill be put on the agenda (see folio 12,011 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 49)On May 9, 2013, in plenary session No. 6, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; a postponement motion was approved to postpone consideration of file 18,563, which is in the first place of first debates, and to consider the rest of the Order of Business in the subsequent order (see folio 12,012 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 50)On May 13, 2013, in plenary session No. 7, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 1 motion for review of a reiteration motion was rejected; likewise, reiteration motion number 14-1 and its respective review were rejected (see folio 12,020 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 51)On May 16, 2013, in plenary session No. 10, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; in addition, the motion for review of reiteration motion number 25 was announced (see folio 12,058 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 52)On May 14, 2013, in plenary session No. 8, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of bill No. 18,563; 6 reiteration motions were rejected; likewise, 6 motions for review of the aforementioned motions were rejected; subsequently, 4 reiteration motions were withdrawn (see folio 12,066 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 53)On May 21, 2013, in plenary session No. 12, the Legislative Plenary continued with the discussion on the merits of the bill “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, file No. 18,563, which was voted on in first debate with thirty-seven Deputies in favor and four against (see folio 12,387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 54)On May 24, 2013, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción received file No. 18,563 from the Secretariat of the Directorate to continue with the respective procedure (see folio 12,390 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 55)On May 28, 2013, the Department of Technical Services presented a Report for the Comisión Especial de Redacción, with some observations for legislative file No. 18,563 (see folio 12,399 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 56)On May 28, 2013, in ordinary session No. 1, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción discussed matters relating to bill No. 18,563 and approved its final wording (see folios 12,403 and 12,430 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).
• 57)On May 28, 2013, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción delivered the Final Wording of file No. 18,563 to the Secretariat of the Directorate (see folio 12,441 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18,563).

V.- On the legislative procedure in the specific case. In accordance with the provisions of article 98 of the law governing this Jurisdiction, this Court reviewed the legislative procedure for the processing of the bill entitled “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”. This Agreement was signed by the Minister of Foreign Trade, Anabel González Campabadal, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Enrique Castillo Barrantes. The former was empowered to proceed in such a manner, by virtue of the provisions of article 2, subsections b) and d), of Ley Nº 7638 of October 30, 1996, which created the Ministerio de Comercio Exterior and Promotora de Comercio Exterior, and what was indicated by the Constitutional Court in Voto 8190-2002 of 11:12 a.m. on August 23, 2002:

“(…) IV.- Signing of the Treaty. This Chamber considers that the signing of the Free Trade Treaty between Costa Rica and Canada by the Minister of Foreign Trade, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic, is not contrary to Constitutional Law. From a reading of article 140, subsection 10), it is inferred that the signing of international treaties is an attribution of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the Minister of the relevant Branch. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties itself, approved by Law number 7615 of July twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-six, in its article 7 provides, as relevant:

“ARTICLE 7.- Full powers. 1.- For the adoption or authentication of the text of a treaty, or for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, a person shall be considered as representing a State: (a) If he produces appropriate full powers; or (b) If it appears from the practice of the States concerned, or from other circumstances, that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers. (...)” In the present case, we are faced with the situation described in subsection b) of paragraph 2 transcribed above, in referring to “other circumstances” that demonstrate the State's will to be represented by a specific official. This is because Law number 7638 of October thirty, nineteen ninety-six, gives the Minister of Foreign Trade sufficient competence to negotiate and sign, without the concurrence of whoever holds the Presidency of the Republic, conventions such as the one brought for consultation, even without a letter of full powers. Of relevance, article 2 states: “ARTICLE 2.- Attributions The attributions of the Ministry of Foreign Trade shall be: (...) b) To direct bilateral and multilateral trade and investment negotiations, including matters relating to Central America, and to sign treaties and conventions on those matters. By agreement, the Executive Branch may authorize that treaties and conventions, as well as their amendments, be signed by the heads of other ministries or public entities of the State that have specific legal competence over the subject matter of the treaty or convention.” (...)</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>d) Represent the country at the World Trade Organization and in other international trade forums where treaties, agreements and, in general, trade and investment matters are discussed. (...)”</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Furthermore, in judgment number 6224-94, at nine o'clock in the morning of November eleventh, nineteen ninety-four, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participates with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction and deposit of the Treaty, allows any defect that existed in the effective representation held by the Minister to be remedied. To the foregoing we can add that the President has two more opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the project: at the time of its submission to the Legislative Assembly and in the call for extraordinary sessions, moments in which he could assert his constitutional powers. If, in this case, it was the Minister of Foreign Trade who signed the agreement whose approval is being discussed, this does not imply any defect of unconstitutionality (…)” </span></i><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(the emphasis does not belong to the original). </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Regarding the second official (the Minister of Foreign Affairs), the Chamber considers that he was also authorized to proceed with the signing of the Association Agreement under analysis. In that sense, this Constitutional Court has admitted the legitimacy of the approval procedure for a treaty or international agreement when it is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic, even when he lacks a letter in which full powers are expressly granted to him for this purpose. Thus, in advisory opinion number 2000-08974 at 9:01 a.m. on October 13, 2000, this Chamber resolved the following: </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>“(...) In that regard, the only potentially contentious point would be the fact that the Agreement was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, without the concurrence of the President of the Republic. From a reading of Article 140, subsection 10), it follows that the signing of international treaties is a power of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the Minister of the relevant Branch. However, this Chamber has recognized the <u>possibility that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, in his capacity as collaborator of the President in matters of international relations, may sign international treaties even without a letter that 06224-94, at nine o'clock in the morning of November eleventh, nineteen ninety-four, and 06725-99 at three o'clock and nine minutes in the afternoon of September first, nineteen ninety-nine, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participated with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction and deposit of the treaty, allows remedying any defect that existed in the effective representation held by the Chancellor. To the foregoing we can add that the President has two more opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the project: at the time of its submission to the Legislative Assembly and in the call for extraordinary sessions, moments in which he could assert his constitutional powers. If, in this case, it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship who signed the agreement whose approval is being discussed, this does not imply the unconstitutionality of the legislative procedure followed up to now. This Chamber not having found the presence of unconstitutional procedural steps in the legislative bill under consultation, it is now appropriate to proceed to examine the merits of the initiative under consultation (...)” </span></i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(the underlining does not correspond to the original).</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Subsequently, the text of the bill was referred to the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, yielding the respective unanimous affirmative opinion. Likewise, as can be verified from the examination of the legislative file, the aforementioned bill of law was sent for consultation to the following institutions: all municipalities and District Municipal Councils, all autonomous institutions, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Nacional, Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Universidad Técnica Nacional, Consejo Nacional de Rectores, CONESUP, Supreme Court of Justice, Procuraduría General de la República, Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Defensoría de los Habitantes, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Ministerio de Gobernación, Policía y Seguridad Pública, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio, Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, Ministerio de Salud, Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo, Corporación Hortícola Nacional, Corporación Bananera Nacional, Grupo ICE, Contraloría General de la República, Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, Programa Integral de Mercadeo Agropecuario, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo S.A., Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, all Professional Associations, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial, Cámara de Exportadores de Costa Rica, Cámara de Industrias, Cámara de Agricultura y Agroindustria, Cámara de Comercio, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Cámara de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación, CRECEX, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara de Avicultores, Cámara de Porcicultores.&nbsp; &nbsp;</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Furthermore, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade received responses from the following consulted entities: Municipalidad de Bagaces, Municipalidad de Belén, Concejo Municipal de Lepanto, CONESUP, Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas del Desarrollo, Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara Costarricense de la Industria Alimentaria, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Consejo Nacional de Producción, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal, Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres, Instituto Nacional de Seguros, Junta de Protección Social de San José, Patronato Nacional de la Infancia.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>In addition to this, the aforementioned Committee received in hearing: Cámara Nacional de Agricultura y Agroindustria, CADEXCO, Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, Universidad de Costa Rica, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara Nacional de Avicultores. &nbsp;</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>With the foregoing, it is verified that the bill of law was made known to a wide range of sectors that could be affected. Likewise, no infringement of the rights and powers of the legislators is observed.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Thus, regarding the foregoing, no unconstitutionality is noted.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>VI.-</span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'> <b>In particular, regarding the vote required for the approval of the bill.</b> The bill of law was heard by the Legislative Plenary as was appropriate, because it involves an international treaty and, to that extent, it could not be delegated to a Legislative Committee with Full Authority, as established by Article 124, paragraph 3, of the Political Constitution, in relation to Article 121, subsection 4), <i>ibidem</i>. In that same line of thought, it can be observed that the bill No. 18,563 was summoned by the Executive Branch to be heard in extraordinary sessions, respecting the provisions of Article 118 of the Political Charter. </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Now then, the bill of law required for its approval in the first debate the vote of the absolute majority of the members present in the Assembly (37 Deputies). In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, certainly, Article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution requires a qualified vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies when dealing with public treaties and international agreements that assign or transfer certain powers to a community legal order, with the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives. In this regard, in judgment number 2013-003655 &nbsp;at 9:05 a.m. on March 15, 2013, </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>“<i>II.- Characteristics of Community Law: Doctrinally, it is defined as an organized and structured set of legal norms, which has its own sources, is equipped with adequate bodies and procedures to issue them, interpret them, apply them, and enforce them. While international law promotes international cooperation, Community Law promotes the integration of the countries involved, and for this reason it has been said that it forms a new legal order of international law, characterized by its independence and primacy, characteristics inherent to its existence. </i></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Community law has great penetration into the internal legal order of the Member States, which is manifested in its immediate applicability, its direct effect, and its primacy. And it is that the Community constitutes a new international legal order, for whose benefit the State Parties have limited, although in a restricted manner, their sovereign rights. From Community Law arise rights and obligations, not only for the Member States, but also for their citizens. It is precisely because of the transcendence that the norms intended for approval have—which, as indicated, may transfer powers—that it is desirable for specialists on the subject to analyze, prior to the signing of the treaties that are intended to be signed in this field, the scope and compatibility of those instruments with the internal order and system. This is especially important if one considers that the mandatory consultation reaches the Chamber once the treaty has been negotiated and when it has already been approved in a first debate, besides the fact that this Court limits its analysis to aspects of constitutional relevance. </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Without any doubt, the core of integration is the treaties, which can be of two types: those of an institutional nature, which articulate and structure the system and its institutions, and those that develop them in a uniform, clear, concrete manner and which usually contain the norms in which the States transfer powers to the community organization, for the fulfillment of the purposes that are of interest to them («) </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>It is worth indicating that the transfer of powers to the community legal order must be power (which in this case is done) to community bodies can only be exercised over matters expressly defined or outlined in a treaty. In a treaty of an institutional nature, that power could not be exercised as long as an express transfer of powers does not occur through an agreement that must be approved by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly (Article 121, subsection 4 of the Political Constitution), and subjected to a mandatory consultation of constitutionality (Article 10, ibidem). Consequently, it is important to note that all the norms approved in the integration process are constituting an authentic legal order, which by its nature and the purposes it pursues fits within what has been defined as Community Law. </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>III.- Transfer of Powers: Faced with the need for the Community Law that was being produced in the Central American region to find an adequate constitutional framework in Costa Rica, by Law No. 4123 of May 30, 1968, Articles 7 and 121 of the Political Constitution were reformed, and more recently, by Law 7128 of August eighteenth, nineteen eighty-nine, Article 105 of the same regulatory body. Article 7, first paragraph, established: "Public treaties, international agreements, and concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly, shall have, from their enactment or from the day they designate, authority superior to the laws" </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Article 121, subsection 4, second paragraph provided: </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>"Public treaties and international agreements that assign or transfer certain powers to a community legal order, with the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, shall require the approval of the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total number of its members" («) </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>In the case of Community Law, the Political Constitution has provided, as evidenced by the simple reading of the transcribed provisions, for the transfer of certain own national powers to a different legal order—the Community one—which could not otherwise achieve the common goals that the State Parties of the integration system have proposed. However, for the Chamber, as expressed in the dissenting vote of Magistrates Jacobo, Blanco, Odio, Porter, and Benavides, issued in the session of the Full Court at ten o'clock in the morning on March twenty-eighth, nineteen seventy-three, —which resolved an action of unconstitutionality against various articles of the Central American Uniform Customs Code (Código Aduanero Uniforme Centroamericano)—, the delegation of powers to the community legal order is in no way unrestricted, but rather, has concrete limits. Indeed, as indicated in that opinion: "...It is not possible to exceed the Political Charter, in its letter or in its spirit, given that it establishes the fundamental principles of the State and establishes, consequently, the limits of action of the Public Powers, both in substance and in form, and both internally and externally", and for the Chamber, powers that are essential for the Costa Rican constitutional legal order are not transferable, as we will analyze below. </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>The delegation of powers produces a very important modification to the internal legal order. It is precise to indicate that this delegation finds its first limit in "the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives", that is, there could not be a delegation of powers for purposes and objectives that are not those that the constituent power has indicated. Moreover, there must be absolute respect for the principles and values enshrined in the Political Constitution, which permeates the rest of the legal order and the various fields of human endeavor;&nbsp; social, economic, cultural, religious, political, etc. For the Chamber, the Legislative Assembly could not validly approve international treaties that reduce the levels of protection of fundamental rights. &nbsp;(«)</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>VI.- Given the institutional nature of the agreement at hand, the Chamber does not find norms that are unconstitutional, nor does it note infringements to the legislative approval procedure. However, as this treaty is an integral part of a system of transfer of powers, which, as has been stated, results in a community system, even though the transfer of powers has not occurred expressly, although provided for in the Protocol of Tegucigalpa, all of this implies that for its approval a qualified vote is required, under the terms set forth in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution (the highlighting does not correspond to the original) </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>On the other hand, in vote number 1079-93 at 2:48 p.m. on March 02, 1993, the Chamber referred to various important aspects contained in Article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution, in relation to the aggravated procedure for the approval of the international instruments provided for in that norm. In this regard, it was stated that: </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>"VI.- Article 121, subsection 4 of the Constitution, when defining the exclusive powers of the Legislative Assembly, [includes that of] "4) Approving or disapproving international agreements, public treaties, and concordats. Public treaties and international agreements that assign or transfer certain powers to a community legal order, with the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, shall require the approval of the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total number of its members«" This norm raises three types of important doubts, namely: a) what is the meaning of the concepts of "assign" or "transfer", in relation to "powers"; b) what should be understood there by "community legal order"; and c) what scope should be given to the "regional and common objectives" which in the text constitute the purpose of the same legal order. </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>With regard to the first question, the Chamber observes that in the context of Constitutional Law, the transcribed norm has the clear purpose of aggravating the procedure for the approval of international treaties or agreements when, in them, extra-state bodies are assigned public powers that otherwise correspond to the Costa Rican State in the exercise of its sovereignty. In other words, it seems evident that it would not make sense to impose a qualified majority for the approval of some treaties, and not for others in which the constituent power's reservation had equal or greater justification; and it is that, in reality, considering that in every international treaty there is, by definition, a diminution or affectation of sovereignty, what concerns that reservation is, very clearly, to surround with the guarantee implied in the qualified majority of the Legislative Assembly those cases in which the international instrument implies, in addition to that diminution or affectation directly established in it, the possibility that new obligations be imposed on the Costa Rican State, without its will, by extranational bodies and in matters that, otherwise, would correspond to it exclusively. B) The foregoing obliges us to recognize that the expression "community legal order", although infelicitous, only acquires meaning, in the context of that subsection, if "community" is understood as that set of norms which, although created through typical sources of the Law of Nations, such as treaties, actually have a "supranational" character, in that it is capable of imposing on the State Parties obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations beyond those agreed upon and even against their will, for example, through decisions adopted by a majority; something completely different from merely international orders, in which the States commit only to what they commit to by treaty, or, if the treaty also creates some type of international body, the decisions in that body are either not binding, or if they are binding, they must be taken unanimously, that is, with the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State, through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose. It is true that the inclusion of the concept "community legal order" in said constitutional norm was made by the Legislative Assembly acting as a constituent power (by Law No. 4123 of May 30, 1968), having in mind the process of integration or the Central American Common Market, but it would be contradictory and, therefore, unconstitutional to deduce from this that the Constitution imposes an aggravated procedure for the approval of the instruments of that process, desired by Costa Rica and closer and more natural because it occurs in the geopolitical and historical sphere of the Central American Greater Homeland, than in other more distant and less intense cases in which powers of the Costa Rican State are also assigned or transferred to an extranational order. C) In the same context, the "regional and common objectives" must be interpreted in harmony with the previous considerations and, therefore, the conjunction "and" that separates them must be understood as disjunctive-copulative, so that the provision must be applied, both if it concerns regional objectives, as well as if simply common objectives´ (the highlighting does not correspond to the original) </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style='margin-left:31.2pt;margin-right:1.0cm'> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Finally, through judgment number 4640-96 at 09:09 a.m. on September 06, 1996, the Chamber heard the mandatory consultation of constitutionality regarding the bill of Law for the approval of the Protocol to the General Treaty on Central American Economic Integration (known as the Protocol of Guatemala), signed by the Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, in Guatemala City on October 29, 1993.

On that occasion, this Tribunal made reference to the same legal grounds set forth in vote number 4638-96 of 09:03 hours on September 6, 1996, and it was considered that since the cited Protocol was an integral part of a system of transfer of competences, which results in a community system (even when the transfer of competences was not given expressly in that specific case, although it was foreseen in the Tegucigalpa Protocol), this implied that its approval required a qualified vote, in the terms indicated in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution. However, it is worth noting that the concept of "community legal order" in said norm is different from that of a "multilateral treaty," given that the former requires a *ratio iuris* aimed at the formation of a "community," that is, a system of regional integration with supranational qualities aimed at different parts constituting, at least progressively, a whole (as was the case in the European Coal and Steel Community), in which a transfer of sovereign powers has operated from the Member States towards a *sui generis* legal order, whose organs enjoy independence and full authority in the exercise of their functions. Such transfer, in the case of Costa Rica and by virtue of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, can only be made towards a true community legal order, unlike other conventional instruments." Consequently, the requirement of a qualified vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies set forth in Article 121(4) of the Political Constitution only refers to those treaties or conventions that attribute or transfer certain competences to a community legal order. This latter concept refers to an order that, beyond promoting mere international cooperation among States, actually seeks the full integration of the countries involved, thereby aspiring to configure a new legal order of international law (the Community) characterized by its independence and primacy, consubstantial characteristics of its existence.

A fundamental quality of this type of order consists of the possibility that new obligations may be imposed on a State, even against its will, by extranational organs, in matters that, otherwise, would be exclusively for it to decide. Consequently, this is a very different situation from those treaties or conventions in which international organizations, in order to bind a country with their resolutions, require the express acceptance of the affected State, through its legitimate competent representatives for that purpose.

Thus, the constitutional concept of "community legal order" is very different from that of a "multilateral treaty," given that the former requires a *ratio iuris* directed at the formation of a "Community," that is, a system of regional integration with supranational qualities aimed at different parts constituting, at least progressively, a whole (as was the case in its time with the European Coal and Steel Community), in which a transfer of sovereign powers has operated from the Member States towards a *sui generis* legal order, whose organs enjoy independence and full authority in the exercise of their functions, and can even impose their will on their Member States. Such a community goes beyond a new international legal order, as it even aspires to intertwine cultural ties in order to create a community with a certain common identity, a matter that is far from the pretensions of economic institutions that only seek integration, commercial exchange, and economic cooperation among States. It should be added that when Article 121(4) of the Political Constitution alludes to the transfer of certain competences to a community legal order, the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives, also mentioned by that norm, rather than consisting of an additional supposition, actually signifies a natural effect of the proper legal nature of every community order. There is no community order that does not tend to achieve regional and common objectives.

In the instant case, this Chamber considers that the Association Agreement under review is in no way directed at creating a community legal order. Indeed, Article 2(a) of the Agreement indicates as an objective to strengthen and consolidate relations between the Parties through an association, and paragraph (b) emphasizes that it is a privileged political association. This concept of association is presented in a context where both regions (Central America and Europe) remain in their respective regional spheres of action, without there being at any moment the aspiration to create a single region. Nor is the establishment of a community legal order intended within the Central American Party, since Article 3 of the Agreement establishes that none of its provisions shall be interpreted in such a way as to undermine the sovereignty of any Republic of the CA Party. The fact that, in order to apply the Agreement, it is positive to promote regional integration, goes no further than the creation of a political environment favorable to bi-regional cooperation and commercial relations as well as the general execution of the Agreement, which in no way implies either the establishment of a community legal order, a new legal order of international law, much less the erection of a Community in the Central American sphere. Likewise, although paragraph 72 of the Agreement has as an objective of cooperation the regional integration and progressively achieving an economic union in Central America, the truth is that reference is made to possible destinations of cooperation from a potential perspective, not to the current concretion of a Community through the approval of the Agreement, much less to a new legal order of international law.

This thesis becomes even more palpable considering that according to Article 6.4 of the Agreement, the Association Council can only adopt decisions and recommendations by common agreement between the Parties and, in the case of the Republics of the CA Party, the adoption of decisions and recommendations will require consensus. Ergo, without the acquiescence of the Costa Rican State, it cannot be forced to comply with any resolution, which implies that there is no transfer of sovereign powers from the Member States towards a *sui generis* legal order, whose organs enjoy such a degree of independence and full authority as to be able to impose on Costa Rica a resolution against the will of our country (A more extensive explanation about this Council is given in Considerando IX of this judgment).

Consequently, since the supposition of Article 120(4) of the Political Constitution is not configured, this Treaty does not require for its approval the vote of two-thirds of the total number of deputies, but rather can be voted on as provided by article 119 of the Fundamental Law, that is, by an absolute majority of the votes present.

**VII.- On the violation of the principle of publicity**. Recently, by means of judgment number 2013-006969 of 15:05 hours on May 22, 2013, this Tribunal declared the following:

"IV.- ON THE PROCEDURE IN THE SPECIFIC CASE. From the breakdown contained in the previous point it is possible to verify that, on December 5, 2011, the Executive Branch presented before the Legislative Assembly the bill for the 'Approval of the Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)', for its respective study and approval, in application of Articles 121, subsection 4, and 140, subsections 5, 10 and 12, of the Political Constitution. Said convention had been adopted, in turn, at the 100th Meeting of the International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO), held in June 2011. As part of the corresponding legislative procedure, the bill was published in Digital Supplement No. 51 of La Gaceta No. 78 of April 23, 2012. Likewise, a legal report was rendered by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly, the bill was ordered to be consulted with various organs and institutions, and, finally, after its study by the Permanent Special Commission on Legal Affairs, a first affirmative report was rendered. Subsequent to this, the bill was approved in the first debate, unanimously, in plenary session of the Legislative Assembly number 64 of September 13, 2012, with 40 votes. Thus, the file passed to the Permanent Special Drafting Commission. However, at that stage or phase of the procedure, it was detected that the certified copy of the text of the 'Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)', which had initially been provided by the Executive Branch, did not contain the complete text corresponding to Article 22. This prompted the order to return the legislative file to the Legislative Plenary. In session of the Legislative Plenary number 72, of September 27, 2012, a motion was approved, in application of Article 154 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, in the sense of referring the bill to the Permanent Commission on Legal Affairs so that it could issue a new report. As a product of the foregoing, the referred Commission proceeded again to study the bill and confirmed that, indeed, the certified copy of the text of the 'Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)', which had been sent by the Executive Branch, did not contain the complete or integral text of the cited international instrument, due to an apparent material error in the process of photocopying the text. This generated that, by means of official letter No. CJ-863-10-12, of October 24, 2012, the President of the Permanent Commission on Legal Affairs requested the Minister of Labor and Social Security that 'in order to correct the material error found in the report of the Bill for the approval of the convention concerning decent work for domestic workers (Convention 189), File No. 18335, initially sent and approved by this Commission, I request your good offices and respecting the right of initiative, as the sending of the document and all communications sent to the country is required, with the signatures of the members of the Executive Branch, which attest to the commitment of the Republic of Costa Rica regarding that international legal instrument.' In response to this request, through official letter DP-0643-2012, dated October 26, 2012, signed by the President of the Republic and the Minister of Labor and Social Security, a new certified copy of the complete text of the 'Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (Convention 189)' was sent to the Permanent Commission on Legal Affairs. Based on this second certified copy, the Permanent Commission on Legal Affairs rendered a new affirmative report, and in session of the Legislative Plenary number 106, of November 29, 2012, the bill was approved again, in the first debate, with 43 votes. Now, contrasting or comparing both documents, that is, the certified copies sent by the Executive Branch to the Legislative Assembly on December 5, 2011, and those sent through official letter DP-0643-2012, of October 26, 2012, it is verified that, certainly, the first set of certified copies did not contain the integral or complete text of Convention 189, because, due to an apparent material error, at the time of photocopying the text that would be sent to the Legislative Assembly, the last line of several pages of the international instrument was omitted from photocopying, which caused several articles contained in such copies to be incomplete, mutilated, or unfinished. Specifically: i) Article 2, second paragraph, subsection b), was missing the phrase: 'special substantive characteristics'; ii) Article 6, sole paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'for whom they work, decent living conditions that respect their privacy'; iii) Article 9, sole paragraph, was missing subsection c), which has the following content: 'c) are entitled to keep their travel and identity documents in their possession'; iv) Article 13, second paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'of domestic workers, when such organizations exist'; v) Article 16, sole paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'national practice, to ensure that all domestic workers, whether'; and vi) Article 22, first paragraph, was missing the phrase: 'one year after the date on which it has been registered'. Faced with this, it was appropriate for the Legislative Assembly to seek the correction of the legislative procedure and, in particular, to roll back the procedure, so that the Executive Branch could provide a new certified copy of the referred convention, but this time complete or integral, so that it could be the subject of new study, discussion and, eventually, legislative approval. This Chamber has insisted in its jurisprudence on the due distribution, delimitation, and respect of the constitutional competences attributed to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Assembly, regarding the process of discussion, negotiation, and signing of international treaties by the Executive Branch (Article 140(10) of the Political Constitution), and their subsequent approval or disapproval by the Legislative Assembly (Article 121, subsection 4, of the Political Constitution). Thus, regarding this topic, in judgment number 2005-07428 of 16:47 hours on June 14, 2005, this Chamber clarified: (") it is clear from the constitutional text that the main competence," for the formulation and negotiation of international treaties, public conventions, and concordats, corresponds to the Executive Branch and indeed, it is to the latter that their negotiation, signing, and ratification corresponds. The Legislative Assembly, for its part, is only responsible for the function of approving or disapproving them". In accordance with the foregoing, this Chamber has indicated that it is indispensable that the text submitted for approval be a complete, correct, and exact text, otherwise a substantial defect in the legislative procedure and in the expression of the will of the parliamentary organ is produced…

… Finally, it is clear from judgment No. 2006-06011 that the Chamber ordered that:

'In this regard, this Tribunal reiterates that it is indispensable that the text submitted for approval be complete, clear, exact, delimited, so that there is no doubt whatsoever as to the object of the International Law obligation that our country assumes, and as a guarantee of the principles of legal certainty, publicity, and transparency.' (the bolding is not from the original)" Therefore, it is reiterated that the determination of the Legislative Assembly was appropriate, in the sense of rolling back the legislative procedure and urging the Executive Branch to provide a new certified copy of the convention, with its integral and complete text, in order to seek the correction of the procedure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be indicated that an essential defect in the legislative procedure is still noted. This is because, upon reviewing the bill published in Digital Supplement No. 51 of La Gaceta No. 78 of April 23, 2012 (see the same at http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/alcances/ALCA_2012.html), it is verified that the text published at that time contained the errors or omissions already pointed out (that is: several of the articles published were incomplete, mutilated, or unfinished). With the prejudice that, upon reviewing the legislative file, it is not accredited that the bill was published again in the Official Gazette, but this time integral or complete, or that any type of correction or clarification was published, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 116, 117, and 121 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly. This prior to the bill being the subject of new study, discussion, and report by the mentioned Commission and of discussion and approval by the Legislative Plenary. From which it can be deduced that a violation of the principle of publicity has been incurred." Consequently, regarding the above-cited precedent, it is convenient to highlight the following characteristics that explain the *ratio iuris* of the judgment:

1. The certified copy of the Convention to be approved (Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers) was sent incompletely *ab initio* by the Executive Branch and the corresponding publication in La Gaceta was equally defective. 2. The Chamber admitted as appropriate that the Legislative Assembly sought the correction of the legislative procedure and, in particular, to roll back the procedure, so that the Executive Branch could provide a new certified copy of the referred convention. 3. The publication of the Convention only occurred once, before the Commission received the new certified copy correctly, without proceeding with a new publication in La Gaceta; quite the contrary, it settled for the first publication that contained the errors pointed out from the beginning (several of the articles published were incomplete, mutilated, or unfinished). Thus, the intended correction of the procedure ordered by the Legislative Assembly itself did not actually occur.

In the *sub examine*, it must first be emphasized that the error of the Commission on International Relations analyzing the bill in question based on an incomplete certified copy did not occur. On the contrary, it is clear from the record that said Commission and the hearings granted to the various agencies and persons consulted were based on a correct version of the bill in question. However, in the <u>electronic publication</u> of La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Supplement No. 180, (http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf) 2 folios corresponding to the First Annex are missing. Indeed, in <u>the digital La Gaceta</u>, the absence in the publication of the page described as EU/CENTR-AM/Annex I/en 544 is verified, visible at folio 1006 of the certified copy sent by the Assembly in Volume III of the bill in question, as well as folio 1572 of the certified copy sent by the Assembly in Volume V. Both folios correspond to Annex I, which deals with the elimination of customs duties under the Agreement.

In the case of folio 1006 of the certified copy, the omission of its publication implies that the following products from the EU Party list were not published:

| 5515 91 | -- Mixed exclusively or principally with synthetic or artificial filaments: | | | | | 5515 91 10 | --- Raw or bleached | 8 | A | | | 5515 91 30 | --- Printed | 8 | A | | | 5515 91 90 | --- Others | 8 | A | | | 5515 99 | -- Others: | | | | | 5515 99 20 | --- Raw or bleached | 8 | A | | | 5515 99 40 | --- Printed | 8 | A | | | 5515 99 80 | --- Others | 8 | A | | | 5516 | Woven fabrics of artificial staple fibres: | | | | | | - Containing 85 % or more by weight of artificial staple fibres: | | | | For its part, regarding folio 1572 of the certified copy, the omission meant that the following products from the CA Party's List were not published:

IRON ORES AND CONCENTRATES, INCLUDING ROASTED IRON PYRITES (PYRITE ASH) - Iron ores and concentrates, other than roasted iron pyrites (pyrite ash):

- - Non-agglomerated - - Agglomerated 2601.20.00 - Roasted iron pyrites (pyrite ash) | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2602.00.00 MANGANESE ORES AND CONCENTRATES, INCLUDING FERRUGINOUS MANGANESE ORES AND CONCENTRATES WITH A MANGANESE CONTENT OF 20% OR MORE BY WEIGHT, CALCULATED ON THE DRY PRODUCT | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2603.00.00 COPPER ORES AND CONCENTRATES | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2604.00.00 NICKEL ORES AND CONCENTRATES | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2605.00.00 COBALT ORES AND CONCENTRATES | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | | 2604.00.00 | MINERALES DE ALUMINIO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp; | | 2605.00.00 | MINERALES DE PLOMO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS | 0 | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp; | Nonetheless, in the printed version of La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Supplement No. 180 (which is only distributed to certain libraries), this Tribunal confirms that the page described as EU/CENTR-AM/Anexo I/es 544 was indeed duly published in that version.

Thus, in the printed version there would only be an error regarding the omission of publishing folio 1572 of the certified copy sent by the Assembly in Volume V.

In any case, it is clear that both the International Relations Committee and the consulted agencies and persons had at their disposal from the outset the integral and complete version of the Agreement under study.

Now, this Court has repeatedly pointed out the importance of making known the bills that have been submitted for its consideration. However, it is no less true that the Chamber has interpreted the requirement for the publication of a bill in light of what is truly sought: its publicity. Thus, in judgment number 2002-8190 of 11:12 a.m. on August 23, 2002, it was stated:

"*V.- Publication of the bill approving the Treaty. Publication in La Gaceta of the bills discussed in the Legislative Assembly is an instrument that can foster popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions, in addition to constituting a guarantee of transparency in the law-making function. Although the Political Constitution omits any reference to this requirement, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly does so in its articles 116, 117, and 121. Of these, 117 is the one containing the general rule, as follows:* *"Article 117.- Filing Decrees* *In the Archives Department, filing decrees for matters shall be drafted and the original case file shall be formed, as well as the files for the members of the respective Committee. This Department shall send a copy of these matters to the Imprenta Nacional for publication in the Official Gazette."* *As can be appreciated, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly expressly provides for the publication of the bills that the Legislative Assembly hears, as a self-regulation rule approved by the Assembly itself to guarantee the transparency of its actions when performing legislative functions. Publicity must be understood as an essential requirement of the legislative procedure, as it directly involves the democratic principle inherent to the creation of general norms. The foregoing does not imply that the publicity requirement can only be satisfied by the publication of the complete text of the bill, since eventually, upon the approval of a motion to dispense with formalities (moción para la dispensa de trámites), a summary of the bill's existence in the Official Gazette could be sufficient to give effective publicity to the bill."* Furthermore, in judgment number 2002-03458 of 3:54 p.m. on April 16, 2002, this Court stated the following:

"*V.- On the publication of the bill in the Official Gazette. On the other hand, it is worth discussing whether the approval of a motion to dispense with formalities (moción de dispensa de trámites) of publication and waiting period in Legislative Plenary session number 91 of November fourteenth, two thousand one, regarding the bill approving the "International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism", as well as five other initiatives (cf. folio 37 of legislative file number 14,556), is consistent with the constitutionality parameter. After the Chamber conducted a search through the editions of La Gaceta, it was determined that this bill, although not published in its entirety, was the subject of a notice reporting on the legislative agreement that dispensed with the referred formalities, and indicating the size and location of the legislative file, for anyone who wished to consult it. (La Gaceta number 230 of November thirty, two thousand one, page 7). In the Chamber's view, this action prevented a violation of essential rules of the legislative procedure. Publication in La Gaceta of the bills discussed in the Legislative Assembly is an instrument that can foster popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions, in addition to constituting a guarantee of transparency in the law-making function. Although the Political Constitution omits any reference to this requirement, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly does so in its articles 116, 117, and 121. Of these, 117 is the one containing the general rule, as follows:* *"Article 117.- Filing Decrees* *In the Archives Department, filing decrees for matters shall be drafted and the original case file shall be formed, as well as the files for the members of the respective Committee. This Department shall send a copy of these matters to the Imprenta Nacional for publication in the Official Gazette."* *As can be appreciated, the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly expressly provides for the publication of the bills that the Legislative Assembly hears. This requirement must be understood as essential, as it directly involves the democratic principle inherent to the legislative function. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in this case the Legislative Assembly has not harmed this procedural requirement, because although the Assembly agreed to relieve this bill of the formality of its publication, it decided that a notice regarding the existence of the bill in question be published in La Gaceta, inviting anyone interested in reading it to consult it at the Assembly, where it would be made available to the public. This Chamber is of the opinion that this latter determination allowed access, by the public, to legislative file 14,556, thus enabling popular participation in the discussion of the referred bill. It is not superfluous to highlight that, although the dispensation with formalities (dispensa de trámites) mentioned in article 35.5.d) of the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly must be understood in light of the more explicit rule of article 177 ibidem, in the sense that said dispensation is of the formality of review in committee, and not a generic dispensation of "all" legislative formalities, since those provided for in the Political Constitution and in the same Regulation, as minimum guarantees of respect for the democratic principle, cannot be dispensed with, not even by agreement of the Assembly itself. Obviously what happened in this case is that—as was already stated above—the "integral" publication of the bill in the Official Gazette was dispensed with; giving it publicity was not dispensed with, which would be unconstitutional, as it would constitute an excuse for non-compliance with an essential formality. Therefore, this Chamber considers that in the procedure followed for the discussion of this bill, no essential formalities have been violated, so it is appropriate to proceed to discuss the merits of the proposal.*" Always related to the issue of publicity, in judgment number 2008-018218 of 6:26 p.m. on December 10, 2008, it was indicated:

"*Having examined the documentation sent by the Executive Branch, the seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship is noted on the twenty-two pages of the copy of the Convention, from which a clear inaccuracy in the aforementioned certification can be inferred, which only refers to "the foregoing seven photocopies." This situation requires the Chamber to determine the nature and scope of the error in said certification and its relevance from a constitutional point of view, based on the special circumstances of the specific case. Firstly, it is noted that the text of the Convention published on the official website of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (see http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Convencion_de_Antigua_Jun_2003.pdf), is identical to the text of it attached to the legislative file, which contains the same number of pages, twenty-two in total. This verifies that the certification in question contains a material defect, as instead of stating "the foregoing seven photocopies" it should have stated "the foregoing twenty-two photocopies." Despite this error, it is clear that both within the Special Permanent Committee on the Environment and in the Plenary, the deputies had at their disposal the complete text of the Convention, which was published in its entirety in La Gaceta number 187 of September 29, 2006, for which reason not the slightest hint of doubt arose on the part of the legislators regarding its total content. Furthermore, no confusion was caused to the private organizations and public agencies consulted, given that the corresponding consultations specified the date of publication of said bill in the Official Gazette La Gaceta (see folios 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 92 and 106 of the legislative file), which in turn rules out an injury to the principle of publicity. For these reasons, this Court concludes that at no time did the Executive Branch fail in its obligation to submit the complete documentation to the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of allowing it to clearly approve the perfectly defined object of what is being sought to elevate to a legal norm with a rank higher than law. Hence, in the specific case, the mistake committed constituted a mere material defect that cannot lead to the nullity of the legislative process and, therefore, does not require the implementation of any corrective mechanism. The foregoing does not prevent a call for attention so that in the future, this type of mistake be prevented, given the legal value of the certifications issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, which must be entirely exact so that there is no doubt whatsoever about the absolute fidelity of the texts of the conventions submitted for approval in the Legislative Assembly.*" Consequently, regarding the publication requirement in La Gaceta established by article 117 of the Regulation of the Legislative Assembly and the jurisprudence of the Chamber, it is inferred that the crux of the matter consists of analyzing, according to the specific case, to what extent a mistake in publication leads to a defect in publicity, from which the general public has a confused understanding of the content of a bill to be approved in the Legislative Assembly or their informed participation in its discussion is restricted. It is not, then, a matter of applying a rigid formalism, alien to the circumstances of the case, but of employing legal hermeneutics in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, so that the norms are interpreted in the way that best guarantees the achievement of the purpose or purposes they pursue.

In this case, unlike the subject of judgment number 2013-006969, there is no injury to the principle of publicity affecting its essential content, that is, that actually gives rise to a state of current and real confusion regarding the content of the legislative bill under discussion, in such a way that popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions is hindered. Precisely, the publicity of the procedure seeks to safeguard that the power to legislate resides in the people and that the deputies are only their representatives (article 105 of the Constitution), as well as the projection of parliamentary activity outward as a guarantee established in article 117 of the Political Constitution (see Judgment No. 2000-3220). In this context, it must be emphasized that from the amendment to article 9 of the Political Constitution (Law N° 8364 of July 1, 2003, published in La Gaceta N° 146 of July 31, 2003), the characteristic of "participatory" was introduced as a constitutive element of the Government of the Republic. This quality enhances at the constitutional level the fundamental purpose of publicity: to promote the intervention of the citizenry in the fundamental decisions of the State. If this purpose is not violated and it is noted that there has been no actual obstruction to popular participation, then an error in the publication cannot by itself constitute an essential defect in the legislative procedure. In the case at hand, contrary to what occurred in judgment number 2013-006969, the International Relations Committee always had the correct and complete version of the text of the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other". Likewise, it is fully verifiable that the deputies of the Legislative Assembly at all times had the full text of the Agreement and based their discussions, motions, and the will expressed in their reports and votes on it. Likewise, the authorities and persons who were granted the respective hearings always had the complete text of the Agreement at their disposal. Thus, it is not seen that an injury to the essential content of the principle of publicity derived from the error in publication, so no defect of unconstitutionality has occurred. The case is different when not even within Parliament itself the full text of the bill to be approved has been available, or when it contains errors, or when the legislator itself has introduced important changes to the original version of a bill while it is being discussed in a committee (which in this case would have been, in any event, improper because article 361 of the Agreement does not permit unilateral reservations or interpretative declarations to it).

As a corollary to the foregoing, regarding the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other" no essential defects in the legislative procedure are noted.

**VIII.- On the merits of the bill.** Before making some observations on the merits of the bill "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," it must be emphasized that, according to the provisions of article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the opinion of this Chamber will only be binding insofar as it establishes the existence of unconstitutional formalities.

**IX.-** The "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," far from being solely a typical Free Trade Agreement between the regions involved, was born under the figure of an "Association Agreement" to which, in addition to the commercial component, two more elements that complement and accompany it were added: "Political Dialogue" and "Cooperation." Under this understanding, this international instrument seeks to establish an interregional association between Central America and the European Union based on three fundamental pillars: **1) "Political Dialogue"**: it seeks to create a privileged political association between both regions based on common values and interests set forth in the Agreement (among them, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction, fight against terrorism, serious crimes of international concern, financing for development, migration, environment, citizen security, good governance in fiscal matters, among others); **2) "Cooperation"**: the Agreement is oriented to enable the necessary cooperation mechanisms within the areas of interest of the Parties (e.g., Democracy, Human Rights, and Good Governance; Justice, Freedom, and Security; Social Development and Social Cohesion; Migration; Environment, Natural Disasters, and Climate Change; Economic and Commercial Development; Regional Integration; Culture and Audiovisual Cooperation; Knowledge Society); **3) "Trade"**: as stated, this section constitutes a free trade agreement. This last commercial pillar has the following content: Titles I, XII, and XIII contain the initial and institutional provisions; Title II regulates matters related to Trade in Goods; Title III establishes Trade in Services and Establishment; Title IV refers to Current Payments and Capital Movements; Title V regulates matters related to Public Procurement; Title VI governs Intellectual Property; Title VII contains provisions related to Trade and Competition; Title VIII regulates matters concerning Trade and Sustainable Development; Title IX governs Regional Economic Integration; Titles X and XI refer to the topic of Dispute Settlement and Mediation; finally, Title XIV contains provisions related to Exceptions.

In addition to the three pillars described above, the text of the Association Agreement also enshrines several common rules or norms that apply to each of these three components. These rules are characteristic of all international treaties and are called in doctrine "Rules of the Law of Treaties." In this agreement, these rules are set forth in the first and fifth parts of the Agreement.

In addition to the matter of the approval of the Association Agreement, the bill submitted for consultation contemplates the ratification by our country of an Amendment to the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna", since its approval is part of the political negotiation with the European Union and was a commitment derived from the Association Agreement (see explanatory memorandum of legislative file No. 18,563 and article 287.3 of the Association Agreement). Likewise, in bill No. 18,563 a Council of Land Border Posts is created and is endowed with the necessary financial resources, creating an exit tax for land ports and a tax on each customs export declaration filed at land border posts.

Finally, in the bill, it is decided to entrust the Ministry of Foreign Trade with the country's representation before the international organization known as the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)".

After clarifying the content of the bill in question, it is necessary to go into detail on each of the Parts that make up the Association Agreement.

**Preamble:** The motivations and general considerations in the Preamble of the Agreement form part of it, since although they do not generate direct legal obligations, they are useful for the purposes of interpreting the corresponding legal instrument.

Among such considerations, the following merits special reference:

"*RECOGNIZING the progress achieved in the Central American economic integration process, such as the ratification of the Framework Agreement for the Establishment of the Central American Customs Union and the Treaty on Investment and Trade in Services, as well as the implementation of a jurisdictional mechanism that guarantees compliance with regional economic legislation throughout the Central American region;*" In this regard, it should be noted that no express reference is made to the Central American Court of Justice, but rather an indeterminate reference to "a jurisdictional mechanism", so that the mere approval of the Agreement does not imply that Costa Rica recognizes the competence of said court.

**Parts I and V of the Agreement:** As is traditional in this type of international convention, Parts I and V of the Association Agreement contain common norms or rules that apply to each of the three pillars of the Agreement, and which are usually known as rules of the Law of Treaties.

Title I of Part I brings together the principles from which the Agreement must be interpreted and read; some of them are: the democratic principle, respect for fundamental rights, sustainable development, good governance, the Rule of Law, the rule of law, separation of Powers, transparency and accountability, efficiency, prevention and fight against corruption (Article 1). On the other hand, the main objectives of the Agreement are cited: to strengthen relations between the Parties, to develop a privileged political partnership, to improve bi-regional cooperation, to expand the trade relationship, to strengthen the progressive process of regional integration, good neighborly relations and the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, to improve the level of good governance, to promote the increase of trade and investment (Article 2).

In Title II of this Part I, the topic of the institutional framework is covered, which is formed by the creation of an Association Council, an Association Committee, a Parliamentary Association Committee, a Joint Consultative Committee, and different subcommittees. The Association Council will be composed of representatives of the European Union Party and of each of the Republics of the Central American State Parties at the ministerial level, in accordance with the internal provisions of each State. The Presidency of said body will be exercised alternately by a representative of the European Union Party and another representative of Central America (Article 5). It is granted the power to issue its own regulations and its primary task is to supervise the fulfillment of the objectives of this Agreement and its application. For this purpose, a meeting at the ministerial level is planned every two years, with the possibility of meeting at the level of Heads of State when the Parties so agree (Article 4). Among its most relevant powers, we can cite the following:

1. Examine any major issue arising under the framework of the Agreement, as well as any other bilateral, multilateral, or international issue of common interest. (Article 4.2) 2. Examine the proposals and recommendations of the Parties aimed at improving the relations established under the framework of the Agreement. (Article 4.3) 3. Formulate such recommendations as it may deem appropriate. (Article 6.3) 4. Elaborate and adopt the "Rules of Procedure" that will govern the dispute settlement procedures set out in the Association Agreement. (Article 319) 5. It shall adopt the Rules of Procedure and the Code of Conduct at its first session and may subsequently modify them. (Article 328) 6. When dealing with trade-related issues, it may:

• a)modify, in fulfillment of the objectives of Part IV of this Agreement:
• i)the lists of goods established in Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties), in order to incorporate one or more goods into the tariff elimination program; ii) the lists established in Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties), in order to accelerate the tariff elimination; iii) Appendices 1, 2, and 3 of Annex I (Elimination of Customs Duties); iv) Appendices 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Annex II (Concerning the definition of the concept of "originating products" and methods of administrative cooperation); v) Annex XVI (Public procurement); vi) Annex XVIII (Protected geographical indications); vii) Annex XIX (List of products referred to in Article 306, paragraph 4); viii) Annex XXI (Subcommittees); b) issue interpretations of the provisions of Part IV of this Agreement; and c) take any other action in the exercise of its functions as agreed by the Parties. (Article 345) It is important to highlight that the decisions adopted by said body will be binding for the Parties, and will be taken by common agreement; and in the case of the Central American countries, their consensus is required for the adoption of decisions and recommendations (Article 6). That is, the obligation is not imposed on a country to comply with a certain decision or recommendation if it has not previously given its express consent.

To fulfill such tasks, the Association Council will receive the collaboration of smaller units also created in the Association Agreement. Some of these units are: the Association Committee (which will also adopt its decisions in accordance with the conditions established in Articles 4 to 6); and the specific Subcommittees by subject matter (Articles 7 and 8). Likewise, a Parliamentary Association Committee is created, which will be constituted by members of the European Parliament and the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN). In the case of republics that are not part of PARLACEN (such as our country), it is provided that each State will designate its own representatives (Article 9). A Joint Consultative Committee is also established, which will have consultative functions and, as an important fact, must present to the Association Council the opinions of civil society organizations related to the application of the Agreement (Article 10). Lastly, reference is made to civil society, indicating that meetings of representatives of civil societies will be promoted to inform them about the application of the Agreement (Article 11). Due to the particular interest this topic generates, the participation of civil society will be developed later.

Once the proposed organizational structure is described, it is pertinent to refer specifically to the powers held by the Association Council formed for the Agreement under study and the similarity of attributions and differences it holds in relation to other instruments of the same nature that have been previously adopted by our country and also the subject of pronouncements by this Court.

In the case of the "Free Trade Treaty between Costa Rica and the Caribbean Community" approved by Ley 8455, the creation of a Joint Council had been provided with powers almost identical to those also granted in the Free Trade Treaty between Central America and Chile approved by Ley 8055, and very similar to those under study, which consisted of:

"**…** *this Joint Council is responsible for ensuring the fulfillment and correct application of the provisions thereof, for which it will issue recommendations; it may evaluate the results achieved in its application; resolve disputes that arise regarding its interpretation or application; supervise the work of the established or created committees and hear any other matter that could affect its operation. This Council, states Article I.06, may modify, in the interest of fulfilling the objectives of the Treaty: a) the list of goods of a party contained in Annex III.04.2 (Tariff Elimination) with the purpose of incorporating one or more excluded goods into the Tariff Elimination Program; b) the timeframes established in Annex III.04.02 (Tariff Elimination) in order to accelerate the tariff elimination; c) the specific rules of origin of Annex IV.03; d) the uniform regulations of the Customs Procedures*." In a similar sense, in the Free Trade Treaty between the Dominican Republic, Central America and the United States approved by Costa Rica according to Ley 8622, the Free Trade Commission has the following powers:

"*Article 19.1: The Free Trade Commission* *1. The Parties establish the Free Trade Commission, made up of the representatives of each Party at the Ministerial level, referred to in Annex 19.1, or by the persons they designate.* *2. The Commission shall:* *(a) supervise the execution of the Treaty;* *(b) supervise the further development of the Treaty;* *(c) seek to resolve disputes that could arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Treaty;* *(d) supervise the work of all committees and working groups established in accordance with this Treaty; and* *(e) hear any other matter that could affect the operation of the Treaty.* *3. The Commission may:* *(a) establish and delegate responsibilities to committees and working groups;* *(b) modify in compliance with the objectives of this Treaty:* *(i) the tariff elimination schedules subject to Annex 3.3 (Tariff Elimination), in order to accelerate the tariff reduction;* *(ii) the rules of origin established in Annex 4.1 (Specific Rules of Origin);* *(iii) the Common Guidelines referred to in Article 4.21 (Common Guidelines); and* *(iv) Annexes 9.1.2(b)(i), 9.1.2(b)(ii) and 9.1.2(b)(iii) (Public Procurement);* *(c) issue interpretations on the provisions of this Treaty;* *(d) seek the advice of non-governmental persons or groups; and* *(e) adopt any other action for the exercise of its functions as agreed by the Parties. 19-2* *4. Each Party shall implement, in accordance with its applicable legal procedures, any modification pursuant to subparagraph 3(b) within the period agreed upon by the Parties.* *5. The Commission shall establish its rules and procedures. All its decisions shall be taken by consensus, unless the Commission decides otherwise.* *6. The Commission shall meet at least once a year in ordinary session, unless the Commission decides otherwise. The ordinary sessions of the Commission shall be chaired successively by each of the Parties.* *Article 19.2: Free Trade Treaty Coordinators* *1. Each Party shall designate a Free Trade Treaty Coordinator, in accordance with the provisions of Annex 19.2.* *2. The coordinators shall work jointly in developing agendas and other preparations for the Commission meetings and shall provide appropriate follow-up to the Commission's decisions…"* So the Association Council envisaged to administer the agreements signed in this negotiation is not very different from those previously approved by our country, which even has less involvement in dispute settlement than the bodies cited above.

In addition to the above, this Court, referring to the scope of this type of authority and the binding nature of its decisions for the country, specifically stated:

“*On this point, it is clear from the reading of the Treaty that the Free Trade Commission is a collegiate body composed of representatives of each Party at the ministerial level or by the persons each designates, and its function is to supervise the execution of the treaty, supervise its further development, resolve disputes that may arise from the interpretation or application of the treaty, supervise the work of the established committees and working groups, and address any other matter that could affect the functioning of the agreement. Its attributions also include issuing interpretations on the provisions of the treaty, but not modifying its content as the consulting deputies indicate. It is clear that such an attribution was not granted in the Treaty as is evident from Article 19.1, so this Chamber cannot conclude anything beyond what the text of the commercial agreement establishes. Furthermore, even though the consultants consider that said Commission assumes legislative and regulatory powers, this Chamber has previously referred to the legal nature of the rules issued by this type of Commission, understanding that they are protocols of lesser rank (protocolos de menor rango) in accordance with the provisions of Article 121, paragraph 4) of the Political Constitution. Reaffirming the above, the Free Trade Agreement establishes in Annex 19.1.4 that: “In the case of Costa Rica, the decisions of the Commission pursuant to Article 19.2.3(b) shall be equivalent to the instrument referred to in Article 121.4, third paragraph (protocol of lesser rank), of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica.” Taking that nature into account, it cannot be considered that these are unconstitutional powers, and the Chamber so warned in judgment 2000-8404 of ten o'clock on September twenty-second, two thousand, in which it indicated:* ***V.- On the Free Trade Commission:** In Article 18.01 of the Treaty, a Free Trade Commission is established that will be responsible for ensuring the fulfillment and correct application of the provisions of this Treaty; evaluating the results achieved in the application of the Treaty; resolving disputes that arise regarding the interpretation or application of the Treaty; supervising the work of the committees established or created pursuant to the Treaty; and addressing any other matter that could affect the functioning of that Treaty. This Commission, the article states, may modify, in pursuit of fulfilling the objectives of the Treaty: a) the list of goods of a party contained in Annex 3.04 (Tariff Elimination Schedule) in order to incorporate one or more goods excluded in the Tariff Elimination Schedule; b) the time periods established in Annex 3.04 (Tariff Elimination Schedule) in order to accelerate tariff elimination; c) the specific rules of origin of Annex 4.03; d) the uniform regulations; e) Annex 9.01 of service sectors or sub-sectors in order to incorporate new service sectors or sub-sectors; f) Annexes I, II, and III of Chapter 11 (Cross-Border Trade in Services) and the list of entities of a Party contained in Annex 16.01 (Entities) in order to incorporate one or more entities into the scope of application of Chapter 16 (Public Procurement). The official of the Commission, in the specific case of Costa Rica, is the Minister of Foreign Trade or his successor. Now, in Annex 18.01 (4), it is expressly established that for the case of Costa Rica, the agreements reached by the Parties shall be equivalent to the instrument referred to in Article 121.4, third paragraph of the Political Constitution; an instrument that has been denominated "Protocol of Lesser Rank" (Protocolo de Menor Rango). On this, the Chamber has stated:* *"Protocols of lesser rank are those that, without adding substantial commitments or limitations to the activity of the states, develop and even modify merely procedural rules that do not affect the substance of the treaty. A typical case of protocols of lesser rank are modifications to compliance deadlines and other similar measures, provided that those modifications are, as stated, foreseen in the main treaty" (Judgment No.03388-98 of sixteen hours thirty-nine minutes on May twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and ninety-eight).* *In relation to the specific case, the Chamber considers that both the Free Trade Commission being created in the Treaty under study, and the powers granted to it therein, are not unconstitutional insofar as they can be considered as protocols of lesser rank in the terms indicated supra, or, and to the extent that, through the exercise of those powers, substantial and fundamental decisions are not being made that must necessarily be analyzed by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the constitutional powers held by this Branch of the Republic. From this perspective, it is not unconstitutional for the representative of Costa Rica to participate and carry the voice of the National Government on matters related to the Treaty, as long as it does not commit the country to decisions that necessarily require legislative approval and, of course, subsequent constitutional review by the Constitutional Chamber. (Judgment No. 2000-8404)* The foregoing precedent is fully applicable to the specific case, since the rule analyzed is very similar to the one discussed here, which leads the Chamber to conclude that the functions or attributions established for the Free Trade Commission in the Free Trade Agreement are not in themselves unconstitutional, as it cannot be deduced from the articles of the Treaty that the intention is for said Commission to alter its provisions, but rather only to interpret them. Furthermore, there is always the guarantee that the representative of Costa Rica could not in any way commit our country to any matter requiring legislative approval.

However, an aspect that must be carefully analyzed is the accusation by the Ombudsman's Office that said Commission can impose obligations on Costa Rica even against its will, as it is a supranational body. On this particular, it must be borne in mind that in light of the provisions of numeral 19.1.5 of the Free Trade Agreement, the decisions adopted by said Commission are taken by consensus, unless the same decides otherwise. While the Treaty does not clarify what is understood by "consensus," the preamble itself expressly recognizes the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which does clarify the meaning of said concept. In light of the provisions of Article IX, paragraph 1, footnote 1, of the Marrakesh Agreement "the body concerned shall be deemed to have decided by consensus on a matter submitted for its consideration, if **no** Member present at the meeting when the decision is taken, formally objects to the proposed decision." This means that in the commercial sphere established by the Free Trade Agreement and the WTO, the consent of all Parties present is required to adopt a decision, that is, there is a kind of veto no matter how small and weak a country may be if it opposes what others decide against its will. For practical purposes, this means that no decision affecting Costa Rica can be adopted if its representative objects, whereby the State is not ceding its sovereignty. It is for this reason that said Commission is not considered a supranational body either, as it cannot impose obligations beyond the will of the States either in the treaty "administration" process, or when it intervenes in the State-to-State dispute resolution mechanism, considering that in this latter case it merely issues recommendations. On a similar matter, through judgment 1079-93 of fourteen hours forty-eight minutes on March second, nineteen hundred and ninety-three, the Chamber indicated:* *"B) The foregoing obliges us to recognize the expression 'community legal order' (ordenamiento comunitario), although not felicitous, only makes sense, in the context of that subparagraph, if 'community' is understood to mean that legislation which, although created through typical sources of the Law of Nations, such as treaties, **in reality has a 'supranational' character, in that it is capable of imposing on the States Parties obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations beyond those agreed upon and <u>even against their will</u>** **for example, through decisions adopted by a majority**; **this being completely different from merely international orders, in which States commit only to what they commit to by treaty, or, if this also creates some type of international body, the decisions in that body are either not binding, <u>or if they are binding, they must be taken by unanimity, that is, with the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State, through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose</u>**. It is true that the inclusion of the concept 'community legal order' in said constitutional norm was made by the Legislative Assembly acting as a constituent power (by Law Nº 4123 of May 30, 1968), having in mind the process of integration or the Central American Common Market, but it would be contradictory and, therefore, unconstitutional to deduce from this that the Constitution imposes an aggravated procedure for the approval of the instruments of that process, desired by Costa Rica and closer and more natural as it occurs within the geopolitical and historical sphere of the Central American Grand Homeland, than in other more distant and less intense scenarios where the powers of the Costa Rican State are also assigned or transferred to an extra-national order." (The bold is not part of the original)* For the foregoing, and taking into consideration that the decisions of the Commission cannot be imposed beyond the will of the States because they are adopted by consensus, this Chamber finds no unconstitutionality whatsoever regarding this aspect.

Even though the consulting deputies claim that the decisions of the Commission are not necessarily adopted by consensus since Article 19.1.5 establishes that said body may agree on another form of voting, neither does the Chamber consider this to be unconstitutional. It is clear that any decision of the Commission that seeks to vary the form of voting must be adopted by consensus, so the voting mechanism could not be varied if the representative of our country does not agree, whereby he obviously maintains the power to guarantee that no decision is imposed on Costa Rica against its interests. That said, a warning is made that said representative could not authorize a change in the form of voting if this would allow a decision contrary to the will of our State to be forced, and provided that it does not commit the country to decisions that necessarily require legislative approval. Therefore, the issue in question then lies in the obligations and controls that the State imposes on its representative. Likewise, the argument of the consultants is not acceptable that there is no guarantee that the decisions made by the Free Trade Commission will be in accordance with the Constitution, for precisely therein lies the importance of the function performed by our representative, who could not at any time commit our country beyond what our Fundamental Charter permits. In any case, if the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law was not included as a "non-conforming measure," it does not mean that the review by this Chamber provided for in the Political Constitution (Articles 10 and 48) has been repealed, but rather, on the contrary, it was not considered incompatible with the Treaty, and therefore its inclusion was not necessary. The consultants must be clear, as will be seen throughout this judgment, that the list of non-conforming measures only includes that national legislation which, despite being contrary to the provisions of the Treaty, one wishes to keep in force. This does not mean that what is not included therein is understood to be repealed.” (Judgment No. 2007-9469) Pursuant to the foregoing, the International Agreement under study presents no defect of unconstitutionality whatsoever, since, as has been demonstrated, the Association Council does not have the capacity to impose on the States Parties obligations, duties, burdens, or limitations beyond those agreed upon and never against their will, given that this requires consensus, that is, the express acceptance of the Costa Rican State through its legitimate representatives competent for that purpose, besides the fact that its decisions revolve around the administration and implementation of the negotiated commercial matter.

With regard to the final provisions, Part V of the Agreement clarifies issues such as the definition of the Parties (where what draws attention is the enumeration of the cases in which the countries of Central America must act jointly (conjuntamente) (in decision-making through the bodies provided for in Title II (Institutional Framework) of Part I of this Agreement, in the implementation of the obligations provided for in Title IX (Regional Economic Integration) of Part IV of this Agreement, in the implementation of the obligation to establish a Central American Regulation on Competition and a competition authority, and in the implementation of the obligation to establish a single point of access at the regional level, in accordance with Article 212, paragraph 2, of Title V (Public Procurement) of Part IV of this Agreement); otherwise, for any other matter, the Central American countries shall assume obligations and act individually – Article 352 –), entry into force in which it is explained that the rule is that the Trade Agreement (Part IV) may govern independently between the European Union and each Central American country that ratifies it, but not the entirety of the Association Agreement which does require accession and ratification by all Parties (Article 353), its indefinite duration and the possibility of being denounced by any country at any time, ceasing to be in effect six months later (Article 354), compliance with obligations (Article 355), rights and obligations (Article 356), exceptions (Article 357), an evolutionary clause referring to the possibility of expanding or supplementing the Agreement through the conclusion of other agreements on specific activities (Article 358), accession of new members and their particular rules (Article 359), territorial application, expressly clarifying that for the case of Central America, said Agreement would apply in *“the territories of the Republics of the CA Party, in accordance with their respective national laws and International Law”* (Article 360), and the impossibility of formulating unilateral reservations or interpretative declarations, which responds to the logic of the multilateral nature of the Agreement (Article 361). Consequently, the concept of territory, in the terms of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, is respected. Finally, the rule of the integrality of the Agreement is established (that is, that the annexes, appendices, notes, footnotes, among others, form part of the Agreement), as well as that relating to the authentic languages (all the official languages of the Parties).

This Constitutional Court, after reading these first two sections, does not note any evident and manifest conflicts of unconstitutionality.

**<u>Part II of the Agreement:</u>** This Part II of the Agreement corresponds to the first fundamental axis of the international negotiation achieved. It contains the rules necessary to give content to the "Political Dialogue" agreed upon by both regions. In principle, it is a treaty that replaces the previous *“Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, of the other part”*, signed in the city of Rome on December 15, 2003, and ratified by Costa Rica through Law number 8919 of December 16, 2010.

In this section of the Agreement, the objectives that this political dialogue will have are synthesized. The establishment of a privileged political partnership is underscored, in which the exchange of opinions, positions, and information can be fostered, as well as the discussion of matters of mutual interest (Articles 12 and 13). In numeral 13, a list of topics is defined on which it is intended to achieve a common basis between both regions; however, it is not exhaustive, as it is permitted to add any other topic as an area of political dialogue. The political commitments acquired by our country in this Part II on "Political Dialogue" include rules on matters in which Costa Rica has shown a very advanced level of commitment, in some cases responding to areas whose protection has been promoted by the jurisprudence of this Chamber. For example, on the topic of Disarmament (Article 14), there are several international instruments cited in the Association Agreement that our country had previously signed and ratified, among them: the *“Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction”* (approved by Law Nº 7859), and the *“Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols”* (approved through Law Nº 7820).

In that same vein, regarding the topic of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Article 15) or nuclear weapons, Costa Rica is already a Party to the most relevant international instruments that have been drawn up (e.g., the *“Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and its Protocol”*, approved by Law Nº 8094; or the *“Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America”*, approved by Law Nº 4369).

In the matter of the Fight against Terrorism (Article 16), our country also complies with the rules set forth in the Association Agreement, given that it has signed various conventions at the international level on this topic (e.g., the *“Inter-American Convention against Terrorism”*, approved by Law N° 8446, the *“International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism”*, approved by Law N° 8257, among others).

On the other hand, numeral 17 of the Association Agreement reaffirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community must not go unpunished, and grants a fundamental role to the functioning of the International Criminal Court, to which Costa Rica acceded through the approval of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Law N° 8083).

In the subsequent Articles 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Association Agreement, general rules are recognized for application to topics such as: migration, environment (an area in which Costa Rica has demonstrated serious international commitment, approving a multitude of agreements), citizen security, and good governance in fiscal matters. Finally, the commitment acquired regarding the creation of a Common Economic and Financial Credit Fund has even more specific scopes, because its postulates establish the need for a common mechanism that includes the intervention, for example, of the European Investment Bank, the Latin America Investment Facility, and other technical assistance, all in order to reduce poverty and support development in Central America.

As with Parts I and V, the Chamber does not consider that the conventional rules set forth in this "Political Dialogue" section directly and clearly threaten the content of the Political Constitution.

**<u>Part III of the Agreement:</u>** In the first place, the "Cooperation" Part sets forth the objectives and general principles of cooperation between both regions, stated in a generic manner. It is clarified that such cooperation would materialize in the contribution of resources, mechanisms, tools, and procedures (Article 24). Additionally, it is explained that all entities involved in the cooperation process are subject to transparent management of the resources provided to them, as well as to the duty of accountability (Article 26). Part III details a non-exhaustive list of the priority areas of interest in which both regions would apply cooperation practices (areas classified in Titles I through IX); however, it is recalled that if the Parties so decide, any other area or activity in keeping with the spirit of the Association Agreement may be included in the cooperation category (Article 27).

In Title I of this Part III, an attempt is made to establish the main scopes of intraregional cooperation in the sectors of Democracy, Human Rights, and Good Governance. In these areas, fundamental aspects such as the universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights are reiterated; likewise, it is agreed that cooperation in this field will aim to improve and modernize public management, as well as to support a comprehensive peace policy that includes the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Regarding Title II, the Association Agreement took care to regulate interregional cooperation concerning Justice, Freedom, and Security. Thus, it discusses collaboration on the topic of personal data protection and the free circulation of these between the Parties, provided that the regulations established in the domestic legislation of each country are respected.

Also in the reduction of the supply and demand of illicit drugs, both from a repressive and preventive perspective. The same applies to the issue of money laundering (including the financing of terrorism), organized crime, and citizen security (exchanging best practices), the fight against corruption in the public and private sectors due to the serious threat it constitutes to the internal institutions of each country, preventing (among other issues) bribery in international transactions and following up on policies executed at the local, regional, and international levels. In turn, cooperation is extended to prevent and combat the illicit trafficking of small arms.

With respect to Title III, it must be stated that it was the section designated to regulate cooperation in the field of Development and Social Cohesion. Regarding this subject, the interest of both regions in cooperating to combat important social problems such as poverty, social inequality, and exclusion can be highlighted, with the aim of a better distribution of wealth and the establishment of employment policies oriented toward decent work for all persons (article 41). Regarding education and training (article 43), the Parties agreed to cooperate to achieve equitable access to education, as well as to improve its quality. In public health (article 44), several pathologies of special attention for cooperation are listed, among other issues. Cooperation will also be sought in the protection and promotion of the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples (pueblos indígenas), as has been fostered by various international instruments created around this population (article 45). The Association Agreement is also interested in cooperating in favor of socially vulnerable groups and strengthening the gender perspective and equality between men and women in each of the internally relevant areas, without neglecting matters related to youth (articles 46, 47, and 48).

In Title IV, related to the topic of Migration, the provision establishing cooperation for the return, in humane conditions, of persons who do not have a legal residence permit draws attention (article 49). In that sense, it was agreed that the Central American republics committed to “readmit, upon request and without any formalities,” all their nationals with irregular migratory status in the territory of any member of the European Union (article 49.2.a); the same readmission applies to nationals of an EU country who are irregularly in Central America (article 49.2.b). However, in accordance with article 49.4 of the Association Agreement, such readmission shall be regulated through a multilateral agreement (between the Parties), in which the obligations of each State in this matter would be regulated. In line with what was explained by the Departamento de Servicios Técnicos, the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería of our country (in response to a query on draft law No. 18,563), issued a favorable opinion regarding this readmission and the regulations contained in the Association Agreement, indicating that it “does not present conflicts with current migration legislation.” In another vein, Title V of this Part III of the Agreement refers to the Environment, Natural Disasters, and Climate Change, defining which environmental areas would be covered by interregional cooperation (article 50). Similarly, it seeks to reduce the vulnerability of the Central American region to natural disasters (article 51).

Title VI applies to cooperation in the field of Economic and Commercial Development. Specifically, this section is responsible for regulating the topic of cooperation and technical assistance in matters such as competition policy and its promotion (article 52), customs and trade facilitation (articles 53 and 54), intellectual property and technology transfer (article 55), trade in services and electronic commerce (article 56), public procurement (article 58), sustainable fisheries and aquaculture (article 59), access to markets for artisanal goods and their preservation (article 60), facilitating trade in organic products (article 61), food safety, sanitary and phytosanitary measures as well as animal welfare (article 62), trade and sustainable development, supporting environmental protection and decent working conditions (article 63), modernization and restructuring of Central American industry (article 64), energy and renewable energies, their savings and environmental impact (article 65), mining taking into account internal legislation and sustainable development (article 66), fair and sustainable tourism that includes the protection and promotion of cultural heritage and natural resources, all with the participation of local communities, promoting rural, community, and ecological tourism (article 67), modernization and restructuring of transport in all its modalities, including border posts, facilitating the movement of people and goods (article 68), support for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, so that they can participate in the markets for goods and services locally and internationally (article 70), and access to microcredit and microfinance (article 71).

In relation to Title VII, it can be stated that it is intended to regulate cooperation on Regional Integration, strengthening this process in the Central American sphere, especially in the application of its common market, development of its common institutions, and participation of civil society through consultation and awareness campaigns (article 72).

For its part, Title VIII refers to Audiovisual and Cultural Cooperation. In that sense, it is highlighted that the Parties committed to promoting the circulation of cultural activities, goods, and services, and of artists and cultural professionals (article 74). It also includes the promotion of cultural diversity, including that of indigenous peoples (pueblos indígenas) and the cultural practices of other groups, incorporating education in native languages. In the audiovisual area, cooperation in media, such as radio and press, is mentioned. Finally, it is clarified that a Cultural Cooperation Protocol is annexed in the final provisions, which is also of relevance for the interpretation of this Title.

Final Title IX of this Part III is related to the Knowledge Society. This section attempts to enshrine cooperation between both regions regarding information and communication technologies, seeking to reduce the digital divide and ensure equitable and inclusive access (article 75). It also focuses on topics such as: digital government, electronic commerce, digital signatures, telework, among others. Likewise, cooperation would be directed at the scientific and technological sector, as well as establishing joint research actions (article 76). The promotion of nuclear science and technology for medical applications in areas such as health is affirmed, in particular radiology and nuclear medicine for radiodiagnosis and radiotherapy treatment, as well as other areas that the Parties establish by mutual agreement. The topic of training, scholarships, and exchanges is also emphasized.

Having analyzed each of the Titles that make up this Part III of the Association Agreement, the Chamber concludes that – in general terms – no evident and manifest unconstitutionalities were found regarding the substance of its rules and texts.

<b><u>Part IV of the Agreement:</u></b> As has been explained, Part IV of the Association Agreement constitutes, properly, the Free Trade Agreement between Central America and the European Union.

In accordance with articles 353.2 and 353.4 of the Agreement, unlike the other parts of the Association Agreement that will enter into force when the Parties of both regions have notified the completion of their internal procedures, this Part IV may enter into force for each Central American country that ratifies it, independently of the others, once it has been approved by the European Union.

In general, this commercial section follows the traditional structure of World Trade Organization Agreements, developing in 14 Titles the areas of trade in goods (Title II), trade in services and electronic commerce (Title III), and includes provisions on common themes: investment protection relating to financial flows (Title IV), public procurement (Title V), protection of intellectual property (Title VI), and mechanisms for dispute settlement (Title X).

Title I and XIV contain the general provisions applicable to the entire Commercial Agreement, and set forth the basic objective of the Parties (establishment of a free trade zone), the technical definitions, and the general exceptions that commonly apply in this type of treaty (Title XIV), following the rules of the WTO GATT Agreement, agreements approved by Costa Rica at the time of its incorporation into the World Trade Organization (Ley Nº 7475 of December 20, 1994).

These are, therefore, economic policy objectives that may or may not be shared, but whose definition in any case corresponds to a criterion of political opportunity under the purview of the Legislative and Executive Branches, not a jurisdictional criterion. The constitutional review conducted by the Sala Constitucional cannot substitute for said Branches but must be limited to verifying that the constitutional order is not violated, all in respect of the principle of self-restraint of the constitutional judge.

Regarding the rules of Titles XII and XIII (of Transparency and Administrative Procedures), they are common provisions in the creation of institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the Agreement, whether with the obligation to publicize internal administrative procedures themselves, to provide the possibility in the legal system to challenge, administratively or judicially, the acts of the bodies responsible for implementing the Agreement (customs and health authorities, among others), or to maintain a contact point for fluid communication between the Parties. Properly, Title XIII is limited to distributing competencies and functions within the different bodies that are created, to administer and implement the Agreement itself.

This Commercial Agreement includes some novel topics, such as the regulations relating to the Title called “Trade and Sustainable Development” (Title VIII), in addition to the commitments to regional economic integration (Title IX).

In general, all these topics and commitments implied by Commercial Agreements of this type have already been assumed by the country in previous treaties. For this reason, and given the eminently technical nature of the contents of the Commercial Agreement, which in principle respond to discretionary commercial policy criteria, the Chamber deems it necessary to recall some jurisprudence issued by this constitutional jurisdiction in cases analogous to the present one, in which it was explained that: “(…) <i>However, from the point that interests us now, this means that the State, or more properly, the bodies that have strictly political and managerial competencies, must always act in order to stimulate production and the most adequate distribution of wealth. <u>It must be understood, therefore, that the Executive Branch has negotiated this Treaty, having those constitutional objectives as a guide</u>. And it must also be understood that the Legislative Branch, when considering the substance of said instrument, will act in accordance with the same objectives. That is why we can conclude, in principle, that <u>the advantages or disadvantages that the Treaty as such, or some of its provisions, debated and debatable, may have for some sector do not necessarily entail an aspect of constitutionality</u>, in the sense that the Chamber must pronounce, as they lie at the level of mere convenience or opportunity. For example, some point out that despite the benefit of this type of commercial instrument, a country would not derive immediate or short-term advantages if the old model (of import substitution, of subsidies) and the new model of commercial opening coincide in it. (…) In any event, the Chamber warns that those aspects revolve around the policies behind the philosophy of the Treaty, but do not have the constitutional connotation to which the Chamber must circumscribe its opinion"</i> (see rulings number 07005-94 of 09:21 hours on December 2, 1994, and 9469-2007 of 10:00 hours on July 3, 2007, among others). Consequently, in accordance with the various pronouncements that this Chamber has issued on the Free Trade Agreements already in force in our country, it is clear that, in general terms, the commercial and technical clauses contained therein obey the commercial policy that the Executive Branch had at the time of signing the international instrument. Likewise, it is also observed that many of the norms contained in this Commercial Agreement basically limit themselves to reaffirming the rights and obligations of the Parties, already previously contained in other international conventions ratified by Costa Rica (e.g., in the area of Intellectual Property, article 233 of the Agreement lists several international instruments that the Parties must comply with, all of which have already been ratified by our country: the Rome Convention (Ley Nº 4727), the Berne Convention (Ley Nº 6083), and the WIPO Treaties on Copyright (WCT) (Ley Nº 7968) and on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) (Ley Nº 7967)).

Thus, this Court will limit itself to the study of certain novel aspects or those it considers relevant from a constitutional perspective.

The International Agreement under study, in relation to Title V of Part IV, establishes as its main objective the effective, reciprocal, and gradual opening of their respective procurement markets, supported by transparent, competitive, and open procurement that contributes to sustainable development. Precisely for this reason, article 211 establishes, as has been provided in previous treaties of the same nature, the need for the State Parties to give treatment no less favorable than that granted by the Party, as well as the duty to manage procurement in a transparent and impartial manner, seeking to avoid conflicts of interest and corrupt practices. Due to the foregoing, the agreement contemplates different forms of administrative procurement, similar to those contemplated in our legal system (called in this case open tendering (licitación abierta), selective tendering (licitación selectiva), and restricted tendering (licitación restringida)), which aims to guarantee minimum principles of participation and equality that protect the companies who eventually participate in the State Parties. The foregoing is reasonable based on the fact that not every State Party has such guarantees contemplated in its legal system, as ours does, even at the constitutional level, in accordance with the provisions of article 182 of the Political Constitution:

<i>“Article 182.-</i> <i>Contracts for the execution of public works entered into by the Branches of the State, the Municipalities, and the autonomous institutions, purchases made with funds of those entities, and the sales or leases of goods belonging to them, shall be made through public tendering (licitación), in accordance with the law regarding their respective amount.”</i> In particular, the text of the convention under study provides the following definitions in article 209.2:

<i>“…f) “Restricted tendering” (licitación restringida) means a procurement method whereby a procuring entity contacts a supplier or suppliers of its choice;…</i> <i>…k) “open tendering” (licitación abierta) means a procurement method whereby all interested suppliers may submit a tender ;…</i> <i>…n) “selective tendering” (licitación selectiva) means a procurement method whereby a procuring entity only invites qualified or registered suppliers to tender;…”</i> Likewise, this Convention regulates the need for publication of information on procurement processes in a timely, complete, and transparent manner (see articles 212, 217, and 223) and seeks due access under equal conditions for participation in procurement processes, stating that for the selection of the tenderer, their suitability must be taken into consideration regarding financial, commercial, and technical abilities, without giving privileged treatment to those who have previously participated, valuing the offer solely based on territory (article 214). In accordance with said objectives, article 220 stipulates that provided that procurement procedures are not used as a means to avoid competition or to protect national suppliers, a procuring entity may award contracts through direct procurement or other equivalent procurement procedures under certain circumstances specified therein. The foregoing is precisely a guarantee that a State Party does not indiscriminately justify the use of a direct procurement mechanism to the detriment of the other State Parties, thereby harming the principle of good faith governing the negotiation; thus, far from diminishing the controls already existing in our legal system for carrying out administrative procurement, minimum conditions are established, at least regarding the object to be procured, for resorting to this direct procurement mechanism. All of the foregoing is fully consistent with the principles governing administrative procurement in our country and in no way affects the internal public procurement regime, as there is no agreement to diminish or harm the controls and principles of administrative procurement observed in our country; moreover, it intends to guarantee that these are carried out with all the guarantees of the case. Likewise, article 225 provides that each Party shall establish or maintain administrative or judicial review procedures that allow control of administrative decisions affecting procurement, so that said processes must be timely, effective, transparent, and non-discriminatory, and it refers to our own jurisdiction for the resolution of conflicts of this nature. On the other hand, the Chamber, in rulings No. 2007-9469 and No. 2008-12590, has reiterated, before conditions agreed upon like those under study, that the control exercised by the Contraloría General de la República equally prevails, as a guarantee not only for nationals but also for nationals of the State Parties:

“<i>… the Treaty under study leaves the designation of their competent administrative or judicial authority in this matter to the discretion of each Party, imposing as the sole requirement that it be an impartial body. It is for this reason that in the case of Costa Rica, it must be understood in light of our country's internal regulations that the Contraloría General de la República retains all its attributes of control and oversight in matters of public procurement, and if it is not expressly mentioned in the Treaty, it is not because its exclusion is intended, but because such designation will depend on the regulations of each Party. The fact that the Organic Law of the Contraloría was not included in the list of non-conforming measures does not mean that the oversight power of said body is being excluded. On the contrary, it means that this control was not considered incompatible with the Treaty in light of the provisions of article 9.15, and therefore it did not warrant its inclusion as a non-conforming measure.</i> Thus, because there is no provision to the contrary in the treaty, the Comptroller General of the Republic retains all of its powers in this matter, and consequently, it can even ensure that the exceptional mechanisms to “open bidding” are not conducive to abuse and identify when one of those cases actually exists.</i> On the other hand, the Chamber verifies that although Article 214 of the Agreement, which refers to conditions for participation, states in point 4, second paragraph, that: “<i>Each Party may adopt or maintain procedures to declare the ineligibility for participation in the Party’s procurements, either indefinitely or for a stated period of time, of suppliers that the Party has determined have engaged in illegal or fraudulent activities related to procurement</i>”; this rule is not harmful to our legal system, despite establishing the possibility of imposing a sanction indefinitely—such as ineligibility—because the cited rule contemplates two scenarios that are divided by the conjunction “or,” which in this case has a disjunctive function, meaning that the State Party may choose to declare ineligibility indefinitely or for a stated period. Regarding our country, Article 40 of the Political Constitution prohibits the existence of perpetual sanctions, so when the corresponding procedures are regulated, the stated cause simply could not be subject to an indefinite sanction, but rather a specific duration, which is also consistent with the provisions of the international Agreement under review.

On the other hand, Title VII of this Part IV, called “Trade and Competition,” sets forth certain principles that would govern competition in commercial relations between each region (Article 278). In that sense, it was noted that the Parties recognized the importance of free and undistorted competition; furthermore, that anti-competitive practices can affect the proper functioning of markets and the benefits of trade liberalization. Following this, the Parties agreed on a list of practices that would be incompatible with the Agreement. However, they also included important clarifying or safeguard clauses such as the one contemplated in numeral 280: “<i>Nothing in this Title shall prevent a Republic of the CA Party or a Member State of the European Union <u>from designating or maintaining public undertakings, undertakings with special or exclusive rights, or monopolies according to their respective national legislation</u>”</i> (emphasis added). As is well known, Costa Rica already has normative regulations related to the subject of competition (Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, Law No. 7472 of December 20, 1994); likewise, in recent years, the national market has been liberalized in certain specific sectors (e.g., the General Telecommunications Law, No. 8642, which imposes a competition regime in that area).

In Title VIII, related to “Trade and Sustainable Development,” a series of principles on labor and environmental standards are established, considering not only current but also future generations. The right of the Parties to regulate their own level of protection, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, is recognized (Article 285), but reaffirming the commitment to implement, in their legislation and practice, the ILO Conventions listed in Article 286 of the Agreement (Convention 138 on the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment (Law No. 5594), Convention 182 on the Prohibition of the Worst Forms of Child Labour and Immediate Action for Their Elimination (Law No. 8122), Convention 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour (Law No. 2330), Convention 111 on Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation (Law No. 2848), as well as Conventions 29: on Forced or Compulsory Labour, 100: on Equal Remuneration for Male and Female Workers for Work of Equal Value, 87: on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, and 98: on the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively (all approved jointly by Law No. 2561)), as well as the multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party, listed in Article 287 of the Agreement (Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Law No. 7228), Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Law No. 7438), Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Law No. 8538), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna “CITES” (Law No. 5605), Convention on Biological Diversity (Law No. 7416), Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Law No. 8537), Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Law No. 8219).

It is precisely in this section of the Agreement (Article 287.3) where the Parties “<i>(…) commit to ensuring that they will have ratified, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the Amendment to Article XXI of CITES, adopted in Gaborone (Botswana) on April 30, 1983.” </i>As has been seen, this obligation assumed by the State constitutes the second article of the legislative bill submitted for consultation before this Chamber, the constitutionality of which will be addressed later. Following this, it is also indicated in the Agreement that the Parties committed to ratifying the “<i>Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade”, </i>an instrument that has already been ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 8705. In the same vein, Article 290.2.a of the Agreement states that, regarding Trade in Fishery Products, the Parties commit to adhering to the principles of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Law No. 8059).

Particular mention is deserved by Article 290.3 of the Agreement, which regulates the following: <i>“The Parties agree, to the extent they have not done so, to adopt port State measures in accordance with the Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (…)”. </i>In accordance with what was verified in the Legislative Assembly, the Accession to said Agreement is being processed through legislative file 18.320, and the legislative bill is titled: “<i>APPROVAL OF THE ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT ON PORT STATE MEASURES TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING (PSMA) AND ITS ANNEXES”. </i>As was confirmed, said Agreement related to port State measures and Illegal Fishing has not yet been approved by that parliamentary body. The last verified legislative action on this international agreement was its entry on the Plenary Agenda on September 10, 2012, without the legislative procedure having been concluded to obtain accession to date (http://www.asamblea.go.cr/Centro_de_Informacion/Consultas_SIL/Pginas/Detalle%20Proyectos%20de%20Ley.aspx?Numero_Proyecto=18320). It is important to remember that regarding the concept of “accession” to an international agreement, this Tribunal has stated the following in its jurisprudence:

<b><i>“ACCESSION TO AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT</i></b><i>. Prior to reviewing the merits of the legislative bill consulted, it is appropriate to refer to the concept of accession as a mechanism for ratifying an international instrument that was not directly negotiated by the Government of Costa Rica, but to which it subsequently decides, in a sovereign manner, to be bound by its content. The concept of accession is established in Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Law No. 7615 of July 24, 1996, by stating, as pertinent, that “"Ratification", "acceptance", "approval" and "accession" mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty.” Likewise, Article 11 regulates the forms of expressing a State's consent to be bound by a treaty, consent that may be evidenced by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. In relation to this numeral, the Government of Costa Rica made a reservation to the effect that the constitutional legal system of our country does not authorize any form of consent that is not subject to the approval of the Legislative Assembly. The foregoing, of course, in light of what is indicated in Article 121 of the Political Constitution, which provides in subsection 4 that it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly to approve or reject international conventions, public treaties, and concordats. That is to say, the consent of the Costa Rican State is always linked to the authorization of the parliamentary body. Furthermore, the Vienna Convention establishes in Article 15 the possibility for a State to accede to an international instrument and regulates it in the following sense: “<b>Article 15</b>.- Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by accession. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by accession: </i> <i>a) When the treaty provides that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession; b) When it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession; or c) When all the parties have subsequently agreed that such consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession.” From said numeral, it follows that the possibility of acceding to the text of an international agreement not directly negotiated and signed is legitimate, provided that the Parties negotiating the convention so authorize it or that possibility is foreseen in the convention itself” </i>(see judgment number 2011-001308 of 3:10 p.m. on February 2, 2011).

In the case at hand, as indicated, the Costa Rican State, through the approval of the Association Agreement, commits to adopting measures aimed at implementing port State measures, in accordance with the cited Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, so that control and inspection systems are established, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable long-term management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems. In this regard, we must clarify that the Association Agreement does not impose, as a *sine qua non* requirement for validity, the approval of accession to the Agreement on Port State Measures. It merely indicates that the State that has not adopted it, like ours, must at least adopt the corresponding measures that refer to the content of that Agreement to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing and implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable long-term management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems, which, in the case of choosing its adoption, does not exempt it from following the procedures established in our legal system. Likewise, from a comprehensive reading of Article 290, it is clear that its objective is for the Parties to recognize the need to promote sustainable fishing, in order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks and the sustainable trade of fishery resources, which is fully consistent with the protection safeguarded by the right to a healthy and balanced environment in our State; and the reference made to this Convention in subsection c) was not made with the imperative that, for example, is established in point 2 in relation to other principles.

Continuing with the substantive analysis of the Association Agreement, it is observed that its Article 295 expresses consent to facilitate interregional relations through dialogue forums <u>with civil society</u>, with balanced representation of environmental, economic, and social actors. Likewise, this Title establishes a Panel of Experts responsible for “<i>examining whether a Party has failed to comply with the obligations set out under Articles 286, paragraph 2; 287, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; and 291 of this Title, and to formulate non-binding recommendations to resolve the matter (…)” </i>(Article 299).

Throughout the Agreement, as has been seen, there are a series of rules that allow the <u>participation of civil society</u> in certain issues of significant relevance. In the Chamber's consideration, it is necessary to highlight this particularity of the Agreement since it finds a connection with a transcendental principle of constitutional origin, such as citizen participation, contemplated in Article 9 of the Constitution. The jurisprudence of this Tribunal has been extensive in developing this right and highlighting its relevance in our legal system. Thus, it has been held that this principle of citizen participation in decision-making has become one of the fundamental pillars upon which the democratic system rests. In that sense, Article 9 of the Political Constitution establishes, among other characteristics, that the Government of the Republic must be participatory. With the reform effective as of July 31, 2003, to Article 9 of the Fundamental Law, it was established that the Government of the Republic must be, among other aspects, participatory, which implies that the current government is an articulator of what is established by popular deliberation. In other words, it is the citizens who have a greater participation in political decision-making; they can and must exert direct influence on public decisions. This principle, seen as a fundamental right of citizen participation, establishes that the people must be enabled to express themselves equally in both majority and minority viewpoints (see judgment number 015763-2011 of 9:46 a.m. on November 16, 2011). Thus, the Chamber considers that the Association Agreement *sub examine* contains a set of rules that promote the advancement of this constitutional right, hence it is worth highlighting this virtue in its text.

In Title IX called “Regional Economic Integration,” the commitments acquired by the Central American region on this subject are described, mainly focused on the area of customs procedures, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, among others, for all of which a series of previously agreed deadlines was established to fulfill such integration requirements. It must be remembered that the Central American region has assumed many of these duties stemming from the integration process that has been developing for several years; however, for some matters, the Agreement orders the fulfillment of commitments within duly defined timeframes.

A subsection to highlight in this Part IV of the Agreement is the one set forth in Titles X and XI, concerning “Dispute Settlement.” Therein, a dispute settlement mechanism is established based on an arbitration or Special Group procedure (Title X). This procedure applies only to the Trade Agreement (Part IV), and it is not possible to execute it in disputes between Central American countries. In this Title X, there is freedom of choice of the forum to raise the dispute, but obviously not through both paths. In that sense, Article 326 of the Agreement establishes the possibility that if a complaining Party wishes to seek redress for the violation of an obligation under the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, it may resort to the rules of the WTO Agreement.

On the other hand, it is explained that prior consultations must be mandatorily raised, and once that procedure is exhausted without reaching a solution, the request for a Special Group is made, which is formed from the List of Experts defined by the parties. This Special Group issues a decision, and if a party is reluctant to comply with it, it grants the counterparty the right to compensation or suspension of benefits in equivalent terms (Article 314). Additionally, a mediation mechanism is proposed for non-tariff measures that produces legal effects in the event of a mutually agreed solution. This mediation procedure is contemplated in Title XI of the Agreement. Specifically, Article 334 explains that mediation is independent of Title X (Dispute Settlement) and is not intended to serve as a basis for dispute settlement procedures under said Title. That is, the request for mediation that any of the Parties may raise shall not preclude recourse to Title X.

As Article 308 of the Agreement correctly establishes, the dispute settlement provided for in Title X shall only serve to <i>"(…) resolve any dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of Part IV of the Agreement (…)”. </i>That is, arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are established so that the Parties (the States) can enforce the obligations acquired by their counterparty, provided that these are obligations that do not go beyond the patrimonial scope protected in Article 43 of the Political Constitution.

Furthermore, Article 319 of the Agreement provides that the Rules of Procedure that will govern dispute resolution shall be adopted by the Association Council, unless the disputing Parties agree otherwise. In Article 321 of the Agreement, the figure of “<i>amicus curiae”, </i>is recognized, through which the possibility is granted for natural or legal persons with an interest in the matter to submit briefs for the possible consideration of the Special Group, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. In Article 323.2 of the Agreement, it is clarified that any decision of the Special Group shall be final and binding on the Parties, which—as has been explained—is a logical consequence of the signing and prior acceptance by the States of the arbitration clause in this type of international instrument, the same which has been accepted by this Chamber on previous occasions.

Finally, from reading both Title X and Title XI, it is not apparent that this Association Agreement contemplated the establishment of mechanisms for disputes between <u>investors of one Party and States of another</u>; nor is it observed that there is any subsection or section within the Agreement, especially called to regulate Dispute Settlement between a Party and an investor of the other party. On the contrary, in Title X (Dispute Settlement) only the term “Parties” is mentioned in each of its rules. It is clear that the notion of “Parties” must be read in accordance with what is provided in Part V of the Agreement, where the final provisions of the convention are outlined, among which is Article 352, which precisely refers to the “Definition of the Parties” for the purposes of the Agreement. In that article, only the Central American Republics, on one hand, and the Member States or the European Union, on the other, are cited. Thus, no other interpretation would be possible than to conclude that the dispute settlement mechanism is only for disputes between States. The same is verified from reading Article 329.3 of the Agreement, which indicates that “<i>this Title shall apply bilaterally between the EU Party, on the one hand, and each of the Republics of the CA Party, on the other.” </i>This rule is contained within Title XI, which regulates the “Mediation Mechanism for Non-Tariff Measures.” Thus, for the resolution of the *sub lite* matter, it is not appropriate to rely on the reasons expressed in judgment number 2007-09469 (FTA with the USA) regarding this subject of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, since on that occasion such reasons were referred <u>specifically</u> to the scope of <u>Investor-State</u> Dispute Settlement, a scenario that, as seen, was omitted in the present Association Agreement.

Moving past the subject of Dispute Settlement, the Association Agreement under review also undertook to regulate in its Title XII a special section called “Transparency and Administrative Procedures.” In Article 338, the agreement between the Parties is developed to cooperate in the relevant bilateral and multilateral forums to increase transparency, including the elimination of bribery and corruption in matters covered by Part IV of the Agreement (Trade Part). The remaining rules contained in this Title are those necessary to implement and fulfill this mission between both regions.

Finally, in Title XIV called “Exceptions,” common exceptions for temporary restrictions due to balance-of-payments problems are set forth. Similarly, in this section, it is clarified that the fiscal or taxing power of the States is not affected in any way by virtue of the Agreements.

**X.-** Based on the foregoing, regarding the substance of the Association Agreement under review, no manifest unconstitutionalities are detected, which does not preclude highlighting the following: 1) by virtue of the fact that numeral 290.3 of the Agreement provides: "The Parties agree, to the extent they have not already done so, to adopt port State measures in accordance with the Agreement of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, to implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems in the long term." and Costa Rica has not yet approved said convention, we must specify that the Association Agreement does not impose, as a *sine qua non* requirement for validity, the approval of accession to the Agreement on Port State Measures. It is limited to indicating that the State that has not adopted it, such as ours, must at least adopt the corresponding measures that refer to the content of that Agreement to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing and implement control and inspection systems, as well as incentives and obligations for the rational and sustainable management of fisheries and coastal ecosystems in the long term, and that in the event of opting for its approval, it is not exempt from following the procedures provided in our legal system. Likewise, from a comprehensive reading of Article 290, it is clear that its objective is for the Parties to recognize the need to promote sustainable fishing, in order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks and sustainable trade in fishery resources, which is fully consistent with the protection that safeguards the right to a healthy and balanced environment in our State; and the reference made to this Convention in subsection c) was not made with the imperative that, for example, is established in point 2 regarding other principles; 2) the mere approval of the Agreement does not imply that Costa Rica recognizes the jurisdiction of the Central American Court of Justice; and 3) Article 214 of the Agreement proposes, as a sanction for a supplier that has participated in illegal or fraudulent activities related to procurement, the sanction of ineligibility to participate in the Party's procurements, either indefinitely or for a specified period; consequently, each Party may opt for one of these two variants, but in the case of Costa Rica, the option would be ineligibility for a specified period, given that indefinite sanctions are impermissible.

**XI.-** The other articles contained in bill No. 18.563. As indicated above, besides the ratification of the "Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other," bill number 18.563 proposes the approval of the following norms: 1) the Amendment to Article XXI of the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983; 2) the Creation of the Council of Land Border Posts; 3) the Creation of two taxes to cover, mainly, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts; 4) finally, the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is sought to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX). Each of the provisions mentioned will be examined in the order in which they were presented.

**XII.-** Regarding the Amendment to Article XXI of the *"Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora"* (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983, it must be noted that from the statement of purposes of this bill and the reading of the Association Agreement, as part of the political negotiation between both regions, it was agreed that along with the ratification of the Agreement, the obligation for the Central American States to approve the aforementioned Amendment to Article XXI would be included. This amendment seeks the recognition of any regional economic integration organization constituted by sovereign States as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In general terms, it is also necessary to recall that CITES is an international instrument aimed at the protection of wild fauna and flora through the regulation and limitation of international trade in protected species. The Legislative Assembly approved that convention through Law No. 5605 of October 30, 1974. The approval of this amendment in the bill under study is reasonable, as the necessary validation of this Amendment has been the product of a political negotiation inherent to the Association Agreement to be approved. In the Central American sphere, only Guatemala, Panama, and Nicaragua have ratified the Gaborone Amendment (see website: http://www.cites.org/esp/disc/parties/gaborone.php), hence it has been considered necessary for the remaining three countries of our region (El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica) to proceed in the same manner. It is noted that in the publication in Volume V of Supplement No. 180 of the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 220 ( http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-5_14_11_2012.pdf ), at the end of Article 3 and before Article 4, the following paragraph was introduced: "*Administered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme.*" After comparing those lines with the text of the Amendment in the bill (folio 4980 of the certified copy of the legislative file sent to the Chamber, volume XV), it is observed that the referred lines do not correspond to the original discussed and approved in the first debate in the Legislative Assembly. However, the foregoing does not constitute an essential procedural defect. As indicated in Whereas Clause VII of this pronouncement, regarding the requirement of publication in La Gaceta pursuant to Article 117 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, the jurisprudence of the Chamber dictates that the crux of the matter consists of analyzing, according to the specific case, to what extent an error in publication leads to a defect in publicity, from which the general public would have a confused understanding of the content of a bill to be approved in the Legislative Assembly or their informed participation in its discussion would be restricted. It is not, therefore, a matter of applying rigid formalism, foreign to the circumstances of the case, but of employing legal hermeneutics in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, such that norms are interpreted in the way that best guarantees the realization of the purpose or purposes they pursue. In the instant case, the mentioned defect –a separate addition in Articles 3 and 4 of the Amendment– does not alter the content of the latter nor distract from the correct meaning of what is regulated in said numerals, which is why no impediment whatsoever is seen to popular participation in the adoption of major national decisions through the publicity of legislative projects. Likewise, the extra incorporated lines are meaningless in themselves, fail to complete an idea, and their syntax confirms this. Based on this understanding, this Court does not consider that the inclusion of the approval of the Amendment to Article XXI of the *"Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora"* (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983 (bill processed in legislative file No. 18.563) raises any conflict whatsoever with Constitutional Law.

**XIII.-** In relation to the creation of the Council of Land Border Posts (contemplated in the third article of the bill), the creation of two taxes to cover, mainly, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts (fourth article of the bill), and the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is sought to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX), provided in the fifth and final article of bill No. 18.563, it is pertinent to clarify that, in the opinion of this Chamber, these provisions result from a typical manifestation of the ordinary legislative activity assigned to the Legislature. As can be clearly extracted from a simple reading of such norms, they are not matters that must be analyzed by this Constitutional Court under the figure of a mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality, inasmuch as, in accordance with Article 96, subsection a) of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the Chamber is called upon to issue its consultative opinion, mandatorily, only in those cases where the approval of bills regarding constitutional reforms, reforms to the Law governing this jurisdiction, or those cases tending towards the approval of international conventions or treaties is sought. For the purposes of this consultation, it is important to highlight the last of these cases: the approval of international conventions or treaties. As has been able to be appreciated, the first and second articles of bill No. 18.563 deal with the approval by our country of two international instruments, respectively: the "*Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other*" (in the first article), and the Amendment to Article XXI of the *"Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora"* (known as CITES), adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983 (second article). In both cases, the mandatory consultation was appropriate since it involves the approval of international conventions or treaties, in the terms provided by subsection a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. However, the Chamber considers that the mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality does not proceed with respect to the other provisions contained in the bill processed under legislative file number 18.563, since none of them possesses the legal nature of an international treaty or convention, in the terms required by subsection a) of the aforementioned Article 96. Although they could be considered norms that contribute to the implementation of the Agreement, the fact is that they are norms of domestic national law. Consequently, regarding Articles 3, 4, and 5 of legislative file No. 18.563, the consultation is inadmissible and cannot be addressed.

**XIV.- Corollary.** By virtue of the foregoing, regarding the "*Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other*," and the "*approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983*," no essential procedural defects or unconstitutional provisions are found. It is noted that both the Agreement and the Amendment require for their approval a vote of an absolute majority of the votes present. Regarding the Council of Land Border Posts (contemplated in the third article of the bill), the creation of two taxes to cover, mainly, the costs of works related to the operation, conservation, and expansion of land border posts (fourth article of the bill), and the Representation before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that is sought to be assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Trade (COMEX), provided in the fifth and final article of bill No. 18.563, the consultation is inadmissible and cannot be addressed.

**XV.- Separate note of Judge Castillo Víquez.** Regarding the vote required for the approval of the consulted bill, it is necessary to keep in mind that the qualified majority is required for its final approval, not in the first debate, that is, after the conclusion of the second debate, just as the majority of this Court has held.

On the other hand, I share the thesis that the Convention does not require a qualified majority but for other reasons. In the first place, because competences are not being transferred to a supranational entity, such that its decisions are of imperative compliance for the State of Costa Rica. Secondly, Article 6, paragraph 2, is clear in the sense that the decisions adopted by the Association Council are binding for the parties, but for their execution, **the internal norms and legal procedures of each Party must be respected.** The foregoing means, no more and no less, that the decisions of that Council, which are adopted by consensus, are not of automatic application; rather, for that purpose, the constitutional competences that are in Constitutional Law (values, principles, and norms) held by the constitutional bodies must be observed, for example: if it involves a substantial modification to the convention, whether because its object or purpose is broadened or modified, or because new obligations are imposed on the State of Costa Rica, legislative approval will be required, as well as for those decisions that are not expressly or implicitly derived –theory of implied powers– from the Convention that affect fundamental rights, since their legal regime is reserved to the Law. **When it involves the exercise of sovereign powers that Constitutional Law confers upon the State's bodies**, and whose exercise is partially transferred to supranational bodies –a typical case of the exercise of domestic competences by an international body–, the matter is resolved through the aggravated approval of the Convention. On the contrary, if the obligations or other duties derive from the Convention itself, the Executive Branch possesses the competence to fully comply with them through lower-ranking protocols, the exercise of regulatory power, and other powers-duties that the legal system attributes to it.

A different scenario is when, by virtue of being a party to the treaty or convention, a body created by it, in the exercise of the competences attributed to it in the international instrument, adopts an act that, according to the convention, is binding for all contracting parties –a typical case of the exercise of international competences by an international body–. In this scenario, a qualified majority is not required, since there is no transfer of competences from internal bodies to supranational bodies; therefore, the majority required for its approval is the absolute majority of the votes present, as provided in Article 121, subsection 4, first paragraph, in relation to numeral 119 of the Constitution.

Finally, I do not endorse the assertion that the qualified majority is only required when it involves a community model, for although it is true that the partial reform to the Political Constitution, through Law No. 4123 of May 31, 1968, was carried out adopting the Central American Common Market as a reference framework, the actual fact of the matter is that today, the dynamics of the international economy and politics at the global level, which drives a series of economic institutions for integration, commercial exchange, and economic cooperation among States themselves, and between them and international organizations at the global, regional, or bilateral levels, have created new modalities of economic integration that are in accordance with Constitutional Law, and in the event that sovereign competences are transferred to the organizations or institutions created in international treaties, their approval requires the qualified majority established by numeral 121, subsection 4, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution; a situation that does not occur in the present case for the reasons noted *supra*.

**Por Tanto:** The consultation is addressed in the sense that Articles 1 and 2 of legislative file No. 18.563, corresponding respectively to the "*Law for the Approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other;* and *the approval by the Republic of Costa Rica of the Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Gaborone, Botswana, on April 30, 1983*" contain no essential procedural defects or unconstitutional provisions. Regarding Articles 3, 4, and 5 of legislative file No. 18.563, as they are not matters subject to a mandatory consultation of constitutionality, this is inadmissible and cannot be addressed. Judge Castillo Víquez records a separate note. Judges Armijo Sancho and Cruz Castro dissent and address this legislative consultation in the sense that they find procedural and substantive defects. Let this resolution be notified to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.

Aracelly Pacheco S. José Paulino Hernández G.

**Dissenting Vote of Judges Armijo Sancho and Cruz Castro, authored by Judge Armijo:** ***With respect to the procedure:*** Once the process followed by the bill processed in legislative file No. (end of excerpt).

18.563, the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, reveals the following procedural defect:

• A)Violation of the legislative procedure for approval of this international treaty, due to the majority obtained in the first debate vote: The undersigned Magistrates consider that in the present case, on the occasion of the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, legislative file No. 18.563, Article 121(4) of the Political Constitution has been violated, insofar as said bill was not approved by a qualified majority, even though it clearly attributes or transfers certain competencies to a community legal order, with the purpose of achieving regional and common objectives. In this regard, it is patently obvious that Community Law covers both cases where various States accede through integration mechanisms, and those where, as a preliminary step to these, they initiate collaborative and cooperative relations, as is the specific case, all of which undoubtedly justifies the requirement of the qualified majority set forth in Article 121(4) of the Constitution for the approval of international treaties of this type. Indeed, once the minutes of plenary session No. 12 of Tuesday, May 21, 2013, were reviewed, it is clearly deduced that the bill was only approved by 37 deputies out of 41 present (4 deputies voted against), see folio 12387 of the certified copy of legislative file No. 18.563, thus failing to achieve the majority provided for in the Constitution for norms of this class. In this vein, among the competencies transferred to supranational bodies, it is necessary to mention those pertaining to the Association Council (see Articles 4 to 6 of the Agreement), mainly Article 6 which stipulates: "1.- To achieve the objectives of this Agreement, the Association Council shall have the power to adopt decisions in the cases provided for in this Agreement. 2.- The decisions adopted shall be binding on the Parties, which shall take the necessary measures to implement them in accordance with the internal rules and legal procedures of each Party", as well as those relating to the Association Committee, which under the terms of the Treaty will be the body responsible for the general implementation of this Agreement, and which will also be empowered to adopt decisions in the cases provided for in the Treaty, or when the Association Council has delegated such power to it (see points 2 and 4 of Article 7 of the Agreement). For this reason, and given the seriousness of the defect observed in this instance, the undersigned Magistrates dissent from the vote and answer the consultation formulated, in the sense that the present bill for the approval of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, violates the Law of the Constitution, because it does not achieve the majority provided for in Article 121(4) of the Fundamental Norm for the approval of norms of this type.

Regarding the substance of the bill: The undersigned Magistrates disagree with the majority vote on several of the issues raised on the merits and consider that the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on the one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, contains some unconstitutionalities, as will be set forth below. We believe that regarding some provisions, the consulted bill is unconstitutional with respect to certain assumptions of the Social and Democratic Rule of Law (Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho). To support each of these aspects, we will address each one separately.

Before analyzing the specific regulations on each of the issues, we consider it important to examine, just as was done on the occasion of the Dissenting Vote to consultative opinion No. 2007-09469 of 10:00 a.m. on July 3, 2007, the concept of the Social and Democratic Rule of Law and its impact on some of the provisions regulating the multilateral Convention under review.

I- GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SOCIAL AND DEMOCRATIC RULE OF LAW The Costa Rican State is a Social and Democratic Rule of Law. This statement is not empty of content but has its implications and its transcendence, especially because such denomination has been derived by reiterated Constitutional Jurisprudence based on the Text of Our Magna Carta itself.

• A)General Concept of the Social and Democratic Rule of Law: The theory of the Rule of Law (Estado de Derecho) was developed at the end of the 19th century with the objective of subjecting the State to the Law, of curbing arbitrariness, and of recognizing and guaranteeing a series of fundamental rights for individuals. This theory was consolidated in democratic political systems, to the extent that it is held that every democracy, in order to be one, must be framed within a Rule of Law. Thus, it was more properly referred to as the Democratic Rule of Law (Estado Democrático de Derecho). Subsequently, from the second half of the 19th century onward, when States assumed a more predominant role within modern societies, and when States were endowed with a series of economic policy instruments to seek greater equity in societies, the previous concept was completed, being called the Social and Democratic Rule of Law. That is why it is said that this latter concept is more complete than the former, as it alludes not only to the subjection of the State to the rule of law (Rule of Law), but also to the actions that the State must undertake as a manager of public policies aimed at achieving greater social equity (Social), and to doing so within a procedural framework that allows mitigating asymmetries of a social, political, and economic order, thus fostering the effective validity of the fundamental values of democracy. Despite the division of this agreement into three parts: political dialogue, cooperation, and trade, the truth is that a large part of its provisions circumvent the scope of the Social and Democratic Rule of Law, as will be seen below.
• B)Costa Rica as a Social and Democratic Rule of Law: The Costa Rican State is a Social and Democratic Rule of Law based on what was established by the Original Constituent Power (Acts of the 1949 Constituent Assembly) and in constitutional jurisprudence, even though there is no constitutional norm that says so literally.
• 1)According to what was established in the Acts of the National Constituent Assembly (Actas de Asamblea Nacional Constituyente) "A Constitution is made for a people with fundamentally differing points of view" (Act No. 49) and the Draft Constitution discussed in 1949 "far from establishing an exclusivist economic thesis, establishes a flexible system so that in the future governments of opposing tendencies, different ideologies, may come, which may, despite this, exercise their activities within the constitutional framework, without the need to reform the Political Charter ... the drafting Committee tried to establish a Constitution that contemplates the aspirations of different groups and sectors, flexible - therefore - as expressed by the North American Justice Holmes in his dissenting vote of 1905 that I allowed myself to read here, no Constitution should encompass a specific economic theory, be it that of interventionism, be it that of classical liberalism, on the contrary, the Constitution must be malleable, flexible, so that in the future the country can legally accommodate new tendencies and can continue its life uninterruptedly, especially in economic and social matters, without the need for constant reforms of the Political Charter." (see Act number 50) for which reason it was later stated in that same act that "The contemporary world demands that political freedoms be complemented with social security institutions that guarantee the dignity of the human person." Thus, our Political Constitution has maintained a complement between freedoms and social rights, because even if it had dealt entirely with one (freedoms) or the other (social rights) it would cease to be a Democratic Constitution, as is also mentioned in the same Act 50 of the Constituent Assembly, when it was again held that: "no Constitution should encompass a specific economic theory, whether it be that of interventionism, or that of classical liberalism, unless it is the Constitution of a totalitarian or dictatorial country. On the contrary, the Constitution of democratic countries must be flexible, so that in the future it can accommodate new tendencies…" for as Constituent Rodrigo Facio says: "It is a balance, in my opinion, a very healthy one, Social Justice with Economic Efficiency: let justice not kill efficiency, nor efficiency kill justice." Such a tendency is also denoted in our Political Constitution when the chapter relating to social guarantees (Act No. 115) is discussed, particularly in the drafting of the current Article 50 which states: "The State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth..." note that against the proposal that sought to change the word "organizing" for the word "guiding", the former was preferred because it was said that the contrary "comes to mutilate a fundamental principle, which is that the State must participate in the guidance of the national economy." This text and its content have special relevance, because it implies that the State must participate in the guidance of the national economy and that there must not be provisions of a legal order that limit, in the abstract, without any nuance, the intervention of the State or that justify its generalized and unlimited intervention. It would not be admissible for legislation to define, without limiting it to a specific situation, a liberal or interventionist orientation.
• 2)Constitutional Jurisprudence (Jurisprudencia Constitucional): This Constitutional Court has been systematically reiterating in its resolutions that our country is a Social and Democratic Rule of Law, based fundamentally on the values derived from Articles 50 and 74 of the constitutional text. In this regard, just to mention some judgments, there are the following: 1993-3464, 1995-0550, 1995-1273, 1995-3067, 1995-4286, 1995-4286, 1995-5545, 1995-6347, 1996-1029, 1997-6469, 1996-2379, 1996-3250, 1996-2810, 1997-1019, 1997-1625, 1997-5035, 1997-8325, 2004-14247, 2003-2794, 2003-2771, 2005-16962, 2006-9565, 2006-17113. From all of them, several conclusions can be drawn: first, that the basic general principle of the Political Constitution is embodied in Article 50, by providing that "the State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth" which, together with the declaration of the Costa Rican State's adherence to the Christian principle of social justice, included in Article 74 ibid, determines the very essence of the political and social system we have chosen for our country and which defines it as a Social Rule of Law (Estado Social de Derecho). Second, that the current Constitution, in its Article 50, gives constitutional foundation to a certain degree of State intervention in the economy, postulating economic freedom but with a certain degree of reasonable, proportionate, and non-discriminatory state intervention, allowing the State, within such limits, to organize and stimulate production, as well as to ensure an "adequate" distribution of wealth. Third, that freedom of commerce is not an absolute individual guarantee, but finds its limits in those that the State legitimately establishes, for the benefit of the generality of its citizens, always within the global context of the Law of the Constitution. Fourth, that one of the basic connotations of the Costa Rican State, like every Social Rule of Law, is the intervention of those who govern, to provide a solution to social problems. The Political Constitution itself obliges the State to actively participate, not only in production processes (Article 50), but also in those related to the development of the fundamental rights of the individual (housing, education, clothing, food, etc.) that guarantee them a dignified and useful existence for society. Fifth, that public administrations, far from fulfilling a passive role of solely and exclusively fostering the individual exercise of fundamental rights, have a duty of provision and assistance in order to procure for all persons who make up the community a minimum vital sphere and, of course, to eradicate all obstacles and impediments to the achievement of real and effective equality among them. Sixth, that from the definition of the Costa Rican State as a Social State derives the State's power to deploy a series of limitations on fundamental rights in consideration of the greater benefit of the community, in order to guarantee public order, social morality, the rights of third parties (Article 28 of the Constitution), and the validity of democratic and constitutional values. Seventh, that the Social Rule of Law produces the phenomenon of the incorporation into the fundamental text of a series of political objectives of great social relevance and the introduction of an important number of social rights that ensure the common good and the satisfaction of the elementary needs of individuals. These conceptual determinations are important and of great transcendence, because constitutional jurisprudence has recognized a special strength in fundamental rights and in the political and economic system, which undoubtedly encompasses the Social and Democratic Rule of Law. In Considering VII of judgment 03-2771, it is stated that "....In the case of constitutional reform, there is a large and important difference: those constitutional norms relating to fundamental rights or transcendental political decisions can only be reformed by a Constituent Assembly in accordance with Article 196 of the Political Constitution. For the sake of the firmness of the statement, we repeat that the original norms concerning fundamental rights and political and economic systems can only be diminished by a constituent assembly. …"; in this same Considering, it is reiterated that the partial reform of the Constitution can be carried out by the Legislative Assembly, "…as long as its activity does not negatively affect fundamental rights, nor the political and economic system, that the Costa Ricans substantially gave themselves through the constituent power…". These interesting insights on the value of the political and economic system, which is linked to the Social and Democratic Rule of Law, have an impact on some of the issues of the Treaty, because State intervention is limited beyond what is constitutionally permitted.
• C)Instruments of the Social and Democratic Rule of Law: In order for the Costa Rican State to fulfill that duty of provision and assistance to procure a minimum vital sphere for all inhabitants, and to eradicate all obstacles that impede social equity, it is endowed with a series of tools, such as economic policy instruments to support and protect the national producer, and mechanisms that allow the State to intervene in the economy to promote a fairer and more adequate distribution of wealth, among many others. All these instruments, as will be stated below, are diminished, weakened, and neutralized by certain provisions contained in the consulted bill, as explained below.

II.- CONFRONTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CENTRAL AMERICA, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES, ON THE OTHER, WITH THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE SOCIAL AND DEMOCRATIC RULE OF LAW:

• A)On the unconstitutionality of the power provided for in Article 6.2 of the Treaty, which confers binding character on the decisions adopted by the Association Council. As stated in the dissenting vote to judgment No. 2007-09469, which resolved the accumulated Consultations numbers 07-005632-0007-CO and 07-007153-0007-CO filed respectively by Lisbeth Quesada Tristán and the deputies Rafael Elías Madrigal Brenes, Alberto Salom Echeverría, José Merino del Río, Ronald Solís, Marvin Rojas Rodríguez, José Joaquín Salazar, Nidia M. González, Leda Zamora Chaves, Andrea Morales, Sadie Bravo de Maroto, Grettel Ortiz Alvarez, Patricia Quirós Quirós, Francisco Molina Gamboa, Lesvia Villalobos Salas, José Rosales, Olivier Pérez González, Oscar López, Elizabeth Fonseca and Orlando Murillo, regarding the approval bill for the "Free Trade Agreement between the Dominican Republic, Central America and the United States", a substantive defect is noted in the content of the Treaty, to the extent that binding character is given to the decisions of the Association Council. In this regard, on that occasion it was considered:

"According to paragraph 2 of Article 10.23 of the consulted Treaty, the decisions of this Commission are binding on our Courts. Said provision literally states:

"Article 10.23: Interpretation of the Annexes … 2. The decision issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be binding on the tribunal and any decision or award issued by the tribunal must be consistent with that decision. If the Commission fails to issue such a decision within the 60-day period, the tribunal shall decide on the matter." This provision, inserted into this Treaty, establishes such binding force, unlike other Free Trade Agreements signed and ratified by Costa Rica where no clause is established determining that the interpretations of legal provisions made by the Commission are binding on the Parties. Precisely this addition has a qualitative impact vis-à-vis the Constitution, a situation that makes this provision unconstitutional. Thus then, this Commission would not only have broad powers of interpretation, but these would be of mandatory compliance for the Judicial Courts and administrative bodies, as established in Article 20.20.2:

"Article 20.20: Proceedings Before Domestic Judicial and Administrative Bodies …

2. The Party in whose territory the tribunal or administrative body is located shall present to them any interpretation agreed upon by the Commission, in accordance with the procedures of that forum. " In the specific case, it is observed, as in the aforementioned case, that the decisions of the Association Council have binding character, which constitutes a breach of the sovereignty of the Nation. The foregoing is aggravated by the fact that the decisions of said Council, in the case of the Central American countries, are adopted by consensus, which could mean that a decision is taken with which the representative of Costa Rica did not agree (taking into consideration that consensus is not synonymous with unanimity). All of which is openly contrary to Constitutional norms, principles, and values, since not only can this Association Council exercise powers exclusive to the Branches of the Republic (such as modifying and interpreting the provisions of the Treaty), but also its recommendations are materially binding, even for the Judicial Courts. The violation of the provisions of the referenced Agreement against the Law of the Constitution is evident, reason for which its unconstitutionality must be declared.

• B)On the unconstitutionality of what is provided for in environmental matters. As in the case decided in judgment No. 2007-09469, it is considered that the existing regulations in the Treaty under study regarding environmental matters are violative of the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution.

In this regard, although the Treaty insists on the obligation of the States Parties to respect domestic environmental legislation, as well as to pursue sustainable development, the truth is that trade in forest resources is permitted without major limitation. In this order, Article 289 thereof stipulates:

"Article 289. Trade in forest products. With the aim of promoting the sustainable management of forest resources, the Parties undertake to work together to improve the application of forest legislation and governance, through instruments that may include, among other things: the effective use of CITES with respect to endangered timber species: certification schemes for forest products extracted sustainably, and regional or bilateral Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade voluntary partnership agreements (hereinafter FLEGT)." Thus, the trafficking of sensitive or endangered forest products is covertly permitted, trade in which should not occur under any circumstances, in strict adherence to the environmental provisions in force in the country, as well as to the International Human Rights Instruments applicable in the Republic. It is clear that the regulations of this agreement are somewhat complex and constitute a perverse mechanism that covers up situations in which the guarantee provided in Article 50 of the Constitution is clearly violated. In relation to the preceding argument, the following statement by the Constitutional Chamber in Vote No. 1304-93 is relevant:

"All of human life occurs in an inevitable relationship with its environment, especially with the improvement of the quality of life, which is the central objective that development needs, but this must be in relation to the environment in such a way that it is harmonious and sustainable. The environment must be understood as a potential for development to be used appropriately, and action must be taken in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships, since, otherwise, its productivity is degraded for the present and the future, and the heritage of future generations may be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the style of socioeconomic development adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the modalities of exploitation of natural resources give rise to a degradation of ecosystems that exceeds their regeneration capacity, which leads to broad sectors of the population being harmed and generates a high environmental and social cost that results in a deterioration of the quality of life; precisely because the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life..., but more important than that is to understand that although man has the right to use the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations." In this way, all infra-constitutional norms must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Constitution, the precedents, and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (judgment 1185-95, 1893-95, 6192-95, 1056-96, 4256-99, 1999-07181, 07371-99, 2000-08193, and 2002-01228). For this reason, the present mandatory constitutional consultation must be answered to the effect that what is provided for in Article 289 of the Treaty violates Constitutional Law.

• C)Regarding the unconstitutionality of the mechanism provided for in the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, with respect to dispute settlement. It is considered that Article 308 and the following articles of the referred Association Agreement are unconstitutional, insofar as they obligate the Costa Rican State to resolve its disputes with respect to another non-Central American Party to the Treaty regarding the interpretation or application of Part IV of the Agreement, firstly, through the Consultations mechanism (see Article 310 thereof), as well as before the Special Panel (see Article 311 ibidem), violating the sovereign power of the State to decide whether or not to attend, and what matters it will submit to these processes proposed by a Party to the Agreement. What these provisions mean is that the Costa Rican State is giving a kind of prior, generic consent for all cases presented to it; evidently, this would be an unconstitutional provision, basically because these procedures, to be such, must be absolutely voluntary and it cannot be interpreted that this willingness is established once and for all, but rather must be manifested in each specific case, especially taking into account that there are certain matters that – by their nature – cannot be the subject of these dispute settlement processes, as would be the exercise of certain public powers. In the specific case, it is clear that the airing of the matter before a Special Panel constitutes submitting the dispute mandatory to an arbitration process. It should be taken into account that the very jurisprudence of this Constitutional Court has determined that Article 43 of the Political Constitution establishes that every person has the right to terminate their disputes, of a patrimonial nature, by means of arbitrators; and that the exercise of such a right is strictly voluntary since it requires a meeting of the minds between the parties in conflict. As this Chamber has rightly pointed out on a previous occasion:

"(...) in parallel to the right that individuals have to resort to the Courts of Justice to obtain a 'fulfilled' pronouncement, that is to say, correct, useful, the constituent provided in Article 43 'the right' of every person to resort, of course, voluntarily, to the arbitral procedure to elucidate their patrimonial differences. The use of this alternative route supposes a meeting of the minds between the parties. (...)" (Judgment No. 2307-95, of 4 p.m. on May 9, 1995).

From the foregoing, it follows that the essence of arbitration lies in the autonomy of the will of the parties. Indeed, it is the parties in conflict who must select both the arbitrators (in this case, the members of the Special Panel) and the procedure within which those arbitrators will be subject to their action and the effects that the final resolution will have. Thus then, arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method (resolución alternativa de conflictos), with constitutional character, but for it to be such it must be voluntary (resolution number 2005-02995 of two forty-five p.m. on March sixteen, two thousand five). To the extent that an arbitration is established on an obligatory basis (or with prior, generic, and unexceptional consent), this figure would be denatured, and therefore, violating, in addition to Article 43 of the Constitution, the principle of national sovereignty according to which, the government – who acts as the representative of the people – has the right to decide, by itself, which controversies are resolved through an arbitral process (that is, through the use of the Special Panel figure) and which are not. A question to be determined on a case by case (casuísticamente) basis, which prevents a kind of consent given in advance in a generic manner for all types of controversies. It is, for this reason, that the mechanism provided for from Article 308 and following of the Association Agreement with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism is unconstitutional.

• D)Regarding the reference to the Central American Court of Justice as an organ of Central American integration, despite the fact that the Republic of Costa Rica has at no time admitted the jurisdiction or the competence of that Jurisdictional Body: Finally, the preamble of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, is unconstitutional, insofar as it literally provides: "RECOGNIZING the progress achieved in the Central American economic integration process, such as the ratification of the Framework Convention for the strengthening of the Central American Customs Union and the Treaty on Investment and Trade in Services, as well as the application of a jurisdictional mechanism that guarantees compliance with regional economic legislation throughout the Central American region", insofar as it constitutes a direct, explicit, and unequivocal reference to the Central American Court of Justice, which is the Supranational Jurisdictional Body of the Central American Integration System and is responsible for ensuring the interpretation and application of Central American Community Law, whose jurisdiction and competence, however, has not yet been recognized by the Republic of Costa Rica. For this reason, and given that our country has not yet endorsed the Jurisdiction of that Court, any explicit reference made to it in an international treaty approved by the country is unconstitutional, because it evades the scopes of Articles 7 and 121, subsection 4) of the Fundamental Text.
• E)Regarding the violation of the Constitution by the progressive liberalization clause for the establishment and trade of services: For the same reasons indicated previously, the progressive liberalization clause for the establishment and trade of services provided in Article 159 of the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, is contrary to Article 50 of the Political Constitution and the scopes of the Social and Democratic State under the Rule of Law (Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho), insofar as it leaves aside state policies that seek an equitable distribution of wealth among the less favored sectors. Based on the foregoing, the consultation formulated must be answered to the effect that what is provided in Article 159 of the Agreement is unconstitutional.
• III)IN CONCLUSION.- In accordance with the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrates dissent and answer the consultation formulated to the effect that the present bill to approve the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, legislative file No. 18,563, contains procedural and substantive defects.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Dissenting vote of Magistrate Armijo Sancho. Regarding the violation of the principle of publicity as the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, on the other, was not published in its entirety. On this matter, the undersigned Magistrate considers that the fact that the present Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, and its annexes, was not published in its entirety constitutes a gross violation of the principle of publicity, as well as of legislative due process. Indeed, upon reviewing the publication made of the bill in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 220 of November 14, 2012, Scope No. 180 (see website: http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf, consulted on June 19, 2013), 2 folios corresponding to the First Annex are missing. In this line of thought, upon reviewing the text of the Agreement in La Gaceta, the absence in the publication of the page visible at folio 1006 of the certified copy (EU/CENTR-AM/Annex I/es 544), as well as folio 1572, is verified, which correspond to Annex I of the Agreement, which deals with the elimination of customs tariffs on the occasion of the Agreement. For this reason, and given that the consulted bill was not published in its entirety, the undersigned Magistrate considers that this constitutes a substantial defect in the legislative procedure, which must be pointed out on this occasion. Consequently, the consultation formulated must be answered to the effect that the approval procedure for the Agreement establishing an Association between Central America, on one hand, and the European Union and its Member States, is unconstitutional.

Gilbert Armijo S.

*130060080007CO* *130060080007CO* Res. Nº 2013-008252 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas del veintiuno de junio de dos mil trece.

Consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad formulada por el Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa y referida al proyecto de ley tramitado en el expediente legislativo Nº 18.563, denominado “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”.

Resultando:

1.- Por oficio recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 14:21 horas del 29 de mayo de 2013, la Secretaría del Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa remitió esta consulta en cumplimiento de lo establecido en el inciso a) del artículo 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, junto con una copia certificada del 2.- Por resolución de las 15:14 horas del 29 de mayo de 2013, se tuvo por recibido el correspondiente, al Magistrado redactor.

3.- En el proceso se han observado las prescripciones de ley y esta resolución se dicta dentro del plazo legal respectivo, que vence el 29 de junio de 2013.

Redacta el Magistrado Rueda Leal; y,

Considerando:

I.- Objeto y admisibilidad de la consulta. Esta consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad se formula por el Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en los artículos 10, inciso b), de la Constitución Política y 96, inciso a), de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Esta referida al proyecto de ley denominado “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, que se tramita en el instrumentos internacionales y otras disposiciones, que ya fue sometido a votación en primer debate en la Sesión Plenaria Nº 12 del 21 de mayo de 2013 (ver folios 12.155 y 12.387 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).

II.- Generalidades del proyecto de ley Nº 18.563 “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”. Según la ley tiene como fin aprobar 5 diferentes artículos. En el primer numeral, se dispone propiamente la aprobación del Acuerdo de Asociación entre Centroamérica y la Unión Europea. Este Acuerdo de Asociación, a su vez, está estructurado en 5 apartados principales, según se explicará: el primer y último apartado contienen disposiciones tradicionales del Derecho de los Tratados. Verbigracia, en la parte I de “Disposiciones Generales e Institucionales” (artículos 1 al 11), se enuncian los principios, objetivos y ámbito de aplicación del Acuerdo, así como el marco institucional para poder aplicarlo. En la parte V de “Disposiciones Finales” (artículos 352 al 363), se establecen las reglas de vigencia, duración, nuevas adhesiones, contenidos que forman parte del tratado (apéndices, notas, declaraciones conjuntas y anexos), imposibilidad de aplicar reservas o declaraciones unilaterales, y textos auténticos. La parte II del Acuerdo (artículos 12 al 23) está destinada al “Diálogo Político” y sustituye el anterior “Acuerdo de Diálogo Político y Cooperación entre la Comunidad Europea y sus Estados miembros por una parte, y las Repúblicas de Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua y Panamá por otra parte”, suscrito en la ciudad de Roma el 15 de diciembre de 2003 y ratificado por Costa Rica mediante ley número 8919 del 16 de diciembre de 2010. Esta parte del Acuerdo tiene como fin crear una asociación política privilegiada entre ambas regiones (Centroamérica y la Unión Europea) con base en valores e intereses comunes. La Parte III (artículos 24 al 76) está destinada a la “Cooperación”, principalmente orientada a habilitar ciertos mecanismos de cooperación necesarios dentro de las áreas de interés que se identifican de mutuo acuerdo entre las Partes. Finalmente, la Parte IV denominada “Comercio” (artículos del 77 al 351) contiene elementos propios de un tratado de libre comercio, que en 21 títulos regula componentes como “comercio de mercancías” (GATT), “comercio de servicios” (AGCS), “inversión” (pagos corrientes y movimientos de capital -TRIM´s-), “propiedad intelectual” (TRIP´s), y “solución de diferencias” (DSU). En esta Parte IV se incluyen, además, aspectos relativos al carácter interregional del Acuerdo y otros temas como el título de Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible, el relativo a Comercio y Competencia, y el Protocolo anexo de Cooperación Cultural.

En el segundo artículo del proyecto de ley sometido a consulta, se dispone la aprobación de una Enmienda al “Convenio sobre Comercio de Especies Amenazadas de Flora y Fauna de Vida Silvestre”, pues su ratificación ha sido parte de la negociación política con la Unión Europea. Costa Rica ya es Parte de dicho Convenio y la Enmienda está destinada a permitir la participación de bloques regionales u organizaciones supranacionales (como la UE) en dicho Convenio, y no únicamente Estados en su concepción individual.

En los artículos tres y cuatro del proyecto de ley se crea expresamente un Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres y se le dota de los recursos financieros necesarios, para cuyo efecto se crea un impuesto de salida por puertos terrestres y un impuesto a cada declaración aduanera de exportación (igualmente por puestos fronterizos terrestres).

Por último, en el ordinal quinto se decide asignar al Ministerio de Comercio Exterior la representación del país ante la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE).

III.- De previo. Primeramente es necesario recordar el necesario deslinde que debe hacerse en este tipo de asuntos entre los aspectos de oportunidad o conveniencia económica y socio-política, por un lado, y las cuestiones de constitucionalidad de estos instrumentos internacionales, por el otro. En el voto número 2007-09469 de las 10:00 horas del 03 de julio de 2007 se indicó: “(…) este Tribunal Constitucional, por las atribuciones constitucional y legalmente que tiene conferidas, las que se resumen en el fin o propósito de garantizar la supremacía de la Constitución (artículo 10 de la Constitución y 1° de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), no tiene competencia para ponderar la oportunidad, conveniencia o mérito de un Tratado de Libre Comercio. Son los órganos constitucionales que tienen a su cargo la dirección política o de gobierno y la responsabilidad de trazar e implementar las principales políticas públicas de carácter social y económico los principales llamados a efectuar esa valoración. Es así, como el Poder Ejecutivo en sentido estricto -Presidente y Ministro del sector-, de previo a ejercer la atribución contenida en el artículo 140, inciso 10), de la Constitución de celebrar convenios y tratados públicos, es el que debe efectuar ese análisis. Del mismo modo, la Asamblea Legislativa, en ejercicio de la potestad legislativa -la cual reside en el pueblo y es delegada en ésta por medio del sufragio, artículo 105, párrafo 1°, de la Constitución- es un órgano llamado, antes de ejercer su competencia del artículo 121, inciso 4°, de aprobar o improbar los convenios o tratados públicos, de valorar la oportunidad y conveniencia social, económica y política de un instrumento de esa naturaleza (…)

En suma, a este Tribunal Constitucional le compete, única y exclusivamente, a la luz del texto del Tratado suscrito por el Poder Ejecutivo determinar si existe alguna norma o disposición que violente el Derecho de la Constitución, entendiendo por tal los principios, valores, preceptos y jurisprudencia constitucionales. Este Tribunal está constitucionalmente inhabilitado e impedido, por la propia distribución de competencias y organización que dispone la Constitución Política, para determinar si un instrumento internacional resulta social, económica y políticamente conveniente y oportuno para el país, puesto que, el objeto de la jurisdicción constitucional, tal y como lo establece el artículo 1° de la ley que la regula, es “(…) garantizar la supremacía de las normas y principios constitucionales y del Derecho Internacional o Comunitario vigente en la República, su uniforme interpretación y aplicación, así como los derechos y libertades fundamentales consagrado en la Constitución o en los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos vigentes en Costa Rica” (…) Por ello, ante las consultas presentadas, únicamente serán analizados los aspectos que de alguna forma pueden generar dudas de constitucionalidad, dejando claro que todo lo relativo a la conveniencia o no de la aprobación, así como los aspectos económicos que envuelven al Tratado, no son extremos que puedan discutirse en esta vía. Sobre este punto, ya esta Sala se pronunció con ocasión de la aprobación del Tratado de Libre Comercio suscrito con México (…)” (lo subrayado no corresponde al original).

El voto citado anteriormente resulta de plena aplicación en este caso, en el que tampoco puede emitirse un pronunciamiento más allá del control de constitucionalidad, sin que se intervenga en aspectos propios de oportunidad política.

Aclarado el punto, lo primero que procede, a efectos de evacuar la presente consulta, es verificar los trámites legislativos seguidos en el sub lite, en concordancia con lo que señala el artículo 98 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, al disponer que la consulta deberá hacerse después de aprobado el proyecto en primer debate y antes de la aprobación definitiva y que, al evacuarla, la Sala dictaminará sobre cualesquiera aspectos o motivos que estime relevantes desde el punto de vista constitucional, pero en forma vinculante solo en lo que se refiere a los trámites procedimentales (ordinal 101 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). Para los efectos anteriores, en el siguiente considerando se hará una síntesis cronológica del trámite legislativo del proyecto de ley consultado.

IV.- La tramitación del expediente Nº 18.563 en la Asamblea Legislativa. El proyecto de ley denominado “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo Nº 18.563, ha seguido el siguiente íter:

• 1)El 29 de junio de 2012, la Ministra de Comercio Exterior, Anabel González Campabadal, y el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Enrique Castillo Barrantes, suscribieron el “Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro” (ver folios 453 y 454 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 2)El 6 de setiembre de 2012, el Ministro de la Presidencia, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, remitió a la Asamblea Legislativa el proyecto de Ley denominado “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, para que se le diera el trámite de rigor (ver folio 1 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 3)El 6 de setiembre de 2012, el proyecto de Ley “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, expediente Nº 18.563, fue remitido a la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y de Comercio Exterior (ver folio 4.990 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 4)El 9 de octubre de 2012, una copia certificada del expediente Nº 18.563 fue remitida al Departamento de Estudios, Referencias y Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa para lo correspondiente (ver folio 4.991 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 5)El 13 de noviembre de 2012, el Director del Departamento de Archivo Investigación y Trámite de la Asamblea Legislativa remitió a la Imprenta Nacional el proyecto de Ley en cuestión para su publicación (ver folio 4.992 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 6)El 14 de noviembre de 2012, en el Alcance Nº 180 del Diario Oficial La Gaceta Nº 220, se publicó el proyecto de Ley “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, expediente Nº 18.563 (ver http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-1_14_11_2012.pdf, consultada el 31 de mayo de 2013).
• 7)El 21 de noviembre de 2012, varios Diputados y Diputadas de la Asamblea Legislativa presentaron una moción (a la cual se le asignó el número 3 – 19) para que el instituciones: todas las municipalidades y Concejos Municipales de Distrito, todas las instituciones autónomas, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Nacional, Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Universidad Técnica Nacional, Consejo Nacional de Rectores, CONESUP, Corte Suprema de Justicia, Procuraduría General de la República, Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Defensoría de los Habitantes, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Ministerio de Gobernación, Policía y Seguridad Pública, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio, Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, Ministerio de Salud, Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo, Corporación Hortícola Nacional, Corporación Bananera Nacional, Grupo ICE, Contraloría General de la República, Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, Programa Integral de Mercadeo Agropecuario, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo S.A., Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, todos los Colegios Profesionales, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial, Cámara de Agroindustria, Cámara de Comercio, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Cámara de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación, CRECEX, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara de Avicultores, Cámara de Porcicultores (ver folios 4.996 y 4.997 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 8)El 22 de noviembre de 2012, en sesión ordinaria Nº 19 de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, se aprobó la referida moción (ver folio 4.997 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 9)El 21 de noviembre de 2012, varias Diputadas y Diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa presentaron una moción (a la cual se le asignó el número 4–19) para que se convocara a audiencia a jerarcas y representantes de las siguientes instituciones: Cámara de Agricultura y Agroindustria, Cámara Nacional de Porcicultores, Cámara de Exportadores de Costa Rica, Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, Universidad de Costa Rica, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Cámara Nacional de Avicultores y Corporación Ganadera (ver folio 1068 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 10)El 22 de noviembre de 2012, en sesión ordinaria Nº 19 de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, se aprobó dicha moción (ver folio 4.998 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 11)El 29 de noviembre de 2012, el Ministro de la Presidencia comunicó al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 37.411-MP, el Poder Ejecutivo había convocado a sesiones extraordinarias a partir de la fecha que se indica en el Decreto; entre los proyectos incluidos se encontraba el legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 12)La Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior recibió respuesta de los siguientes consultados: Municipalidad de Bagaces, Municipalidad de Belén, Concejo Municipal de Lepanto, CONESUP, Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas del Desarrollo, Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara Costarricense de la Industria Alimentaria, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Consejo Nacional de Producción, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal, Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres, Instituto Nacional de Seguros, Junta de Protección Social de San José, Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (ver folios 5.804 al 5.817 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 13)La Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior recibió en audiencia a: Cámara Nacional de Agricultura y Agroindustria, CADEXCO, Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, Universidad de Costa Rica, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara Nacional de Avicultores (ver folios 5.817 al 5.832 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 14)El 17 de diciembre de 2012, el Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa entregó el informe jurídico relativo al relacionado con el proyecto de ley que se tramita bajo expediente legislativo Nº 18.563 (ver folio 5.689 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 15)El 17 de diciembre de 2012, mediante oficio número DM-00743-12, la Ministra de Comercio Exterior presentó ante la Presidenta de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, varias notas diplomáticas que aluden a errores de forma específicos que fueron detectados en los textos del Acuerdo relacionados con los otros países centroamericanos (exceptuando el caso de Costa Rica); además, aclara que tales correcciones de forma no modifican los derechos y obligaciones asumidos por nuestro país y la Unión Europea (ver folio 5.743 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 16)El 18 de diciembre de 2012, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior dictaminó afirmativamente y de forma unánime el proyecto de ley denominado “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, expediente legislativo Nº 18.563 (ver folio 5.792 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 17)El 21 de enero de 2013, el dictamen unánime afirmativo de la Comisión Especial Permanente de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior fue entregado al Plenario Legislativo (ver folio 10.836 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 18)El 5 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión Nº 127, el Plenario Legislativo inició la discusión por el fondo del expediente Nº 18.563; sin embargo, tenía mociones presentadas vía artículo 137 que pasaron a la Comisión Dictaminadora (ver folio 10.910 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 19)El 7 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión ordinaria Nº 29 de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior se discutieron las mociones formuladas, las que finalmente fueron desechadas (ver folio 10.932 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 20)El 7 de febrero de 2013, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior entregó al Directorio Legislativo el primer informe de las mociones remitidas (ver folio 10.930 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 21)El 7 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión Nº 129, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo; sin embargo, se presentaron nuevas mociones vía artículo 137 que pasaron a la Comisión Dictaminadora (ver folio 11.007 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 22)El 11 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión extraordinaria Nº 31, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior discutió las mociones formuladas y, finalmente, las desechó (ver folio 11.020 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 23)El 12 de febrero de 2013, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior entregó el segundo informe de mociones remitidas por el Plenario Legislativo (ver folio 11.018 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 24)El 12 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 131, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563; empero, tenía nuevas mociones presentadas que pasaron a la Comisión Dictaminadora (ver folio 11.043 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 25)El 13 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión ordinaria Nº 33 de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, se discutieron las mociones formuladas y, finalmente, fueron desechadas (ver folio 11.061 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 26)El 14 de febrero de 2013, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior entregó al Directorio Legislativo el tercer informe de las mociones remitidas (ver folio 11.059 de la copia certificada del 27) El 19 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión Nº 134, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo; sin embargo, se presentaron nuevas mociones que pasaron a la Comisión Dictaminadora (ver folio 11.081 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 28)El 20 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión extraordinaria Nº 35, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, discutió las mociones formuladas y, finalmente, las desechó (ver folio 11.117 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 29)El 21 de febrero de 2013, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior entregó el cuarto informe de mociones remitidas por el Plenario Legislativo (ver folio 11.115 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 30)El 28 de febrero de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 140, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, con el cuarto informe de mociones vía artículo 137 (ver folio 11.267 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 31)El 4 de marzo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 141, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, y se contabilizó la primera sesión para la presentación de mociones de reiteración (ver folio 11.274 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 32)El 5 de marzo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 142, el Plenario Legislativo siguió la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, y se contabilizó la segunda sesión para la presentación de mociones de reiteración (ver folio 11.280 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 33)El 7 de marzo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 144, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, y se contabilizó la tercera sesión para la presentación de mociones de reiteración (ver folio 11.286 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 34)El 11 de marzo de 2013, el Ministro de la Presidencia comunicó al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 37.585-MP, el Poder Ejecutivo había retirado del conocimiento de sesiones extraordinarias varios copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 35)El 11 de marzo de 2013, el Ministro de la Presidencia comunicó al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 37.586-MP, el Poder Ejecutivo había ampliado la convocatoria a sesiones extraordinarias a partir de la fecha que se indica en el Decreto; entre los proyectos incluidos se encontraba el expediente Nº 18.563 (ver folio 11.294 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 36)El 18 de marzo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 149, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desecharon 3 mociones, la primera vía artículo 154, la segunda vía artículo 155 y la tercera vía artículo 153, a esta última se le presentó una moción de revisión que también fue desechada, entre otras mociones desechadas (ver folio 11.320 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 37)El 19 de marzo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 150, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desechó 1 moción de revisión sobre una moción vía artículo 153; además, se desechó una moción vía artículo 153 y se desechó una revisión a esa moción, entre otras mociones desechadas (ver folio 11.400 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 38)El 21 de marzo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 152, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desecharon 2 mociones, una de consulta y otra vía artículo 155, seguidamente se desechó 1 moción de consulta y otra vía artículo 153 (ver folio 11.481 de la copia certificada del 39) El 1º de abril de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 153, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desecharon 7 mociones de orden vía artículo 153, asimismo se desecharon 6 mociones de revisión a las mociones antes citadas (ver folio 11.506 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 40)El 2 de abril de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 154, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desecharon 2 mociones de orden vía artículo 153, asimismo se desecharon 2 mociones de revisión a las mociones antes citadas, entre otros varios trámites relativos a mociones (ver folio 11.608 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 41)El 4 de abril de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 156, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desechó 1 moción de orden vía artículo 153; igualmente se desechó 1 moción de revisión a la moción antes citada (ver folio 11.707 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 42)El 8 de abril de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 157, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desecharon 7 mociones de reiteración; también se desecharon 8 mociones de revisión a las mociones antes citadas (ver folio 11.731 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 43)El 9 de abril de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 158, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desecharon 4 mociones de reiteración: en adición, se desecharon 4 mociones de revisión a las mociones antes citadas (ver folio 11.860 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 44)El 16 de abril de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 161, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desechó 1 moción de posposición; luego, se presentó 1 moción de revisión que fue aprobada, por lo que quedó aprobada la moción de posposición (ver folio 11.985 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 45)El 16 de abril de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 161, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se aprobó una moción para que se alterara el orden del día de las sesiones del Plenario, para que en la segunda parte de la sesión el expediente Nº 18.563 ocupara el primer de los Primeros Debates (ver folio 11.998 y 11.999 de la copia certificada del 46) El 1º de mayo de 2013, la diputada María Jeanette Ruiz Delgado solicitó poner a despacho el proyecto (ver folio 12.009 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 47)El 6 de mayo de 2013, el diputado Edgardo Araya Pineda solicitó poner a despacho el proyecto (ver folio 12.010 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 48)El 9 de mayo de 2013, el diputado Edgardo Araya Pineda solicitó de nuevo poner a despacho el proyecto (ver folio 12.011 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 49)El 9 de mayo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 6, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se aprobó una moción de posposición para que se pospusiera el conocimiento del expediente 18.563, que se encuentra en el primer lugar de primeros debates y se conozca el resto del Orden del Día en el orden subsiguiente (ver folio 12.012 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 50)El 13 de mayo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 7, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desechó 1 moción de revisión a una moción de reiteración, asimismo se desechó la moción de reiteración número 14-1 y su respectiva revisión (ver folio 12.020 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 51)El 16 de mayo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 10, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563; además, se anunció la moción de revisión de la moción número 25 de reiteración (ver folio 12.058 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 52)El 14 de mayo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 8, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto Nº 18.563, se desecharon 6 mociones de reiteración, asimismo se desecharon 6 mociones de revisión de las mociones antes citadas; seguidamente se retiraron 4 mociones de reiteración (ver folio 12.066 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 53)El 21 de mayo de 2013, en la sesión plenaria Nº 12, el Plenario Legislativo continuó con la discusión por el fondo del proyecto “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”, expediente Nº 18.563, el cual fue votado en primer debate con treinta y siete Diputados a favor y cuatro en contra (ver folio 12.387 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 54)El 24 de mayo de 2013, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción recibió de la Secretaría del Directorio el expediente Nº 18.563 para continuar con el trámite respectivo (ver folio 12.390 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 55)El 28 de mayo de 2013, el Departamento de Servicios Técnicos presentó Informe para la Comisión Especial de Redacción, con algunas observaciones para el expediente legislativo Nº 18.563 (ver folio 12.399 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 56)El 28 de mayo de 2013, en sesión ordinaria Nº 1, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción discutió lo relativo al proyecto de ley Nº 18.563 y aprobó la redacción final del mismo (ver folios 12.403 y 12.430 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).
• 57)El 28 de mayo de 2013, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción entregó a la Secretaría del Directorio la Redacción Final del expediente Nº 18.563 (ver folio 12.441 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563).

V.- Sobre el procedimiento legislativo en el caso concreto. De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 98 de la ley que rige esta Jurisdicción, este Tribunal revisó el procedimiento legislativo para la tramitación del proyecto denominado “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983”. Este Acuerdo fue suscrito por la Ministra de Comercio Exterior, Anabel González Campabadal, y el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Enrique Castillo Barrantes. La primera, se encontraba legitimada para proceder de tal forma, en virtud de lo dispuesto en el artículo 2, incisos b) y d), de la Ley Nº 7638 del 30 de octubre de 1996, por la cual se crea el Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Promotora de Comercio Exterior y lo señalado por el Tribunal Constitucional en el voto número 8190-2002 de las 11:12 horas de 23 de agosto de 2002:

“(…) IV.- Suscripción del Tratado. Esta Sala estima que la firma del Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Costa Rica y Canadá por parte del Ministro de Comercio Exterior, sin el concurso del Presidente de la República, no es contrario al Derecho de la Constitución. De la lectura del artículo 140 inciso 10) se desprende que la firma de los tratados internacionales es una atribución del Poder Ejecutivo, entendido como el órgano colegiado compuesto por el Presidente y el Ministro del Ramo. No obstante, la misma Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados, aprobada mediante Ley número 7615 de veinticuatro de julio de mil novecientos noventa y seis, en su artículo 7° dispone en lo conducente:

“ARTICULO 7.- Plenos poderes. 1.- Para la adopción o la autenticación del texto de un tratado, o para manifestar el consentimiento del Estado en obligarse por un tratado, se considerará que una persona representa a un Estado: a) Si se presentan los adecuados plenos poderes, o b) Si se deduce de la práctica seguida por los Estados interesados, o de otras circunstancias, que la intención de esos Estados ha sido considerar a esa persona representante del Estado para esos efectos y prescindir de la presentación de plenos poderes.(...)” En el presente caso, estamos ante la situación descrita en el inciso b) del párrafo 2° antes transcrito, al referirse a “otras circunstancias” que demuestren la voluntad del Estado de hacerse representar por un determinado funcionario. Ello por cuanto la Ley número 7638 de treinta de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y seis da al Ministro de Comercio Exterior la competencia suficiente para negociar y suscribir sin el concurso de quien ejerza la Presidencia de la República, convenios como el traído en consulta, aun sin contar con una carta de plenos poderes. En lo que interesa, dicta el artículo 2°:“ARTICULO 2.- Atribuciones Las atribuciones del Ministerio de Comercio Exterior serán:(...) b) Dirigir las negociaciones comerciales y de inversión, bilaterales y multilaterales, incluido lo relacionado con Centroamérica, y suscribir tratados y convenios sobre esas materias. Mediante acuerdo, el Poder Ejecutivo, podrá autorizar que los tratados y convenios, así como sus modificaciones, sean firmados por los jerarcas de otros ministerios o entidades públicas del Estado que tengan competencia legal específica sobre la materia objeto del tratado o convenio. (...)

• d)Representar al país en la Organización Mundial del Comercio y en los demás foros comerciales internacionales donde se discutan tratados, convenios y, en general, temas de comercio e inversión.(...)” Por otra parte, en sentencia número 6224-94, de las nueve horas del once de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, esta Sala consideró que el hecho de que el Presidente de la República participe con su voluntad de etapas procedimentales posteriores: sanción y depósito del Tratado, permite subsanar cualquier vicio que existiese en la efectiva representación que haya ostentado el Ministro. A lo anterior podemos agregar que el Presidente tiene otras dos oportunidades más para invocar su eventual disconformidad con el proyecto: en el momento de su presentación a la Asamblea Legislativa y en la convocatoria a sesiones extraordinarias, momentos en los cuáles podría hacer valer sus atribuciones constitucionales. Si en la especie fue el Ministro de Comercio Exterior quien suscribió el convenio cuya aprobación se discute, ello no implica cualquier vicio de inconstitucionalidad (…)” (el énfasis no pertenece al original).

En cuanto al segundo funcionario (el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores), estima la Sala que también se encontraba legitimado para proceder con la suscripción del Acuerdo de Asociación bajo análisis. En ese sentido, este Tribunal Constitucional ha admitido la legitimidad del procedimiento de aprobación de un tratado o convenio internacional cuando es suscrito por el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, sin el concurso del Presidente de la República, aun cuando carezca de una carta en la que expresamente, se le otorguen plenos poderes para ello. Así, en la opinión consultiva número 2000-08974 de las 9:01 horas del 13 de octubre de 2000, esta Sala resolvió lo siguiente:

“(...) A ese respecto, el único punto eventualmente controvertido lo sería el hecho de que el Convenio haya sido suscrito por el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, sin el concurso del Presidente de la República. De la lectura del artículo 140 inciso 10) se desprende que la firma de los tratados internacionales es una atribución del Poder Ejecutivo, entendido como el órgano colegiado compuesto por el Presidente y el Ministro del Ramo. No obstante, esta Sala ha reconocido la posibilidad de que el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, en su calidad de colaborador del Presidente en materia de relaciones internacionales, pueda suscribir tratados internacionales aún sin contar con una carta que 06224-94, de las nueve horas del once de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro y 06725-99 de las quince horas con nueve minutos del primero de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, esta Sala consideró que el hecho de que el Presidente de la República participara con su voluntad de etapas procedimentales posteriores: sanción y depósito del tratado, permite subsanar cualquier vicio que existiese en la efectiva representación que haya ostentado el Canciller. A lo anterior podemos agregar que el Presidente tiene otras dos oportunidades más para invocar su eventual disconformidad con el proyecto: en el momento de su presentación a la Asamblea Legislativa y en la convocatoria a sesiones extraordinarias, momentos en los cuáles podría hacer valer sus atribuciones constitucionales. Si en la especie fue el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto quien suscribió el convenio cuya aprobación se discute, ello no implica la inconstitucionalidad del procedimiento legislativo seguido hasta ahora. No habiendo encontrado esta Sala la presencia de trámites inconstitucionales en el proyecto de ley consultado, corresponde ahora entrar a conocer del fondo de la iniciativa en consulta (...)” (lo subrayado no corresponde al original).

Posteriormente, el texto del proyecto fue remitido ante la Comisión Especial Permanente de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, rindiéndose el respectivo dictamen afirmativo unánime. Asimismo, tal como puede verificarse del examen del expediente legislativo, el referido proyecto de ley fue enviado a consulta a las siguientes instituciones: todas las municipalidades y Concejos Municipales de Distrito, todas las instituciones autónomas, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Nacional, Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Universidad Técnica Nacional, Consejo Nacional de Rectores, CONESUP, Corte Suprema de Justicia, Procuraduría General de la República, Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Defensoría de los Habitantes, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Ministerio de Gobernación, Policía y Seguridad Pública, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio, Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, Ministerio de Salud, Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas de Desarrollo, Corporación Hortícola Nacional, Corporación Bananera Nacional, Grupo ICE, Contraloría General de la República, Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado, Programa Integral de Mercadeo Agropecuario, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo S.A., Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, todos los Colegios Profesionales, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial, Cámara de Exportadores de Costa Rica, Cámara de Industrias, Cámara de Agricultura y Agroindustria, Cámara de Comercio, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Cámara de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación, CRECEX, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara de Avicultores, Cámara de Porcicultores.

Por otra parte, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, recibió respuesta de los siguientes consultados: Municipalidad de Bagaces, Municipalidad de Belén, Concejo Municipal de Lepanto, CONESUP, Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Coalición Costarricense de Iniciativas del Desarrollo, Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, Dirección General de Aduanas, Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara Costarricense de la Industria Alimentaria, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Consejo Nacional de Producción, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal, Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres, Instituto Nacional de Seguros, Junta de Protección Social de San José, Patronato Nacional de la Infancia.

Aunado a esto, la citada Comisión recibió en audiencia a: Cámara Nacional de Agricultura y Agroindustria, CADEXCO, Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, Universidad de Costa Rica, Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, Cámara de la Industria Alimentaria, Corporación Ganadera, Cámara Nacional de Avicultores.

Con lo anterior se constata que el proyecto de ley fue puesto en conocimiento de una amplia gama de sectores que podrían verse afectados. Igualmente, no se observa infracción alguna a los derechos y potestades de los legisladores.

Así las cosas, en cuanto a lo anterior no se advierte inconstitucionalidad alguna.

VI.- En particular sobre la votación requerida para la aprobación del proyecto. El proyecto de ley fue conocido por el Plenario Legislativo como correspondía, por tratarse de un tratado internacional y, en esa medida, no podía ser delegado en una Comisión Legislativa con Potestad Plena, según lo establece el artículo 124, párrafo 3°, de la Constitución Política, en relación con el 121, inciso 4°), ibídem. En ese mismo orden de ideas, puede observarse que el proyecto de ley Nº 18.563 fue convocado por el Poder Ejecutivo para ser conocido en sesiones extraordinarias, respetándose lo dispuesto en el artículo 118 de la Carta Política.

Ahora bien, el proyecto de ley contó para su aprobación en primer debate con el voto de la mayoría absoluta de los miembros presentes en la Asamblea (37 Diputados y Diputadas). Al respecto, conviene advertir que, ciertamente, el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política exige una votación calificada de dos tercios de la totalidad de los diputados cuando se trata de tratados públicos y convenios internacionales que atribuyan o transfieran determinadas competencias a un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, con el propósito de realizar objetivos regionales y comunes. Al respecto, en sentencia número 2013-003655 de las 9:05 horas del 15 de marzo de 2013, “II.- Características del Derecho Comunitario: Doctrinalmente se le define como un conjunto organizado y estructurado de normas jurídicas, que posee sus propias fuentes, está dotado de órganos y procedimientos adecuados para emitirlas, interpretarlas, aplicarlas y hacerlas valer. En tanto el derecho internacional promueve la cooperación internacional, el Derecho Comunitario promueve la integración de los países involucrados, y por ello se ha dicho que conforma un nuevo orden jurídico de derecho internacional, caracterizado por su independencia y primacía, características consustanciales de su existencia.

El derecho comunitario posee una gran penetración en el orden jurídico interno de los Estados miembros, que se manifiesta en la aplicabilidad inmediata, su efecto directo y su primacía. Y es que la Comunidad constituye un nuevo orden jurídico internacional, en cuyo beneficio los Estados partes han limitado, aunque de manera restringida, sus derechos soberanos. Del Derecho Comunitario surgen derechos y obligaciones, no solo para los Estados miembros, sino también para sus ciudadanos. Es precisamente por la trascendencia que tienen las normas que se pretenden aprobar,- que como se indicó pueden transferir competencias-, que resulta deseable que especialistas en el tema analicen, de previo a la firma de los tratados que se pretenden suscribir en este campo, los alcances y la compatibilidad de esos instrumentos, con el orden y el sistema interno. Ello es especialmente importante si se toma en cuenta que la consulta preceptiva llega a la Sala una vez que se ha negociado el tratado y cuando ya ha sido aprobado en primer debate, amén de que este Tribunal limita su análisis a aspectos de relevancia constitucional.

Sin ninguna duda, el centro medular de la integración son los tratados, que pueden ser de dos clases: los de carácter institucional, que articulan y estructuran el sistema y sus instituciones, y aquellos que las desarrollan de una manera uniforme, clara, concreta y que usualmente contienen las normas en las que los Estados transfieren competencias a la organización comunitaria, para el cumplimiento de los fines que les resultan de interés («) Valga indicar que la transferencia de competencias al ordenamiento jurídico comunitario debe ser reglamentaria (que en este caso se hace) a órganos comunitarios, sólo puede ejercerse sobre materias expresamente definidas o trazadas en un tratado. En el de naturaleza institucional aquella potestad no podría ejercitarse en tanto no se produzca una transferencia expresa de competencias mediante convenio que deberá ser aprobado por votación no menor de los dos tercios de la totalidad de miembros de la Asamblea Legislativa (artículo 121 inciso 4 de la Constitución Política), y sometido a consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad (artículo 10 ibídem). Consecuentemente, resulta importante acotar que todas las normas aprobadas en el proceso de integración van constituyendo un auténtico ordenamiento jurídico, que por su naturaleza y los fines que persigue encuadra dentro de lo que se ha definido como Derecho Comunitario.

III.- Transferencia de Competencias: Ante la necesidad de que el Derecho Comunitario que se venía produciendo en la región centroamericana encontrara un adecuado marco constitucional en Costa Rica, por ley Nº 4123 del 30 de mayo de l968 se reformaron los artículos 7 y 121 de la Constitución Política, y más recientemente, por ley 7128 del dieciocho de agosto de mil novecientos ochenta y nueve, el artículo 105 del mismo cuerpo normativo. El artículo 7, párrafo primero, estableció: "Los tratados públicos, los convenios internacionales y los concordatos debidamente aprobados por la Asamblea Legislativa, tendrán desde su promulgación o desde el día que ellos designen, autoridad superior a las leyes" El 121, inciso 4 segundo párrafo dispuso:

"Los tratados públicos y convenios internacionales que atribuyan o transfieran determinadas competencias a un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, con el propósito de realizar objetivos regionales y comunes, requerirán la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa por votación no menor de los tercios de la totalidad de sus miembros" («) Tratándose del Derecho Comunitario la Constitución Política ha previsto, tal y como lo evidencia la simple lectura de las disposiciones transcritas, la transferencia de ciertas competencias nacionales propias a un ordenamiento jurídico distinto - el Comunitario- que de otra manera no podría lograr las metas comunes que los Estados partes del sistema de integración se han propuesto. Ahora bien, para la Sala, tal y como lo expresó el voto disidente de los Magistrados Jacobo, Blanco, Odio, Porter, y Benavides, dictado en la sesión de Corte Plena de las diez horas del veintiocho de marzo de mil novecientos setenta y tres, -que resolvió una acción de inconstitucionalidad contra diversos artículos del Código Aduanero Uniforme Centroamericano-, la delegación de competencias al ordenamiento jurídico comunitario de manera alguna es irrestricta, antes bien, tiene límites concretos. En efecto, tal y como se indicó en aquella opinión: "...No es dable rebasar la Carta Política, en su letra o en su espíritu, visto que en ella se fijan los principios fundamentales del Estado y se establecen, por consecuencia, los límites de acción de los Poderes Públicos, así en lo sustancial como en lo formal y tanto en lo interno como en lo externo", y para la Sala, no son transferibles competencias que resulten esenciales para el orden jurídico constitucional costarricense, como lo analizaremos de seguido.

La delegación de competencias produce una modificación muy importante al orden jurídico interno. Resulta preciso indicar que ésta delegación encuentra su primer límite en "el propósito de realizar objetivos regionales y comunes", es decir, no podría existir una delegación de competencias para propósitos y objetivos que no sean los que el constituyente ha indicado. Por otra parte, debe darse un absoluto respeto a los principios y valores que recoge la Constitución Política, que permea el resto del ordenamiento jurídico y los diversos campos del quehacer humano; social, económico, cultural, religioso, político etc. Para la Sala la Asamblea Legislativa no podría válidamente aprobar tratados internacionales que reduzcan los niveles de protección de los derechos fundamentales. («) VI.- Dada la naturaleza institucional del convenio que nos ocupa, la Sala no encuentra normas que resulten inconstitucionales, ni advierte infracciones al procedimiento de aprobación legislativo. Sin embargo, como este tratado es parte integrante de un sistema de transferencia de competencias , que como ha quedado dicho resulta en un sistema comunitario, aun cuando la trasferencia de competencias no se ha dado en forma expresa, aunque prevista en el Protocolo de Tegucigalpa, todo ello implica que para su aprobación se requiere una votación calificada, en los términos que se señalan en el párrafo segundo del inciso 4 del artículo 121 de la Constitución Política (lo destacado no corresponde al original) Por otro lado, en voto número 1079-93 de las 14:48 horas del 02 de marzo de 1993, la Sala se refirió a diversos aspectos importantes contenidos en el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política, en relación con el procedimiento agravado para la aprobación de los instrumentos internacionales previstos en esa norma. Al respecto, se dijo que:

"VI.- El artículo 121 inciso 4º de la Constitución, al definir las atribuciones exclusivas de la Asamblea Legislativa, la de "4) Aprobar o improbar los convenios internacionales, tratados públicos y concordatos. "Los tratados públicos y convenios internacionales que atribuyan o transfieran determinadas competencias a un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, con el propósito de realizar objetivos regionales y comunes, requerirán la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa, por votación no menor de los dos tercios de la totalidad de sus miembros«" Esta norma suscita tres tipos de dudas importantes, a saber: a) qué, significado tienen los conceptos de "atribuir" o "transferir", en relación con el de "competencias"; b) qué debe entenderse allí por "ordenamiento comunitario"; y c) qué alcances debe darse a los "objetivos regionales y comunes" que en el texto constituyen el fin del mismo ordenamiento.

En lo que se refiere a la primera cuestión, la Sala observa que en el contexto del Derecho de la constitución la norma transcrita tiene el claro propósito de agravar el procedimiento de aprobación de tratados o convenios internacionales, cuando en ellos se atribuyan a organismos extraestatales competencias públicas que de otro modo corresponden al Estado costarricense en ejercicio de su soberanía. Dicho de otra manera, parece evidente que no tendría sentido imponer una mayoría calificada para la aprobación de unos tratados, y no de otros en los que la reserva del constituyente tuviera igual o mayor justificación; y es que, en realidad, habida cuenta en que en todo tratado internacional se contiene, por definición, una merma o afectación de la soberanía, lo que a aquella reserva interesa es, con toda claridad, rodear de la garantía implicada en la mayoría calificada de la Asamblea Legislativa los supuestos en que el instrumento internacional implique, además de aquella merma o afectación directamente establecida en él, la posibilidad de que se impongan nuevas obligaciones al Estado costarricense, sin su voluntad, por órganos extranacionales y en materia que, de otro modo, le correspondería a él exclusivamente. B) Lo anterior obliga a reconocer la expresión "ordenamiento comunitario", aunque no feliz, sólo adquiere sentido, en el contexto e ese inciso, si se entiende por "comunitaria" aquella normativa que, aunque creada mediante fuentes típicas del Derecho de Gentes, como son los tratados, en realidad tienen un carácter "supranacional", en cuanto que es capaz de imponer a los Estados Partes obligaciones, deberes, cargas o limitaciones más allá de las pactadas y aún contra su voluntad por ejemplo, mediante decisiones adoptadas por una mayoría; cosa esta completamente diferente que la de los órdenes meramente internacionales, en que los Estados se comprometen solamente a los que se comprometen por tratado, o, si éste crea, además, algún tipo de organismo internacional, las decisiones en ese organismo, o no son vinculantes, o si lo son deben tomarse por unanimidad, es decir, con la aceptación expresa del Estado costarricense, mediante sus legítimos representantes competentes al efecto. Es cierto que la inclusión el concepto "ordenamiento comunitario" en dicha norma constitucional se hizo por la Asamblea Legislativa en función constituyente (por Ley Nº 4123 de 30 de mayo de 1968), teniendo en mente el proceso de integración o Mercado Común Centroamericano, pero resultaría contradictorio y, por ende, inconstitucional deducir de ahí que la Constitución imponga un procedimiento agravado para la aprobación de los instrumentos de ese proceso, querido por Costa Rica y más cercano y natural por darse en el ámbito geopolítico e histórico de la Patria Grande Centroamericana, que en otros supuestos más lejanos y menos intensos en que también se asignen o transfieran competencia del Estado costarricense a un ordenamiento extranacional. C) En el mismo contexto, los "objetivos regionales y comunes" deben interpretarse en armonía con las consideraciones anteriores y, por ende, la conjunción, "y" que los separa, debe entenderse como disyuntivo-copulativa, de manera que la disposición debe aplicarse, tanto si se trata de objetivos regionales, como si de objetivos simplemente comunes´ (lo destacado no corresponde al original) Por último, mediante sentencia número 4640-96 de las 09:09 horas del 06 de setiembre de 1996, la Sala conoció consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad acerca del proyecto de Ley para la aprobación del Protocolo al Tratado General de Integración Económica Centroamericana (conocido como Protocolo de Guatemala), suscrito por los Gobiernos de las Repúblicas de Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua y Panamá, en la Ciudad de Guatemala el 29 de octubre de 1993. En esa oportunidad, este Tribunal hizo referencia a los mismos fundamentos jurídicos consignados en el voto número 4638-96 de las 09:03 horas del 06 de setiembre de 1996, y se estimó que como el citado Protocolo era parte integrante de un sistema de transferencia de competencias, que resulta en un sistema comunitario (aun cuando la transferencia de competencias no se daba en forma expresa en ese caso concreto, aunque sí prevista en el Protocolo de Tegucigalpa), ello implicaba que para su aprobación se requería una votación calificada, en los términos que se señalan en el párrafo segundo del inciso 4 del artículo 121 de la Constitución Política. Ahora bien, vale advertir que el concepto de "ordenamiento jurídico comunitario" de dicha norma es distinto al de "tratado multilateral", toda vez que el primero requiere una ratio iuris tendente a la formación de una "comunidad", esto es, un sistema de integración regional con cualidades de supranacionalidad tendentes a que distintas partes constituyan, al menos de manera progresiva, un todo (como lo fue en la Comunidad Europea del Carbón y el Acero), en el que haya operado una transferencia de potestades soberanas por parte de los Estados miembros, hacia un ordenamiento jurídico sui generis, cuyos órganos gocen de independencia y plena autoridad en el ejercicio de sus funciones. Tal transferencia, en el caso de Costa Rica y en virtud del inciso 4 del artículo 121 de la Constitución Política, solo se puede hacer hacia un verdadero ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, a diferencia de otros instrumentos convencionales.” Por consiguiente, la exigencia de votación calificada de dos tercios de la totalidad de los diputados dispuesta en artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política, únicamente se refiere a aquellos tratados o convenios que atribuyan o transfieran determinadas competencias a un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario. Este último concepto se refiere a un ordenamiento que más allá de promover la mera cooperación internacional entre los Estados, en realidad lo que busca es la integración plena de los países involucrados, por lo que aspira a configurar un nuevo orden jurídico de derecho internacional (la Comunidad) caracterizado por su independencia y primacía, características consustanciales de su existencia.

Una cualidad fundamental de ese tipo de ordenamiento consiste en la posibilidad de que a un Estado incluso en contra de su voluntad se le impongan nuevas obligaciones por parte de órganos extranacionales, en materias que, de otro modo, exclusivamente le correspondería decidir a él. Por consiguiente, se trata de una situación muy diferente a aquellos tratados o convenios, en los que los organismos internacionales para poder vincular a un país con sus resoluciones, requieren la aceptación expresa del Estado afectado, mediante sus legítimos representantes competentes al efecto.

Así las cosas, el concepto constitucional de “ordenamiento jurídico comunitario” es muy distinto al de “tratado multilateral”, toda vez que el primero requiere una ratio iuris dirigida a la formación de una “Comunidad”, esto es, un sistema de integración regional con cualidades de supranacionalidad tendentes a que distintas partes constituyan, al menos de manera progresiva, un todo (como en su momento lo fue la Comunidad Europea del Carbón y el Acero), en el que haya operado una transferencia de potestades soberanas por parte de los Estados miembros, hacia un ordenamiento jurídico sui generis, cuyos órganos gocen de independencia y plena autoridad en el ejercicio de sus funciones, e incluso puedan imponer su voluntad a sus Estados miembros. Tal comunidad va más allá de un nuevo orden jurídico internacional, pues aspira incluso a entrelazar vínculos culturales a fin de crear una comunidad con cierta identidad en común, cuestión a lo que están muy lejos de pretender instituciones económicas que solo pretendan la integración, el intercambio comercial y la cooperación económica entre los Estados. Valga agregar que cuando el artículo 121 inciso 4) la Constitución Política hace alusión a la transferencia de determinadas competencias a un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, el propósito de realizar objetivos regionales y comunes, también mencionado por esa norma, antes que consistir en un supuesto adicional, en realidad lo que significa es un efecto natural de la naturaleza jurídica propia de todo ordenamiento comunitario. No hay ordenamiento comunitario que no tienda a realizar objetivos regionales y comunes.

En la especie, esta Sala estima que el Acuerdo de Asociación en examen en modo alguno está dirigido a crear un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario. En efecto, el artículo 2 inciso a) del Acuerdo indica como objetivo fortalecer y consolidar las relaciones entre las Partes a través de una asociación y el inciso b) subraya que se trata de una asociación política privilegiada. Este concepto de asociación se plantea en un contexto en que ambas regiones (Centroamérica y Europa) permanecen en sus respectivos ámbitos regionales de acción, sin que en ningún momento exista la aspiración de crear una sola región. Tampoco a lo interno de la Parte Centroamericana se pretende el establecimiento de un ordenamiento comunitario, puesto que el artículo 3 del Acuerdo establece que ninguna de sus disposiciones se interpretará de tal forma que menoscabe la soberanía de alguna República de la Parte CA. El hecho de que para aplicar el Acuerdo, sea positivo promover la integración regional, no va más allá de la creación de un ambiente político favorable a la cooperación y relación comercial birregionales así como a la ejecución en general del Acuerdo, lo que en ningún momento implica ni el establecimiento de un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, ni un nuevo orden jurídico de derecho internacional ni mucho menos la erección de una Comunidad en el ámbito centroamericano. Asimismo, aunque en el numeral 72 del Acuerdo se tenga como objetivo de la cooperación la integración regional y lograr progresivamente una unión económica en Centroamérica, lo cierto es que se hace referencia a posibles destinos de la cooperación desde una perspectiva potencial, no a la concreción actual de una Comunidad a través de la aprobación del Acuerdo, ni mucho menos a un nuevo orden jurídico de derecho internacional.

Tal tesis deviene todavía más palpable por cuanto según el artículo 6.4 del Acuerdo, el Consejo de Asociación solo puede adoptar decisiones y recomendaciones de común acuerdo entre las Partes y, en el caso de las Repúblicas de la Parte CA, la adopción de decisiones y recomendaciones requerirá consenso. Ergo, sin la aquiescencia del Estado costarricense, no se le puede obligar a acatar resolución alguna, lo que implica que no se da una transferencia de potestades soberanas por parte de los Estados miembros, hacia un ordenamiento jurídico sui generis, cuyos órganos gocen de tal grado de independencia y plena autoridad como para poder imponerle a Costa Rica una resolución en contra de la voluntad de nuestro país (Sobre ese Consejo se hace una explicación más extensa en el Considerando IX de esta sentencia).

Por consiguiente, al no configurarse el supuesto del artículo 120 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política, este Tratado no requiere para su aprobación de la votación de dos terceras partes de la totalidad de los diputados, sino que se puede votar conforme dispone el ordinal 119 de la Ley Fundamental, esto es por mayoría absoluta de los votos presentes.

VII.- Sobre la violación al principio de publicidad. Recientemente, mediante sentencia número 2013-006969 de las 15:05 horas del 22 de mayo de 2013, este Tribunal declaró lo siguiente:

“IV.- SOBRE EL PROCEDIMIENTO EN EL CASO CONCRETO. A partir del desglose contenido en el punto anterior es posible comprobar que, en fecha 5 de diciembre de 2011, el Poder Ejecutivo presentó ante la Asamblea Legislativa el proyecto de “Aprobación del Convenio sobre el Trabajo Decente para las Trabajadoras y Trabajadores Domésticos (Convenio 189)”, para su respectivo estudio y aprobación, en aplicación de los artículos 121, inciso 4, y 140, incisos 5, 10 y 12, de la Constitución Política. Tal convenio había sido adoptado, a su vez, en la Reunión 100º de la Conferencia Internacional del Trabajo de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT), celebrada en junio de 2011. Como parte del correspondiente procedimiento legislativo, el proyecto se publicó en el Alcance Digital No. 51 de La Gaceta No. 78 del 23 de abril de 2012. Asimismo, se rindió informe jurídico por parte del Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa, se dispuso consultar el proyecto a distintos órganos e instituciones y, finalmente, luego de su estudio por parte de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Asuntos Jurídicos, se rindió un primer dictamen afirmativo. Con posterioridad a ello, el proyecto se aprobó en primer debate, por unanimidad, en sesión plenaria de la Asamblea Legislativa número 64 del 13 de setiembre de 2012 con 40 votos. Por lo que el expediente pasó a la Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción. Sin embargo, en esa etapa o fase del procedimiento, se detectó que la copia certificada del texto del “Convenio sobre el Trabajo Decente para las Trabajadoras y los Trabajadores Domésticos (Convenio 189)”, que en un primer momento había sido aportada por el Poder Ejecutivo, no contenía el texto íntegro correspondiente al artículo 22. Ello motivó que se dispusiera devolver el expediente legislativo al Plenario Legislativo. En la sesión del Plenario Legislativo número 72, del 27 de setiembre de 2012, se aprobó moción, en aplicación del artículo 154 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, en el sentido de remitir el proyecto a la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos para que emitiera nuevo dictamen. Como producto de lo anterior, la referida Comisión procedió nuevamente al estudio del proyecto y confirmó que, en efecto, la copia certificada del texto del “Convenio sobre el Trabajo Decente para las Trabajadoras y los Trabajadores Domésticos (Convenio 189)”, que había sido remitida por el Poder Ejecutivo, no contenía el texto completo o íntegro del citado instrumento internacional, por un aparente error material en el proceso de fotocopiado del texto. Lo que generó que, mediante oficio No. CJ-863-10-12, del 24 de octubre de 2012, el Presidente de la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos solicitara a la Ministra de Trabajo y Seguridad Social que “con el fin de subsanar el error material encontrado en el dictamen del Proyecto de ley de aprobación del convenio sobre el trabajo decente para las trabajadoras y trabajadores domésticos (Convenio 189), Expediente N.º 18335, inicialmente remitido y aprobado por esta Comisión, le solicito la interposición de sus buenos oficios y respetando el derecho de iniciativa, pues se requiere del envío del documento y de todas las comunicaciones remitida al país, con las firmas de los miembros del Poder Ejecutivo, las cuales dan fe del compromiso de la República de Costa Rica respecto de ese instrumento jurídico internacional”. En respuesta a tal solicitud, por medio de oficio DP-0643-2012, de fecha 26 de octubre de 2012, suscrito por la Presidenta de la República y la Ministra de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, se remitió a la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos nueva copia certificada del texto completo del “Convenio sobre el Trabajo Decente para las Trabajadoras y los Trabajadores Domésticos (Convenio 189)”. Con base en esa segunda copia certificada, la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos rindió nuevo dictamen afirmativo, y en la sesión del Plenario Legislativo número 106, del 29 de noviembre de 2012, se aprobó otra vez el proyecto, en primer debate, con 43 votos. Ahora bien, contrastando o comparando ambos documentos, sea, las copias certificadas remitidas por el Poder Ejecutivo a la Asamblea Legislativa en fecha 5 de diciembre de 2011 y las remitidas mediante oficio DP-0643-2012, del 26 de octubre de 2012, se constata que, ciertamente, el primer juego de copias certificadas no contenía el texto íntegro o completo del Convenio 189, pues, por un aparente error material, al momento de fotocopiar el texto que sería remitido a la Asamblea Legislativa, se omitió fotocopiar la última línea de varias páginas del instrumento internacional, lo que provocó que varios de los artículos contenidos en tales copias estuvieran incompletos, mutilados o inconclusos. En específico: i) al artículo 2, párrafo segundo, inciso b), le faltaba la frase: “especiales de carácter sustantivo”; ii) al artículo 6, párrafo único le faltaba la frase: “para el que trabajan, de condiciones de vida decentes que respeten su privacidad”; iii) al artículo 9, párrafo único, le faltaba el inciso c), que tiene el siguiente contenido: “c) tengan derecho a conservar sus documentos de viaje y de identidad”; iv) al artículo 13, párrafo segundo, le faltaba la frase: “ de los trabajadores domésticos, cuando tales organizaciones existan”; v) al artículo 16, párrafo único, le faltaba la frase: “prácticas nacionales, a fin de asegurar que todos los trabajadores domésticos, ya sea”; y vi) al artículo 22, párrafo primero, le faltaba la frase: “un año después de fecha en que se haya registrado”. Ante ello, resultaba procedente que la Asamblea Legislativa procurara por la subsanación del procedimiento legislativo y, en particular, retrotraer el procedimiento, a efectos que el Poder Ejecutivo aportara nueva copia certificada del referido convenio, pero ésta vez completa o íntegra, para que el mismo pudiera ser nuevamente objeto de estudio, discusión y, eventualmente, de aprobación legislativa. Esta Sala ha insistido en su jurisprudencia sobre el debido reparto, delimitación y respeto de las competencias constitucionales atribuidas al Poder Ejecutivo y a la Asamblea Legislativa, en cuanto al proceso de discusión, negociación y suscripción de tratados internacionales por parte del Poder Ejecutivo (artículo 140 inciso 10, de la Constitución Política), y su posterior aprobación o desaprobación por la Asamblea Legislativa (artículo 121, inciso 4, de la Constitución Política). Así, en cuanto a este tema, en la sentencia número 2005-07428 de las 16:47 horas del 14 de junio del 2005, esta Sala aclaró: (“) resulta claro del texto constitucional que la competencia principal,” para la formulación y negociación de tratados internacionales, convenios públicos y concordatos, corresponde al Poder Ejecutivo y en efecto, es a éste a quien le compete su negociación, su suscripción y ratificación. A la Asamblea Legislativa por su parte, le corresponde únicamente la función de aprobarlos o improbarlos”. En consonancia con lo anterior, esta Sala ha señalado que es indispensable que el texto sometido a aprobación sea un texto completo, correcto y exacto, pues de lo contrario se produce un vicio sustancial en el procedimiento legislativo y en la expresión de la voluntad del órgano parlamentario…

… Finalmente, es claro de la sentencia No. 2006-06011 que la Sala dispuso que:

“Al respecto, este Tribunal reitera que es indispensable que el texto sometido a aprobación se encuentre completo, claro, exacto, delimitado, de manera que no exista duda alguna en cuanto al objeto de la obligación de Derecho Internacional que asume nuestro país, y como garantía de los principios de seguridad jurídica, publicidad y transparencia.”(la negrita no es del original)” Por lo que se reitera que resultaba procedente la determinación de la Asamblea Legislativa, en el sentido de retrotraer el procedimiento legislativo e instar al Poder Ejecutivo para que aportara nueva copia certificada del convenio, con su texto íntegro y completo, a efectos de procurar por el saneamiento del procedimiento. No obstante lo anterior, debe indicarse que aún así se advierte un vicio esencial en el procedimiento legislativo. Ello por cuanto, revisado el proyecto que se publicó en el Alcance Digital No. 51 de La Gaceta No. 78 del 23 de abril de 2012 (ver, el mismo, en http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/alcances/ALCA_2012.html), se constata que el texto que se publicó en ese momento contenía los errores u omisiones ya apuntados (es decir: varios de los artículos publicados estaban incompletos, mutilados o inconclusos). Con el perjuicio que, revisado el expediente legislativo, no se acredita que se haya publicado nuevamente el proyecto en el Diario Oficial, pero esta vez íntegro o completo, o que se haya publicado algún tipo de corrección o aclaración, en atención a lo previsto en los artículos 116, 117 y 121 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa. Ello de previo a que el proyecto fuera objeto de nuevo estudio, discusión y dictamen por parte de la mencionada Comisión y de discusión y aprobación por parte del Plenario Legislativo. De lo que se puede derivar que se ha incurrido en una infracción al principio de publicidad.” Por consiguiente, en cuanto al antecedente supracitado, conviene resaltar las siguientes características que explican la ratio iuris de la sentencia:

1. La copia certificada del Convenio por aprobar (Convenio sobre el Trabajo Decente para las Trabajadoras y los Trabajadores Domésticos) ab initio se remitió incompleta por parte del Poder Ejecutivo e igualmente defectuosa fue la correspondiente publicación en La Gaceta.

2. La Sala admitió como procedente que la Asamblea Legislativa procurara la subsanación del procedimiento legislativo y, en particular, retrotraer el procedimiento, a efectos de que el Poder Ejecutivo aportara nueva copia certificada del referido convenio.

3. La publicación del Convenio solo se dio una vez, antes que la Comisión recibiera la nueva copia certificada de modo correcto, sin que procediera con una nueva publicación en La Gaceta; todo lo contrario, se conformó con la primera publicación que contenía los errores apuntados desde un inicio (varios de los artículos publicados estaban incompletos, mutilados o inconclusos). Así, la pretendida subsanación del trámite dispuesta por la misma Asamblea Legislativa no se dio en realidad.

En el sub examine, primeramente se debe subrayar que no se produjo el error de que la Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales analizara el proyecto en cuestión a partir de una copia certificada incompleta. Por el contrario, de los autos se desprende que tal Comisión y las audiencias conferidas a las diversas dependencias y personas consultadas se basaron en una versión correcta del proyecto en cuestión. Ahora bien, en la publicación electrónica de La Gaceta Nº 220 del 14 de noviembre de 2012, Alcance Nº 180, (http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf) se echan de menos 2 folios correspondientes al Primer Anexo. En efecto, en La Gaceta digital se constata la ausencia en la publicación de la página descrita como EU/CENTR-AM/Anexo I/es 544, visible al folio 1006 de la copia certificada y remitida por parte de la Asamblea en el Tomo III del proyecto en cuestión, así como el folio 1572 de la copia certificada y remitida por parte de la Asamblea en el Tomo V. Ambos folios corresponden al Anexo I, que versa sobre la eliminación de aranceles aduaneros con motivo del Acuerdo. En el caso del folio 1006 de la copia certificada, la omisión de su publicación implica que los siguientes productos de la lista de la Parte UE no fueron publicados:

5515 91 -- Mezclados exclusiva o principalmente con filamentos sintéticos o artificiales:

5515 91 10 --- Crudos o blanqueados 8 A 5515 91 30 --- Estampados 8 A 5515 91 90 --- Los demás 8 A 5515 99 -- Los demás:

5515 99 20 --- Crudos o blanqueados 8 A 5515 99 40 --- Estampados 8 A 5515 99 80 --- Los demás 8 A 5516 Tejidos de fibras artificiales discontinuas:

- Con un contenido de fibras artificiales discontinuas superior o igual al 85 % en peso:

5516 11 00 -- Crudos o blanqueados 8 A 5516 12 00 -- Teñidos 8 A 5516 13 00 -- Con hilados de distintos colores 8 A 5516 14 00 -- Estampados 8 A - Con un contenido de fibras artificiales discontinuas inferior al 85 % en peso, mezcladas exclusiva o principalmente con filamentos sintéticos o artificiales:

5516 21 00 -- Crudos o blanqueados 8 A 5516 22 00 -- Teñidos 8 A 5516 23 -- Con hilados de distintos colores:

Por su parte, en cuanto al folio 1572 de la copia certificada, la omisión provocó que no se publicaran los siguientes productos de la Lista de la Parte CA:

Código SAC 2007 Descripción Tasa base CA Categoría Tasa base Comentarios Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua 26.01 MINERALES DE HIERRO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS, INCLUIDAS LAS PIRITAS DE HIERRO TOSTADAS (CENIZAS DE PIRITAS) 2601.1 - Minerales de hierro y sus concentrados, excepto las piritas de hierro tostadas (cenizas de piritas):

2601.11.00 - - Sin aglomerar 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2601.12.00 - - Aglomerados 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2601.20.00 - Piritas de hierro tostadas (cenizas de piritas) 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2602.00.00 MINERALES DE MANGANESO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS, INCLUIDOS LOS MINERALES DE MANGANESO FERRUGINOSOS Y SUS CONCENTRADOS CON UN CONTENIDO DE MANGANESO SUPERIOR O IGUAL AL 20% EN PESO, CALCULADO SOBRE PRODUCTO SECO 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2603.00.00 MINERALES DE COBRE Y SUS CONCENTRADOS 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2604.00.00 MINERALES DE NIQUEL Y SUS CONCENTRADOS 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2605.00.00 MINERALES DE COBALTO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2606.00.00 MINERALES DE ALUMINIO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 2607.00.00 MINERALES DE PLOMO Y SUS CONCENTRADOS 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 No obstante, en la versión impresa de La Gaceta Nº 220 del 14 de noviembre de 2012, Alcance Nº 180, (la cual solo se reparte a ciertas bibliotecas) constata este Tribunal que la página descrita como EU/CENTR-AM/Anexo I/es 544 sí fue debidamente publicada en dicha versión. Así las cosas, en la versión impresa únicamente existiría un error en cuanto a la omisión de publicar el folio 1572 de la copia certificada y remitida por parte de la Asamblea en el Tomo V.

En todo caso, resulta claro que tanto la Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales como las dependencias y personas consultadas tuvieron a su disposición desde un inicio la versión íntegra y completa del Acuerdo en estudio.

Ahora bien, este Tribunal ha señalado en reiteradas ocasiones la importancia de dar a conocer los proyectos de ley que han sido sometidos a su conocimiento. Sin embargo, no menos cierto es que la Sala ha interpretado el requisito de la publicación de un proyecto en atención a lo que verdaderamente se persigue: su publicidad. Así, en la sentencia número 2002-8190 de las 11:12 horas del 23 de agosto de 2002 se dijo:

“V.- Publicación de proyecto de aprobación del Tratado. La publicación en La Gaceta de los proyectos discutidos en la Asamblea Legislativa es un instrumento que puede propiciar la participación popular en la adopción de las grandes decisiones nacionales, además de constituir una garantía de transparencia de la función de creación de la Ley. Si bien la Constitución Política omite cualquier referencia a este requisito, el Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa sí lo hace en sus ordinales 116, 117 y 121. De éstos, el 117 es el que contiene la regla general, en el siguiente sentido:

"Artículo 117.- Autos de presentación En el Departamento de Archivo se redactarán los autos de presentación de los asuntos y se formará el expediente original, así como los expedientes para los miembros de la Comisión respectiva. Este Departamento enviará una copia de esos asuntos a la Imprenta Nacional para su publicación en el Diario Oficial." Como se puede apreciar, el Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa expresamente dispone la publicación de los proyectos de Ley que conoce la Asamblea Legislativa, como una norma de autorregulación aprobada por la propia Asamblea para garantizar la transparencia de su actuación cuando realiza función legislativa. La publicidad debe ser entendida como un requisito esencial del procedimiento legislativo, por involucrar directamente el principio democrático ínsito a la creación de las normas generales. Lo anterior no implica que el requisito de la publicidad solamente se pueda ver satisfecho con la publicación del texto completo del proyecto, pues eventualmente, ante la aprobación de una moción para la dispensa de trámites, una reseña de la existencia del proyecto en el Diario Oficial podría ser suficiente para dar efectiva publicidad al proyecto.” Además, en la sentencia número 2002-03458 de las 15:54 horas del 16 de abril de 2002, este Tribunal manifestó lo siguiente:

“V.- Sobre la publicación del proyecto en el Diario Oficial. Por otra parte, cabe discutir si la aprobación de una moción de dispensa de trámites de publicación y espera en la sesión del Plenario Legislativo número 91 del catorce de noviembre de dos mil uno, respecto del proyecto de aprobación del "Convenio Internacional para la represión de la Financiación del Terrorismo", así como a otras cinco iniciativas (cfr. folio 37 del expediente legislativo número 14.556), resulta acorde con el parámetro de constitucionalidad. Luego de que la Sala hiciera un trabajo de búsqueda en las ediciones de La Gaceta, se logró determinar que el presente proyecto, si bien no fue publicado en forma íntegra, sí lo fue una razón informando acerca del acuerdo legislativo que dispensó los referidos trámites, e indicando el tamaño y ubicación del expediente legislativo, para quien quisiera consultarlo. (La Gaceta número 230 de treinta de noviembre de dos mil uno, página 7) Dicha actuación, a juicio de la Sala, impidió que se incurriera en una violación a reglas esenciales del procedimiento legislativo. La publicación en la Gaceta de los proyectos discutidos en la Asamblea Legislativa es un instrumento que puede propiciar la participación popular en la adopción de las grandes decisiones nacionales, además de constituir una garantía de transparencia de la función de creación de la Ley. Si bien la Constitución Política omite cualquier referencia a este requisito, el Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa sí lo hace en sus ordinales 116, 117 y 121. De éstos, el 117 es el que contiene la regla general, en el siguiente sentido:

"Artículo 117.- Autos de presentación En el Departamento de Archivo se redactarán los autos de presentación de los asuntos y se formará el expediente original, así como los expedientes para los miembros de la Comisión respectiva. Este Departamento enviará una copia de esos asuntos a la Imprenta Nacional para su publicación en el Diario Oficial." Como se puede apreciar, el Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa expresamente dispone la publicación de los proyectos de Ley que conoce la Asamblea Legislativa. Dicho requisito debe ser entendido como esencial, por involucrar directamente el principio democrático ínsito a la función legislativa. No obstante lo anterior, en la especie la Asamblea Legislativa no ha lesionado este requisito procedimental, pues si bien la Asamblea acordó relevar el presente proyecto del trámite de su publicación, decidió que en La Gaceta fuera publicado un aviso referente a la existencia del proyecto en cuestión, invitando a quien estuviera interesado en leerlo para que lo consultara en la Asamblea, donde sería puesto a disposición del público. Esta Sala es del criterio de que esta última determinación permitió un acceso, por parte del público, al expediente legislativo 14.556, permitiendo así la participación popular en la discusión del referido proyecto. No huelga destacar que, si bien la dispensa de trámites de que habla el artículo 35.5.d) del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa debe ser entendido a la luz de la más es del trámite de conocimiento en comisión, y no una genérica de "todos" los trámites legislativos, pues aquellos previstos en la Constitución Política y en el mismo Reglamento, garantías mínimas de respeto del principio democrático, no pueden ser dispensados, ni siquiera por acuerdo de la propia Asamblea. Obviamente lo que sucedió en este caso es que -como ya fue dicho líneas atrás- se dispensó la publicación "integral" del proyecto en el Diario Oficial, no se dispensó dar publicidad al mismo, lo cual sería inconstitucional, por constituir la excusa ante el incumplimiento de un trámite esencial. Así las cosas, estima esta Sala que en el procedimiento seguido para la discusión de este proyecto, no han sido violados trámites esenciales, por lo que procede entrar a discutir el fondo de la propuesta.” Siempre relacionado con el tema de la publicidad, en sentencia número 2008-018218 de las 18:26 horas del 10 de diciembre de 2008, se indicó:

“Examinada la documentación remitida por el Poder Ejecutivo, se advierte el sello del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto en las veintidós páginas de la copia del Convenio, de lo que se colige una evidente inexactitud en la certificación supracitada, la cual solo hace referencia a “las anteriores siete fotocopias”. Esta situación obliga a la Sala a determinar la naturaleza y alcances del error en la citada certificación y su relevancia desde el punto de vista constitucional a partir de las especiales circunstancias del caso concreto. Primeramente, se advierte que el texto de la Convención publicado en el sitio oficial de internet de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (ver http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Convencion_de_Antigua_Jun_2003.pdf), es idéntico al texto de ella adjuntado al expediente legislativo, el cual contiene el mismo número de páginas, veintidós en total. Con ello se verifica que la certificación de marras contiene un defecto material, pues en lugar de indicar “las anteriores siete fotocopias” debió consignar “las anteriores veintidós fotocopias”. Pese a tal yerro, resulta claro que tanto en el seno de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Ambiente como en el Plenario, los diputados y las diputadas tuvieron a su disposición el texto completo de la Convención, el cual fue publicado íntegramente en La Gaceta número 187 del 29 de setiembre de 2006, motivo por el que no se presentó el menor asomo de duda por parte de las y los legisladores en cuanto al contenido total del mismo. Por lo demás, tampoco se causó confusión alguna a las organizaciones privadas y dependencias públicas consultadas, toda vez que las consultas correspondientes precisaron la fecha de publicación del citado proyecto en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta (ver folios 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 92 y 106 del publicidad. Por tales razones, este Tribunal concluye que en ningún momento, el Poder Ejecutivo incumplió su obligación de someter la documentación completa a la Asamblea Legislativa con el propósito de permitirle aprobar con claridad el objeto perfectamente delimitado de lo que se está pretendiendo elevar a norma jurídica con rango superior a la ley. De ahí que, en el caso concreto, la equivocación cometida constituyera un mero defecto material que no puede acarrear la nulidad del trámite legislativo y, por ende, no requiere la implementación de ningún mecanismo de subsanación. Lo anterior no obsta para hacer un llamado de atención a fin de que en el futuro, se prevenga este tipo de equivocación, dado el valor jurídico de las certificaciones emitidas por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, que deben ser del todo exactas a fin de que no exista duda alguna acerca de la absoluta fidelidad de los textos de los convenios sometidos a aprobación en la Asamblea Legislativa.” Por consiguiente, en atención al requisito de publicación en La Gaceta dispuesto por el artículo 117 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa y de la jurisprudencia de la Sala se extrae que el quid del asunto consiste en analizar, según el caso concreto, en qué medida una equivocación en la publicación lleva a un vicio en la publicidad, a partir del cual la ciudadanía en general tenga un conocimiento confuso del contenido de un proyecto por aprobar en la Asamblea Legislativa o se restrinja su participación informada en la discusión del mismo. No se trata entonces de aplicar un rígido formalismo, ajeno a las circunstancias del caso, sino de emplear la hermenéutica jurídica de acuerdo con las reglas de la sana crítica, de modo tal que las normas se interpreten en la forma que mejor garanticen la realización del fin o los fines que persiguen.

En este caso, a diferencia del objeto de la sentencia número 2013-006969, no existe lesión alguna al principio de publicidad que afecte su contenido esencial, es decir que en realidad venga a suscitar un estado de confusión actual y real en cuanto al contenido del proyecto legislativo en discusión, de modo tal que se obstaculice la participación popular en la adopción de las grandes decisiones nacionales. Precisamente, con la publicidad del procedimiento se persigue resguardar que la potestad de legislar resida en el pueblo y que los diputados sean solo sus representantes (artículo 105 constitucional), así como la proyección de la actividad parlamentaria hacia el exterior en tanto garantía establecida en el ordinal 117 de la Constitución Política (ver sentencia No. 2000-3220). En este contexto, se debe subrayar que a partir de la reforma al artículo 9 de la Constitución Política (Ley N° 8364 de 01 de julio de 2003, publicada en La Gaceta N° 146 de 31 de julio de 2003), como elemento constitutivo del Gobierno de la República se introdujo la característica de “participativo”. Tal cualidad potencia a nivel constitucional el propósito fundamental de la publicidad: promover la intervención de la ciudadanía en las decisiones fundamentales del Estado. Si este fin no resulta vulnerado y se advierte que no se ha dado una verdadera obstaculización a la participación popular, entonces un error en la publicación no puede llegar a configurar por sí solo un vicio esencial del procedimiento legislativo. En el sub iudice, al contrario de lo ocurrido en la sentencia número 2013-006969, la Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales siempre contó con la versión correcta y completa del texto del “Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro”. Asimismo, es plenamente constatable que las y los diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa en todo momento dispusieron del texto íntegro del Acuerdo y en este basaron sus discusiones, mociones y la voluntad plasmada en sus dictámenes y votaciones. Asimismo, las autoridades y personas a las que se les confirieron las audiencias respectivas, siempre tuvieron a su disposición el texto completo del Acuerdo. Así las cosas, no se advierte que del error en la publicación, hubiera derivado una lesión al contenido esencial del principio de publicidad, por lo que no se ha producido un vicio de inconstitucionalidad. Diferente es el caso cuando ni siquiera en el propio Parlamento se ha contado con el texto íntegro del proyecto por aprobar, o que el mismo presente errores, o cuando el propio legislador ha introducido importantes cambios a la versión original de un proyecto mientras se discute en una comisión (lo que en la especie hubiera sido, en todo caso, improcedente porque el artículo 361 del Acuerdo no permite reservas unilaterales ni declaraciones interpretativas al mismo).

Corolario de lo anterior, en cuanto al “Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro” no se advierten vicios esenciales en el procedimiento legislativo.

VIII.- En cuanto al fondo del proyecto. De previo a realizar algunas observaciones sobre el fondo del proyecto de ley “Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro” debe subrayarse que, según lo establecido en el artículo 101 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, el dictamen de esta Sala solo será vinculante en cuanto establezca la existencia de trámites inconstitucionales.

IX.- El “Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro”, lejos de tratarse únicamente de un típico Tratado de Libre Comercio entre las regiones involucradas, nació bajo la figura de un “Acuerdo de Asociación” al que, además del componente comercial, se le agregaron dos elementos más que lo complementan y acompañan: “Diálogo Político” y “Cooperación”.

Bajo esa inteligencia, mediante este instrumento internacional se busca establecer una asociación interregional entre Centroamérica y la Unión Europea a partir de tres ejes fundamentales: 1) “Diálogo Político”: se pretende crear una asociación política privilegiada entre ambas regiones con base en valores e intereses comunes que se enuncian en el Acuerdo (entre ellos, desarme, armas de destrucción masiva, lucha contra el terrorismo, crímenes graves de trascendencia internacional, financiamiento para el desarrollo, migración, medio ambiente, seguridad ciudadana, buena gobernanza en materia fiscal, entre otros); 2) “Cooperación”: el Acuerdo se orienta a habilitar los mecanismos de cooperación necesarios dentro de las áreas de interés de las Partes (v.gr., Democracia, Derechos Humanos y Buena Gobernanza; Justicia, Libertad y Seguridad; Desarrollo Social y Cohesión Social; Migración; Medio Ambiente, Desastres Naturales y Cambio Climático; Desarrollo Económico y Comercial; Integración Regional; Cultura y Cooperación Audiovisual; Sociedad del Conocimiento); 3) “Comercio”: como se dijo, este apartado constituye un tratado de libre comercio. Este último eje comercial tiene el siguiente contenido: los Títulos I, XII y XIII contienen las disposiciones iniciales e institucionales; el Título II regula lo relativo al Comercio de Mercancías; el Título III establece el Comercio de Servicios y Establecimiento; el Título IV hace referencia a los Pagos Corrientes y Movimientos de Capital; el Título V se encarga de regular lo relacionado con la Contratación Pública; el Título VI norma la Propiedad Intelectual; el Título VII contiene lo relativo a Comercio y Competencia; el Título VIII regula lo atinente a Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible; el Título IX se encarga de normar la Integración Económica Regional; los Títulos X y XI hacen referencia al tema de la Solución de Controversias y Mediación; finalmente, el Título XIV contiene lo relacionado con las Excepciones.

Aunado a los tres pilares anteriormente descritos, el texto del Acuerdo de Asociación también consagra varias normas o reglas comunes que aplican a cada uno de estos tres componentes. Estas reglas son propias de todos los tratados internacionales y se denominan en doctrina “Normas del Derecho de los Tratados”. En este convenio, dichas reglas están dispuestas en la primera y quinta parte del Acuerdo.

Además de lo relativo a la aprobación del Acuerdo de Asociación, el proyecto de ley sometido a consulta contempla la ratificación por parte de nuestro país de una Enmienda al “Convenio sobre Comercio de Especies Amenazadas de Flora y Fauna de Vida Silvestre”, toda vez que su aprobación es parte de la negociación política con la Unión Europea y fue un compromiso derivado del Acuerdo de Asociación (ver exposición de motivos del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563 y artículo 287.3 del Acuerdo de Asociación). Asimismo, en el proyecto de ley Nº 18.563 se crea un Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres y se le dota de los recursos financieros necesarios, creando un impuesto de salida por puertos terrestres y un impuesto a cada declaración aduanera de exportación presentada en los puestos fronterizos terrestres. Finalmente, en el proyecto de ley se decide entregar al Ministerio de Comercio Exterior la representación del país ante la organización internacional conocida como “Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE)”.

Luego de aclarado el contenido del proyecto de ley en cuestión, se hace necesario entrar al detalle de cada una de las Partes que componen el Acuerdo de Asociación.

Preámbulo:

Las motivaciones y consideraciones generales en el preámbulo del Acuerdo constituyen parte del mismo pues pese a que no generan obligaciones jurídicas directas, sí resultan útiles a los efectos de la interpretación del instrumento jurídico correspondiente.

Dentro de tales consideraciones, especial referencia merece la siguiente:

“RECONOCIENDO el progreso alcanzado en el proceso de integración económica centroamericana, como la ratificación del Convenio Marco para el Establecimiento de la Unión Aduanera Centroamericana y el Tratado sobre Inversión y Comercio de Servicios, así como la aplicación de un mecanismo jurisdiccional que garantice el cumplimiento de la legislación económica regional a lo largo de la región centroamericana;” Al respecto conviene resaltar que de manera expresa no se hace referencia alguna a la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, sino de forma indeterminada a “un mecanismo jurisdiccional”, de manera que por la sola aprobación del Acuerdo no se colige que Costa Rica reconozca la competencia de dicho tribunal.

Partes I y V del Acuerdo:

Como es tradicional en este tipo de convenios internacionales, en las Partes I y V del Acuerdo de Asociación se recogen normas o reglas comunes que aplican a cada uno de los tres ejes del Acuerdo, y que usualmente son conocidas como normas del Derecho de los Tratados.

En el Título I de la Parte I se reúnen los principios a partir de los cuales se debe interpretar y leer el Acuerdo, algunos de ellos son: principio democrático, respeto a los derechos fundamentales, desarrollo sostenible, buena gobernanza, Estado de Derecho, imperio de la ley, separación de Poderes, transparencia y responsabilidad, eficiencia, prevención y combate de la corrupción (artículo 1). Por otra parte, se citan los principales objetivos del Acuerdo: fortalecer las relaciones entre las Partes, desarrollar una asociación política privilegiada, mejorar la cooperación birregional, ampliar la relación comercial, fortalecer el proceso progresivo de la integración regional, las relaciones de buena vecindad y el principio de solución pacífica de conflictos, mejorar el nivel de buena gobernanza, fomentar el incremento del comercio y la inversión (artículo 2).

En el Título II de esta Parte I se abarca el tema del marco institucional, que está conformado por la creación de un Consejo de Asociación, un Comité de Asociación, un Comité de Asociación Parlamentario, un Comité Consultivo Conjunto y diferentes subcomités. El Consejo de Asociación estará compuesto por los representantes de la Parte Unión Europea y de cada una de las Repúblicas de los Estados Parte de Centroamérica a nivel ministerial, de conformidad con las disposiciones internas de cada Estado. La Presidencia de dicho órgano será ejercida alternadamente por un representante de la Parte de la Unión Europea y otro representante de Centroamérica (artículo 5). Se le otorga la potestad de emitir su propio reglamento y tiene como primordial tarea, supervisar el cumplimiento de los objetivos de este Acuerdo y su aplicación. Para ello tiene previsto una reunión a nivel ministerial cada dos años, con posibilidades de reunirse a nivel de Jefes de Estado cuando así lo acuerden las Partes (artículo 4). Entre sus atribuciones más relevantes podemos citar las siguientes:

1. Examinar cualquier cuestión importante que surja en el marco del Acuerdo, así como cualquier otra cuestión bilateral, multilateral o internacional de interés común. (artículo 4.2) 2. Examinar las propuestas y recomendaciones de las Partes destinadas a mejorar las relaciones establecidas en el marco del Acuerdo. (artículo 4.3) 3. Formular las recomendaciones que considere oportunas. (artículo 6.3) 4. Elaborar y adoptar las “Reglas de Procedimiento” que regirán los procedimientos de solución de controversias que figuran en el Acuerdo de Asociación. (artículo 319) 5. Adoptará las Reglas de Procedimiento y el Código de Conducta en su primera sesión y posteriormente podrá modificarlas. (artículo 328) 6. Cuando se trate de cuestiones relacionadas con el comercio, podrá:

• a)modificar, en cumplimiento de los objetivos de la parte IV del presente Acuerdo:
• i)las listas de mercancías establecidas en el anexo I (Eliminación de aranceles aduaneros), a fin de incorporar una o más mercancías al programa de desgravación arancelaria; ii) las listas establecidas en el anexo I (Eliminación de aranceles aduaneros), con el fin de acelerar la desgravación arancelaria; iii) los apéndices 1, 2 y 3 del anexo I (Eliminación de aranceles aduaneros); iv) los apéndices 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5 y 6 del anexo II (Relativo a la definición del concepto de "productos originarios" y métodos de cooperación administrativa); v) el anexo XVI (Contratación pública); vi) el anexo XVIII (Indicaciones geográficas protegidas); vii) el anexo XIX (Lista de productos a los que hace referencia el artículo 306, apartado 4); viii) el anexo XXI (Subcomités); b) emitir interpretaciones sobre las disposiciones de la parte IV del presente Acuerdo; y c) adoptar cualquier otra acción en el ejercicio de sus funciones según acuerden las Partes. (artículo 345) Es importante resaltar que las decisiones adoptadas por dicho órgano serán vinculantes para las Partes, y se tomarán de común acuerdo; y en el caso de los países de Centroamérica, se requiere de su consenso para la adopción de decisiones y recomendaciones (artículo 6). Es decir, no se impone la obligación a un país de cumplir determinada decisión o recomendación si antes no da su consentimiento Para dar cumplimiento a tales cometidos, el Consejo de Asociación recibirá la colaboración de dependencias menores creadas también en el Acuerdo de Asociación. Algunas de esas dependencias son: el Comité de Asociación (que también adoptará sus decisiones de conformidad con las condiciones establecidas en los artículos 4 al 6); y los Subcomités específicos por materia (artículos 7 y 8). Asimismo, se crea un Comité de Asociación Parlamentario que estará constituido por miembros del Parlamento Europeo y del Parlamento Centroamericano (PARLACEN). En el caso de las repúblicas que no son parte del PARLACEN (como nuestro país), se dispone que cada Estado designará sus propios representantes (artículo 9). También se establece un Comité Consultivo Conjunto que tendrá funciones consultivas y, como dato importante, deberá presentar al Consejo de Asociación las opiniones de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil relacionadas con la aplicación del Acuerdo (artículo 10). Por último, se hace referencia a la sociedad civil, indicándose que se promoverán reuniones de representantes de las sociedades civiles para informarles sobre la aplicación del Acuerdo (artículo 11). Por el particular interés que suscita este tema, la participación de la sociedad civil será desarrollada más adelante.

Una vez descrita la estructura organizativa planteada, resulta pertinente referirse especialmente a las potestades que tiene el Consejo de Asociación conformado para el Acuerdo de estudio y la similitud de atribuciones y diferencias que ostenta en relación con otros instrumentos de igual naturaleza que han sido anteriormente adoptados por nuestro país y también objeto de pronunciamiento por parte de este Tribunal.

En el caso del "Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Costa Rica y la Comunidad del Caribe" aprobado por Ley No. 8455, se había dispuesto la creación de un Consejo Conjunto con potestades casi idénticas a las concedidas también en el Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Centroamérica y Chile aprobado por Ley No. 8055 y muy similares a las de estudio, que consistían en:

“…este Consejo Conjunto es el encargado de velar por el cumplimiento y la correcta aplicación de las disposiciones del mismo, para lo cual emitirá recomendaciones; podrá evaluar los resultados logrados en su aplicación; resolver las controversias que surjan respecto de su interpretación o aplicación; supervisar la labor de los comités establecidos o creados y de conocer cualquier otro asunto que pudiese afectar su funcionamiento. Este Consejo, señala el artículo I.06, podrá modificar en aras del cumplimiento de los objetivos del Tratado: a) la lista de mercancías de una parte contenida en el anexo III.04.2 (Desgravación Arancelaria) con el objeto de incorporar una o más mercancías excluidas en el Programa de Desgravación Arancelaria; b) los plazos establecidos en el Anexo III.04.02 (Desgravación Arancelaria) a fin de acelerar la desgravación arancelaria; c) las reglas de origen específicas del Anexo IV.03; d) las reglamentaciones uniformes de los Procedimientos Aduaneros.” En similar sentido, en el Tratado de Libre Comercio entre República Dominicana, Centroamérica y Estados Unidos aprobado por Costa Rica según Ley No. 8622, la Comisión de Libre Comercio tiene las siguientes facultades:

“Artículo 19.1: La Comisión de Libre Comercio 1. Las Partes establecen la Comisión de Libre Comercio, integrada por los representantes de cada Parte a nivel Ministerial, a que se refiere el Anexo 19.1, o por las personas a quienes éstos designen.

2. La Comisión deberá:

(a) supervisar la ejecución del Tratado; (b) supervisar el ulterior desarrollo del Tratado; (c) buscar resolver las controversias que pudiesen surgir respecto a la interpretación o aplicación de este Tratado; (d) supervisar la labor de todos los comités y grupos de trabajo establecidos conforme a este Tratado; y (e) conocer de cualquier otro asunto que pudiese afectar el funcionamiento del Tratado.

3. La Comisión podrá:

(a) establecer y delegar responsabilidades en comités y grupos de trabajo; (b) modificar en cumplimiento con los objetivos de este Tratado:

(i) las listas de desgravación sujetas al Anexo 3.3 (Desgravación Arancelaria), a fin de acelerar la reducción arancelaria; (ii) las reglas de origen establecidas en el Anexo 4.1 (Reglas de Origen Específicas); (iii) las Directrices Comunes referidas en el Artículo 4.21 (Directrices Comunes); y (iv) los Anexos 9.1.2(b)(i), 9.1.2(b)(ii) y 9.1.2(b)(iii) (Contratación Pública); (c) emitir interpretaciones sobre las disposiciones de este Tratado; (d) solicitar la asesoría de personas o grupos sin vinculación gubernamental; y (e) adoptar cualquier otra acción para el ejercicio de sus funciones según acuerden las Partes. 19-2 4. Cada Parte implementará, de conformidad con sus procedimientos jurídicos aplicables, cualquier modificación conforme al subpárrafo 3(b) en el período acordado por las Partes.

5. La Comisión establecerá sus reglas y procedimientos. Todas sus decisiones se tomarán por consenso, a menos que la Comisión decida otra cosa.

6. La Comisión se reunirá por lo menos una vez al año en sesión ordinaria, a menos que la Comisión decida otra cosa. Las sesiones ordinarias de la Comisión serán presididas sucesivamente por cada una de las Partes.

Artículo 19.2: Coordinadores del Tratado de Libre Comercio 1. Cada Parte deberá designar un Coordinador del Tratado de Libre Comercio, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Anexo 19.2.

2. Los coordinadores trabajarán de manera conjunta en el desarrollo de agendas así como otros preparativos para las reuniones de la Comisión y darán el seguimiento apropiado a las decisiones de la Comisión…” De manera que el Consejo de Asociación previsto para administrar los acuerdos suscritos en esta negociación no distan de ser muy diferentes a los aprobados anteriormente por nuestro país, el cual incluso tiene menos ingerencia en la solución de controversias que los órganos citados anteriormente. Aunado a lo anterior, este Tribunal refiriéndose al alcance de este tipo de atribuciones y a la vinculatoriedad para el país de sus decisiones, en particular señaló:

“Sobre este punto, se desprende de la lectura del Tratado que la Comisión de Libre Comercio es un órgano colegiado integrado por los representantes de cada Parte a nivel ministerial o por las personas que cada una designe, y tiene como función realizar la supervisión de la ejecución del tratado, supervisar su ulterior desarrollo, resolver las controversias que pudieren surgir de la interpretación o aplicación del tratado, supervisar la labor de los comités y grupos de trabajo establecidos y conocer cualquier otro asunto que pudiese afectar el funcionamiento del acuerdo. Dentro de sus atribuciones también está emitir interpretaciones sobre las disposiciones del tratado, pero no la de modificar su contenido tal como señalan los diputados consultantes. Es claro que tal atribución no fue otorgada en el Tratado según se desprende del artículo 19.1, por lo que no puede esta Sala concluir nada más allá de lo que el texto del acuerdo comercial establece. Además, aun cuando los consultantes consideran que dicha Comisión asume competencias legislativas y reglamentarias, ya esta Sala se ha referido en otras oportunidades a la naturaleza jurídica de las normas emitidas por este tipo de Comisiones, entendiendo que se trata de protocolos de menor rango de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política. Reafirmando lo anterior, el Tratado de Libre Comercio establece en el Anexo 19.1.4 que:“En el caso de Costa Rica, las decisiones de la Comisión conforme al artículo 19.2.3(b) equivaldrán al instrumento referido en el artículo 121.4, párrafo tercero (protocolo de menor rango), de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica.” Tomando en cuenta esa naturaleza, no puede considerarse que se trate de potestades inconstitucionales y así lo advirtió la Sala en la sentencia 2000-8404 de las diez horas del veintidós de setiembre de dos mil, en la cual indicó:

“V.- Sobre la Comisión de Libre Comercio: En el artículo 18.01 del Tratado, se establece una Comisión de Libre Comercio que será la encargada de velar por el cumplimiento y la correcta aplicación de las disposiciones de este Tratado; de evaluar los resultados logrados en la aplicación del Tratado; de resolver las controversias que surjan respecto de la interpretación o aplicación del Tratado; de supervisar la labor de los comités establecidos o creados conforme al Tratado y de conocer cualquier otro asunto que pudiese afectar el funcionamiento de ese Tratado. Esta Comisión, señala el artículo, podrá modificar en aras del cumplimiento de los objetivos del Tratado: a) la lista de mercancías de una parte contenida en el anexo 3.04 (Programa de Desgravación Arancelaria) con el objeto de incorporar una o más mercancías excluidas en el Programa de Desgravación Arancelaria; b) los plazos establecidos en el Anexo 3.04 (Programa de Desgravación Arancelaria) a fin de acelerar la desgravación arancelaria; c) las reglas de origen específicas del Anexo 4.03; d) las reglamentaciones uniformes; e) el Anexo 9.01 de sectores o subsectores de servicios con el objeto de incorporar nuevos sectores o subsectores de servicios; f) los anexos I, II y III del Capítulo 11 (Comercio Transfronterizo de Servicios) y la lista de entidades de una Parte contenida en el Anexo 16.01 (Entidades) con el objeto de incorporar una o más entidades al ámbito de aplicación del Capítulo 16 (Contratación Pública). El funcionario de la Comisión, en el caso concreto de Costa Rica, es el Ministro de Comercio Exterior o su sucesor. Ahora bien, en el Anexo 18.01 (4), se establece Partes, equivaldrán al instrumento referido en el artículo 121.4 párrafo tercero de la Constitución Política; instrumento que se ha denominado "Protocolo de Menor Rango". Sobre éste, la Sala ha señalado:

"Los protocolos de menor rango son aquellos que, sin añadir compromisos o limitaciones sustanciales a la actividad de los estados, desarrollan e incluso modifican normas de mero procedimiento que no inciden sobre la sustancia del tratado. Caso típico de protocolos de menor rango son las modificaciones de plazos de cumplimiento y otras medidas semejantes, siempre y cuando esas modificaciones estén, como se dijo, previstas en el tratado principal" (Sentencia No.03388-98 de las dieciséis horas treinta y nueve minutos del veintiséis de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y ocho).

En relación con el caso concreto, estima la Sala que tanto la Comisión de Libre Comercio que está siendo creada en el Tratado bajo estudio, como las potestades que le han sido otorgadas en el mismo, no son inconstitucionales en la medida en que puedan ser consideradas como protocolos de menor rango en los términos señalados supra, o bien, y en el tanto y en el cuanto mediante el ejercicio de esas potestades, no se estén tomando decisiones sustanciales y de fondo que necesariamente deben ser analizadas por la Asamblea Legislativa de acuerdo con las competencias constitucionales que tiene este Poder de la República. Desde esta perspectiva, no es inconstitucional que el representante de Costa Rica participe y lleve la voz del Gobierno Nacional en los temas relativos al Tratado, siempre y cuando no comprometa al país en decisiones que necesariamente requieren de la aprobación legislativa y por supuesto, del posterior control de constitucionalidad ejercido por la Sala Constitucional. (sentencia No. 2000-8404) El precedente anterior resulta de plena aplicación al caso concreto, toda vez que la norma analizada es muy similar a la que aquí se discute, lo que lleva a la Sala a concluir que las funciones o atribuciones establecidas para la Comisión de Libre Comercio en el Tratado de Libre Comercio no son en sí mismas inconstitucionales, pues no puede desprenderse del articulado del Tratado que lo que se pretenda es que dicha Comisión pueda alterar sus disposiciones, sino únicamente interpretarlas. Además, que siempre existe como garantía que el representante de Costa Rica no podría de forma alguna comprometer a nuestro país en algún asunto que requiera aprobación legislativa.

Ahora bien, un aspecto que debe analizarse con detenimiento es el acusado por la Defensoría en cuanto a que dicha Comisión puede imponer obligaciones a Costa Rica aun en contra de su voluntad al tratarse de un órgano supranacional. Sobre este particular, debe tenerse en cuenta que a la luz de lo dispuesto en el numeral 19.1.5 del Tratado de Libre Comercio, las decisiones que adopta dicha Comisión se toman por consenso, salvo que la misma decida otra cosa. Si bien el Tratado no clarifica qué se entiende por “consenso”, el mismo preámbulo reconoce expresamente el Acuerdo de Marrakech por el que se establece la Organización Mundial del Comercio, el cual sí clarifica el significado de dicho concepto. A la luz de lo dispuesto en el artículo IX, párrafo 1, nota de pie de página1, del Acuerdo de Marrakech "se considera que el órgano de que se trate ha adoptado una decisión por consenso sobre un asunto sometido a su consideración si ningún Miembro presente en la reunión en que se adopte la decisión se opone formalmente a ella." Esto significa que en el ámbito comercial establecido por el Tratado de Libre Comercio y la OMC, se requiere la anuencia de todas las Partes presentes para adoptar una decisión, es decir, existe una especie de veto por más pequeño y débil que sea un país si éste se opone a lo que decidan los demás en contra de su voluntad. Para efectos prácticos, esto significa que ninguna decisión que afecte a Costa Rica se puede adoptar si su representante se opone, con lo cual el Estado no está cediendo su soberanía. Es por ello que tampoco se considera que dicha Comisión se trate de un órgano supranacional, pues no puede imponer obligaciones más allá de la voluntad de los Estados ni en el proceso de “administración” del tratado, ni cuando interviene en el mecanismo de resolución de controversias Estado-Estado, siendo que en este último caso únicamente emite recomendaciones. Sobre un asunto similar, mediante sentencia 1079-93 de las catorce horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del dos de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y tres, la Sala indicó:

“B) Lo anterior obliga a reconocer la expresión "ordenamiento comunitario", aunque no feliz, sólo adquiere sentido, en el contexto e ese inciso, si se entiende por "comunitaria" aquella normativa que, aunque creada mediante fuentes típicas del Derecho de Gentes, como son los tratados, en realidad tienen un carácter "supranacional", en cuanto que es capaz de imponer a los Estados Partes obligaciones, deberes, cargas o limitaciones más allá de las pactadas y aún contra su voluntad por ejemplo, mediante decisiones adoptadas por una mayoría; cosa esta completamente diferente que la de los órdenes meramente internacionales, en que los Estados se comprometen solamente a los que se comprometen por tratado, o, si éste crea, además, algún tipo de organismo internacional, las decisiones en ese organismo, o no son vinculantes, o si lo son deben tomarse por unanimidad, es decir, con la aceptación competentes al efecto. Es cierto que la inclusión el concepto "ordenamiento comunitario" en dicha norma constitucional se hizo por la Asamblea Legislativa en función constituyente (por Ley Nº 4123 de 30 de mayo de 1968), teniendo en mente el proceso de integración o Mercado Común Centroamericano, pero resultaría contradictorio y, por ende, inconstitucional deducir de ahí que la Constitución imponga un procedimiento agravado para la aprobación de los instrumentos de ese proceso, querido por Costa Rica y más cercano y natural por darse en el ámbito geopolítico e histórico de la Patria Grande Centroamericana, que en otros supuestos más lejanos y menos intensos en que también se asignen o transfieran competencia del Estado costarricense a un ordenamiento extranacional.” (La negrita no forma parte del original) Por lo anterior, y tomando en consideración que las decisiones de la Comisión no pueden ser impuestas más allá de la voluntad de los Estados por ser adoptadas por consenso, esta Sala no encuentra inconstitucionalidad alguna en cuanto a este aspecto.

Aun cuando las y los diputados consultantes reclaman que las decisiones de la Comisión no necesariamente se adoptan por consenso por cuanto el artículo 19.1.5 establece que dicho órgano puede acordar otra forma de votación, tampoco estima la Sala que esto resulte inconstitucional. Es claro que cualquier decisión de la Comisión que pretenda variar la forma de votación, debe ser adoptada por consenso, por lo que no podría variarse el mecanismo de votación si el representante de nuestro país no está de acuerdo, con lo cual obviamente mantiene el poder de garantizar que no se imponga ninguna decisión a Costa Rica en contra de sus intereses. Eso sí, se hace la advertencia que dicho representante no podría autorizar un cambio de la forma de votación si con ello se puede forzar una decisión contraria a la voluntad de nuestro Estado y siempre y cuando no comprometa al país en decisiones que necesariamente requieren de la aprobación legislativa. Por ello, el tema en cuestión radica entonces en las obligaciones y controles que el Estado le imponga a su representante. De igual forma, no es de recibo el argumento de los consultantes en cuanto a que no existe garantía de que las decisiones que tome la Comisión de Libre Comercio sean conforme a la Constitución, pues ahí precisamente radica la importancia de la función que desempeñe nuestro representante, el cual no podría en ningún momento comprometer a nuestro país más allá de lo que permita nuestra Carta Fundamental. En todo caso, si la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional no se incluyó como “medida disconforme” no significa que se haya derogado el control de esta Sala previsto en la Constitución Política (artículos 10 y 48), sino que por el contrario no se consideró incompatible con el Tratado, y por lo tanto no era necesaria su inclusión. Deben tener claro los consultantes, tal como se verá a lo largo de esta sentencia, que en la lista de medidas disconformes únicamente se incluye aquella legislación nacional que a pesar de ser contraria a las disposiciones del Tratado, se quieren mantener vigentes. Ello no significa que lo que no esté incluido ahí se entienda como derogado.” (sentencia No. 2007-9469) De conformidad con lo expuesto, el Acuerdo Internacional en estudio no presenta vicio de inconstitucionalidad alguno, toda vez que según quedó acreditado, el Consejo de Asociación no tiene la capacidad de imponer a los Estados Partes obligaciones, deberes, cargas o limitaciones más allá de las pactadas y nunca contra su voluntad, puesto que para ello se requiere del consenso, o sea, la aceptación expresa del Estado costarricense mediante sus legítimos representantes competentes al efecto, amén que sus decisiones giran en torno a la administración e implementación de la materia comercial negociada.

En lo referido a las disposiciones finales, la Parte V del Acuerdo aclara cuestiones como la definición de las Partes (donde lo que llama la atención es la enumeración de los supuestos en que los países de Centroamérica deben actuar conjuntamente (en la toma de decisiones a través de los órganos contemplados en el título II (Marco institucional) de la parte I del presente Acuerdo, en la implementación de las obligaciones previstas en el título IX (Integración económica regional) de la parte IV del presente Acuerdo, en la implementación de la obligación de establecer un Reglamento Centroamericano sobre Competencia y una autoridad de competencia, y en la implementación de la obligación de establecer un punto único de acceso a nivel regional, de conformidad con el artículo 212, apartado 2, del título V (Contratación pública) de la parte IV del presente Acuerdo); caso contrario, para cualquier otro asunto los países centroamericanos asumirán obligaciones y actuarán de forma individual -artículo 352-), entrada en vigor en la que se explica que la regla es que el Acuerdo Comercial (Parte IV) pueda regir independientemente entre la Unión Europea y cada país centroamericano que lo ratifique, no así la totalidad del Acuerdo de Asociación que sí exige la adhesión y ratificación de todas las Partes (artículo 353), su duración indefinida y la posibilidad de ser denunciado por cualquier país en cualquier momento y deja de regir seis meses después (artículo 354), cumplimiento de obligaciones (artículo 355), derechos y obligaciones (artículo 356), excepciones (artículo 357), cláusula evolutiva que se refiere a la posibilidad de ampliar o complementar el Acuerdo mediante la celebración de otros acuerdos sobre actividades específicas (artículo 358), adhesión de nuevos miembros y sus reglas particulares (artículo 359), aplicación territorial, aclarándose expresamente que para el caso de Centroamérica, dicho Acuerdo aplicaría en “los territorios de las Repúblicas de la Parte CA, de conformidad con sus respectivas legislaciones nacionales y el Derecho Internacional” (artículo 360), y la imposibilidad de formular reservas unilaterales o declaraciones interpretativas, lo cual responde a la lógica del carácter multilateral del Acuerdo (artículo 361). Por consiguiente, el concepto de territorio, en los términos del artículo 6 de la Constitución Política, se respeta. Finalmente, se establece la regla de la integralidad del Acuerdo (es decir, que los anexos, apéndices, notas, pies de páginas, entre otros, forman parte del Acuerdo), así como lo relativo a los idiomas auténticos (todos los oficiales de las Partes).

Este Tribunal Constitucional, luego de la lectura de estos dos primeros apartados, no advierte roces evidentes y manifiestos de inconstitucionalidad.

Parte II del Acuerdo:

Esta Parte II del Acuerdo corresponde al primer eje fundamental de la negociación internacional alcanzada. En ella se disponen las normas necesarias para darle contenido al “Diálogo Político” acordado por ambas regiones. En tesis de principio, es un tratado que sustituye el anterior “Acuerdo de Diálogo Político y Cooperación entre la Comunidad Europea y sus Estados miembros por una parte, y las Repúblicas de Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua y Panamá por otra parte”, suscrito en la ciudad de Roma el 15 de diciembre de 2003 y ratificado por Costa Rica mediante ley número 8919 del 16 de diciembre de 2010.

En este apartado del Acuerdo se sintetizan los objetivos que tendrá ese diálogo político. Se subraya el establecimiento de una asociación política privilegiada, en la que se pueda propiciar el intercambio de opiniones, posiciones e información, así como la discusión de asuntos de interés mutuo (artículos 12 y 13). En el numeral 13 se define una lista de temas sobre los cuales se pretende alcanzar una base común entre ambas regiones; sin embargo, la misma no es taxativa, pues se permite añadir cualquier otro tema como ámbito de diálogo político. Los compromisos políticos adquiridos por nuestro país en esta Parte II de “Diálogo Político” incluyen reglas sobre materias en las que Costa Rica ha mostrado un nivel de compromiso muy avanzado, en algunos casos respondientes a áreas cuyo resguardo ha sido promovido por la jurisprudencia de esta Sala. Verbigracia, en el tema de Desarme (artículo 14) existen varios instrumentos internacionales citados en el Acuerdo de Asociación que ya con anterioridad nuestro país había suscrito y ratificado, entre ellos: la “Convención sobre la Prohibición de Empleo, almacenamiento y transferencias de minas antipersonales y su destrucción” (aprobada mediante Ley Nº 7859), y la “Convención sobre Ciertas Armas Convencionales y sus Protocolos” (aprobada a través de Ley Nº 7820).

En ese mismo sentido, respecto al tema de Armas de Destrucción Masiva (artículo 15) o nucleares, Costa Rica ya es Parte de los instrumentos internacionales más relevantes que se han confeccionado (v.gr., el “Tratado de Prohibición Completa de Ensayos Nucleares y su Protocolo”, aprobado mediante Ley Nº 8094; o el “Tratado para la proscripción de armas nucleares en América Latina, aprobado mediante Ley Nº 4369).

En materia de Lucha contra el Terrorismo (artículo 16), nuestro país también cumple con las reglas enunciadas en el Acuerdo de Asociación, toda vez que ha suscrito diversas convenciones a nivel internacional en este tema (v.gr., la “Convención Interamericana contra el Terrorismo”, aprobada mediante Ley N° 8446, el “Convenio Internacional para la Represión de Financiación del Terrorismo, aprobada mediante Ley N° 8257, entre otros).

Por otra parte, el numeral 17 del Acuerdo de Asociación reafirma que los crímenes más graves que preocupen a la comunidad internacional no deben quedar impunes, y otorga un papel fundamental al funcionamiento de la Corte Penal Internacional, a la que Costa Rica dio su adhesión a través de la aprobación del Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (Ley N° 8083).

En los ulteriores artículos 19, 20, 21 y 22 del Acuerdo de Asociación, se reconocen normas generales de aplicación a temas como: migración, medio ambiente (área en la que Costa Rica ha demostrado un compromiso internacional serio, aprobando multitud de convenios), seguridad ciudadana, y buena gobernanza en materia fiscal. Finalmente, el compromiso adquirido en cuanto a la creación de un Fondo Común de Crédito Económico y Financiero tiene alcances aún más concretos, debido a que en sus postulados se establece la necesidad de contar con un mecanismo común que incluya la intervención, por ejemplo, del Banco Europeo de Inversiones, el Mecanismo de Inversión para América Latina y demás asistencia técnica, todo a fin de reducir la pobreza y apoyar el desarrollo en Centroamérica.

Al igual que en las Partes I y V, la Sala no considera que con las reglas convencionales dispuestas en este apartado de “Diálogo Político” se atente de manera directa y clara contra el contenido de la Constitución Política.

Parte III del Acuerdo:

En primer término, la Parte de “Cooperación” enuncia los objetivos y principios generales de la cooperación entre ambas regiones, expuestos de manera genérica. Se aclara que tal cooperación se materializaría en la aportación de recursos, mecanismos, herramientas y procedimientos (artículo 24). Adicionalmente, se explica que todas las entidades involucradas en el proceso de cooperación están sujetas a una gestión transparente de los recursos que se le hayan entregado, así como al deber de rendición de cuentas (artículo 26). La Parte III detalla una lista no taxativa de las áreas de interés prioritarias en que ambas regiones aplicarían las prácticas de cooperación (áreas que se clasifican en los títulos I al IX); empero, se recuerda que si las Partes así lo deciden, se podrá incluir en el rubro de la cooperación cualquier otro ámbito o actividad acorde con el espíritu del Acuerdo de Asociación (artículo 27).

En el Título I de esta Parte III se procura sentar los principales alcances de la cooperación intrarregional en los sectores de Democracia, Derechos Humanos y Buena Gobernanza. En dichas áreas se reiteran aspectos fundamentales como la universalidad, indivisibilidad e interdependencia de los derechos humanos; asimismo, se acuerda que la cooperación en este ámbito tendrá por objeto mejorar y modernizar la gestión pública, así como apoyar una política integral de paz que incluya la prevención y solución pacífica de conflictos.

En cuanto al Título II, el Acuerdo de Asociación se preocupó por regular la cooperación interregional en lo atinente a la Justicia, Libertad y Seguridad. Así las cosas, se habla de colaboración en el tema de la protección de datos personales y libre circulación de estos entre las Partes, siempre y cuando se respeten las regulaciones establecidas en las legislaciones internas de cada país. También en la reducción de la oferta y demanda de drogas ilícitas, tanto desde una perspectiva represiva como preventiva. Lo mismo que en el tema de lavado de activos (incluida la financiación del terrorismo), crimen organizado y seguridad ciudadana (intercambiando las buenas prácticas), lucha contra la corrupción en el sector público y privado debido a la grave amenaza que constituye para la institucionalidad interna de cada país, previniendo (entre otras cuestiones) los sobornos en las transacciones internacionales y dando seguimiento a las políticas ejecutadas a nivel local, regional e internacional. A su vez, se extiende la cooperación para prevenir y combatir el tráfico ilícito de armas ligeras.

Respecto al Título III se debe expresar que fue el apartado designado para regular la cooperación en el ámbito del Desarrollo y Cohesión Social. Referido a esta temática, se puede destacar el interés de ambas regiones por cooperar en el combate de problemas sociales importantes tales como la pobreza, desigualdad social y exclusión, teniendo como norte una mejor distribución de las riquezas y el establecimiento de políticas de empleo orientadas a un trabajo decente para todas las personas (artículo 41). En cuanto a educación y formación (artículo 43), las Partes acordaron cooperar para poder alcanzar un acceso equitativo a la educación, así como mejorar la calidad de esta. En salud pública (artículo 44) se enlistan varias patologías de especial atención para la cooperación, entre otras cuestiones. Se buscará cooperar también en la protección y promoción de los derechos fundamentales de los pueblos indígenas, según se ha propiciado por diversos instrumentos internacionales creados en torno a esta población (artículo 45). El Acuerdo de Asociación también se interesa por cooperar a favor de los grupos socialmente vulnerables y fortalecer la perspectiva de género e igualdad entre hombres y mujeres en cada uno de los ámbitos internamente relevantes, sin dejar de lado lo atinente a la juventud (artículos 46, 47 y 48).

En el Título IV relacionado con el tema Migratorio, llama la atención la norma en la que se establece la cooperación para el retorno, en condiciones humanas, de las personas que no posean un permiso de residencia legal (artículo 49). En ese sentido, se acordó que las repúblicas centroamericanas se comprometían a “readmitir, previa petición y sin ningún trámite”, a todos sus nacionales con status migratorio irregular en el territorio de algún miembro de la Unión Europea (artículo 49.2.a); misma readmisión que aplica para los nacionales de algún país de la UE que estén de manera irregular en Centroamérica (artículo 49.2.b). Empero, de conformidad con el artículo 49.4 del Acuerdo de Asociación, tal readmisión será regulada mediante la vía del acuerdo multilateral (entre Partes), en el que se regularían las obligaciones de cada Estado en esta materia. En consonancia con lo explicado por el Departamento de Servicios Técnicos, la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería de nuestro país (en respuesta a consulta sobre el proyecto de ley Nº 18.563), se pronunció favorablemente respecto a esta readmisión y las regulaciones contenidas en el Acuerdo de Asociación, indicando que “no presenta roces con la legislación migratoria actual”.

En otro orden de ideas, el Título V de esta Parte III del Acuerdo está referido al Medio Ambiente, Desastres Naturales y Cambio Climático, definiendo cuáles áreas ambientales serían abarcadas por la cooperación interregional (artículo 50). Del mismo modo, se busca reducir la vulnerabilidad de la región centroamericana ante los desastres naturales (artículo 51).

El Título VI aplica para la cooperación en el ámbito del Desarrollo Económico y Comercial. Concretamente, este apartado se encarga de regular el tema de la cooperación y asistencia técnica en materias como la política de competencia y su promoción (artículo 52), aduanas y facilitación del comercio (artículos 53 y 54), propiedad intelectual y transferencia de tecnología (artículo 55), comercio de servicios y comercio electrónico (artículo 56), contratación pública (artículo 58), pesca y acuicultura sostenible (artículo 59), acceso a los mercados para los bienes artesanales y su preservación (artículo 60), facilitar comercio de productos orgánicos (artículo 61), inocuidad de los alimentos, medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias así como bienestar de los animales (artículo 62), comercio y desarrollo sostenible, apoyando la protección del medio ambiente y las condiciones de trabajo decente (artículo 63), modernización y reestructuración de la industria centroamericana (artículo 64), energía y energías renovables, su ahorro e impacto medioambiental (artículo 65), minería teniendo en cuenta las legislaciones internas y el desarrollo sostenible (artículo 66), turismo justo y sostenible que incluya la protección y promoción del patrimonio cultural y los recursos naturales, todo con la participación de las comunidades locales, promoviendo el turismo rural, comunitario y ecológico (artículo 67), modernización y reestructuración del transporte en todas sus modalidades, incluidos los puestos fronterizos, facilitando la circulación de personas y mercancías (artículo 68), apoyo a las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas, para que puedan participar en los mercados de bienes y servicios a nivel local e internacional (artículo 70), y acceso a microcréditos y microfinanciación (artículo 71).

En relación con el Título VII, se puede manifestar que está destinado a regular la cooperación en materia de Integración Regional, fortaleciendo este proceso en el ámbito Centroamericano, sobre todo en la aplicación de su mercado común, desarrollo de sus instituciones comunes y participación de la sociedad civil mediante campañas de consulta y sensibilización (artículo 72).

Por su parte, el Título VIII hace referencia a la Cooperación Audiovisual y Cultural. En ese sentido, se destaca que las Partes se comprometieron a propiciar la circulación de actividades, bienes y servicios culturales, y de artistas y profesionales de la cultura (artículo 74). También se incluye la promoción de la diversidad cultural, incluida la de los pueblos indígenas y las prácticas culturales de otros grupos, incorporando la educación en lenguas nativas. En el área audiovisual, se menciona cooperación en medios de comunicación, como radio y prensa. Finalmente se aclara que se anexa un Protocolo de Cooperación Cultural en las disposiciones finales, que también es de relevancia para la interpretación de este Título.

El Título Final IX de esta Parte III está relacionado con la Sociedad del Conocimiento. En esta sección se pretende consignar la cooperación entre ambas regiones respecto a las tecnologías de la información y comunicación, buscando disminuir la brecha digital y el aseguramiento de un acceso equitativo e inclusivo (artículo 75). Se enfocan también temas como: gobierno digital, comercio electrónico, firma digital, teletrabajo, entre otros. Asimismo, la cooperación iría dirigida al sector científico y tecnológico, así como a concretar acciones de investigación conjunta (artículo 76). Se afirma la promoción de la ciencia y tecnología nuclear para aplicaciones médicas en ámbitos como la salud, en particular la radiología y medicina nuclear para el radiodiagnóstico y tratamiento por radioterapia, así como demás áreas que las Partes establezcan por mutuo acuerdo. También se enfatiza en el tema de las capacitaciones, becas e intercambios.

Habiendo analizado cada uno de los Títulos que componen esta Parte III del Acuerdo de Asociación, la Sala concluye que –en términos generales- tampoco se localizaron inconstitucionalidades evidentes y manifiestas en torno al fondo de sus reglas y textos.

Parte IV del Acuerdo:

Tal como se ha Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Centroamérica y la Unión Europea.

De conformidad con los artículos 353.2 y 353.4 del Acuerdo, a diferencia de las otras partes del Acuerdo de Asociación que entrarán en vigencia cuando las Partes de ambas regiones hayan notificado el cumplimiento de sus procedimientos internos, esta Parte IV puede entrar en vigor para cada país centroamericano que lo ratifique, independientemente de los demás, una vez que haya sido aprobado por la Unión Europea.

En general, este apartado comercial cumple la tradicional estructura de los Acuerdos de la Organización Mundial del Comercio, desarrollando en 14 Títulos las áreas de comercio de mercancías (Título II), comercio de servicios y comercio electrónico (Título III), e incluye disposiciones sobre temas comunes: protección de inversiones en lo relativo a flujos financieros (Título IV), contratación pública (Título V), protección de la propiedad intelectual (Título VI), y mecanismos de solución de controversias (Título X).

El Título I y XIV contienen las disposiciones generales aplicables a todo el Acuerdo Comercial, y enuncian el objetivo básico de las Partes (establecimiento de una zona de libre comercio), las definiciones técnicas y las excepciones generales que aplican comúnmente en este tipo de tratados (Título XIV), siguiendo las reglas propias del Acuerdo GATT de la OMC, acuerdos aprobados por Costa Rica al momento de su incorporación a la Organización Mundial del Comercio (Ley Nº 7475 del 20 de diciembre de 1994).

Se trata entonces de objetivos de política económica que se pueden compartir o no, pero que en todo caso su definición corresponde a un criterio de oportunidad política a cargo de los Poderes Legislativo y Ejecutivo, no a un criterio jurisdiccional. El control de constitucionalidad a cargo de la Sala Constitucional no puede sustituir a dichos Poderes, sino que debe limitarse a verificar que no se violente el orden constitucional, todo ello en respeto al principio de autocontención del juez constitucional.

En lo atinente a las reglas de los Títulos XII y XIII (de Transparencia y Procedimientos Administrativos) son disposiciones comunes en la creación de mecanismos institucionales para la implementación del Acuerdo, ya sea con la obligación de dar publicidad a los propios procedimientos administrativos internos, dar posibilidad en el ordenamiento jurídico de recurrir, administrativa o judicialmente, los actos de los órganos encargados de implementar el Acuerdo (aduanas y autoridades sanitarias, entre otros), o de mantener un punto de contacto para comunicación fluida entre las Partes. Propiamente, el Título XIII se limita a distribuir competencias y funciones dentro de los distintos órganos que se crean, para administrar e implementar el Acuerdo mismo.

En este Acuerdo Comercial se incluyen algunos temas novedosos, como las regulaciones relativas al Título denominado “Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible” (Título VIII), además de los compromisos de integración regional económica (Título IX).

En forma general, todos estos temas y compromisos que implican los Acuerdos Comerciales de este tipo, ya han sido asumidos por el país en tratados anteriores. En razón de ello, y dado el carácter eminentemente técnico de los contenidos del Acuerdo Comercial, los cuales en principio responden a criterios discrecionales de política comercial, la Sala estima necesario recordar alguna jurisprudencia emitida por esta jurisdicción constitucional en casos análogos al presente, en la que se explicaba que: “(…) Sin embargo, desde el punto que nos interesa señalar ahora, eso significa que el Estado, o más propiamente, los órganos que tienen a su cargo competencias estrictamente políticas y de gestión, deben actuar siempre en función de estimular la producción y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza. Ha de entenderse, pues, que el Poder Ejecutivo ha negociado este Tratado, teniendo como norte esos objetivos constitucionales. Y ha de entenderse, también, que el Poder Legislativo, al conocer el fondo del instrumento dicho, actuará de conformidad con los mismos objetivos. Por eso es que podemos concluir, en principio, que las ventajas o desventajas que tenga para algún sector el Tratado como tal, o algunas de sus previsiones, discutidas y discutibles, no necesariamente entrañan un aspecto de constitucionalidad, en el sentido que debe pronunciar la Sala, pues radican en el nivel de la mera conveniencia u oportunidad. Por ejemplo, algunos señalan que no obstante la bondad de este tipo de instrumentos comerciales, un país no derivaría ventajas inmediatas o en el corto plazo, si coinciden en él el viejo modelo (de sustitución de importaciones, de subsidios), y el nuevo modelo de apertura comercial. (…) De toda suerte, la Sala advierte que esos aspectos giran en torno a las políticas que están detrás de la filosofía del Tratado, pero no tienen la connotación constitucional a que la Sala debe circunscribir su opinión” (ver sentencias número 07005-94 de las 09:21 horas del 02 de diciembre de 1994 y 9469-2007 de las 10:00 horas del 3 de julio de 2007, entre otras). En consecuencia, de conformidad con los diversos pronunciamientos que ha emitido esta Sala sobre los Tratados de Libre Comercio ya vigentes en nuestro país, es claro que, en términos generales, las cláusulas comerciales y técnicas allí contenidas obedecen a la política comercial que tuvo el Poder Ejecutivo al momento de suscribir el instrumento internacional. Asimismo, también se aprecia que muchas de las normas contenidas en este Acuerdo Comercial, básicamente se limitan a reafirmar los derechos y las obligaciones de las Partes, ya contenidos de previo en otros convenios internacionales ratificados por Costa Rica (v.gr., en el área de Propiedad Intelectual, el artículo 233 del Acuerdo enlista varios instrumentos internacionales que las Partes deben cumplir, todos los cuales ya han sido ratificados por nuestro país: la Convención de Roma (Ley Nº 4727), el Convenio de Berna (Ley Nº 6083), y los Tratados de la OMPI sobre Derechos de Autor (WCT) (Ley Nº 7968) y sobre Interpretación o Ejecución y Fonogramas (WPPT) (Ley Nº 7967).

Así las cosas, este Tribunal se limitará al estudio de ciertos aspectos novedosos o que considere relevantes desde una perspectiva constitucional.

El Acuerdo Internacional en estudio con relación al Título V de la Parte IV, establece como objetivo principal la apertura efectiva, recíproca y gradual de sus respectivos mercados de contratación, amparados en contrataciones transparentes, competitivas y abiertas que aporten al desarrollo sostenible. Precisamente por ello, el artículo 211, establece al igual que se ha dispuesto en anteriores tratados de igual naturaleza, la necesidad de que los Estados Parte den un trato no menos favorable que el otorgado por la Parte, así como también, en el deber de gestionar las contrataciones de una manera transparente e imparcial, pretendiendo evitar conflictos de interés, por prácticas corruptas. En razón de lo anterior, el acuerdo contempla distintas formas de contratación administrativa, similares a las contempladas en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico (denominadas en este caso licitación abierta, licitación selectiva y licitación restringida) lo que tiene como objeto garantizar principios mínimos de participación e igualdad que resguarde a las empresas que eventualmente lleguen a participar en los Estados Parte. Lo anterior, resulta razonable partiendo del hecho de que no todo Estado Parte tiene contempladas dichas garantías en su ordenamiento jurídico, como sí lo hace el nuestro incluso a nivel constitucional, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 182 de la Constitución Política:

“Artículo 182.- Los contratos para la ejecución de obras públicas que celebren los Poderes del Estado, las Municipalidades y las instituciones autónomas, las compras que se hagan con fondos de esas entidades y las ventas o arrendamientos de bienes pertenecientes a las mismas, se harán mediante licitación, de acuerdo con la ley en cuanto al monto respectivo.” En particular, el texto del convenio en estudio provee las siguientes definiciones en el artículo 209.2:

“…f) “Licitación restringida” significa un método de contratación mediante el cual una entidad contratante contacta a un proveedor o unos proveedores de su elección;…

…k) “licitación abierta” significa un método de contratación mediante el cual todos los proveedores interesados pueden presentar una oferta;…

…n) “licitación selectiva” significa un método de contratación mediante el cual una entidad contratante únicamente invita a ofertar a los proveedores calificados o registrados;…” Asimismo, este Convenio regula la necesidad de publicación de la información sobre las contrataciones en forma oportuna, completa y transparente (ver artículos 212, 217 y 223) y procura el debido acceso en condiciones de igualdad para la participación en los procesos de contratación, señalando que para la elección del oferente se debe tomar en consideración su idoneidad, con relación a las habilidades financieras, comerciales y técnicas, sin que se dé un trato privilegiado a aquellas que han participado anteriormente valorando únicamente la oferta por razón de territorio (artículo 214). En concordancia con dichos objetivos, el artículo 220 estatuye que a condición de que los procedimientos de contratación no se utilicen como medio para evitar la competencia o para proteger proveedores nacionales, una entidad contratante podrá adjudicar contratos mediante contratación directa u otros procedimientos de contratación equivalentes en determinadas circunstancias que ahí especifica. Lo anterior como garantía precisamente, de que un Estado Parte no justifique indiscriminadamente la utilización de un mecanismo de contratación directa en perjuicio de los demás Estados Parte y con ello se lesione el principio de buena fe que rige en la negociación dada, por lo que lejos de mermar los controles ya existentes en nuestro ordenamiento para que se lleven a cabo las contrataciones administrativas, se establecen condiciones mínimas, al menos en cuanto al objeto a contratar para recurrir a este mecanismo de contratación directa. Todo lo expuesto, es plenamente concordante con los principios que rigen la contratación administrativa en nuestro país y que en ningún modo afecta al régimen interno de contratación pública, por cuanto no existe un acuerdo en el sentido de disminuir o lesionar los controles y los principios de contratación administrativa que se observan en nuestro país, más aun pretende garantizar que estos se lleven a cabo con todas las garantías del caso. Asimismo, el artículo 225 dispone que cada Parte establecerá o mantendrá los procedimientos administrativos o judiciales de revisión, que permitan controlar las decisiones administrativas que afecten las contrataciones, por lo que dichos procesos deberán resultar oportunos, eficaces, transparentes y no discriminatorios y remite a nuestra propia jurisdicción para la resolución de los conflictos de esta índole. Por otro lado, la Sala, en sentencias No. 2007-9469 y No. 2008-12590, ha reiterado, ante condiciones pactadas como las de estudio, que igualmente prevalece el control que ejerce la Contraloría General de la República, como garantía no solo para los nacionales, sino también de los nacionales de los Estados Parte:

“… el Tratado en estudio deja a discreción de cada Parte, la designación de su autoridad administrativa o judicial competente en esta materia, imponiendo como único requisito que se trate de un órgano imparcial. Es por esto que en el caso de Costa Rica, debe entenderse a la luz de la normativa interna de nuestro país, que la Contraloría General de la República conserva todas sus atribuciones de control y fiscalización en materia de contratación pública y si no se menciona en forma designación dependerá de la normativa de cada Parte. El hecho de que la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría no haya sido incluida en la lista de medidas disconformes no significa que se esté excluyendo el poder de fiscalización de dicho órgano. Por el contrario, significa que no se consideró dicho control incompatible con el Tratado a la luz de lo dispuesto en el artículo 9.15, y por lo tanto no ameritaba su inclusión como una medida disconforme. Así las cosas, por no existir disposición en contrario en el tratado, la Contraloría General de la República conserva todas sus atribuciones en esta materia, y en consecuencia, puede velar incluso porque los mecanismos excepcionales a la “licitación abierta” no se presten para abusos e identificar cuándo realmente se está frente a uno de esos casos.” Por otro lado, la Sala constata que si bien el artículo 214 del Acuerdo, que se refiere a las condiciones de participación, en el punto 4 párrafo segundo dispone que: “Cada Parte podrá adoptar o mantener procedimientos para declarar la inelegibilidad para participar en las contrataciones de la Parte, ya sea indefinidamente o por un periodo establecido, de los proveedores respecto a los cuales la Parte haya determinado que han participado en actividades ilegales o fraudulentas relacionadas con la contratación”; esta norma no resulta lesiva de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, a pesar de establecer la posibilidad de imponer una sanción indefinidamente -como sería la no elegibilidad-, por cuanto la norma citada contempla dos supuestos que se dividen con la conjunción “o”, que tiene en este caso una función disyuntiva, lo que implica que el Estado Parte puede optar por declarar la inelegibilidad indefinidamente o por un periodo establecido. Respecto de nuestro país, el artículo 40 de la Constitución Política prohíbe la existencia de sanciones perpetuas, por lo que al regularse los procedimientos correspondientes, simplemente la causal señalada no podría sujetarse a una sanción indefinida, sino de un plazo determinado, lo cual resulta consecuente también con lo dispuesto en el Acuerdo internacional en estudio.

Por otro lado, en el Título VII de esta Parte IV, denominado: “Comercio y Competencia”, se comerciales entre cada región (artículo 278). En ese sentido, se consignó que las Partes reconocían la importancia de una competencia libre y no distorsionada; además, que las prácticas anticompetitivas pueden afectar el funcionamiento adecuado de los mercados y los beneficios de la liberalización comercial. De seguido, las Partes acordaron una lista de prácticas que resultarían incompatibles con el Acuerdo. Sin embargo, también consignaron cláusulas aclaratorias o de salvaguarda importantes como la contemplada en el numeral 280: “Ninguna disposición del presente título impedirá a una República de la Parte CA o a un Estado miembro de la Unión Europea designar o mantener empresas públicas, empresas titulares de derechos especiales o exclusivos o monopolios con arreglo a su legislación nacional” (lo destacado no es del original). Como es sabido, Costa Rica ya cuenta con una regulación normativa relacionada con la materia de competencia (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, Ley Nº 7472 del 20 de diciembre de 1994); asimismo, en los últimos años se ha ido liberalizando el mercado nacional en ciertos sectores específicos (v.gr., la Ley General de Telecomunicaciones, Nº 8642, que impone un régimen de competencia en esa área).

En el Título VIII, relacionado con el “Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible”, se establecen una serie de principios sobre estándares laborales y ambientales, pensando no solo en las generaciones actuales sino futuras. Se reconoce el derecho de las Partes a regular el propio nivel de protección, en atención a sus respectivas Constituciones (artículo 285), pero reafirmando el compromiso de implementar, en su legislación y en la práctica, los Convenios de la OIT enumerados en el ordinal 286 del Acuerdo (Convenio 138 sobre la Edad Mínima de Admisión al Empleo (Ley Nº 5594), el Convenio 182, sobre la Prohibición de las Peores Formas de trabajo Infantil y la Acción Inmediata para su Eliminación (Ley Nº 8122), el Convenio 105, sobre la Abolición del Trabajo Forzoso (Ley Nº 2330), el Convenio 111 sobre la Discriminación en Materia de Empleo y Ocupación (Ley Nº 2848), así como los Convenios 29: sobre el Trabajo Forzoso u Obligatorio, 100: sobre la Igualdad de Remuneración entre la Mano de Obra Masculina y la Mano de Obra Femenina por un Trabajo de Igual Valor, 87: sobre Libertad Sindical y la Protección del Derecho de Sindicalización, y 98: sobre la Aplicación de los Principios del Derecho de Sindicalización y de Negociación Colectiva (aprobados todos conjuntamente por Ley Nº 2561), así como los acuerdos medioambientales multilaterales de los que son parte, enlistados en el artículo 287 del Acuerdo (Protocolo de Montreal relativo a las Sustancias que Agotan la Capa de Ozono (Ley Nº 7228), Convenio de Basilea sobre el Control de los Movimientos Transfronterizos de los Desechos Peligrosos y su Eliminación (Ley Nº 7438), Convenio de Estocolmo sobre Contaminantes Orgánicos Persistentes (Ley Nº 8538), Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Flora y Fauna Silvestres “CITES” (Ley Nº 5605), Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica (Ley Nº 7416), Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica (Ley Nº 8537), Protocolo de Kyoto a la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático (Ley Nº 8219).

Precisamente en esta sección del Acuerdo (artículo 287.3) es donde las Partes “(…) se comprometen a asegurarse de que habrán ratificado, para la fecha de entrada en vigor del presente Acuerdo, la Enmienda del artículo XXI de la CITES, adoptada en Gaborone (Botsuana) el 30 de abril de 1983”. Como se ha visto, esta obligación asumida por el Estado constituye el segundo artículo del proyecto de ley sometido a consulta ante esta Sala, cuya constitucionalidad se abordará más adelante. De seguido, se indica también en el Acuerdo que las Partes se comprometieron a ratificar el “Convenio de Rotterdam sobre el Procedimiento de Consentimiento Fundamentado Previo Aplicable a ciertos Plaguicidas y Productos Químicos Peligrosos objeto de Comercio Internacional”, instrumento que ya fue ratificado por Costa Rica mediante Ley Nº 8705. En ese mismo orden de ideas, el numeral 290.2.a del Acuerdo señala que, en materia de Comercio de Productos Pesqueros, las Partes se comprometen a adherirse a los principios del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de las Disposiciones de la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar, relativas a la Conservación y Ordenación de las Poblaciones de Peces Transzonales y las Poblaciones de Peces Altamente Migratorios (Ley Nº 8059).

Mención particular merece el numeral 290.3 del Acuerdo, que regula lo siguiente: “Las Partes acuerdan, en la medida en que no lo hayan hecho, adoptar medidas del Estado rector del puerto de conformidad con el Acuerdo de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura sobre Medidas del Estado Rector del Puerto, Destinadas a Prevenir, Desalentar y Eliminar la Pesca Ilegal, No Declarada y No Reglamentada (…)”. De conformidad con lo verificado en la Asamblea Legislativa, la Adhesión a dicho Acuerdo está siendo tramitada mediante expediente legislativo 18.320, y el proyecto de ley se denomina así: “APROBACIÓN DE LA ADHESIÓN AL ACUERDO SOBRE MEDIDAS DEL ESTADO RECTOR DEL PUERTO DESTINADAS A PREVENIR, DESALENTAR Y ELIMINAR LA PESCA ILEGAL, NO DECLARADA Y NO REGLAMENTADA (MERP) Y SUS ANEXOS”. Según se comprobó, dicho Acuerdo relacionado con las medidas del Estado Rector del Puerto y la Pesca Ilegal, aún no ha sido aprobado por ese órgano parlamentario. El último trámite legislativo constatado sobre este acuerdo internacional, fue su ingreso en el Orden del Día del Plenario el 10 de setiembre de 2012, sin que a la fecha se haya concluido el procedimiento legislativo a fin de obtener la adhesión (http://www.asamblea.go.cr/Centro_de_Informacion/Consultas_SIL/Pginas/Detalle%20Proyectos%20de%20Ley.aspx?Numero_Proyecto=18320). Es importante recordar que en cuanto a la figura de la “adhesión” a un acuerdo internacional, este Tribunal ha señalado lo siguiente en su jurisprudencia:

“LA ADHESIÓN A UN ACUERDO INTERNACIONAL. De previo al conocimiento del fondo del proyecto de ley consultado, conviene hacer referencia a la figura de la adhesión como mecanismo para ratificar un instrumento internacional que no fue negociado, directamente, por el Gobierno de Costa Rica, sino que éste, posteriormente, decide en forma soberana comprometerse con su contenido. La figura de la adhesión está establecida en el artículo 2 de la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados, Ley No. 7615 de 24 de julio de 1996, al indicar, en lo conducente, que “Se entiende por ‘ratificación’, ‘aceptación’, ‘aprobación’ y ‘adhesión’, según el caso, el acto internacional así denominado por el cual un Estado hace constar en el ámbito internacional su consentimiento en obligarse por un tratado”. Asimismo, el artículo 11 regula las formas de manifestación del consentimiento del Estado en obligarse por un tratado, consentimiento que puede acreditarse mediante la firma, el canje de instrumentos que constituyan un tratado, la ratificación, la aceptación, la aprobación o adhesión. En relación a este numeral, el Gobierno de Costa Rica hizo la reserva en el sentido que el sistema jurídico constitucional de nuestro país no autoriza ninguna forma de consentimiento que no esté sujeta a la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa. Lo anterior, claro está, a la luz de lo indicado en el artículo 121 de la Constitución Política que dispone en el inciso 4° que le corresponde, exclusivamente, a la Asamblea Legislativa aprobar o improbar los convenios internacionales, tratados públicos y concordatos. Es decir, que el consentimiento del Estado costarricense siempre queda vinculado a la autorización del órgano parlamentario. De otra parte, la Convención de Viena establece en el artículo 15 la posibilidad de un Estado de adherirse a un instrumento internacional y la regula en el siguiente sentido: “Artículo 15.- Consentimiento en obligarse por un tratado manifestado mediante la adhesión. El consentimiento de un Estado en obligarse por un tratado se manifestará mediante la adhesión:

• a)Cuando el tratado disponga que ese Estado puede manifestar tal consentimiento mediante la adhesión; b) Cuando conste de otro modo que los Estados negociadores han convenido que ese Estado puede manifestar tal consentimiento mediante la adhesión; o c) Cuando todas las partes hayan convenido ulteriormente que ese Estado puede manifestar tal consentimiento mediante la adhesión.” De dicho numeral se desprende que resulta legítima la posibilidad de adherirse al texto de un acuerdo internacional no negociado y suscrito directamente, siempre y cuando, las Partes negociadoras del convenio así lo autoricen o se prevea esa posibilidad en el propio convenio” (ver sentencia número 2011-001308 de las 15:10 horas del 02 de febrero de 2011).

En la especie, como se indicó, el Estado costarricense, mediante la aprobación del Acuerdo de Asociación, se compromete a adoptar medidas tendentes a implementar las medidas del Estado Rector del Puerto, de conformidad con el citado Acuerdo de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura, de manera que se den sistemas de control e inspección, así como incentivos y obligaciones para una gestión racional y sostenible de la pesca y los ecosistemas costeros a largo plazo. Al respecto, debemos precisar que el Acuerdo de Asociación no impone, como requisito sine qua non de validez, la aprobación de la adhesión al Acuerdo sobre Medidas del Estado Rector del Puertos. Se limita a indicar que el Estado que no lo haya adoptado, como el nuestro, al menos debe adoptar las medidas correspondientes que remiten al contenido de ese Acuerdo para prevenir, desalentar y eliminar la pesca ilegal e implemente sistemas de control e inspección, así como incentivos y obligaciones para una gestión racional y sostenible de la pesca y los ecosistemas costeros a largo plazo, que en el caso de optar por su adopción, no lo exime de seguir los trámites dispuestos en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Asimismo, de la lectura integral del artículo 290, resulta claro que su objetivo es que las Partes reconzcan la necesidad de promover la pesca sostenible, a fin de contribuir a la conservación de las poblaciones de peces y al comercio sostenible de los recursos pesqueros, lo que resulta plenamente acorde con la protección que resguarda el derecho a un ambiente sano y equilibrado en nuestro Estado; y la referencia que se hace a este Convenio en el apartado c) no se hizo con el imperativo que por ejemplo sí establece en el punto 2 con relación a otros principios.

Continuando con el análisis por el fondo del Acuerdo de Asociación, se observa que en su artículo 295 se expresa el consentimiento en facilitar las relaciones interregionales mediante foros de diálogo con la sociedad civil, con representación equilibrada, de los actos medioambientales, económicos y sociales. Asimismo, en este Título se instaura un Panel de Expertos al que le corresponde “examinar si existe una falta de una Parte en cumplir con las obligaciones establecidas en virtud de los artículos 286, apartado 2; 287, apartados 2, 3 y 4; y 291 del presente título, y formular recomendaciones no vinculantes para solucionar el asunto (…)” (artículo 299).

A lo largo del Acuerdo, como se ha visto, existen una serie de normas que permiten la participación de la sociedad civil en ciertos temas de importante relevancia. En consideración de la Sala, resulta necesario hacer notar esta particularidad del Acuerdo toda vez que encuentra conexidad con un principio trascendental de raigambre constitucional como lo es la participación ciudadana, contemplada en el ordinal 9 de la Constitución. La jurisprudencia de este Tribunal ha sido extensa en desarrollar este derecho y destacar su relevancia en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Así, se ha sostenido que este principio de participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones se ha convertido en uno de los pilares fundamentales sobre los que descansa el sistema democrático. En ese sentido, el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política establece, entre otras características, que el Gobierno de la República debe ser participativo. Con la reforma vigente desde el 31 de julio de 2003 al numeral 9 de la Ley Fundamental quedó estatuido que el Gobierno de la República tiene que ser, entre otros aspectos, participativo, lo que implica que el gobierno de turno es un articulador de lo establecido por deliberación popular. En otras palabras, son los ciudadanos quienes tienen una mayor participación en la toma de decisiones políticas, pueden y deben ejercer influencia directa en las decisiones públicas. Este principio, visto como derecho fundamental de participación ciudadana, establece que el pueblo debe estar habilitado para manifestarse por igual en puntos de vista tanto mayoritarios como minoritarios (ver sentencia número 015763-2011 de las 09:46 horas del 16 de noviembre de 2011). Así las cosas, considera la Sala que el Acuerdo de Asociación sub examine contiene un conjunto de normas que propician el impulso de este derecho constitucional, de ahí que valga destacar esta virtud en su texto.

En el Título IX llamado “Integración Económica Regional”, se describen compromisos adquiridos por la región Centroamericana en esta temática, enfocados principalmente en el área de procedimientos aduaneros, obstáculos técnicos al comercio, medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias, entre otros, para todo lo cual se dispuso una serie de plazos previamente pactados para cumplir con tales requerimientos de integración. Debe recordarse que la región Centroamericana ha asumido muchos de estos deberes a partir del proceso de integración que se viene gestando desde hace varios años; empero, para algunas materias, el Acuerdo ordena el cumplimiento de compromisos en plazos debidamente definidos.

Un acápite a destacar en esta Parte IV del Acuerdo es el plasmado en los Títulos X y XI, atinente a la “Solución de Controversias”. Ahí se establece un mecanismo de solución de diferencias basado en un procedimiento arbitral o de Grupo Especial (Título X). Este procedimiento aplica únicamente para el Acuerdo Comercial (Parte IV), y no es posible ejecutarlo en las disputas entre países centroamericanos. En este Título X hay libertad de elección del foro para plantear la disputa, pero no obviamente por ambas vías. En ese sentido, el artículo 326 del Acuerdo establece la posibilidad de que si una Parte contendiente desea reparar la infracción de una obligación bajo el Entendimiento Relativo a las Normas y Procedimientos por los que se rige la Solución de Diferencias de la OMC, podrá recurrir a las reglas del Acuerdo sobre la OMC.

Por otro lado, se explica que deben plantearse obligatoriamente consultas previas y agotado ese procedimiento sin que se alcance una solución, se hace la solicitud de Grupo Especial que se conforma de la Lista de Expertos que definen las partes. Este Grupo Especial emite una decisión y si una parte es renuente a cumplirla, da derecho a la contraparte a la compensación o suspensión de beneficios en términos equivalentes (artículo 314). Adicionalmente, se propone un mecanismo de mediación para medidas no arancelarias que produce efectos jurídicos en caso de solución mutuamente acordada. Este procedimiento de la mediación está contemplado en el Título XI del Acuerdo. Propiamente, en el artículo 334 se Controversias) y no pretende servir como base para procedimientos de solución de controversias en virtud de dicho Título. Es decir, que la solicitud de mediación que pueda plantear alguna de las Partes no excluirá el recurso al Título X.

Como bien lo establece el artículo 308 del Acuerdo, la solución de controversias dispuesta en el Título X únicamente servirá para "(…) resolver cualquier controversia entre las Partes relativa a la interpretación o aplicación de la parte IV del Acuerdo (…)”. Es decir, el arbitraje, mediación y demás mecanismos alternos de solución se establecen para que las Partes (los Estados) puedan hacer cumplir las obligaciones adquiridas por su contraparte, siempre y cuando se trate de obligaciones que no vayan más allá del ámbito patrimonial protegido en el numeral 43 de la Constitución Política.

Por otra parte, el artículo 319 del Acuerdo dispone que las Reglas de Procedimiento que regirán para la resolución de controversias, serán adoptadas por el Consejo de Asociación, salvo que las Partes contendientes acuerden lo contrario. En el ordinal 321 del Acuerdo, se reconoce la figura del “amicus curiae”, mediante la cual se otorga la posibilidad de que personas naturales o jurídicas con interés en el asunto, puedan presentar escritos para la posible consideración del Grupo Especial, de conformidad con las Reglas de Procedimiento. En el artículo 323.2 del Acuerdo, se aclara que cualquier decisión del Grupo Especial será definitiva y vinculante para las Partes, lo cual –como se ha explicado- resulta una consecuencia lógica de la suscripción y aceptación previa por parte de los Estados de la cláusula compromisoria en este tipo de instrumentos internacionales, misma que ha sido aceptada por esta Sala en anteriores ocasiones.

Finalmente, tanto de la lectura del Título X como del XI, no se aprecia que en este Acuerdo de Asociación se haya contemplado el establecimiento de mecanismos para disputas entre inversionistas de una Parte y Estados de otra; tampoco se observa que exista algún acápite o sección dentro del Acuerdo, especialmente llamada a regular la Solución de Controversias entre una Parte y un inversionista de la otra parte. Por el contrario, en el Título X (Solución de Controversias) solamente se habla del término “Partes” en cada una de sus reglas. Es claro que la noción de “Partes” debe leerse de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la Parte V del Acuerdo, donde se reseñan las disposiciones finales del convenio y entre las cuales se encuentra el artículo 352 que, precisamente, se refiere a la “Definición de las Partes” a efectos del Acuerdo. En ese artículo solo se citan las Repúblicas Centroamericanas, por un lado, y los Estados Miembros o la Unión Europea, por otro. De este modo, no cabría otra interpretación más que concluir que el mecanismo de solución de controversias es solo para disputas entre Estados. Lo mismo se verifica de la lectura del artículo 329.3 del Acuerdo, en el que se indica que “el presente título se aplicará bilateralmente entre las Parte UE, por un lado, y cada una de las Repúblicas de la Parte CA, por el otro”. Esta norma se encuentra contenida dentro del Título XI en el que se regula lo relativo al “Mecanismo de Mediación para Medidas No Arancelarias”. Así las cosas, para la resolución del sub lite no es procedente fundamentarse en las razones que se plasmaron en la sentencia número 2007-09469 (TLC con EE.UU) respecto de esta temática del arbitraje y resolución alterna de conflictos, toda vez que en aquella ocasión tales motivos fueron referidos específicamente al ámbito de la Solución de Controversias entre Inversionista-Estado, supuesto que, como se vio, fue omitido en el presente Acuerdo de Asociación.

Dejando atrás el tema de la Solución de Controversias, el Acuerdo de Asociación en estudio también se encargó de regular en su Título XII un apartado especial denominado “Transparencia y Procedimientos Administrativos”. En el artículo 338 se desarrolla el acuerdo entre las Partes a fin de cooperar en los foros bilaterales y multilaterales pertinentes para incrementar la transparencia, incluyendo la eliminación del soborno y la corrupción en cuestiones cubiertas por la Parte IV del Acuerdo (Parte Comercial). Las demás reglas contenidas en este Título son las necesarias para implementar y cumplir esta misión entre ambas regiones.

Finalmente, en el Título XIV denominado “Excepciones”, se enuncian las excepciones comunes de restricciones temporales en virtud de problemas por balanza de pagos. Del mismo modo, en este acápite se aclara que la potestad fiscal o impositiva de los Estados no se ve afectada de ningún modo en virtud de los Acuerdos.

X.- Con base en lo expuesto, en cuanto al fondo del Acuerdo de Asociación examinado no se detectan inconstitucionalidades manifiestas, lo que no obsta para destacar lo siguiente: 1) en virtud de que el numeral 290.3 del Acuerdo dispone: “Las Partes acuerdan, en la medida que no lo hayan hecho, adoptar medidas del Estado rector del puerto de conformidad con el Acuerdo de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura sobre Medidas del Estado Rector del Puerto, Destinadas a Prevenir, Desalentar y Eliminar la Pesca Ilegal, No Declarada y No Reglamentada, implementar sistemas de control e inspección, así como incentivos y obligaciones para una gestión racional y sostenible de la pesca y los ecosistemas costeros a largo plazo.” y Costa Rica aún no ha aprobado dicho convenio, debemos precisar que el Acuerdo de Asociación no impone, como requisito sine qua non de validez, la aprobación de la adhesión al Acuerdo sobre Medidas del Estado Rector del Puertos. Se limita a indicar que el Estado que no lo haya adoptado, como el nuestro, al menos debe adoptar las medidas correspondientes que remiten al contenido de ese Acuerdo para prevenir, desalentar y eliminar la pesca ilegal e implemente sistemas de control e inspección, así como incentivos y obligaciones para una gestión racional y sostenible de la pesca y los ecosistemas costeros a largo plazo, y que en el caso de optar por su aprobación, no lo exime de seguir los trámites dispuestos en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Asimismo, de la lectura integral del artículo 290, resulta claro que su objetivo es que las Partes reconozcan la necesidad de promover la pesca sostenible, a fin de contribuir a la conservación de las poblaciones de peces y al comercio sostenible de los recursos pesqueros, lo cual resulta plenamente acorde con la protección que resguarda el derecho a un ambiente sano y equilibrado en nuestro Estado; y la referencia que se hace a este Convenio en el apartado c) no se hizo con el imperativo que por ejemplo sí establece en el punto 2 con relación a otros principios; 2) la sola aprobación del Acuerdo no implica que Costa Rica reconozca la competencia de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia; y 3) el artículo 214 del Acuerdo plantea como sanción al proveedor que ha participado en actividades ilegales o fraudulentas relacionadas con la contratación, la sanción de inelegibilidad para participar en las contrataciones de la Parte, ya sea indefinidamente o por un periodo establecido; por consiguiente cada Parte puede optar por una de esas dos variantes, pero en el caso de Costa Rica la opción sería la inelegibilidad por un periodo establecido, dado que las sanciones indefinidas resultan improcedentes.

XI.- Los demás artículos contenidos en el proyecto de ley Nº 18.563. Como se indicó supra, amén de la ratificación del “Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro”, en el proyecto de ley número 18.563 se plantea la aprobación de las siguientes normas: 1) de la Enmienda al Artículo XXI de la “Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres” (conocido como CITES), adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983; 2) la Creación del Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres; 3) la Creación de dos impuestos para sufragar, principalmente, los costos de las obras relacionadas con la operación, conservación y ampliación de los puestos fronterizos terrestres; 4) por último, la Representación ante la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) que se le quiere asignar al Ministerio de Comercio Exterior (COMEX). Se estudiarán cada una de las disposiciones aludidas en el orden en que fueron expuestas.

XII.- Sobre la Enmienda al Artículo XXI de la “Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres” (conocido como CITES), adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983, se debe señalar que de la exposición de motivos del presente proyecto de ley y la lectura del Acuerdo de Asociación, como parte de la negociación política entre ambas regiones se acordó que junto con la ratificación del Acuerdo, se incluyera la obligación de los Estados centroamericanos de aprobar la Enmienda del Artículo XXI de cita. Esta enmienda pretende el reconocimiento de cualquier organización de integración económica regional constituida por Estados soberanos, como Parte de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres. En términos generales, también resulta necesario recordar que la CITES es un instrumento internacional destinado a la protección de la fauna y flora silvestre mediante la regulación y limitación del comercio internacional de especies protegidas. La Asamblea Legislativa aprobó ese convenio mediante Ley Nº 5605 del 30 de octubre de 1974. Resulta razonable la aprobación de dicha enmienda en el proyecto de ley bajo estudio, pues la necesaria validación de esta Enmienda ha sido producto de una negociación política consustancial al Acuerdo de Asociación por aprobar. En el ámbito Centroamericano, solo Guatemala, Panamá y Nicaragua han ratificado la Enmienda Gaborone (ver página web: http://www.cites.org/esp/disc/parties/gaborone.php), de ahí que se haya considerado necesario que los restantes tres países de nuestra región (El Salvador, Honduras y Costa Rica) procedieran de igual forma. Se advierte que en la publicación en el tomo V del Alcance No 180 del Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 220 ( http://alcance.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-5_14_11_2012.pdf ), al final del artículo 3 y antes del 4 se introdujo el siguiente párrafo: “Administrada por la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza y de los Recursos Naturales en nombre del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente.” Luego de cotejar esas líneas con el texto de la Enmienda en el proyecto (folio 4980 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo remitido a la Sala, tomo XV), se observa que las referidas líneas no corresponden con el original discutido y aprobado en primer debate en la Asamblea Legislativa. Empero, lo anterior no constituye un vicio esencial de procedimiento. Como se indicó en el Considerando VII de este pronunciamiento, en atención al requisito de publicación en La Gaceta por artículo 117 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, de la jurisprudencia de la Sala se extrae que el quid del asunto consiste en analizar, según el caso concreto, en qué medida una equivocación en la publicación lleva a un vicio en la publicidad, a partir del cual la ciudadanía en general tenga un conocimiento confuso del contenido de un proyecto por aprobar en la Asamblea Legislativa o se restrinja su participación informada en la discusión del mismo. No se trata entonces de aplicar un rígido formalismo, ajeno a las circunstancias del caso, sino de emplear la hermenéutica jurídica de acuerdo con las reglas de la sana crítica, de modo tal que las normas se interpreten en la forma que mejor garanticen la realización del fin o los fines que persiguen. En la especie, el mencionado defecto –un agregado separado en los artículos 3. y 4. de la Enmienda- no altera el contenido de esta última ni distrae del recto sentido de lo normado en dichos numerales, razón por la que no se advierte ningún tipo de impedimento a la participación popular en la adopción de las grandes decisiones nacionales mediante la publicidad de los proyectos legislativos. Asimismo, las líneas incorporadas de más no tienen sentido por sí mismas, no logran finalizar una idea y su sintaxis así lo confirma. Bajo esta inteligencia, no considera este Tribunal que la inclusión de la aprobación a la Enmienda al Artículo XXI de la “Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres” (conocido como CITES), adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983 (proyecto de ley tramitado en el expediente legislativo Nº 18.563) suscite roce alguno con el Derecho de la Constitución.

XIII.- En relación con la creación del Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres (contemplada en el artículo tercero del proyecto de ley), la creación de dos impuestos para sufragar, principalmente, los costos de las obras relacionadas con la operación, conservación y ampliación de los puestos fronterizos terrestres (artículo cuarto del proyecto de ley), y la Representación ante la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) que se le quiere asignar al Ministerio de Comercio Exterior (COMEX), dispuesta en el artículo quinto y final del proyecto de ley Nº 18.563, resulta pertinente aclarar que, en opinión de esta Sala, dichas disposiciones devienen en una manifestación típica de la actividad legislativa ordinaria asignada al Legislativo. Como bien se puede extraer de la simple lectura de tales normas, las mismas no son materia que deba ser analizada por este Tribunal Constitucional bajo la figura de una consulta legislativa preceptiva de constitucionalidad, por cuanto, de conformidad con el artículo 96 inciso a) de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, la Sala se encuentra llamada a emitir su opinión consultiva, preceptivamente, solo en aquellos casos en que se pretendan aprobar proyectos de reformas constitucionales, reformas a la Ley que rige esta jurisdicción, o bien, en aquellos supuestos tendientes a la aprobación de convenios o tratados internacionales. A los efectos de esta consulta, interesa destacar el último de estos casos: la aprobación de convenios o tratados internacionales. Tal como se ha podido apreciar, los artículos primero y segundo del proyecto de ley Nº 18.563 versan sobre la aprobación por parte de nuestro país de dos instrumentos internacionales, respectivamente: el “Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro” (en el artículo primero), y la Enmienda al Artículo XXI de la “Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres” (conocido como CITES), adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983 (artículo segundo). En ambos casos, la consulta preceptiva era procedente toda vez que se trata de la aprobación de convenios o tratados internacionales, en los términos dispuestos por el inciso a) del ordinal 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Empero, considera la Sala que no procede la consulta legislativa preceptiva de constitucionalidad respecto de las demás disposiciones contenidas en el proyecto de ley tramitado bajo expediente legislativo número 18.563, puesto que ninguna de ellas reviste la naturaleza jurídica de un tratado o convenio internacional, en los términos exigidos por el inciso a) del 96 de cita. Aunque pudieran ser consideradas como norma que coadyuvan a la implementación del Acuerdo, lo cierto es que se trata de normas del derecho interno patrio. Consiguientemente, en lo concerniente a los artículos 3, 4 y 5 del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563, la consulta es inadmisible e inevacuable.

XIV.- Corolario. En mérito de lo expuesto, en cuanto al "Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por el otro", y la "aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983", no se advierten vicios esenciales de procedimiento ni disposiciones inconstitucionales. Se advierte que tanto el Acuerdo como la Enmienda requieren para su aprobación votación de mayoría absoluta de los votos presentes. En lo concerniente al Consejo de Puestos Fronterizos Terrestres (contemplado en el artículo tercero del proyecto de ley), la creación de dos impuestos para sufragar, principalmente, los costos de las obras relacionadas con la operación, conservación y ampliación de los puestos fronterizos terrestres (artículo cuarto del proyecto de ley), y la Representación ante la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE) que se le quiere asignar al Ministerio de Comercio Exterior (COMEX), dispuesta en el artículo quinto y final del proyecto de ley Nº 18.563, la consulta es inadmisible e inevacuable.

XV.- Nota separada del Magistrado Castillo Víquez. En relación con la votación requerida para la aprobación del proyecto consultado, es necesario tener presente que la mayoría calificada se exige en su aprobación definitiva, no en el primer debate, es decir, después de finalizado el segundo debate, tal y como ha sostenido la mayoría de este Tribunal.

Por otra parte, comparto la tesis de que el Convenio no requiere de mayoría calificada pero por otras razones. En primer lugar, porque no se está transfiriendo competencias a un ente supraestatal, de forma tal que sus decisiones resultan de imperativo cumplimiento para el Estado de Costa Rica. En segundo término, el artículo 6, inciso 2, es claro en el sentido que las decisiones adoptadas por el Consejo de Asociación son vinculantes para las partes, pero para su ejecución se deben de respetar las normas internas y los procedimientos jurídicos de cada Parte. Lo anterior significa, ni más ni menos, que las decisiones de ese Consejo, que se adoptan por consenso, no son de aplicación automática, sino que para ello deben de observar las competencias constitucionales que están en el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) en titularidad de los órganos constitucionales, verbigracia: si se trata de una modificación sustancial al convenio, ya sea porque se amplia o se modifica su objeto o finalidad, o porque se imponen nuevas obligaciones al Estado de Costa Rica, se requerirá de la aprobación legislativa, al igual que aquellas decisiones que no se derivan de forma expresa o implícita –teoría de las potestades implícitas- del Convenio que afecten los derechos fundamentales, toda vez que su régimen jurídico está reservado a la Ley. Cuando se trata del ejercicio de potestades de imperio que el Derecho de la Constitución confiere a los órganos del Estado, y cuyo ejercicio se transfiere en parte a órganos supraestatales –un caso típico del ejercicio de competencias domésticas por parte de un órgano internacional-, el asunto se resuelve a través de la aprobación agravada del Convenio. Por el contrario, si las obligaciones u otros deberes se derivan del propio Convenio, el Poder Ejecutivo posee competencia para darles cabal cumplimiento a través de protocolos de menor rango, del ejercicio de la potestad reglamentaria y otros poderes-deberes que el ordenamiento jurídico le atribuye.

Distinto es el supuesto cuando, por el hecho de ser parte del tratado o convenio, un órgano creado por éste, en ejercicio de las competencias que se le atribuyen en el instrumento internacional, adopta un acto que, conforme al convenio, es vinculante para todas las partes contratantes –un caso típico del ejercicio de competencias internacionales por un órgano internacional-. En este supuesto, no se requiere de la mayoría calificada, toda vez que no hay una transferencia de competencias de órganos internos a órgano supranacionales, por lo que la mayoría que se exige para su aprobación es la absoluta de los votos presentes, según lo dispuesto en el artículo 121, inciso 4, párrafo primero, en relación con el numeral 119 de la Carta Fundamental.

Por último, no avalo la afirmación que la mayoría calificada solo se requiere cuando se trata de una modelo comunitario, pues si bien es cierto la reforma parcial a la Constitución Política, mediante Ley n.° 4123 de 31 de mayo de 1968, se hizo adoptando como marco de referencia el Mercado Común Centroamericano, lo cierto del caso es que hoy en día la dinámica de la economía internacional y la política a nivel global que impulsa una serie de instituciones económicas de integración, de intercambio comercial y de cooperación económica entre los Estados entre sí, y éstos y los organismos internacionales en el ámbito mundial, regional o bilateral, han creado nuevas modalidades de integración económica que son conforme al Derecho de la Constitución y, en el caso que se transfieran competencias soberanas a los organismos o instituciones que se creen en los tratados internacionales, se requiere para su aprobación la mayoría calificada que establece el numeral 121, inciso 4, párrafo 2, de la Constitución Política; situación que no se da en el presente caso por las razones apuntadas supra.

Por Tanto:

Se evacua la consulta en el sentido que los artículos 1 y 2 del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563, por su orden correspondientes a la “Ley de Aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro; y a la aprobación por parte de la República de Costa Rica de la Enmienda al artículo XXI de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, adoptada en reunión extraordinaria de la Conferencia de las Partes, en Gaborone, Botsuana, el 30 de abril de 1983” no contiene vicios esenciales del procedimiento ni disposiciones inconstitucionales. En lo concerniente a los artículos 3, 4 y 5 del expediente legislativo Nº 18.563, por no ser materia objeto de una consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad, esta resulta inadmisible e inevacuable. El Magistrado Castillo Víquez consigna nota separada. Los Magistrados Armijo Sancho y Cruz Castro salvan el voto y evacuan la presente consulta legislativa en el sentido que advierten vicios de forma y de fondo. Notifíquese esta resolución al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L.

Aracelly Pacheco S. José Paulino Hernandez G.

Voto salvado de los Magistrados Armijo Sancho y Cruz Castro, con redacción del Magistrado Armijo:

Con respecto al procedimiento:

Una vez revisado el proceso que ha seguido el proyecto tramitado en el expediente legislativo No. 18.563, el Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro, se aprecia el siguiente vicio de forma:

• A)Violación al procedimiento legislativo de aprobación del presente tratado internacional, por la mayoría obtenida en la votación en primer debate:

Los suscritos Magistrados consideran que en el caso presente, con motivo de la aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro, expediente legislativo No. 18.563 se ha vulnerado el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política, en la medida en que dicho proyecto no fue aprobado por mayoría calificada, pese a que claramente atribuye o transfiere determinadas competencias a un ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, con el propósito de realizar objetivos regionales y comunes. En este sentido, a todas luces es evidente que el Derecho Comunitario cubre tanto los supuestos en que diversos Estados se adhieren mediante mecanismos de integración, o bien aquellos, donde como paso previo a éstos, inician relaciones de colaboración y cooperación, como lo es el caso concreto, todo lo cual sin duda justifica la exigencia de la mayoría calificada del artículo 121 inciso 4) constitucional para la aprobación de tratados internacionales de este tipo. En efecto, una vez revisada el acta de la sesión plenaria No. 12 de martes 21 de mayo de 2013, se deduce con toda claridad que el proyecto únicamente fue aprobado por 37 diputados de 41 presentes (4 diputados votaron en contra), ver folio 12387 de la copia certificada del expediente legislativo No. 18.563, con lo que no se obtiene la mayoría prevista en la Constitución para normas de esta clase. En este orden, entre las competencias que se trasladan a órganos supranacionales es preciso mencionar las atinentes al Consejo de Asociación (ver artículos 4 a 6 del Acuerdo), principalmente el artículo 6 que estipula: “1.- Para alcanzar los objetivos del presente Acuerdo, el Consejo de Asociación tendrá la facultad de adoptar decisiones en los casos previstos en el presente Acuerdo. 2.- Las decisiones adoptadas serán vinculantes para las Partes, que tomarán las medidas necesarias para ejecutarlas de conformidad con las normas internas y los procedimientos jurídicos de cada parte”, así como las relativas al Comité de Asociación, que en los términos del Tratado será el órgano responsable de la aplicación general del presente Acuerdo, el cual también estará facultado para adoptar decisiones en los casos previstos en el Tratado, o cuando el Consejo de Asociación haya delegado en él tal facultad (ver puntos 2 y 4 del artículo 7 del Acuerdo). Por este motivo, y ante la gravedad del vicio que se aprecia en esta oportunidad, los suscritos Magistrados salvan el voto y evacuan la consulta formulada en el sentido que el presente proyecto de aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro, lesiona el Derecho de la Constitución, pues no alcanza la mayoría prevista en el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Norma Fundamental para la aprobación de normas de este tipo.

Con respecto al fondo del proyecto:

Los suscritos Magistrados disienten del voto de mayoría en varios de los temas planteados por el fondo y consideran que el Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro, contiene algunas inconstitucionalidades, según se expondrá. Estimamos que en cuanto a algunas de las disposiciones, el proyecto consultado es inconstitucional respecto de ciertos supuestos del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho. Para dar sustento a cada uno de estos aspectos, se procederá a tratarlos cada uno por separado.

Antes de analizar la normativa específica sobre cada uno de los temas, consideramos que es importante examinar, tal y como se hizo con motivo del Voto salvado a la opinión consultiva No. 2007-09469 de las 10:00 hrs. de 3 de julio de 2007, el concepto de Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho y su incidencia en algunas de las disposiciones que regulan el Convenio multilateral que se examina.

I- CONSIDERACIONES GENERALES SOBRE EL ESTADO SOCIAL Y DEMOCRATICO DE DERECHO El Estado costarricense es un Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho. Esta afirmación no está vacía de contenido sino que tiene sus implicaciones y su trascendencia, en especial porque tal denominación ha sido derivada por reiterada Jurisprudencia Constitucional con fundamento en el mismo Texto de Nuestra Carta Magna.

• A)Concepto General del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho:

La teoría sobre el Estado de Derecho se gesta a finales del siglo XIX con el objetivo de someter el Estado al Derecho, de poner un freno a las arbitrariedades y de reconocer y garantizar una serie de derechos fundamentales a las personas. Esta teoría se consolida en los sistemas políticos democráticos, de tal forma que se llega a sostener que toda democracia para que lo sea, debe enmarcarse a su vez dentro de un Estado de Derecho. Así entonces se hablaba con más propiedad del Estado Democrático de Derecho. Posteriormente, a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX cuando los Estados asumen un rol más preponderante dentro de las sociedades modernas, y cuando se dota a los Estados de una serie de instrumentos de política económica para procurar mayor equidad en las sociedades, se completa el concepto anterior denominándosele Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho. Por eso se dice que este último concepto es más completo que el primero, pues alude, no solamente al sometimiento del Estado al imperio del Derecho (Estado de Derecho), sino a las acciones que debe emprender el Estado como gestor de políticas públicas dirigidas a lograr mayor equidad social (Social), y a hacerlo dentro de un marco procedimental que permita atenuar las asimetrías de orden social, político y económico, propiciando así la vigencia efectiva de los valores fundamentales de la democracia. Pese a la división de este acuerdo en tres partes: diálogo político, cooperación y comercio, lo cierto es que gran parte de sus disposiciones soslayan los alcances del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, como se verá a continuación.

• B)Costa Rica como un Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho:

El Estado Costarricense es un Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho con fundamento en lo establecido por el Poder Constituyente Originario (Actas de la Asamblea Constituyente de 1949) y en la jurisprudencia constitucional, y aunque no haya una norma constitucional que lo diga literalmente.

• 1)Según lo establecido en las Actas de Asamblea Nacional Constituyente “Una Constitución se hace para un pueblo con puntos de vista fundadamente diferentes” (Acta N°49) y el Proyecto de Constitución discutido en 1949 “lejos de establecer una tesis económica exclusivista, establece un sistema flexible para que en el futuro puedan venir gobiernos de tendencias opuestas, ideologías distintas, las cuales podrán, pese a ello, ejercer sus actividades dentro del marco constitucional, sin necesidad de reformar la Carta Política …la Comisión redactora trató de establecer una Constitución que contemple las aspiraciones de grupos y sectores diferentes, flexible - pues- como lo expresó el Magistrado norteamericano Holmes en su voto salvado de 1905 que me permití leer aquí, ninguna Constitución debe englobar una teoría económica determinada, sea la del intervencionismo, sea la del clásico liberalismo, al contrario, la Constitución debe ser moldeable, flexible, para que en el futuro el país pueda dar cabida legal a las nuevas tendencias y pueda continuar su vida ininterrumpidamente sobre todo en lo económico y lo social, sin necesidad de ir a las reformas constantes de la Carta Política .” ( ver Acta número 50) razón por la cual se dijo posteriormente en esa misma acta que “El mundo contemporáneo exige que se complementen las libertades políticas, con instituciones de seguridad social que garanticen la dignidad de la personas humana”. Así entonces, nuestra Constitución Política ha mantenido un complemento entre libertades y derechos sociales, pues incluso de haberse tratado totalmente de una (libertades) o de otra (derechos sociales) dejaría de ser una Constitución Democrática, tal como se menciona también en la misma acta 50 de la Asamblea Constituyente, cuando se sostuvo nuevamente que: “ninguna Constitución debe englobar una teoría económica determinada, ya sea la del intervencionismo, ya la del clásico liberalismo, a menos que se trate de la Constitución de un país totalitario o dictatorial. Por el contrario, la Constitución de los países democráticos debe ser flexible, para que en el futuro pueda dar cabida a las nuevas tendencias…” pues tal como dice el Constituyente Rodrigo Facio: “Se trata de un equilibrio, a mi juicio, muy sano, Justicia Social con Eficiencia Económica: que la justicia no mate a la eficiencia, ni la eficiencia mate a la justicia”. Tal tendencia se denota de nuestra Constitución Política también cuanto se discute el capítulo relativo a las garantías sociales (Acta N°115) particularmente en la redacción del actual artículo 50 que dice: “El Estado procurará el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país, organizando y estimulando la producción y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza...” pues nótese que frente a la propuesta que pretendía cambiar la palabra “organizando” por la palabra “orientando” se prefirió la primera pues se dijo que lo contrario “viene a mutilar un principio fundamental, cual es que el Estado debe participar en la orientación de la economía nacional”. Este texto y su contenido, tiene especial relevancia, porque implica que el Estado debe participar en la orientación de la economía nacional y que no deben existir disposiciones de orden legal que limiten, en abstracto, sin ningún matiz, la intervención del Estado o que justifiquen su intervención generalizada e ilimitada. No sería admisible que la legislación definiera, sin limitarla a una situación concreta, una orientación liberal o intervencionista.
• 2)Jurisprudencia Constitucional:

Este Tribunal Constitucional ha venido sistemáticamente reiterando en sus resoluciones que nuestro país es un Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, con fundamentando básicamente en los valores que se derivan de los artículos 50 y 74 del texto constitucional. Al respecto, sólo para mencionar algunas sentencias están las siguientes: 1993-3464, 1995-0550, 1995-1273, 1995-3067, 1995-4286, 1995-4286, 1995-5545, 1995-6347, 1996-1029, 1997-6469, 1996-2379, 1996-3250, 1996-2810, 1997-1019, 1997-1625, 1997-5035, 1997-8325, 2004-14247, 2003-2794, 2003-2771, 2005-16962, 2006-9565, 2006-17113. De todas ellas, se puede extraer varias conclusiones: primera, que el principio general básico de la Constitución Política está plasmado en el artículo 50, al disponer que "el Estado procurará el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país, organizando y estimulando la producción y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza" lo que unido a la declaración de adhesión del Estado costarricense al principio cristiano de justicia social, incluido en el artículo 74 ibídem, determina la esencia misma del sistema político y social que hemos escogido para nuestro país y que lo definen como un Estado Social de Derecho. Segunda, que la Constitución vigente, en su artículo 50, da fundamento constitucional a un cierto grado de intervención del Estado en la economía, postulándose la libertad económica pero con un cierto grado, razonable, proporcionado y no discriminatorio de intervención estatal, permitiéndole al Estado, dentro de tales límites, organizar y estimular la producción, así como asegurar un “adecuado” reparto de la riqueza. Tercera, que la libertad de comercio no es una garantía individual absoluta, sino que encuentra sus límites en los que el Estado legítimamente establezca, en beneficio de la generalidad de sus ciudadanos, siempre dentro del contexto global del Derecho de la Constitución. Cuarta, que una de las connotaciones básicas del Estado costarricense como todo Estado Social de Derecho, lo constituye la intervención de los gobernantes, para dar solución a la problemática social. La propia Constitución Política obliga al Estado a participar activamente, no sólo en los procesos de producción (Artículo 50), sino también en los relativos al desarrollo de derechos fundamentales del individuo (vivienda, educación, vestido, alimentación, etc.) que les garantice una existencia digna y útil para la sociedad. Quinta, que las administraciones públicas lejos de cumplir un rol pasivo de propiciar única y exclusivamente el ejercicio individual de los derechos fundamentales, tienen un deber prestacional y asistencial en aras de procurarle a todas las personas que conforman la comunidad una esfera vital mínima y, desde luego, de erradicar todos los obstáculos e impedimentos para el logro de una igualdad real y efectiva entre éstas. Sexta, que de la definición del Estado costarricense como un Estado Social se deriva la facultad del Estado de desplegar una serie de limitaciones a los derechos fundamentales en atención al mayor beneficio de la colectividad, a fin de garantizar el orden público, la moral social, los derechos de terceros (artículo 28 constitucional) y la vigencia de los valores democráticos y constitucionales. Sétima, que el Estado Social de Derecho produce el fenómeno de incorporación al texto fundamental de una serie de objetivos políticos de gran relevancia social y de la introducción de un importante número de derechos sociales que aseguran el bien común y la satisfacción de las necesidades elementales de las personas. Estas determinaciones conceptuales, son importantes y de gran trascendencia, porque en la jurisprudencia constitucional se ha reconocido una fortaleza especial a los derechos fundamentales y al sistema político y económico, que abarca, sin duda alguna, el Estado social y democrático de Derecho. En el considerando VII de la sentencia 03-2771, se afirma que “….En el caso de la reforma a la Constitución se presenta una gran e importante diferencia: aquellas normas constitucionales relativas a los derechos fundamentales o a decisiones políticas trascendentales, sólo puede ser reformadas por una Asamblea Constituyente de conformidad con el artículo 196 de la Constitución Política. En beneficio de la contundencia de la afirmación, repetimos que las normas originarias acerca de los derechos fundamentales y los sistemas políticos y económicos, únicamente pueden ser disminuidas por una asamblea constituyente. …”; en este mismo considerando se reitera que la reforma parcial de la Constitución la puede hacer la Asamblea Legislativa, “…siempre y cuando su actividad no afecte negativamente los derechos fundamentales, ni al sistema político y económico, que sustancialmente se dieron los costarricenses mediante el poder constituyente…”. Estas interesantes apreciaciones sobre el valor del sistema político y económico, que se vincula con el Estado social y democrático de Derecho tiene incidencia en algunos de los temas del Tratado, porque se limita la intervención del Estado más allá de lo que constitucionalmente es permitido.

• C)Instrumentos del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho:

Para que el Estado costarricense pueda cumplir con ese deber prestacional y asistencial para procurarle a todos los habitantes una esfera vital mínima, y de erradicar todos los obstáculos que impiden la equidad social, se le dotan de una serie de herramientas, tales como instrumentos de política económica para apoyar y proteger al productor nacional, y mecanismos que le permiten al Estado intervenir en la economía para promover una más justa y adecuada distribución de la riqueza, entre muchos otros. Todos estos instrumentos, según se dirá a continuación, son mermados, debilitados y neutralizados por ciertas disposiciones contenidas en el proyecto consultado, tal como se explica de seguido.

II.- CONFRONTACIÓN DE LAS DISPOSICIONES DEL ACUERDO POR EL QUE SE ESTABLECE UNA ASOCIACIÓN ENTRE CENTROAMÉRICA, POR UN LADO, Y LA UNIÓN EUROPEA Y SUS ESTADOS MIEMBROS, POR OTRO, CON LOS INSTRUMENTOS DEL ESTADO SOCIAL Y DEMOCRÁTICO DE DERECHO:

• A)Sobre la inconstitucionalidad de la facultad prevista en el artículo 6.2 del Tratado, que le confiere carácter vinculante a las decisiones que adopte el Consejo de Asociación.

Tal y como se dijo en el voto salvado de la sentencia No. 2007-09469, en que se resolvieron las Consultas acumuladas número 07-005632-0007-CO y 07- 007153-0007-CO interpuestas respectivamente por Lisbeth Quesada Tristán y los diputados Rafael Elías Madrigal Brenes, Alberto Salom Echeverría, José Merino del Río, Ronald Solís, Marvin Rojas Rodríguez, José Joaquín Salazar, Nidia M. González, Leda Zamora Chaves, Andrea Morales, Sadie Bravo de Maroto, Grettel Ortiz Alvarez, Patricia Quirós Quirós, Francisco Molina Gamboa, Lesvia Villalobos Salas, José Rosales, Olivier Pérez González, Oscar López, Elizabeth Fonseca y Orlando Murillo, con respecto del proyecto de aprobación del “Tratado de Libre Comercio entre República Dominicana, Centroamérica y Estados Unidos”, se advierte un vicio de fondo en el contenido del Tratado, en la medida en que se le brinda carácter vinculante a las decisiones del Consejo de Asociación. Al respecto, en esta oportunidad se consideró:

“De acuerdo al inciso 2 del artículo 10.23 del Tratado consultado las decisiones de esta Comisión son obligatorias para nuestros Tribunales. Literalmente dice tal disposición:

“Artículo 10.23: Interpretación de los Anexos … 2.La decisión emitida por la Comisión conforme al párrafo 1 será obligatoria para el tribunal y cualquier decisión o laudo emitido por el tribunal deberá ser consistente con esa decisión. Si la Comisión no emitiera dicha decisión dentro del plazo de los 60 días, el tribunal decidirá sobre el asunto.” Esta disposición inserta en este Tratado, establece tal obligatoriedad, a diferencia de otros Tratados de Libre Comercio suscritos y ratificados por Costa Rica donde no se establece cláusula alguna que determine que las interpretaciones respecto de disposiciones jurídicas que haga la Comisión son vinculantes para las Partes. Justamente este agregado tiene una incidencia cualitativa frente a la Constitución, situación que convierte esta disposición en inconstitucional. Así entonces, esta Comisión no sólo tendría amplia potestades de interpretación, sino que éstas serán de acatamiento obligatorio para los Tribunales Judiciales y los órganos administrativos, tal como se establece en el artículo 20.20.2:

“Artículo 20.20: Procedimientos ante Instancias Judiciales y Administrativas Internas …

2. La Parte en cuyo territorio se encuentre ubicado el tribunal o el órgano administrativo, presentará a éstos cualquier interpretación acordada por la Comisión, de conformidad con los procedimientos de ese foro. “ En el caso concreto, se aprecia al igual que en el caso aludido que las decisiones del Consejo de Asociación tienen carácter vinculante, lo que constituye un quebranto a la soberanía de la Nación. Lo anterior se agrava con el hecho que las decisiones de dicho Consejo, en el caso de los países centroamericanos, se adoptan por consenso, con lo que podría suceder que se tome una decisión en la que el representante de Costa Rica no haya estado de acuerdo (teniendo en consideración que consenso no es sinónimo de unanimidad). Todo lo cual es abiertamente contrario a las normas, principios y valores Constitucionales, pues no sólo puede este Consejo de Asociación ejercer potestades privativas de los Poderes de la República (como modificar e interpretar las disposiciones del Tratado), sino que además sus recomendaciones materialmente resultan obligatorias, incluso para los Tribunales Judiciales. Es evidente la infracción de las disposiciones del Convenio aludido frente al Derecho de la Constitución, razón por la cual se debe declarar su inconstitucionalidad.

• B)Sobre la inconstitucionalidad de lo dispuesto en materia ambiental.

Al igual que en el caso fallado en la sentencia No. 2007-09469, se considera que las regulaciones existentes en el Tratado en estudio en cuanto a la materia ambiental, resultan violatorias de lo dispuesto en el numeral 50 de la Constitución Política. En este sentido, aunque se insiste en el Tratado acerca de la obligación de los Estados parte de respetar las legislaciones internas ambientales, así como procurar el desarrollo sostenible, lo cierto es que se permite el comercio de los recursos forestales, sin mayor limitación. En este orden, el artículo 289 ídem estipula:

“Artículo 289. Comercio de productos forestales.

Con el fin de promover la gestión sostenible de los recursos forestales, las partes se comprometen a trabajar conjuntamente para mejorar la aplicación de la legislación forestal y la gobernanza, a través de instrumentos que puedan incluir, entre otras cosas: el uso efectivo de las CITES con respecto a especies maderables en peligro: esquemas de certificación de productos forestales extraídos de forma sostenible, y los acuerdos regionales o bilaterales de asociación voluntaria sobre aplicación de las leyes, gobernanza y comercio forestales (en lo sucesivo FLEGT)”.

Con lo cual veladamente se permite el trasiego de productos forestales sensibles o en peligro, cuyo comercio no se debería producir de ninguna circunstancia, en estricto apego a las disposiciones ambientales vigentes en el país, así como a los Instrumentos Internacionales en materia de Derechos Humanos aplicables en la República. Es claro que la normativa del presente acuerdo reviste cierta complejidad y constituye un mecanismo perverso que encubre situaciones en las cuales se viola claramente la garantía prevista en el artículo 50 constitucional. En relación con el anterior planteamiento es atinente lo señalado por la Sala Constitucional en el Voto nº 1304-93:

“Toda la vida del hombre ocurre en relación inevitable con su ambiente, en especial con el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida que es el objetivo central que el desarrollo necesita, pero éste debe estar en relación con el ambiente de modo tal que sea armónico y sustentable.

El ambiente debe ser entendido como un potencial de desarrollo para utilizarlo adecuadamente, debiendo actuarse de modo integrado en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicas y de orden político, ya que, en caso contrario se degrada su productividad para el presente y el futuro y podrá ponerse en riesgo el patrimonio de las generaciones venideras. Los orígenes de los problemas ambientales son complejos y corresponden a una articulación de procesos naturales y sociales en el marco del estilo de desarrollo socioeconómico que adopte el país. Por ejemplo se producen problemas ambientales cuando las modalidades de explotación de los recursos naturales dan lugar a una degradación de los ecosistemas superior a su capacidad de regeneración, lo que conduce a que amplios sectores de la población resulten perjudicados y se genere un alto costo ambiental y social que redunda en un deterioro de la calidad de vida; pues precisamente el objetivo primordial del uso y protección del ambiente es obtener un desarrollo y evolución favorable al ser humano. La calidad ambiental es un parámetro fundamental de esa calidad de vida…, pero más importante que ello es entender que si bien el hombre tiene el derecho de hacer uso del ambiente para su propio desarrollo, también tiene el deber de protegerlo y preservarlo para el uso de las generaciones presentes y futuras.” De este modo, todas las normas infraconstitucionales se deben interpretar y aplicar conforme a la Constitución, a los precedentes y jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional (sentencia 1185- 95, 1893-95, 6192-95, 1056-96, 4256-99, 1999-07181, 07371-99, 2000-08193, y 2002-01228). Por ese motivo, se debe evacuar la presente consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad en el sentido que viola el Derecho de la Constitución lo dispuesto en el artículo 289 del Tratado.

• C)Sobre la inconstitucionalidad del mecanismo previsto en el Acuerdo de Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus estados miembros, por otro con respecto a la solución de controversias.

Se estima que los artículos 308 y siguientes del Acuerdo de Asociación aludidos son inconstitucionales, en cuanto obligan al Estado Costarricense a resolver sus disputas con respecto a otra parte del Tratado no centroamericana en cuanto a la interpretación o aplicación de la parte IV del Acuerdo, en primer lugar, al mecanismo de las Consultas (ver artículo 310 ídem), así como ante el Grupo Especial (ver artículo 311 ibídem), violentándose la potestad soberana del Estado para decidir si acude o no y qué asuntos someterá a estos procesos que propone una Parte del Acuerdo. Estas disposiciones lo que significan es que el Estado costarricense está dando una especie de consentimiento previo, genérico y para todos los casos que se le presenten, evidentemente se trataría de una disposición inconstitucional, básicamente porque estos procedimientos, para que lo sea, deben ser absolutamente voluntarios y no puede interpretarse que esa voluntad sea establecida de una vez y por todas, sino que debe manifestarse en cada caso concreto, en especial tomando en cuenta que hay ciertas materias –que por su naturaleza- no pueden ser objeto de estos procesos de solución de controversias, tal como lo sería el ejercicio de ciertas potestades públicas. En el caso concreto, es claro que la ventilación del asunto ante un Grupo Especial constituye someter la disputa obligatoriamente ante un proceso de arbitraje. Tómese en cuenta que, la misma jurisprudencia de este Tribunal Constitucional ha determinado que el artículo 43 de la Constitución Política establece que toda persona tiene derecho a terminar sus disputas, de carácter patrimonial, por medio de árbitros; y que el ejercicio de tal derecho es estrictamente voluntario pues requiere de un acuerdo de voluntades entre las partes en conflicto. Como bien lo ha señalado esta Sala en anterior oportunidad:

“(…) en forma paralela al derecho que tienen los particulares de acudir a los Tribunales de Justicia a obtener un pronunciamiento 'cumplido' es decir, correcto, útil, el constituyente previó en el artículo 43 'el derecho' de toda persona de acudir, desde luego, voluntariamente, al procedimiento arbitral para dilucidar sus diferencias patrimoniales. La utilización de esta vía alternativa supone un acuerdo de voluntades entre las partes. (…)” (Sentencia n.º 2307-95, de las 16 horas del 9 de mayo de 1995).

De lo anterior se desprende que la esencia del arbitraje se encuentra en la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes. En efecto, son las partes en conflicto las que deben seleccionar tanto los árbitros (en este caso, los integrantes del Grupo Especial) como el procedimiento dentro del cual aquéllos van a sujetar su actuación y los efectos que tendrá la resolución final. Así entonces, el arbitraje es un método de resolución alternativa de conflictos, con carácter constitucional, pero para que lo sea debe ser voluntario (resolución número 2005-02995 de las catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del dieciséis de marzo del dos mil cinco). En la medida que se establezca un arbitraje de manera obligatoria (o con un consentimiento previo, genérico y sin excepción) se estaría desnaturalizando esta figura, y por tanto, violando además del artículo 43 Constitucional, el principio de soberanía nacional conforme al cual, el gobierno -quien actúa como representante del pueblo- tiene el derecho de decidir, por sí mismo, cuáles controversias son resueltas mediante un proceso arbitral (es decir mediante la utilización de la figura del Grupo Especial) y cuáles no. Cuestión a determinarse casuísticamente y que impide una especie de consentimiento adelantando de forma genérica para todo tipo de controversias. Es, por este motivo, que el mecanismo previsto a partir de los artículos 308 y siguientes del Acuerdo de Asociación con respecto al mecanismo de solución de controversias es inconstitucional.

• D)Sobre la referencia a la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia como órgano de integración centroamericana, pese a que la República de Costa Rica en ningún momento ha admitido la jurisdicción o la competencia de ese Órgano Jurisdiccional: finalmente es inconstitucional el preámbulo del Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro, en cuanto dispone literalmente: “RECONOCIENDO el programa alcanzado en el proceso de integración económica centroamericana, como la ratificación del Convenio Marco para el fortalecimiento de la Unión Aduanera Centroamericana y el Tratado sobre Inversión y Comercio de Servicios, así como la aplicación de un mecanismo jurisdiccional que garantice el cumplimiento de la legislación económica regional a lo largo de la región centroamericana”, en cuanto constituye una referencia directa, explícita e inequívoca de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, el cual es el Órgano Jurisdiccional Supranacional del Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana y es el encargado de velar por la interpretación y aplicación del Derecho Comunitario Centroamericano, cuya jurisdicción y competencia, sin embargo, aún no ha sido reconocida por la República de Costa Rica. Por ese motivo, y en vista que nuestro país todavía no ha avalado la Jurisdicción de esa Corte, toda referencia explícita que sobre ella se realice en un tratado internacional aprobado por el país es inconstitucional, por soslayar los alcances de los artículos 7º y 121 inciso 4) del Texto Fundamental.
• E)Sobre la violación a la Constitución de la cláusula de liberalización progresiva del establecimiento y comercio de servicios: Por los mismos motivos señalados con anterioridad, resulta contrario al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política y a los alcances del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho la cláusula de liberalización progresiva del establecimiento y comercio de servicios que se dispone en el artículo 159 del Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro, en cuanto deja de lado las políticas estatales que procuran un reparto equitativo de la riqueza entre los sectores menos favorecidos. Con sustento en lo expuesto, se debe evacuar la consulta formulada en el sentido que es inconstitucional lo dispuesto en el artículo 159 del Acuerdo.
• III)EN CONCLUSIÓN.- Conforme con lo expuesto, los suscritos Magistrados salvan el voto y evacuan la consulta formulada en el sentido que el presente proyecto de aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro, expediente legislativo No. 18.563 contiene vicios de forma y de fondo.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Voto salvado del Magistrado Armijo Sancho.

Sobre la violación del principio de publicidad pues no fue publicado integralmente el Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, por otro.

Acerca del particular, el suscrito Magistrado considera que constituye una grosera violación del principio de publicidad, así como del debido proceso legislativo, el hecho que no se haya publicado integralmente el presente Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros, y sus anexos. En efecto, tras revisar la publicación efectuada del proyecto en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 220 del 14 de noviembre de 2012, Alcance Nº 180 (véase página web: http://www.gaceta.go.cr/pub/2012/11/14/ALCA180-2_14_11_2012.pdf, consultada el 19 de junio de 2013), se echan de menos 2 folios correspondientes al Primer Anexo. En este orden de ideas, tras revisar el texto del Acuerdo en La Gaceta se constata la ausencia en la publicación de la página visible a folio 1006 de la copia certificada (EU/CENTR-AM/Anexo I/es 544), así como el folio 1572, los cuales corresponden al Anexo I del Acuerdo, que versa sobre la eliminación de aranceles aduaneros con ocasión del Acuerdo. Por ese motivo, y en vista que el proyecto consultado no fue publicado integralmente, el suscrito Magistrado considera que ello constituye un vicio sustancial del procedimiento legislativo, que debe ser advertido en esta ocasión. Por consiguiente, se debe evacuar la consulta formulada en el sentido que es inconstitucional el trámite de aprobación del Acuerdo por el que se establece una Asociación entre Centroamérica, por un lado, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros.

Gilbert Armijo S.

n lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>13-006008-0007-CO