Costa Rica, Elections Supreme Court of Costa Rica, 11 January 2022, No. 0208-E8-2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Further areas addressed
- Freedom of movement of people
- Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
The Supreme Electoral Court of Costa Rica decided motu proprio to resolve the following question: could a person with symptoms of COVID-19 or with an isolation order for having or being suspected of having the disease vote?
The Court noted that deciding this issue involved assessing and balancing the right to health of the inhabitants with their political rights.
The Court concluded that a health isolation order for being suspected of having or being infected with COVID-19 did not impede voting.
Facts of the case
Being close to an electoral process, the Supreme Electoral Court of Costa Rica noted that there was a widespread doubt in the population: could a person with symptoms of COVID-19 or with an isolation order for having or being suspected of having the disease vote?
The Court decided to consider this question motu proprio and noted that it was competent to address this concern.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
PublicDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that an isolation order for having (or being suspected of having) COVID-19 does not impede one’s voting rights.
Reasoning of the deciding body
Firstly, the Court indicated that it was competent to hear this issue by constitutional mandate, as it is the Court that exclusively interprets all matters concerning electoral issues. Specifically, it stated that in the context of the pandemic, it had to take action to harmonize the right to health of the country's inhabitants with political participation.
The Court pointed out that Costa Ricans have the right and civic duty to participate in elections in order to choose their authorities and that the dates set for voting, even during the pandemic, could not be postponed.
The Court indicated that several Latin American countries had elected their authorities during a pandemic, and Costa Rica would be no exception due to the principle of political rotation and the human right of the citizens of the Americas to vote for their authorities.
Subsequently, it stated that to allow an isolation order to prevent persons with COVID-19 from voting would effectively mean that such a determination by the health authority would suspend the political rights of citizens.
In this regard, it indicated that the Constitution of Costa Rica and the American Convention on Human Rights provided that these types of rights can only be suspended by judicial order and that this implied that a decision of an administrative nature cannot affect political rights (particularly the right to vote).
Therefore, the Court considered that in the case of those merely displaying symptoms of COVID-19, these rights should not be limited either.
As a consequence, the Court indicated that the authorization to vote did not legitimate actions contrary to the legal system (specifically the isolation orders) since, when looking at the normative system as a whole, in criminal law (for example) a person who acts in compliance with a legal duty or the legitimate exercise of a right does not commit a crime.
Thus, since the Constitution and international treaties qualify voting as a primary and obligatory civic function and a human right, its exercise justifies that a person with an isolation order can decide to vote.
In addition, the Court pointed out that the above does not ignore the importance of taking measures to contain the pandemic, indicating that it had previously created protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19 during election days.
Finally, the Court stated that even in exceptional situations such as the pandemic, administrative measures could not condition one of humanity's most important political achievements: electing its leaders. Consequently, it was the responsibility of each person to comply with health protocols and prepare for election day.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
- Political rights
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
- Health v. freedom of movement of persons
- Health v. political rights
General principle applied
- Rule of law
- Rule of law - Political rotation
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court indicated that due to the principle of political rotation, the dates set for the elections could not be changed, and altering the electoral calendar affected the legitimacy and legality of the voting process.
