Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice. Constitutional Chamber, 8 April 2022, No. 08389
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
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The Plaintiff filed a protective action, amparo, against a penitentiary facility alleging a violation of his fundamental rights. He argued that he was being detained and that he had recurrently requested medical assistance from the penitentiary clinic but had received no attention for his ophthalmological disease (challenged omission). Thus, he requested to be transferred to a proper hospital.
The Court found that indeed the patient had received assistance for his COVID-19 diagnosis and his ophthalmological issue, he was prescribed eye drops. For the Court, this disease was not an urgent issue and, hence, no transfer was necessary. Consequently, the Court denied the protection.
Facts of the case
- The Plaintiff was, at the time, being detained in a penitentiary facility. - On September 27, 2021, the Plaintiff received medical care for an illness in his right eye; he was prescribed eye drops for three weeks.
- On January 22, 2022, he also received medical treatment for his COVID-19 diagnosis. On January 31, 2022, he was discharged.
- After the Plaintiff filed the protective action, authorities scheduled a new medical appointment for his ailment.
- On April 8, 2022, the Court declared that no fundamental right was violated because the Plaintiff had received proper medical care.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court acknowledged that the Plaintiff had been treated for his ailment in his right eye with the proper prescription, eye drops, and that his disease did not represent an urgent situation as it posed no risk for his life or a loss of vision. Likewise, it was proven during the proceedings that the Plaintiff did not ask public authorities to transfer him to a hospital or to be checked by a doctor for his eye illness that allegedly was still an issue for him months later. Hence, penitentiary authorities did not omit any treatment as, as soon as they were notified of the protective action, they scheduled a new medical appointment for the Plaintiff.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that there was no arbitrary action or omission on behalf of public authorities and, thus, no violation of fundamental rights.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court implicitly analyzed whether public authorities acted, or did not act, in a reasonable manner. This can be seen when the Court highlights certain key aspects of the case such as that penitentiary authorities had no knowledge of his recent eye ailment, as there were no requests on behalf of the Plaintiff for medical care. Another key aspect highlighted by the Court is that this illness did not pose any urgent threat to the Plaintiff’s life or vision. In terms of a reasonableness test, the Court’s conclusion is clear: there was no arbitrary decision on behalf of public authorities, i.e., there was an equitable standard they followed when they acted in the present case. Hence, implicitly for the Court, public authorities acted reasonably.
