Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 12 August 2022, No. 18668-2022
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
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
A person deprived of liberty filed an amparo action against the Ministry of Justice and Peace of Costa Rica because the prison where he was being held was requiring family and friends who went to the prison to keep social distancing during visits. He considered this an arbitrary measure because the use of masks was no longer required in the country and because visitors were required to be vaccinated to enter the prison.
He also indicated that visitors were not allowed to bring in food, as was allowed in other prisons, so this was unequal treatment.
In studying the measures, the Court denied the Claimant's petition because it considered that the actions taken by the Ministry of Justice and Peace were justified since they had been taken to guarantee the health of the population deprived of liberty during the pandemic. It stated that the Claimant's fundamental rights had not been violated.
Facts of the case
A person deprived of liberty filed an amparo action against the Costa Rican Ministry of Justice and Peace because the prison where he was being held was demanding that during visits, people keep social distancing and not have physical contact with their family or friends. If they violated this, then their visitation privilege would be revoked.
According to the Claimant, this was an arbitrary measure because the use of masks was no longer required in the country, and visitors were required to be vaccinated. He also stated that other prisons were not requiring this measure.
In addition, this person indicated that visitors were not allowed to bring in food, as was allowed in other prisons. This was unequal and discriminatory treatment of all the people held in the same place as him.
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
First, the Court indicated that the measures that were being applied by the penitentiary center, and that the Claimant had challenged, were part of the Protocol of "General Guidelines for the management of COVID-19 in Penitentiary Centers in the framework of the health alert for Coronavirus", issued by the Ministry of Justice and Peace.
Furthermore, it added that although these measures existed, this protocol also established that the prisoners could maintain physical contact with the visitors as long as they all had their masks on. Also, although the visitors could not consume food during the visit, food could be taken into the penitentiary by following the established procedure.
The Court indicated that the measures mentioned above had been issued due to the COVID-19 health crisis, which wwas still a reality in that country. In this regard, it considered that the continuance of applying the above protocol was justified.
The Court found that it was a norm that contains necessary guidelines to guarantee the health of the population deprived of liberty during the pandemic.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court denied the Claimant's petition because it considered that the actions taken by the Ministry of Justice and Peace were justified since they had been taken to guarantee the health of the population deprived of liberty during the pandemic. It stated that the Claimant's fundamental rights had not been violated.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Prisoners’ rights
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
- Right to private and family life
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Right to health, Art. 46, Constitution of Costa Rica
- Right to family life, Art. 51, Constitution of Costa Rica
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
- Health v. right to privacy (private and family life)
- Health v. prisoners' rights
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court implicitly applied the principle of reasonableness by indicating that the measures taken by the Ministry of Justice and Peace were not arbitrary because they sought to protect the life and health of the population deprived of liberty.
