Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 1 April 2022, Resolucion No. 7817-2022
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
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
An individual filed a writ of amparo against the National Vaccination and Epidemiology Commission, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, and the Executive Branch, entities in charge of establishing the vaccination guidelines in the country, to challenge the decision of these authorities to include the vaccine against COVID-19 in the list of vaccines that are part of the mandatory vaccination schedule for minors. The Claimant considered that this decision violated the best interest of the minors, because the parents were not sure if there were any medical contraindication and there were no studies to determine all the possible adverse reactions that this vaccine could generate.
The Court concluded that the existence of a childhood vaccination program aimed at preventing the outbreak of epidemics or contagion at the individual level is part of the preventive healthcare that the Costa Rican State must provide to safeguard the human right of every child to health and to comply with the protection of the best interests of the child.
Facts of the case
An individual filed an amparo action against the National Vaccination and Epidemiology Commission, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund and the Executive Branch, entities in charge of establishing the vaccination guidelines in the country, to challenge the decision of these authorities to include the vaccine against COVID-19 in the list of vaccines that are part of the mandatory vaccination schedule for minors. The Claimant considered that this decision violated the best interest of minors, because parents were not sure if children would have any medical contraindication and there were no studies to determine all the possible adverse reactions that this vaccine could generate.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
- To be granted a period to file an action of unconstitutionality against the challenged measure
- If not accepted, that this amparo action against the decision be accepted
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
Firstly, the Court indicated that the Defendants were legally entitled to include new vaccines in the list of mandatory vaccines that people must receive since, according to Costa Rican law, immunizations are mandatory when determined by the National Commission of Vaccination and Epidemiology.
The Court pointed out that the Decree that made this vaccine mandatory for minors only reformed the previous list by adding the vaccine against COVID-19. In addition, it indicated that medical contraindications could be a reason for not receiving the vaccine. However, in this case, it was not proven that this was the situation of any particular person.
On the other hand, regarding the mandatory nature of the vaccine, the Court said that health is a means and ends for humans' personal and social development and generates the duty to take care of one's health and the health of others. It added that vaccination is part of the essential healthcare that the State must guarantee to protect the fundamental right to health of all persons and that safeguarding public health and preventing diseases is a constitutionally legitimate aim that can justify the obligatory nature of vaccines.
Particularly, the Court said that the Costa Rican legal system incorporates several norms that establish a general regime of obligatory vaccination, with an emphasis on the case of children, due to the importance of immunization for the prevention of individual and collective diseases. This is because vaccination has proven to be a suitable and effective method to prevent epidemic outbreaks and contagions at the personal level, as well as to control and even eradicate diseases that pose a severe risk to the community.
Finally, regarding the child's best interest, the Court indicated that the State must promote and ensure the conditions needed to guarantee the best possible standard of living for minors, including the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Therefore, the State must take appropriate measures to reduce infant mortality, ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care, and develop preventive healthcare.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that the existence of a childhood vaccination program aimed at preventing the outbreak of epidemics or contagion at the individual level is part of the preventive healthcare that the Costa Rican State must provide to safeguard the human right of every child to health and to comply with the protection of the child's best interest.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
- Childrens' rights
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Children’s rights, Art. 51, Costa Rican Constitution; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Art. 25, UDHR
- Right to health, Art. 24, UDHR; American convention on Human Rights; ICCPR
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 indicated that the Costa Rican Constitution imposes on the State, as a fundamental duty, the protection of the child's best interests, which must be reflected in the actions of state institutions.
Other notes
On "type of measure challenged": the Claimant challenged the measure taken by the Costa Rican government to include the vaccine against COVID-19 in the mandatory vaccination scheme for minors.
