Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 29 April 2022, Resolucion No. 9723-2022
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
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
A person who was deprived of his liberty filed an amparo action against the penitentiary center where he was being held because he considered that the penitentiary authorities were violating his right to health, since they had not given him the third dose of the vaccine against COVID-19, and he was not receiving medical attention for his possible arterial hypertension.
The Court upheld the claim because it considered that the omission of the vaccination by the prison authorities violated the Claimant's right to health. This was because, among other arguments, the Court pointed out that the Claimant was a person deprived of liberty, which implied that his possibilities to freely go to a health center or any of the vaccination points in the country were restricted.
Facts of the case
A person who was deprived of his liberty filed an amparo action against the penitentiary center where he was being held because he considered that the prison authorities were violating his right to health, since he had not been given the third dose of the vaccine against COVID-19 and was not receiving medical attention for his possible arterial hypertension, one of the diseases that puts people who become ill with COVID-19 at risk.
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
Firstly, the Court found that more than six months had passed since the second dose of the vaccine against COVID-19 was administered to the Claimant, which made it possible to conclude that there had been an omission on the part of the prison authorities to guarantee that the vaccination schedule of this person was complete with the booster doses, thus violating his right to health.
The Court indicated that it understood the arguments these authorities gave, which affirmed that the vaccination campaign depended on the number of doses sent by the Regional Authority of Alajuela. However, it pointed out that it should be considered that in addition to the fact that more than six months had passed since the second dose of the vaccine was administered to the Claimant was a person deprived of his liberty, who had limited possibilities to freely go to a health center or any of the vaccination points in the country. Therefore, the Court found that the omission of the prison authorities had indeed endangered the Claimant's health.
Furthermore, the Court indicated that it was interesting that only after the Defendant authorities became aware of this amparo process, had they restarted the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 to benefit the population deprived of liberty located in the penitentiary center where the Claimant was.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court upheld the claim because it considered that the omission of the vaccination by the prison authorities violated the Claimant's right to health, especially considering the mobility restriction measures that persons deprived of liberty have.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Prisoners’ 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
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court implicitly applied the principle of reasonableness when considering whether there was any justification that could explain the omission of the prison authorities in not having started the vaccination plan of the persons deprived of liberty with the third dose of the vaccine against COVID-19.
Other notes
On "type of measure challenged": the Claimant challenged the omission of the authorities of the penitentiary center where he was being held to take action to ensure that he received his third vaccine against COVID-19 and that he received medical attention for the rest of his illnesses.
