Report No. 19 (2014) IACHR. Petition No. 329-06 (Costa Rica)

• Petition Number: 329-06
• Report Number: 19
• Respondent State: Costa Rica
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Emilia Morales Campos y Jennifer Morales Campos

REPORT No. 19/14

PETITION 329-06

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

EMILIA MORALES CAMPOS Y J.E.M. CAMPOS

COSTA RICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.150

D.. 23

3 A. 2014

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 1979 held on A. 3, 2014
150 Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 19/14, Petition 329-06. A.. Emilia M. Campos y J.E.M.C.. Costa Rica. A.3., 2014.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 19/14

PETITION 329-06

ADMISSIBILITY

EMILIA MORALES CAMPOS Y J.E.M. CAMPOS

COSTA RICA

A. 3, 2014

I. SUMMARY

1. On A. 7, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”, “Inter-American Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition filed by Mrs. E.M.C. (“the petitioner”), in which she alleges the responsibility of the Republic of Costa Rica (“the S.”, “the S. of Costa Rica” or “Costa Rica”) for alleged violation of guarantees upheld in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (“the Declaration” or the “American Declaration”), in the processing of an application for a family housing voucher (a “BFV”)¹, which was submitted in 1991 and which is not resolved as of the date of writing of this report. The petitioner alleged that the outcome of the above was that she and her daughter have been living in precarious conditions for many years, which has been harmful especially to the health and the rights of both.

2. The petitioner alleged that the S. of Costa Rica is responsible for violating the right to establish a family and to protection thereof, to preservation of health and to wellbeing, and to property upheld in Articles VI, XI and XXIII of the American Declaration, to the prejudice of herself and her daughter, as the result of the S.’s failure to provide an effective response to the handling of her application.

3. For its part, the S. indicated that the petitioner has not exhausted domestic remedies, inasmuch as Costa Rican law establishes the procedure and requirements for claiming the BFV, and Mrs. M. did not present her claim to the competent authority. The S. also alleged that the facts about which the petitioner complains do not constitute a violation of the rights set out in the American Convention, and for this reason, the petition should be held inadmissible.

4. W. prejudging the merits of the complaint, and having examined the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights (“the American Convention” or “the Convention”), the Commission decided to declare the case admissible for the purposes of examining the claim of alleged violation of rights upheld in Articles 5, 8, 19, 25 and 26 in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention, to notify the parties, and to order publication of the report in its annual report to the General Assembly of the OAS.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

5. On A. 7, 2006, the petitioner presented to the IACHR a claim and a request for precautionary measures. The petition was registered as No. P-329-06, and the request for precautionary measures was recorded under No. 75-06. On October 8, 2006, having received information from the parties and having examined the situation, the Commission decided to deny the request for precautionary measures and to continue processing the petition.

6. By note dated A. 26, 2007, it was transmitted to the S.. The S. presented its response by note dated May 25, 2007. The S.’s response was forwarded to the petitioner by note dated J.6., 2007, with a time period of one month, and the petitioner presented her observations on J. 12, 2007. That information was transmitted to the S. by note of August 28, 2007.

7. The Commission received the S.’s observations on October 1, 2007, and by note dated October 30 of that year, transmitted them to the petitioner, and gave her a time period of one month in which to present her observations. The Commission received the petitioner’s response on December 21, 2007, and transmitted it to the S. by note of January 23, 2008, granting one month for observations, which were received on February 4, 2008. The S.’s observations were forwarded to the petitioner by note dated A. 2, 2008.

8. The petitioner sent in additional information on August 6, 2008; this information was sent to the S. by note of September 9, 2008, and the S. was given one month in which to present its observations. The IACHR received the S.’s response on October 17, 2008. By note of November 11, 2008, the S.’s observations were transmitted to the petitioner, who was given one month in which to present her position, which she forwarded within the time limit and the Commission received her observations on December 1, 2008. On December 5, 2008, the Commission received additional information from the petitioner, which was forwarded to the S. by note of December 19, 2008, advising of a one-month period in which to make its observations.

9. In 2009, the Commission received observations from the S. on January 12 and J. 10, and received additional information on August 6. The IACHR received observations from the petitioner on February 17, August 27 and October 7, and received additional information from the petitioner on A. 17 and September 4. The Commission also received additional information from the petitioner on January 4 and 22, 2010, which was transmitted to the S. on January 25, 2010.

10. On May 27, 2011, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter, and granted them one month in which to state their interest in beginning such a procedure. On J. 7, 2011, the IACHR received the S.’s response in which it indicated that it was a valuable opportunity to examine a possible friendly settlement, and asked the IACHR to request Mrs. M. to provide a specific, up-to-date statement of her claim. That communication was transmitted to the petitioner by note of September 15, 2011 and she was granted one month in which to respond. To date, she has not indicated acceptance of that expression of interest.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner

11. The petitioner alleges that, since 1991, she has attempted to obtain a family housing voucher (BFV), first to buy a house, and then to make improvements to a property she received as a gift from private individuals, and that the S. of Costa Rica has prevented her from having access to resources in order to obtain this benefit. The petitioner indicated that the house donated to her was in very poor condition, and represented a risk to her and her daughter, who at that time was eleven years old. The petitioner also states that she suffers from severe bronchial asthma, and that the condition of the house posed a risk to her health.

12. In her petition, the petitioner explains that between 1991 and 1997, she attempted to secure a BFV to buy a house, and contacted a number of authorities about it. H., the petitioner states that the authorities merely sent letters to the Ministry of Housing and Human Settlement (“MIVAH”) and the National Housing and Urban Development Institute (“INVU”) asking them to cooperate in processing the BFV, but that they had taken no action of any significance.

13. The petitioner alleges that on November 13, 1997, she and her daughter received a house as a gift from private individuals,...