Report No. 266 (2020) IACHR. Petition No. 952-15 (Costa Rica)
Year | 2020 |
Case Type | Inadmissibility |
Respondent State | Costa Rica |
Court | Inter-American Comission of Human Rights |
REPORT No. 266/20
PETITION 952-15
REPORT ON INADMISSIBILITY
JEAN SEAS ACOSTA
COSTA RICA
OAS/Ser.L/V/II.
D.. 282
1 October 2020
Original: Spanish
Approved electronically by the Commission on October 1, 2020.
Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 266/20. P.9......I.. J.S.A.. Costa Rica. October 1, 2020.
www.cidh.org
www.cidh.org
I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION
Petitioner: | Jean Seas Acosta |
: | Jean Seas Acosta |
Respondent S.: | Costa Rica |
Rights invoked: | Articles 7 (personal liberty), 11 (privacy), and 13 (freedom of thought and expression) of the American Convention on Human Rights1; in relation to its article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights); Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women2; and other International Treaties3 |
II. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE IACHR4
Filling of the petition: | J. 30, 2015 |
Additional information received during the study stage: | August 11, 2018 |
N. of the petition to the S.: | A. 29, 2019 |
S.’s first response: | J. 23, 2019 |
Petitioner’s additional observations: | September 29, 2019 |
S.’s additional observations: | A. 2, 2020 |
III. COMPETENCE
Competence Ratione personae: | Y. |
Competence Ratione loci: | Y. |
Competence Ratione temporis: | Y. |
Competence Ratione materiae: | Y., American Convention (instrument of ratification deposited on A. 8, 1970); and Convention of Belém do Pará (instrument of ratification deposited on December 7, 1995) |
IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
Duplication of procedures and International res judicata: | No |
Rights declared admissible | None |
Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule: | Y., under the terms of section VI |
Timeliness of the petition: | Y., under the terms of section VI |
V. SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGED FACTS
-
Mr. J.S.A. (hereinafter also “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”), affirms that since 2011 he began the necessary formalities before the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (hereinafter also “the CCSS”) to opt for a definitive sterilization, this after "a reflection of a social, economic, ecological, and philosophical nature". In this sense, he points out that they scheduled an appointment on May 28, 2014 for surgical intervention at the S.J. de Dios Hospital; however, the doctor in charge of carrying out the procedure refused to do it for personal reasons, and considered that it was not prudent, given that the petitioner was a young man, 24 years old at the time, single and without children. The petitioner also indicates that the doctor considered that the clinical file did not have the necessary formalities for this surgical intervention.
-
In response to these facts, the petitioner appealed to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice by means of an amparo action against the CCSS, since it considered that the doctor refused to carry out the surgical intervention based only on the principle of authority and mere opinion; as well as in the administrative argument of requirements validation. The petitioner states that, through Judgment No. 2015-09134 of June 18, 2015 the court indicated that it was not a comptroller of the legality of the Administration's actions or resolutions, and therefore rejected the appeal outright; and recommended to raise the disagreement or claim with the same authority appealed.
-
Following the recommendation of the Constitutional Court, the petitioner went to the Services Comptroller of the S.J. de Dios Hospital to present the claim. T., through Official Letter No. 425-J-U.2015, from Interim Chief of the Urology Service, the petitioner was told that “according to the collegiate criteria of the members of the Urology Service, vasectomies are not performed on young patients who have never had children, despite the fact that we respect the criteria of the patient requesting this procedure, if we do not agree, we do not carry out this procedure”. The petitioner points out that in the face of this refusal, he again went to the Constitutional Chamber, this time indicating not a negligence in the administrative process of validation of requirements, but in the face of the flat refusal to carry out the family planning surgical procedure. Through Resolution No. 2015011450 of J. 28, 2015, the Constitutional Chamber declared it inadmissible to express itself on the situation, based on the same allegations. This highest instance court considered that: "[t]he fact that this time it is a medical council that rejects his request, instead of a professional, individually, does not change the criteria of this Court." F. with this situation, the petitioner went to the Office of the Ombudsman, where he was informed that he should opt for the judicial route, since that office had no power to order the CSSC to perform the surgery.
-
On the other hand, and referring to the procedure of his petition before the IACHR, M.J.S.A. states that after the petition was transferred to the S., when the process of the petition was formalized, the Ministry of Foreign Relations and Worship in an expeditious and timely manner organized the performance of the surgery for J. 5, 2019 at the Dr. Clorito Picado Clinic of the Tibás-Uruca-Merced Health Area. In fact, the petitioner stresses that the medical care provided "had nothing to envy the private health services of the first world"; and that there were no post-operative complications. F., the alleged victim states that he leaves the course of his petition to the Commission and that the assistance of the IACHR helped to ensure that his rights were not violated.
-
The S., for its part, argues that the petition is inadmissible for the following reasons: (a) it does not meet the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 46 of the Convention and 31 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure; (b) The petitioner intends that the IACHR acts as a fourth instance, reviewing a ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice with which he is dissatisfied; (c) violation of the principle of subsidiarity; and (d) the petitioner's claim was already satisfied, since the necessary steps were taken with the Ebais de Santa Ana and the Medical Directorate of the Clorito Picado Clinic, and the surgical sterilization was carried out on J. 5, 2019. T.S. underscores the importance of the petitioner's compliance with the medical care provided by the CCSS in his surgical procedure. And it states that the petitioner does not allege violations of due process in the processing of the internal judicial remedies that he raised.
-
The S. further indicates that the CCSS prepared in January 2019 a "Guidance Guideline to Conduct Surgical Sterilization in the Health Services of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund", which is in the process of validation. This document is addressed to regional directors, directors of hospitals and health areas, health personnel involved in counseling and prescribing contraceptive and protective methods, and all health personnel; with the objective of guaranteeing that users who request surgical sterilization from the CCSS receive counseling on reproductive and sexual health based on a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and respectful perspective of their reproductive and sexual rights.
VI. ANALYSYS OF THE EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
-
The petitioner argues the exhaustion of domestic remedies, having gone to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice by means of amparo actions; before the Office of the Comptroller of Services of the S.J. de Dios Hospital, administratively; and even before the Ombudsman's Office. T.S., for its part, questions the exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial