The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (popularly known as Chamber IV) rejected a new appeal against mandatory vaccination against COVID-19, and an action of unconstitutionality brought by former deputy Otto Guevara Guth, against the resolution of the Ministry of Health regarding the implementation of the QR code to verify vaccination status when entering non-essential businesses.
By resolution 25946-2021 of the previous November 17, The Chamber rejected “outright” the action of unconstitutionality 21-021993-0007-CO raised by Guevara, who accused violation of freedom of movement, free access to public agencies and institutions, the principle-right of equality and non-discrimination, the value of human dignity, the prohibition of not to suffer degrading treatment, to free self-determination of the person and freedom, freedom of assembly and religion, freedom of trade; to the rights to work, education and health; to the legislative power to legislate; to the principles of publicity, citizen participation, transparency and prohibition of arbitrariness.
Guevara had asked to proceed with his claim, suspend the mandatory nature of the QR and declare the appeal valid, annulling the Health resolution in all its extremes.
By vote 4 vs. 3, the Chamber determined that the claim lacked the formal requirements of admissibility and adequate argumentation, so it was appropriate to reject it outright; without needing to warn Guevara to correct the deficiencies. The three magistrates who saved the vote (Paul Rueda, Nancy Hernández and Anamari Garro) only did so to give the former deputy time to amend the brief, but since it was the minority thesis, the file passed to the court file.
The rejection, as recorded in the therefore, was extended to coadyuvances raised by Rubén Acón Toy in his capacity as legal representative of the Limón Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Association, and of the Association Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Costa Rica. The coadjustments raised by Francini Hidalgo Trejos from Costa Rica Trip Guide, Ronald Fabián Tencio Marín and Gerardo Aguilar Quirós.
Where there was unanimity was at the time of rejecting the amparo appeal filed by a citizen identified as Randall García Chacón, who accused that the mandatory vaccination decree violated the principle of equality as it was only aimed at public sector employees and not at the entire population; besides that it was intended to force “a person against his will to be vaccinated with a medical substance that does not create confidence, especially that you are not allowed to choose the brand of the vaccine, which constitutes inhuman treatment and violates the principle of conscientious objection and violates their constitutional rights. “
The appeal also did not go beyond the Admissibility Office, since the complainant did not indicate specific grievances that specifically, directly or individually affected his fundamental rights; since his claim was related to “eventual sanctions” that those public servants who refuse to be vaccinated could face.
The petitioner does not indicate in a delimited manner the initiation of an administrative procedure against him or provide evidence stating his possible dismissal. Thus, what is raised by the manager is generic, as it lacks a specific impact on the facts in question.
Despite the fact that this was already sufficient cause to dismiss the appeal, the Chamber once again reiterated its jurisprudence in the sense that Vaccinations against diseases are mandatory when deemed necessary by the National Vaccination and Epidemiology Commission, “because it is precisely a preventive measure to avoid the spread of a communicable disease, as it is in the case of study.”
–
