Basic information			Substance of the ruling			Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date	Name of the case (or case number)	The body delivering the decision	Keywords, topic	Executive part	Brief summary	Full text	Page at the website of the issuing court	Page in other databases	Unofficial materials, press communications
7 May 2021	No. 2021009121 (reg no. 20-020056-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	The original decision declared that the right to health of a minor was violated due to public authorities’ failure to schedule a needed surgery. As a result the Court ordered public authorities to reschedule the surgery, the special circumstances of the Covid-19 (and the regulations of the national government) permitting. The plaintiff challenged the failure of authorities to comply with this order because, despite rescheduling the surgery, they canceled it by virtue of the pandemic. The Court decided that, since the procedure had already taken place at the time of the hearing, the authorities had not failed to comply with the order, considering that the national Covid-19 emergency had generated a process of reorganization of the service, which caused delays in such procedures. The original decision had considered this special circumstance and had ordered authorities to reschedule if the pandemic (and this reorganization) permitted them to do so. Since the pandemic had not allowed it, authorities were found to be in compliance.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-2021009121-reg-no-20-020056
19 March 2021	No. 2021005802 (reg no. 21-004201-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim upheld	The plaintiff, who at the time worked at the Ministry of Health, had to be annually assessed by her doctors and be issued a medical certificate for her employer (for the purpose of her annual work relocation). However, she alleged, she had not been able to renew her certificate due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Her appointment for the assessment was canceled by the hospital and was not rescheduled. Hence, she challenged the omission by public authorities to reschedule her appointment and issue her certificate. The Court concluded that her rights were violated after considering that public authorities had failed to prove that the appointment had been rescheduled or that her certificate was issued. Thus, according to the Court, public authorities failed to comply with their duties and functions and violated her rights, because without the aforementioned certificate, her employer would force her to resume her work without being properly relocated.	https://vlex.co.cr/vid/sentencia-n-2021005802-sala-864230925		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-2021005802-reg-no-21-004201
12 March 2021	No. 2021005055 (reg no. 21-001334-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	The Plaintiff argued that his right of petition and of access to information had been violated, because every person has the right to access information related to the action of public authorities to guarantee transparency and political control. The Court has declared that no violation of a fundamental right has occurred as every right is subject to certain reasonable limitations. In this case, the right of petition and of access to information was limited by the non-disclosure agreements signed between Pfizer and Costa Rica. These agreements provided that the state could not disclose any sensitive information without Pfizer’s authorization. As these reasons were clearly given to the Plaintiff when denying his request, according to the Court, the denial was completely reasonable. Furthermore, for the Court, the exceptional situation of the COVID-19 pandemic had justified, in terms of suitableness, necessity, and proportionality, these exceptional NDAs and the denial to disclose the contract to attain the legitimate end of protecting the health of its citizens.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-2021005055-reg-no-21-001334
9 March 2021	No. 04842 (reg no 21-002457-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	The Plaintiff challenged two measures. The first one was the denial of his request that the sanitary order against him, forcing him to isolate due to possible COVID-19 be lifted so that he could go to the healthcare center to receive his second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The second one was the denial of his request to be vaccinated at home while he was complying with the sanitary order. The Court has found that no fundamental right was violated by the public authorities, as the order to isolate was justified through scientific and technical arguments and was implemented to achieve the legitimate end of stopping the spread of COVID-19. Hence, it was reasonable. The Court argued the same for the measure of not vaccinating people at houses where there are patients in isolation and, instead, waiting for the isolation period to be over to apply the second dose.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-04842-reg-no-21-002457-0007
5 March 2021	No. 04491 (21-000737-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim upheld	She challenged the omission of the authorities that had not issued her sanitary order, although they had notified her that she had tested positive for COVID-19. She was told to isolate and, thus, she could not go to work. However, as the sanitary order with her name had not been issued, she had no written justification for her employer, who is asking for an excuse. Thus, she was at risk of losing her employment and her economic benefit derived from this medical leave. The Court has found the omission by the authorities unreasonable, because, despite the Plaintiff making many formal requests to the competent authorities, there was no definite answer of whether she would be issued this sanitary order nor by who or when. The Court has found that there is a clear and serious lack of coordination within the administration. Consequently, it has declared a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to work and has ordered the public authorities to decide whether the sanitary order must be retroactively issued in the present case.	https://vlex.co.cr/vid/sentencia-n-2021004491-sala-864229884		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-04491-21-000737-0007-co-2021
5 February 2021	No. 02260 (reg no. 21-000670-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim upheld	The Plaintiff argued that he could not attend a pre-trial detention hearing against him because he had been issued a sanitary order, forcing him to isolate, due to a possible infection of COVID-19. For this same reason, the penitentiary facility denied his transfer to a videoconference room to attend the hearing through a videocall, measure that is being challenged by the Plaintiff. Hence, the hearing was conducted without him, and the judge decided to extend his pre-trial detention. The Court has found that his right to a fair trial was violated, because public authorities must guarantee a smooth operation of the justice system, while regarding fundamental rights. For the Court, the denial to transfer him to the videoconference room is unreasonable and unconstitutional.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-02260-reg-no-21-000670-0007
13 January 2021	No. ‎21-000652-0007-CO‎	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	The Claimant is a prisoner who was infected with COVID-19 within ‎the prison facilities. The Claimant argues he is an elder person with ‎problematic health conditions, so he is a high-risk patient. He argues ‎that the prison authorities have not provided him with adequate ‎treatment and that he is being held in an overcrowded facility. Given ‎the above, he requests to be released from prison. ‎ The Court ruled in favor of the penitentiary institution arguing that, ‎even though the prisoner was infected with COVID-19 inside the ‎prison facilities, the prison provided all the necessary medicaments ‎and medical treatment. ‎			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-constitutional-branch-supreme-court-justice-costa-rica-no-21-000652-0007-co
29 December 2020	No. 24712 (reg no. Exp. 20-022788-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	A woman filed a protective action, “recurso de amparo”, on behalf of her minor daughter against a public hospital, alleging a violation to her right to health. She argued that her daughter was a pregnant minor that was, at the time, in the hospital for labor and possible delivery. Under Costa Rican law, minors must always be accompanied by an adult (in this case, her mother) during medical procedures. Hence, she challenged the measure of the Department of Gynecology of the hospital that denied her entrance due to COVID-19 restrictions. The measure mandated that, if necessary, the chief of a department is allowed to prohibit accompaniment in certain exceptional cases, to protect the health of the expectant mother. The Court has found that the right to health of her daughter was not violated by public authorities as the challenged measure was not arbitrary. Rather, it was reasonable and proportional to attain the legitimate end of protecting expecting mothers in these exceptional times of the pandemic.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-24712-reg-no-exp-20-022788
18 December 2020	No. 24320	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	A person filed a protective action, “recurso de amparo”, against a town government (“municipalidad”), alleging a violation of her fundamental rights and unlawful discrimination against her. She challenged the measure of being denied entry to the town hall for not wearing a mask and being directed to an outdoor office where her administrative requests could be processed. The Court found no violation of fundamental rights because, while she was exempted from wearing a mask, due to her anxiety disorder, the local government denied her entrance by virtue of the COVID-19 regulations related to mask mandates. Hence, there was no arbitrariness nor discrimination against the Plaintiff. Furthermore, she was offered service, which she refused, in an outdoor office that had adequate ventilation and the accommodations necessary for her to make her administrative requests.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-24320-2020-12-18
15 December 2020	No. 24053 (reg no 20-021059-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	Claimant challenged the police’s measure of detaining her at a supermarket for violating a sanitary order issued against her, forcing her to isolate due to the possibility of having COVID-19. The Court finds no police abuse nor a violation of her fundamental rights as the evidence showed that the officers complied with all the protocols when approaching the Plaintiff. In fact, the Respondent proved that the Plaintiff was aggressive and attacked the officers. Thus, when the officers used force against her, it was not excessive.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-24053-reg-no-20-021059-0007
4 December 2020	No. 23368 (reg no.	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim inadmissible or rejected	An immigrant woman filed a protective action against the Ministry of Education and the Section of Naturalization of the National Registry Office, alleging a violation of her fundamental rights. The Plaintiff challenged the Ministry’s measure of suspending the naturalization exams, necessary to be granted the Costa Rican nationality, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She alleged that she had requested her naturalization for the last seven years and that her residence permit would expire soon. However, she had not been able to pass her exam because the Ministry suspended its conduction. The Court has found that no fundamental rights were violated in the present case because the decision to suspend the naturalization exams was sensible, considering the exceptional situation of the pandemic.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-23368-reg-no-20-020922-0007
20 November 2020,	No. 22378 – 2020	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected	A person filed a protective action on behalf of ‎his son, a prisoner, against the Ministry of Justice and Peace and the ‎Ministry of Health, alleging that his son’s fundamental rights were ‎violated because he did not have the necessary personal amenities ‎for his stay in prison, specially hygiene products. The Plaintiff ‎challenged both the omission of authorities of providing him with the ‎necessary items and the denial of letting him visit his son to deliver ‎him hygiene products. The Court has found that no fundamental right was violated because ‎authorities proved that he had all the necessary hygiene products for ‎his stay in prison.‎			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-22378-2020-2020-11-20
20 November 2020	No. 22292 (reg no.	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim upheld	A person filed a protective action on behalf of 55 people deprived of their freedom, against a Penitentiary center alleging a violation of their fundamental rights to life, to health and to not be inhumanely treated. The Plaintiffs challenged the measure of transferring these inmates to a facility that did not have the adequate infrastructural conditions to guarantee compliance with sanitary regulations for COVID-19 (social distancing, hygiene, protection devices) because of an overcrowding crisis. The Court has declared the violation of these rights because penitentiary authorities did not provide inmates with soap and towels to comply with the mandate of a constant handwashing and has not adapted the infrastructure to comply with social distancing in isolation areas (as there is overcrowding). Hence, it has also ordered public authorities to design and implement a plan to correct these sanitary failures.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-22292-reg-no-20-017133-0007
4 November 2020	No. 21311 (reg no.	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim upheld	A public defender filed a habeas corpus against a Local Attorney’s Office and the Judicial Body of Investigation (OIJ) on behalf of her client, who was detained pretrial. The plaintiff alleged a violation of the fundamental right of her client to a fair trial. She argued that the detainee was under certain conditions of vulnerability, as she had been a victim of domestic violence and was in a state of poverty. Thus, she requested that her client be socially and psychologically evaluated in order to present this report as expert evidence that could be in her favor during her criminal case. She challenged two measures: 1) the denial of the Social Work and Psychology Section of the prison to socially and psychologically evaluate her client due to Covid-19; and 2) a second denial to conduct this evaluation by videoconference.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-21311-reg-no-20-017717-0007
28 October 2020	No. 20852	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected.	A woman filed a protective action on behalf of ‎her 2-month-old son. alleging a violation of his right to life and to ‎health. The Plaintiff challenged the denial of the public hospital to ‎vaccinate his son with the pentavalent vaccine.‎ Public authorities responded that this denial occurred because there ‎were supply issues directly tied to COVID-19, specifically, delayed ‎or cancelled flights. Hence, according to authorities, when the ‎pentavalent vaccines finally entered the country, they did not meet ‎the quality standards and could not be used.‎ The Court has declared that, although under normal circumstances ‎there would be a violation of the right to health, in the present case, ‎this is not attributable to public authorities, which have acted ‎diligently. For the Court, this was a ‎case of force majeure due to the emergency of the COVID-19 ‎pandemic.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-20852-2020-10-28
16 October 2020	No. 19907	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim inadmissible	A street vendor filed a protective action ‎against a town municipality alleging a violation of his fundamental ‎rights. The Plaintiff challenged the measure of town authorities and ‎police officers of temporarily seizing his products, newspapers, ‎because he refused to wear a mask to protect against COVID-19 and ‎observe social distancing regulations while selling them. ‎The Court rejected the claim declaring that public authorities did not ‎act in an arbitrary manner. Rather, according to the Court, the ‎measure aimed at attaining the legitimate end of protecting the ‎public health of people buying the newspapers and passing nearby.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-19907-2020-10-16
16 October 2020	No. 19891	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim rejected.	A person filed a protective action against the town government alleging a violation of her fundamental rights. She challenged the measure denying her entrance into the town hall for not complying with Covid-19 regulations (specifically, not washing her hands before entering). As a result, officials did not offer her service for her administrative request, which, according to the plaintiff, violated her rights as a citizen. The Court dismissed her claim, and declared that the denial of service by public authorities was neither arbitrary nor gratuitous. Rather, it was lawful and followed certain standards: Covid-19 regulations that had the legitimate aim of protecting the right to health.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-19891-2020-10-17
13 October 2020	No. 19658	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim inadmissible	The Republic of Korea donated 300,000 KF94 facemasks to ‎Costa Rica to face the COVID-19 pandemic.‎ The KF94 masks were handed to healthcare workers by the ‎Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS).‎ On September 18, 2020, a group of unionized healthcare ‎workers collectively decided to not wear the KF94 masks ‎alleging a lack of protection necessary for facing the ‎pandemic.‎ On September 21, 2020, a union leader of healthcare workers ‎filed a protective action against the ‎CCSS alleging a violation of their fundamental rights.‎ During the process, it was proven that the KF94 masks offer ‎the same protection as N95 and KN95 masks against the ‎COVID-19 pandemic.‎			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-19658-2020-10-13
2 October 2020	No. 19117 (reg no 20-017727-0007-CO)	Supreme Court of Justice. Constitutional Chamber		Claim upheld	The Claimant - who was an Argentinian tourist - filed a habeas corpus considering that the General Directorate for Immigration and Foreigners violated his fundamental rights. The plaintiff wnated to travel from Costa Rica to Mexico, but the public authorities denied him entrance into Mexico. Therefore on the same day, he wanted to return to Costa Rica but was also denied entrance because he did not have a negative Covid-19 test. The Court concluded that public authorities had violated the fundamental rights of the plaintiff because, although they were following Covid-19 regulations, his situation was a notable exception, considering his return the same day after being denied entrance to another country. Consequently, the Court would have ordered authorities to allow his entrance but, at the time of the decision, they had already done so. Hence, it merely declared the violation and held public authorities liable for damages.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-19117-reg-no-20-017727-0007
7 August 2020	Resolución N. 14824 -	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim partially upheld	The Plaintiff, who was imprisoned in the Unit of Integral Attention ‘Reynaldo Villalobos’ of Alajuela, submitted an application arguing that his life was being put at risk by the prison authorities. The Plaintiff argued that the prison did not have a protocol to prevent a massive contagion of COVID-19 and that the inmates who oversaw disinfecting and repairing the cells in which some COVID-19 patients resided did not use the appropriate protective outfits. The Constitutional Section of the Supreme Court of Justice has partially upheld the claim by ordering the competent authorities to issue an Attention Protocol in case of Massive COVID-19 Propagation inside the Penitentiary System according to the WHO guidelines for the prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention. The Court has reasoned that although the Ministry of Justice and Peace has issued a protocol for the management of a massive COVID-19 contagion inside prisons, it does not follow the WHO Guidelines for the prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention, so the inmates’ and prison workers’ rights have not been guaranteed.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-section-resolucion-n-14824-2020-exp-20
2 June 2020	No. 2020010034	Supreme Court of Costa Rica		Claim upheld	Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, an indigenous group prevented access to their community by non-indigenous people and, when they allowed it, charged them a toll. The Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena de Ujarrás Buenos Aires was ordered to issue the respective directives, so that its representatives do not block the free transit of public roads, outside the hours and conditions established by the Ministry of Health or the laws of the Republic. The Court considered that it prevented the transit of people on public roads, whose purpose at no time was to affect the cultural identity of the community in question, much less to harm fundamental aspects of it, such as its property. If the appellant association considered that in its territory, for health reasons and for the duration of the pandemic, it was appropriate to close a public road for non-indigenous persons, it being a demanial property, it should have first requested the competent authorities.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-constitutional-chamber-supreme-court-justice-no-2020010034-2020-06-02