5 18. The State indicates that Mr. Guevara Díaz was terminated as of June 16, 2003, in view of the fact that he was not chosen to fill the vacant position, about which he was duly notified on June 13, 2003, through an official communication dated June 12, 2003.11 19. In consideration of the date on which the termination was communicated to the alleged victim, the State in its allegations mentions two official communications that were issued questioning the Mr. Guevara Díaz’s aptitude for the job. The State claims that both communications are dated subsequent to notification of termination and that therefore there is no causal nexus with the administrative action of Mr. Guevara Díaz’s termination. Specifically, the State indicates that on June 13, 2003, the coordinator of the Technical Unit for Provisioning and Services – who was in charge of the selection process for filling the vacant position – issued an official communication indicating that Luis Fernando’s behavior “has had a negative impact on his job experience and his attitudes could even affect his personal safety, I reiterate, because of the types of duties he performs and therefore I suggest that his appointment be reconsidered,” to which the State attached a copy of the communication of June 13, 2003, signed by the chief of the maintenance area, Mr. Guevara Díaz’s immediate boss (to whom the petitioners allude in their claims). The State claims that the head of the maintenance area did not participate directly in choosing the candidates and that both communications were received by the Technical Unit for Human Resources on June 13, 2003, that is, one day after Mr. Guevara Díaz’s termination notice. The State affirms that the fact that Mr. Guevara Díaz was notified of his termination on the same day as the above-mentioned communications were delivered to the Technical Unit for Human Resources is strictly a coincidence. 20. The State further asserts that current national and international law in Costa Rica has as one of its fundamental objectives the provide the necessary conditions to ensure that persons who suffer any type of disability can achieve full social participation under equal conditions of quality, opportunity, rights, and duties as all other citizens. The State reports that the progressive and expansive trend of human rights has caused the State of Costa Rica to join in the struggle against any form of discrimination that is contrary to human dignity and that by Law No. 7948 of November 22, 1999 the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities was incorporated in the body of domestic law. 21. In the matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State claims that this requirement of the Convention has not been met, given that not all domestic legal appeals have been exhausted. The State explains that the Constitutional Bench, by hearing the amparo appeal filed by the alleged victim, issued its ruling on possible discriminatory treatment, determining in its resolution of February 14, 2005, and with founded reasoning, that Mr. Guevara’s rights had not been threatened. The State claims that despite the alleged victim having filed that amparo appeal, 12 did not impede him, as the Constitutional Bench itself indicated in its resolution, from arguing the legality of the selection procedures in the appropriate court, given that the matter goes beyond the Constitution, such that the most to which the servant under these conditions has a right is to be considered for participation, in keeping with the applicable legal and regulatory provisions, in competitive processes that are called in order to fill the position of his or her interest, as occurred in the case in question, insofar as he or she meets the requirements to do so and is eligible. 11 The State explains that the entire appointment process was conducted according to the Rules of Law 7600, “Law of Equal Opportunity for Persons with Disabilities”, also mentioning Article 84 of that Law which provides that “the Civil Service Division will adapt recruitment procedures and mechanisms and the selection of personnel to the particular conditions of the individual, so as to assess his or her adequacy for performing the job.” 12 The State also mentions other appeals filed by the alleged victim. It indicates that by resolution on 11 July 2003, the appeal for reversal and nullification filed by the alleged victim was decided, to wit, that no omissions or irregularities were found in the procedure given that all pertinent laws had been followed. The State also indicates that on 8 October 2003, the appeal filed in this decision was declared out of order.