2
date of filing the petition before the IACHR. The Commission sent its reply by communication dated
July 19, 2010.
6.
The Commission received additional information from the petitioners through
communications dated August 20, 2010 and February 21, 2011. These communications were duly
forwarded to the State.
7.
The Commission received additional information from the State through
communications dated November 2, 2010 and May 11, 2011. These communications were duly
forwarded to the petitioners.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

Position of the petitioners

8.
The petitioners claim that Luis Fernando Guevara Diaz provided services free of
charge to the Finance Ministry of Costa Rica during approximately eight years until, on June 4, 2001,
he was hired on an interim basis as a “Miscellaneous Worker 1”. 2
9.
They report that while performing his duties as an interim worker, Mr. Guevara Díaz
voluntarily3 entered a competitive hiring process for appointment as a holder of the title to that
position. They report that after taking the preliminary tests – which were administered in a
differentiated manner because of his disability – a list was made of eligible participants, who were
subsequently interviewed. The petitioners assert that Mr. Guevara Díaz was slated in first place on
that list, given that he had achieved the highest score (78.97%). 4 The petitioners claim that after the
selection process had been concluded, Mr. Guevara found out from unofficial sources that he had
not been selected to occupy the position for which he had competed and which he currently held on
an interim basis within the Finance Ministry, and that a person had been appointed in his place, this
person being from outside the institution and free of any type of disability. They further state that
as of June 16, 2003, the interim appointment of Mr. Guevara Díaz was terminated and that he has
been unemployed since that date.5
10.
The petitioners present a series of considerations to question the above-mentioned
selection process, claiming that it produced discriminatory outcomes to the injury of the alleged
victim. Among these considerations the petitioners claim that according to applicable regulations,
the power to appoint or select is regulated in such a way that it can produce situations of
discrimination. Specifically, they claim that the relevant labor authority can appoint any of the three
persons on the proposed list of candidates, given that its power is discretionary. The petitioners hold
that this is a flaw in the system. They argue that in this case, in order to ensure equality, the scores
achieved by the alleged victim and his job performance, both during the years he worked free of
2

The petitioners indicate that consideration must be given to the fact that as of 29 May 1996, Law No. 7600 went
into effect in Costa Rica, the “Law of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities”, and that at that time the victim had
already been working for two years providing free services to the State.
3

They make clear that the alleged victim was not called by the Department of General Civil Service, but that he
entered voluntarily.
4

The petitioners underscore that at that time, the alleged victim had been working at the State agency for about ten

years.
5

As for his merits as a worker position, the petitioners add that he received a letter congratulating him for his work,
and the coordinator of human resources in the Finance Ministry, through a letter dated 7 July 2003, stated that “having
reviewed the personnel file of that employee, it has been determined that there is no report of any labor or behavior problems
of any kind.”

Select target paragraph3