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