However, at this point it should be noted that using his discretionary authority, Mr. E.P. chooses the candidate that he considered suitable for the position. Likewise, via official letter UTAS-124-2003, he indicated that “the behavior of Mr. Luis Fernando has had a negative impact on his future employment, and his attitudes may even affect his personal safety in view of the type of functions that would be performed. It is therefore suggested that his selection be reconsidered.” […] it should be noted that pursuant to the arguments given and the regulations and case law cited, this Office does not find omissions in the procedure that would indicate unequal treatment as claimed in his letter, since the process set forth by the law for cases like this one has been faithfully followed, ensuring that Mr. Guevara Díaz was able to participate on equal footing with the others taking part in the competitive hiring process and with the eligible candidates.” 35. On July 7, 2003, in response to a request for information, the General Coordinator of the Human Resources Technical Unit reported that Mr. Guevara obtained the highest score on the short list for the competitive hiring process in which he was participating and that there were no reports of labor or conduct problems.27 36. On July 22, 2003, the Legal Department of the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education issued a report concluding that because he was not selected in the competitive hiring process, the dismissal of Mr. Guevara violated the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act (Law 7600) because it amounted to discrimination with regard to access to work.28 C. Amparo process 37. On August 5, 2003, the victim filed an appeal for amparo before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Constitutional Chamber”) against the Minister of Finance, alleging workplace discrimination.29 On September 1, 2003, the Senior Officer and Director General of the Ministry of Finance answered the amparo appeal by rejecting the charges alleged by Mr. Guevara. Specifically, he indicated that "the procedure followed for the appointment complied with all the guidelines set for cases like this one."30 On October 14, 2003, the Ombudsperson of the Republic of Costa Rica filed in support of the amparo appeal and requested that the external competitive hiring process for position 010179 be annulled.31 38. On February 14, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber declared the appeal filed by Mr. Guevara “without merit.”32 The Constitutional Chamber found as follows regarding the specific case: Cf. Official letter from the General Coordinator of the Human Resources Technical Unit of the Ministry of Finance of July 7, 2003 (evidence file, folio 958). 27 Cf. Report of the Legal Counsel of the National Council for Rehabilitation and Special Education of Costa Rica (evidence file, folio 960). 28 Cf. Amparo appeal filed by Mr. Guevara Díaz before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court on August 5, 2003 (evidence file, folio 964). 29 Cf. Response to the amparo appeal filed by the Senior Officer and General Director of the Ministry of Finance of September 1, 2003 (evidence file, folio 971). 30 Cf. Formal brief supporting the amparo appeal filed by the Ombudsperson of the Republic of Costa Rica on October 14, 2003 (evidence file, folio 978). 31 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 14, 2005 (evidence file, folio 985). 32 11