interest, impacting his willingness to perform basic activities like eating, drinking, and leaving the house.9 11. In addition to the decision to not hire Mr. Guevara, of note also is the derogatory and discriminatory content of some of the internal communications exchanged between the state entities responsible for the competitive hiring process. In Official Letter 044-2003, the head of maintenance—the victim’s supervisor while he held the interim position—said his workplace performance was unsatisfactory and that, because of his "problems of retardation and emotional blockage,” he was not right for the position.10 He therefore recommended choosing someone "functional" for the position.11 In another letter, signed by the UTAS genera coordinator, it was suggested that the victim's appointment be reconsidered on the grounds that his behavior could have a negative impact on his work.12 I would note that the UTAS itself interviewed the candidates and considered Mr. Guevara Díaz to be competent to hold the position for which he had applied. 12. Although he filed administrative and judicial appeals, the victim was not able to secure a review of the outcome of the competitive hiring process. In 2003, the legal department of the National Council on Rehabilitation and Special Education issued a report alleging flagrant discrimination through discriminatory acts regarding access to employment and a violation of the Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act (Law 7600), in force in Costa Rica at the time of the facts.13 In 2005, given the insufficiency of domestic remedies, the case was brought before the InterAmerican Commission on Human rights (“Commission"). 13. Following its internal procedures, the Commission issued its Report on the Merits in which it indicated that the unjustified rejection and subsequent dismissal of Mr. Guevara Díaz generated a presumption of discrimination, meaning the burden of proof fell to the state. The state was therefore responsible to duly provide the rationale justifying the decision, which must go beyond simply invoking the discretionary authority of the government to select a candidate from the shortlist. The absence of an objective and reasonable justification amounted to not only violation of the right to nondiscrimination (articles 24 and 1(1)) but also Article 26 of the Convention. After all, the right to work means the state has an obligation to “guarantee its exercise without any discrimination and adopt measures to take deliberate and concrete stops toward fully realizing the right in question,”14 enforceable immediately. 14. For their part, the representatives underscored that the victim's dismissal amounted to cutting short the personal progress that he was making in his work. They also argued that the action was a denial of access to work for a person with disability precisely and exclusively because of that disability. For these reasons, in addition to supporting the Commission's conclusions as to the violation of the Convention, the representatives also alleged a failure to abide by the Inter-American 9 Ibidem. 10 Cf. Official letter AM 044-2003 of June 13, 2003, Annex 4 of the Report on the Merits. Folio 943. 11 Cf. Official letter AM 044-2003 of June 13, 2003, Annex 4 of the Report on the Merits. Folio 943. 12 Cf. Official Letter UTAS 124-2003 of June 13, 2003, Annex 5 of the Report on the Merits. Folio 945. 13 Memorandum CNREE-AJ-091-03 of July 22, 2003, Annex 10 of the Report on the Merits. Folio 960. 14 IACHR. Report on the Merits 175/20, case 12,861, Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. July 2, 2020, para. 55. 3