Q COSTARICA — The Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo (Administrative Court) has been unable to locate former President and now super minister, Rodrigo Chaves, at the Casa Presidencial to serve him with a lawsuit filed against him following a ruling by the Constitutional Court, despite his current role as Minister of the Presidency.
This legal process seeks to enforce a financial penalty after Chaves revoked the declaration of cultural interest for the 2024 Pride March. The ruling orders the State to pay costs, damages, and losses caused by the former president’s actions.
The plaintiffs filed a request for the State to pay compensation for the impact of this decision. However, they argued that Chaves should also be personally liable for part of the payment, based on the legal principle of joint and several liability.
For this reason, personal service of process is required for the official, who also serves as Minister of Finance. The initial notification must be served personally by a court officer, as the process is just beginning.
On May 15, an attempt was made to serve the notification at Casa Presidencial, but it was unsuccessful. Therefore, the judge handling the case warned the parties involved—including the Attorney General’s Office, as the State’s legal representative—that they must provide a new, detailed address so that the former president can be notified.
CRHoy.com reports they sent an inquiry to Rodrigo Chaves regarding this matter, but no response was received. His lawyer, José Miguel Villalobos, who is also currently a legislator for the PPSO, indicated that he only represents him in criminal matters and did not comment on this case.
Why the lawsuit?
Geovanny Delgado, the activist behind the injunction that led to the lawsuit, explained that this legal process constitutes a financial claim for damages stemming from an illegal act confirmed by the Constitutional Court, committed by the then-president.
The illegal act relates to the revocation of the declaration of cultural interest one day before an LGBTQ+ diversity march held two years ago. Delgado questioned the difficulties encountered at Casa Presidencial in notifying Chaves.
“We find it somewhat ironic; some actions speak louder than words. He always claimed to face everything head-on, and now they’re trying to serve him with notice in a case against him where he already bears direct responsibility.
“The Constitutional Court has already condemned him, and now the amount to be paid for damages must be finalized, and he can’t be found,” the activist stated.
The plaintiffs intend for both the State and Chaves to assume the financial consequences of their actions and for those funds to be used to create a shelter in San José for vulnerable members of the LGBTQ+ community.
This is especially relevant given the international media repercussions of the former president’s statements and speeches against the march, which were broadcast in more than 60 newspapers and news programs.
Although he made these statements in the exercise of his official duties, the plaintiffs believe he also bears personal responsibility for having made them.
Why the conviction?
The conviction stems from the Presidency’s decision to abruptly and without justification revoke the declaration of cultural interest granted to the 2024 “Pride and Diversity March.” This action was deemed arbitrary and detrimental to the LGBTQ+ population, a vulnerable minority group.
The Constitutional Court determined that the declaration of cultural interest, while not implying tax or material benefits, does have significant effects in terms of visibility and awareness for the activity and its target audience. In this case, the march sought to strengthen the rights of the LGBTIQ+ community and create a safe and awareness-raising space.
The Presidency justified the annulment by claiming ignorance of the declaration and that the organizers had not obtained the necessary permits.
However, it was demonstrated that the Presidential Office did have prior knowledge of the march, as a meeting had taken place at Casa Presidencial with organizers and representatives of the Executive Branch.
Furthermore, the executive agreement granting the declaration was signed by the Vice Minister of the Presidency, who had the authority delegated by the President for such acts.
It was also verified that the march had all the required permits.
The revocation of the declaration, without an objective, technical, and valid basis, and carried out one day before the event, was considered an act of discrimination.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that no law or practice can restrict a person’s rights based on their sexual orientation, and the government’s decision in this case constituted an act of discrimination against the LGBTIQ+ community.
Although the appeal for protection was partially granted regarding the arbitrary nature of the revocation, the argument that the lack of a declaration endangered the safety and lives of attendees due to the absence of police was dismissed.
It was demonstrated that the Municipal Police of San José, the Traffic Police, and the Fuerza Publica were indeed present, and their officers assisted in maintaining order.