diálogo jurisprudencial - Instituto Interamericano De Derechos ...

REUNIFICACIÓN FAMILIAR Y SOLICITUDES MIGRATORIAS
acom pa ñar la du ran te su via je. En con se cuen cia, ade más de otras con si de -
ra cio nes, la Sala Cons ti tu cio nal es ti mó como ar bi tra ria la re so lu ción de la
au to ri dad mi gra to ria por no ha ber to ma do en cuen ta el in te rés su pe rior del
niño ni la pro tec ción que el Esta do debe otor gar a la fa mi lia por me dio de
su reu ni fi ca ción. Por lo tan to, con ce dió el am pa ro so li ci ta do.
En su sen ten cia, la Sala Cons ti tu cio nal de la Cor te Su pre ma de Jus ti cia de
Cos ta Rica alu dió, en tre otros, a la Opi nión Con sul ti va OC-17/02, Con di -
ción Ju rí di ca y De re chos Hu ma nos del Niño, de la Cor te Inte ra me ri ca na
de De re chos Hu ma nos; a la Con ven ción so bre los De re chos del Niño de
las Na cio nes Uni das y, a la De cla ra ción Uni ver sal de De re chos Hu ma nos.
La sen ten cia se en cuen tra acom pa ña da de un voto con jun to.
Syn op sis: The Con sti tu tional Cham ber of the Su preme Court of Jus tice of
Costa Rica granted an amparo whereby it re ferred to the prin ci ple of fam -
ily re uni fi ca tion and the su pe rior in ter est of the child. A for eign cit i zen
with per ma nent res i dence in Costa Rica re quested the mi gra tion au thor i -
ties of Costa Rica a re stricted en trance visa for his mi nor daugh ter and
wife. The au thor i ties granted a visa to his daugh ter but de nied it to his
wife, stat ing non-com pli ance with the re quire ments un der the law ap pli ca -
ble to for eign ers to re side le gally in Costa Rica. To that end, un der the
amparo re quested to the Con sti tu tional Court, the ap pel lant pointed out
that such res o lu tion was con trary to the prin ci ple of fam ily re uni fi ca tion
re sult ing from the right of spe cial pro tec tion of the State to the fam ily.
In its sen tence, the Con sti tu tional Cham ber stated that, based on the ju ris -
pru dence of the Inter-Amer i can Court of Hu man Rights and the Eu ro pean
Court of Hu man Rights, as well as on var i ous in ter na tional in stru ments in
such mat ter, the State is obliged to look af ter the sta bil ity of the nu clear
fam ily. Like wise, the Con sti tu tional Cham ber pointed out that the en joy -
ment of liv ing to gether of par ents and chil dren is a fun da men tal el e ment
of fam ily life. There fore, even when par ents are sep a rated from their chil -
dren, their liv ing to gether must be guar an teed. On the other hand, the
Con sti tu tional Cham ber also es tab lished that the su pe rior in ter est of the
child must be taken into ac count. Thus, the States have the duty to avoid
sep a rat ing a nu clear fam ily and pro mote the nec es sary con di tions for the
fam ily to en joy the per ma nent pres ence of their par ents. Ad di tion ally, the
Con sti tu tional Cham ber pointed out that pur su ant to this, the States must
con sider any re quest made by a child or their par ents to en ter or to exit a
State in a pos i tive, hu man i tar ian and easy man ner. The Con sti tu tional
Cham ber also men tioned that the mi gra tion au thor i ties did not take into
42