Q COSTARICA — “In an act shameful to history, the current Costa Rican government illegally deprived 200 foreigners deported by Trump, including 79 children,” writes Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, journalist, communications and human rights consultant, on his social media after being notified by the Constitutional Court or Sala IV on the full ruling on the habeas corpus petition he filed on March 7.
“May this ruling ensure that no one, national or foreign, is ever again imprisoned and detained without reason, and that we never again agree to collaborate with the human rights violations committed by another country,” says Herrera.
Among other things, this is what the Sala IV said in its resounding rebuke to Costa Rica’s immigration service, the Dirección General de Migración (DGME) and the government of Rodrigo Chaves:
“It is especially worrying to have found that a significant portion of the individuals whose liberty was restricted were children, thus exacerbating the group’s inherent vulnerability, as they are already eligible for special protection as migrants. Clearly, the deprivation of liberty by the Costa Rican authorities in question is arbitrary and excessive.
“…evidently, their deprivation of liberty lacked any support or justification. In other words, if the individuals had not even been defined for immigration purposes, it is even less understandable that the restriction of their personal liberty had the slightest support from the perspective of Constitutional Law and International Human Rights Law.”
But the most impressive aspect was the note to the ruling by Judge Fernando Cruz, which, among other things, states the following:
“In the twenty-first century, I ask myself many questions about the dignity of migrants. There is a tendency to think that, in their illegality, they become invisible beings, beings silenced by inhumanity. These are questions I cannot ignore when examining the “rendition” of more than two hundred foreign citizens by the US government.
“Something has changed, perhaps too much so, in a society that has held James Hamilton as its model for democratic and dignified coexistence.
“In the case examined by the Court, these questions have no answers. Authoritarianisms that ignore the dignity of people, regardless of their nationality, are returning. It seems obvious, but it is not, in any way. Migrants do not lose their eminent dignity for not having documents.
“What this case, decided by a court in a small, dependent, and vulnerable country, reflects is that migrants have not lost their identity and their dignity. They are still people, with dignity, even if they lack “documents.” Not even a clear and precise identity was given to each of the human beings sent from the USA. It was a “silent shipment” of the Earth’s poor, of whom there are many.
“After so many years in the Constitutional Court, I have never experienced a case that was so detrimental to the fundamental rights of people, especially their dignity and freedom. A group of unidentified people are brought into the country without further arguments, and the Costa Rican government assumes control, depriving them of their freedom. They were not people who entered the country voluntarily; their identity is unknown, and they are treated as if they lacked dignity and self-determination.”
On his social media on June 25, Herrera clarified what all this means:
“The therefore clearly implies that these deportees should never have been detained and that Costa Rica must assume the cost of their social care. Furthermore, the Court orders the Costa Rican State to pay costs for the damages caused to the individuals who were admitted to the country and imprisoned for more than two months. Foreigners deported and illegally deprived of their liberty now have the right to seek compensation from the Costa Rican State.”
The Constitutional Court reaffirms that in Costa Rica, no innocent person may be deprived of their liberty, especially if they have been deported to Costa Rica without their consent.
Among the comments posted on Herrera’s post:
“Yet another shameful act committed by two governments, that of the North and ours, who share a common desire for anarchy and trample on human rights. Thank you, Mauricio, for your initiative, strength, and clarity!”
“Without a doubt, a tremendously inhumane act, detrimental to human rights and shameful for the country.”
Source link
Rico
