Costa Rica’s Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General) responded yesterday to the questions set out by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala IV) on whether or not the advisory opinions given by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are binding regarding gay marriage.

The Constitutional Chamber submitted the consultation to the Attorney General of the Republic regarding an unconstitutionality action presented by a same sex couple against the National Direction of Notaries, entity that issued orders which prohibit notaries to register civil unions of same sex couples.

According to the Attorney General of the Republic the opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are binding; it also reminded the judges that in precedent judicial decisions (case-law) delivered by the Constitutional Chamber itself  has been established that the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are of obligatory compliance.

The Inter-America Court of Human Rights resolved that same-sex couples should be recognized and guaranteed “all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex” and that the governments must guarantee access “to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination”.

In the response given by the Attorney General of the Republic made emphasis in the prohibition contained in the Family Code for people of the same gender to get married, form a family and receive the protection of the state result openly contrary to several articles of the American Convention.

“The Constitutional Chamber has the possibility of complying in a very effective way with what was established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, that opens the possibility of the Costa Rican state to modify the existent figure of marriage, whether it is through legislative or judiciary measures, and revert the discrimination situation claimed by the petitioner by eliminating the said norm”.