At 11:30 p.m. this August 8th, 2018, the Constitutional Chamber in Costa Rica (Sala Constitucional or Sala IV as it is popularly known) pronounced itself on same sex marriage in the country and domestic partnership between same sex couples.

Judge Fernando Castillo was in charge of explaining the decision of the Constitutional Chamber to the press:

“These have been two very complex rulings, and it has been the longest session in almost 29 years, it has not been an easy topic”, started Castillo.

The judges of the Constitutional Chamber, by majority, admitted the legal actions presented, and “urged” the Legislative Assembly to take the necessary actions to adequate the legal framework to adhere to the ruling of the Inter-American Court with regards to same sex marriage and domestic partnership between same sex couples; the Constitution Chamber is giving the Legislative Assembly 18 months to make the necessary adjustments to the law; in the event that in the given time-frame the Legislative Assembly does not take the necessary steps as requested by the Court, the articles that currently prohibit same-sex marriage will lose validity (will be declared null) automatically eliminating the prohibition that currently exists.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights had resolved on the advisory opinion requested from members of the government 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”.

Back in May this year Costa Rica’s Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General) responded to the consultation made by the Constitutional Chamber 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, and said that “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, it has been established that the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are of obligatory compliance.

Representatives of the LGBTI community reacted to the ruling with mixed emotions, in one way they felt it was positive that the Constitutional Chamber is making the Legislative Assembly take the necessary actions to regulate same-sex unions; but at the same time they feel that judges had the legal authority to finally abolish the existing prohibition effective immediately, instead of transferring the responsibility to Congress and extending the process another 18 months.