The certification of judgments, better known as "crime sheet", is regulated by Law 6723, Law of Registry and Judicial Archives. Said norm indicates in article 3:
The Registry will have the essential function of verifying the criminal records of the inhabitants of the Republic and must provide collaboration with the public agencies and offices that this law and other legal norms determine.
For its part, the numeral 11 of said norm indicates for how long the Judicial Registry must keep the records of the persons convicted, according to the type of crime committed. It is established from the immediate lifting up to a period of ten years after the sentence imposed has been completed.
It is worth mentioning that, on multiple occasions, both the entries in the record of trials and the time that they must remain in the Judicial Registry have been the subject of analysis and discussion by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The reiterated criterion of said body has been that the annotations in the judicial records do not violate the fundamental rights of the administered since the ten-year term established in the norm does not violate the right to be forgotten and is reasonable.
In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has indicated:
specifically in what is related to the period during which the inscriptions in the Judicial Registry are kept, the Chamber has also previously established that a period of ten years is, in itself, reasonable (see in this sense the pronouncements number 8218- 98 of the sixteen hours of November 18, 1998; number 2004-004626 twelve hours four minutes of April 30, 2004 and number 2012-012082 of nine hours five minutes of August 31, 2012). The fact that the registrations are tied to each other, while their cancellation is subject to the passage of ten years without the emergence, at all, of a new judgment, is justified in the interest of society that people do not incur in new illegal conduct within a specific time frame that, as already stated, is not unreasonable. In any case, keeping the data in the Registry does not result in adding additional harmful sanctioning effects to the sentences imposed, but rather limiting access to benefits, which, as this Court has already indicated, does not imply either a right or a worsening of the situation defined by the imposition of a penalty. (Resolution 2013-003810 of the Constitutional Chamber at 09:05 on March 22, 2013).
From a labor perspective, article 13 of the Judicial Registry and Archives Law provides for the possibility of requesting certifications of judgments for labor purposes:
The Registry will issue judgment certifications only in the following cases and for the purposes of each institution that requests them: (...)
ñ) To interested persons for labor purposes.
At this point, it is vitally important to consider whether a person's judicial record may be a reason for discrimination in selection processes since numeral 408 of the Labor Code establishes that:
All people, without any discrimination, will enjoy the same opportunities to obtain employment and must be considered eligible in the branch of their specialty, as long as they meet the formal requirements requested by the employer or that are established by law or regulation.
Concerning the above, the Labor Code prohibits discrimination even in stages prior to hiring.
However, this cannot be seen as a limitation for the employer to know the people who are applying for a particular position and to choose the one who, according to their criteria, best meets the required profile. This is essential when the vacant position requires a specific level of trust, for example, staff who must enter clients' homes, have direct contact with minors, handle cash, or use firearms.
The aforementioned article 13 of the Registry and Archives Law has been the object of analysis by the Constitutional Chamber. In this regard, it has been determined that:
However, neither does the Chamber consider that the challenged paragraph is unconstitutional in the terms invoked by the plaintiff. Firstly, because it is the owner of the information that can request it from the Registry, not any third party, which safeguards the confidentiality of the information. It also constitutes a guarantee for the owner of the data, since it allows him to verify the information that exists about himself and that it is current, truthful, and accurate information of his judgments. On the other hand, it is an optional action for the manager, not obligatory, which does not imply that he must provide it in all the places where he goes to apply for a job, but only in those where he is requested to do so and that he consents to diligence it. Likewise, this Court does not overlook the fact that employment is a very important condition to achieve the social reintegration of people with a criminal record; however, such provision is not unreasonable either, as the employer also has the right to take into consideration all the aspects that he deems necessary in order to hire the personnel that he considers meets his profile. This does not mean that it is an open authorization for the employer to discriminate against people based on race, color, sex, etc., which would be unconstitutional; but yes to assess the references of a person, especially in some sensitive job positions in which it is extremely important to know such antecedents, for example, in the areas indicated by the Attorney General's Office: financial sector, private security companies, education, security services, babysitting, etc. On the other hand, such condition will not be maintained indefinitely, but only for the established legal term. (The highlighting does not appear in the original. Resolution 2015-548 of the Constitutional Chamber, of 10:31 a.m. on January 14, 2015).
Therefore, it is possible to request the criminal record sheet and assess the background of the applicants without this being considered a discriminatory act, as long as the request for said document responds to objective reasons of the selection process and especially, based on the position submitted for application.
At Bufete Godínez y Asociados, we specialize in counseling and advising employers in labor and employment law. If you need any additional information, do not hesitate to contact us by clicking here.
About the Autor