Building evidence beyond the official account
According to RIADIS, the two reports were prepared during December 2023 and January 2024 and submitted in early February. Contributors gathered information through consultations, an online questionnaire and in-person workshops with Deaf women and women with intellectual disabilities. RIADIS provided training, while the International Disability Alliance offered technical and financial support. The account shows how an alternative report can combine individual experience with a coordinated presentation of rights issues, rather than depend solely on what the government chooses to include.
Personal autonomy put to the test
In the study, Wendy Patricia Barrantes Jiménez, president of the Morpho independent-living centre, described bringing concerns about implementation of the personal-autonomy law to the UN. The UN meeting summary separately records experts asking about community living, support for choosing where to live and measures to make the law effective. One expert referred to only 200 beneficiaries of the law. That figure belongs to the March 2024 discussion; it is not a current count of assistance users or a verified estimate of everyone requiring support. [1][2]
Participation depends on accessible arrangements
RIADIS describes the practical limits facing the civil-society delegation: restricted travel funding, demanding schedules and health-related difficulties. Only the coalition representative and her assistant could travel, while IDA helped present the women’s and girls’ report and organisations in Costa Rica contributed remotely. These details matter because participation in a rights review also requires support. In its own account, Costa Rica’s Foreign Ministry described the review as an exercise for identifying strengths and weaknesses in implementing obligations and developing further national action. [3]
Different accounts belong in the same public record
The UN summary records both recognition of Costa Rica’s employment measures and questions about whether consultation influenced decisions. It also records the state delegation’s description of its consultative forum and disability-policy planning. Reading those positions alongside the activists’ account makes the disagreement visible without treating every claim as an established finding. The review provided a forum for scrutiny; it did not itself expand anyone’s assistance allocation. The work that follows is to connect documented barriers with public decisions, resources and opportunities for the people affected to check what changes. [2][3][1]