Amparo for poultry farm expansion inside spring-water protection zoneAmparo por ampliación de granja avícola en zona de protección de nacientes

“**I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL.** The appellant claimed that the respondent authorities have violated the fundamental right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment by allowing the expansion and operation of a poultry farm, which does not have the respective building permits, and furthermore, encroaches upon the area’s water sources. He also alleged a violation of his right to a swift and completed procedure, given that, as a result of these irregularities, he has filed several complaints before the respondents, which have not been resolved or communicated.” “…**III.- ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT.** Based on the provisions of Articles 21, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution, this Constitutional Court has extensively recognized the duty incumbent upon the State to protect the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, making the State the guarantor of the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is by virtue of these provisions that the State’s responsibility to exercise a safeguarding and governing function in this matter arises, a function developed by infra-constitutional environmental regulations. Accordingly, by means of ruling No. 2002-04830 issued at 16:00 hrs. on May 21, 2002, this Court stated the following:

“Our Political Constitution, in its Article 50, expressly recognizes the right of all present and future inhabitants of this country to enjoy a healthy environment in perfect equilibrium. Fulfilling this requirement is a fundamental guarantee for the protection of public life and health, not only for Costa Ricans but also for all members of the world community. Violation of these fundamental precepts entails the possibility of injury or endangerment of short, medium, and long-term interests. Environmental contamination is one of the ways through which the integrity of the environment can be shattered, with results that are most often imperishable and cumulative. The Costa Rican State is obligated to act preventively by avoiding—through oversight and direct intervention—the carrying out of acts that harm the environment, and under the correlative and equally unavoidable prohibition against promoting its degradation (…)”.

Thus, as derived from the constitutional text, the Costa Rican State must ensure the protection of the environment, which implies not only that it must take the necessary measures to prevent attacks against it, but also that it must adopt measures that reinforce its protection and conservation.

**IV.- ON ACCESS TO DRINKING WATER AS A HUMAN RIGHT.** At the United Nations Water Conference, held in Mar del Plata in 1977, the commitment to achieve universal access to drinking water for all peoples was recognized and the foundations for undertaking it were laid. The Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1986, included a commitment by States to ensure equality of opportunity for all to enjoy basic resources. The Declaration on Drinking Water and Sanitation for the 1990 Decade, held in New Delhi, India, from September 10 to 14, 1990, organized by the United Nations Development Programme, recognized the following as its first guiding principle:

“Drinking water and adequate waste disposal means are essential for sustaining the environment and improving human health and must be the linchpin of integrated water resources management”.

In the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children, from the World Summit for Children, held in New York that same year, the need to promote the provision of drinking water for all children in all communities and the creation of sanitation networks worldwide was recognized ((20.2.). In the Dublin Declaration on Water and Sustainable Development, held in 1972, the following was recognized:

“Freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment”.

In Agenda 21 of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1972, the need for a global management of water resources was recognized (Section 2, Chapter 18, 18.6). In turn, in the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development, held in 1995, the need to direct efforts and policies towards the task of overcoming the root causes of poverty and meeting the basic needs of all was recognized, including the supply of drinking water and sanitation (Chapter I - Resolutions adopted by the Summit, Second Commitment, b.). Emphasis was also placed on this matter in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (measure 106.x). For its part, the Marrakech Declaration, First World Water Forum, 1997, recognized the need to establish an effective mechanism for managing shared waters, support and conserve ecosystems, and promote efficient water use. The General Comment on the right to water, adopted in November 2002 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN: E/C.12/2002/11) recognized the following:

“the human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, affordable, physically accessible, safe and acceptable quality water for personal and domestic uses”.

This Court, in ruling No. 2004-12263 issued at 14:49 hrs. on October 29, 2004—among others—developed the constitutional basis of the fundamental right of access to drinking water. In this regard, it has stated the following:

“V.- The Chamber recognizes, as part of Constitutional Law, a fundamental right to drinking water, derived from the fundamental rights to health, life, a healthy environment, food, and decent housing, among others, as has also been recognized in international Human Rights instruments applicable in Costa Rica: thus, it appears explicitly in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Art. 14) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art. 24); moreover, it is stated in the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo (Principle 2), and is declared in numerous other instruments of International Humanitarian Law. Within our Inter-American Human Rights System, the country is particularly bound in this matter by the provisions of Article 11.1 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the ‘Protocol of San Salvador’ of 1988), which provides that:

‘**Article 11. Right to a healthy environment** 1. Everyone shall have the right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to basic public services’.

Moreover, recently, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reiterated that having water is a human right which, in addition to being essential for living a healthy life, is a prerequisite for the realization of all other human rights.

VI.- From the preceding normative framework, a series of fundamental rights arise, linked to the State’s obligation to provide basic public services, which implies, on the one hand, that people cannot be illegitimately deprived of them, but that, as in the case of drinking water, one cannot sustain the entitlement to a right enforceable by any individual for the State to immediately supply the public drinking water service anywhere, but rather, as provided for in the same Protocol of San Salvador, this class of rights obliges States to adopt measures, in accordance with the provisions of Article One of the same Protocol:

‘The States Parties to this Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights undertake to adopt the necessary measures, both domestically and through international cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum extent of their available resources and taking into account their degree of development, in order to achieve progressively, and in accordance with their domestic legislation, the full effectiveness of the rights recognized in this Protocol’.

**V.- ON THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO ENJOY A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT IN THE SPECIFIC CASE.** First, the appellant claimed that the respondent authorities have violated this fundamental right by allowing the expansion and operation of the Poultry Farm ‘Chico’, which not only encroaches upon the protection zones of the springs, but also lacks the respective building permits. On this matter, this Court finds that Rojas Granados is correct in his arguments. The foregoing is because, from the facts indicated above, as well as from the reports rendered—which were given under oath with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction—it is clearly evident that, on the date this amparo proceeding was filed, that is, June 22, 2006, the Poultry Farm ‘Chico’ was operating, despite the fact that the Municipality of San Ramón had never authorized its expansion through the construction of two sheds. An authorization that, moreover, was denied to the representatives of said farm by these authorities back in October 2005 and confirmed by resolution dated December 19 of that same year. The foregoing is because technical studies reveal that the construction and operation of the new sheds of the Poultry Farm Chico run counter to the provisions of Article 31 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) No. 276 of August 27, 1942, which, as pertinent, provides the following:

“Article 31.- The following are declared a reserve of ownership in favor of the Nation; a) The lands surrounding the water catchment sites or drinking water supply intakes, within a perimeter of not less than two hundred meters in radius; b) The forest zone that protects or should protect the set of lands where the infiltration of drinking water occurs, as well as those that provide the site for watersheds and the margins of deposits, supply sources, or permanent course of the same waters.” In the opinion of the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Ramón, the aforementioned sheds would be built within the reserve of ownership zone in favor of the Nation, given that they would be located 122 meters from one of the water catchment tanks located in that zone, characterized by the existence of several drinking water springs that supply the population of Río Jesús de Santiago. Nevertheless, and as was duly proven, said expansion was carried out by the owners of the farm in question, despite not having the aforementioned permit. For this reason, this Constitutional Court considers that the respondent authorities, through their negligent and arbitrary conduct, have indeed violated the provisions of Section 50 of the Political Constitution. In this regard, it should be noted that it was only on the occasion of this amparo that the cited authorities imposed some kind of precautionary measure aimed at preventing the sheds from being built and operating, despite having been aware of this circumstance for months. In that sense, in the first instance, it should be noted that the authorities of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) merely, in this specific case and given the complaints filed by the amparo petitioner on January 23 and 26, 2006, gave the farm owner a deadline to respond to these filings, carried out an on-site inspection through which it was verified that the expansion under study was located 122 meters from the rural aqueduct of Río Jesús de Santiago, recognized the appellant as a party, issued a resolution completely inconsistent with the situation—since they requested documentation that had already been provided to them since 2005—and finally, and only on the occasion of the amparo, ordered the immediate halt of all construction or operational work on the project expansion. In this respect, this Court is struck powerfully by the fact that despite the National Environmental Technical Secretariat having been aware of the construction and operation of the referred sheds since January 2006, and its officials having carried out an inspection on February 28 of that year through which they confirmed the denounced facts, an effective measure to resolve the identified environmental problem was not adopted in a timely manner. In this sense, observe that the order to halt the construction of the two sheds (June 29, 2006) was not timely, since by February of that same year the expansion works on the farm had already been completed. Secondly, and regarding the actions of the Municipality of San Ramón, it should be noted that—although—it never authorized the construction of the farm expansion and, indeed, faced with disobedience to the closure decreed on December 26, 2005, they requested the Legal Department to take the corresponding legal actions, the truth is that this last action was carried out on January 10, 2006, without this Court having evidence that after that date any measure was adopted aimed at preventing the illegal operation of the expansion of the Poultry Farm ‘Chico’, which, as indicated, was operating on the date this proceeding was filed—June 22, 2006. Consequently, this Court considers that the municipal officials did not provide effective follow-up to the breach allegedly incurred by the farm owner in question of the closure order for the expansion. In a similar vein, the authorities of the Ministry of Health also incurred in omissions that violated the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, since despite being aware of the denial of the building permits for the farm expansion since October 31, 2005, and of the complaints filed by the appellant on January 24 and May 4, 2006, it was on the occasion of this amparo that they adopted effective measures to resolve the problem raised. In this respect, this Court observes that the measures ordered by the Ministry on November 2 and December 14, 2005, aimed at revoking the site location approval and the approval of plans granted, were never concretely or fully executed. Hence, a new inspection was ordered, carried out on June 28, 2006—the day the Ministry authorities were notified of the filing of this amparo—and upon verifying that the two sheds constituting the expansion project had been built and were operating without any authorization, a sanitary closure order was issued. Finally, it is worth noting that the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) was also aware of the situation under study and, nonetheless, failed to take any measure in this regard. The foregoing is because, since January 27, 2006, in accordance with the inspection carried out, the construction and expansion of the sheds on the aforementioned farm, located 120 meters from the drinking water intakes for the population of Río Jesús de Santiago, was confirmed. Under such circumstances, as indicated above, this Court does not observe that the respondent authorities charged by law with ensuring the proper operation of the Poultry Farm Chico carried out diligent and effective action, through concrete measures, to prevent the aforementioned sheds from being built without permission and from operating. Given these circumstances, this Court finds it unacceptable that despite the fact that all the aforementioned bodies were aware of the construction and operation of the expansion of the Poultry Farm Chico, none adopted concrete and effective measures to prevent and correct said situation. For these reasons, the rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to water are considered violated. The violation of fundamental rights proven is not invalidated by the latest evidentiary elements provided by the owner of the Farm in question, since the document entitled “Infiltration tests and hydrogeological study on the land of Mr. Francisco Conejo and public supply spring in Río Jesús de San Ramón” is from August 2005, prior to the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Ramón rejecting the building permit application for the two sheds and prior to several on-site inspections being carried out that gave rise to the sanitary orders and other measures subsequently adopted to prevent the operation of the expansion of said Farm. Regarding the agreement adopted by the Water Piping Committee of Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón, on November 10 and 15, 2005, it should be noted that, as can be inferred from it, approval for the farm expansion was granted on the condition that the company in question comply with obtaining the permits granted by SETENA and the Municipality of San Ramón. In a similar vein, a pronouncement must be made regarding the decision of the Water Judge of San Ramón, who endorsed the project expansion, based on the aforementioned hydrogeological study and clearly indicated that he is unaware of the current situation of the water exploitation and catchment permits for the community of Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón and that he issues his opinion, subject to a better opinion from SETENA or the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Under these circumstances, given that—precisely—the expansion of the Farm in question did not have the respective permits and violated specific provisions that prevent its location in the protection zone of the water catchment tanks, the previous documents do not allow the violation of the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to water for the neighbors of the community of Río Jesús María de San Ramón to be dismissed.

**VI.- ON THE RIGHT TO A SWIFT AND COMPLETED PROCEDURE IN THE SPECIFIC CASE.** The appellant alleges that he has filed a series of petitions before the respondent authorities to denounce the irregularities occurring at the Poultry Farm ‘Chico’, which have not been resolved or communicated. On this matter, this Court finds it proven that both the authorities of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the Ministry of Health have violated—to the detriment of the amparo petitioner—the right to a swift and completed procedure. In that sense, it should first be noted that—although—the SETENA authorities carried out some actions aimed at investigating the facts denounced by the appellant on January 23 and 26, 2006, the truth is that these actions were never communicated to the amparo petitioner, which is why the complaints were reiterated on April 26, 2006. Hence, this Constitutional Court considers that the SETENA officials failed to resolve and communicate the complaints raised by the appellant, and it was not until the occasion of this amparo—5 months and 3 days after the filing of the first complaint—that they notified the amparo petitioner, on June 29, 2006, of Resolution No. 1193-2006 dated June 29 of that same year, whereby the halt of the farm expansion in question was ordered. Despite the foregoing, not all the claims and requests raised months earlier by the interested party were specifically resolved. Moreover, this Constitutional Court finds it proven that, likewise, the complaints filed by the appellant before the Ministry of Health on January 24 and May 4, 2006, were not resolved until June 30, 2006, that is, 2 days after said authorities were notified of the filing of this amparo and 5 months and 6 days after being filed. By virtue of the foregoing, it is evident that an undue delay or unjustified postponement has occurred in this case, which has violated, to the detriment of the appellant, his right to a swift and completed procedure.

**VII.- CONCLUSION.** As a corollary to the foregoing, the appeal filed must be granted with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this ruling.” The Costa Rican State is obligated to act preventively, avoiding—through oversight and direct intervention—the performance of acts that harm the environment, and under the correlative and equally unavoidable prohibition against fostering its degradation (…)”.</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>Thus, based on the constitutional text, the Costa Rican State must ensure environmental protection, which implies not only that it must take the necessary measures to prevent harm to the environment, but also that it must adopt measures that reinforce its protection and conservation.</span> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><span class=SpellE><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>IV</span></b></span><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>.- ON ACCESS TO POTABLE WATER AS A HUMAN RIGHT. </span></b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>&nbsp;At the United Nations Water Conference, held in Mar de Plata in 1977, the commitment to achieving universal access for all peoples to potable water was recognized and the foundations were laid. The Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1986, included a commitment by States to ensure equal opportunity for all to enjoy basic resources. The Declaration on Drinking Water and Sanitation for the 1990s, held in New Delhi, India, from September 10 to 14, 1990, organized by the United Nations Development Programme, recognized the following as its first guiding principle: </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>“Safe water and proper means of waste disposal are essential for sustaining the environment and improving human health and must be at the center of integrated water resources management.”</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:14.0pt; line-height:150%'>&nbsp;In the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children, from the World Summit for Children, held in New York that same year, the need to promote the provision of potable water for all children in all communities and the creation of sanitation networks worldwide was recognized (20.2.). The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, held in 1972, recognized the following:</span> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>“Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment.”</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:14.0pt; line-height:150%'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In Agenda 21 of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1972, the need for overall management of water resources was recognized (Section 2, Chapter 18, 18.6). For its part, the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development, held in 1995, recognized the need to direct efforts and policies toward the task of overcoming the fundamental causes of poverty and meeting the basic needs of all, including the supply of potable water and sanitation (Chapter I - Resolutions adopted by the Summit, Second commitment, b.). This point was also emphasized in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (measure 106.x). For its part, the Marrakech Declaration, First World Water Forum, 1997, recognized the need to establish an effective mechanism for shared water management, support and conserve ecosystems, and promote the efficient use of water. General Comment on the right to water, adopted in November 2002 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN: E/C.12/2002/11) recognized the following: </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>“the human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, affordable, physically accessible, safe and acceptable quality water for personal and domestic uses.”</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:14.0pt; line-height:150%'>This Court, in judgment No. 2004-12263 of 2:49 p.m. on October 29, 2004 –among others– developed the constitutional basis of the fundamental right to access to potable water. In this regard, it has stated the following:</span> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>“V.- This Chamber recognizes, as part of Constitutional Law, a fundamental right to potable water, derived from the fundamental rights to health, life, a healthy environment, food, and decent housing, among others, as has also been recognized in international Human Rights instruments applicable in Costa Rica: thus, it appears explicitly in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (art. 14) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (art. 24); furthermore, it is enunciated in the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (principle 2), and is declared in numerous other instruments of International Humanitarian Law. In our Inter-American Human Rights System, the country is particularly bound in this matter by the provisions of Article 11.1 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador” of 1988), which provides that:</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>&nbsp;“Article 11. Right to a Healthy Environment 1. Everyone shall have the right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to basic public services”.</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>&nbsp;Furthermore, recently, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reiterated that having water is a human right that, besides being indispensable for leading a healthy life, is a prerequisite for the realization of all other human rights.</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>&nbsp;VI.- From the above regulatory framework derives a series of fundamental rights linked to the State's obligation to provide basic public services, which imply, on the one hand, that persons cannot be illegitimately deprived of them, but that, as in the case of potable water, the holding of an enforceable right by any individual for the State to supply them with the public service of potable water, immediately and wherever they may be, cannot be sustained; rather, in the manner provided in the same Protocol of San Salvador, this class of rights obliges States to adopt measures, as provided in the first article of the same Protocol:</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>&nbsp;“The States Parties to this Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights undertake to adopt the necessary measures, both domestically and through cooperation among the States, especially economic and technical, to the maximum extent of available resources and taking into account their degree of development, in order to achieve progressively, and in accordance with domestic legislation, the full effectiveness of the rights recognized in this Protocol”.&nbsp; </span></i></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>V.-</span></b><span style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%'> <b>ON THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO ENJOY A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT IN THE SPECIFIC CASE. </b>In the first place, the claimant (accionante) alleged that the respondent authorities have violated this fundamental right by permitting the expansion and operation of the “Chico” Poultry Farm, which not only encroaches upon the protection zones of the water springs (nacientes), but also lacks the respective construction permits. Regarding this matter, this Court finds that Rojas Granados is correct in his allegations. The foregoing, because from the facts indicated above (supra), as well as from the reports rendered –which were given under oath with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided in Article 44 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction–, it is clear –with meridian clarity– that, on the date of filing of this amparo proceeding, that is, June 22, 2006, the “Chico” Poultry Farm was operating, despite the fact that, at no time, had the Municipality of San Ramón authorized its expansion through the construction of two sheds. Authorization which, in fact, was denied by these authorities to the representatives of said farm since the month of October 2005, and confirmed by resolution on December 19 of that same year. The foregoing is due to the fact that technical studies reveal that the construction and operation of the new sheds of the Chico Poultry Farm violates the provisions of Article 31 of the Water Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942, which, in relevant part, provides the following:</span> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><b><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>“</span></i></b><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>Article 31.-<b> </b>The following are declared as a reserve of domain in favor of the Nation: a) The lands that surround the sites of intake (Captación) or potable water supply intakes (tomas surtidoras), within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius; b) The forest zone that protects or must protect the set of lands where the infiltration of potable waters occurs, as well as those that support hydrographic basins and margins of deposits, supply sources (fuentes surtidoras), or permanent courses of the same waters.”</span></i> </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>In the opinion of the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Ramón, the referenced sheds would be built within the zone of reserve of domain in favor of the Nation, given that they would be located 122 meters from one of the water intake tanks located in that area, characterized by the existence of several potable water springs that supply the population of Río Jesús de Santiago. However, and as was duly accredited, said expansion was carried out by the owners of the farm in question, despite not having the referenced permit. Due to the foregoing, this Constitutional Court considers that the respondent authorities have indeed violated –through their negligent and arbitrary conduct– the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. In this regard, it should be noted that it was only on the occasion of this amparo that the cited authorities ordered some type of precautionary measure aimed at preventing the sheds from being built and operated, despite being aware of this circumstance for months prior. In that sense, in the first instance, it should be noted that the authorities of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) merely limited themselves, in the specific case and, in the face of the complaints filed by the amparo petitioner on January 23 and 26, 2006, to granting a period for the farm owner to respond to such proceedings, conducting an on-site inspection through which it was verified that the expansion under study was located 122 meters from the rural aqueduct of Río Jesús de Santiago, having the claimant as a party, issuing a resolution totally incongruent with the situation, because they requested documentation that had been delivered to them since 2005, and, finally, and only on the occasion of the amparo, ordering the immediate halt of all construction or operational work on the project expansion. In this regard, it strongly draws this Court's attention that despite the fact that the National Environmental Technical Secretariat had knowledge of the construction and operation of the referenced sheds since January 2006 and that its officials carried out an inspection on February 28 of that year through which they verified the denounced facts, an effective measure was not timely adopted to resolve the environmental problem raised. In this sense, observe that the halt order for the construction of the two sheds (June 29, 2006) was not timely, since the expansion works of the farm had already been completed since February of the same year. On the other hand, and regarding the action of the Municipality of San Ramón, it should be noted that –although– it never authorized the construction of the farm expansion and, even, given the disobedience to the closure decreed on December 26, 2005, it requested the Legal Department to take the corresponding legal actions, the fact is that this last action was carried out on January 10, 2006, without it being evident to this Court that after that date, any measure was adopted tending to prevent the illegal operation of the expansion of the “Chico” Poultry Farm, which, as indicated, on the date of filing of this proceeding – June 22, 2006–, was operating. Consequently, this Court considers that the municipal officials did not effectively follow up on the non-compliance with the expansion closure order allegedly incurred by the owner of the farm in question. Similarly, the authorities of the Ministry of Health also incurred omissions that violated the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, because despite having knowledge of the denial of construction permits for the farm expansion since October 31, 2005, and of the complaints filed by the petitioner on January 24 and May 4, 2006, it was on the occasion of this amparo that they adopted effective measures to resolve the problem raised. In this regard, this Court observes that what was ordered by the Ministry on November 2 and December 14, 2005, aimed at revoking the location approval (visto bueno de ubicación) and the plan approval (visado de planos) granted, was never concretely or fully executed. Hence, a new inspection was ordered and carried out on June 28, 2006 –the day the Ministry authorities were notified of the filing of this amparo– and upon verifying that the two sheds that constituted the expansion project had been built and were operating without any authorization, a sanitary closure order was issued. Finally, it should be noted that the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy was also aware of the situation under study and, nevertheless, failed to order any measure in this regard. The foregoing because, since January 27, 2006, in accordance with the inspection carried out, the construction and expansion of the sheds on the cited farm, located 120 meters from the potable water intakes of the population of Río Jesús de Santiago, was verified. Under such circumstances, as indicated above, this Court does not observe that the respondent authorities legally responsible for ensuring the correct operation of the Chico Poultry Farm performed diligent and effective action, through concrete actions, to prevent the referenced sheds from being built without permission and from operating. Under such circumstances, this Court considers it unacceptable that despite all the aforementioned bodies being aware of the construction and operation of the expansion of the Chico Poultry Farm, none adopted concrete and effective measures to prevent and correct said situation. For these reasons, the rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to water are deemed violated. The proven violation of fundamental rights is not negated by the latest elements of conviction provided by the owner of the Farm in question, since the document called “Infiltration tests and hydrogeological study on land of Mr. Francisco Conejo and public supply spring in Río Jesús de San Ramón” is from August 2005, prior to the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Ramón rejecting the construction permit application for the two sheds and to the several on-site inspections being carried out that gave rise to the sanitary orders and other measures subsequently adopted to prevent the operation of the expansion of said Farm. Regarding the agreement adopted by the Water Pipe Committee of Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón on November 10 and 15, 2005, it should be noted that according to what is inferred from it, approval (visto bueno) was granted for the farm expansion under the condition that the company in question comply with obtaining the permits issued by SETENA and the Municipality of San Ramón. Similarly, a ruling must be made regarding what was decided by the Water Judge of San Ramón, who endorsed the project expansion, based on the referenced hydrogeological study and clearly stated that he is unaware of the current status of the exploitation and water intake permits of the community of Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón and that he issues his opinion, subject to a better opinion from SETENA or the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Under such circumstances, given that –precisely– the expansion of the Farm in question lacked the respective permits and violated specific provisions that prevent its location in the protection zone of the water intake tanks, the foregoing documents do not allow ruling out the violation of the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to water of the neighbors of the community of Río Jesús María de San Ramón.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>VI.- ON THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND DULY COMPLETED PROCEDURE IN THE SPECIFIC CASE.&nbsp; </span></b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>The petitioner alleges that he has filed a series of proceedings before the respondent authorities in order to denounce the irregularities present at the “Chico” Poultry Farm, which have not been resolved or communicated. Regarding this matter, this Court deems it accredited that both the authorities of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the Ministry of Health have violated –to the detriment of the amparo petitioner– the right to a speedy and duly completed procedure. In that sense, it should be noted, in the first instance, that –although– the SETENA authorities carried out some proceedings aimed at investigating the facts denounced by the petitioner on January 23 and 26, 2006, the fact is that, at no time, were such actions communicated to the amparo petitioner, which is why the complaints were reiterated on April 26, 2006. Hence, this Constitutional Court considers that SETENA officials omitted to resolve and communicate the complaints filed by the petitioner, and it was not until the occasion of this amparo –5 months and 3 days after the filing of the first complaint– that they notified the amparo petitioner, on June 29, 2006, of resolution No. 1193-2006 dated June 29 of that same year, through which the halt of the expansion of the farm in question was ordered. Despite<b> </b>the foregoing, all the claims and requests filed by the interested party months earlier were not punctually resolved. On the other hand, this Constitutional Court deems it accredited that, likewise, the complaints filed by the claimant before the Ministry of Health on January 24 and May 4, 2006, were not resolved until June 30, 2006, that is, 2 days after said authorities were notified of the filing of this amparo and 5 months and 6 days after they were filed. By virtue of the foregoing, it is evident that in this case an undue delay or unjustified delay has occurred, which has violated, to the detriment of the claimant, his right to a speedy and duly completed procedure. </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:1.0cm;line-height:150%'><span class=SpellE><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>VII</span></b></span><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%'>.- CONCLUSION.

As a corollary of the foregoing, it is necessary to grant the appeal filed, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.” **“I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL.** The claimant alleged that the respondent authorities have violated the fundamental right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, by allowing the expansion and operation of a poultry farm (granja avícola), which does not have the respective construction permits and, in turn, encroaches upon the water sources in the area. Likewise, he claimed a violation of his right to a prompt and fulfilled procedure, given that, as a result of these irregularities, he has filed several complaints before the respondents, which have not been resolved or communicated.” **“…III.- ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT.** Based on the provisions of Articles 21, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution, this Constitutional Court has broadly recognized the duty incumbent upon the State to protect the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, whereby the State becomes the guarantor of the protection and guardianship of the environment and natural resources. It is by virtue of these provisions that the State's responsibility to exercise a tutelary and governing function in this matter arises, a function developed by sub-constitutional environmental legislation. Thus, through Judgment No. 2002-04830 of 4:00 p.m. on May 21, 2002, this Court indicated the following:

*“Our Political Constitution, in its Article 50, expressly recognizes the right of all present and future inhabitants of this country to enjoy a healthy and perfectly balanced environment. The fulfillment of this requirement is a fundamental guarantee for the protection of public life and health, not only of Costa Ricans, but also of all members of the global community. The violation of these fundamental precepts entails the possibility of injury or endangerment of interests in the short, medium, and long term. Pollution of the environment is one of the ways through which the integrity of the environment can be broken, with results that are mostly everlasting and cumulative. The Costa Rican State is obligated to act preventively, avoiding—through oversight and direct intervention—the commission of acts that harm the environment, and in the correlative and equally inescapable prohibition of fostering its degradation (…)”.”* It is thus that, based on the constitutional text, the Costa Rican State must ensure the protection of the environment, which implies not only that it must take the necessary measures to prevent attacks against it, but also that it must adopt measures that reinforce its protection and conservation.

**IV.- ON ACCESS TO DRINKING WATER AS A HUMAN RIGHT.** At the United Nations Water Conference, held in Mar del Plata in 1977, the commitment to achieve universal access for all peoples to drinking water was recognized and the foundations were laid. The Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1986, included a commitment by States to ensure equal opportunities for all to enjoy basic resources. The Declaration on Drinking Water and Sanitation for the 1990 Decade, held in New Delhi, India, from September 10 to 14, 1990, organized by the United Nations Development Programme, recognized the following as its first guiding principle:

*“Drinking water and adequate means of waste disposal are essential for maintaining the environment and improving human health and must be the cornerstone of integrated water resource management.”* In the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children, from the World Summit for Children, held in New York that same year, the need to promote the provision of drinking water for all children in all communities and the creation of sanitation networks worldwide was recognized (20.2.). In the Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, held in 1972, the following was recognized:

*“Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment.”* In Agenda 21 of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1972, the need for comprehensive management of water resources was recognized (Section 2, Chapter 18, 18.6). For its part, the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development, held in 1995, recognized the need to direct efforts and policies toward overcoming the fundamental causes of poverty and addressing the basic needs of all, including the supply of drinking water and sanitation (Chapter I - Resolutions adopted by the Summit, Second commitment, b.). This point was also emphasized in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (measure 106.x). For its part, the Marrakech Declaration, First World Water Forum, 1997, recognized the need to establish an effective mechanism for shared water management, support and conserve ecosystems, and promote the efficient use of water. General Comment on the right to water, adopted in November 2002 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN: E/C.12/2002/11) recognized the following:

*“the human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, affordable, physically accessible, safe and acceptable quality water for personal and domestic uses.”* This Court, in Judgment No. 2004-12263 of 2:49 p.m. on October 29, 2004—among others—developed the constitutional basis of the fundamental right to access to drinking water. In this regard, it has stated the following:

*“V.- The Court recognizes, as part of Constitutional Law, a fundamental right to drinking water, derived from the fundamental rights to health, life, a healthy environment, food, and decent housing, among others, as has also been recognized in international instruments on Human Rights applicable in Costa Rica: thus, it appears explicitly in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Art. 14) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art. 24); furthermore, it is stated in the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo (principle 2), and is declared in numerous other instruments of International Humanitarian Law. In our Inter-American System of Human Rights, the country is particularly obligated in this matter by the provisions of Article 11.1 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador” of 1988), which provides that:* *“Article 11. Right to a Healthy Environment 1. Everyone shall have the right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to basic public services.”* *Furthermore, recently, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reiterated that having water is a human right that, in addition to being essential for living a healthy life, is a prerequisite for the realization of all other human rights.* *VI.- From the foregoing normative framework derives a series of fundamental rights linked to the State's obligation to provide basic public services, which imply, on the one hand, that people cannot be illegitimately deprived of them, but that, as in the case of drinking water, the ownership of an enforceable right cannot be upheld for any individual for the State to supply them with the public service of drinking water, immediately and wherever it may be, but rather, in the manner provided in the Protocol of San Salvador itself, this class of rights obligates States to adopt measures, in accordance with the provisions of Article One of the same Protocol:* *“The States Parties to this Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights undertake to adopt the necessary measures, both domestically and through cooperation among States, especially economic and technical, to the maximum extent of available resources and taking into account their degree of development, in order to achieve progressively, and in accordance with domestic legislation, the full effectiveness of the rights recognized in this Protocol.””* **V.- ON THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO ENJOY A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT IN THE SPECIFIC CASE.** First, the claimant alleged that the respondent authorities have violated this fundamental right by allowing the expansion and operation of the “Chico” Poultry Farm, which not only encroaches upon the protection zones of the water springs (nacientes), but also lacks the respective construction permits. On this point, this Court finds that Rojas Granados is correct in his allegations. The foregoing, because, from the facts indicated above, as well as from the reports rendered—which were given under oath with due warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional)—it is clearly evident that, as of the date of filing of this amparo proceeding, that is, June 22, 2006, the “Chico” Poultry Farm was operating, despite the fact that, at no time, had the Municipality of San Ramón authorized its expansion through the construction of two sheds (galpones). Authorization that, in fact, was denied by these authorities to the representatives of said farm as of October 2005 and confirmed by resolution on December 19 of that same year. The foregoing because technical studies revealed that the construction and operation of the new sheds at the Chico Poultry Farm violate the provisions of Article 31 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) No. 276 of August 27, 1942, which, as applicable, provides the following:

***“**Article 31.- The following are declared as a reserve of domain in favor of the Nation; a) The lands surrounding the sites of Catchment or supply intakes of drinking water, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius; b) The forest zone that protects or must protect the whole of lands where the infiltration of drinking water occurs, as well as those that support hydrographic basins and margins of deposits, supply sources, or permanent courses of the same waters.”* In the opinion of the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Ramón, the referred sheds would be built within the zone of reserve of domain in favor of the Nation, given that they would be located 122 meters from one of the water catchment tanks located in that area, which is characterized by the existence of several drinking water springs (nacientes) that supply the population of Río Jesús de Santiago. Nevertheless, and as was duly proven, said expansion was carried out by the owners of the farm in question, despite not having the referred permit. By reason of the foregoing, this Constitutional Court considers that the respondent authorities have, indeed, violated—through their negligent and arbitrary actions—the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. In this regard, it should be noted that it was only on the occasion of this amparo that the cited authorities ordered some type of precautionary measure aimed at preventing the sheds from being built and operated, despite being aware of this circumstance for months prior. In that sense, in the first instance, it should be noted that the authorities of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) merely limited themselves, in this specific case and, in the face of the complaints filed by the protected party on January 23 and 26, 2006, to granting the farm owner a deadline to respond to those actions, conducting an on-site inspection through which it was verified that the expansion under study was located 122 meters from the rural aqueduct of Río Jesús de Santiago, considering the claimant as a party, issuing a resolution that was completely incongruent with the situation, as they requested documentation that had already been provided to them since 2005, and, finally, and only on the occasion of the amparo, ordering the immediate stoppage of all construction or operational work on the project expansion. In this regard, it draws this Court’s strong attention that, although SETENA had knowledge of the construction and operation of the referred sheds since January 2006 and that its officials conducted an inspection on February 28 of that year, through which they verified the reported facts, an effective measure to resolve the environmental problem raised was not adopted in a timely manner.

In that regard, it should be noted that the stop-work order for the construction of the two sheds (29 June 2006) was not timely because the farm expansion works had already been completed in February of that same year. Furthermore, regarding the actions of the Municipality of San Ramón, it should be pointed out that —although— it never authorized the construction of the farm expansion and, even, in the face of disobedience to the closure decreed on 26 December 2005, it requested the Legal Department to take the corresponding legal actions, the fact is that this latter action was carried out on 10 January 2006, without this Court having evidence that after that date any measure was adopted to prevent the illegal operation of the “Chico” Poultry Farm expansion, which, as indicated, was operating as of the date this proceeding was filed — 22 June 2006. Consequently, this Court finds that the municipal officials did not provide effective follow-up to the alleged non-compliance by the owner of the farm in question with the expansion closure order. In a similar vein, the authorities of the Ministry of Health also incurred in omissions violating the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, because despite being aware of the denial of the construction permits for the farm expansion since 31 October 2005 and of the complaints filed by the petitioner on 24 January and 4 May 2006, it was on the occasion of this amparo that they adopted effective measures to resolve the problem raised. In this regard, this Court observes that the provisions ordered by the Ministry on 2 November and 14 December 2005, aimed at revoking the location approval and the plan approval granted, were at no time fully realized or executed. Hence, a new inspection was ordered, which was carried out on 28 June 2006 —the day the Ministry authorities were notified of the filing of this amparo— and upon verifying that the two sheds constituting the expansion project had been built and were operating without any authorization, a sanitary closure order was issued. Finally, it should be noted that the National System of Conservation Areas of the Ministry of Environment and Energy was also aware of the situation under study and, nevertheless, omitted to order any measure in this regard. The foregoing because, as of 27 January 2006, in accordance with the inspection carried out, the construction and expansion of the sheds on the cited farm, located 120 meters from the drinking water intakes for the population of Río Jesús de Santiago, was confirmed. Under such circumstances, as indicated above, this Court does not observe that the respondent authorities charged by law with ensuring the proper operation of the Granja Avícola Chico carried out diligent and effective action, through concrete measures, to prevent the referenced sheds from being built without permission and operating. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it unacceptable that despite the fact that all the aforementioned bodies were aware of the construction and operation of the Granja Avícola Chico expansion, none adopted concrete and effective measures to prevent and correct said situation. For these reasons, the rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to water are deemed violated. The latest evidentiary elements provided by the owner of the Farm in question do not nullify the proven infringement of fundamental rights, since the document called “Infiltration tests and hydrogeological study on the property of Mr. Francisco Conejo and public supply spring (naciente) in Río Jesús de San Ramón” is from August 2005, prior to the Engineering Department of the Municipality of San Ramón rejecting the application for the construction permit for the two sheds and prior to several inspections being carried out at the site that gave rise to the sanitary orders and other measures subsequently adopted to prevent the operation of the expansion of said Farm. As for the agreement adopted by the Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón Water Committee on 10 and 15 November 2005, it should be noted that, as can be inferred from it, approval for the farm expansion was granted under the condition that the company in question comply with obtaining the permits granted by SETENA and the Municipality of San Ramón. In a similar vein, a pronouncement must be made regarding the decision of the Water Judge of San Ramón who endorsed the project expansion, based on the referenced hydrogeological study and clearly indicated that he is unaware of the current status of the water exploitation and catchment permits for the community of Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón and that he issues his opinion, subject to a better opinion from SETENA or the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Under such circumstances, given that —precisely— the expansion of the Farm in question did not have the respective permits and infringed specific provisions that prevent its location in the protection zone of the water catchment tanks, the preceding documents do not allow the violation of the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to water of the neighbors of the community of Río Jesús María de San Ramón to be dismissed.&nbsp;&nbsp; **VI.- ON THE RIGHT TO A SWIFT AND DUE PROCEDURE IN THE SPECIFIC CASE.** The petitioner alleges that he has submitted a series of filings before the respondent authorities to report the irregularities present at the “Chico” Poultry Farm, which have neither been resolved nor communicated. On this point, this Court finds it proven that both the authorities of the National Technical Environmental Secretariat and the Ministry of Health have violated —to the detriment of the petitioner— the right to a swift and due procedure. In that sense, it should be noted, in the first instance, that —although— the SETENA authorities carried out some actions aimed at investigating the facts reported by the petitioner on 23 and 26 January 2006, the fact is that, at no time, were such actions communicated to the petitioner, which is why the complaints were reiterated on 26 April 2006. Hence, this Constitutional Court finds that the SETENA officials omitted to resolve and communicate the complaints filed by the petitioner, and it was not until the occasion of this amparo —5 months and 3 days after the filing of the first complaint— that they notified the petitioner, on 29 June 2006, of resolution No. 1193-2006 dated 29 June of that same year, by which the halt of the expansion of the farm in question was ordered. Despite the foregoing, all the claims and requests filed months earlier by the interested party were not punctually resolved. Furthermore, this Constitutional Court finds it proven that, likewise, the complaints filed by the claimant before the Ministry of Health on 24 January and 4 May 2006, were not resolved until 30 June 2006, that is, 2 days after said authorities were notified of the filing of this amparo and 5 months and 6 days after being filed. By virtue of the foregoing, it is evident that in this case an undue delay or unjustified tardiness has occurred that has violated, to the detriment of the claimant, his right to a swift and due procedure.

**VII.- CONCLUSION.** As a corollary of the foregoing, the appeal filed must be granted with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.”

“I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. El accionante acusó que las autoridades recurridas han violentado el derecho fundamental a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, al permitir la ampliación y el funcionamiento de una granja avícola, la cual, no cuenta con los respectivos permisos de construcción y, a su vez, invade las fuentes de agua de la zona. Asimismo, alegó vulnerado su derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido, toda vez que, producto de dichas irregularidades, ha interpuesto ante los accionados varias denuncias, las cuales no han sido resueltas ni comunicadas.” “…III.- SOBRE LA PROTECCIÓN DEL DERECHO A UN MEDIO AMBIENTE SANO Y ECOLÓGICAMENTE EQUILIBRADO. A partir de lo dispuesto en los artículos 21, 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política, este Tribunal Constitucional ha reconocido, ampliamente, el deber que le atañe al Estado de proteger el derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, con lo cual, el Estado se constituye en garante de la protección y tutela del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales. Es a tenor de dichas disposiciones, que nace la responsabilidad del Estado de ejercer una función tutelar y rectora en esta materia, función que desarrolla la normativa infraconstitucional ambiental. De esta forma, mediante sentencia No. 2002-04830 de las 16:00 hrs. del 21 de mayo del 2002, este Tribunal indicó lo siguiente:

"Nuestra Constitución Política, en su artículo 50, reconoce expresamente el derecho de todos los habitantes presentes y futuros de este país, de disfrutar de un medio ambiente saludable y en perfecto equilibrio. El cumplimiento de este requisito es fundamental garantía para la protección de la vida y la salud públicas, no sólo de los costarricenses, sino además de todos los miembros de la comunidad mundial. La violación a estos fundamentales preceptos conlleva la posibilidad de lesión o puesta en peligro de intereses a corto, mediano y largo plazo. La contaminación del medio es una de las formas a través de las cuales puede ser rota la integridad del ambiente, con resultados la mayoría de las veces imperecederos y acumulativos. El Estado costarricense se encuentra en la obligación de actuar preventivamente evitando -a través de la fiscalización y la intervención directa- la realización de actos que lesionen el medio ambiente, y en la correlativa e igualmente ineludible prohibición de fomentar su degradación (…)”.

Es así como a partir del texto constitucional el Estado costarricense debe velar por la protección del ambiente, lo cual implica no sólo que debe tomar las medidas necesarias para impedir que se atente contra éste, sino también que debe adoptar medidas que refuercen su protección y conservación.

IV.- SOBRE El ACCESO AL AGUA POTABLE COMO DERECHO HUMANO. En la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Agua, celebrada en Mar de Plata en 1977, se reconoció y se sentaron las bases para asumir el compromiso de alcanzar el acceso universal de todos los pueblos al agua potable. La Declaración sobre el Derecho al Desarrollo, adoptada por la Asamblea General de la ONU, de 1986, incluyó un compromiso por parte de los Estados de asegurar la igualdad de oportunidades para todos para disfrutar de los recursos básicos. La Declaración sobre el agua potable y el saneamiento para el decenio de 1990, celebrada en Nueva Delhi, India, del 10 al 14 de septiembre de 1990, organizada por el programa de las Naciones Unidas para el desarrollo reconoció lo siguiente como primer principio rector:

“El agua potable y los medios adecuados de eliminación de desechos son esenciales para mantener el medio ambiente y mejorar la salud humana y deben ser el eje de la gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos”.

En la Declaración mundial sobre la supervivencia, la protección y el desarrollo del Niño, de la Cumbre Mundial a favor de la infancia, celebrada en Nueva York, en ese mismo año, se reconoció la necesidad de fomentar la provisión de agua potable para todos los niños en todas las comunidades y la creación de redes de saneamiento en todo el mundo ((20.2.). En la Declaración de Dublín sobre el agua y el Desarrollo Sostenible, celebrada en 1972, se reconoció lo siguiente:

“El agua dulce es un recurso finito y vulnerable, esencial para sostener la vida, el desarrollo y el medio ambiente”.

En el Programa 21 de la Conferencia de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, celebrada en río de Janeiro en 1972, reconoció la necesidad de realizar una ordenación global del recurso hídrico (Sección 2, Capítulo 18, 18.6). Por su parte en la Declaración de Copenhague sobre Desarrollo Social, celebrada en 1995, se reconoció la necesidad de orientar los esfuerzos y políticas a la tarea de superar las causas fundamentales de la pobreza y atender a las necesidades básicas de todos, incluyendo el suministro de agua potable y el saneamiento (Capítulo I - Resoluciones aprobadas por la Cumbre, Segundo compromiso, b.). Sobre este particular también se hizo hincapié en la Declaración y Plataforma de Acción de Beijing (medida 106.x). Por su parte en la Declaración de Marrakech, Primer Foro Mundial del Agua, 1997, se reconoció la necesidad de establecer un mecanismo eficaz para la gestión de aguas compartidas, apoyar y conservar los ecosistemas, promover el uso eficaz del agua. El Comentario General sobre el derecho al agua, adoptado en noviembre de 2002 por el Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ONU: E/C.12/2002/11) reconoció lo siguiente:

“el derecho humano al agua otorga derecho a todos a contar con agua suficiente, a precio asequible, físicamente accesible, segura y de calidad aceptable para usos personales y domésticos”.

Este Tribunal en la sentencia Nº 2004-12263 de las 14:49 hrs. de. 29 de octubre del 2004 -entre otras- desarrollo el fundamento constitucional del derecho fundamental al acceso al agua potable. En este sentido, ha señalado lo siguiente:

“V.- La Sala reconoce, como parte del Derecho de la Constitución, un derecho fundamental al agua potable, derivado de los derechos fundamentales a la salud, la vida, al medio ambiente sano, a la alimentación y la vivienda digna, entre otros, tal como ha sido reconocido también en instrumentos internacionales sobre Derechos Humanos aplicables en Costa Rica: así, figura explícitamente en la Convención sobre la Eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación contra la mujer (art. 14) y la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño (art. 24); además, se enuncia en la Conferencia Internacional sobre Población y el Desarrollo de El Cairo (principio 2), y se declara en otros numerosos del Derecho Internacional Humanitario. En nuestro Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, el país se encuentra particularmente obligado en esta materia por lo dispuesto en el artículo 11.1 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en Materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales ("Protocolo de San Salvador" de 1988), el cual dispone que:

“Artículo 11. Derecho a un medio ambiente sano 1. Toda persona tiene derecho a vivir en un medio ambiente sano y a contar con servicios públicos básicos”.

Además, recientemente, el Comité de Derechos Económicos, Culturales y Sociales de la ONU reiteró que disponer de agua es un derecho humano que, además de ser imprescindible para llevar una vida saludable, es un requisito para la realización de todos los demás derechos humanos.

VI.- Del anterior marco normativo se deriva una serie de derechos fundamentales ligados a la obligación del Estado de brindar los servicios públicos básicos, que implican, por una parte, que no puede privarse ilegítimamente de ellos a las personas, pero que, como en el caso del agua potable, no puede sostenerse la titularidad de un derecho exigible por cualquier individuo para que el Estado le suministre el servicio público de agua potable, en forma inmediata y dondequiera que sea, sino que, en la forma prevista en el mismo Protocolo de San Salvador, esta clase de derechos obligan a los Estados a adoptar medidas, conforme lo dispone el artículo primero del mismo Protocolo:

“Los Estados Partes en el presente Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos se comprometen a adoptar las medidas necesarias tanto de orden interno como mediante la cooperación entre los Estados, especialmente económica y técnica, hasta el máximo de los recursos disponibles y tomando en cuenta su grado de desarrollo, a fin de lograr progresivamente, y de conformidad con la legislación interna, la plena efectividad de los derechos que se reconocen en el presente Protocolo”.

V.- SOBRE LA VIOLACIÓN DEL DERECHO A DISFRUTAR DE UN AMBIENTE SANO Y ECOLÓGICAMENTE EQUILIBRADO EN EL CASO CONCRETO. En primer término, el accionante acusó que las autoridades recurridas han violentado ese derecho fundamental, al permitir la ampliación y funcionamiento de la Granja Avícola “Chico”, la cual, no sólo invade las zonas de protección de las nacientes de agua, sino que no cuenta con los respectivos permisos de construcción. Sobre el particular, este Tribunal estima que lleva razón Rojas Granados en sus alegatos. Lo anterior, por cuanto, de los hechos supra indicados, así como de los informes rendidos -los cuales fueron dados bajo fe de juramento con oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional-, se desprende -con meridiana claridad- que, a la fecha de interposición del presente proceso de amparo, sea, el 22 de junio del 2006, la Granja Avícola “Chico”, operaba, pese a que, en ningún momento, la Municipalidad de San Ramón había autorizado su ampliación mediante la construcción de dos galpones. Autorización que, incluso, fue denegada por estas autoridades a los representantes de dicha granja desde el mes de octubre del 2005 y confirmada por resolución del 19 de diciembre de ese mismo año. Lo anterior debido a que estudios técnicos revelan que la construcción y funcionamiento de los nuevos galpones de la Granja Avícola Chico, atenta contra lo dispuesto en el artículo 31 de la Ley de Aguas No. 276 del 27 de agosto de 1942, que en lo conducente, dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 31.- Se declaran como reserva de dominio a favor de la Nación; a) Las tierras que circunden los sitios de Captación o tomas surtidoras de agua potable, en un perímetro no menor de doscientos metros de radio; b) La zona forestal que protege o debe proteger el Conjunto de terrenos en que se produce la infiltración de aguas potables, así como el de los que dan asiento a cuencas hidrográficas y márgenes de depósito, fuentes surtidoras o curso permanente de las mismas aguas.” En criterio del Departamento de Ingeniería de la Municipalidad de San Ramón los referidos galpones se construirían dentro de la zona de reserva de dominio a favor de la Nación, dado que, se ubicarían a 122 metros de uno de los tanques de captación de agua que se encuentra en esa zona, caracterizada por la existencia de varias nacientes de agua potable que surten a la población del Río Jesús de Santiago. No obstante y, tal y como quedó debidamente acreditado, dicha ampliación se llevó a cabo por los propietarios de la granja en cuestión, pese a no contar con el referido permiso. En razón de lo anterior, este Tribunal Constitucional considera que, las autoridades recurridas, efectivamente, han vulnerado -con su actuar negligente y arbitrario- lo dispuesto por el numeral 50 de la Constitución Política. Al respecto, cabe señalar que no fue sino con ocasión del presente amparo que las autoridades citadas dispusieron algún tipo de medida precautoria tendente a impedir que los galpones fueran construidos y funcionaran, pese a estar al tanto de dicha circunstancia desde meses atrás. En ese sentido, en primera instancia, cabe indicar que las autoridades de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, únicamente, se limitaron, en el caso concreto y, ante las denuncias presentadas por el amparado los días 23 y 26 de enero del 2006, a otorgar plazo al propietario de la granja para que se refiriera a tales gestiones, realizar una inspección en el lugar por medio de la cual se constató que la ampliación bajo estudio se ubicaba a 122 metros del acueducto rural de Río Jesús de Santiago, tener como parte al accionante, dictar una resolución totalmente incongruente con la situación, pues, solicitaron documentación que les había sido entregada desde el 2005 y, finalmente, y sólo con ocasión del amparo, ordenar la paralización inmediata de toda labor constructiva u operativa en la ampliación del proyecto. Al respecto, llama poderosamente la atención de este Tribunal que pese a que la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental tenía conocimiento de la construcción y funcionamiento de los referidos galpones desde enero del 2006 y que sus funcionarios realizaron un reconocimiento el 28 de febrero de ese año por medio de la cual constataron los hechos denunciados, no se adoptó, oportunamente, una medida eficaz para resolver el problema ambiental planteado. En ese sentido obsérvese que la orden de paralización de la construcción de los dos galpones (29 de junio del 2006) no resultó oportuna pues desde febrero del mismo año ya habían finalizado las obras de ampliación de la granja. De otra parte y, en cuanto a la actuación de la Municipalidad de San Ramón, cabe señalar que -si bien- nunca autorizó la construcción de la ampliación de la granja e, incluso, ante la desobediencia a la clausura decretada el día 26 de diciembre del 2005, le solicitaron al Departamento Legal realizar las acciones legales correspondientes, lo cierto es que ésta última gestión se llevó a cabo el 10 de enero del 2006, sin que a este Tribunal le conste que luego de esa fecha, se haya adoptado medida alguna tendente a impedir el funcionamiento ilegal de la ampliación de la Granja Avícola “Chico”, la que, como se indicó, a la fecha de interposición del presente proceso - 22 de junio del 2006-, se encontraba operando. En consecuencia, considera este Tribunal que los funcionarios municipales no dieron seguimiento efectivo al incumplimiento en que presuntamente incurrió el propietario de la granja en cuestión de la orden de clausura de la ampliación. En sentido similar, las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud también incurrieron en omisiones infractoras del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, pues pese a tener conocimiento de la denegatoria de los permisos de construcción de la ampliación de la granja desde el 31 de octubre del 2005 y de las denuncias presentadas por el recurrente el 24 de enero y el 4 de mayo del 2006, fue con ocasión del presente amparo que adoptaron medidas efectivas a fin de solucionar el problema planteado. Al respecto, este Tribunal observa que lo dispuesto por el Ministerio el 2 de noviembre y 14 de diciembre del 2005, tendente a revocar el visto bueno de ubicación y el visado de planos otorgado, en ningún momento, se concretó o ejecutó a cabalidad. De ahí que se ordenara un nuevo reconocimiento que se realizó el 28 de junio del 2006 –día en que las autoridades del Ministerio fueron notificadas de la interposición del presente amparo- y al constatarse que los dos galpones que constituían el proyecto de ampliación habían sido construidos y operaban sin autorización alguna, se procedió a dictar una orden sanitaria de cierre. Finalmente, cabe apuntar que el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía también conocía de la situación bajo estudio y, sin embargo, omitió disponer alguna medida al respecto. Lo anterior pues, desde el 27 de enero del 2006, de conformidad con la inspección realizada, se comprobó la construcción y ampliación de los galpones en la granja citada, ubicados a 120 metros de las tomas de agua potable de la población del Río Jesús de Santiago. Bajo tales circunstancias, tal y como se indicó líneas atrás, este Tribunal no observa que las autoridades accionadas encargadas por ley de velar por el correcto funcionamiento de la Granja Avícola Chico, hayan realizado una actuación diligente y efectiva, por medio de acciones concretas, para evitar que los referidos galpones se construyeran sin permiso y funcionaran. Bajo tales circunstancias, considera este Tribunal que resulta inaceptable que pese a que todos los órganos antes referidos conocían acerca de la construcción y funcionamiento de la ampliación de la Granja Avícola Chico, ninguno adoptó medidas concretas y efectivas para evitar y corregir dicha situación. Por tales motivos, se estima quebrantados los derechos a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y el agua. No enerva la infracción a los derechos fundamentales acreditada los últimos elementos de convicción aportados por el propietario de la Granja en cuestión, ya que, el documento denominado “Pruebas de infiltración y estudio hidrogeológico en terreno del Sr. Francisco Conejo y naciente de abastecimiento público en Río Jesús de San Ramón” es de agosto del 2005, anterior a que el Departamento de Ingeniería de la Municipalidad de San Ramón rechazara la solicitud de permiso de construcción de los dos galpones y a que se efectuaran varias inspecciones en el lugar que dieron origen a las órdenes sanitarias y demás medidas adoptadas posteriormente para impedir el funcionamiento de la ampliación de la dicha Granja. En cuanto al acuerdo adoptado por el Comité de Cañería de Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón, en fechas 10 y 15 de noviembre del 2005, cabe señalar que según se desprende del mismo se otorgó el visto bueno para la ampliación de la granja bajo la condición de que la empresa en cuestión cumpliera con la obtención de los permisos otorgados por la SETENA y la Municipalidad de San Ramón. En sentido similar, cabe pronunciarse acerca de lo resuelto por el Juez de Aguas de San Ramón quien avaló la ampliación del proyecto, basándose en el referido estudio hidrogeológico y señaló, claramente, que desconoce la situación actual de los permisos de explotación y captación de aguas de la comunidad de Río Jesús de Santiago de San Ramón y que emite su criterio, salvo mejor opinión de la SETENA o el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía. Bajo tales circunstancias, dado que –precisamente- la ampliación de la Granja en cuestión no contó con los permisos respectivos e infringió disposiciones concretas que impiden su ubicación en la zona de protección de los tanques de captación de agua, los documentos anteriores no permiten descartar el quebranto de los derechos fundamentales a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y el agua de los vecinos de la comunidad de Río Jesús María de San Ramón.

VI.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A UN PROCEDIMIENTO PRONTO Y CUMPLIDO EN EL CASO CONCRETO. Alega el recurrente que ha presentado una serie de gestiones ante las autoridades recurridas a fin de denunciar las irregularidades que se presentan en la Granja Avícola “Chico”, las cuales no han sido resultas ni comunicadas. Sobre el particular, este Tribunal tiene por acreditado que tanto las autoridades de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, como del Ministerio de Salud, han vulnerado -en perjuicio del amparado- el derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido. En ese sentido, cabe señalar, en primera instancia, que -si bien- las autoridades de la SETENA realizaron algunas gestiones tendentes a investigar los hechos denunciados por el recurrente los días 23 y 26 de enero del 2006, lo cierto es que, en ningún momento, tales actuaciones le fueron comunicadas al amparado, motivo por el cual las denuncias fueron reiteradas el 26 de abril del 2006. De ahí que considere este Tribunal Constitucional que los funcionarios de la SETENA omitieron resolver y comunicar las denuncias planteadas por el recurrente y no es sino con ocasión del presente amparo -5 meses y 3 días después de la interposición de la primera denuncia- que notificaron al amparado, el día 29 de junio del 2006, la resolución No. 1193-2006 de fecha 29 de junio de ese mismo año, mediante la cual se ordenó la paralización de la ampliación de la granja en cuestión. Pese a lo anterior, no se resolvieron puntualmente todos los reclamos y solicitudes planteados desde meses atrás por el interesado. De otra parte, este Tribunal Constitucional tiene por acreditado, que, igualmente, las denuncias presentadas por el accionante ante el Ministerio de Salud el 24 de enero y 4 de mayo del 2006, no fueron resueltas sino hasta el 30 de junio del 2006, sea, 2 días después que dichas autoridades fueron notificadas de la interposición del presente amparo y 5 meses y 6 días después de haber sido presentadas. En virtud de lo anterior, resulta evidente que en la especie se ha producido una dilación indebida o retardo injustificado que ha vulnerado, en perjuicio del accionante, su derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido.

VII.- CONCLUSIÓN. Como corolario de lo expuesto se impone declarar con lugar el recurso planteado con las consecuencias que se detallarán en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.”