Noise pollution from a liquor store with music and karaokeContaminación sónica por licorera con música y karaoke

II.- On the merits. Problems such as the one raised by the petitioners have been previously addressed by this Court, from the perspective of the right to privacy and one of its derivations: the right to tranquility. In judgment #5681-93 of 14:09 hours on November 5, 1993, it was argued:

“The right to privacy finds its basis in Article 24 of the Political Constitution, and refers basically to the right of the individual to the development of his personality within a sphere of autonomy, allowing him to function in an environment to which those persons he does not desire cannot have access. Man is, in principle, a social being, but this does not mean that he exists solely in that sphere of life; rather, he needs a sphere of privacy, of inner life that includes silence and retreat. Privacy, then, includes tranquility within that space, which in turn constitutes a limit for others. Precisely, from the relationship of Article 24 with Article 28 of our Political Constitution, the principle of freedom that governs individuals has, as one of its limits, not harming third parties or their well-being, thereby deducing the protection of their realm of privacy and tranquility. Possessing a sphere of freedom implies that each person has the right to isolate themselves from the community. Noise is an unequivocal mode of disturbance to the tranquility to which persons are entitled, especially at the level of greatest privacy that corresponds to the place where one resides. Consequently, the fact that the authorities have not protected this right, by permitting the operation of an activity that was harmful to that tranquility, makes them responsible for that lack of protection.” In an analogous sense, resolution #9150-98 of 18:33 hours on December 22, 1998, contains the following reasoning:

“All public offices involved in that type of event must take note that, in accordance with the rights protected by the Political Constitution, what have come to be called ‘patron saint festivities’ (fiestas patronales) and fairs that resemble them in their dimensions cannot be held if the necessary measures are not previously taken to guarantee public health and tranquility, so that these are not altered beyond what is tolerable. It is also necessary to point out that the interested communities have the right to know the measures that have been adopted, in order to challenge those they consider may affect them, such as the suitable location, street closures, authorization of high-volume sound equipment, sanitary services, sale of liquor involving scandal, and ultimately all those disturbances that entail a sacrifice of their habitual tranquility beyond what is reasonable and a danger to public health. (…)

the respondent Municipality must be warned that, although it is true that the respondent Ministries granted the requested permits, it is within its competence and obligation to carefully analyze the location of the Festivities and the strict compliance with the provisions given, since these are activities carried out in its canton.” And it is also worth citing judgment #3619-99 of 13:12 hours on May 14, 1999:

“It must be taken into account that the importance of the place where this series of events is to be located lies not only in the safety and health of persons, but also in their right to rest, the freedom of transit, and public tranquility by not being forced to endure intolerable situations suffered when living near the festivities.” Resolutions in which constitutional rank is given to the right of individuals not to be disturbed in their domicile due to noises that are bothersome to them, especially during rest hours.

III.- Alongside these considerations, it is deemed necessary to elaborate on the situation presented in the amparo, for it is known that, for some time now, disagreements related to noise caused mainly by recreational establishments, whether with ambient music or live shows, have increased. Internationally, the issue of noise has been treated as a public health problem. A group of experts from the World Health Organization prepared the so-called guidelines for urban noise in London, in 1999 (http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org/bvsci/e/fulltext/ruido/ruido2.pdf). In them, noise is defined as an unwanted sound, and the main sources of urban noise are identified as traffic –motor vehicle, rail, and air–, construction, public works, and the neighborhood. Within this last category, neighborhood noise, that produced by restaurants, cafeterias, discotheques, music –live or recorded–, sporting competitions, play areas, parking lots, and domestic animals stands out. This type of noise lacks sufficient regulation. The Organization emphasizes that noise pollution, unlike other forms of pollution, continues to increase unsustainably, with the harmful consequences it has proven to have for health, differentiating seven distinct types of after-effects: effects on hearing, sleep, physiological functions, mental health, performance, behavior, and combined effects of noise from mixed sources. In the specific case of the effects on sleep –linked to establishments that remain open during nighttime hours– it is explained that uninterrupted sleep is a prerequisite for good physiological and mental functioning. Likewise, the primary effects of its disturbance are “difficulty in falling asleep, sleep interruption, alteration in the depth of sleep, changes in blood pressure and heart rate, increased pulse, vasoconstriction, variation in breathing, cardiac arrhythmia, and greater body movements”; while the secondary effects –noticeable the following day– consist of “perception of lower sleep quality, fatigue, depression, and reduced performance.” Thus, the petitioners' complaint must be analyzed not only as linked to the right to privacy, but also to the right to health.

IV.- This right, derived from our constitutional text, from norms 21 and 73, is equally regulated in international law norms, both as a purely health problem and as an annex to the environment. In the first condition, it appears in the texts of the Protocol of San Salvador of 1988 to the American Convention on Human Rights (Every person has the right to health, understood as the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental, and social well-being, Article 10.1); of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 (The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Article 10.1); and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, Article 25). Belonging to the second category are the principles enunciated at the Stockholm Conference of October 1972 (Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality, and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations, Principle 1) and at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992 (Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature, Principle 1).

V.- In Costa Rican domestic law, several provisions allude to the issue of noise, whether in a general manner or for particular cases. Specifically, the General Law of Urban Leases (Ley general de arrendamientos urbanos), for example, qualifies engaging in noisy activities as abusive enjoyment of the property on the part of the lessee, which would allow the property owner to invoke the resolution of the contract (Article 54). The Mining Code (Código de Minería), for its part, considers harmful noise a factor of environmental deterioration (Article 103). Now, concerning the case under study, the general provisions of the Regulation for the Control of Pollution by Noise (Reglamento para el control de la contaminación por ruido) –Executive Decree #28718-S of June 15, 2000– set a framework to regulate it, defining noise as an “undesirable or disturbing sound that affects humans psychologically or physically or exceeds the limitations established in this Regulation” (Article 3) and providing parameters of a temporal nature –establishing a daytime schedule, from 6:00 to 20:00 hours, and a nighttime schedule, from 20:00 to 6:00 hours, except in relation to Executive Decree #11492-S which determines it from 6:00 to 18:00 hours– and a local nature –classifying zones as urban-residential, commercial, industrial, and tranquility zones (Article 4)– to monitor it. Similarly, the Procedure for Noise Measurement (Procedimiento para la medición de ruido), Executive Decree #32692-S of August 9, 2005, in its Article 3, on definitions, attributes to the word noise the meaning of “mixed and disorderly sound or set of sounds, undesirable or disturbing, that affects humans psychologically, physically, or in any other manner, or that exceeds the established regulatory limitations.” The regulatory provisions outlined find, in turn, legal support in the Organic Law of the Environment and the General Law of Health, which classify noise as a form of atmospheric pollution (Articles 60 and 62 of the former, 294 of the latter) and relate it to human health (Article 59 of the cited Organic Law).

Specifically, the general law on urban leases, for example, classifies the carrying out of noisy activities as abusive enjoyment of the property by the tenant, which would allow the property owner to invoke the resolution of the contract (article 54). The Mining Code, for its part, considers harmful noise to be a factor of environmental deterioration (article 103). Now, regarding the case under study, the general provisions of the Reglamento para el control de la contaminación por ruido –Decreto Ejecutivo #28718-S of June 15, 2000–, establishes a framework to regulate it, defining noise as *“unwanted or disturbing sound that psychologically or physically affects the human being or exceeds the limitations established in this Regulation”* (article 3) and providing parameters of a temporal nature –it establishes daytime hours, from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and nighttime hours, from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., except in relation to Decreto Ejecutivo #11492-S which determines it as 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.– and local nature –it classifies zones into urban-residential, commercial, industrial, and tranquility zones (article 4)– to oversee it. In the same manner, the Procedimiento para la medición de ruido, Decreto Ejecutivo #32692-S of August 9, 2005, in its article 3, on definitions, attributes to the word noise the meaning of *“sound or set of mixed and disorderly sounds, unwanted or disturbing, that psychologically, physically, or in any other way affects the human being or exceeds the established regulatory limitations”*. The regulatory provisions outlined, in turn, find legal basis in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and the Ley General de Salud, which classify noise as a form of air pollution (articles 60 and 62 of the former, 294 of the latter) and relate it to human health (article 59 of the cited Ley Orgánica).

**VI.-** In light of the legal framework just described, the activity of the respondent’s establishment has clearly caused significant annoyance to the people who reside nearby. Even if the neighbors’ statements were disregarded, there is evidence in the proceedings of disturbances originating at the place (folios 59 to 64) and noise from karaoke music at 11:55 p.m. (folio 36), this last activity not having the corresponding permit. It is therefore false that the owner of the establishment is absolutely respectful of the regulations that govern the operation of such commercial activities, and that the public institutions involved have efficiently watched over the health and tranquility of the site’s inhabitants. Having the municipal and sanitary permits to keep a place for the sale of liquor or food open is not a carte blanche to cause unnecessary annoyances nearby. From this derives no right to cause noise nuisance (annoying noise) –even within the authorized operating hours–, nor, of course, to carry out activities that have not been expressly permitted (karaoke).

**VII.-** The Chamber considers that mainly the Municipalidad –as the entity that authorizes the operation of commercial activities in the canton and issues liquor licenses– and the Ministerio de Salud –as the body overseeing public health– have failed in their oversight duties regarding the establishment in question. The Municipalidad, for its part, must ensure that the commercial activity it authorized does not cause unjustified discomfort to the residents of the place, while the competent Área Rectora de Salud is compelled to protect the health of the residents, beyond mere sonic measurements and in the terms in which the right to health is defined in this judgment. Therefore, the amparo (constitutional relief) is granted against these two entities, ordering them to take immediate measures to protect the health of the residents near the commercial establishment that is the object of this amparo (constitutional relief), which includes inspections and, if necessary, exercising the sanctioning power they possess, obviously with respect for the right to be heard and due process of the owner of the premises. They must inform the Chamber of the measures adopted within a period of one month, counted from the notification of this judgment.

**VIII.-** The granting of the amparo (constitutional relief) extends to the owner of the commercial establishment, given that he is the direct author –through his activity– of the infringement of the fundamental rights discussed herein.

**IX.-** Regarding the maintenance of public order, from the evidence brought to the proceedings, it is considered that both the Fuerza Pública and the Policía de Tránsito have diligently addressed the requests raised regarding the Liquor Store in question, and therefore, the amparo (constitutional relief) is dismissed against them.” In the first condition, the texts of the Protocol of San Salvador of 1988 to the American Convention on Human Rights (*Everyone has the right to health, understood as the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being*, Article 10.1); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 (*The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health*, Article 10.1); and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (*Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family*, Article 25) appear. Belonging to the second category are the principles enunciated at the Stockholm Conference of October 1972 (*Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations*, Principle 1) and at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992 (*Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature*, Principle 1).

V.- In Costa Rican domestic law, various provisions allude to the issue of noise, either generally or for specific cases. Specifically, the General Law on Urban Leases, for example, qualifies as abusive enjoyment of the property by the lessee the carrying out of noisy activities, which would allow the property owner to invoke resolution of the contract (Article 54). The Mining Code, for its part, considers harmful noise a factor of environmental deterioration (Article 103). Now, with respect to the case under study, the general provisions of the Regulation for the Control of Noise Pollution –Executive Decree No. 28718-S of June 15, 2000– set a framework for regulating it, defining noise as *“undesirable or disturbing sound that affects human beings psychologically or physically or exceeds the limitations established in this Regulation”* (Article 3) and providing temporal parameters –it establishes a daytime schedule, from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and nighttime, from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., except in relation to Executive Decree No. 11492-S which determines it from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.– and locational parameters –it classifies zones as urban-residential, commercial, industrial, and tranquility (Article 4)– for monitoring it. Likewise, the Procedure for Noise Measurement, Executive Decree No. 32692-S of August 9, 2005, in its Article 3, on definitions, attributes to the word noise the meaning of *“undesirable or disturbing sound or set of mixed and disordered sounds that affects human beings psychologically, physically, or in any other manner, or that exceeds the established regulatory limitations.”* The aforementioned regulatory provisions find, in turn, legal footing in the Organic Environmental Law and the General Health Law, which classify noise as a form of atmospheric pollution (Articles 60 and 62 of the former, 294 of the latter) and relate it to human health (Article 59 of the cited Organic Environmental Law).

VI.- In light of the legal framework just described, the activity of the respondent's establishment has caused clear nuisances for persons residing in the vicinity. Even if the neighbors' statements were to be overlooked, there is evidence in the proceeding of disturbances originating at the site (folios 59 to 64) and karaoke music noise at 11:55 p.m. (folio 36), this last activity for which the corresponding permit is not held. It is false, therefore, that the owner of the establishment is absolutely respectful of the regulations governing the operation of such commercial activities, or that the involved public institutions have efficiently safeguarded the health and tranquility of the site's inhabitants. Holding municipal and sanitary permits to keep open a place for the sale of liquors or food is not a license to cause unnecessary nuisances in the vicinity. From this does not derive a right to cause annoying noises –even within the authorized operating schedule–, nor, certainly, to carry out activities that have not been expressly permitted (karaoke).

VII.- This Chamber considers that mainly the Municipality –as the entity that authorizes the operation of commercial activities in the canton and issues liquor licenses– and the Ministry of Health –as the body overseeing public health– have failed in their duty of vigilance regarding the establishment in question. The Municipality, for its part, must ensure that the commercial activity it authorized does not cause unjustified discomfort to the neighbors of the place, while the competent Governing Health Area is compelled to protect the neighbors' health, beyond mere sonic measurements and in the terms in which the right to health is defined in this judgment. Therefore, the recurso de amparo (amparo) is upheld against these two bodies, ordering them to take immediate measures to protect the health of the neighbors of the commercial establishment that is the object of this amparo, which includes inspections and, if necessary, exercise of the sanctioning power they hold, obviously with respect for the right of hearing and due process of law of the owner of the premises. They must inform this Chamber of the measures adopted within a period of one month, counted from the notification of this judgment.

VIII.- The granting of the amparo is extended to the owner of the commercial establishment, given that he is the direct author –through his activity– of the infringement of the fundamental rights discussed herein.

IX.- Regarding the maintenance of public order, from the evidence brought into the proceeding, it is considered that both the Fuerza Pública (Public Police Force) and the Traffic Police have diligently attended to the requests that have been made concerning the liquor establishment in question, and therefore, the amparo against them is dismissed.”

“II.- Sobre el fondo. Problemas como el que plantean los recurrentes han sido abordados anteriormente por este Tribunal, desde la óptica del derecho a la intimidad y una de sus derivaciones: el derecho a la tranquilidad. Por sentencia #5681-93 de las 14:09 horas del 5 de noviembre de 1993 se argumentó:

“El derecho a la intimidad encuentra su base en el artículo 24 de la Constitución Política, y se refiere básicamente, al derecho que tiene el particular al desarrollo de su personalidad dentro de una esfera de autonomía, que le permita desenvolverse en un ámbito al cual no puedan tener acceso aquellas personas que él no desee. El hombre es en principio, un ser social, pero esto no significa que sea únicamente en ese ámbito de la vida en que se desenvuelve, sino que necesita de una esfera de intimidad, de vida interior que incluye el silencio y el retiro. La intimidad, pues, incluye la tranquilidad dentro de ese espacio, que a su vez constituye límite para los demás. Precisamente, de la relación del artículo 24 con el 28 de nuestra Constitución Política, el principio de libertad que rige para los individuos, tiene como uno de sus límites el no perjudicar a terceros, su bienestar, deduciéndose la protección de su ámbito de intimidad y tranquilidad. El poseer una esfera de libertad implica que cada persona tiene derecho a aislarse de la comunidad. El ruido, es un modo inequívoco de perturbación a la tranquilidad a la que tienen derecho las personas, máxime en el nivel de mayor intimidad que corresponde al lugar en donde se reside. Consecuentemente, el que las autoridades no hayan tutelado este derecho, permitiendo el funcionamiento de una actividad que era dañina a esa tranquilidad les hace responsables de esa desprotección.” En un sentido análogo, la resolución #9150-98 de las 18:33 horas del 22 de diciembre de 1998, contiene la siguiente fundamentación:

“Deben tomar nota todas las dependencias públicas involucradas en ese tipo de eventos, que de acuerdo con los derechos protegidos por la Constitución Política, no se pueden celebrar lo que se ha dado en llamar "fiestas patronales" y ferias que por sus dimensiones se asemejan a ellas, si previamente no se toman las medidas necesarias para garantizar la salud y la tranquilidad publicas, de manera que estas no se vean alteradas mas allá de lo tolerable. También es preciso señalar que las comunidades interesadas tienen derecho a saber las medidas que se han adoptado, con el fin de impugnar las que consideren les puedan afectar, como serian el lugar adecuado, cierre de calles, autorización de equipos sonoros de alto volumen, servicios sanitarios, venta de licores que impliquen escándalo, y en fin todas aquellas perturbaciones que conlleven un sacrificio a su tranquilidad habitual mas allá de lo razonable y un peligro para la salud pública. (…)

debe advertírsele a la Municipalidad accionada que si bien es cierto los Ministerios recurridos otorgaron los permisos solicitados, se encuentra dentro de su competencia y obligación, el analizar bien la ubicación de los Festejos y el estricto cumplimiento de las disposiciones dadas, por cuanto son actividades realizadas en su cantón.” Y valga también citar la sentencia #3619-99 de las 13:12 horas del 14 de mayo de 1999:

“Debe tenerse en cuenta, que la importancia del lugar donde se van a ubicar esta serie de eventos, radica no sólo en la seguridad y la salud de las personas, sino también en el derecho al descanso de éstas, la libertad de tránsito y la tranquilidad pública al no verse obligadas a soportar situaciones intolerables que sufren al residir cerca de los festejos.” Resoluciones en las que se da rango constitucional al derecho de los particulares a no ser perturbados en su domicilio a causa de ruidos que les resulte molestos, sobre todo en las horas de descanso.

III.- A la par de estas consideraciones se estima necesario abundar en la situación que se expone en el amparo, pues es conocido que, desde hace algún tiempo, se han incrementado los desacuerdos relacionados con el ruido que ocasionan, principalmente establecimientos recreativos, ya sea con música de ambiente o espectáculos en vivo. Internacionalmente se ha tratado el tema del ruido como un problema de salud pública. Un grupo de expertos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, elaboró las denominadas guías para el ruido urbano en Londres, en 1999 (http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org/bvsci/e/fulltext/ruido/ruido2.pdf). En ellas se define el ruido como un sonido no deseado y se identifica como fuentes principales del ruido urbano el tránsito –automotor, ferroviario y aéreo–, la construcción, obras públicas y el vecindario. Dentro de esta última categoría, de ruido de vecindario, destaca el producido por restaurantes, cafeterías, discotecas, música –en vivo o grabada–, competencias deportivas, áreas de juegos, estacionamientos y animales domésticos. Este tipo de ruido carece de regulación suficiente. La Organización enfatiza que la contaminación acústica, a diferencia de otras formas de polución, sigue en aumento de forma insostenible con las consecuencias nocivas que ha revelado tener para la salud, diferenciando siete tipos distintos de secuelas: efectos sobre la audición, el sueño, las funciones fisiológicas, la salud mental, el rendimiento, la conducta y efectos combinados del ruido de fuentes mixtas. En el caso concreto de los efectos sobre el sueño –vinculado a establecimientos que permanecen abiertos durante horarios nocturnos– se funcionamiento fisiológico y mental. Asimismo, son efectos primarios de su trastorno la “dificultad para conciliar el sueño, interrupción del sueño, alteración en la profundidad del sueño, cambios en la presión arterial y en la frecuencia cardiaca, incremento del pulso, vasoconstricción, variación de la respiración, arritmia cardiaca y mayores movimientos corporales”; mientras que los secundarios –apreciables al día siguiente– consisten en “percepción de menor calidad del sueño, fatiga, depresión y reducción del rendimiento”. De manera que la queja de los actores debe analizarse no solamente como vinculada al derecho a la intimidad, sino también al derecho a la salud.

IV.- Este derecho, derivado de nuestro texto constitucional, de las normas 21 y 73, está igualmente regulado en normativa del derecho internacional, tanto como un problema netamente sanitario, como anejo al ambiente. En la primera condición aparece en los textos del Protocolo de San Salvador de 1988 a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Toda persona tiene derecho a la salud, entendida como el disfrute del más alto nivel de bienestar físico, mental y social, artículo 10.1); del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales de 1966 (Los Estados Partes en el presente Pacto reconocen el derecho de toda persona al disfrute del más alto nivel posible de salud física y mental, artículo 10.1), y de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos (Toda persona tiene derecho a un nivel de vida adecuado que le asegure, así como a su familia, la salud y el bienestar, artículo 25). Pertenecen a la segunda categoría los principios enunciados en la Conferencia de Estocolmo, de octubre de 1972 (El hombre tiene el derecho fundamental a la libertad, la igualdad y el disfrute de condiciones de vida adecuadas en un medio ambiente de calidad tal que le permita llevar una vida digna y gozar de bienestar, y tiene la solemne obligación de proteger y mejorar el medio ambiente para las generaciones presentes y futuras, Principio 1) y en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo de 1992 (Los seres humanos constituyen el centro de las preocupaciones relacionadas con el desarrollo sostenible. Tienen derecho a una vida saludable y productiva en armonía con la naturaleza, Principio 1).

V.- En el derecho interno costarricense varias disposiciones aluden al tema del ruido, sea de forma general, o para casos particulares. Específicamente, la Ley general de arrendamientos urbanos, por ejemplo, califica como goce abusivo del bien, por parte del arrendatario, desarrollar actividades ruidosas, lo que permitiría al propietario del bien invocar la resolución del contrato (artículo 54). El Código de Minería, de su parte, considera factor de deterioro del ambiente el ruido nocivo (artículo 103). Ahora bien, en lo que concierne al caso en estudio, las disposiciones generales del Reglamento para el control de la contaminación por ruido –Decreto Ejecutivo #28718-S de 15 de junio del 2000–, fija un marco para regularla, definiendo el ruido como “sonido indeseable o perturbante que afecte psicológicamente o físicamente al ser humano o exceda las limitaciones establecidas en este Reglamento” (artículo 3º) y previendo parámetros de índole temporal –establece un horario diurno, de las 6:00 a las 20:00 horas, y nocturno, de las 20:00 a las 6:00 horas, salvo en lo relacionado con el Decreto Ejecutivo #11492-S que lo determina de 6:00 a 18:00 horas– y local –clasifica las zonas en urbano-residencial, comercial, industrial y de tranquilidad (artículo 4º)– para fiscalizarla. De la misma forma, el Procedimiento para la medición de ruido, Decreto Ejecutivo #32692-S del 9 de Agosto del 2005, en su artículo 3º, sobre definiciones, atribuye a la palabra ruido el significado de “sonido o conjunto de sonidos mezclados y desordenados, indeseable o perturbante que afecte psicológica, físicamente o de cualquier otra manera al ser humano o que exceda las limitaciones reglamentarias establecidas”. Las disposiciones reglamentarias reseñadas, encuentran, a su vez, asidero legal en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y la Ley General de Salud, que catalogan el ruido como una forma de contaminación atmosférica (artículos 60 y 62 de la primera, 294 de la segunda) y lo relacionan con la salud humana (artículo 59 de la Ley Orgánica citada).

VI.- A la luz del cuadro jurídico recién descrito la actividad del establecimiento del recurrido ha significado claras molestias para las personas que tienen su residencia en las proximidades. Aún si se soslayara las manifestaciones de los vecinos, hay evidencia en el proceso de disturbios originados en el lugar (folios 59 a 64) y ruido de música de karaoke a las 23:55 horas (folio 36), actividad última para la cual no se cuenta con el permiso correspondiente. Es falso, por ende, que el dueño del establecimiento sea absolutamente respetuoso de la normativa que delimita el funcionamiento de tales actividades mercantiles, así como que las instituciones públicas involucradas hayan velado de forma eficiente por la salud y tranquilidad de los habitantes del sitio. Contar con los permisos municipales y sanitarios para mantener abierto un lugar de expendio de licores o alimentos no es una patente de corso para provocar molestias innecesarias en las proximidades. De ello no deriva un derecho a provocar ruidos molestos –aún dentro del horario de funcionamiento autorizado–, ni, desde luego, a desarrollar actividades que no se han permitido expresamente (karaoke).

VII.- Considera la Sala que principalmente la Municipalidad –como ente que autoriza el funcionamiento de actividades comerciales en el cantón y expide las patentes de licores– y el Ministerio de Salud –como órgano vigilante de la salud pública– han faltado a sus deberes de vigilancia respecto del establecimiento en cuestión. La Municipalidad, de su parte, debe velar por que la actividad comercial que autorizó no cause incomodidades injustificadas a los vecinos del lugar, mientras que el Área Rectora de Salud competente está compelida a proteger la salud de los vecinos, más allá de las meras mediciones sónicas y en los términos que en este sentencia se define el derecho a la salud. Por ello, el amparo se estima en contra de estas dos instancias, ordenándoles, tomar las medidas inmediatas para proteger la salud de los vecinos del establecimiento comercial objeto del amparo, lo que incluye inspecciones y, de ser necesario, ejercicio de la potestad sancionatoria con que cuentan, obviamente con respeto del derecho de audiencia y al debido proceso del propietario del local. De las medidas adoptadas deberán informar a la Sala en el plazo de un mes, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia.

VIII.- La estimatoria del amparo se extiende al propietario del establecimiento comercial, dado que él es el autor directo –con su actividad– de la infracción de los derechos fundamentales que aquí se comentan.

IX.- En cuanto al mantenimiento del orden público, de las pruebas allegadas al proceso, se estima que tanto la Fuerza Pública como la Policía de Tránsito han atendido diligentemente las peticiones que a propósito de la Licorera en cuestión se han planteado, por lo que, en su contra, el amparo se desestima. ”