Constitutional claim over sewage discharge in LimónAmparo ambiental por vertido de aguas servidas en Limón

**II.— On the right to Health and the right to enjoy a healthy environment.** Public health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are constitutionally recognized in Articles 21, 50, 73, and 89 of the Constitución Política, as well as through international regulations.

Specifically, Article 50 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the right of all inhabitants of the country to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This right is a fundamental guarantee for the protection of life and public health. This constitutional provision is complemented by the provisions of numeral 11 of the "Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights." Likewise, in relation to the obligations of public authorities to guarantee the right to health and the right to a healthy environment, this Constitutional Court, through judgment No. 180-98 of sixteen hours on January thirteenth, nineteen ninety-eight, ordered:

"…the State not only has the unavoidable responsibility to ensure that the health of each of the persons who make up the national community does not suffer damage from third parties, in relation to these rights, but also must assume the responsibility of achieving the appropriate social conditions so that each person can enjoy their health, understood as a state of physical, psychological (or mental) and social well-being." In this sense, the Costa Rican State is under the obligation to act preventively, avoiding, through direct oversight and intervention, the carrying out of acts that harm the environment, which is inevitably correlated with the State's obligation to ensure the preservation of the health of its inhabitants. The infra-constitutional legislation develops this right and, in this regard, the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) authorizes the Ministry of Health to take the corresponding sanitary measures and impose sanctions in order to protect the environment and the right to health of individuals. It should be noted that this Court, as guarantor of fundamental rights, stands as a controller of compliance with the obligations deriving from the provisions of Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution, which constrain the State not only to recognize the stated rights, but also to use materially and juridically legitimate means to guarantee them.

**III.- Regarding the Ministry of Health.** In the specific case of the Ministry of Health, the infra-constitutional legislation has endowed it with police power to prevent and guarantee situations such as the one alleged by the petitioner. In this regard, Article 2 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) provides that the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, is responsible for the definition of national health policy, the regulation, planning, and coordination of all public and private activities related to health, as well as the execution of those activities that fall within its competence according to law. In that sense, the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) itself provides in Article 314 that among its powers, the Ministry of Health is responsible for ordering and taking the special measures enabled by law to prevent risk or damage to the health of persons or to prevent them from spreading or worsening, and to inhibit the continuation or recurrence of the infraction by private parties. Specifically, regarding the matter at hand, the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), in Book 1, Title 3, Chapter 3, Of the obligations and restrictions for the sanitary evacuation of rainwater, provides, as pertinent:

*"**Article 285.-** * *Excreta, black water, gray water, and rainwater must be eliminated adequately and sanitarily in order to avoid contamination of the soil and of the natural sources of water for human use and consumption, the formation of breeding grounds for vectors and diseases, and the contamination of the air through conditions that threaten its purity or quality."* **"**Article 286.-** * *Every person, natural or juridical, is obliged to carry out the drainage works that the health authority orders in order to prevent the formation of unhealthy and infectious foci, or to sanitize those that exist on their property.* *If the owner is reluctant to comply with such orders, the health authority may perform them at the cost of the non-compliant party.* *In cases where the public interest, the nature, and the scale of the drainage works justify it, every property owner is obliged to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority may construct such works, and the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement (servidumbre) is incompatible with its use.* *The maintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works."* **"**Article 290.-** * *It is prohibited for any person to destroy or damage public or private drainage systems or obstruct their functioning."* For its part, in Chapter 6, Of the duties and restrictions relating to urban developments and dwelling sanitation, the following is provided:

**"**Article 309.-** * *Natural and juridical persons engaged in the urbanization of land must submit the corresponding preliminary project to the competent health authority for its prior study and may only begin their work once the final project has been approved.* *Approval shall be granted if the urbanization project is located in an area permitted by current regulations or, failing that, by the Ministry, and has adequate sanitary systems for the supply of potable water, rainwater drainage, and disposal of excreta, black water, and gray water."* **"**Article 313.-** * *Every individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must comply with the following sanitary requirements:* *(…)* *8. Basic sanitation means:* *(…)* *b) Adequate systems for the elimination of excreta, black water, gray water, and rainwater approved by the health authority."* From the same regulations, the obligation of the Ministry of Health authorities to ensure the application and control of compliance with the provisions of that law and its regulations can be inferred, without prejudice to the powers and obligations that special laws grant and impose on other public bodies within their respective fields of action (Article 337). Likewise, it is responsible for sanctioning those who violate health regulations. By virtue of the obligations that the regulations impose on the Ministry of Health in matters of public health, specifically, regarding the oversight of gray water elimination systems, with the purpose, among other things, of not putting the health and lives of people at risk due to contamination problems, this Court considers that – in this case – a violation of the rights to health and to the environment occurred, to the detriment of the residents of the area. We see that by report HA-ARSL-DA-0017-2011 of January fifth, two thousand ten, from the Directorate of Health Stewardship Huetar Atlántica and the Director of the Governing Health Area of Limón, regarding the complaint about buildings in the area between the Hospital Tony Facio Castro and the Portete Bathing Resort, and that said buildings discharge their black water directly into the sea without any prior treatment, it is explained that upon reviewing the existing files, there is no record of any complaint from the petitioner. A tour was conducted in the area between the Hospital Tony Facio and Portete, with the purpose of verifying the existence of constructions built from the year nineteen ninety-one onward and the disposal of black and gray water. 1.- Portete Limón, Constructions made after nineteen ninety-one. Houses, a collection center (Fish Distributor) are located in the area; they do not have construction plans; during the inspection carried out, it was identified that the fifty-meter inalienable zone is not being complied with. 2.- Juanitos Construction, Playa Bonita Limón, made after nineteen ninety-one. It has a favorable location certificate number UTE-0557-2010. It does not carry out any activity; it is still under construction. 3.- Quinmbamba Restaurant, construction made before nineteen ninety-one. Sanitary order 88-10 was issued on November ninth, two thousand ten; compliance with the sanitary order is verified. 4.- Bar and Restaurant Reina, construction made before nineteen ninety-one. A sanitary order is issued because it is determined that there is an improved septic tank, which at the time of the inspection was not functioning; a sanitary order is issued to eliminate contamination. 5.- Super Market Rigo, Playa Bonita, construction made after nineteen ninety-one. It has a septic tank, which according to the inspection carried out complies with current regulations. 6.- Cocorí Restaurant, construction made before nineteen ninety-one. It has a septic tank, biodigester, and their respective drainage systems, complying with the provisions of the legislation. 7.- The Cangrejos area, Former Landfill Area, Former Hotel Las Olas, Piuta Bathing Resort, Houses located by the Piuta Bathing Resort, correspond to constructions made after nineteen ninety-one.

Hence, it is verified that the Ministry of Health has not fulfilled its duty of surveillance, which empowers and simultaneously obliges it to act ex officio. Note that the Administration, by reason of the filing of the appeal, carried out the inspection in the area, issuing sanitary orders, with compliance with the order issued to Bar and Restaurant Reina still pending. Given the evident and unjustified delay in the timely attention to a problem of public health as serious and urgent as the one reported, the appropriate action is to uphold the appeal for violation of Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution.

**IV.- Regarding the Municipality of Limón. Sewer System:** Specifically, as this Chamber stated in judgment number 2005-009900 of ten hours on July twenty-ninth, two thousand five, the Municipality must build the necessary infrastructure to properly channel the waters, in order to guarantee the right to health and to an environment free of contamination and without harming third parties:

**"V.- On municipal obligations regarding storm drainage.-** It is convenient to take into account that Article 169 of the Political Constitution establishes that the administration of local interests and services in each canton shall be the responsibility of the Municipal Government. Local interests and services have been defined by the Chamber as indeterminate legal concepts where the law does not exactly resolve their content for application to specific cases, making it necessary to resort to criteria of value and experience, by the party responsible for applying it, to determine their content. The creation of adequate drainage means within a community for the purpose of not causing property damage, health problems, or environmental problems to its neighbors is, within the terms indicated by the Political Constitution, of interest to the canton and is part of the services that the Municipality is obliged to provide. In this same sense, the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) in its Article 285 establishes that rainwater must be eliminated adequately and sanitarily in order to avoid contamination of the soil and of the natural sources of water for human use and consumption, the formation of breeding grounds for vectors and diseases, and the contamination of the air through conditions that threaten its purity and quality. For this reason, the Municipality of Goicoechea is obliged to assume a specific behavior for the satisfaction of its purposes, taking the required measures to provide the protected community with an efficient rainwater drainage system. Adjusted to criteria of reasonableness, the Municipality must build the necessary infrastructure to make these waters flow adequately, in order to guarantee the right to health and to a pollution-free environment and without harming third parties." *As can be deduced from the foregoing, the competence in matters of storm drainage is established, expressly and implicitly, by ordinary legislation. Although the current Municipal Code does not establish any specific provision regarding this issue, the Chamber has declared, in judgment number 2002-08696 of ten hours fourteen minutes on September sixth, two thousand two, that this does not exclude the obligation of the entities to develop, among other works of a communal nature, those related to adequate aqueduct and sewer systems. In effect, Article 4, subsection c) of the current Municipal Code establishes in general terms, as a municipal power, the administration and provision of municipal public services, within which, without a doubt, the sewer system is found."* From the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that the municipal entity, in coordination with the Ministry of Health, must immediately provide the necessary measures to definitively resolve the problem of gray water in the area between the Hospital Tony Facio and Portete.

**V.- Municipality of Limón. Constructions in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone:** The municipal authorities are empowered by the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, to "*directly ensure compliance with the norms of this law regarding the domain, development, exploitation, and use of the maritime-terrestrial zone and especially of the tourist areas*", such that the usufruct and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone, both of the public zone and the restricted zone, correspond to the municipality of the respective jurisdiction of the coastlines (Article 3). Equally, Article 13 of the cited regulation empowers the municipal authorities to evict violators and to destroy or demolish the constructions, remodelings, or installations carried out by them, without any responsibility for the corresponding authority or municipality. Upon reviewing the constitutionality of said norm, this Constitutional Court referred to the nature of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the types of permits that can be generated in the restricted zone, it being admissible, of course, to proceed with the demolition of the works, if these do not have the due municipal authorizations. In judgment No. 5756-1996 of 14:42 hrs. on October 30, 1996, the Chamber considered the following:

*"(...) We have, from the transcribed norms, that a special regime of State property exists in the so-called maritime-terrestrial zone. This property is inalienable and imprescriptible, that is, no private individual can acquire rights over it, with the exceptions of situations existing prior to the enactment of the law. Within this property regime, the division into two zones stands out: the public zone and the restricted zone. The public zone is by definition excluded from any type of exploitation or construction in the hands of private parties, and cannot be subject to occupation in any case, since it is destined for 'public use', as clearly established by Article 20 of the law, excepting those lands that due to their topography are inaccessible. Only the development of minimal infrastructure works in said zone is permitted, but duly approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, and the respective municipality, always attending to the public use for which they must be destined. The regime for this zone is definitive: absolutely nothing can be built by private parties, and only minimal infrastructure works, duly authorized by the indicated institutions and with the understanding that they will be destined for public use. Note that the regime for this zone is so strict, that if natural causes change the topography and modify the demarcation of the zones, and constructions end up within the public zone, the rights over what exists will be preserved, but modifications or remodelings cannot be made, with their relocation to the restricted zone or, in the last instance, their expropriation being sought. (...)* *IIIo. For its part, the regime of the so-called restricted zone is a bit more free, without this implying that such land is 'privatized', because it continues to be State property. It is in this zone where 'exploitation,' always restricted and subject to the conditions of the law and the urban plans of the zone, is allowed for private parties, through the instrument of the concession, which will be, in any case, for use and enjoyment (Articles 39 to 43 of the Law). Properties that had a different regime under previous legislation or contracts signed in accordance with that legislation are exempt, including this zone and the public zone (Article 68) -with the exceptions indicated previously for this latter zone-, and those zones that the law itself has considered as 'special cases', which are clearly defined in Articles 74 to 82. Thus, every concession must be subject to the limitations regarding construction, expansion, remodeling, and even the use and enjoyment itself of the parcel, also having to comply with certain parameters and requirements if the zone has been declared of tourist interest (Article 57) and, as the case may be, comply with authorization from the respective municipality, the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, and the Institute of Agrarian Development (former Costa Rican Institute of Lands and Colonization).* *IVo.- From the previous exposition, it is clearly deduced that we are talking about lands whose regime for construction, use, enjoyment, and exploitation is completely regulated by law. **In the case of administrative or jurisdictional proceedings where the violation of the legal provisions related to the maritime-terrestrial zone is alleged, it is indubitable that everything built or constructed without authorization from the respective entities, both in the public zone and in the restricted zone, must be demolished**. The verification that must be carried out is precisely, in the case of the public zone, that it is not one of the exceptional cases that the law itself indicates and, in the case of the restricted zone, whether there was a concession in the first instance, under what conditions it was granted, and whether there was authorization to carry out the works, constructions, or improvements that have been made and that are the subject of discussion in the process. **Once the absence of authorization by the competent entities is verified, as the case may be, the appropriate action is the demolition of what was built and the eviction of the occupants, without prejudice to the corresponding criminal responsibilities, just as the consulted article itself establishes**. Furthermore, one would have to verify whether the construction was already there, even before the law came into effect, or if it is one of the 'special cases' that the law itself contemplates. Except for those verifications that must be carried out out of common sense, prudence, and good judgment, the destruction of what was built, or the eviction, in no way prejudges the criminal responsibility of the accused, as it will always involve works done in violation of the law, or situations of occupation on unauthorized lands, regardless of who built them or how they entered the property, in such a way that it does not harm due process and the right of defense of the accused in the criminal case, because for these purposes, the unauthorized construction or occupation is an objective fact against which the demolition of the work proceeds, or in its case, the eviction of the illegal occupants, without detriment to the fact that in the criminal court, the construction or usurpation may not be attributable to the accused, due to absence of intent, the existence of a justification cause, a prohibition error, or, in short, any cause of atypicality, exclusion of unlawfulness, or culpability that could be proven at trial. If that were the case, it would in no way detract from the fact that what was constructed without authorization must be demolished, or that the property cannot continue to be occupied, of course without prejudice to the civil liability that the State or private parties may bear for illegal authorizations or transfers, to the detriment of the good faith of the affected third parties. (...)".* (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In the specific case, it is established as proven that on September tenth, two thousand ten, the petitioner requests the Head of the Engineering Department of Limón, in accordance with Executive Decree 21487MP-MIVH of August fourth, nineteen ninety-two, to verify the zones where illegal buildings erected along the coast are located. By note dated November second, two thousand ten, the Head of the Engineering Department of the Municipality of Limón informs the petitioner that they will proceed to carry out an inspection in the area to determine the situation of the constructions regarding the treatment of gray water and construction systems, with the fact being that, to date, no action has been taken to provide a definitive solution to the problem. Therefore, this Chamber considers that in this case, a violation of the fundamental rights of the community occurs due to the inertia of the municipality in adopting concrete, timely, and effective measures to comply with Law 6043. Consequently, the appropriate action is to uphold the appeal on this ground.

**V.- Regarding the Hospital Tony Facio:** The Constitutional Chamber considers it established as proven that the Hospital Tony Facio Castro has a sanitary sewer system. It has a pumping system via a collecting tank, and a pump system that sends the black water to the sanitary sewer system of Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Thus, it is ruled out that this hospital center is discharging contaminated water into the sea.

For the foregoing reasons, the appropriate course is to declare the appeal without merit on this point.” </p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> For this reason, the Municipality of Goicoechea is obliged to adopt a certain conduct for the satisfaction of its purposes, taking the required measures to provide the protected community with an efficient stormwater drainage (alcantarillado pluvial) system. Adjusted to criteria of reasonableness, the Municipality must build the necessary infrastructure to properly channel those waters, in order to guarantee the right to health and an environment free from contamination and without harming third parties." As can be inferred from the foregoing, jurisdiction over stormwater drainage is established, expressly and implicitly, by ordinary legislation. Although the current Municipal Code does not establish any specific provision on this matter, the Chamber has declared, in judgment number 2002-08696 of ten hours fourteen minutes on September six, two thousand two, that this does not exclude the obligation of the entities to develop, among other community works, matters relating to adequate aqueduct and drainage systems. Indeed, Article 4, subsection c) of the current Municipal Code establishes, in general terms, as a municipal power, the administration and provision of municipal public services, within which, without any doubt, the drainage system is found." From the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that the municipal entity, in coordination with the Ministry of Health, must immediately take the necessary measures to definitively resolve the problem of wastewater (aguas servidas) in the area between the Tony Facio Hospital and Portete.

V.- Municipality of Limón. Constructions in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre): The municipal authorities are empowered by the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, to "directly ensure compliance with the provisions of this law regarding the domain, development, exploitation, and use of the maritime-terrestrial zone, and especially of tourist areas", given that the usufruct and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone, both the public zone and the restricted zone, correspond to the municipality of the respective coastal jurisdiction (Article 3). Likewise, Article 13 of the cited regulation empowers the municipal authorities to evict violators and to destroy or demolish the constructions, remodelings, or installations carried out by them, without any liability whatsoever for the corresponding authority or municipality. Upon reviewing the constitutionality of said provision, this Constitutional Court referred to the nature of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the types of permits that can be generated in the restricted zone, it being admissible, of course, to proceed with the demolition of the works if they lack the proper municipal authorizations. In judgment No. 5756-1996 of 14:42 hrs. on October 30, 1996, the Chamber considered the following:

"(...) From the transcribed provisions, we find that there is a special property regime of the State in the so-called maritime-terrestrial zone. That property is inalienable and imprescriptible, that is, no individual can acquire rights over it, with the exceptions of situations existing prior to the enactment of the law. Within that property regime, the division into two zones stands out: the public zone and the restricted zone. The public zone is by definition excluded from any type of exploitation or construction in the hands of individuals, and cannot be subject to occupation in any case, for it is destined for ‘public use’, as is clearly established by Article 20 of the law, excepting those lands that, due to their topography, are inaccessible. Only the development of minimal infrastructure works is permitted in said zone, but duly approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), and the respective municipality, always attending to the public use for which they must be destined. The regime of this zone is definitive: absolutely nothing can be built by individuals, and only minimal infrastructure works, duly authorized by the indicated institutions and on the understanding that they will be destined for public use. Note that the regime of this zone is so strict that if, due to natural causes, the topography changes and modifies the demarcation of the zones, and constructions are left within the public zone, the rights over what exists will be preserved, but no modifications or remodelings may be made, with their transfer to the restricted zone being procured or, as a last resort, their expropriation. (...)

IIIo. On the other hand, the regime of the so-called restricted zone is somewhat freer, without this implying that such land is ‘privatized’, because it continues to be property of the State. It is in this zone that always-restricted ‘exploitation’ is permitted, subject to the conditioning factors of the law and the urban plans of the area, by individuals, through the institute of the concession, which shall be, in any case, for use and enjoyment (Articles 39 to 43 of the Law). Excepted are those properties that held a different regime under previous legislation or contracts signed under that legislation, including this zone and the public zone (Article 68) - with the previously indicated exceptions for this latter zone -, and those zones that the law itself has considered as ‘special cases’, which are clearly defined in Articles 74 to 82. Thus, every concession must be subject to the limitations regarding construction, expansion, remodeling, and even the use and enjoyment itself of the parcel, and must furthermore comply with certain parameters and requirements if the zone has been declared of tourist interest (Article 57) and, as the case may be, obtain authorization from the respective municipality, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), and the Institute of Agrarian Development (INDER) (formerly the Costa Rican Institute of Lands and Colonization).

IVo.- From the preceding exposition, it is clearly inferred that we are speaking of lands whose regime of construction, use, enjoyment, and exploitation is completely regulated by law. In the case of administrative or jurisdictional proceedings in which an infraction of the legal provisions related to the maritime-terrestrial zone is alleged, it is unquestionable that everything constructed or built without authorization from the respective entities, both in the public zone and in the restricted zone, must be demolished. The verification that must be carried out is precisely, in the case of the public zone, that it is not one of the exception cases that the law itself indicates, and, in the case of the restricted zone, whether a concession existed in the first place, under what conditions it was granted, and whether there was authorization to carry out the works, constructions, or improvements that have been made and are the subject of discussion in the process. Once the absence of authorization from the competent entities is verified, as the case may be, the appropriate course of action is the demolition of what was constructed and the eviction of the occupants, without prejudice to the corresponding criminal liabilities, just as the consulted article itself establishes. Furthermore, it would be necessary to verify whether the construction already existed, even before the entry into force of the law, or whether it is one of the 'special cases' that the law itself contemplates. Except for those verifications that, out of common sense, prudence, and good judgment, must be carried out, the destruction of what is constructed, or the eviction, in no way prejudges the criminal liability of the accused, for they will always be works done in violation of the law, or situations of occupation on unauthorized lands, regardless of who built them or how they entered the property, in such a way that it does not injure due process and the right of defense of the accused in the criminal case, because for those purposes, the unauthorized construction or occupation is an objective fact in the face of which the demolition of the work proceeds, or in its case, the eviction of the illegal occupants, without detriment to the fact that in criminal court the construction or usurpation may not be attributable to them, due to absence of intent (dolo), the existence of a justification cause, an error of prohibition, in short, for any cause of atypicality, exclusion of unlawfulness or of culpability that could be proven in trial. If that were so, it would in no way diminish the fact that what was constructed without authorization must be demolished, or that the property cannot continue to be occupied, clearly without prejudice to the civil liability that could fall upon the State or individuals for illegal authorizations or transfers, to the detriment of the good faith of the affected third parties. (...)." (The highlighting is not from the original).

In the specific case, it is taken as accredited that on September ten, two thousand ten, the claimant requested the Head of the Engineering Department of Limón, in accordance with Executive Decree 21487MP-MIVH of August four, nineteen ninety-two, to verify the zones where there are illegal buildings erected along the coast. By note dated November two, two thousand ten, the Head of the Engineering Department of the Municipality of Limón informed the claimant that an inspection would be carried out in the area to determine the situation of the constructions regarding the treatment of wastewater and construction systems, it being the case that, to date, no action has been taken to provide a definitive solution to the problem. Therefore, this Chamber considers that, in the present case, a violation of the fundamental rights of the community occurs due to the inertia of the municipality in adopting concrete, timely, and effective measures to comply with Law 6043. Consequently, the appropriate course is to declare the appeal partially granted on this point.

V.- Regarding the Tony Facio Hospital: The Constitutional Chamber takes as accredited that the Tony Facio Castro Hospital has a sanitary drainage system. It has a pumping system via a collection tank and a pump system that sends the wastewater (aguas negras) to the sanitary drainage system of Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Therefore, it is ruled out that this hospital center is discharging contaminated water into the sea. Based on the foregoing, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal on this point."

“II.- Sobre el derecho a la Salud y el derecho a gozar de un ambiente sano. La salud pública y el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado se encuentran reconocidos constitucionalmente en los artículos 21, 50, 73 y 89 de la Constitución Política, así como a través de la normativa internacional. Específicamente, el artículo 50 constitucional reconoce de forma expresa el derecho de todos los habitantes del país a disfrutar de un medio ambiente saludable y en perfecto equilibrio. Ese derecho es garantía fundamental para la protección de la vida y la salud pública. Esta disposición constitucional se complementa por lo establecido en el numeral 11 del "Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales". Asimismo, en relación con las obligaciones que tienen las autoridades públicas de garantizar el derecho a la salud y el derecho a un ambiente sano, este Tribunal Constitucional mediante la sentencia No.180-98 de dieciséis horas del trece de enero de mil novecientos noventa y ocho dispuso:

"...el Estado no solo tiene la responsabilidad ineludible de velar para que la salud de cada una de las personas que componen la comunidad nacional, no sufra daños por parte de terceros, en relación a estos derechos, sino que, además, debe asumir la responsabilidad de lograr las condiciones sociales propicias a fin de que cada persona pueda disfrutar de su salud, entendido tal derecho, como una situación de bienestar físico, psíquico( o mental) y social." En ese sentido, el Estado costarricense se encuentra en la obligación de actuar preventivamente evitando, mediante una fiscalización e intervención directa, la realización de actos que lesionen el medio ambiente, la cual está, inevitablemente, correlacionada con la obligación del Estado de velar por la preservación de la salud de sus habitantes. La normativa infraconstitucional desarrolla este derecho y, en este sentido, la Ley General de Salud autoriza al Ministerio de Salud para tomar las medidas sanitarias correspondientes e imponer las sanciones con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente y el derecho a la salud de las personas. Cabe señalar que este Tribunal como garante de los derechos fundamentales, se erige como un contralor del cumplimiento de las obligaciones que derivan de lo dispuesto en los artículos 21 y 50 constitucionales, que constriñen al Estado no sólo a reconocer los derechos señalados, sino además a utilizar los medios material y jurídicamente legítimos para garantizarlos.

III.- Referente al Ministerio de Salud. En el caso particular del Ministerio de Salud, la normativa infra constitucional lo ha dotado de un poder de policía para prevenir y garantizar situaciones como la acusada por la recurrente. Al respecto, el artículo 2 de la Ley General de Salud dispone que al Poder Ejecutivo, a través del Ministerio de Salud, le corresponde la definición de la política nacional de salud, la normación, planificación y coordinación de todas las actividades públicas y privadas relativas a salud, así como la ejecución de aquellas actividades que le competen conforme a la ley. En ese sentido, la propia Ley General de Salud dispone en el artículo 314 que dentro de sus atribuciones, le corresponde al Ministerio de Salud ordenar y tomar las medidas especiales que habilita la ley para evitar el riesgo o daño a la salud de las personas o que éstos se difundan o se agraven y para inhibir la continuación o reincidencia en la infracción de los particulares. Específicamente, relativo al tema que nos ocupa, la Ley General de Salud, en el Libro 1, título 3, Capítulo 3 De las obligaciones y restricciones para la evacuación sanitaria de aguas pluviales, dispone, en lo conducente:

“Artículo 285.- Las excretas, las aguas negras, las servidas y las pluviales, deberán ser eliminadas adecuada y sanitariamente a fin de evitar la contaminación del suelo y de las fuentes naturales de agua para el uso y consumo humano, la formación de criaderos de vectores y enfermedades y la contaminación del aire mediante condiciones que atenten contra su pureza o calidad.” “Artículo 286.- Toda persona, natural o jurídica, está obligada a realizar las obras de drenaje que la autoridad de salud ordene a fin de precaver la formación de focos insalubres y de infección, o de sanear los que hubiere en predios de su propiedad.

Si el propietario fuere renuente en el cumplimiento de tales órdenes, la autoridad de salud podrá hacerlos a costa del omiso.

En los casos en que el interés público, la naturaleza y envergadura de las obras de drenaje lo justificare, todo propietario de inmueble está obligado a constituir servidumbre en favor del Estado para que la autoridad de salud construya, tales obras pudiendo decretarse la expropiación del terreno cuando la servidumbre fuere incompatible con su utilización.

El mantenimiento y operación, si procedieren, estará a cargo de los beneficiarios de tales obras.” “Artículo 290.- Se prohíbe a toda persona destruir o dañar los sistemas de desagües públicos o privados u obstruir su funcionamiento.” Por su parte, en el Capítulo 6, De los deberes y restricciones relativos a las urbanizaciones y salubridad de la vivienda, dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 309.- Las personas, naturales y jurídicas, que se ocupen de la urbanización de terrenos deberán presentar a la autoridad de salud competente para su estudio previo el anteproyecto correspondiente y sólo podrán iniciar sus trabajos una vez aprobado el proyecto definitivo.

La aprobación será concedida si el proyecto de urbanización está ubicado en área permitida por la reglamentación vigente o en su defecto por el Ministerio y dispone de sistemas sanitarios adecuados de suministro de agua potable, de desagüe de aguas pluviales, de disposición de excretas, aguas negras y aguas servidas.” “Artículo 313.- Toda vivienda individual, familiar o multifamiliar, deberá cumplir con los siguientes requisitos sanitarios:

(…)

8. Medios de saneamiento básico:

(…)

• b)Sistemas adecuados de eliminación de excretas, de aguas negras, servidas y pluviales aprobados por la autoridad de salud.” De la misma normativa se colige la obligación de las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de velar por la aplicación y el control del cumplimiento de las disposiciones de esa ley y de su reglamentación, sin perjuicio de las facultades y obligaciones que leyes especiales otorguen e impongan a otros organismos públicos dentro de sus respectivos campos de acción (artículo 337). Asimismo, le corresponde sancionar a los que infrinjan la normativa sanitaria. En virtud de las obligaciones que la normativa le impone al Ministerio de Salud en materia de salud pública, concretamente, en cuanto a la fiscalización de los sistemas de eliminación de aguas servidas, con el objeto, entre otras cosas, que no se ponga en riesgo la salud y vida de las personas por problemas de contaminación, considera éste Tribunal que –en la especie- se incurrió en el quebranto a los derechos a la salud y al ambiente, en perjuicio de los vecinos de la zona. Vemos que por informe HA-ARSL-DA-0017-2011 del cinco de enero del dos mil diez, de la Dirección de Rectoría de la Salud Huetar Atlántica y la Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Limón, referente a la denuncia por edificaciones en la zona comprendida entre el Hospital Tony Facio Castro y el Balneario de Portete, y que dichas edificaciones descargan de manera directa sus aguas negras al mar sin ningún tratamiento previo, se explica que revisados los archivos existentes no consta denuncia alguna del accionante. Se procede a realizar un recorrido en la zona comprendida entre el Hospital Tony Facio y Portete, con el objeto de verificar la existencia de construcciones a partir del año mil novecientos noventa y uno y disposición de aguas negras y servidas. 1.- Portete Limón, Construcciones realizadas después de mil novecientos noventa y uno. Se localiza en el área casas de habitación, un centro de acopio (Distribuidora de Pescado) no cuentan con planos constructivos, en inspección realizada se identifica que no cumple con los cincuenta metros inalienables. 2.- Construcción Juanitos, Playa Bonita Limón, realizada después de mil novecientos noventa y uno. Cuenta con el visto bueno de ubicación número UTE-0557-2010. No desarrolla ninguna actividad, aún se encuentra en construcción. 3.- Restaurante Quinmbamba, construcción realizada ante de mil novecientos noventa y uno. Se giró orden de sanitaria 88-10 el nueve de noviembre del dos mil diez, se verifica el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria. 4.- Bar y Restaurante Reina, construcción realizada antes de mil novecientos noventa y uno. Se emite orden sanitaria por determinar que se cuenta con tanque séptico mejorado, el cuál en el momento de la inspección no estaba funcionando, se gira orden sanitaria para eliminar contaminación. 5.- Super Mercado Rigo, Playa Bonita, construcción realizada después de mil novecientos noventa y uno. Cuenta con tanque séptico, el cuál según inspección realizada cumple con la normativa vigente. 6.- Restaurante Cocorí, construcción realizada antes de mil novecientos noventa y uno. Cuenta con tanque séptico, biodigestor y sus respectivos drenajes cumpliendo con lo establecido en la legislación. 7.- La zona de Cangrejos, Antigua Zona del Basurero, Antiguo Hotel Las Olas, Balneario Piuta, Casas de Habitación ubicadas por el Balneario Piuta, corresponden a construcciones realizadas después de mil novecientos noventa y uno.

De ahí que, se constata que el Ministerio de Salud no ha cumplido con su obligación de vigilancia, que la faculta y a la vez obliga a accionar de oficio. Nótese que la Administración en razón de la interposición del recurso realizó la inspección en la zona, emitió órdenes sanitarias estando aun pendiente el cumplimiento la orden emitida al Bar y Restaurante Reina. Dado el evidente e injustificado retardo en la oportuna atención de un problema de salud pública tan grave y urgente como el denunciado, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso por lesión a los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política.

IV.- En cuanto a la Municipalidad de Limón. Sistema de Alcantarillado: Concretamente, tal como lo ha dicho esta Sala en la sentencia número 2005-009900 de las diez horas del veintinueve de julio del dos mil cinco, debe la Municipalidad construir la infraestructura necesaria para hacer discurrir adecuadamente las aguas, para así garantizar el derecho a la salud y a un ambiente libre de contaminación y sin perjudicar a terceros:

“V.- Sobre las obligaciones municipales en materia de alcantarillado pluvial.- Es conveniente tomar en cuenta que el artículo 169 de la Constitución Política establece que la administración de los intereses y servicios locales en cada cantón, estará a cargo del Gobierno Municipal. Los intereses y servicios locales han sido definidos por la Sala como conceptos jurídicos indeterminados donde la ley no resuelve con exactitud su contenido para su aplicación a casos concretos, por lo que resulta necesario acudir a criterios de valor y de experiencia, por parte de quien le corresponde aplicarlo, para determinar su contenido. La creación de medios de drenaje adecuados dentro de una comunidad a efectos de no causar daños a la propiedad, a la salud ni problemas de ambientales a sus vecinos es, dentro de los términos indicados por la Constitución Política, de interés del cantón y es parte de los servicios que la Municipalidad está en la obligación de brindar. En este mismo sentido la Ley General de Salud en su artículo 285 establece que las aguas pluviales deberán ser eliminadas adecuada y sanitariamente a fin de evitar la contaminación del suelo y de las fuentes naturales de agua para el uso y consumo humano, la formación de criaderos de vectores y enfermedades y la contaminación del aire mediante condiciones que atenten contra su pureza y calidad. Por tal motivo, la Municipalidad de Goicoechea, está obligada a asumir un determinado comportamiento para la satisfacción de sus fines, tomando las medidas requeridas para proveer a la comunidad amparada, de un sistema eficiente de drenaje de las aguas pluviales. Ajustado a criterios de razonabilidad debe la Municipalidad construir la infraestructura necesaria para hacer discurrir adecuadamente esas aguas, para así garantizar el derecho a la salud y a un ambiente libre de contaminación y sin perjudicar a terceros.” Como se desprende de lo expuesto anteriormente, la competencia en materia de alcantarillado pluvial, se encuentra establecida, expresa e implícitamente, por la legislación común. Si bien, el actual Código Municipal no establece ninguna disposición específica en cuanto este tema, la Sala ha declarado, en sentencia número 2002- 08696 de las diez horas catorce minutos del seis de septiembre del dos mil dos, que esto no excluye la obligación de los entes de desarrollar, entre otras obras de carácter comunal, lo relativo a adecuados sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillados. En efecto, el artículo 4 inciso c) del Código Municipal vigente establece en términos generales, como una atribución municipal, el administrar y prestar los servicios públicos municipales, dentro de los cuales, sin duda alguna, se encuentra el sistema de alcantarillado”.

De lo anterior, la Sala concluye que el ente municipal, en coordinación con el Ministerio de Salud, deberá de disponer de inmediato las medidas necesarias para resolver en forma definitiva el problema de aguas servidas en la zona comprendida entre el Hospital Tony Facio y Portete.

V.- Municipalidad de Limón. Construcciones en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre: Las autoridades municipales se encuentran facultadas por la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre No. 6043 de 2 marzo de 1977, para “velar directamente por el cumplimiento de las normas de esta ley referentes al dominio, desarrollo, aprovechamiento y uso de la zona marítimo terrestre y en especial de las áreas turísticas”, siendo que, el usufructo y administración de la zona marítimo terrestre, tanto de la zona pública como de la restringida, corresponden a la municipalidad de la jurisdicción respectiva de los litorales (artículo 3). Igualmente, el artículo 13 de la normativa de cita, faculta a las autoridades municipales al desalojo de los infractores y a la destrucción o demolición de las construcciones, remodelaciones o instalaciones realizadas por aquellos, sin responsabilidad alguna para la autoridad o la municipalidad correspondiente. Al conocer la constitucionalidad de dicha norma, este Tribunal Constitucional se refirió a la naturaleza de la zona marítimo terrestre y los tipos de permisos que se pueden generar en la zona restringida, siendo admisible, claro está, proceder a la demolición de las obras, si éstas no cuentan con las debidas autorizaciones municipales. En sentencia No. 5756-1996 de las 14:42 hrs. de 30 de octubre de 1996, la Sala consideró lo siguiente:

“(...) Tenemos, de las normas transcritas, que existe un régimen especial de propiedad del Estado en la llamada zona marítimo terrestre. Esa propiedad es inalienable e imprescriptible, es decir, ningún particular puede adquirir derechos sobre ella, con las salvedades de las situaciones vigentes con anterioridad a la promulgación de la ley. Dentro de ese régimen de propiedad, destaca la división en dos zonas: la pública y la zona restringida. La zona pública está por definición excluida de cualquier tipo de explotación o construcción en manos de particulares, y no puede ser objeto de ocupación en ningún caso, pues está destinada al ‘uso público’, según lo establece claramente el artículo 20 de la ley, exceptuando aquellos terrenos que por su topografía sean inaccesibles. Únicamente se permite el desarrollo de obras mínimas de infraestructura en dicha zona, pero debidamente aprobadas por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo y la respectiva municipalidad, atendiendo siempre al uso público al que deben destinarse. El régimen de esta zona es definitivo: no puede construirse absolutamente nada por particulares, y únicamente obras mínimas de infraestructura, debidamente autorizadas por las instituciones señaladas y en el entendido de que se destinarán al uso público. Nótese que el régimen de esta zona es tan estricto, que si por causas naturales cambia la topografía y modifica la demarcación de la zonas, y quedan construcciones dentro de la zona pública, se conservarán los derechos sobre lo existente, pero no podrán hacerse modificaciones o remodelaciones, procurándose su traslado a la zona restringida o en última instancia su expropiación. (...)

IIIo. Por su parte, el régimen de la llamada zona restringida, es un poco más libre, sin que ello implique que tal terreno se ‘privatice’, porque sigue siendo propiedad del Estado. Es en esta zona en que se permite la ‘explotación’ siempre restringida y sujeta a los condicionamientos de la ley y a los planes urbanos de la zona, por parte de los particulares, mediante el instituto de la concesión, que serán, en todo caso, para uso y disfrute (artículos 39 a 43 de la Ley). Quedan a salvo las propiedades que tenían un régimen distinto al amparo de legislaciones anteriores o contratos suscritos conforme esa legislación, incluida esta zona y la zona pública (artículo 68) -con las salvedades indicadas con anterioridad para esta última zona-, y aquéllas zonas que la propia ley ha considerado como ‘casos especiales’, que se encuentran claramente definidas en los artículos 74 a 82. Así, toda concesión tiene que sujetarse a las limitaciones en cuanto a construcción, ampliación, remodelación e incluso al uso y disfrute mismo de la parcela, debiendo además cumplir con ciertos parámetros y requisitos si la zona ha sido declarada de interés turístico (artículo 57) y, según sea el caso, cumplir con autorización de la municipalidad respectiva, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo y el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (antiguo Instituto Costarricense de Tierras y Colonización).

IVo.- De la anterior exposición se desprende claramente que hablamos de tierras cuyo régimen de construcción, uso, disfrute y explotación, está completamente regulado por la ley. En el caso de procedimientos administrativos o jurisdiccionales en que se impute la infracción a las disposiciones legales relacionadas con la zona marítimo terrestre, es indudable que todo lo construido o edificado sin autorización de los entes respectivos, tanto en la zona pública como en la zona restringida, debe ser demolido. La comprobación que ha de realizarse es precisamente, en el caso de la zona pública, que no se trate de uno de los casos de excepción que la misma ley señala y, en el caso de la zona restringida, si se contaba con concesión en primera instancia, en qué condiciones estaba otorgada y si existía autorización para realizar las obras, construcciones o mejoras que se hallan hecho y que sean objeto de discusión en el proceso. Constatada la ausencia de autorización por los entes competentes, según sea el caso, lo procedente es la demolición de lo construido y el desalojo de los ocupantes, sin perjuicio de las responsabilidades penales que correspondieren, tal y como el mismo artículo consultado lo establece. Además, habría que comprobar si la construcción se encontraba ya, aún antes de la entrada en vigencia de la ley, o si se trata de uno de los “casos especiales” que la misma ley contempla. Salvo esas comprobaciones que por sentido común, prudencia y buen juicio hay que realizar, en nada prejuzga sobre la responsabilidad penal del imputado la destrucción de lo construido, o el desalojo, pues siempre se tratará de obras hechas en infracción a la ley, o de situaciones de ocupación en terrenos no autorizados, con independencia de quién las haya construido o cómo hayan ingresado al inmueble, de modo tal que no lesiona el debido proceso y el derecho de defensa del imputado en la causa penal, porque a esos efectos, la construcción o la ocupación no autorizada es un dato objetivo frente al cual procede la demolición de la obra, o en su caso, el desalojo de los ocupantes ilegales, sin detrimento de que en sede penal no le sea imputable la construcción o la usurpación, por ausencia de dolo, por la existencia de una causa de justificación, un error de prohibición, en fin, por cualquier causa de atipicidad, exclusión de la antijuridicidad o de la culpabilidad que pudiera acreditarse en juicio. Si ello fuere así, en nada desmejoraría el hecho de que lo construido sin autorización deba demolerse, o que no pueda seguir ocupándose el inmueble, claro está sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad civil que pudiera caberle al Estado o a los particulares por autorizaciones o traspasos ilegales, en detrimento de la buena fe de los terceros afectados. (...)”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

En el caso concreto se tiene por acreditado que el diez de setiembre del dos mil diez, el accionante solicita al Jefe del Departamento de Ingeniería de Limón, de conformidad con el Decreto Ejecutivo 21487MP-MIVH del cuatro de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y dos, verifique las zonas en donde se encuentran edificaciones ilegales levantadas a lo largo de la costa. Por nota de fecha dos de noviembre del dos mil diez, la Jefe del Departamento e Ingeniería de la Municipalidad de Limón, comunica al accionante que se procederá a realizar una inspección en la zona para determinar la situación de las construcciones en cuanto al tratamiento de aguas servidas y sistemas constructivos, siendo que, a la fecha no ha realizado ninguna acción para dar una solución definitiva al problema. De manera que, ésta Sala considera que en la especie se produce el quebranto a los derechos fundamentales de la comunidad por la inercia de la municipalidad en adoptar medidas concretas, oportunas y eficaces para dar cumplimiento a la Ley 6043. En consecuencia, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso en este extremo.

V.- Referente al Hospital Tony Facio: La Sala Constitucional tiene por acreditado que el Hospital Tony Facio Castro cuenta con un sistema de alcantarillado sanitario. Tiene un sistema de bombeo mediante un tanque recolector, y un sistema de bombas que envía las aguas negras al alcantarillado sanitario de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. De manera que se descarta que ese centro hospitalario este vertiendo al mar aguas contaminadas. Por lo expuesto, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso en este extremo.”