Ostional Refuge: nullity of criminal demolition order for lack of reasoning and applicable law analysisRefugio Ostional: nulidad de demolición penal por falta de motivación y análisis de legislación aplicable

“II.— In the appeal, processed as a cassation appeal (recurso de casación), filed on behalf of the defendants [Name1] and [Name2], it is claimed that the Judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on the restitution (restitución), that the decision ordering the confiscation (comiso) is improperly reasoned and omits the applicable regulations, and that the legal concept of restitution was erroneously applied. The appellant indicates that the judgment is based on the premise, in his view erroneous, that the facilities are located in the public zone (zona pública), since if the application of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) is excluded in the case of refuge zones, in accordance with Article 73 of that law, its concepts could not be applied. He asserts that, consequently, the restitution of a zone that does not exist in this case cannot be ordered. He argues that the 'Por Tanto' of the judgment is silent because it does not indicate which zones must be cleared, nor which works are not proper to said zone, for which reason the state entity that administers the area will not be able to know what it must demolish. Regarding restitution, he asserts that it is a right inherent to the status of owner, and therefore it is improper to order restitution in favor of the State of land that legitimately belongs to a third party, because it presumes that it is superimposed on a public zone that only exists in a Law that does not apply in that specific place, without considering that the land of Mr. [Name1] is duly registered in the Public Property Registry (Registro Público de la Propiedad), thanks to prior legislation that granted that benefit before the enactment of Law No. 6043, which is not applicable to lands registered under prior laws; and regarding [Name2], he processed and obtained from the Municipality of Nicoya an occupancy permit (permiso de ocupación) that, although it did not become a formal concession, gave him the status of legitimate occupant through the payment of an annual fee. He adds that [Name2] obtained approval from the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo) for his application to obtain a concession for the land he occupies, and the Legal Department of said Institution recommended the application of Article 21 of Law No. 6043, given the land's topography, authorizing the granting of that concession of an exceptional nature. He considers that the accused cannot be subject to the dispossession of their properties, nor can the constructions be demolished without their rights being recognized and compensated. In the oral hearing held at the appellant's request, he reiterated the arguments set forth in writing. For his part, the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) indicated that coastal zones have been regulated since the 19th century. A matter legalized since 1874, which also contains an underlying principle of equality, so that all persons can access the beach; regarding the first 50 meters, no title of possession is valid, and the issue here is not about the 150 meters. There have been different regulations regarding the zone, varying only in the number of meters. In this case, it was verified that there are constructions that are invading the zone. Criminal intent (dolo) could not be demonstrated, but the objective act of construction was proven. The demolition is not a civil consequence of the act, nor is Article 103 of the Penal Code applicable; rather, it constitutes an objective sanction. The Judge had jurisdiction to resolve that aspect. More than a possibility, she had the duty to do so, and to answer the express request of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Regarding the application of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), although it is excluded for these cases, this is done with the exception of respect for the public zone, as it will always exist, in accordance with Article 83 of the Wildlife Law (Ley de Vida Silvestre). The Judge does not make analogical interpretations but uses the concept of public zone, in accordance with the law. The Prosecutor indicates that the other grounds are based on false premises, since a legitimate title over the public zone cannot be granted, and there can be no rights over public domain assets. Furthermore, concessions cannot grant situations of absolute right. There is a superior right over private property: the general right of access to the beach. Due to natural phenomena, variations can occur on the coast. III.— The appeal is granted in the following terms: a) On the creation of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional). In Costa Rica, species of sea turtles in imminent danger of extinction visit or nest on its coasts, including the olive ridley turtle (tortuga lora) that nests in Ostional. Likewise, the area has great faunal wealth, especially in birds. There are forest stands aged between 25 and 30 years with a high degree of consolidation as secondary forest. The mangrove areas and wetlands have been negatively affected by agricultural, livestock, and construction activities, and mangrove cutting for firewood and construction is observed. It is for this reason that, through the single transitional provision (transitorio único) of the Wildlife Conservation Law No. 6919 of November 17, 1983, the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was created, which was subsequently expanded to Punta Guiones, a situation ratified by the single transitional provision of Law No. 7317 of December 7, 1992, to later incorporate as an extension the coastal waters sector in a strip of three nautical miles (see report of the Tempisque Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Tempisque), Nicoya subregion, of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), folios 13 to 24). A study conducted by the team from the Ostional Beach Biological Station (Estación Biológica Playa Ostional), of the School of Biology of the University of Costa Rica, determined that the Refuge is divided into two parts '...on the one hand, the Beaches of Ostional and Nosara, where the nesting activity of sea turtles is concentrated, and on the other hand, Peladas and Guiones Beaches together with Rayo, Nosara, Peladas and Guiones points, where certain littoral ecosystems have been conserved, with the beaches of Ostional and Nosara thus being the key part of the Refuge, while the other parts act as a buffer zone within the Refuge. Thus, for the sector of Ostional and Nosara Beaches, recommendations were established such as the absolute protection of the estuaries present there and the adoption of measures for responsible light management during the night on the streets of the town of Ostional and on all lots that directly border said beaches.

For its part, for the sector considered a buffer zone within the Refuge, recommendations were established such as not permitting any construction project within the mountainous zones of Punta Rayo, Nosara, and Guiones, not permitting any type of human use in the mangrove zone located around the Estero Río Rempujo, and trying to mitigate as much as possible new buildings near the beaches by means of "vegetation walls" in order to maintain the natural state of the area" (folio 183 evidence file); b) Regarding the existence of a public zone in the Ostional Wildlife Refuge: The appeal alleges that since the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law itself excludes itself for maritime terrestrial zones included in national parks and equivalent reserves, the concept of the Public Zone, as defined in that law, would cease to exist, and therefore, in this case, one could not speak of a Public Zone. In this Chamber's judgment, this interpretation is incorrect. The reservation of part of the coast as state land did not arise with the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, but has been present in Costa Rican law since colonial times, by provision of CED1, and after independence, in Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828; both established it as one maritime mile on the coasts of both seas. Multiple subsequent laws regulated this zone, among them, the Water Law of 1884, the Fiscal Code of 1885, the General Law on Vacant Lands of 1939, the Land and Colonization Law of 1961, the Forest Law of 1969, the Law for the Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of 1970, with this body of law considering the so-called maritime mile as a public domain asset, inalienable, and irreducible to private property. By Law No. 11 of October 22, 1922, the extent was specified as 1672 meters from the ordinary high tide mark along the coasts of both seas. By Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, the extent of the maritime terrestrial zone was reduced to 200 meters from the ordinary high tide mark for the Atlantic coast, and by Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943, for the Pacific coast, meaning 1472 meters along the coast ceased to be state domain (for a greater analysis of the maritime terrestrial zone, see Voto No. 7 of 3:05 p.m. on January 20, 1993, issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). Regarding this zone, said judgment states textually: "From this brief study of the legislation concerning the maritime terrestrial zone, it is easy to reach the conclusion that the 200-meter strip from the ordinary high tide mark along both coasts, defined as part of the maritime terrestrial zone, has been of public domain –and the lands comprised within it, demanial assets– since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the past and present centuries have introduced on the matter have never generally disaffected these 200 meters, it being rather that legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a strip greater in extent –the so-called maritime terrestrial mile– but never smaller." The laws prior to the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law were more restrictive, and that law came to disaffect, to some degree, the 150-meter zone (restricted zone). In the case of the Refuge, the Wildlife Conservation Law provides in Transitory Provision I: "The Ostional Wildlife Refuge is created, which, for the purposes of this Law, shall be located within the two hundred meters of the maritime terrestrial zone that extends from Punta India to Punta Guiones, Canton of Nicoya, Province of Guanacaste…" For its part, section 83 of said Law indicates "...The General Directorate of Wildlife shall have the powers and duties established by Law No. 6043, regarding National Wildlife Refuges that include areas of the maritime terrestrial zone." The Regulation to the indicated law provides, among other rules: Article 152: "SINAC may grant use permits in the maritime terrestrial zone (restricted zone) comprised within the limits of Mixed Property Refuges, in accordance with article 82 of the Wildlife Law, No. 7317, article 19 of the Ley Forestal 7575, and article 11 of the regulation to the Forest Law, Decreto Ejecutivo 25721-MINAE, and other related laws." Article 157 l) "The construction of swimming pools shall not be authorized within the area comprised in the maritime terrestrial zone." It is clear that although the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law may not be applicable in some aspects, in this case, the concept of the maritime terrestrial zone is maintained. It would be incongruent with the greater protection for the region that determined the creation of the Refuge if the coasts were disaffected, precisely where the olive ridley turtles come to nest, or in the buffer zone. IV.- Regarding the demolitions: The ruling established, regarding the building owned by [Nombre1], "...then it is not true that it can be established that these constructions were effectively carried out between 1981 and 1986 and that therefore Mr. [Nombre1] was aware of the public domain nature of the zone; the neighbors have not been clear in establishing the construction dates, and although these exist, let us remember that it must also be established with certainty that they were built on the dates claimed by the Public Prosecutor's Office... It is clear, that although the criminal liability of the accused [Nombre1] cannot be established, it is demonstrated that the buildings claimed by the Public Prosecutor's Office and which were verified through the inspection to exist, are located within the public zone" (folios 2212 front to 2213 back). Regarding the property of [Nombre2], it was indicated in the judgment that he built between 1971 and 1976, that there is a document in which the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, in a note titled Concession, dated September 1981, described the land as a lot on a cliff, and recommended the application of article 21 of Law 6043; reference is also made to a receipt from the Municipality issued in the name of [Nombre2] for payment of a construction permit for a pool in Guiones (folio 2215 back, 2216 front). The situations of both accused are different, notwithstanding which, the demolition of the constructions is ordered without indicating the regulations to be applied in each case, or if it is considered that the same should be ordered for both, what the legal basis is. In this case, as observed and as has been alleged, there is a case of succession of laws over time. From the time some of the buildings were erected to the present, different regulations have governed the use of this zone: Law for the Tourist Urbanization of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, Law No. 4847 of October 4, 1971, which repealed the previous one, Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974, the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, the Wildlife Conservation Law No. 6919 of November 17, 1983, the Wildlife Conservation Law No. 7317 of October 30, 1992. The first of these provided in its Article 6: "The fifty meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone from the ordinary high tide mark shall be inalienable and in no case may be subject to lease or sale. Therefore, no one may claim any right over said strip, which shall be dedicated to public use for purposes of relaxation, recreation, or free movement. Constructions or installations currently located in that zone may not be remodeled, and in the event of their destruction, new constructions must respect this inalienable zone." Article 7: "The one hundred fifty meters inland may be subject to lease…" Transitory Provision III: "Those persons who demonstrate having possessed, in a quiet, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or properties in the maritime-terrestrial zone for more than thirty years, may apply for a title of ownership over them, except for the reservation referred to in Article 6 of this law, even if they had possessed such properties during that time as lessees, through contracts signed with the State or its institutions…" Law No. 4847 of 1971 was issued to prevent the abuses that had occurred with the previous regulations, to the detriment of the coastal zone. The Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, for its part, states, Article 6: "The provisions of this law shall not apply to the areas of cities located on the coastlines, nor to properties registered, in accordance with the law, in the name of private individuals, nor to those whose legitimacy is recognized by the laws." Article 8: "The maritime terrestrial zone is declared of public utility so that the lots, parcels, or improvements located in it, which have been sold, acquired, or possessed in ownership by private individuals, may be rescued for the national patrimony by means of expropriation." Article 20: "Except for the exceptions established by law, the public zone may not be subject to occupation under any title or in any case. No one may claim any right over it. It shall be dedicated to public use and especially to the free transit of persons. The entities and authorities indicated in Article 18 must issue and enforce the necessary provisions to guarantee the free and safe transit of persons and the public use of this zone." Article 24: "If, due to natural causes, the topography of the terrain varies with the consequent change in distances, and for that reason a construction or installation ends up located within the public zone, the owner shall retain their rights but may not carry out repairs or remodeling. Its relocation to the restricted zone or its alignment with it shall be sought, with authorized assistance from the respective municipality or the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo if the person is of scarce economic resources. If the above is not possible, its expropriation shall proceed." Article 25: "In the case of properties duly registered in the Public Registry, which comprise totally or partially the public zone, the private use of the same shall only be permitted in accordance with express agreements of the respective municipality, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo." For its part, section 73 of the Regulation to the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law provides: "The concession or lease contracts legally granted on lots located totally or partially in the public zone, which were in force on March 16, 1977, are subject to the following rules..." Section 84 of the Wildlife Conservation Law provides: "The Executive Branch is authorized to establish national wildlife refuges within forest reserves and on the lands of autonomous or semi-autonomous and municipal institutions, subject to their favorable agreement. They may also establish them on private lands, subject to the owner's authorization. In the event of the latter's opposition, the corresponding expropriation must be decreed." The cited regulations, among others, were not analyzed, and when the Court ordered the eviction of the public zone, the clearing of any existing work in said zone, and the restitution of the land to the State, the indication of the applicable regulations was omitted, which hinders the analysis of the decision. Nor was it established whether it is a state-owned refuge, as the Constitutional Chamber has interpreted (Voto 08742-2003), or mixed, as is the criterion of MINAET (folios 172 to 187 of the evidence file). The difference between one concept and the other is important, in view of its implications: "The distinction between a state-owned national wildlife refuge and a mixed one is determined by the intention of the legislator or the Administration, at the moment it is created, to establish a state-owned refuge (where there will only be state property) or a mixed property refuge (where state property and private property can coexist). The fact that at the moment of creating a refuge, the State includes within its geographic limits both lands of the State or other public entities and privately owned lands, does not automatically imply that one is in the presence of a mixed refuge, since, as indicated, what matters is the intention with which it is created. In this regard, the Organic Environmental Law establishes, in the second paragraph of its Article 37, different consequences for private lands, depending on whether they have been included within a state refuge or within a mixed refuge. Thus, in the case of state refuges, the consequence is the same as for national parks and biological reserves: the State incurs the obligation to acquire the lands. On the contrary, in the case of mixed refuges, the consequence is the same as for forest reserves, protective zones, and wetlands: there is no longer an obligation, but the possibility for the State to acquire said lands, unless the owner voluntarily submits to the corresponding regime, in which case the State may not acquire them" (folios 179-180 of the evidence file). The absence of legal reasoning as to the fate of the assets whose demolition is ordered requires the annulment of the ruling, and the remittal of the case for due processing in that aspect. In all other respects, the ruling remains unscathed. Given what has been resolved, consideration of the cassation appeal filed by Attorney [Nombre3] is omitted. In view of the extensive effect of appeals, in accordance with the provisions of Article 443 of the Código Procesal Penal, the effects of this resolution are extended in favor of the accused [Nombre4].

The appellant indicates that the judgment is based on the premise, in his view erroneous, that the installations are located on public zone (zona pública), since if the application of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law is excluded in the case of refuge zones, in accordance with Article 73 of said law, its concepts could not be applied. He asserts that consequently, the restitution of a zone that does not exist for this case cannot be ordered. He argues that the "Por Tanto" of the sentence is silent because it does not indicate which zones must be cleaned, nor which works are not proper to said zone, which is why the state entity that administers the area will not know what to demolish. Regarding restitution, he asserts that it is a right inherent to the condition of owner, so it is improper to order restitution in favor of the State of a land that legitimately belongs to a third party, because it presumes it is superimposed on a public zone (zona pública) that only exists in a Law that does not apply in that specific location, without considering that Mr. [Nombre1]'s. land is duly registered in the Public Property Registry, thanks to prior legislation that granted that benefit before the enactment of Law No. 6043, which is not applicable to lands registered under previous laws, and regarding [Nombre2], he managed and obtained from the Municipality of Nicoya an occupancy permit that, although it did not become a formal concession, gave him the status of legitimate occupant through the payment of an annual fee. He adds that [Nombre2] obtained from the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo) the approval on his application to concession the land he occupies, and the Legal Department of said Institution recommended the application of Article 21 of Law No. 6043, given the topography of the land, authorizing the granting of that concession of an exceptional nature. He considers that the defendants cannot be subject to the dispossession of their properties, nor can the constructions be demolished without their rights being recognized and compensated. In the oral hearing held at the request of the appellant, he reiterated the arguments presented in writing. For his part, the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office indicated that coastal zones have been regulated since the 19th century. A matter legalized since 1874, which also contains a background of equality, so that all people can access the beach; no title of possession is valid on the 50 meters, and the issue here is not about the 150 meters. There have been different regulations on the zone, varying only in terms of the number of meters. In this case, it was confirmed that there are constructions that are invading the zone. Fraud could not be demonstrated, but the objective act of the construction was proven. The demolition is not a civil consequence of the act, nor is Article 103 of the Penal Code applicable, but rather it is an objective sanction. The Judge had the competence to resolve that aspect. More than a possibility, she had the duty to do so, and to answer the express request of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Regarding the application of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, although it is excluded for these cases, it is done with the exception of respect for the public zone (zona pública), since there will always be one, in accordance with Article 83 of the Wildlife Conservation Law. The Judge does not make analogical interpretations, but rather uses the concept of public zone (zona pública), in accordance with the law. The Prosecutor indicates that the other grounds are based on false premises, since a legitimate title cannot be given over public zone (zona pública), there can be no rights over public domain assets. Furthermore, concessions cannot grant full-right situations. There is a superior right over private property, the general right of access to the beach. Variations in the coast can occur due to natural phenomena. III.- The appeal is granted, in the terms to be stated: a) On the creation of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional). In Costa Rica, species of sea turtles in imminent danger of extinction visit or nest on its coasts, among them the olive ridley turtle that nests in Ostional. Likewise, there is great wildlife richness in the area, especially in birds. There are forest stands between 25 and 30 years old with a high degree of consolidation as secondary forest. The mangrove areas and wetlands have been negatively affected by agricultural, livestock, and construction activities, and mangrove cutting for firewood and construction is observed. That is why, through the sole transitory provision of the Wildlife Conservation Law No. 6919 of November 17, 1983, the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was created, which was later expanded to Punta Guiones, a situation ratified by the sole transitory provision of Law No. 7317 of December 7, 1992, to later incorporate as an extension the coastal waters sector in a strip of three nautical miles (see report of the Tempisque Conservation Area, Nicoya subregion, of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, folios 13 to 24). A study carried out by the team of the Ostional Beach Biological Station, of the School of Biology of the University of Costa Rica, determined that the Refuge is divided into two parts "...on the one hand, the Beaches of Ostional and Nosara, where the nesting activity of sea turtles is concentrated, and on the other hand the Peladas and Guiones Beaches together with the points Rayo, Nosara, Peladas and Guiones, where certain littoral ecosystems have been conserved, the beaches of Ostional and Nosara therefore being the key part of the Refuge, while the other parts act as a buffer zone within the Refuge. Thus, for the sector of the Ostional and Nosara Beaches, recommendations were established such as the absolute protection of the estuaries present there and the taking of measures for the responsible management of lights during the night in the streets of the town of Ostional and in all the lots that directly border said beaches. For its part, for the sector considered as a buffer zone within the Refuge, recommendations were established such as not allowing any construction project within the mountainous zones of the Rayo, Nosara and Guiones points, not allowing any type of human use in the mangrove area located around the Estero Río Rempujo, and trying to mitigate as much as possible new buildings within the vicinity of the beaches by means of 'vegetation walls' in order to maintain the natural state of the zone" (folio 183 evidence file); b) On the existence of a public zone (zona pública) in the Ostional Wildlife Refuge: The appeal alleges that, given that the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law itself excludes itself for maritime-terrestrial zones (zonas marítimo terrestres) included in national parks and equivalent reserves, the concept of Public Zone (Zona Pública), determined in said law, would cease to exist, and therefore, in this case, one could not speak of a Public Zone (Zona Pública). In the opinion of this Chamber, the interpretation is not correct. The reservation of part of the coast, as state land, does not arise with the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, but is present in the Costa Rican legal system since Colonial times, by provision of the CED1, and after independence, in Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828; both established it at one maritime mile on the coasts of both seas. Multiple subsequent laws regulated that zone, among them, the Water Law of 1884, the Fiscal Code of 1885, the General Law of Vacant Lands of 1939, the Land and Colonization Law of 1961, the Forest Law of 1969, the Tourist Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of 1970, that regulation considering the so-called maritime mile as a public domain asset, inalienable, not reducible to private property. By Law No. 11 of October 22, 1922, the extension was specified at 1672 meters from the ordinary high tide line along the coasts of both seas. By Law No. 19 of November 12, 1942, the extension of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) was reduced to 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line for the Atlantic coast, and by Law No. 201 of January 26, 1943, for the Pacific coast, so 1472 meters along the coast ceased to be state domain (for a greater analysis of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), see ruling No. 7 of 3:05 p.m. on January 20, 1993, issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). About that zone, said ruling textually states: “From this brief study on the legislation regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), it is easy to reach the conclusion that the strip of 200 meters from the ordinary high tide line along both coasts defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), has been of public domain – and the lands comprised within it, demanial assets – since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present have introduced on the matter have never generally disaffected these 200 meters, it being rather the case that the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a greater strip in extension – the so-called maritime-terrestrial mile – but never smaller”. The laws prior to the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law were more restrictive, and that law came to disaffect to some degree the 150-meter zone (restricted zone (zona restringida)). For the case of the Refuge, the Wildlife Conservation Law provides in Transitory Provision I: "The Ostional Wildlife Refuge is created which, for the effects of this Law, shall be located in the two hundred meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) that extends from Punta India to Punta Guiones, Canton of Nicoya, Province of Guanacaste..." For its part, numeral 83 of said Law indicates "...The General Directorate of Wildlife shall have the powers and duties established by Law No. 6043, regarding National Wildlife Refuges that include areas of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre)". The Regulation of the indicated law provides, among other norms: Article 152: "SINAC may grant use permits, in the maritime terrestrial zone (restricted zone (zona restringida)) comprised within the limits of Mixed Property Refuges, in accordance with Article 82 of the Wildlife Law No. 7317, Article 19 of the Forest Law 7575 and Article 11 of the regulation to the Forest Law, Executive Decree 25721-MINAE and other related laws". Article 157 l) "The construction of swimming pools shall not be authorized within the area comprised in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre)". It is clear that although the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law is not applicable in some aspects, in this case, the concept of maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is maintained. It would be incongruent with the greater protection for the region that determined the creation of the Refuge, that the coasts be disaffected, precisely where the olive ridley turtles come to nest, or in the buffer zone. IV.- On the demolitions: The ruling established, regarding the building owned by [Nombre1], "...then it is not true that it can be established that these constructions were indeed carried out between 1981 and 1986 and that therefore Mr. [Nombre1] knew of the demaniality of the zone, the neighbors have not been clear in establishing the dates of construction and although they exist, let us remember that it must also be established with certainty that they were built on the dates alleged by the Public Prosecutor's Office...It is clear, that even though the criminal liability of the defendant [Nombre1] cannot be established, it is demonstrated that the buildings alleged by the Public Prosecutor's Office and that were verified through the inspection that exist, are located within a public zone (zona pública)" (folios 2212 front to 2213 back). About the goods of [Nombre2], it was indicated in the sentence that he built between 1971 and 1976, that there is a document in which the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, in a note titled Concession, dated September 1981, described the land as a lot on a cliff, and recommended the application of Article 21 of Law 6043; reference is also made to a receipt from the Municipality issued in the name of [Nombre2] for payment of a swimming pool construction permit in Guiones (folio 2215 back, 2216 front). The situations of both defendants are different, nevertheless, the demolition of the constructions is resolved without indicating the regulation to apply in each case, or if it is considered that the same should be ordered for both, what the legal basis is. In this case, as is observed and has been alleged, there is a case of succession of laws over time. From when some of the buildings were erected to date, different regulations have regulated the use of that zone: Tourist Urbanization Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 4558 of April 22, 1970, Law No. 4847 of October 4, 1971, which repealed the previous one, Law No. 5602 of November 4, 1974, Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, Wildlife Conservation Law No. 6919 of November 17, 1983, Wildlife Conservation Law No. 7317 of October 30, 1992. The first of them, provided in its Article 6: "The fifty meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre) from the ordinary high tide line, shall be inalienable and in no case can they be subject to lease or sale. Therefore, no one can claim any right over said strip, which shall be dedicated to public use for purposes of recreation, leisure or free circulation. The constructions or installations currently located in that zone, shall not be remodeled and in case of their destruction, the new constructions must respect this inalienable zone". Article 7: "The one hundred and fifty meters inland, may be subject to lease…". Transitory Provision III: "Those persons who demonstrate having possessed, in a quiet, peaceful manner and as owners, lots or estates in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre), for more than thirty years, may request a title of ownership over them, except for the reservation referred to in Article 6 of this law, even when they had possessed such properties during that time as lessees, through contracts signed with the State or its institutions…". Law No. 4847 of 1971 was issued to avoid the abuses that had occurred with the previous regulation, to the detriment of the coastal zone. The Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977, for its part, states, Article 6: "The provisions of this law shall not apply to the areas of cities located on the coastlines, nor to properties registered, subject to the law, in the name of private individuals, nor to those whose legitimacy is recognized by the laws". Article 8: "The maritime terrestrial zone (zona maritimo terrestre) is declared of public utility so that the lots, parcels or improvements located therein, that may have been sold, acquired or possessed in ownership, by private individuals, may be recovered for the national patrimony by means of expropriation". Article 20: "Except for the exceptions established by law, the public zone (zona pública) cannot be subject to occupation under any title or in any case. No one may claim any right over it. It shall be dedicated to public use and in particular to the free transit of persons. The entities and authorities indicated in Article 18 must issue and enforce the necessary provisions to guarantee the free and safe transit of persons and the public use of this zone". Article 24: "If due to natural causes the topography of the land varies with the consequent change in distances and for that reason a construction or installation is located within the public zone (zona pública), the owner shall retain their rights but may not make repairs or remodels. Its transfer to the restricted zone (zona restringida) or its alignment to it shall be sought, with help that is authorized from the respective municipality or from the Costa Rican Tourism Institute if it concerns a person of scarce economic resources. If the foregoing is not possible, its expropriation shall proceed". Article 25: "In the case of estates duly registered in the Public Registry, that totally or partially comprise the public zone (zona publica), the private use of the same shall only be permitted in accordance with express agreements of the respective municipality, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute and the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism". For its part, numeral 73 of the Regulation to the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, provides: "The concession or lease contracts legally granted on lots located totally or partially in the public zone (zona pública), that were in force as of March 16, 1977 are subject to the following norms..." Numeral 84 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, provides: "The Executive Power is authorized to establish national wildlife refuges within forest reserves and on the lands of autonomous or semi-autonomous and municipal institutions, with the prior favorable agreement thereof. They may also be established on private lands, with the prior authorization of their owner. In case of opposition by the latter, the corresponding expropriation must be decreed". The cited regulation, among others, was not analyzed, and when the Court ordered the vacation of the public zone (zona pública), the cleaning of any existing work in said zone, and the restitution of the land to the State, the indication of the applied regulation was omitted, which makes the analysis of the decision difficult. Nor was it established whether it is a state-owned refuge, as the Constitutional Chamber has interpreted (ruling 08742-2003), or mixed, as is the criterion of MINAET (folios 172 to 187 of the evidence file). The difference between one concept and another is important, in view of its implications "The distinction between a state national wildlife refuge and a mixed one is determined by the intention of the legislator or the Administration, at the time it creates it, to establish a state property refuge (where there will only be state property) or a mixed property refuge (where state property and private property can coexist). The fact that at the time of creating a refuge the State includes within its geographical limits both lands of the State or other public entities and lands of private property, does not automatically imply that one is in the presence of a mixed refuge, since, as indicated, what matters is the intention with which it is created. In this sense, the Organic Law of the Environment establishes, in the second paragraph of its Article 37, different consequences for private lands, depending on whether they have been included within a state refuge or within a mixed refuge. Thus, in the case of state refuges, the consequence is the same as in the case of national parks and biological reserves: the obligation arises for the State to acquire the lands. On the contrary, in the case of mixed refuges, the consequence is the same as for forest reserves, protective zones and wetlands: there is no longer the obligation, but the possibility for the State, to acquire said lands, unless the owner voluntarily submits to the corresponding regime, in which case the State may not acquire them" (folios 179-180 of the evidence file). The absence of legal motivation regarding the destination of the assets whose demolition is ordered, imposes the annulment of the ruling, and the remand of the case for proper processing in that aspect. In all else, the ruling remains unchanged. Given what has been resolved, consideration of the cassation appeal filed by attorney [Nombre3] is omitted. In view of the extensive effect of the appeals, in accordance with the provisions of Article 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the effects of this resolution are extended in favor of the defendant [Nombre4].

“II.- En el recurso llamado de apelación, tramitado como recurso de casación, formulado a favor de los imputados [Nombre1]. y [Nombre2] , se reclama que la Juzgadora no era competente para resolver sobre la restitución, que la resolución que ordena el comiso se encuentra indebidamente motivada, y es omisa en cuanto a la normativa aplicada, y que se aplicó erróneamente el instituto de la restitución. Indica el recurrente que en el fallo se parte de la premisa, a su juicio errónea, de que las instalaciones se encuentran en zona pública, puesto que si la aplicación de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre se excluye para el caso de zonas de refugio, de conformidad con el artículo 73 de dicha ley, no podrían aplicarse sus conceptos. Afirma que en consecuencia no puede ordenarse la restitución de una zona que no existe para este caso. Argumenta que el "Por Tanto" de la sentencia es omiso porque no se indica cuáles zonas deben ser limpiadas, ni qué obras no son propias de dicha zona, motivo por el cual la entidad estatal que administra el área no podrá saber qué debe demoler. En cuanto a la restitución, asevera que es un derecho inherente a la condición de propietario, por lo que resulta indebido ordenar la restitución a favor del Estado de un terreno que pertenece legítimamente a un tercero, porque presume que está sobrepuesto a una zona pública que sólo existe en una Ley que no se aplica en ese lugar específico, sin considerar que el terreno del señor [Nombre1]. se encuentra debidamente inscrito en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, merced a una legislación anterior que otorgó ese beneficio antes de la promulgación de la Ley Nº 6043, la cual no es de aplicación sobre terrenos inscritos al amparo de leyes anteriores, y en cuanto a [Nombre2] , gestionó y obtuvo de parte de la Municipalidad de Nicoya, un permiso de ocupación que aunque no llegó a ser una concesión formal, le dio la condición de ocupante legítimo mediante el pago de un canon anual. Agrega que [Nombre2]. obtuvo de parte del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo el visto bueno en su solicitud para concesionar el terreno que ocupa, y el Departamento Legal de dicha Institución recomendó la aplicación del artículo 21 de la Ley Nº 6043, dada la topografía del terreno, autorizando el otorgamiento de esa concesión de carácter excepcional. Considera que los encartados no pueden ser objeto de la desposesión de sus propiedades, ni las construcciones ser demolidas sin que sus derechos les sean reconocidos y resarcidos. En la audiencia oral celebrada a solicitud del recurrente, éste reiteró los argumentos expuestos por escrito. Por su parte, el representante del Ministerio Público indicó que desde el siglo XIX se regula sobre las zonas costeras. Materia legalizada desde 1874, que contiene además un trasfondo de igualdad, para que todas las personas puedan acceder a la playa; sobre los 50 metros no vale ningún título de posesión, y el tema acá no es sobre los 150 metros. Ha habido diferentes regulaciones sobre la zona, variando sólo en cuanto al número de metros. En este caso, se constató que existen construcciones que están invadiendo la zona. No se pudo demostrar el dolo, pero el acto objetivo de la construcción se comprobó. La demolición no es consecuencia civil del hecho, ni es de aplicación el artículo 103 del Código Penal, sino que se trata de una sanción objetiva. La Jueza tenía competencia para resolver ese aspecto. Más que una posibilidad, tenía el deber de hacerlo, y contestar la solicitud expresa del Ministerio Público. En cuanto a la aplicación de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, si bien se excluye para estos casos, se hace con excepción del respeto por la zona pública, pues siempre la habrá, de conformidad con el artículo 83 de la Ley de Vida Silvestre. La Jueza no hace interpretaciones analógicas, sino que utiliza el concepto de zona pública, conforme con la ley. Indica el Fiscal que los demás motivos se asientan en premisas falseadas, pues no se puede dar un título legítimo sobre zona pública, no puede haber derechos sobre bienes de dominio público. Además, las concesiones no pueden otorgar situaciones de pleno derecho. Hay un derecho superior sobre la propiedad privada, el derecho general de acceso a la playa. Por fenómenos naturales se pueden dar variaciones en la costa. III.- Se acoge el recurso, en los términos que se dirá: a) Sobre la creación del Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional. En Costa Rica visitan o anidan sus costas especies de tortugas marinas en inminente peligro de extinción, entre ellas la tortuga lora que anida en Ostional. Asimismo, en la zona existe gran riqueza faunística, sobre todo en aves. Se encuentran bosquetes con edades entre 25 y 30 años y alto grado de consolidación como bosque secundario. Las áreas de manglar y los humedales han sido afectados en forma negativa por las actividades agrícolas, pecuarias, constructivas, y se observa corta de mangle para leña y construcción. Es por ello que mediante transitorio único de la Ley de Conservación de la Fauna Silvestre Nº 6919 de 17 de noviembre de 1983, se creó el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional, que posteriormente fue ampliado hasta Punta Guiones, situación ratificada por transitorio único de la Ley Nº 7317 del 7 de diciembre de 1992, para luego incorporarse como extensión el sector de aguas costeras en una franja de tres millas marítimas (ver informe del Área de Conservación Tempisque, subregión Nicoya, del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, folios 13 a 24). Un estudio realizado por el equipo de la Estación Biológica Playa Ostional, de la Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica, determinó que el Refugio está dividido en dos partes "...por un lado, las Playas de Ostional y Nosara, donde se concentra la actividad anidatoria de las tortugas marinas, y por otro lado las Playas Peladas y Guiones junto con las puntas Rayo, Nosara, Peladas y Guiones, donde se han conservado ciertos ecosistemas litorales, siendo entonces las playas de Ostional y Nosara la parte clave del Refugio, mientras que las otras partes actúan como una zona de amortiguamiento dentro del Refugio. Así, para el sector de las Playas de Ostional y Nosara, se establecieron recomendaciones como la de la protección absoluta de los esteros ahí presentes y la de la toma de medidas para el manejo responsable de luces durante la noche en las calles del pueblo de Ostional y en todos los lotes que colindan directamente con dichas playas. Por su parte, para el sector considerado como zona de amortiguamiento dentro del Refugio, se establecieron recomendaciones como no permitir ningún proyecto de construcción dentro de las zonas montañosas de las puntas Rayo, Nosara y Guiones, no permitir ningún tipo de uso humano en la zona de manglar situada en los alrededores del Estero Río Rempujo, y tratar de mitigar en todo lo posible las edificaciones nuevas dentro de la cercanía de las playas por medio de "muros de vegetación" con el fin de mantener el estado natural de la zona" (folio 183 legajo de prueba); b) Sobre la existencia de zona pública en el Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional: En el recurso se alega que en vista de que la misma Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre se excluye a sí misma para las zonas marítimo terrestres incluidas en los parques nacionales y las reservas equivalentes, el concepto de Zona Pública, determinado en dicha ley, dejaría de existir, y no podría por tanto, en este caso, hablarse de Zona Pública. A juicio de esta Cámara, la interpretación no es correcta. La reserva de parte de la costa, como terreno estatal, no surge con la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, sino que se encuentra presente en el ordenamiento costarricense desde tiempos de la Colonia, por disposición de la CED1 , y luego de la independencia, en la Ley Nº 162 de 28 de junio de 1828; ambas la establecieron en una milla marítima en las costas de ambos mares. Múltiples leyes posteriores regularon esa zona, entre ellas, Ley de Aguas de 1884, Código Fiscal de 1885, Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos de 1939, Ley de Tierras y Colonización de 1961, Ley Forestal de 1969, Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre de 1970, considerando esa normativa la llamada milla marítima como un bien de dominio público, inalienable, no reducible a propiedad privada. Por ley Nº 11 de 22 de octubre de 1922 se precisó la extensión en 1672 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria a lo largo de las costas de ambos mares. Por Ley Nº 19 de 12 de noviembre de 1942 se redujo la extensión de la zona marítimo terrestre a 200 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria para la costa del Atlántico, y mediante Ley Nº 201 de 26 de enero de 1943, para la del Pacífico, por lo que 1472 metros a lo largo de la costa, dejaron de ser de dominio estatal (para un mayor análisis de la zona marítimo terrestre, ver el voto Nº 7 de las 15:05 horas del 20 de enero de 1993, dictado por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). Sobre esa zona, señala textualmente dicha sentencia: “De este somero estudio sobre la legislación acerca de la zona marítimo terrestre, es fácil llegar a la conclusión de que la franja de 200 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria a lo largo de ambas costas definida como parte de la zona marítimo terrestre, ha sido de dominio público –y los terrenos en ella comprendidos, bienes demaniales- desde1828, por lo menos. Las variaciones que la legislación del siglo pasado y del presente han introducido sobre la materia nunca han desafectado en forma generalizada estos 200 metros, siendo más bien que la legislación anterior a 1942 y 1943, establecía una franja mayor en extensión –la llamada milla marítimo terrestre- pero nunca menor”. Las leyes anteriores a la de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, eran más restrictivas, y esa ley vino a desafectar en algún grado la zona de 150 metros (zona restringida). Para el caso del Refugio, la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, dispone en el Transitorio I: “Créase el Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional que, para los efectos de esta Ley, estará ubicado en los doscientos metros de la zona marítimo terrestre que se extiende desde Punta India hasta Punta Guiones, Cantón de Nicoya, Provincia de Guanacaste…” Por su parte, el numeral 83 de dicha Ley, indica "...La Dirección General de Vida Silvestre tendrá las facultades y deberes que establece la Ley Nº 6043, respecto de los Refugios Nacionales de Vida Silvestre que incluyen áreas de la zona marítimo terrestre". El Reglamento de la ley indicada, dispone, entre otras normas: Artículo 152: "El SINAC podrá otorgar permisos de uso, en la zona marítima terrestre (zona restringida) comprendida dentro de los límites de los Refugios de Propiedad Mixta, de acuerdo al artículo 82 de la Ley Vida Silvestre, Nº 7317, al artículo 19 de la Ley Forestal 7575 y el artículo 11 del reglamento a la Ley Forestal, Decreto Ejecutivo 25721-MINAE y otras leyes conexas". Artículo 157 l) "No se autorizará la construcción de piscinas dentro del área comprendida en la zona marítimo terrestre". Es claro que aunque no sea de aplicación en algunos aspectos la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, en este caso, el concepto de zona marítimo terrestre se mantiene. Sería incongruente con la mayor protección a la región que determinó la creación del Refugio, que se desafectaran las costas, precisamente donde llegan a anidar las tortugas lora, o en la zona de amortiguamiento. IV.- Sobre las demoliciones: El fallo estableció, en cuanto a la edificación en propiedad de [Nombre1]. "...entonces no es cierto que se puede establecer que efectivamente esas construcciones se hayan realizado entre 1981 y 1986 y que por ello don [Nombre1]. conociera de la demanialidad de la zona, los vecinos no han sido claros en establecer las fechas de construcción y si bien éstas existen, recordemos que también debe establecerse con certeza que se hayan edificado en las fechas que acusa el Ministerio Público...Queda claro, que a pesar de que no se logra establecer la responsabilidad penal del encartado [Nombre1] , sí está demostrado que las edificaciones que acusa el Ministerio Público y que se constataron mediante la inspección que existen, se encuentran dentro de zona pública" (folios 2212 frente a 2213 vuelto). Sobre los bienes de [Nombre2] , se indicó en sentencia que construyó entre 1971 y 1976, que se cuenta con documento en el que el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, en una nota titulada Concesión, de fecha setiembre de 1981, describió el terreno como lote sobre acantilado, y recomendó la aplicación del artículo 21 de la Ley 6043; se hace referencia asimismo a un recibo de la Municipalidad extendido a nombre de [Nombre2]. por concepto de pago de permiso de construcción de piscina en Guiones (folio 2215 vuelto, 2216 frente). Las situaciones de ambos encartados son diferentes, no obstante lo cual, se resuelve la demolición de las construcciones sin que se indique la normativa a aplicar en cada caso, o si se considera que se debe disponer la misma para ambos, cuál es el fundamento legal. En este caso, como se observa y se ha alegado, se da un caso de sucesión de leyes en el tiempo. Desde que se levantaron algunas de las edificaciones, a la fecha, diferente normativa ha regulado el uso de esa zona: Ley de Urbanización Turística de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 4558 de 22 de abril de 1970, Ley Nº 4847 de 4 de octubre de 1971, que derogó la anterior, Ley Nº 5602 de 4 de noviembre de 1974, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977, Ley de Conservación de la Fauna Silvestre Nº 6919 de 17 de noviembre de 1983, Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre Nº7317 de 30 de octubre de 1992. La primera de ellas, disponía en su artículo 6: “Los cincuenta metros de la zona marítimo-terrestre a partir de la pleamar ordinaria, serán inalienables y en ningún caso pueden ser objeto de arrendamiento o venta. Por lo tanto, nadie puede alegar derecho alguno sobre dicha franja, que estará dedicada a uso público para fines de esparcimiento, recreo o libre circulación. Las construcciones o instalaciones actualmente ubicadas en esa zona, no podrán ser remodeladas y en caso de destrucción de las mismas, las nuevas construcciones deberán respetar esta zona inalienable”. Artículo 7: “Los ciento cincuenta metros tierra adentro, pueden ser objeto de arrendamiento…”. Transitorio III: “Aquellas personas que demuestren haber poseído en forma quieta, pacífica y a título de dueños, lotes o fincas en la zona marítimo-terrestre, por más de treinta años, pueden solicitar título de propiedad sobre ellos, salvo la reserva a que se refiere el artículo 6º de esta ley, aún cuando hubieren poseído tales inmuebles durante ese tiempo como arrendatarios, mediante contratos suscritos con el Estado o sus instituciones…”. La Ley Nº 4847 de 1971 fue emitida para evitar los abusos que se habían producido con la normativa anterior, en perjuicio de la zona costera. La Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre Nº 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977, por su parte, señala, Artículo 6: "Las disposiciones de esta ley no se aplicarán a las áreas de las ciudades situadas en los litorales, ni a las propiedades inscritas, con sujeción a la ley, a nombre de particulares, ni a aquellas cuya legitimidad reconozcan las leyes". Artículo 8: “Se declara de utilidad pública la zona maritimo terrestre a efecto de que los lotes, parcelas o mejoras ubicados en ella, que hubieren sido vendidos, adquiridos o poseídos en propiedad, por particulares, puedan rescatarse para el patrimonio nacional por medio de expropiación”. Artículo 20: “Salvo las excepciones establecidas por la ley, la zona pública no puede ser objeto de ocupación bajo ningún título ni en ningún caso. Nadie podrá alegar derecho alguno sobre ella. Estará dedicada al uso público y en especial al libre tránsito de las personas. Las entidades y autoridades que indica el artículo 18 deberán dictar y hacer cumplir las disposiciones necesarias para garantizar el libre y seguro tránsito de las personas y el uso público de esta zona”. Artículo 24: “Si por causas naturales variare la topografía del terreno con el consiguiente cambio en las distancias y por ese motivo una construcción o instalación resultare ubicada dentro de la zona pública, el propietario conservará sus derechos pero no podrá efectuar refacciones ni remodelaciones. Se procurará su traslado a la zona restringida o su alineación a ella, con ayuda que se autoriza de la respectiva municipalidad o del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo si se tratare de persona de escasos recursos económicos. De no ser posible lo anterior, procederá su expropiación”. Artículo 25: “En el caso de fincas debidamente inscritas en el Registro Público, que comprendan total o parcialmente la zona publica, el uso particular de las mismas sólo se permitirá de conformidad con acuerdos expresos de la respectiva municipalidad, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo y el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo”. Por su parte, el numeral 73 del Reglamento a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, dispone: "Los contratos de concesión o arrendamiento otorgados legalmente sobre los lotes situados total o parcialmente en la zona pública, que estaban vigentes al 16 de marzo de 1977 quedan sometidos a las siguientes normas...". El numeral 84 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, dispone: “Autorízase al Poder Ejecutivo para establecer refugios nacionales de vida silvestre dentro de la reservas forestales y en los terrenos de las instituciones autónomas o semiautónomas y municipales, previo acuerdo favorable de éstas. También podrán establecerlos en terreno particulares, previa autorización de su propietario. En caso de oposición de éste, deberá decretarse la correspondiente expropiación”. La normativa citada, entre otra, no fue analizada, y al ordenarse por el Tribunal la desocupación de la zona pública, la limpieza de cualquier obra existente en dicha zona, y la restitución de la tierra al Estado, se omitió el señalamiento de la normativa aplicada, lo que dificulta el análisis de la decisión. Tampoco se estableció si se trata de un refugio de propiedad estatal, como ha interpretado la Sala Constitucional (voto 08742-2003), o mixto, como es el criterio del MINAET (folios 172 a 187 del legajo de prueba). La diferencia entre uno u otro concepto, resulta de importancia, en vista de sus implicaciones “La distinción entre un refugio nacional de vida Silvestre estatal y uno mixto viene determinada por la intención del legislador o de la Administración, al momento en que lo crea, de establecer un refugio de propiedad estatal (donde únicamente habrá propiedad estatal) o un refugio de propiedad mixta (en donde pueden coexistir la propiedad estatal y la propiedad privada). El hecho de que al momento de crear un refugio el Estado incluya dentro de sus límites geográficos tanto terrenos del Estado o demás entes públicos como terrenos de propiedad privada, no implica automáticamente que se esté en presencia de un refugio mixto, puesto que, como se indicó, lo que interesa es la intención con la que se crea. En este sentido, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente establece, en el segundo párrafo de su artículo 37, consecuencias diferentes para los terrenos privados, según que hayan sido incluidos dentro de un refugio estatal o dentro de un refugio mixto. Así, tratándose de refugios estatales, la consecuencia es la misma que tratándose de parques nacionales y reservas biológica: surge la obligación para el Estado de adquirir los terrenos. Al contrario, tratándose de refugios mixtos, la consecuencia es la misma que para las reservas forestales, las zonas protectoras y los humedales: existe ya no la obligación, sino la posibilidad para el Estado, de adquirir dichos terrenos, salvo que el propietario se someta voluntariamente al régimen correspondiente, en cuyo caso no podrá el Estado adquirirlos” (folios 179-180 del legajo de prueba). La ausencia de motivación jurídica en cuanto al destino de los bienes cuya demolición se ordena, impone la anulación del fallo, y el reenvío de la causa para la debida tramitación en ese aspecto. En todo lo demás, el fallo se mantiene incólume. Dado lo resuelto, se omite entrar a conocer el recurso de casación formulado por el licenciado [Nombre3] . En vista del efecto extensivo de los recurso, en atención a lo dispuesto por el artículo 443 del Código Procesal Penal, se extienden los efectos de esta resolución a favor del imputado [Nombre4]