Major fraud against Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve for fraudulent collection of environmental service paymentsEstafa mayor contra reserva indígena Nairi-Awari por cobro fraudulento de pagos por servicios ambientales

**II.- Appeal in cassation** **filed by attorney Lupita Polanco Obando, public defender of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga.** As the second ground for her disagreement (folios 736-737), she claims lack of active standing (legitimación activa) of the civil plaintiff. She considers that if the crime of fraud (estafa) was committed, the true victim would be the patrimony of the State and not the Integral Development Association of Nairi-Awari, by virtue of the fact that the money from payment for environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales) received by her client never formed part of said Association's patrimony. For this reason, in her understanding, said Association lacks standing (legitimidad) to file its accusation and collect the civil action, so that the defendants are being civilly condemned to make a payment that does not correspond, because the offended party -the State- never took action in this proceeding. The claim is not receivable. For a better understanding of the issue objected to by the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the facts that the Trial Court, by majority, deemed accredited in this case, in order to understand the legal reasons that assist the Integral Development Association of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve as having standing (legitimado) to file the civil action claim in this case against both defendants. Thus, the ruling states: "1.- Without specifying the exact time, but on April 10, 1997, the defendants here, Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, taking advantage of their status as officials of the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs (Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, CONAI), appeared in the company of some MINAE officials at the monthly meeting held by members of the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Reserve in the Tsi Ni Kichá Community Hall, located in the center of Nairi, in the third district of Pacuarito, Canton of Siquirres, Province of Limón. 2.- At said meeting, Rojas Sánchez explained the convenience for the reserve of subscribing to the incentives offered by the National Forest Financing Fund (Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, FONAFIFO), a mechanism through which the State, via MINAE and its conservation area systems, would recognize the work of the landowners within the reserve who placed a total ban on the exploitation of certain forest areas. 3.- That in that same act, the defendants, by common agreement and taking advantage of the humility and simplicity of the offended parties, offered to process a contract with FONAFIFO for them that would cover approximately six hundred hectares of forest, for a sum of thirty million colones, which they would obtain gradually over the course of five years. They also indicated to them that the only requirement for this to be possible was for the president of the reserve to sign a document that Guido Rojas was carrying, who would personally handle the subsequent procedures. 4.- That the defendants here, concealing true facts, made them believe the false virtues and benefits of the offer, thus inducing both the president and the members of the Nairi-Awari reserve into error (induciendo a error). Therefore, the president of the reserve at that time, Mr. Otilio López Brenes, who did not know how to read or write, only how to sign, proceeded to sign (rubricar) the document provided to him by the defendants. The foregoing was done as a sign of consent, convinced that with this act, the community he represented would benefit from the incentives granted by FONAFIFO and never with the intention of attesting to the false possession (posesión) that the defendants would claim over lands of the reserve, much less to authorize them to retain resources in the name of the Nairi-Awari indigenous reserve. 5.- That on November 20, 1997, the indictees Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, taking advantage of the document signed by Mr. Otilio López Brenes, signed contracts with FONAFIFO, Nos. 037-97-ACLAC and 038-97-ACLAC, respectively, each in the capacity of possessors of a property located in the hamlet of Cimarrones, district of Pacuarito, Canton of Siquirres, province of Limón, which are part of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, with a total area of 1860.32 hectares and 1860.32 hectares, respectively. Through these contracts, the defendants committed to executing a forest protection project; Rojas Sánchez on an area of 177.3596 hectares and Obando Mayorga on an area of 145.0422 hectares, according to Resolutions No. 091-97 OSSM and 092-97 OSSM, respectively. 6.- That at the end of July 1999, members of the new Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari reserve appeared before FONAFIFO with a copy of the new legal status certification (personería jurídica) in order to obtain a copy of the file, and it was at that moment that they noticed the files were not in the name of the Development Association of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve; rather, they were in the personal names of Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, who in April 1997 had induced Mr. Otilio López Brenes into error (induciendo a error), taking advantage of his humility and simplicity, as well as the members of the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Reserve, since in reality the document that had been signed on that occasion was a kind of acknowledgment of the alleged possession (posesión) the indictees held over some farms within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. 7.- In the same vein, they managed to discover on that occasion that the economic incentives the indictees had offered for the Nairi-Awari reserve had been processed through the National Forest Financing Fund (Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, FONAFIFO), based on a report from the Limón Conservation Area, Siquirres Sub-regional Office, and that they had indeed been approved by the corresponding authority. However, they were never delivered to the Development Association of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve as they should have been, but rather had been processed in the personal names of Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, who by that time had already illegitimately appropriated the sums of 3,369,740 and 2,755,800 colones, respectively, as shown by the Forest Payment Certificates extended by FONAFIFO, Nos. 043922, 04392, 048665 in the name of the indictee Pedro Obando Mayorga, and Nos. 043917, 043918 and 048748 in the name of the indictee Guido Rojas Sánchez, received in conformity by signature by the defendants. 5. The defendants GUIDO HUMBERTO ROJAS SÁNCHEZ and PEDRO GERARDO OBANDO MAYORGA do not have prior criminal convictions." (folios 617 to 619). For these facts, the Trial Court sentenced the co-defendants to one year in prison for the crime of aggravated fraud (estafa mayor), to the detriment of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve. On this subject, Article 216 of the Penal Code, regarding the crime in question, states in what is relevant: "Whoever, by inducing another person into error (induciendo a error) or maintaining them therein, through the simulation of false facts or through the deformation or concealment of true facts, using them to obtain an unlawful patrimonial benefit for himself or for a third party, injures another's patrimony...". The configuration of the crime of fraud (estafa) asserts the existence of a "ruse" (ardid) procured by the active agent, in order to obtain an unlawful patrimonial benefit, to the detriment of another's. This deceit, required by the criminal statute (tipo penal), besides being suitable to achieve the unlawful objective sought, must respond to the willful action of the person who intends, through such mechanism, to obtain said patrimonial advantage and injure another's patrimony. Regarding this last point, it is necessary to demonstrate that the economic benefit intended to damage said another's patrimony is a direct consequence of the deceitful action that the perpetrator of the fact willfully exerted. Regarding the passive subject, it must be someone who, induced into deceit through the initiated criminal ruse (ardid delictivo), is in a position to adopt the harmful patrimonial disposition. Regarding the case at hand, the lower court (a quo) established that the co-defendants Rojas Sánchez and Obando Mayorga appeared at the Association's meeting with the sole purpose of convincing them to sign a document through which, in appearance, they could collect the incentives that the State, through the National Forest Financing Fund (hereinafter FONAFIFO) of MINAE, offered as recognition for the work of the landowners within the Reserve who placed a ban on the exploitation of certain forest areas. With this objective, the only thing the defendants requested was the signature of the President of the Association's Board of Directors, a position held at that time by Don Otilio. Likewise, the judges deemed it certain that, within the criminal plan deployed by the co-indictees, they knew full well that to collect the mentioned incentives, it was necessary to be possessors of the land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve, a condition they also knew they did not hold, not only because they never had that option, but furthermore because they were not indigenous persons who belonged to said ethnic circumscription, as will be explained in greater depth when addressing the other allegations in other Considerandos of this judgment. That is why both co-defendants took advantage of the good faith of the members of the Association's Board of Directors, who, according to their accounts given in the adversarial proceedings, stated they trusted them in view of the fact that they were officials representing the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs (by its initials, CONAI), that is, they were high-ranking officials of the highest representation in our country of the interests of indigenous peoples. In this way, the accused took advantage of all these circumstances to obtain, through deceit, the signature of Otilio López Brenes in order to falsely accredit themselves as possessors of land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. In summary, it was accredited for the Trial Court that: "...through deceptions about the false promise of ensuring that the community of Nairi-Awari, represented by the Integral Development Association, would obtain the benefit of the payment of FONAFIFO incentives, the defendants managed to obtain the signature of the then president of the Association, Don Otilio, with which, instead of processing the payment of incentives before FONAFIFO in favor of the Nairi-Awari community as they falsely made the members of the Association believe, they did so in their own favor, using Mr. Otilio's signature to fabricate a false certification of possession (posesión) over parcels number 25 and 24, which the indictees Pedro Obando Mayorga and Guido Rojas Sánchez used to make their respective applications before FONAFIFO, as can be seen in Files 056-97-M and 055-97-M at folios 51 and 53 respectively." (folio 692). In addition to this, it is important to highlight in the judgment that, to access the way in which the use or possession (posesión) of the reserve's lands is distributed, as well as the communal character of the property, one must live in and belong to the ethnic group that inhabits said reserve. This means that, in this case, they must speak Cabécar and live within the geographical demarcation of their territory, aspects that are part of their tradition, as is the transcendental role that the local Indigenous Development Association plays in making decisions related to the lands belonging to the Reserve. Under this reasoning, it was established that none of the defendants met the requirements to be possessors of land within the community for the simple reason that they were not part of this indigenous group, as reported by several witnesses in the debate. This then explains the reason why the defendants had to turn to the President of the local Association's Board of Directors to request his signature, under the false excuse that they needed his signature (rúbrica) to carry out the procedures before FONAFIFO and thus collect the incentives for environmental services (servicios ambientales), since only the Association was authorized to give the corresponding approval (visto bueno) to carry out any procedure that affected or impacted the Reserve's lands. As the judging panel rightly indicates, "...for them, the ownership of the land belongs to everyone and possession (posesión) is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or at least living within the indigenous community" (folio 695), all under the supervision and authorization of the Association's Board of Directors. In accordance with the above, the accused, taking advantage of their status as officials of a state entity, knowing that they did not inhabit the Nairi-Awari community and were not possessors of any land within it—precisely because they were indigenous persons foreign to the cited ethnic reserve—deceived the members of the Board of Directors by making them believe that the money they would obtain from FONAFIFO would benefit the local community. This money, as indicated by witness Walter Pérez López, "...we thought we are going to use it in the cableway project, widen lanes, clean roads, community aid. That was the first time that the payment for environmental services (pago por servicios ambientales) was being offered. Of them two, Guido and Pedro, both spoke like that, that this money is going to go to the community" (folio 648), but which never reached the hands of the Association; rather, they pocketed it for their own benefit, also deceiving the cited state National Fund. The complainant alleges a lack of active standing (legitimación activa) on the part of the civil plaintiff by virtue of the fact that the money from payment for environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales) received by her client -¢2,755,800 colones, according to the proven facts, folio 619- did not form part of the Association's patrimony, but rather properly belonged to the Costa Rican State, which, in her opinion, would be the true victim and offended party in this case, and it did not exercise any action in this regard. Although the judging panel admits that the State was indeed also affected by the illicit maneuver implemented by the defendants, this does not exclude the fact that the local indigenous Association was also directly offended, as explained in the previous considerations outlined by the ruling, the same ones that allow understanding the reasons justifying the capacity to file a civil action on the part of the Board of Directors of the Integral Development Association of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, given that the latter ceased to receive the monies from the state payment certificates just as the defendants had offered to obtain, and which they definitively appropriated, as was demonstrated. Certainly, the deceived subject and the patrimonially injured party usually coincide, but they can well be different. In this case, the thesis of the defense counsel cannot be accepted, as she starts from the premise that the crime of fraud (estafa) only occurs if the person who performs the dispositive act is exclusively the injured party, that is, the owner of the patrimony, ignoring that this crime also admits other modalities, such as the case of "triangular fraud" (estafa triangular). On this aspect, Creus states: "When the passive subject of the fraud is not the owner of the offended party's patrimony, the latter is the injured party, but the former is the passive subject of the fraud (estafa) and the one who must meet the characteristics inherent to that figure of subject: in such cases, it is sufficient that they can make the harmful patrimonial disposition for the third party's patrimony, even if they do not have a legal authority to dispose of it; it is enough, then, that they materially dispose of the object that constitutes the benefit or that they can somehow decide on it..." (CREUS, Carlos. Derecho Penal. Parte Especial. Tomo I, Fifth Edition, Editorial Astrea. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 1995. p. 503). For his part, Francisco Castillo indicates: "The crime of fraud (estafa) requires identity between the deceived person and the one who performs the dispositive act, but does not presuppose identity between the one who performs the dispositive act and the injured party... it can happen that the author deceives a person and that the deceived person disposes, as a result of the error, of another's patrimony." (Castillo González, Francisco, El Delito de Estafa, Editorial Juritexto, San José, Costa Rica, 2001, pp. 168 and 169.) The legal suppositions set forth by the cited doctrine occur precisely in those cases where a third party (passive subject of the fraud) is deceived into performing a patrimonial disposition that belongs to another subject (injured party), to the economic detriment of the latter. In the present case, the Trial Court duly accredited the constituent elements of the crime of fraud (estafa), beginning with the error into which the indictees caused the Integral Development Association of Nairi-Awari to fall, who, representing the local community, were the only ones authorized to give the approval (visto bueno) to proceed with processing the procedures for collecting the incentives from the state fund with a view to payment for environmental services (pago por servicios ambientales). They managed in this way, by obtaining the signature of the President of the Board of Directors on a blank paper, to carry out said procedures but to procure for the defendants an unlawful patrimonial benefit that they knew well did not belong to them in any way, but rather were for the benefit of the local indigenous community. It must be clarified that, according to indigenous customs, the development associations constitute the bodies expressly legitimized to grant the corresponding authorizations for any procedure carried out within the community, especially if it is directly related to the Reserve's lands. In that sense, it was clear that FONAFIFO authorized the respective disbursements of money to the indictees because they presented the spurious document signed by Don Otilio, which falsely stated—as was proven—that both co-defendants were possessors of two parcels of land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. Without said certification or authorization, the indictees could not in any way have accessed those monies, at least in direct relation to lands of said indigenous reserve. From this perspective, it is understood that the error into which the Board of Directors of the Integral Development Association of Nairi-Awari was induced motivated the authorization to initiate the procedures before FONAFIFO under the false belief that the money would be for the community. The community members, by virtue of their role as representatives of the Cabecar community of Nairi-Awari, were the ones who could give the approval (visto bueno) for the aforementioned state fund to be disposed of, the fund upon which the patrimonial injury fell. Thus, all the components of fraud (estafa) that ensure and legitimize said Association's capacity to file a civil action against the indictees are configured in their total structure, as well as to file any action in that sense, regardless of whether FONAFIFO has not done so, for whatever reasons. From the same filing document of the civil claim by the Special Judicial Representative of the Integral Development Association of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, which appears in the Civil Indemnification Action file, it is verified that the character justifying its action is based on the fact that said Association is the owner of the property right of the indigenous territory, and the Board of Directors is the representative of the Indigenous Community. This document, in turn, provides a broad explanation of the territorial situation and the legal system applied to these types of jurisdictions, recognized by the legal system. Thus, this Chamber does not perceive any defect that would allow accepting the reproach raised by the public defender of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga, and the active standing (legitimación activa) of the indigenous Association to file the respective pecuniary claims for material damage in its capacity as civil plaintiff is clear. Therefore, this aspect of the appeal is rejected.

[...] III. [...] Contrary to the appellant's thinking, the Trial Court did accredit the commission of the crime of fraud (estafa) just as was set forth in the previous Considerando. The complainant starts from her own conviction to indicate that her client did possess parcel number 24 located within the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, when the truth is that the judgment demonstrated, for several reasons, the impossibility of Obando Mayorga being the possessor of that property, specifically due to the fact that he did not live in nor belong to said Reserve and did not speak the Cabécar language. According to the statement of witness Eladio Madriz Salazar, the distribution of lands is made only among those who inhabit the Nairi-Awari reserve, whose name in the indigenous language is "Toloc Sacú", such that "...a person who is not from Nairi Awari cannot be the owner of those parcels" (folio 634), adding that any transfer made of said properties to other members of the same reserve requires the authorization of the entire Community and, principally, of the Association's Board of Directors. He also added that it is possible to do business among the inhabitants of the community themselves, but not with persons, including indigenous persons, who come from other communities. Likewise, he emphasized that an indispensable requirement for belonging to the Community is speaking the same language as them, that is, the Cabécar language (folio 635). His assertions were confirmed by other witnesses, such as Andrés Aguilar Morales (folio 637), who even expressly stated that the two indictees have not had a parcel in Nairi-Awari. He also added an important detail, namely the fact that when Guido and Pedro appeared on behalf of CONAI at the Association meeting, which was held in the community hall called "Tsi Ni Kichá", to explain the benefits of obtaining the forest resources that FONAFIFO provides, they explained it in Spanish, because "...they are not Cabécar" (folio 638). Witness Otilio López Brenes also endorsed what was said by the previous declarants, clarifying that the customs of the reserve regarding land ownership are that the elders or parents indicate whether it can be distributed or not among the inhabitants of the community, with prior authorization from the Association. He also clarified that "only for the families and children who live with him, for those who come from afar, no. Indigenous people are those who were born there and are always there. If an indigenous person from another community arrives at Nairi Awari, like from Bribrí, from other lands, they are not recognized because they come from afar and are from another clan. Even if they pay money? The lands are not sold to people who come from afar. A person who comes from afar is not recognized as indigenous [...] I met Guido and Pedro at CONAI, they do not live in the reserve" (folio 640). In the same vein as the previous witnesses, witness Juan Ramón Madriz Salazar declared that both co-defendants have not had lands within the Reserve (folio 644). For his part, Walter Pérez López indicated the same (folio 648). Based on these statements, the Trial Court, by majority, reached the conclusion that the defendants Guido Humberto and Pedro Gerardo have never been possessors of the lands within the Nairi-Awari reserve, Barbilla sector. Thus, they said: "...their statements were clear, concordant, and conclusive regarding the way in which the use or possession (posesión) of the reserve's lands is distributed, since, as they have it very clear because it is part of their tradition, for them, land ownership belongs to everyone and possession (posesión) is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or at least living within the indigenous communities. All four were emphatic in pointing out that neither of the defendants, neither GUIDO HUMBERTO nor PEDRO GERARDO, has exercised any possession (posesión) over any land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve." (folio 695). Their action consisted, in the opinion of the majority judges, which this Chamber shares, in arriving at the Association meeting moved by the sole purpose of convincing them to agree to sign a blank document through which, in appearance, they were going to benefit from the forest incentives provided by the National Forest Financing Fund. To this end, the defendants necessarily required the signature of witness Otilio, who served at that date as President of the Board of Directors, so that he would authorize the co-defendants to carry out this procedure. It was demonstrated, on the contrary, that far from establishing a positive contact between the Association and FONAFIFO, the accused proceeded to fill in the blank document to make that institution believe that both were indeed possessors of parcels within the Nairi-Awari indigenous reserve, thereby illegitimately obtaining, at the expense of the injured community, the incentives provided by the aforementioned fund. This is because both defendants knew beforehand that, to collect FONAFIFO incentives, it was necessary to be a possessor of the lands within the reserve. This circumstance they managed to astutely accredit when, subsequently, they used Don Otilio's signature for that purpose before the state fund. They obtained this signature through prior deceit into which they caused all the members of the Association to fall, causing a patrimonial economic injury, not only to the state entity as established by the ruling, but also to the same indigenous community, which ceased to receive the sums that the defendants had offered to arrange for them, money that never reached the Association. In this way, it was demonstrated beyond any doubt that the accused did indeed commit the crime of fraud (estafa), as shown by the facts that were deemed proven (folios 617-619), and it is false that they had possessed lands peacefully and uninterruptedly, as the appellant states in her brief, since it was demonstrated that such a hypothesis never occurred.

[...] IV. [...] The complainant starts from an erroneous criterion of assessment when he affirms that his client was "dispossessed by de facto means" of the possession (posesión) he exercised over parcel number 25, which is not true, since, as indicated in previous Considerandos of this resolution, it was accredited that the indictee Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez was not the possessor of any land within the reserve's territory. Thus, one cannot speak of the "dispossession" (despojo) to which the appellant alludes, because he did not even have the possibility of exercising any act of possession (posesión) in that regard, as concluded by the majority vote. Moreover, this Chamber observes that the legislation concerning indigenous communities, as occurs in this case, was correctly interpreted and applied. In this regard, it is important to indicate that both international and domestic legislation have been concerned with regulating the rights of indigenous peoples over the territories they occupy, seeking their gradual integration into national development while respecting, at the same time, the characteristic elements shaping their culture. Within this line, the consideration of their customary law, based on their customs and traditions which cannot be ignored lest their very identity be affected, is of special relevance, provided they are not incompatible with the fundamental rights defined by the national legal system or with internationally recognized human rights. In that sense, according to the provisions of ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization, which was approved in our country through Law No. 7316 of November 3, 1992, its Article 2 recognizes the consciousness of their identity or tribal identity as the fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of the referred regulation apply. Likewise, in its Article 8, section 1), it expressly states that: "In applying national laws and regulations to the peoples concerned, due account shall be taken of their customs or customary laws." In Article 14, the Convention recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to ownership and possession of the lands they traditionally occupy, and in Article 13(1), governments are obligated to respect the special importance that the relationship with the lands and their territories, or both, as the case may be, that they occupy or otherwise use, holds for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned, and in particular, the collective aspects of that relationship. On the other hand, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17(1) of Convention 169, the "modalities of transmission" of rights over lands among the members of the peoples concerned, established by those peoples, must be respected, and its subparagraph (3) also indicates the importance of preventing persons outside those peoples from taking advantage of their customs or of their members' lack of knowledge of the laws to arrogate the ownership, possession, or use of the lands that belong to them. Convention 169 of the ILO was the subject of a mandatory legislative consultation, and on that occasion the Constitutional Chamber, through resolution number 3003-92, at 11:30 a.m. on October 7, 1992, noted the recognition and protection of indigenous rights embodied both in the cited Convention and in Indigenous Law No. 6172. On that point, it considered that: “1. The Convention consulted, within the general scope of the matters entrusted to the International Labour Organization (ILO), embodies in a legally binding international instrument a series of rights, freedoms, and economic, social, and cultural conditions aimed not only at strengthening the dignity and essential attributes of indigenous people as human beings, but also, principally, at providing specific means for their condition as human beings to be fully realized in view of their deprived, sometimes even exploited and mistreated, situation […] Today, in the field of human rights, it is recognized, in summary: a) That it is necessary to recognize for indigenous people, in addition to the fullness of their rights and freedoms as human beings, other legally guaranteed conditions, through which the inequality and discrimination to which they are subjected can be compensated, with the purpose of guaranteeing their real and effective equality in all aspects of social life: b) That it is also necessary to guarantee respect for and conservation of the historical and cultural values of indigenous populations, recognizing their peculiarity, without any other limitation than the need to preserve, at the same time, the dignity and fundamental values of every human being recognized today by the civilized world—which implies that respect for the traditions, language, religion, and culture in general of those peoples admits only those exceptions necessary to eradicate practices universally considered inhuman, such as cannibalism—…”. Regarding the national legislation that incorporated the international norms, the ruling states the following: “7. Likewise, the Indigenous Law, 6172 of November 29, 1977, developed, and in some aspects exceeded, the international obligations entered into by Costa Rica; since it reserved important portions of its territory for indigenous people, attempting to prevent them from being registered as private property of others. It granted full legal personality and capacity to their communities to direct their activities and decide on their property; it permitted them to exploit the natural reserves within their territories and prohibited the extraction of archaeological objects from their cemeteries. The National Commission on Indigenous Affairs (CONAI) was created by Law 5251 of June 1973, as the unifying body for indigenous communities, also composed of representatives of various State institutions, legislation that is pioneering in our continent.” Likewise, regarding the legality of Convention 169, the decision indicates that, in its articles, there does not appear to be anything that, correctly interpreted and applied, could contravene the Law of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court concluding that, far from containing conflicts with our country’s Constitution, “…the Convention reflects the dearest values of our democratic nationality, developing the human rights of Costa Rican indigenous people and may be a starting point for initiating a revision of secondary legislation to adapt it to these needs.”. For its part, in accordance with the stipulations of Indigenous Law No. 6172, of November 29, 1977, published in La Gaceta No. 240, of December 20, 1977, Article 3 thereof states that indigenous reserves are inalienable and imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them. It also states that non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or in any other manner acquire lands or farms comprised within the reserves. It further adds that indigenous persons may only negotiate their lands with other indigenous persons, it being clear that any transfer or negotiation of lands or improvements thereon in the indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null, with the legal consequences of the case. This Law was regulated by Executive Decree No. 8487-G, of April 26, 1978, and, through Executive Decree No. 13568, of April 30, 1982, it is established that the Comprehensive Development Associations have the legal representation of the Indigenous Communities and act as their local government. According to Constitutional Chamber ruling No. 2007-16213, at 11:52 a.m. on November 9, 2007, the Comprehensive Development Associations were classified as “representative institutions” of the inhabitants of the reserves, entrusted with judicially and extrajudicially representing the indigenous communities, adding that “…They constitute the only form of representation that allows the inhabitants of the indigenous reserves to exercise fundamental individual or collective rights”. This being the case, and in accordance with the principles enshrined both in Convention No. 169 and in Indigenous Law No. 6172, the provisions that complement it, as well as the prevailing indigenous customs in their own communities, it is possible to understand the underlying reasons provided by the decision when it applies the cited legal regulations, regardless of whether the appellant does not share them, who merely offers his own explanation of how the legal framework cited by the lower court (a quo) should have been applied to the case before us, setting forth a series of considerations that do not demonstrate the erroneous application of the substantive law as is his claim. According to the indigenous witnesses—inhabitants of the Nairi-Awari Reserve—who appeared at the hearing, the majority Court notes that, according to their customs, for them, ownership of the land located in the reserve or circumscription belongs to everyone, and possession is exercised only by those who are making use of the land or, at least, living within the indigenous community. In that sense, it is understood that indigenous ownership possesses a special ownership regime, as explained by Eladio Brenes Salazar, Andrés Aguilar Morales, Otilio López Brenes, and Walter Pérez López during the adversarial proceedings, it being an indispensable requirement to belong to the Nairi-Awari Reserve in order to possess its lands, it being clarified in this regard that both co-defendants, not being part of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve because they do not speak the Cabecar language and, in general, because they do not belong to this ethnic group, were never possessors of any land within the Community. For the majority Court, the foregoing assertions reiterated by the aforementioned witnesses find full support in what is stated by Article 3 of Indigenous Law No. 6172, which indicates, where relevant, that indigenous reserves are “exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them,” to which this Chamber adds what is stated by Article 2 of the cited Law, when declaring the reserves delimited by law to be the property of the indigenous communities that inhabit them. In this way, it can be concluded without any objection that the law safeguards and defends the rights of the communities regarding their own lands, preventing indigenous persons from other reserves or non-indigenous persons from being able to access the possession of their lands by virtue of the customs and traditions they apply regarding the modalities of transmission they have established within the community, which must be respected in accordance with the provisions of Articles 8, 13, and 14 of Convention No. 169. In light of the foregoing reflections, the majority vote concludes by indicating, with sound legal reasoning, the following: “It is clear that the effective fulfillment of this agreement is incompatible with the possibility that a person outside the Nairi-Awari community may exercise possession of its lands without being a member of said community and, even worse, without even living there and being part of its group. This implies, as the indigenous witnesses already mentioned who were received during the trial correctly stated, that the same language is shared, because it is through language that the indigenous people have been transmitting their customs and traditions from generation to generation, it being incompatible with respect for said agreement that a person who does not even speak their language and who therefore has not learned, understood, and incorporated their norms into their value system, should come to exercise possession of their lands coming from other communities (even if they are indigenous, as the witnesses clarified), when they neither live in nor understand their traditions, because they do not even understand their language. The accused GUIDO HUMBERTO and PEDRO GERARDO, placing their personal economic interests above all else, coming from other communities, without even speaking the Cabécar language spoken within the Nairi-Awari Reserve and therefore without understanding its customs and traditions, and even worse, Government officials charged with safeguarding and protecting the interests of the indigenous communities of the country whose only contact with the Nairi-Awari community was solely for work-related reasons, could not legitimately take advantage of that advantageous situation to the detriment of the rights of the persons who were living within the community, going so far as to identify themselves as possessors of lands they knew well they were not, in order to collect benefits that for those lands could only be collected by the indigenous community represented by the Comprehensive Development Association that represents them.” (folio 698). At the same time, as stipulated in Article 17 of Convention 169, the Court indicates that the “modalities of transmission” of rights over lands among the members of the indigenous communities must be respected, modalities which, in the case of the Nairi-Awari Reserve, were referred to by the witnesses of said Community who testified at the hearing, it being indicated, in summary, that the custom in said reserve is that the elders or parents indicate whether or not it can be distributed, for which the authorization of the Association is also required. As Otilio López Brenes indicated, it is only for the families or children who live in the community, not for those who “come from far away,” explaining that “if an indigenous person from another community comes to Nairi Awari such as from Bribrí, from other lands, he is not recognized because they come from far away and are from another clan,” (folio 640). In other words, excluded from the condition of possessor are not only non-indigenous persons, but also indigenous persons from other regions, because they do not form part of the respective community and are alien to its customs and traditions, which are transmitted orally from “generation to generation,” as the majority vote indicates, and which vary depending on the community in question (Cabécar, Huetar, Chorotega, Maleku), as was confirmed by the co-accused Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez himself (folio 630), who admitted to being an indigenous Huetar from Quitirrisí de Mora (folio 626), while the defendant Pedro is a native of Ujarrás, as stated by the witness José Manuel Paniagua (folio 659). In accordance with the foregoing, it is not apparent that the Court in its majority vote erred in the application of the substantive legal framework concerning indigenous populations, an interpretation that aids in understanding the reasons why the defendants are in the situation of having committed the crime of fraud. […] V. […] Regardless of whether the figure of development associations is not original or proper to indigenous peoples, but rather something imposed from outside, the truth is that its configuration and structure was assumed by their representatives, not posing any obstacle to their governing and directing their respective communities. On the contrary, it facilitates that the collective ownership or title to the lands be reflected at the registry level, by being registered in the Property Registry in the name of the respective comprehensive development associations, which judicially and extrajudicially represent said communities and which bring together and coordinate the members who inhabit the indigenous community, within a specific territorial circumscription. It is convenient to clarify that the Constitutional Chamber ruling he cites in support of his petition (3002-92) has no connection to his claim. Regarding ruling number 1867-1995, at 4:51 a.m. on April 5, 1995, which he also invokes in this section, it is established that, according to the cited Convention No. 169, it is mandatory to recognize validity to the legal, material, and procedural institutions of each indigenous community and therefore, also to the bodies of their execution or application, “...without any other exception than the necessary respect for fundamental rights, recognized by the law of the Constitution—both those derived from constitutional norms and their principles or the norms or principles of international human rights law—as well as the norms or principles of fundamental public order of the Costa Rican legal system; the latter, of course, rigorously interpreted and applied, that is, without analogical or extensive criteria.”. What that ruling informs is applied to the specific case, as it is verified that the Nairi-Awari Development Association did not curtail the fundamental rights of the defendants as the challenger argues, who alleges an alleged dispossession by de facto means against his client, which was disproven.

In summary, it is not established that the fundamental guarantees recognized in our constitutional legal framework were curtailed for his client, given that the action of the association's members in filing the complaint against the co-defendants stemmed from the harm caused to them by the unlawful conduct perpetrated by those individuals, without any error being found in the reasoning of the majority ruling." "II.- Appeal for cassation (recurso de casación) filed by licensed attorney Lupita Polanco Obando, public defender of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga. As a second ground for her disagreement (folios 736-737), she claims a lack of active legal standing (legitimación activa) on the part of the civil plaintiff (parte demandante civil). She considers that even if the crime of fraud (estafa) had been committed, the truly affected party would be the State's patrimony and not the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Nairi-Awari, by virtue of the fact that the money for payment of environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales) received by her client never formed part of that Association's patrimony. For this reason, in her understanding, said Association lacks standing (legitimidad) to file its accusation and claim civil damages, meaning that the defendants are being civilly condemned to make a payment that is not owed, because the injured party—the State—never brought an action in this proceeding. The claim is not admissible. For a better understanding of the issue being challenged by the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the facts that the Court, by majority, held as proven in this case, in order to understand the legal reasons supporting the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la Reserva Indígena Nairi-Awari, as a party with standing to file the civil action claim in this case against both defendants. Thus, the ruling states: "1.- Without specifying a time, but on April 10, 1997, the defendants here, Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, using their status as officials of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI), appeared in the company of some MINAE officials at the monthly meeting held by the members of the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Reserve in the Community Hall of Tsi Ni Kichá, located in the center of Nairi, in the third district of Pacuarito, Canton of Siquirres, Province of Limón. 2.- At said meeting, Rojas Sánchez explained the advisability for the reserve of subscribing to the incentives offered by the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (FONAFIFO), a mechanism through which the State, via MINAE and its conservation area systems, would recognize the efforts of landowners in the reserve who imposed a total ban on the exploitation of certain forest areas. 3.- That in that same act, the defendants, by mutual agreement and taking advantage of the humility and simplicity of the injured parties, offered to process a contract with FONAFIFO that would cover approximately six hundred hectares of forest, for a sum of thirty million colones, which they would obtain gradually over the course of five years, also indicating that the only requirement for the foregoing to be possible was for the president of the reserve to sign a document that Guido Rojas was carrying, who would personally handle the subsequent procedures. 4.- That the defendants here, concealing true facts, made the injured parties believe the false virtues and benefits of the offer, thus inducing both the president and the members of the Nairi-Awari reserve into error, for which reason the president of the reserve at that time, Mr. Otilio López Brenes, who could neither read nor write but only sign, proceeded to sign the document provided to him by the defendants, the foregoing as a sign of consent, convinced that through said act, the community he represented would benefit from the incentives granted by FONAFIFO, and never with the intention of attesting to the false claim of possession that the defendants would hold over lands of the reserve, much less to authorize them to retain resources in the name of the Nairi-Awari indigenous reserve. 5.- That on November 20, 1997, the accused, Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, taking advantage of the document signed by Mr. Otilio López Brenes, signed contracts with FONAFIFO, Nos. 037-97-ACLAC and 038-97-ACLAC, respectively, each in the capacity of possessor (poseedor) of a property located in the Cimarrones hamlet, Pacuarito district, Canton of Siquirres, province of Limón, which are part of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, with a total area of 1860.32 hectares and 1860.32 hectares, respectively. Through said contracts, the defendants committed to carrying out a forest protection project; Rojas Sánchez on an area of 177.3596 hectares and Obando Mayorga on an area of 145.0422 hectares, in accordance with resolutions Nos. 091-97 OSSM and 092-97 OSSM, respectively.

<b>6.-</b> That at the end of July 1999, members of the new Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari reserve presented themselves at FONAFIFO, with a copy of the new legal status in order to obtain a copy of the case file, and it was at that moment that they realized that the case files were not in the name of the Development Association of the Indigenous Reserve of Nairi-Awari; but rather, in the personal name of Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, who in April of 1997, had induced Mr. Otilio López Brenes into error, taking advantage of his humility and simplicity; as well as the members of the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Reserve, because in reality the document that had been signed on that occasion was <u>a kind of acknowledgment of the alleged possession</u> that the accused held of some farms within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. <b>7.-</b> In the same vein, they managed to discover on that occasion that the economic incentives that the accused had offered for the Nairi-Awari reserve had been processed through the National Forest Financing Fund (FONAFIFO), based on a report from the Limón Conservation Area, Siquirres Subregional, and they had indeed been approved by the corresponding authority; however, they were never delivered to the Development Association of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, as was proper, but rather had been processed in the personal name of Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, who by that time had already illegitimately taken possession of the sums of 3,369,740 and 2,755,800 colones respectively, as is evident from the Forest Payment Certificates issued by FONAFIFO Nos. 043922, 04392, 048665 in the name of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga; and Nos. 043917, 043918 and 048748 in the name of the accused Guido Rojas Sánchez, received upon conformity by signature of the accused. <b>5.</b> The accused GUIDO HUMBERTO ROJAS SÁNCHEZ and PEDRO GERARDO OBANDO MAYORGA show no prior criminal judgments."</i> (folios 617 to 619). For these acts, the Court sentenced the co-defendants to one year in prison for the crime of aggravated fraud (estafa mayor), to the detriment of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve. In this regard, Article 216 of the Penal Code, referring to the illicit act in question, in what is relevant, states: "<i>Whoever, by inducing another person into error or maintaining them in it, through the simulation of false facts or through the distortion or concealment of true facts, uses them to obtain an unlawful financial benefit for themselves or for a third party, harms the assets of another…”.</i> The configuration of the illicit act of fraud (estafa) alleges the existence of a “ruse” (ardid) procured by the active agent, in order to obtain an unlawful financial benefit, to the detriment of another's assets. That deception, required by the criminal statute, besides being suitable for achieving the intended unlawful objective, must respond to the intentional action of the one who seeks, through such mechanism, to obtain said financial advantage and harm the assets of another. Regarding this last point, it is necessary to demonstrate that the economic benefit that intends to damage said assets of another is a direct consequence of the deceptive action that, intentionally, the perpetrator of the act carried out. Regarding the passive subject, it must be someone who, induced into deception through the initiated criminal ruse (ardid delictivo), is in a position to adopt the detrimental disposition of assets. Regarding the case at hand, the a quo court established that the co-defendants Rojas Sánchez and Obando Mayorga presented themselves at the Association meeting with the sole purpose of convincing them to sign a document through which, apparently, they could collect the incentives that the State, through the National Forest Financing Fund (hereinafter FONAFIFO), of MINAE, offered as recognition for the work of the owners of lands located within the Reserve, who would place a ban on the exploitation of certain forest areas. With that objective, the only thing the accused asked for was the signature of the President of the Association's Board of Directors, which at that time was held by Mr. Otilio. Likewise, the judges established as true that, within the criminal plan deployed by the co-accused, they knew very well that, to collect the mentioned incentives, it was required to be possessors of the lands within the Nairi-Awari Reserve, a condition they also knew they did not hold, not only because they never had that option, but also because they were not indigenous individuals who belonged to said ethnic district, as will be explained in more depth when addressing the other arguments in other Considerandos of this judgment. That is why both co-defendants take advantage of the good faith of the members of the Association's Board of Directors, who according to their accounts given in the adversarial proceedings, stated they trusted them given that they were officials representing the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs (by its acronym, CONAI), that is, being high-ranking officials of the highest representation in our country of the interests of indigenous peoples. In this way, the accused used all these circumstances to obtain through deception the signature of Otilio López Brenes in order to falsely accredit themselves as possessors of lands within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. In summary, it was accredited for the Court that: "…<i>through deceits regarding the false promise of ensuring that the community of Nairi-Awari represented by the Integral Development Association would obtain the benefit of the payment of FONAFIFO incentives, the accused managed to obtain the signature of the then president of the Association, Mr. Otilio, with which, instead of processing the payment of incentives before FONAFIFO in favor of the Nairi-Awari community as they falsely made the Association members believe, they did so in their own favor using Mr. Otilio's signature to fabricate a false certification of possession over plots number 25 and 24, which the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga and Guido Rojas Sánchez used to make their respective applications before FONAFIFO, as can be seen in Case Files 056-97-M and 055-97-M at folios 51 and 53 respectively."</i> (folio 692). In addition to this, it is important to highlight in the judgment that, to access the manner in which the use or possession of the reserve's lands are distributed, as well as the communal character of the property, one must live in and belong to the ethnic group that inhabits said reserve, which means, in this case, they must speak Cabécar and live in the geographical demarcation of their territory, aspects that are part of their tradition, as well as the transcendental role played by the local Indigenous Development Association in making decisions related to the lands belonging to the Reserve. Under this position, it was established that neither of the accused met the requirements to be possessors of lands within the community for the simple reason that they did not form part of this indigenous group, according to what several witnesses reported in the debate. This explains then the reason why the accused had to go to the President of the local Association's Board of Directors to request his signature, under the false excuse that his signature was needed to carry out the procedures before FONAFIFO and thus collect the incentives for environmental services, since only the Association was authorized to give the corresponding approval to carry out any procedure that affected or had an impact on the lands of the Reserve. As the judges well indicate, "…<i>for them, land ownership belongs to everyone and possession is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or at least living within the indigenous community" </i>(folio 695), all under the supervision and authorization of the Association's Board of Directors. In accordance with the foregoing, the accused, using their status as officials of a state entity, knowing that they did not inhabit the Nairi-Awari community and nor were they possessors of any land within it —precisely because they were indigenous individuals foreign to the cited ethnic reserve—, deceived the members of the Board of Directors making them believe that the money they would obtain from FONAFIFO would benefit the local community, money that as indicated by witness Walter Pérez López, "…<i>we thought we are going to use it in the cable car project, expand lanes, clean roads, communal aid. That was the first time payment for environmental services was being offered. Of the two of them, Guido and Pedro, both spoke like that, that this money is going to come out for the community" </i>(folio 648), but that never reached the hands of the Association, rather they pocketed it for their own benefit, also deceiving the cited state National Fund. The appellant alleges a lack of standing to sue (falta de legitimación activa) on the part of the civil plaintiff by virtue of the fact that the money for payment of environmental services received by her represented —¢2,755,800 colones, according to the proven facts, folio 619— did not form part of the Association's assets, but properly belonged to the Costa Rican State which, in her opinion, would be the true affected and offended party in the present case, which did not exercise any action in this regard. Although the judges admit that the State was indeed also affected by the unlawful maneuver implemented by the defendants, this does not exclude that the local indigenous Association was also directly offended, as explained in the previous considerations outlined by the ruling, the same that allow understanding the reasons that justify the capacity to bring civil action by the Board of Directors of the Integral Development Association of the Indigenous Reserve of Nairi-Awari, since the latter ceased to receive the funds coming from the state payment certificates just as the accused offered to obtain them, who ultimately took possession of them as was demonstrated. Certainly, the deceived subject and the patrimonially harmed party usually coincide, but they can well be different. In this case, the thesis of the defense counsel cannot be accepted, which starts from the premise that the crime of fraud (estafa) only occurs if the one who performs the act of disposition is exclusively the harmed party, that is, the owner of the assets, ignoring that said illicit act also admits other modalities such as the case of “triangular fraud” (estafa triangular). Regarding this aspect, Creus states: "<i>When the passive subject of the fraud is not the owner of the offended party's assets, the latter is the harmed party, but the former is the passive subject of the fraud and the one who must meet the proper characteristics of that figure of subject: in such cases, it is sufficient that they can make the detrimental disposition of assets for the third party's assets, even if they do not have legal authority to dispose of them; it is sufficient, therefore, that they materially dispose of the object that constitutes the consideration or that they can decide on it in some way…" </i>(CREUS, Carlos. Derecho Penal. Parte Especial. Tomo I, Quinta Edición, Editorial Astrea. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 1995. p. 503). For his part, Francisco Castillo indicates: "<i>The crime of fraud (estafa) requires identity between the deceived and the one who makes the act of disposition, but does not presuppose identity between the one who makes the act of disposition and the harmed party… it can happen that the perpetrator deceives a person and that the deceived disposes, as a result of the error, of another's assets."</i> (Castillo González, Francisco, El Delito de Estafa, Editorial Juritexto, San José, Costa Rica, 2001, pp. 168 and 169.) The legal scenarios presented by the cited doctrine occur precisely in those cases where a third party (passive subject of the fraud) is deceived in order to make a disposition of assets that belongs to another subject (harmed party), to the economic detriment of the latter. In the present case, the Court duly accredited the constitutive elements of the crime of fraud (estafa), beginning with the error that the accused caused the Integral Development Association of Nairi-Awari to incur, who, in representation of the local community, were the only ones authorized to give the approval to proceed with processing the procedures for the collection of incentives from the state fund with a view to payment for environmental services, thus managing, with the obtaining of the signature of the President of the Board of Directors on a blank paper, to carry out said procedures but to procure for the accused an unlawful financial benefit that they well knew did not belong to them in any way, but rather were for the benefit of the local indigenous community. It must be clarified that, according to indigenous customs, the development associations constitute the bodies expressly legitimated to grant the corresponding authorizations for any procedure carried out within the community, especially if it has a direct relationship with the lands of the Reserve. In that sense, it was clear that FONAFIFO authorized the respective disbursements of money to the accused, because they presented the spurious document signed by Mr. Otilio, in which it is stated —falsely as was accredited—, that both co-defendants were possessors of two plots of land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. Without said certification or authorization, the accused could not in any way have accessed those funds, at least in direct relation to lands of said indigenous reserve. From this perspective, it is understood that the error caused to the Direct Board of the Integral Development Association of Nairi-Awari motivated the authorization to begin the procedures before FONAFIFO under the false belief that the funds would be for the community, who, by their quality as representatives of the members of the Cabecar community of Nairi-Awari, were the ones who could give the approval for the disposition of the mentioned state fund upon which the financial injury fell, thus configuring in its total structure, the components of the fraud (estafa) that ensure and legitimize the capacity of said Association to bring civil action against the accused, as well as to file any petition in that sense, regardless of whether FONAFIFO did not do so, for whatever reasons. From the same writ of filing of the civil lawsuit by the Special Judicial Representative of the Integral Development Association of the Indigenous Reserve of Nairi-Awari, which appears in the Civil Compensation Action file, it is verified that the character that justifies its action is based on the fact that said Association is the owner of the property right over the indigenous territory, and the Board of Directors, the representative of the Indigenous Community, a document in which, in turn, a broad explanation is provided of the territorial situation and the legal system that applies to this type of jurisdictions, recognized by the legal system. This being the case, this Chamber does not find that there is any defect that would allow upholding the reproach initiated by the public defender of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga, the standing to sue (legitimación activa) of the indigenous Association to bring the respective pecuniary claims for material damage, in its capacity as civil plaintiff, being clear, for which this ground of the appeal is rejected. [...] III. [...] Contrary to the appellant's thinking, the Court accredited the commission of the crime of fraud (estafa) as set forth in the previous Considerando. The appellant starts from her own conviction to indicate that her defendant did possess plot number 24 located within the Indigenous Reserve of Nairi-Awari, when the truth is that the judgment demonstrated, for several reasons, the impossibility of Obando Mayorga being the possessor of that property, concretely due to the fact that he did not live in or belong to said Reserve and did not speak the Cabécar language. According to the statement of witness Eladio Madriz Salazar, the distribution of lands is made only among those who inhabit the Nairi-Awari reserve, whose name in the indigenous language is “Toloc Sacú”, so that "…a person who is not from Nairi Awari cannot be an owner of these plots" (folio 634), adding that any transfer made of said properties to other members of the same reserve requires the authorization of the entire Community and, principally, of the Association's Board of Directors. He also added that it is possible to do business among the same inhabitants of the community, but not with persons, including indigenous individuals, who come from other communities. Likewise, he emphasized that an indispensable requirement to belong to the Community is to speak their same language, that is, the Cabécar language (folio 635). His assertions were confirmed by other witnesses such as Andrés Aguilar Morales (folio 637), who even expressly affirmed that the two accused have not had a plot in Nairi-Awari, also adding an important fact which is that when Guido and Pedro presented themselves on behalf of CONAI at the Association meeting, which was held in the community hall called "Tsi Ni Kichá", to explain to them the benefits of obtaining the forest resources that FONAFIFO provides, they explained it in Spanish, because "…they are not Cabécar" (folio 638); witness Otilio López Brenes also endorsed what was said by the previous declarants, who clarified that the customs of the reserve regarding land ownership are that the elders or parents indicate whether it can be distributed or not among the inhabitants of the community, having previously obtained the authorization of the Association. Likewise, he clarified that "<i>only</i><i> for the families and children who live with him, not for those who come from far away. Indigenous people are those who were born there and are always there. If an indigenous person from another community arrives at Nairi Awari like from Bribrí, from other lands, they are not recognized because they come from far away and are from another clan. Even if they pay money? Lands are not sold to people who come from far away. A person who comes from far away is not recognized as indigenous</i> […] <i>I met Guido and Pedro at CONAI, they do not live in the reserve" </i>(folio 640). In the same sense as the previous ones, witness Juan Ramón Madriz Salazar declared that both co-defendants have not had lands within the Reserve (folio 644); for his part, Walter Pérez López pointed out the same (folio 648). Based on said statements, the Court, by majority, reached the conclusion that the accused Guido Humberto and Pedro Gerardo have never been possessors of the lands within the Nairi-Awari reserve, Barbilla sector. Thus, they said: "…<i>their statements were clear, concordant (sic) and forceful regarding the way in which the use or possession of the reserve's lands is distributed, since as they have it very clear because it is part of their tradition, for them, land ownership belongs to everyone and possession is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or at least living within the indigenous community (sic). The four were emphatic in pointing out that neither of the accused, neither GUIDO HUMBERTO nor PEDRO GERARDO have exercised any possession over any land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve." </i>(folio 695). Their action consisted, in the opinion of the majority judges, which this Chamber shares, in arriving at the Association meeting moved by the sole purpose of convincing them to accept signing a blank document through which, apparently, they were going to benefit from the forest incentives provided by the National Forest Financing Fund, it being that, for this, the accused necessarily required the signature of witness Otilio, who served on that date as president of the Board of Directors, to authorize the co-defendants to carry out said procedure, demonstrating, on the contrary, that far from establishing a positive contact between the Association and FONAFIFO, the accused proceeded to fill in the blank document to make said institution believe that both were possessors of plots within the Nairi-Awari indigenous reserve, illegitimately obtaining at the cost of the harmed community, the incentives contributed by the cited fund, because both accused knew beforehand that, to collect the FONAFIFO incentives, it was required to be a possessor of the lands within the reserve, a circumstance they managed to accredit cunningly when, subsequently, they used Mr. Otilio's signature for that purpose before the state fund, which they obtained after deceit they caused all the members of the Association to incur, causing economic patrimonial harm, not only to the state entity as established by the ruling, but to the indigenous community itself, which ceased to receive the items that the accused had offered to arrange, money that never reached the Association. In this way, it was demonstrated without any doubt that the accused did incur in the crime of fraud (estafa) as is evident from the facts that were taken as proven (folios 617-619), it being false that they have possessed lands in a peaceful and uninterrupted manner as the appellant affirms in her writ, by demonstrating that such a hypothesis never occurred. [...] IV. [...] The appellant starts from an erroneous criterion of appreciation, when he affirms that his defendant was “dispossessed by ways of fact” (despojó por vías de hecho) of the possession he exercised over plot number 25, which is not true because as indicated in previous Considerandos of this resolution, it was accredited that the accused Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez was not a possessor of any land within the territory of the reserve, so one cannot speak of the existence of the “dispossession” (despojo) to which the appellant alludes because he did not even have the possibility of exercising any act of possession in this regard, as concluded by the majority vote. Furthermore, the Chamber appreciates that the legislation referring to indigenous communities was interpreted and applied correctly, as occurs in this case. In this respect, it is important to indicate that both international and domestic legislation have been concerned with regulating the rights of indigenous peoples over the territories they occupy, seeking their gradual integration into national development while, at the same time, respecting the specific defining elements of their culture. Within this line, the consideration of their customary law (derecho consuetudinario), based on their customs and traditions that cannot be ignored, under the guise that their very identity is affected, is especially relevant, provided they are not incompatible with the fundamental rights defined by the national legal system nor with internationally recognized human rights. In that sense, in accordance with the stipulations of ILO Convention No. 169, concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, of the General Conference of the International Labour Organization, which was approved in our country through Law No. 7316, of November 3, 1992, in its Article 2, it recognizes the consciousness of their identity or tribal identity as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of the referred regulation are applicable. Likewise, in its Article 8, subsection 1), it is expressly indicated that: "<i>In applying national legislation to the peoples concerned, their customs or customary laws shall be duly taken into consideration." </i>In Article 14, the Convention recognizes the right of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy, and, in Article 13, subsection 1), governments are obliged to respect the special importance that the relationship with lands and territories, or both, as applicable, which they occupy or otherwise use, and particularly the collective aspects of this relationship, holds for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned. On the other hand, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17, point 1 of Convention 169, the “modalities of transmission” of rights over lands among the members of the peoples concerned, established by said peoples, must be respected, also indicating in its subsection 3), the importance of preventing persons outside these peoples from taking advantage of their customs or of their lack of knowledge of the laws on the part of their members to assume ownership, possession or use of the lands that belong to them. ILO Convention 169 was the subject of a mandatory legislative consultation, and on that occasion the Constitutional Chamber, through resolution number 3003-92, at 11:30 a.m., of October 7, 1992, pointed out the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples that are reflected, both in the cited Convention, and in the Indigenous Law No. 6172. On this matter, it considered that: "<i>1.

The consulted Convention, within the general scope of the matters entrusted to the International Labour Organization (ILO), embodies in a legally enforceable international instrument a series of rights, freedoms, and economic, social, and cultural conditions aimed not only at strengthening the dignity and essential attributes of indigenous peoples as human beings, but also, principally, at providing specific means so that their condition as human beings can be fully realized in light of their depressed situation, sometimes even exploited and mistreated </i>[…] <i>Today, in the field of human rights, it is recognized, in summary: a) That it is necessary to recognize for indigenous peoples, in addition to the fullness of their rights and freedoms as human beings, other legally guaranteed conditions, through which the inequality and discrimination to which they are subjected can be compensated, with the purpose of guaranteeing their real and effective equality in all aspects of social life: b) That it is also necessary to guarantee respect for and conservation of the historical and cultural values of indigenous populations, recognizing their distinctiveness, without any limitation other than the need to preserve, at the same time, the dignity and fundamental values of every human being recognized today by the civilized world—which implies that respect for the traditions, language, religion, and general culture of these peoples only admits exceptions necessary to eradicate practices universally considered inhuman, such as cannibalism…”. </i>Regarding the national legislation that incorporated the international norms, the vote indicates the following: “<i>7. In the same manner, the Indigenous Law, 6172 of November 29, 1977, developed, and in some respects surpassed, the international obligations undertaken by Costa Rica; for it reserved important portions of its territory for indigenous peoples, seeking to prevent them from being registered as private property of others. It granted full legal status and legal capacity to their communities to direct their activities and decide on their assets; it permitted them to exploit the natural reserves within their territories and prohibited the extraction of archaeological objects from their cemeteries. The National Commission of Indigenous Affairs (Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, CONAI) was created by Law 5251 of June 1973, as the unifying body of indigenous communities, also composed of representatives of various State institutions, legislation that is pioneering in our continent”. </i>Likewise, regarding the legality of Convention 169, the ruling points out that, in its articles, there does not appear to be anything that, correctly interpreted and applied, could contravene the Law of the Constitution, the Constitutional Chamber concluding that, far from containing conflicts with our country’s Constitution, “…<i>the Convention reflects the dearest values of our democratic nationality, developing the human rights of Costa Rican indigenous peoples and may be a starting point to initiate a review of secondary legislation to adapt it to these needs.” </i>For its part, in accordance with the stipulations of Indigenous Law No. 6172, of November 29, 1977, published in La Gaceta No. 240, of December 20, 1977, it states in its Article 3, that indigenous reserves are inalienable and imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them. It also states that non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or in any other manner acquire lands or properties included within the reserves. It further adds that indigenous persons may only negotiate their lands with other indigenous persons, it being clear that any transfer or negotiation of lands or improvements thereon in indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null and void, with the legal consequences of the case. This Law was regulated by Executive Decree No. 8487-G, of April 26, 1978, and, through Executive Decree No. 13568, of April 30, 1982, it is established that the Comprehensive Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral) hold the legal representation of Indigenous Communities and act as their local government. According to the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber No. 2007-16213, of 11:52 hours, of November 9, 2007, the Comprehensive Development Associations were deemed “<i>representative institutions</i>” of the inhabitants of the reserves, responsible for representing the indigenous communities judicially and extrajudicially, adding that “…<i>They constitute the only form of representation that allows the inhabitants of the indigenous reserves to exercise fundamental individual or collective rights”. </i>Thus, and in accordance with the principles enshrined both in Convention No. 169 and in Indigenous Law No. 6172, the provisions that complement it as well as the indigenous customs prevailing in their own communities, it is possible to understand the underlying reasons provided by the ruling when it applies the cited legal norms, regardless of whether the appellant shares them or not, who merely provides his own explanation of how the legal framework cited by the a quo should have been applied to the case at hand, setting forth a series of considerations that do not demonstrate the erroneous application of the substantive law as he claims. According to the indigenous witnesses – inhabitants of the Nairi-Awari Reserve – who attended the trial, the majority Court warns that, according to their customs, for them the ownership of land located in the reserve or circumscription belongs to all, and possession is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or, at least, living within the indigenous community. In that sense, it is understood that indigenous property has a special ownership regime as explained by Eladio Brenes Salazar, Andrés Aguilar Morales, Otilio López Brenes, and Walter Pérez López during the adversarial proceedings, it being an indispensable requirement to belong to the Nairi-Awari Reserve in order to possess its lands, clarifying in this regard that both co-defendants, not being part of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve because they do not speak the Cabecar language and, in general, because they do not belong to this ethnic group, were never possessors of any land within the Community. For the majority Court, the previous assertions reiterated by the referred witnesses, find full support in the provisions of numeral 3 of Indigenous Law No. 6172, which indicates, in the pertinent part, that indigenous reserves are “exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them”, to which is added by this Chamber what is stated in ordinal 2 of the cited Law, when declaring as property of the indigenous communities that inhabit them, the reserves delimited by law. In this way, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the law safeguards and defends the rights of the communities regarding their own lands, preventing indigenous persons from other reserves or non-indigenous persons from being able to access possession of their lands by virtue of the customs and traditions that they apply relative to the modalities of transmission that they have established within the community, which must be respected in accordance with the provisions of ordinals 8, 13, and 14 of Convention No. 169. In light of the foregoing reflections, the majority vote concludes by indicating, with sound legal criteria, the following: “<i>It is clear that the effective fulfillment of this agreement is incompatible with the possibility that a person outside the Nairi-Awari community could exercise possession of its lands without being a member of said community, and even worse, without even living there and being part of its group. This implies, as the aforementioned indigenous witnesses received during the trial rightly said, that the same language is shared, because it is through language that indigenous peoples have been transmitting their customs and traditions from generation to generation, making it incompatible with respect for said agreement that a person who does not even speak their language and who therefore has not learned, understood, and incorporated their norms into their value system, should come to exercise possession of their lands from other communities (even if they are indigenous as the witnesses well clarified), when they neither live nor understand their traditions, because they do not even understand their language. The defendants GUIDO HUMBERTO and PEDRO GERARDO, placing above all else their personal economic interests, coming from other communities, without even speaking the Cabécar language spoken within the Nairi-Awari Reserve and therefore without understanding its customs and traditions, and even worse, government officials charged with safeguarding and protecting the interests of the country’s indigenous communities whose only contact with the Nairi-Awari community was solely for work-related reasons, could not legitimately take advantage of that advantageous situation to the detriment of the rights of the people who were living within the community, coming to identify themselves as possessors of lands that they well knew they were not, in order to collect benefits that for those lands could only be collected by the indigenous community represented by the Comprehensive Development Association that represents them.” </i>(folio 698). At the same time, as stipulated in numeral 17 of Convention 169, the Court points out that the “modalities of transmission” of rights over lands among members of indigenous communities must be respected, modes that, in the case of the Nairi-Awari Reserve, were referred to by the witnesses of said Community who testified during the trial, indicating, by way of summary, that the custom in said reserve is that the elders or parents indicate whether distribution may take place or not, for which the authorization of the Association is also required. As Otilio López Brenes indicated, it is only for families or children who live in the community, not for those who “come from afar”, explaining that “<i>if an indigenous person from another community arrives at Nairi Awari, like from Bribrí, from other lands, they are not recognized because they come from afar and are from another clan,” </i>(folio 640). In other terms, not only non-indigenous persons are excluded from the status of possessors, but also indigenous persons from other regions, for not being part of the respective community, alien to its customs and traditions which are transmitted orally from “generation to generation,” as the majority vote indicates and which vary according to the community in question (Cabécar, Huetar, Chorotega, Maleku), as confirmed by the co-defendant himself, Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez (folio 630), who admitted to being Huetar indigenous from Quitirrisí de Mora (folio 626), while the defendant Pedro is a native of Ujarrás, as stated by witness José Manuel Paniagua (folio 659). In accordance with the foregoing, it is not apparent that the Court in its majority vote erred in the application of the substantive legal framework regarding indigenous populations, an interpretation that aids in understanding the reasons for why the commission of the crime of fraud (estafa) by the defendants is present. </span><span style='font-family:"Vrinda","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#010101'>[…]</span><b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#010101'> </span></b><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#010101;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>V. </span><span style='font-family: "Vrinda","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#010101; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>[…] </span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#010101'>Independently of the fact that the figure of development associations is not original or inherent to indigenous peoples, but rather something imposed from the outside, the truth is that its configuration and structure were assumed by their representatives, not representing any obstacle to governing and directing their respective communities. On the contrary, it facilitates that the collective property or ownership of the lands is reflected at the registry level, by being inscribed in the Property Registry in the name of the respective comprehensive development associations, which represent said communities judicially and extrajudicially and which group and coordinate the members inhabiting the indigenous community, within a determined territorial circumscription. It is pertinent to clarify that the vote of the Constitutional Chamber cited in support of his claim (3002-92), bears no connection to his grievance. Regarding vote number 1867-1995, of 4:51 hours, of April 5, 1995, also invoked in this section, it is established that, according to the cited Convention No. 169, it is mandatory to recognize the validity of the legal, material, and procedural institutions of each indigenous community and, therefore, also the organs for their execution or application, “…<i>with no other exception than the necessary respect for fundamental rights, recognized by the Law of the Constitution —both those derived from constitutional norms as well as from its principles or from the norms or principles of international human rights law— as well as the norms or principles of fundamental public order of the Costa Rican legal system; the latter, of course, rigorously interpreted and applied, that is, without analogical or extensive criteria.</i>”. What said vote informs applies to the specific case, upon verifying that the Nairi-Awari Development Association did not curtail the fundamental rights of the defendants as argued by the challenger, who alleges a supposed de facto dispossession of his client, which was proven false. In summary, it is not verified that his client’s fundamental guarantees recognized in our constitutional legal framework were curtailed, given that the action of the members of the association in filing the complaint against the co-defendants is due to the harm caused to them by the illicit act perpetrated by those individuals, without detecting any error in the grounds of the majority ruling.”</span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p></o:p></span> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 168 and 169.", "enteSistematizador": "JURISPRUDENTIAL INFORMATION CENTER", "esCambioCriterio": "0", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "esNotaSeparada": "0", "esProtegida": "1", "esResolucionClave": "0", "esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionOral": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "1", "esVotoSalvado": "0", "expediente": "002000950486PE", "fecha": "2012-12-05", "formatoDocumento": "WRITTEN", "hora": "10:08", "id": "ext-1-0034-147267", "normasNacionales": [ "norm_id::5027||norm_num::4573||norm_nom::Código Penal||art_id::23998||art_num::216||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 May 1970||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::91405||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::38110||norm_num::6172||norm_nom::Ley Indígena||art_id::169511||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_fecha::29 Nov 1977||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::66993||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::38110||norm_num::6172||norm_nom::Ley Indígena||art_id::169512||art_num::3||bdt::1||norm_fecha::29 Nov 1977||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::66993||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::55652||norm_num::7316||norm_nom::Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||art_id::2||art_num::1||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1992||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::60976||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::55652||norm_num::7316||norm_nom::Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||art_id::3||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1992||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::60976||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::55652||norm_num::7316||norm_nom::Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||art_id::9||art_num::8||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1992||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::60976||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::55652||norm_num::7316||norm_nom::Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||art_id::14||art_num::13||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1992||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::60976||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::55652||norm_num::7316||norm_nom::Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||art_id::15||art_num::14||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1992||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::60976||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::55652||norm_num::7316||norm_nom::Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||art_id::18||art_num::17||bdt::1||norm_fecha::03 Nov 1992||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::60976||norm_detalle::||norm_obser::||art_subnum::0" ], "normasNombreYArticulo": [ "Código Penal||216", "Ley Indígena||2", "Ley Indígena||3", "Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||1", "Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||2", "Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||8", "Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||13", "Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||14", "Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes||17" ], "normasNumeroYArticulo": [ "5027||23998", "38110||169511", "38110||169512", "55652||2", "55652||3", "55652||9", "55652||14", "55652||15", "55652||18" ], "numeroDocumento": "01816", "numeroDocumentoPadre": "sen-1-0034-578166", "ramaDerecho": "Criminal Law", "redactor": "Jesús Ramírez Quirós", "restrictores": [ "Fraud in the case of accused persons who feign possession of parcels to convince the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari aboriginal reserve to allow them to collect incentives", "Fraud in the case of accused persons who feign possession of parcels to convince the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari reserve to allow them to collect incentives", "Accused persons who feign possession of parcels to convince the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari aboriginal reserve to allow them to collect incentives", "Normative analysis on the rights of indigenous peoples in relation to the territories they occupy", "Standing of the Nairi-Awari Board of Directors to bring a civil action for fraud despite the money being from the State", "Normative analysis on the rights that protect their territory", "Standing of the Nairi-Awari Integral Development Association to bring a civil action despite the money being from the State" ], "rutaTesauro": [ "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Penal", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Penal||Delitos", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Penal||Delitos||Estafa", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Constitucional", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Constitucional||Derecho a la educación y a la cultura", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Constitucional||Derecho a la educación y a la cultura||Comunidad indígena", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Constitucional||Derechos y garantías sociales", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Constitucional||Derechos y garantías sociales||Grupo étnico", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Administrativo", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Administrativo||Administración pública", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Administrativo||Administración pública||Asociación de desarrollo integral de reserva indígena", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Penal", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Penal||Procedimientos penales", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Procesal Penal||Procedimientos penales||Acción civil resarcitoria", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Constitucional||Principios Constitucionales", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Constitucional||Principios Constitucionales||Principio constitucional de acceso a la justicia" ], "sentenciasRelacionadas": [ "sen-1-0007-80509", "sen-1-0007-83515", "sen-1-0007-83769", "sen-1-0007-395150" ], "sinonimos": [ "Indigenous population", "Indigenous people", "Indigenous reserve", "Ethnic minority", "Civil action in criminal proceedings" ], "sourceName": "Documents", "subNumeroDocumento": "1", "temasEstrategicos": [ "Human Rights", "Access to justice", "Economic, social, cultural and environmental rights", "Indigenous Peoples" ], "TemasYSubtemas": [ { "id": 5, "nombre": "Civil action for damages", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Standing of the Nairi-Awari Board of Directors to bring a civil action for fraud despite the money being from the State" } ] }, { "id": 1, "nombre": "Fraud", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 3, "nombre": "Standing of the Nairi-Awari Integral Development Association to bring a civil action despite the money being from the State" }, { "id": 1, "nombre": "Accused persons who feign possession of parcels to convince the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari aboriginal reserve to allow them to collect incentives" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Normative analysis on the rights of indigenous peoples in relation to the territories they occupy" } ] }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Indigenous community", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 2, "nombre": "Normative analysis on the rights that protect their territory" }, { "id": 1, "nombre": "Fraud in the case of accused persons who feign possession of parcels to convince the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari reserve to allow them to collect incentives" } ] }, { "id": 4, "nombre": "Integral development association of an indigenous reserve", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Standing of the Nairi-Awari Board of Directors to bring a civil action for fraud despite the money being from the State" } ] }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Ethnic group", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 2, "nombre": "Normative analysis on the rights of indigenous peoples in relation to the territories they occupy" }, { "id": 1, "nombre": "Fraud in the case of accused persons who feign possession of parcels to convince the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari aboriginal reserve to allow them to collect incentives" } ] }, { "id": 6, "nombre": "Constitutional principle of access to justice", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Normative analysis on the rights of indigenous peoples in relation to the territories they occupy" } ] } ], "tipoContenido": "Majority Vote", "tipoDocumento": "EXT", "tipoInformacion": "Judicial Decision", "tipoResolucion": "On the Merits", "tipoTexto": "1", "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [], "html": "<html xmlns:v=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml\"\r\nxmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns:m=\"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\">\r\n\r\n<head>\r\n<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\">\r\n<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>\r\n<meta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 12\">\r\n<meta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 12\">\r\n<link rel=File-List href=\"C2EBA_archivos/filelist.xml\">\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <o:DocumentProperties>\r\n <o:Author>galfaroa</o:Author>\r\n <o:Template>Normal</o:Template>\r\n <o:LastAuthor>galfaroa</o:LastAuthor>\r\n <o:Revision>4</o:Revision>\r\n <o:TotalTime>36</o:TotalTime>\r\n <o:Created>2013-07-30T15:06:00Z</o:Created>\r\n <o:LastSaved>2013-07-30T17:23:00Z</o:LastSaved>\r\n <o:Pages>6</o:Pages>\r\n <o:Words>6666</o:Words>\r\n <o:Characters>36667</o:Characters>\r\n <o:Lines>305</o:Lines>\r\n <o:Paragraphs>86</o:Paragraphs>\r\n <o:CharactersWithSpaces>43247</o:CharactersWithSpaces>\r\n <o:Version>12.00</o:Version>\r\n </o:DocumentProperties>\r\n</xml><![endif]-->\r\n<link rel=themeData href=\"C2EBA_archivos/themedata.thmx\">\r\n<link rel=colorSchemeMapping href=\"C2EBA_archivos/colorschememapping.xml\">\r\n<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <w:WordDocument>\r\n <w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>\r\n <w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>\r\n <w:TrackMoves/>\r\n <w:TrackFormatting/>\r\n <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>\r\n <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>\r\n <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>\r\n <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>\r\n <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>\r\n <w:DoNotPromoteQF/>\r\n <w:LidThemeOther>ES</w:LidThemeOther>\r\n <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>\r\n <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>\r\n <w:Compatibility>\r\n <w:BreakWrappedTables/>\r\n <w:SnapToGridInCell/>\r\n <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>\r\n <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>\r\n <w:DontGrowAutofit/>\r\n <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>\r\n <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>\r\n <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>\r\n <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>\r\n <w:Word11KerningPairs/>\r\n <w:CachedColBalance/>\r\n </w:Compatibility>\r\n <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>\r\n <m:mathPr>\r\n <m:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"/>\r\n <m:brkBin m:val=\"before\"/>\r\n <m:brkBinSub m:val=\"--\"/>\r\n <m:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"/>\r\n <m:dispDef/>\r\n <m:lMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n <m:rMargin m:val=\"0\"/>\r\n <m:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"/>\r\n <m:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"/>\r\n <m:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"/>\r\n <m:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"/>\r\n </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>\r\n</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>\r\n <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\r\n DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\r\n LatentStyleCount=\"267\">\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"/>\r\n <w:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\r\n UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emp “II. Cassation appeal filed by licensed attorney Lupita Polanco Obando, public defender of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga. As a second ground for her disagreement (folios 736-737), she claims lack of active legal standing of the civil plaintiff.

He argues that if the crime of fraud (estafa) was incurred, the true affected party would be the State's patrimony and not the Nairi-Awari Integral Development Association, by virtue of the fact that the money from payment for environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales) received by his client never formed part of that Association's patrimony, which is why, in his understanding, said Association lacks standing (legitimidad) to file its accusation and claim the civil action (acción civil), meaning the defendants are being civilly sentenced to make a payment that does not correspond, because the offended party—the State—never brought an action in this process. <b>The claim is not receivable.</b> For a better understanding of the issue, the object of the appellant's challenge, it is necessary to turn to the facts that the Court, by majority, held as proven in the present case, in order to understand the legal reasons that assist the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve Integral Development Association, as having standing to file the civil action claim in this case against both defendants. Thus, the judgment states: “<b><i>1.- </i></b><i>Without specifying a time, but on April 10, 1997, the defendants here, Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, using their status as officials of the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs (CONAI), appeared in the company of some MINAE officials at the monthly meeting held by the members of the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Reserve in the Tsi Ni Kichá Community Hall, located in the center of Nairi, in the third district of Pacuarito, of the Canton of Siquirres, Province of Limón. <b>2.-</b> At said meeting, Rojas Sánchez explained the convenience for the reserve of subscribing to the incentives offered by the National Forest Financing Fund (FONAFIFO), a mechanism through which the State, via MINAE and its conservation area systems, would recognize the work of landowners within the reserve who placed a total ban on the exploitation of certain forest areas. <b>3.-</b></i> <i>That in that same act, the defendants, by common agreement and using the humility and simplicity of the offended parties, offered to process a contract with FONAFIFO that would cover approximately six hundred hectares of forest, for a sum of thirty million colones, which they would obtain gradually over the course of five years, also indicating to them that the only requirement for this to be possible was for the president of the reserve to sign a document that Guido Rojas was carrying, who would personally handle the subsequent procedures. <b>4.-</b> That the defendants here, concealing true facts, made the false virtues and benefits of the offer believable, thus inducing both the president and the members of the Nairi-Awari reserve into error, whereby the president of the reserve at that time, Mr. Otilio López Brenes, who could not read or write, only sign, proceeded to sign the document provided to him by the defendants, the foregoing as a sign of consent, convinced that with said act, the community he represented would benefit from the incentives granted by FONAFIFO and never with the intention of attesting to the false possession (posesión) that the defendants would hold over lands of the reserve, much less to authorize them to retain resources in the name of the Nairi-Awari indigenous reserve. <b>5.-</b> That on November 20, 1997, the accused Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, taking advantage of the document signed by Mr. Otilio López Brenes, signed contracts with FONAFIFO Nos. 037-97-ACLAC and 038-97-ACLAC, respectively, each in the capacity of possessor of a property located in the Cimarrones hamlet, Pacuarito district, Canton of Siquirres, province of Limón, which are part of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, with a total area of 1860.32 hectares and 1860.32 hectares, respectively. Through said contracts, the defendants committed to executing a forest protection project; Rojas Sánchez on an area of 177.3596 hectares and Obando Mayorga on an area of 145.0422 hectares, in accordance with resolutions No. 091-97 OSSM and 092-97 OSSM, respectively. <b>6.-</b> That at the end of the month of July of 1999, members of the new Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari reserve appeared at FONAFIFO, with a copy of the new legal status (personería jurídica) in order to obtain a copy of the file, and it is at that moment that they realized that the files were not in the name of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve Development Association; but rather, in the personal names of Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, who in April 1997 had induced Mr. Otilio López Brenes into error, taking advantage of his humility and simplicity; as well as the members of the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Reserve, because in reality the document that had been signed on that occasion was <u>a kind of acknowledgment of the supposed possession</u> that the accused held over some farms within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. <b>7.-</b> In the same vein, they managed to discover on that occasion that the financial incentives that the accused had offered for the Nairi-Awari reserve had been processed through the National Forest Financing Fund (FONAFIFO), based on a report from the Limón Conservation Area, Siquirres Subregional Office, and that they had indeed been approved by the corresponding authority; however, they were never delivered to the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve Development Association, as was appropriate, but rather were processed in the personal names of Guido Rojas Sánchez and Pedro Obando Mayorga, who by that time had already illegitimately appropriated the sums of 3,369,740 and 2,755,800 colones respectively, as evident from the Forest Payment Certificates (Certificados de Abono Forestal) issued by FONAFIFO Nos. 043922, 04392, 048665 in the name of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga; and Nos. 043917, 043918 and 048748 in the name of the accused Guido Rojas Sánchez, received in conformity by signature of the defendants. <b>5.</b> The defendants GUIDO HUMBERTO ROJAS SÁNCHEZ and PEDRO GERARDO OBANDO MAYORGA do not have previous criminal judgments.” </i>(folios 617 to 619). For these facts, the Court sentenced the co-defendants to one year in prison for the crime of aggravated fraud (estafa mayor), to the detriment of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve. In this regard, Article 216 of the Penal Code, referring to the illicit act in question, states in relevant part: “<i>Whoever, inducing another person into error or maintaining them in it, through the simulation of false facts or through the distortion or concealment of true facts, using them to obtain an unlawful patrimonial benefit for themselves or for a third party, injures another's patrimony…”.</i> The configuration of the crime of fraud requires the existence of a “scheme” (ardid) procured by the active agent, in order to obtain an unlawful patrimonial benefit, to the detriment of another's. That deception, required by the criminal statute, besides being suitable for achieving the intended unlawful objective, must respond to the fraudulent action of the one who intends, through such mechanism, to obtain said patrimonial advantage and injure another's patrimony. Regarding the latter, it is necessary to demonstrate that the economic benefit that intends to damage said another's patrimony is a direct consequence of the deceptive action that the perpetrator fraudulently exercised. Regarding the passive subject, it must be someone who, induced into deception through the initiated criminal scheme, is in a position to adopt the harmful patrimonial disposition. Regarding the case at hand, the lower court (a quo) established that the co-defendants Rojas Sánchez and Obando Mayorga appeared at the Association's meeting with the sole purpose of convincing them to sign a document through which, apparently, they could collect the incentives that the State, through the National Forest Financing Fund (hereinafter FONAFIFO) of MINAE, offered as recognition of the work of landowners located within the Reserve who placed a ban on the exploitation of certain forest areas. With that objective, the only thing the defendants asked for was the signature of the President of the Association's Board of Directors, which at that time fell to Mr. Otilio. Likewise, the judges held as true that, within the criminal plan that the co-accused deployed, they knew perfectly well that, to collect the mentioned incentives, it was necessary to be possessors of the lands within the Nairi-Awari Reserve, a condition they also knew they did not hold, not only because they never had that option, but also because they were not indigenous people belonging to said ethnic circumscription, as will be explained more thoroughly when addressing the other arguments in other Considerandos of this judgment. That is why both co-defendants take advantage of the good faith of the members of the Association's Board of Directors, who, according to their statements given in the adversarial proceedings, stated they had trust in them given that they were officials representing the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs (CONAI), that is, they were high-ranking officials of the highest representation in our country of the interests of indigenous peoples. In this way, the accused use all these circumstances to obtain through deception the signature of Otilio López Brenes for the purpose of falsely accrediting themselves as possessors of lands within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. In summary, it was proven for the Court that: “…<i>through deceptions regarding the false promise of ensuring that the Nairi-Awari community, represented by the Integral Development Association, would obtain the benefit of FONAFIFO incentive payments, the defendants manage to obtain the signature of the then president of the Association, Mr. Otilio, with which, instead of processing the payment of incentives before FONAFIFO in favor of the Nairi-Awari community as they falsely made the members of the Association believe, they did so in their own favor, using Mr. Otilio's signature to fabricate a false certification of possession (certificación de posesión) over plots number 25 and 24, which the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga and Guido Rojas Sánchez use to make their respective applications before FONAFIFO, as can be seen in Files 056-97-M and 055-97-M at folios 51 and 53 respectively.”</i> (folio 692). In addition to this, it is important to highlight in the judgment that, to access the way in which the use or possession of the reserve lands is distributed, as well as the communal nature of the property, one must live in and belong to the ethnic group that inhabits said reserve, which means that, in this case, they must speak Cabécar and live within the geographical demarcation of their territory, aspects that are part of their tradition, likewise the transcendental role that the local Indigenous Development Association plays in making decisions related to the lands belonging to the Reserve. Under this perspective, it was established that none of the defendants met the requirements to be possessors of lands within the community for the simple reason that they did not form part of this indigenous group, as several witnesses reported during the debate. This explains, then, the reason why the defendants had to go to the President of the Board of Directors of the local Association to request his signature, under the false excuse that they needed his signature to carry out the procedures before FONAFIFO and thus collect the incentives for environmental services, since only the Association was authorized to give the corresponding approval to carry out any procedure that affected or impacted the lands of the Reserve. As the judges correctly indicate, “…<i>for them, land ownership belongs to everyone and possession is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or at least living within the indigenous community” </i>(folio 695), all under the supervision and authorization of the Association's Board of Directors. In accordance with the foregoing, the accused, using their status as officials of a state entity, knowing they did not inhabit the Nairi-Awari community and were not possessors of any land within it—precisely because they were indigenous people foreign to the cited ethnic reserve—deceived the members of the Board of Directors, making them believe that the money they would obtain from FONAFIFO would benefit the local community, money which, as witness Walter Pérez López indicates, “…<i>we thought we are going to use it in the cableway project, widen lanes, clean roads, community aid. That was the first time payment for environmental services was being offered. Of the two, Guido and Pedro, both spoke like that, that this money is going to come out for the community” </i>(folio 648), but which never reached the hands of the Association, but rather they pocketed it for their own benefit, also deceiving the cited state National Fund. The appellant alleges a lack of active standing (legitimación activa) on the part of the civil plaintiff by virtue of the fact that the money from payment for environmental services received by her client—¢2,755,800 colones, according to the proven facts, folio 619—did not form part of the Association's patrimony, but rather properly of the Costa Rican State, which, in her opinion, would be the true affected and offended party in this case, which did not exercise any action in this regard. Although the judges admit that the State was indeed also affected by the illicit maneuver implemented by the defendants, this does not exclude that the local indigenous Association was also directly offended, as explained in the previous considerations outlined by the judgment, which allow an understanding of the reasons that justify the capacity to bring civil action by the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve Integral Development Association, given that the latter ceased to receive the money from the state payment certificates (certificados de abono estatal) just as the defendants offered to obtain, who ultimately appropriated them as was demonstrated. Certainly, the deceived subject and the patrimonially injured party usually coincide, but they can well be different. In this case, the thesis of the public defender cannot be accepted, which starts from the premise that the crime of fraud only occurs if the one who performs the dispositive act is exclusively the injured party, that is, the owner of the patrimony, ignoring that said illicit act also admits other modalities, such as the case of “triangular fraud” (estafa triangular). On this aspect, Creus states: “<i>When the passive subject of the fraud is not the owner of the patrimony of the offended party, the latter is the injured party, but the former is the passive subject of the fraud and the one who must meet the characteristics proper to that subject figure: in such cases, it is enough that they can make the harmful patrimonial disposition for the third party's patrimony, even if they do not have a legal power to dispose on behalf of the latter; it is sufficient, then, that they materially dispose of the object that constitutes the benefit or that they can decide in some way on it…” </i>(CREUS, Carlos. Derecho Penal. Parte Especial. Tomo I, Quinta Edición, Editorial Astrea. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 1995. p. 503).&nbsp;<i> </i>For his part, Francisco Castillo indicates: &quot;<i>The crime of fraud requires identity between the deceived and the one who performs the dispositive act, but does not presuppose identity between the one who performs the dispositive act and the injured party… it can happen that the author deceives a person and that the deceived person disposes, as a result of the error, of another's patrimony.”</i> (Castillo González, Francisco, El Delito de Estafa, Editorial Juritexto, San José, Costa Rica, 2001, pp. 168 and 169.)&nbsp; The legal scenarios set forth by the cited doctrine occur precisely in those cases where a third party (passive subject of the fraud) is deceived to make a patrimonial disposition that belongs to another subject (injured party), to the economic detriment of the latter. In the present case, the Court had duly accredited the constituent elements of the crime of fraud, beginning with the error that the accused caused the Nairi-Awari Integral Development Association to incur, who, in representation of the local community, were the only ones authorized to give the approval for proceeding to manage the procedures for collecting the incentives from the state fund for payment for environmental services. Thus, by obtaining the signature of the President of the Board of Directors on a blank paper, they managed to carry out said procedures but to procure for themselves an unlawful patrimonial benefit that they well knew did not belong to them in any way, but was for the benefit of the local indigenous community. It must be clarified that, according to indigenous customs, the development associations constitute the bodies expressly authorized to grant the corresponding authorizations for any procedure carried out within the community, especially if it has a direct relationship with the lands of the Reserve. In that sense, it was clear that FONAFIFO authorized the respective disbursements of money to the accused, because they presented the spurious document signed by Mr. Otilio, which falsely stated—as was proven—that both co-defendants were possessors of two plots of land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve. Without said proof or authorization, the accused would in no way have been able to access that money, at least in direct relation to lands of said indigenous reserve. From this perspective, it is understood that the error that the Board of Directors of the Nairi-Awari Integral Development Association was made to incur motivated the authorization to initiate the procedures before FONAFIFO under the false belief that the money would be for the community, who, by their quality as representatives of the members of the Cabecar community of Nairi-Awari, were the ones who could give the approval to dispose of the mentioned state fund upon which the patrimonial injury fell, thus configuring, in their total structure, the components of fraud that ensure and legitimize the capacity of said Association to bring civil action against the accused, as well as to file any proceeding in that sense, independently of whether FONAFIFO did not do so, for whatever reasons. From the same document filing the civil claim (demanda civil) by the Special Judicial Representative of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve Integral Development Association, found in the Civil Damages Action (Acción Civil Resarcitoria) file, it is verified that the character that justifies its action is based on the fact that said Association is the owner of the property right of the indigenous territory, and the Board of Directors is the representative of the Indigenous Community, a document in which, in turn, a broad explanation is provided of the territorial situation and the legal system that applies to these types of jurisdictions, recognized by the legal system. Thus, this Chamber does not find that any defect exists allowing the accepting of the reproach initiated by the public defender of the accused Pedro Obando Mayorga, with the active standing of the indigenous Association to file the respective monetary claims for material damage, in its capacity as civil plaintiff, being clear, for which reason this aspect of the appeal is rejected. </span></span><span style='font-family:"Vrinda","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#010101'>[…]</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#010101;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold'>&nbsp;III. </span><span style='font-family:"Vrinda","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#010101;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold'>[…] </span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";color:#010101;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>C</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#010101'>ontrary to the appellant's thinking, the Court held the commission of the crime of fraud as proven, as set forth in the previous Considerando. The appellant starts from her own conviction to indicate that her client did possess plot number 24 located within the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve, when the truth is that the judgment demonstrated, for several reasons, the impossibility of Obando Mayorga being the possessor of that property, specifically due to the fact that he did not live in or belong to said Reserve and did not speak the Cabécar language. According to the statement of witness Eladio Madriz Salazar, the distribution of lands is done only among those who inhabit the Nairi-Awari reserve, whose name in the indigenous language is “<i>Toloc Sacú</i>”, so that “<i>…a person who is not from Nairi Awari cannot be the owner of those plots” </i>(folio 634), adding that any transfer made of said properties to other members of the same reserve requires the authorization of the entire Community and, mainly, of the Board of Directors of the Association. He also added that it is possible to do business among the same inhabitants of the community, but not with people, including indigenous people, who come from other communities. Likewise, he emphasized that it is an indispensable requirement for belonging to the Community to speak their same language, that is, the Cabécar language (folio 635). His assertions were confirmed by other witnesses, such as Andrés Aguilar Morales (folio 637), who even expressly affirmed that the two accused have never had a plot in Nairi-Awari, also adding an important fact, which is that when Guido and Pedro appeared on behalf of CONAI at the Association meeting, which took place in the community hall called “<i>Tsi Ni Kichá</i>”, to explain the benefits of obtaining the forest resources provided by FONAFIFO, they explained it in Spanish, because “<i>…they are not Cabécar”</i> (folio 638); also witness Otilio López Brenes endorsed what was said by the previous declarants, who clarified that the customs of the reserve regarding land ownership are that the elders or parents indicate whether land can be distributed or not among the inhabitants of the community, with prior authorization from the Association. Likewise, he clarified that “<i>it is only for the families and children who live with him, not for those who come from far away. Indigenous people are those who were born there and are always there. If an indigenous person from another community arrives in Nairi Awari, like from Bribrí, from other lands, they are not recognized because they come from far away and are from another clan. Even if they pay money? The lands are not sold to people who come from far away. A person who comes from far away is not recognized as indigenous</i> […] <i>I met Guido and Pedro at CONAI, they do not live in the reserve” </i>(folio 640). In the same vein as the previous, witness Juan Ramón Madriz Salazar declared that both co-defendants have never had lands within the Reserve (folio 644); for his part, Walter Pérez López pointed out the same (folio 648). Based on these statements, the Court, by majority, reached the conclusion that the defendants Guido Humberto and Pedro Gerardo have never been possessors of the lands within the Nairi-Awari reserve, Barbilla sector. Thus, they said: “…<i>their statements were clear, concordant </i>(sic)<i> and forceful regarding the way in which the use or possession of the reserve lands is distributed, since as they have it very clear because it is part of their tradition, for them, land ownership belongs to everyone and possession is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or at least living within the indigenous community </i>(sic)<i>. All four were emphatic in pointing out that neither of the defendants, neither GUIDO HUMBERTO nor PEDRO GERARDO, have exercised any possession over any land within the Nairi-Awari Reserve.” </i>(folio 695).

Their action consisted, in the opinion of the majority judges, which this Chamber shares, in arriving at the Association meeting moved by the sole purpose of convincing them to agree to sign a blank document through which, ostensibly, they were going to benefit from the forest incentives provided by the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal. For that purpose, the accused necessarily required the signature of the witness Otilio, who was serving on that date as president of the Board of Directors, to authorize the co-defendants (cojusticiables) to carry out said proceeding. It was demonstrated, on the contrary, that far from establishing a positive contact between the Association and FONAFIFO, the accused proceeded to fill out the blank document to make said institution believe that both of them were possessors of parcels within the Nairi-Awari indigenous reserve, illegitimately obtaining, at the expense of the injured community, the incentives provided by the aforementioned fund, since both accused knew beforehand that, to collect the FONAFIFO incentives, one was required to be a possessor of lands within the reserve, a circumstance they managed to astutely accredit when, subsequently, they used Mr. Otilio's signature for that purpose before the state fund. They obtained that signature by prior deception into which they led all the members of the Association, causing economic patrimonial harm, not only to the state entity as established by the ruling, but also to the indigenous community itself, which ceased to receive the items that the accused had offered to arrange, money that never reached the Association. In this way, it was demonstrated beyond any doubt that the defendants indeed incurred in the crime of fraud (estafa) as is evident from the facts that were taken as proven (folios 617-619), and it is false that they possessed lands peacefully and uninterruptedly as the appellant claims in her brief, since it was demonstrated that such a hypothesis never occurred. [...] **IV.** [...] The complainant starts from an erroneous criterion of assessment when he affirms that his client was "dispossessed extrajudicially" (despojó por vías de hecho) of the possession he exercised over parcel number 25, which is not true since, as indicated in previous Recitals (Considerandos) of this resolution, it was taken as accredited that the accused Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez was not a possessor of any land within the territory of the reserve, so one cannot speak of the existence of the "dispossession" (despojo) to which the appellant alludes because he did not even have the possibility of exercising any act of possession in this regard, as the majority vote concluded. Furthermore, the Chamber appreciates that the legislation concerning indigenous communities was interpreted and applied correctly, as occurs in the present case. In this regard, it is important to indicate that both international and domestic legislation have taken care to regulate the rights of indigenous peoples over the territories they occupy, seeking their gradual integration into national development while respecting, at the same time, the constituent elements of their culture. Within that line, the consideration of their customary law (derecho consuetudinario), based on their customs and traditions which cannot be ignored, under the guise of affecting their very identity, is of special relevance, provided they are not incompatible with the fundamental rights defined by the national legal system or with internationally recognized human rights. In that sense, according to the provisions of ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, of the General Conference of the International Labour Organization, which was approved in our country through Law No. 7316 of November 3, 1992, its Article 2 recognizes the consciousness of their indigenous or tribal identity as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of the referenced regulation apply. Likewise, its Article 8, subsection 1), expressly states that: *"In applying national laws and regulations to the peoples concerned, due regard shall be had to their customs or customary laws."* In Article 14, the Convention recognizes to indigenous peoples the right of ownership and possession over the lands which they traditionally occupy, and in Article 13, subsection 1), governments are obliged to respect the special importance for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned of their relationship with the lands or territories, or both as applicable, which they occupy or otherwise use, and in particular the collective aspects of that relationship. On the other hand, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, of Convention 169, the "modalities of transmission" of rights over lands among the members of the peoples concerned established by those peoples must be respected. Its subsection 3) also indicates the importance of preventing persons outside these peoples from being able to take advantage of their customs or of their members' lack of knowledge of the laws to arrogate to themselves the ownership, possession, or use of the lands belonging to them. ILO Convention 169 was the subject of a mandatory legislative consultation, and on that occasion, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), through resolution No. 3003-92, at 11:30 a.m., of October 7, 1992, noted the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples that are embodied both in the cited Convention and in Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena) No. 6172. In this regard, it considered that: *"1. The Convention consulted, within the general scope of the matters entrusted to the International Labour Organization (ILO), embodies in an internationally enforceable legal instrument a series of rights, freedoms, and economic, social, and cultural conditions aimed not only at strengthening the dignity and essential attributes of indigenous peoples as human beings, but also, mainly, at providing specific means so that their condition as human beings is fully realized in view of their deprived situation, at times even exploited and mistreated* [...] *Today, in the field of human rights, it is recognized, in summary: a) That it is necessary to recognize to indigenous peoples, in addition to the fullness of their rights and freedoms as human beings, other legally guaranteed conditions through which to compensate for the inequality and discrimination to which they are subjected, with the purpose of guaranteeing their real and effective equality in all aspects of social life; b) That it is also necessary to guarantee respect for and the conservation of the historical and cultural values of indigenous populations, recognizing their peculiarity, without any limitation other than the need to preserve, at the same time, the dignity and fundamental values of all human beings recognized today by the civilized world—which implies that respect for the traditions, language, religion, and generally the culture of these peoples only admits as exceptions those necessary to eradicate practices universally considered inhuman, such as cannibalism—..."* Regarding the national legislation that incorporated the international norms, the ruling states the following: *"7. In the same way, the Indigenous Law, No. 6172 of November 29, 1977, developed, and in some aspects surpassed, the international obligations contracted by Costa Rica; for it reserved important portions of its territory for indigenous peoples, trying to prevent them from being registered as private property of others. It granted full legal personality and standing (personería) and legal capacity to their communities to direct their activities and decide on their goods; it allowed them to exploit the natural reserves within their territories and prohibited the extraction of archaeological objects from their cemeteries. The National Commission on Indigenous Affairs (Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, CONAI) was created by Law No. 5251 of June 1973, as the unifying body for indigenous communities, also composed of representatives of various State institutions, legislation that is pioneering in our continent."* Likewise, regarding the legality of Convention 169, the ruling points out that in its articles, there does not appear to be anything that, correctly interpreted and applied, could contravene the Law of the Constitution, with the Constitutional Court concluding that, far from containing confrontations with the Constitution of our country, *"...the Convention reflects the most cherished values of our democratic nationality, developing the human rights of Costa Rican indigenous peoples and can be a starting point to initiate a review of secondary legislation to adapt it to these needs."* For its part, in accordance with the provisions of Indigenous Law No. 6172, of November 29, 1977, published in La Gaceta No. 240 of December 20, 1977, its Article 3 indicates that indigenous reserves are inalienable and imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive for the indigenous communities that inhabit them. It also indicates that non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or farms (fincas) comprised within the reservations. It further adds that indigenous persons may only negotiate their lands with other indigenous persons, making it clear that any transfer or negotiation of lands or improvements thereof in the indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null and void, with the legal consequences of the case. This Law was regulated by Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 8487-G of April 26, 1978, and through Executive Decree No. 13568 of April 30, 1982, it is established that the Integral Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral) have the legal representation of the Indigenous Communities and act as their local government. According to judgment of the Constitutional Chamber No. 2007-16213, at 11:52 a.m., of November 9, 2007, the Integral Development Associations were qualified as *"representative institutions"* of the inhabitants of the reserves, charged with representing the indigenous communities judicially and extrajudicially, adding that *"...They constitute the only form of representation that allows the inhabitants of the indigenous reserves to exercise fundamental individual or collective rights."* Thus, in accordance with the principles enshrined both in Convention No. 169 and in Indigenous Law No. 6172, the provisions that complement it as well as the prevailing indigenous customs in their own communities, it is possible to understand the substantive reasons provided by the ruling when it applies the cited legal norms, regardless of whether the appellant shares them or not, who limits himself to providing his own explanation of how the legal framework cited by the lower court (a quo) should have been applied to the case before us, setting forth a series of considerations that do not demonstrate the erroneous application of the substantive law as is his claim. According to the indigenous witnesses—inhabitants of the Nairi-Awari Reserve—who attended the trial, the majority Court notes that, according to their customs, for them the ownership of the land located in the reserve or circumscription belongs to all, and possession is only exercised by those who are making use of the land or, at least, living within the indigenous community. In that sense, it is understood that indigenous property possesses a special ownership regime, as explained by Eladio Brenes Salazar, Andrés Aguilar Morales, Otilio López Brenes, and Walter Pérez López during the adversarial proceedings, it being an indispensable requirement to belong to the Nairi-Awari Reserve to possess its lands. Regarding this, it was clarified that both co-defendants (cojusticiables), not being part of the Nairi-Awari Indigenous Reserve because they do not speak the Cabécar language and, in general, because they do not belong to this ethnic group, were never possessors of any land within the Community. For the majority Court, the foregoing assertions that the referenced witnesses reiterated find full support in the provisions of Article 3 of Indigenous Law No. 6172, which indicates as relevant that indigenous reserves are "exclusive for the indigenous communities that inhabit them," to which this Chamber adds what Article 2 of the said Law indicates, by declaring as property of the indigenous communities that inhabit them, the reserves delimited by law. In this way, it can be concluded without any objection that the law safeguards and defends the rights of the communities regarding their own lands, preventing indigenous persons from other reserves or non-indigenous persons from being able to access possession of their lands by virtue of the customs and traditions they apply concerning the transmission modalities they have established internally within the community, which must be respected in accordance with the provisions of Articles 8, 13, and 14 of Convention No. 169. In light of the foregoing reflections, the majority vote concludes by stating, with sound legal judgment, the following: *"It is clear that the effective fulfillment of this agreement is incompatible with the possibility that a person outside the Nairi-Awari community could exercise possession of its lands without being a member of said community and, worse yet, without even living there and being part of their group. This implies, as the indigenous witnesses already mentioned and heard during the trial rightly said, that they share the same language, because it is through language that indigenous peoples have been transmitting their customs and traditions from generation to generation, making it incompatible with respect for said agreement that a person who does not even speak their language and who therefore has not learned, understood, and incorporated their norms into their value system, comes to exercise possession of their lands coming from other communities (even if they are indigenous, as the witnesses rightly clarified), when they neither live there nor understand their traditions, because they do not even understand their language. The defendants GUIDO HUMBERTO and PEDRO GERARDO, placing their personal economic interests above, coming from other communities, without even speaking the Cabécar language spoken within the Nairi-Awari Reserve and therefore without understanding its customs and traditions, and worse yet, Government officials charged with safeguarding and protecting the interests of the country's indigenous communities whose only contact with the Nairi-Awari community was solely for work reasons, could not legitimately take advantage of that advantageous situation to the detriment of the rights of the persons who were living within the community, going so far as to identify themselves as possessors of lands they well knew they were not, to collect benefits that for those lands could only be collected by the indigenous community represented by the Integral Development Association that represents them."* (folio 698). At the same time, as stipulated in Article 17 of Convention 169, the Court points out that the "modalities of transmission" of rights over lands among the members of indigenous communities must be respected, modes which, in the case of the Nairi-Awari Reserve, were referred to by the witnesses from said Community who testified at trial, indicating, by way of synthesis, that the custom in said reserve is that the elders or parents indicate whether or not land can be distributed, for which the authorization of the Association is also required. As Otilio López Brenes indicated, it is only for the families or children who live in the community, not for those who "come from far away," explaining that *"if an indigenous person from another community arrives at Nairi Awari, like from Bribrí, from other lands, they are not recognized because they come from far away and are from another clan,"* (folio 640). In other words, excluded from the condition of possessors are not only non-indigenous persons, but also indigenous persons from other regions, for not forming part of the respective community, alien to its customs and traditions which are transmitted orally from "generation to generation," as the majority vote indicates, and which vary according to the community in question (Cabécar, Huetar, Chorotega, Maleku), as confirmed by the same co-defendant (coencartado) Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez (folio 630), who admitted to being an indigenous Huetar from Quitirrisí de Mora (folio 626), while the defendant Pedro is a native of Ujarrás, as stated by the witness José Manuel Paniagua (folio 659). In accordance with the foregoing, this Chamber does not perceive that the Court, in its majority vote, erred in the application of the substantive legal framework concerning indigenous populations, an interpretation that aids in understanding the reasons why the commission of the crime of fraud (estafa) by the defendants is established. [...] **V.** [...] Regardless of the fact that the figure of development associations is not native to or typical of indigenous peoples, but rather something imposed from without, the truth is that its configuration and structure were assumed by their representatives, not signifying any obstacle for them to govern and direct their respective communities. On the contrary, it facilitates that the collective property or title of the lands be reflected at the registry level, upon being registered in the Property Registry (Registro de la Propiedad) in the name of the respective integral development associations, which judicially and extrajudicially represent said communities and which group together and coordinate the members who inhabit the indigenous community, within a specific territorial circumscription. It should be clarified that the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber that it cites in support of its submission (3002-92) bears no connection to its claim. As for vote number 1867-1995, at 4:51 a.m., of April 5, 1995, also invoked in this section, it establishes that, according to cited Convention No. 169, it is obligatory to recognize validity to the juridical, material, and procedural institutions of each indigenous community and, consequently, also to their execution or application organs, *"...without any other caveat than the necessary respect for the fundamental rights recognized by the Law of the Constitution—both those derived from constitutional norms and from its principles or from the norms or principles of international human rights law—as well as the norms or principles of fundamental public order of the Costa Rican legal system; the latter, of course, rigorously interpreted and applied, i.e., without analogical or extensive criteria."* What that vote imparts applies to the specific case, upon verifying that the Nairi-Awari Development Association did not curtail the fundamental rights of the accused as argued by the challenger, who alleges a supposed extrajudicial dispossession (despojo por vías de hecho) of his client, which was proven false. In synthesis, it is not verified that the fundamental guarantees recognized in our constitutional legal framework were curtailed for his client, since the action of the association members in filing the complaint against the co-defendants (cojusticiables) stems from the harm caused to them by the illicit acts perpetrated by them, without any error being verified in the reasoning of the majority ruling."

“II.- Recurso de casación interpuesto por la licenciada Lupita Polanco Obando, defensora pública del acusado Pedro Obando Mayorga. Como segundo motivo de su disconformidad (folios 736-737), reclama falta de legitimación activa de la parte demandante civil. Estima que de haberse incurrido en el delito de estafa, el verdadero afectado sería el patrimonio del Estado y no la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Nairi-Awari, en virtud de que el dinero por pago de servicios ambientales percibido por su defendido, nunca formó parte del patrimonio de dicha Asociación, razón por la que, a su entender, carece dicha Asociación de legitimidad para interponer su acusación y cobrar la acción civil, de modo que se está condenando civilmente a los imputados a hacer un pago que no corresponde, porque el ofendido -el Estado-, nunca accionó en este proceso. El reclamo no resulta de recibo. Para una mejor comprensión del tema, objeto de impugnación por parte de la recurrente, resulta necesario acudir a los hechos que el Tribunal, por mayoría, tuvo por acreditados en la presente causa, con el fin de comprender las razones jurídicas que le asisten a la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la Reserva Indígena Nairi-Awari, como legitimado para interponer la demanda de acción civil en la presente causa, contra ambos justiciables. Así, el fallo indica: “1.- Sin precisar hora, pero en fecha 10 de abril de 1997, los aquí imputados Guido Rojas Sánchez y Pedro Obando Mayorga, valiéndose de su condición de funcionarios de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI), se presentaron en compañía de algunos funcionarios del MINAE, a la reunión mensual que celebraban los miembros de la Junta Directiva de la Reserva de Nairi-Awari en el Salón Comunal de Tsi Ni Kichá, ubicado en el centro de Nairi, en distrito tercero de Pacuarito, del Cantón de Siquirres, Provincia de Limón. 2.- En dicha reunión Rojas Sánchez explicó la conveniencia para la reserva de suscribirse a los incentivos que ofrecía el Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (FONAFIFO), mecanismo por medio del cual el Estado a través del MINAE y sus sistemas de zonas de conservación, reconocería la labor de los propietarios de terrenos de la reserva que pusieran veda total a la explotación de ciertas áreas forestales. 3.- Que en ese mismo acto los imputados de común acuerdo y valiéndose de la humildad y sencillez de los ofendidos, ofrecen a éstos tramitar un contrato con FONAFIFO que abarcaría aproximadamente seiscientas hectáreas de bosque, por una suma de treinta millones de colones, los cuales obtendrían paulatinamente con el transcurso de cinco años, indicándoseles asimismo, que el único requisito para que lo indicado fuera posible, era que el presidente de la reserva firmara un documento que llevaba Guido Rojas, quien personalmente se encargaría de realizar los subsiguientes trámites. 4.- Que los aquí imputados, ocultando hechos verdaderos hicieron creer las falsas bondades y beneficios del ofrecimiento, induciendo así a error tanto al presidente como a los miembros de reserva Nairi-Awari, por lo que el presidente de la reserva, para ese entonces, señor Otilio López Brenes, quien no sabía leer ni escribir, solamente firmar, procedió a rubricar el documento que le facilitaron los imputados, lo anterior como señal de consentimiento, convencido de que con dicho acto, la comunidad que representaba se beneficiaría de los incentivos otorgados por FONAFIFO y nunca con la intención de dar fe de la falsa posesión que ostentarían los imputados sobre terrenos de la reserva y mucho menos para autorizar que retuviesen recursos a nombre de la reserva indígena Nairi-Awari. 5.- Que el 20 de noviembre de 1997, los encartados Guido Rojas Sánchez y Pedro Obando Mayorga, aprovechándose del documento firmado por el señor Otilio López Brenes, firmaron contratos con FONAFIFO Nos. 037-97-ACLAC y 038-97-ACLAC, respectivamente, en condición de poseedores cada uno, de un inmueble ubicado en el caserío Cimarrones, distrito Pacuarito, Cantón de Siquirres, provincia de Limón, los cuales son parte de la Reserva Indígena Nairi-Awari, con un área total de 1860.32 hectáreas y 1860.32 hectáreas, respectivamente. Por medio de dichos contratos, los imputados se comprometieron a ejecutar un proyecto de protección de bosque; Rojas Sánchez en un área de 177.3596 hectáreas y Obando Mayorga en un área de 145.0422 hectáreas, de acuerdo con las resoluciones No. 091-97 OSSM y 092-97 OSSM, respectivamente. 6.- Que a finales del mes de julio del años noventa y nueve, miembros de la nueva Junta Directiva de la reserva Nairi-Awari se presentaron al FONAFIFO, con la copia de la nueva personería jurídica a fin de obtener copia del expediente, y es en ese momento, que se percataron de que los expedientes no estaban a nombre de la Asociación de Desarrollo de la Reserva Indígena de Nairi-Awari; sino más bien, a nombre personal de Guido Rojas Sánchez y Pedro Obando Mayorga, quienes en abril de 1997, habían inducido a error al señor Otilio López Brenes, aprovechándose de su humildad y sencillez; así como, a los miembros de la Junta Directiva de la Reserva Nairi-Awari, pues en realidad el documento que se había firmado en aquella oportunidad era una especie de reconocimiento sobre la supuesta posesión que tenían los encartados de algunas fincas dentro de la Reserva Nairi-Awari. 7.- En igual sentido lograron descubrir en aquella oportunidad que los incentivos económicos que habían ofrecido los encartados para la reserva Nairi-Awari, se habían tramitado por medio del Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (FONAFIFO), con base en un informe del Área de Conservación de Limón, Subregional de Siquirres, y que efectivamente habían sido aprobados por parte de la autoridad correspondiente; no obstante, nunca fueron entregados a la Asociación de Desarrollo de la Reserva Indígena Nairi-Awari, como correspondía, sino que se habían tramitado a nombre personal de Guido Rojas Sánchez y Pedro Obando Mayorga, quienes para ese momento ya se habían adueñado de manera ilegítima de las sumas de 3.369.740 y 2.755.800 de colones respectivamente, según se desprende de los certificados de Abono Forestal extendidos por FONAFIFO Nos. 043922, 04392, 048665 a nombre del encartado Pedro Obando Mayorga; y Nos. 043917, 043918 y 048748 a nombre del encartado Guido Rojas Sánchez, recibidos a conformidad mediante firma por parte de los imputados. 5. Los imputados GUIDO HUMBERTO ROJAS SÁNCHEZ y PEDRO GERARDO OBANDO MAYORGA no acusan juzgamientos penales anteriores.” (folios 617 a 619). Por estos hechos, el Tribunal sentenció a los coimputados a un año de prisión por el delito de estafa mayor, en perjuicio de la Reserva Indígena Nairi-Awari. Sobre el particular el artículo 216 del Código Penal, referente al ilícito en cuestión, en lo que interesa señala: “Quien induciendo a error a otra persona o manteniéndola en él, por medio de la simulación de hechos falsos o por medio de la deformación o el ocultamiento de hechos verdaderos, utilizándolos para obtener un beneficio patrimonial antijurídico para sí o para un tercero, lesione el patrimonio ajeno…”. La configuración del ilícito de estafa, aduce la existencia de un “ardid” procurado por el agente activo, a fin de obtener un beneficio patrimonial antijurídico, en perjuicio de uno ajeno. Ese engaño, requerido por el tipo penal, además de ser idóneo para lograr el objetivo antijurídico pretendido, debe responder a la acción dolosa de quien pretende, mediante tal mecanismo, obtener dicha ventaja patrimonial y lesionar el patrimonio ajeno. Sobre esto último, es preciso demostrar que el beneficio económico que pretende dañar dicho patrimonio ajeno, sea consecuencia directa de la acción engañosa que, de forma dolosa, ejerció el autor del hecho. Respecto al sujeto pasivo, tiene que ser alguien que, inducido a engaño mediante el ardid delictivo incoado, esté en condiciones de adoptar la disposición patrimonial perjudicial. Sobre el caso que nos ocupa, el a quo tuvo por establecido que los cojusticiables Rojas Sánchez y Obando Mayorga se presentaron a la reunión de la Asociación con el único fin de convencerlos para que firmaran un documento a través del cual, en apariencia, ellos podrían cobrar los incentivos que el Estado, a través del Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (en adelante FONAFIFO), del MINAE, mismos que se ofrecían como reconocimiento a la labor de los propietarios de terrenos ubicados dentro de la Reserva, que pusieran veda a la explotación de ciertas áreas forestales. Con ese objetivo, lo único que los imputados pedían era la firma del Presidente de la Junta Directiva de la Asociación, que en ese momento recaía en la persona de don Otilio. Asimismo, los jueces tuvieron por cierto que, dentro del plan delictivo que desplegaron los coencartados, ellos conocían de sobra que, para cobrar los mencionados incentivos, se requería ser poseedores de los terrenos al interno de la Reserva Nairi-Awari, condición que también sabían que no ostentaban, no sólo porque en sí nunca contaron con esa opción, sino además, porque no eran indígenas que pertenecían a dicha circunscripción étnica, según se explicará más a fondo al entrar a resolver los otros alegatos en otros Considerandos de esta sentencia. Es por ello que ambos cojusticiables se aprovechan de la buena fe de los miembros de la Junta Directiva de la Asociación, quienes de acuerdo con sus relatos vertidos en el contradictorio, manifestaron tenerles confianza en vista de que se trataba de funcionarios que representaban a la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (por sus siglas, CONAI), es decir, de ser altos jerarcas de la máxima representación en nuestro país de los intereses de los pueblos indígenas. De esta forma, los acusados se valen de todas estas circunstancias para obtener mediante engaño la firma de Otilio López Brenes con el fin de que se les acreditara falsamente como poseedores de terrenos dentro de la Reserva Nairi-Awari. En síntesis, quedó acreditado para el Tribunal que: “…a través de engaños sobre la falsa promesa de lograr que la comunidad de Nairi-Awari representada por la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral obtuviera el beneficio del pago de incentivos de FONAFIFO, los imputados logran obtener la firma del entonces presidente de la Asociación, don Otilio, con la cual, en vez tramitar el pago de incentivos ante FONAFIFO a favor de la comunidad de Nairi-Awari como falsamente lo hicieron creer a los miembros de la Asociación, lo hicieron a favor de ellos mismos utilizando la firma del señor Otilio para confeccionar una falsa certificación de posesión sobre las parcelas número 25 y 24, la cual utilizan los encartados Pedro Obando Mayorga y Guido Rojas Sánchez para hacer sus respectiva solicitudes ante FONAFIFO, según se puede apreciar en los Expedientes 056-97-M y 055-97-M a folios 51 y 53 respectivamente.” (folio 692). Aunado a ello, es importante resaltar en la sentencia que, para acceder a la forma en que se reparte el uso o posesión de las tierras de la reserva así como el carácter comunitario que tiene la propiedad, se debe vivir y pertenecer al grupo étnico que habita en dicha reserva, lo que significa que, en este caso, deben hablar Cabécar y vivir en la demarcación geográfica de su territorio, aspectos que son parte de su tradición, lo mismo el papel trascendental que juega la Asociación de Desarrollo Indígena local, en la toma de decisiones que tiene que ver con los terrenos pertenecientes a la Reserva. Bajo esa tesitura, se tuvo por establecido que ninguno de los imputados cumplía los requisitos para ser poseedores de terrenos al interno de la comunidad por la simple razón que no formaban parte de este grupo indígena, según lo informaron varios testigos en el debate. Ello explica entonces la razón del por qué los imputados tuvieron que acudir al Presidente de la Junta Directiva de la Asociación local para solicitarle la firma, bajo la falsa excusa de que ocupaban su rúbrica para realizar las gestiones ante FONAFIFO y así cobrar los incentivos por servicios ambientales, pues sólo la Asociación era la única autorizada para dar el visto bueno correspondiente para realizar cualquier gestión que afectara o incidiera en los terrenos de la Reserva. Como bien lo indican los juzgadores, “…para ellos la propiedad de la tierra es de todos y la posesión solamente la ejercen los que se encuentran haciendo uso de la tierra o al menos viviendo dentro de la comunidad indígena” (folio 695), todo bajo la supervisión y autorización de la Junta Directiva de la Asociación. Acorde con lo expuesto, los acusados valiéndose de su condición de funcionarios de una entidad estatal, a sabiendas de que no habitaban la comunidad de Nairi-Awari y tampoco eran poseedores de terreno alguno dentro de ella -precisamente porque se trataba de indígenas ajenos a la citada reserva étnica-, engañaron a los miembros de la Junta Directiva haciéndoles creer que el dinero que obtendrían de FONAFIFO saldría en beneficio de la comunidad local, dinero que como lo indica el testigo Walter Pérez López, “…nosotros pensamos lo vamos a utilizar en el proyecto de andarivel, ampliar carriles, limpiar caminos, ayuda comunal. Esa era la primera vez que se estaban ofreciendo el pago por servicios ambientales. De ellos dos, Guido y Pedro, los dos hablaron así, que ese dinero va a salir para la comunidad” (folio 648), pero que nunca llegó a manos de la Asociación, sino que se lo embolsaron en su favor, engañando también al citado Fondo Nacional estatal. La quejosa alega falta de legitimación activa de la parte actora civil en virtud de que el dinero por pago de servicios ambientales percibidos por su representado -¢ 2,755,800 colones, según los hechos probados, folio 619-, no formó parte del patrimonio de la Asociación, sino propiamente del Estado costarricense quien, en su opinión, sería el verdadero afectado y ofendido en la presente causa, el cual no ejerció acción alguna al respecto. Aunque los juzgadores admiten que el Estado efectivamente también se vio afectado por la maniobra ilícita implementada por los justiciables, ello no excluye que también resultara ofendido directamente la Asociación indígena local, según se explica en las anteriores consideraciones esbozadas por el fallo, mismas que permiten comprender las razones que justifican la capacidad de accionar civilmente por parte de la Junta Directiva de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la Reserva Indígena de Nairi-Awari, toda vez que ésta última dejó de percibir los dineros provenientes de los certificados de abono estatal tal y como se ofrecieron conseguir los imputados, quienes en definitiva, se apoderaron de ellos según quedó demostrado. Ciertamente el sujeto engañado y el perjudicado patrimonialmente suelen coincidir, pero bien pueden ser diferentes. En la especie, no puede aceptarse la tesis de la defensora, quien parte de la premisa de que el delito de estafa sólo se produce si quien realiza el acto dispositivo es exclusivamente el perjudicado, es decir, el titular del patrimonio, obviando que dicho ilícito admite también otras modalidades como lo es el caso de la “estafa triangular”. Sobre tal aspecto refiere Creus: “Cuando el sujeto pasivo del fraude no es el titular del patrimonio del ofendido, éste es el perjudicado, pero aquel es el sujeto pasivo de la estafa y el que debe reunir las características propias de esa figura de sujeto: en tales casos, basta con que pueda tomar la disposición patrimonial perjudicial para el patrimonio del tercero, aunque no tenga una facultad jurídica para disponer por éste; es suficiente, pues, con que disponga materialmente del objeto que constituye la prestación o que pueda decidir de algún modo sobre ella…” (CREUS, Carlos. Derecho Penal. Parte Especial. Tomo I, Quinta Edición, Editorial Astrea. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 1995. p. 503). Por su parte, Francisco Castillo indica: "El delito de estafa requiere identidad entre el engañado y quien hace el acto dispositivo, pero no presupone identidad entre quien hace el acto dispositivo y el perjudicado…puede ocurrir que el autor engañe a una persona y que el engañado disponga, a raíz del error, de un patrimonio ajeno.” (Castillo González, Francisco, El Delito de Estafa, Editorial Juritexto, San José, Costa Rica, 2001, págs. 168 y 169.) Los supuestos jurídicos que expone la doctrina citada, ocurren justamente en aquellos casos en que precisamente se engaña a un tercero (sujeto pasivo de la estafa) para realizar una disposición patrimonial que pertenece a otro sujeto (perjudicado), en detrimento económico de éste último. En el presente caso, el Tribunal tuvo debidamente acreditados los elementos constitutivos del delito de estafa, comenzando por el error en que hicieron incurrir los encartados a la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Nairi-Awari, quienes en representación de la comunidad local, eran los únicos autorizados a dar el visto bueno para que se procediera a gestionar los trámites para el cobro de los incentivos del fondo estatal con miras al pago por servicios ambientales, logrando de esta manera con la obtención de la firma del Presidente de la Junta Directiva en un papel en blanco, hacer dichas gestiones pero para procurarse los imputados un beneficio patrimonial antijurídico que conocían bien que no les pertenecía de ninguna manera, sino que eran para beneficio de la comunidad local indígena. Debe aclararse que, según las costumbres indígenas, las asociaciones de desarrollo constituyen los órganos legitimados expresamente para otorgar las autorizaciones correspondientes para cualquier gestión que se haga dentro de la comunidad, máxime si tiene relación directa con los terrenos de la Reserva. En ese sentido, se tuvo claro que FONAFIFO autorizó los respectivos giros de dinero a los encartados, porque éstos presentaron el documento espurio firmado por don Otilio, en el que se hace constar –falsamente como quedó acreditado-, que ambos cojusticiables eran poseedores de dos parcelas de terrenos al interno de la Reserva de Nairi-Awari. Sin dicha constancia o autorización, de ningún modo hubieran podido los encartados acceder a esos dineros, al menos en relación directa con tierras de dicha reserva indígena. Desde esta perspectiva, se entiende que el error en que se hizo incurrir a la Junta Directa de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Nairi-Awari motivó a que se autorizara iniciar las gestiones ante FONAFIFO bajo la falsa creencia que los dineros serían para la comunidad, quienes por su calidad de representantes de los miembros de la comunidad Cabecar de Nairi-Awari, eran quienes podían dar el visto bueno para que se dispusiera del fondo estatal mencionado sobre el cual recayó la lesión patrimonial, configurándose así en su estructura total, los componentes de la estafa que aseguran y legitiman la capacidad de accionar civilmente a dicha Asociación en contra de los encartados, así como de interponer cualquier gestión en ese sentido, independientemente de que no lo haya hecho FONAFIFO, por las razones que sean. Del mismo escrito de interposición de la demanda civil por parte del Apoderado Especial Judicial de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de la reserva Indígena de Nairi-Awari, que consta en el legajo de Acción Civil Resarcitoria, se constata que el carácter que justifica su accionar, se ampara en que dicha Asociación es la titular del derecho de propiedad del territorio indígena, y la Junta Directiva, la representante de la Comunidad Indígena, documento en el que a su vez, se brinda una amplia explicación de la situación territorial y del sistema jurídico que se aplica a este tipo de jurisdicciones, reconocidas por el ordenamiento jurídico. Así las cosas, no advierte esta Cámara que exista vicio alguno que permita acoger el reproche incoado por la defensora pública del acusado Pedro Obando Mayorga, quedando claro la legitimación activa de la Asociación indígena para interponer los respectivos cobros pecuniarios por daño material, en su carácter de actora civil, por lo que se rechaza este extremo del recurso. […] III. […] Contrario al pensar de la recurrente, el Tribunal tuvo por acreditado la comisión del delito de estafa tal y como se expuso en el anterior Considerando. La quejosa parte de su propia convicción para indicar que su defendido sí poseyó la parcela número 24 ubicada dentro de la Reserva Indígena de Nairi-Awari, cuando lo cierto es que la sentencia demostró, por varias razones, la imposibilidad de que Obando Mayorga fuera el poseedor de ese inmueble, concretamente por el hecho de que no vivía ni pertenecía a dicha Reserva y no hablar la lengua Cabécar. Según la declaración del testigo Eladio Madriz Salazar, la distribución de tierras se hace únicamente entre los que habitan la reserva de Nairi-Awari, cuyo nombre en lengua indígena es “Toloc Sacú”, de modo que “ …no puede ser propietario de esas parcelas la persona que no sea de Nairi Awari” (folio 634), añadiendo que cualquier traspaso que se haga de dichas propiedades a otros miembros de la misma reserva, se requiere de la autorización de toda la Comunidad y, principalmente, de la Junta Directiva de la Asociación. Agregó también que sí es posible hacer negocios entre los mismos habitantes de la comunidad, pero no con personas, incluyendo indígenas, que vengan de otras comunidades. Asimismo, recalcó que constituye requisito indispensable para pertenecer a la Comunidad hablar la misma lengua de ellos es decir, la lengua Cabécar (folio 635). Sus aseveraciones resultaron confirmadas por otros testigos como es el caso de Andrés Aguilar Morales (folio 637), quien incluso afirmó expresamente que los dos encartados no han tenido parcela en Nairi-Awari, agregando también un dato importante y es el hecho de que cuando Guido y Pedro se presentaron de parte de CONAI a la reunión de la Asociación, la cual se realizó en el salón comunal denominado “Tsi Ni Kichá”, para son Cabécar” ( folio 638); también el testigo Otilio López Brenes refrendó lo dicho por los anteriores declarantes, quien aclaró que las costumbres de la reserva respecto a la propiedad de las tierras es que los mayores o padres indican si se puede repartir o no entre los habitantes de la comunidad, contando previamente con la autorización de la Asociación. Asimismo, aclaró que “ sólo para las familias e hijos que viven con él, para los que vienen de largo no. Indígenas son los que nacieron ahí y están siempre ahí. Si llega un indígena de otra comunidad a Nairi Awari como de bribrí, de otras tierras, no se reconoce porque vienen de largo y son de otro clan. ¿Aunque paguen dinero? No se venden las tierras para la gente que viene de largo. No se le reconoce como indígena a persona que viene de largo […] A Guido y Pedro los conocí en CONAI, no viven en la reserva” (folio 640). En igual sentido que los anteriores, el testigo Juan Ramón Madriz Salazar declaró que ambos cojusticiables no han tenido tierras dentro de la Reserva (folio 644); por su parte, Walter Pérez López señaló lo mismo (folio 648). Con base en dichas declaraciones, el Tribunal, por mayoría, arribó a la conclusión que los imputados Guido Humberto y Pedro Gerardo nunca han sido poseedores de los terrenos dentro de la reserva Nairi-Awari, sector Barbilla. Así, dijeron: “…sus dichos fueron claros, concordante (sic) y contundentes en cuanto a la forma en que se reparte el uso o posesión de las tierras de la reserva, ya que como lo tienen bien claro por ser parte de su tradición, para ellos la propiedad de la tierra es de todos y la posesión solamente la ejercen los que se encuentran haciendo uso de la tierra o al menos viviendo dentro de la comunidad indígenas (sic). Los cuatro fueron enfáticos al señalar que ninguno de los imputados, ni GUIDO HUMBERTO ni PEDRO GERARDO han ejercido posesión alguna sobre algún terreno dentro de la Reserva Nairi-Awari.” (folio 695). Su actuación consistió, a criterio de los jueces de mayoría, que esta Sala comparte, en llegar a la reunión de la Asociación movidos con el único fin de convencerlos para que aceptaran firmar un documento en blanco a través del cual, en apariencia, ellos iban a beneficiarse de los incentivos forestales que daba el Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, siendo que para ello, los imputados requerían necesariamente de la firma del testigo Otilio, quien fungía para esa fecha como presidente de la Junta Directiva, para que autorizara realizar dicha gestión a los cojusticiables, demostrándose, por el contrario, que lejos de establecer un contacto positivo entre la Asociación y FONAFIFO, los acusados procedieron a llenar el documento blanco para hacer creer a dicha institución, que ambos sí eran poseedores de parcelas dentro de la reserva indígena Nairi-Awari, obteniendo ilegítimamente a costa de la comunidad perjudicada, los incentivos que aporta el citado fondo, pues ambos imputados conocían de antemano que, para cobrar los incentivos de FONAFIFO, se requería ser poseedor de los terrenos dentro de la reserva, circunstancia que lograron acreditar astutamente cuando, posteriormente, utilizaron la firma de don Otilio para ese fin ante el fondo estatal, la cual obtuvieron previo engaño en que hicieron incurrir a todos los miembros de la Asociación, causando un perjuicio económico patrimonial, no solo a la entidad estatal según lo tiene por establecido el fallo, sino a la misma comunidad indígena, quien dejó de percibir los rubros que les habían ofrecido concertar los imputados, dinero que nunca llegó a la Asociación. De esta forma, se demostró sin duda alguna que los acriminados sí incurrieron en el delito de estafa según se desprende de los hechos que se tuvieron por probados (folios 617-619), resultando falso que hayan poseído tierras de forma pacífica e ininterrumpida como lo afirma la recurrente en su escrito, al demostrarse que nunca ocurrió tal hipótesis. […] IV. […] El quejoso parte de un criterio de apreciación erróneo, cuando afirma que a su defendido se le “despojó por vías de hecho” de la posesión que ejercía sobre la parcela número 25, lo que no es cierto pues como se indicó en anteriores Considerandos de esta resolución, se tuvo por acreditado que el encartado Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez no fue poseedor de terreno alguno dentro del territorio de la reserva, de modo que no se puede hablar de que existió el “despojo” al que alude el recurrente pues ni siquiera tuvo la posibilidad de ejercer acto alguno de posesión al respecto, según lo concluyó el voto de mayoría. Además, aprecia la Sala que se interpretó y aplicó correctamente la legislación referente a las comunidades indígenas, como ocurre en la especie. Al respecto, resulta importante indicar que tanto la legislación internacional como la interna se han preocupado por normar los derechos de los indígenas sobre los territorios que ocupan, procurando su integración gradual al desarrollo nacional respetando, al mismo tiempo, los elementos propios configuradores de su cultura. Dentro de esa línea reviste especial relevancia la consideración de su derecho consuetudinario, basado en sus costumbres y tradiciones que no pueden soslayarse, so capa de que se vea afectada su misma identidad, siempre que no sean incompatibles con los derechos fundamentales definidos por el sistema jurídico nacional ni con los derechos humanos internacionalmente reconocidos. En ese sentido, de acuerdo con lo estipulado por el Convenio OIT Nº 169, sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes, de la Conferencia General de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, el cual fue aprobado en nuestro país mediante Ley Nº 7316, de 3 de noviembre de 1992, en su artículo 2, reconoce la conciencia de su identidad o tribal como criterio fundamental para determinar los grupos a los que resultan aplicables las disposiciones de la referida normativa. Asimismo, en su artículo 8 inciso 1), pueblos interesados deberán tomarse debidamente en consideración sus costumbres o su derecho consuetudinario”. En el artículo 14, el Convenio reconoce a los indígenas el derecho de propiedad y de posesión sobre las tierras que tradicionalmente ocupan y, en el ordinal 13 inciso 1), se obliga a los gobiernos a respetar la importancia especial que, para las culturas y valores espirituales de los pueblos interesados, reviste su relación con las tierras y sus territorios, o con ambos, según los casos, que ocupan o utilizan de alguna otra manera, y en particular, los aspectos colectivos de esa relación. Por otro lado, de acuerdo con lo preceptuado en el artículo 17 punto 1 del Convenio 169, se deben respetar las “modalidades de transmisión” de los derechos sobre las tierras entre los miembros de los pueblos interesados, establecidas por dichos pueblos, indicándose también en su inciso 3), la importancia de impedir que personas extrañas a esos pueblos puedan aprovecharse de sus costumbres o de su desconocimiento de las leyes por parte de sus miembros para arrogarse la propiedad, la posesión o el uso de las tierras que les pertenecen. El Convenio 169 de la OIT, fue objeto de una consulta legislativa preceptiva, y en esa ocasión la Sala Constitucional, mediante resolución número 3003-92, de las 11:30 horas, del 7 de octubre de 1992, señaló el reconocimiento y amparo de los derechos de los indígenas que se plasman, tanto en el citado Convenio, como en la Ley Indígena Nº 6172. Sobre el particular consideró que: “1. El Convenio consultado, dentro del ámbito general de las materias encomendadas a la Organización Internacional de Trabajo (OIT) plasma en un instrumento internacional jurídicamente exigible, una serie de derechos, libertades y condiciones económicas, sociales y culturales tendentes, no sólo a fortalecer la dignidad y atributos esenciales a los indígenas como seres humanos, sino también, principalmente, a proveer medios específicos para que su condición de seres humanos se realice plenamente a la vista de la situación deprimida, a veces incluso explotada y maltratada […] Hoy, en el campo de los derechos humanos, se reconoce, en resumen: a) Que es necesario reconocer a los indígenas, además de la plenitud de sus derechos y libertades como seres humanos, otras condiciones jurídicamente garantizadas, mediante las cuales se logren compensar la desigualdad y discriminación a que están sometidos, con el propósito de garantizar su real y efectiva igualdad en todos los aspectos de la vida social: b) Que es también necesario garantizar el respeto y la conservación de los valores históricos y culturales de las poblaciones indígenas, reconociendo su peculiaridad, sin otra limitación que la necesidad de preservar, al mismo tiempo, la dignidad y valores fundamentales de todo ser humano reconocidos hoy por el mundo civilizado -lo cual implica que el respeto a las tradiciones, lengua, religión y en general cultura de esos pueblos solo admite como excepciones las necesarias para erradicar prácticas universalmente consideradas inhumanas, como el canibalismo-…”. Respecto a la legislación nacional que incorporó la normativa internacional, el voto indica lo siguiente: “7. De la misma forma, la Ley Indígena, 6172 de 29 de noviembre de 1977, desarrolló, y en algunos aspectos superó las obligaciones internacionales contraídas por Costa Rica; pues reservó importantes porciones de su territorio para los indígenas, tratando de evitar que se inscribieran como propiedad privada de otros. Otorgó plena personería y capacidad jurídica a sus comunidades para dirigir sus actividades y decidir sobre sus bienes; les permitió explotar las reservas naturales dentro de sus territorios y prohibió la extracción de objetos arqueológicos de sus cementerios. La Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) se creó por Ley 5251 de junio de 1973, como el organismo aglutinador de las comunidades indígenas, integrado además con representantes de varias instituciones del Estado, legislación que es pionera en nuestro continente”. Asimismo, respecto a la legalidad del Convenio 169, el fallo señala que, en su articulado, no parece haber nada que, correctamente interpretado y aplicado, pueda contravenir el Derecho de la Constitución, concluyendo el Tribunal Constitucional que, lejos de contener enfrentamientos con la Constitución de nuestro país, “…el Convenio refleja los más caros valores de nuestra nacionalidad democrática, desarrollando los derechos humanos de los indígenas costarricenses y puede ser un punto de partida para iniciar una revisión de la legislación secundaria para adaptarla a estas necesidades.”. Por su parte, de acuerdo con lo estipulado en la Ley Indígena Nº 6172, del 29 de noviembre de 1977, publicada en La Gaceta Nº 240, del 20 de diciembre de 1977, señala en su artículo 3, que las reservas indígenas son inalienables e imprescriptibles, no transferibles y exclusivas para las comunidades indígenas que las habitan. Señala también que los no indígenas no podrán alquilar, arrendar, comprar o de cualquier otra manera adquirir terrenos o fincas comprendidas dentro de las reservas. Agrega además que los indígenas sólo podrán negociar sus tierras con otros indígenas, quedando claro que todo traspaso o negociación de tierras o mejoras de éstas en las reservas indígenas, entre indígenas y no indígenas, es absolutamente nulo, con las consecuencias legales del caso. Esta Ley fue reglamentada por el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 8487-G, de 26 de abril de 1978 y, mediante Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 13568, de 30 de abril de 1982, se establece que las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral tienen la representación legal de las Comunidades Indígenas y actúan como gobierno local de éstas. De acuerdo con la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 2007-16213, de las 11:52 horas, del 9 de noviembre de 2007, se calificó a las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral como “instituciones representativas” de los habitantes de las reservas, encargadas de representar judicial y extrajudicialmente a las comunidades indígenas, agregándose que “…Constituyen la única forma de representación que permite a los habitantes de las reservas indígenas ejercer derechos fundamentales individuales o colectivos”. Así las cosas, y de acuerdo con los principios consagrados tanto en el Convenio Nº 169, como en la Ley Indígena Nº 6172, las disposiciones que la complementan al igual que las costumbres indígenas prevalecientes en sus propias comunidades, es posible comprender las razones de fondo que brinda el fallo cuando aplica la citada normativa jurídica, independientemente de que no las comparta el recurrente, quien se limita a brindar su propia explicación de cómo debió aplicarse el marco jurídico que cita el a quo al caso que nos ocupa, exponiendo una serie de consideraciones que no demuestran la errónea aplicación de la ley sustantiva como es su pretensión. De acuerdo con los testigos indígenas –habitantes de la Reserva de Nairi-Awari-, que acudieron al debate, el Tribunal de mayoría advierte que, según sus costumbres, para ellos la propiedad de la tierra ubicada en la reserva o circunscripción es de todos y la posesión solamente la ejercen los que se encuentran haciendo uso de la tierra o, al menos, viviendo dentro de la comunidad indígena. En ese sentido, se entiende que la propiedad indígena posee un régimen especial de propiedad tal y como lo explicaron Eladio Brenes Salazar, Andrés Aguilar Morales, Otilio López Brenes y Walter Pérez López en el contradictorio, siendo un requisito indispensable el pertenecer a la Reserva de Nairi-Awari, para poseer sus tierras, aclarándose al respecto que ambos cojusticiables, al no formar parte de la Reserva Indígena de Nairi-Awari por no hablar la lengua Cabecar y, en general, por no pertenecer a este grupo étnico, nunca fueron poseedores de ningún terreno dentro de la Comunidad. Para el Tribunal de mayoría, las anteriores aseveraciones que reiteraron los testigos referidos, encuentran pleno respaldo en lo señalado por el numeral 3 de la Ley Indígena Nº 6172, el cual indica en lo conducente, que las reservas indígenas son “exclusivas para las comunidades indígenas que las habitan”, a lo que se adiciona por parte de esta Cámara, lo que señala el ordinal 2 de la citada Ley, al declarar como propiedad de las comunidades indígenas que habitan en ellas, las reservas delimitadas por ley. De esta forma, se puede concluir sin reparo alguno que la ley resguarda y defiende los derechos de las comunidades respecto a sus propias tierras, impidiendo que indígenas de otras reservas o no indígenas puedan acceder a poseer sus terrenos en virtud de las costumbres y tradiciones que ellos aplican relativo a las modalidades de transmisión que han fijado al interno de la comunidad, mismas que deben ser respetadas en consonancia con lo dispuesto en los ordinales 8, 13 y 14, del Convenio Nº 169. A la luz de las anteriores reflexiones, el voto de mayoría concluye indicando, con atinado criterio jurídico, lo siguiente: “Es claro que el efectivo cumplimiento de este acuerdo es incompatible con la posibilidad de que una persona ajena a la comunidad de Nairi-Awari pueda ejercer posesión de sus tierras sin ser miembro de dicha comunidad y peor aun, sin siquiera vivir ahí y ser parte de su grupo. Ello implica, como bien los dijeron los testigos indígenas ya referidos recibidos durante el juicio, que se comparta el mismo idioma, porque es a través del lenguaje que los indígenas han venido transmitiéndose de generación en generación sus costumbres y tradiciones, resultando incompatible con el respeto a dicho acuerdo, que una persona que ni siquiera hable su idioma y que por ende no ha aprendido, comprendido e incorporado sus normas dentro de su esquema de valores, llegue a ejercer posesión de sus tierras procedente de otras comunidades (aunque sean indígenas como bien lo aclararon los testigos), cuando ni siquiera viven ni entienden sus tradiciones, porque ni siquiera entienden su idioma. Los encartados GUIDO HUMBERTO y PEDRO GERARDO, poniendo por encima sus intereses económicos personales, procedentes de otras comunidades, sin siquiera hablar el idioma Cabécar que se habla dentro de la Reserva Nairi-Awari y por ende sin comprender sus costumbres y tradiciones, y peor aun, funcionarios del Gobierno encargados de salvaguardar y proteger los intereses de las comunidades indígenas del país cuyo único contacto con la comunidad Nairi-Awari lo fue únicamente con motivos laborales, no podían legítimamente sacar provecho de esa situación de ventaja que tenían en detrimento de los derechos de las personas que se encontraban viviendo dentro de la comunidad, llegando a identificarse como poseedores de tierras que sabían bien no lo eran, para cobrar beneficios que por esas tierras únicamente podían cobrar la comunidad indígena representada por la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral que los representa.” (folio 698). Al mismo tiempo, conforme lo estipulado en el numeral 17 del Convenio 169, el Tribunal señala que debe respetarse las “modalidades de transmisión” de los derechos sobre las tierras entre los miembros de las comunidades indígenas, modos que, en el caso de la Reserva Nairi-Awari, fue referida por los testigos de dicha Comunidad que declararon en el debate, indicándose, a modo de síntesis, que la costumbre en dicha reserva es que los mayores o padres indican si se puede repartir o no, para lo cual se requiere también de la autorización de la Asociación. Como indicó Otilio López Brenes, es únicamente para las familias o hijos que viven en la comunidad, no para los que “vienen de largo”, Awari como de bribrí, de otras tierras, no se reconoce porque vienen de largo y son de otro clan”, (folio 640). En otros términos, quedan excluidos de la condición de poseedores no sólo los no indígenas, sino también los indígenas de otras regiones, por no formar parte de la comunidad respectiva, ajenos a sus costumbres y tradiciones las cuales se transmiten de forma oral de “generación a generación”, como lo indica el voto de mayoría y que varían según la comunidad que se trate (cabécar, huetar, chorotega, maleku), según lo confirmó el mismo coencartado Guido Humberto Rojas Sánchez (folio 630), quien admitió ser indígena Huetar de Quitirrisí de Mora (folio 626), en tanto que el justiciable Pedro es nativo de Ujarrás, según lo manifestó el testigo José Manuel Paniagua (folio 659). Acorde con lo aplicación del marco jurídico sustantivo referente a las poblaciones indígenas, interpretación que coadyuva en la comprensión sobre las razones del por qué se está ante la comisión del delito de estafa por parte de los encartados. […] V. […] Independientemente de que la figura de las asociaciones de desarrollo no sean originarias o propias de los pueblos indígenas, sino algo impuesto desde fuera, lo cierto es que su configuración y estructura fue asumida por sus representantes, no significando obstáculo alguno para que gobiernen y dirijan sus comunidades respectivas. Por el contrario, facilita que la propiedad o titularidad colectiva de las tierras se refleje a nivel registral, al inscribirse en el Registro de la Propiedad a nombre de las respectivas asociaciones de desarrollo integral, las que representan judicial y extrajudicialmente a dichas comunidades y que agrupan y coordinan a los miembros que habitan la comunidad indígena, dentro de una determinada circunscripción territorial. Conviene aclarar que el voto de la Sala Constitucional que cita en apoyo de su gestión (3002-92), no guarda conexidad con su reclamo. En cuanto al voto número 1867-1995, de las 4:51 horas, del 5 de abril de 1995, que también invoca en este apartado, se establece que, según el Convenio Nº 169 citado, es obligatorio reconocer validez a las instituciones jurídico, materiales y procesales de cada comunidad indígena y por ende, también a los órganos de su ejecución o aplicación, “…sin más salvedad que el necesario respeto a los derechos fundamentales, reconocidos por el derecho de la Constitución -tanto los derivados de las normas constitucionales como de sus principios o de las normas o principios del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos-, así como a las normas o principios de orden público fundamental del ordenamiento costarricense; éstos últimos, desde luego, rigurosamente interpretados y aplicados, es decir, sin criterios analógicos o extensivos.”. Lo que informa dicho voto se aplica al caso en concreto, al constatarse que la Asociación de Desarrollo de Nairi-Awari no cercenó los derechos fundamentales de los enjuiciados como lo arguye el impugnante, quien alega un supuesto despojo por vías de hecho a su defendido, lo que resultó desmentido. En síntesis, no se constata que a su patrocinado se le cercenaran las garantías fundamentales reconocidas en nuestro marco jurídico constitucional, toda vez que la actuación de los miembros de la asociación de interponer la denuncia contra los cojusticiables, obedece al perjuicio que les ocasionó la actuación ilícita perpetrada por aquellos, sin que se constate yerro alguno en la fundamentación del fallo de mayoría.”