Atypical agro-environmental precautionary measures for coffee waste discharge and health riskMedidas cautelares atípicas agroambientales por vertido de broza de café y riesgo a la salud

**I.-** For the purpose of resolving the requested interim measure at this instance, the following is deemed accredited: 1.- The minor girl [Nombre1] suffers from allergic manifestations, mostly resulting from her exposure to coffee pulp (broza de café) (see medical certification on sheet 2 and sheet 26). 2.- Coopabuena R.L. has, adjacent to the plaintiff's property, a plot of land used as a dump for waste water and treatment of coffee pulp (broza de café) (see response to the measure on sheet 20 and judicial inspection on sheet 13).

3.- That in front of the plaintiff's dwelling runs a spring or small stream, which is in a contaminated state, with green and yellowish foam observable, similar to coffee pulp residues or liquids, a strong and penetrating odor is noticeable, and significant contamination, mosquito larvae, and foul smell are observed (See judicial inspection on folio 13); 4.- On the boundary of the plaintiff's land with that of the Cooperative, there are also remains of coffee pulp and strong odors produced by the residues; 5.- Both the plaintiff's house and farm are in a state of abandonment, apparently as a result of the foul odors and heavy contamination (folio 13); 6.- According to the Permits and Controls Unit of the Directorate for the Protection of the Human Environment of the Ministry of Health, regarding the Cooperative's Secondary Treatment Plant by means of an anaerobic lagoon, from the analysis of the Cooperative's operational report, the values of the parameters analyzed in the effluent of the treatment system comply with the limits permitted in the Reglamento de Reuso y Vertido de aguas residuales. (See certification on folios 38 – 40). 7.- That the Cooperative has a Solid Waste Management Plan dated January 2003, which considers the environmental variable (folio 43 – 80).

**II.-** The lower court rejected the requested precautionary measure, stating that the prior precautionary measure consisted of a judicial inspection, in which the situation indicated therein was recorded. It considers the request for suspension of the Cooperative's works to be impertinent, since the petitioners currently do not live on the property, meaning there is no imminent danger of irreparable damage.

**III.-** The appellant alleges that the substantive precautionary measures consist of closing or suspending the use of the Cooperative's farm adjacent to that of the plaintiffs, and prohibiting said entity from discharging liquid waste into the spring that runs in front of their property. It points out that the judicial inspection was only an instrument to verify the conditions for admissibility of the precautionary measure and that it even requested the lower court to be accompanied by suitable experts. It reproaches erroneous assessment of the evidence, because it notes a lack of fulfillment of the prerequisites of appearance of good right, danger of delay, and residual nature, because no value is given to the contract by which the Cooperative itself committed to seeking a solution to the problem and that they currently have nowhere to live, in addition to the health risk posed by the wastewater discharge for their daughter. It adds that here there is a superior interest, from an agrarian and community standpoint, where the water resource and the health of persons must be protected. Furthermore, by not taking the measure, the exercise of agrarian production on their farm is being prevented.

**IV.-** Many judicial conflicts of an agro-environmental nature require atypical precautionary measures to guarantee effective judicial protection, in the interest of the community. In particular, it is necessary to protect the destruction of virgin forest or indiscriminate logging, without management plans or with irregularly granted forest permits. To avoid the effects of aerial spraying of chemicals – insecticides and pesticides – harmful to the health of humans, plants, and animals. To paralyze activities of burning plantations that do not have the respective permits, especially when they affect forest areas. To prohibit the discharge of contaminating solid waste into rivers and streams that affect agrarian plantations and human health. The precautionary power of the Agrarian Judge for the sake of conserving the environment and natural resources linked to productive agrarian activities, and above all, environmentally sustainable agrarian activities, also has solid support in comparative agrarian procedure. The Estatuto de la Jurisdicción Agraria of Colombia, among other examples, enshrines a special process for the preservation of the rural environment and renewable natural resources, where a series of highly important precautionary measures are enshrined to guarantee the outcome of the process. Indeed: "From the moment of filing the complaint and at any stage of the process, the judge, ex officio or at the request of a party, if he considers that damage is being caused to the environment or to one or more renewable natural resources, or there is imminent danger that it will occur, even if it is different from that indicated in the complaint, shall take the measures as appropriate, after conducting a judicial inspection. The Judge may admonish the defendant, under penalty of fines, to suspend the works or activities constituting the risk or causing the damage, or to carry out the necessary work to avert the former or stop the latter." (MONCADA QUINTERO, Código Judicial Agrario, Medellín, Leyer, 1997, p. 174. In the same sense, see CAMPOS RIVERA, *Derecho Procesal Agrario,* Santa fé, Temis, 1996 **pp. 326-327).** **V.** In reiterated rulings, the Agrarian Tribunal has extensively developed the subject of precautionary measures (Among others, [Nombre2]. No. 117 of 3:00 p.m. on February 7, 1996, No. 635 of 9:30 a.m. on October 8, 1997, No. 767 of 11:10 a.m. on November 26, 1997, and No. 786 of 11:20 a.m. on November 26, 1997). Generally, these measures are carried out before filing an ordinary process, when there is a well-founded fear that one of the parties may cause the other irreparable or difficult-to-repair damage, due to the latent danger, in the case of agrarian law, that production or natural resources may be affected, since the ordinary process requires a certain period of time for its development. Or, they are requested as a precautionary measure upon filing the complaint or, subsequently, when the risk that damage and future harm will occur is imminent. Atypical precautionary measures present a series of prerequisites and characteristics necessary to determine their appropriateness and scope. The Agrarian Tribunal has developed important jurisprudential criteria, by recognizing the necessary prerequisites for a precautionary measure to be granted: "II. The atypical precautionary measure is based on three basic prerequisites: 1.- The residual nature; it is necessary to verify that the right sought to be judicially protected is seriously threatened, with no possibility of being protected by a typical precautionary measure, and hence the urgency of taking the measure. It is fundamental for this to conduct a judicial inspection, or to be accompanied by an expert in order to assess the true danger or imminent risk. This is fundamental because whoever requests the measure could use the proceeding to delay the procedure or without any practical sense. Logically, such precautionary measures, since they lack typicality in the law, must be taken with certain and verifiable valuation parameters by the Judge, the simple statement of one of the parties not being sufficient to order the measure. 2.- The appearance of good right, in the sense that the claim of the main complaint, or the public right or good sought to be secured, has a probability of being protectable under the legal system, that is, in the final judgment. This does not mean entering to discover the merits of the case, but, on the contrary, achieving procedural simplicity, since otherwise, if it incurs into hearings or excessive evidence, the purpose for which they were conceived would be distorted. 3.- The danger of delay, due to the urgency of taking the measure and avoiding irreparable damage to one of the parties, or to the interest of the community, before the matter is decided. Thus establishes Article 242 of the Código Procesal Civil by indicating that the precautionary measure must be taken to prevent a serious injury from being caused, prior to the issuance of the judgment." ([Nombre2]., vote No. 193 of 2:40 p.m. on April 23, 1997.)

**VI.** Within this order of considerations, the requirement of the new atypical precautionary measures, which could well be called "agro-environmental," must effectively respond to the protection of the so-called "third generation" rights, to guarantee the maximum possible protection, whether for the protection of health, the environment, and natural resources. Such rights are guaranteed at the Constitutional level, as fundamental rights, especially in Articles 33, 45, and 50 of our Constitución Política. But there are also norms at the International and Regional levels, as well as their implementation through special laws or administrative normative acts, which allow such fundamental rights to be applied and protected. Effective precautionary protection, which also finds its foundation at the constitutional level, in the postulate "Swift and Fulfilled Justice," has created an arc of possibilities at the jurisdictional level, to seek the protection and safeguarding of fundamental rights, beginning with the means offered by Constitutional Procedural Law, through the *amparo* route, where active legal standing has been recognized, even for minors, when it comes to protecting the Health of persons, thereby protecting diffuse rights and those of the entire community.

**VII.-** At the regional level, the Protocolo de Tegucigalpa to the Charter of the Organization of Central American States (ODECA), of December 13, 1991, which creates the Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana, creating bodies with specific normative competence and laying the foundations for the consolidation of a Central American Community law, establishes within its purposes and principles "To establish concerted actions aimed at the preservation of the environment through respect and harmony with nature, ensuring the balanced development and rational exploitation of the natural resources of the area, with a view to the establishment of a New Ecological Order in the region" (Article 3, subsection i), under the protection, respect, and promotion of human rights (Article 4). From this perspective, the Protocolo de Guatemala, to the Tratado General de Integración Económica of October 29, 1993, points out the need to gradually create a Central American agricultural and agro-environmental policy (Articles 21 and 22) under the commitment that "The States Parties undertake to **harmonize and adopt common market technical standards and regulations that will be directed solely to satisfying the requirements for the protection of human, animal, and plant health, the environment, safety, and compliance with minimum quality standards**" (Article 26, Protocolo de Guatemala). In order to progressively refine the common policies of the member countries, it is also established that the States Parties must establish security, police, and sanitation measures, and agree on a Uniform Regulation that governs everything related to measures relating to health (Article 7). This attribution of competencies, which has been expressly granted to the Consejo de Ministros de Integración Económica and the Consejo Agropecuario Centroamericano (CAC), have led to the establishment of the first community normative acts. Such community acts, such as the regulations emanating from the Councils of Ministers, are binding and mandatory for the States Parties, and even **prevail** (by virtue of the principle of primacy of Community Law), over other free trade instruments, signed bilaterally or multilaterally between the State Parties, but do not affect their validity (Article 62 of the Protocolo de Guatemala). Our Sala Constitucional, in reiterated Jurisprudence, has recognized the prevailing and binding nature of regional Treaties, and of the normative acts derived from community law, by virtue of the principle of attribution of competencies expressly established in our Constitución Política (Among others, see: Sala Constitucional, Voto No. 4638-96 of 6-9-96 which is a Consulta de constitucionalidad of the Bill approving the "tratado de Integración Social"; Voto No. 4640-96 of 6-9-96 which is a Consulta de constitucionalidad of the Bill approving the "Protocolo al Tratado General de Integración Económica Centroamericana (Protocolo de Guatemala)". In both cases, the Chamber stated: "Given the institutional nature of the agreement before us, the Chamber does not find norms that are unconstitutional, nor does it notice infringements of the legislative approval procedure. However, *as this treaty is an integral part of a system of transfer of competencies, which as stated results in a community system, even though the transfer of competencies has not occurred expressly, though provided for in the Protocolo de Tegucigalpa, all of this implies that for its approval a qualified vote is required, in the terms indicated in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Constitución Política*" (the underlining is not in the original). Sala Constitucional, Voto 4242-93 of 27-08-93, 0791-94 of 8-02-94 and No. 7173-97 of 29-10-97, in which the supremacy of Community Law is recognized – in this case referring to the Código Aduanero Centroamericano and its Regulation – over lower-ranking internal law; Sala Constitucional, Voto 6957-96 of 20-12-96 and No. 1293-02 of 8-02-2002, which grants supremacy to the Convenio Centroamericano sobre Unificación Básica de la Educación, over internal norms, aimed at unification. The Sala Constitucional in Voto 4638-96, cited above, stated: "…the Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, the body responsible for resolving conflicts related to community norms, and whose powers, functioning, and composition will be governed by its own Statute, which has not been approved by Costa Rica. Consequently, the country and its inhabitants are at a disadvantage compared to the Body called to interpret and apply Community Law, a situation that may be of constitutional relevance, insofar as it could imply a denial of justice for Costa Ricans, who, like nationals of the other Central American countries, *derive rights and obligations from community norms*, and are placed on an unequal footing when appearing before that Court, thanks to the non-approval of its constitutive agreement" (the underlining is not in the original). Moreover, the same Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, whose rulings are mandatory and binding for the States Parties of SICA, has recognized the prevalence and primacy of community law over internal law (Corte Centroamericana de Justicia. Judgment of November 28, 2001. *Honduras c. Nicaragua.* Case concerning the revocation of legal provisions, administrative acts, and de facto actions adopted by the Republic of Nicaragua that affect and violate the legal framework and the functioning of SICA. In the same sense, see judgment of October 25, 2001, in the claim filed by the Asociación de Agentes Aduanales autorizados against resolution No. 60-2000 of COMIECO, being the Regulation of the Código Aduanero Centroamericano).

**VIII.-** Based on what was stated in the preceding recital, the Central American community legislator, particularly the Consejo de Ministros de Integración Económica, and the Consejo Agropecuario Centroamericano, in use of their normative faculties, have issued the ***Reglamento Centroamericano sobre medidas y procedimientos sanitarios y fitosanitarios*** (Approved by resolution No. 37-99 COMIECO, of September 17, 1999, and ratified by the Intersectoral Council of Ministers of Economic Integration and Ministers of Agriculture, in resolution No. 1-2002). This regulation aims to regulate the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of the States Parties, in order to gradually and priority harmonize measures and procedures in this matter "…with the purpose of protecting the health and life of humans and animals or to preserve plant health, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 7, paragraph 2 of the Protocolo al Tratado General de Integración Económica Centroamericana – Protocolo de Guatemala – and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (AMSF) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The AMSF shall be considered supplementary regulations" (Article 1). The cited regulation aims to progressively create a common policy for risk management, generating technical and scientific criteria to achieve an adequate level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection with these measures. It is the responsibility of the competent Sanitary and Phytosanitary Authority to apply the sanitary and phytosanitary requirements and to determine the inspection sites. A Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is created at the regional level, and at the national level, there must be a competent Authority to follow up on the measures, in such a way that an integrated control system can be generated, both at the national and regional levels, to prevent risks from occurring to the health of animals, plants, or persons, and so that the measures adopted have scientific and technical rigor, so as not to hinder business agrarian activities or intraregional trade of agricultural products. Article 12 of the Reglamento Centroamericano sobre Medidas y Procedimientos Sanitarios y Fitosanitarios grants the competent authority at the national level sufficient powers to carry out any control, inspection, approval, and certification work, activities that must be carried out with speed, proportionality, and rationality.

**IX.-** As we see, the Reglamento Centroamericano de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias is perfectly applicable in this particular case, in the sense that the exercise of any agrarian or agroindustrial activity must comply with the minimum requirements demanded at the regional and national level, in order to avoid damage to the health of animals, plants, and human beings, and to maintain an adequate environment. In Costa Rica, the cited principles and norms have also found application in various special laws, particularly, in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley de Protección a la vida silvestre, the Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria, and Regulation No. 117 of June 19, 1997, and its amendments. In accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente protects and guarantees respect for a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as a right-duty of every citizen and of every agricultural or agroindustrial enterprise, establishing the obligation to protect the soil and water resources from contamination. Expressly, Article 66 states: "In any management and use of water likely to produce contamination, the responsibility for the treatment of the discharges shall correspond to whoever produces the contamination. *The competent authority shall determine the adequate technology and establish the necessary timeframes for its application*." Article 69 of the Law states that "In the management and use of soils, the disposal of residues that constitute a source of contamination must be controlled. Productive activities *shall avoid discharges, deposits, or infiltration of contaminating substances or materials into the soil*…" As we see, these are purely preventive activities, which must be undertaken both by the agrarian or agroindustrial enterprise and by the competent Authorities. The Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre expressly prohibits "…discharging wastewater, sewage, waste, or any contaminating substance into springs, rivers, streams, permanent or non-permanent creeks, lakes, marshes, and natural or artificial reservoirs, estuaries, peatlands, swamps, fresh, and brackish or salt waters. *Agroindustrial and industrial facilities and other facilities must be equipped with treatment systems to prevent solid waste or contaminated water of any type from destroying wildlife. The certification of water quality shall be provided by the Ministry of Health*…" (Article 132) As can be observed, there is a competent Authority, to control the discharge of wastewater, which is the Ministry of Health, in charge of controlling and certifying whether the minimum required levels are met or not. Particularly, according to Regulation No. 26042-S-MINAE, Article 10, "The Division of Environmental Sanitation of the Ministry of Health shall proceed to issue the certification of water quality stipulated in Article 132 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, ***based on the analysis of the operational reports presented by the generating entities and their comparison with the norms contained in this Regulation, and may also conduct sanitary inspections to verify the validity of said reports***." This means that the certification is based on the entity's own report, and the possibility remains open for the Division of Environmental Sanitation, faced with irregular situations, to proceed to conduct the competent sanitary inspections in order to objectively and scientifically verify if reality corresponds to what was indicated by the generating entity. In another order of ideas, the Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria No. 7664 of April 8, 1997, establishes within its primary objectives, promoting sustainable productive methodologies, and regulating the use and handling of substances applied in agriculture, aiming to protect human health and the environment (Article 2). The Law, in application of regional and international norms, imposes the necessary mechanisms for the control, inspection, and certification of agrarian and agroindustrial activities that may be risky for human, plant, and animal health. It corresponds to the phytosanitary Authority of the State, to inspect plants, as well as the places where the activity is developed, and to order the necessary measures to combat pests, or sources of diseases that may cause damage to health (articles 12 to 22). It is the obligation of the owners or occupants under any title to treat, process, or destroy stubble, waste, and residues, in accordance with the technical measures dictated by the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado (Article 20), and responsibilities are established for damages and losses caused to agriculture, the environment, and human and animal health (Article 31). It is the phytosanitary Authority of the State, the competent Authority to order the temporary closure of establishments, in order for the anomalies that may be detected through prior inspections by the administrative authority, or by the corresponding judicial authority, to be corrected (Article 38).

**X.** This Tribunal has issued important precedents, referring to agro-environmental protection regarding precautionary measures, in the following sense: "IV…Our legislator, for many years, has been imposing a series of agro-environmental limits on productive activities, in order to protect the health of persons and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The productive activity, of whatever nature, must be exercised within the framework of respect for human life and existence.

**I.-** For purposes of resolving the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) sought in this instance, the following is taken as established: 1.- The minor [Name1] suffers from allergic manifestations, mostly as a result of her exposure to coffee pulp (broza de café) (see medical certification on folio 2 and folio 26). 2.- Coopabuena R.L. has, adjacent to the plaintiff’s property, a plot of land that it uses as a dump for waste water and treatment of coffee pulp (see response to the measure on folio 20 and judicial inspection on folio 13). 3.- That in front of the plaintiff’s dwelling runs a spring (manantial) or small stream, which is in contaminated condition, with green and yellowish foam being observed, similar to the residues or liquids from coffee pulp, a strong and penetrating odor is noticeable, with significant contamination, mosquito larvae, and bad odor being observed (See judicial inspection on folio 13); 4.- On the boundary between the plaintiff’s land and that of the Cooperative, there are also remains of coffee pulp and strong odors produced by the residues; 5.- Both the house and the farm of the plaintiff are in a state of abandonment, apparently as a result of the bad odors and heavy contamination (folio 13); 6.- According to the Permits and Controls Unit of the Directorate for the Protection of the Human Environment of the Ministry of Health, the Cooperative’s Secondary Treatment Plant by means of an anaerobic lagoon, from the analysis of the Cooperative’s operational report, the value of the parameters analyzed in the effluent from the treatment system comply with the limits permitted in the Reglamento de Reuso y Vertido de aguas residuales. (See certification on folio 38 – 40). 7.- That the Cooperative has a Solid Waste Management Plan dated January 2003, which considers the environmental variable (folio 43 – 80).

**II.-** The lower court rejected the precautionary measure sought, indicating that the prior precautionary measure consisted of the judicial inspection, in which the situation stated therein was recorded. It considers the request for suspension of the Cooperative’s work to be impertinent, since the plaintiffs do not currently live on the property, and therefore there is no imminent danger of irreparable harm.

**III.-** The appellant alleges that the substantive precautionary measures consist of closing or suspending the use of the Cooperative’s farm adjacent to that of the plaintiffs, and prohibiting said entity from discharging liquid waste into the spring that runs in front of their property. It points out that the judicial inspection was merely an instrument to verify the conditions for admissibility of the precautionary measure and that the lower court was even requested to be accompanied by qualified experts. It reproaches an erroneous weighing of the evidence, because the assessment lacks the fulfillment of the prerequisites of appearance of good right (apariencia de buen derecho), danger of delay (peligro de demora), and residual nature (residualidad), because it fails to evaluate the contract by which the Cooperative itself undertook to find a solution to the problem and because they currently have nowhere to live, in addition to the health risk that the discharge of water constitutes for their daughter. It adds that a superior interest exists here, from the agrarian and community standpoint, where the water resource and people’s health must be protected. Moreover, by not adopting the measure, the exercise of agrarian production on their property is being impeded.

**IV.-** Many judicial conflicts of an agri-environmental nature require atypical precautionary measures (medidas cautelares atípicas) to guarantee effective judicial protection, in the interest of the community. In particular, it is necessary to protect against the destruction of virgin forest or indiscriminate logging, without management plans or with irregularly granted forestry permits. To avoid the effects of aerial fumigation of chemicals—insecticides and pesticides—harmful to the health of humans, plants, and animals. To halt burning activities on plantations that lack the respective permits, especially when they affect forested areas. To prohibit the discharge of contaminating solid waste into rivers and streams that affect agrarian plantations and human health. The precautionary power of the Agrarian Judge for the sake of conserving the environment and natural resources linked to productive agrarian activities, and above all, agrarian activities sustainable with the environment, also has solid support in comparative agrarian procedure. The Statute of the Agrarian Jurisdiction of Colombia, among other examples, establishes a special procedure for the preservation of the rural environment and renewable natural resources, which sets forth a series of extremely important preliminary protective measures to guarantee the outcome of the process. Indeed: “From the moment the complaint is filed and at any stage of the process, the judge, on their own motion or at the request of a party, if they consider that damage is being caused to the environment or to one or more renewable natural resources, or there is an imminent danger that such damage may occur, even if different from that indicated in the complaint, shall take the appropriate measures, after carrying out a judicial inspection. The Judge may enjoin the defendant, under threat of fines, to suspend the works or activities constituting the risk or causing the damage, or to carry out the necessary works to avert the former or cease the latter.” (MONCADA QUINTERO, Código Judicial Agrario, Medellín, Leyer, 1997, p. 174. In the same sense, see CAMPOS RIVERA, *Procedural Agrarian Law*, Santa Fe, Temis, 1996 **pp. 326-327).** **V.** In reiterated rulings, the Agrarian Tribunal has extensively developed the topic of precautionary measures (Among others [Name2]. No. 117 at 15:00 hours on February 7, 1996, No. 635 at 9:30 hours on October 8, 1997, No. 767 at 11:10 hours on November 26, 1997, and No. 786 at 11:20 hours on November 26, 1997). Generally, such measures are carried out before filing an ordinary proceeding, when there is a well-founded fear that one of the parties may cause another irreparable harm or harm difficult to repair, given the latent danger, in the case of agrarian law, that production or natural resources may be affected, since the ordinary proceeding requires a certain period of time for its development. Or, they are sought as a precautionary measure when filing the complaint or, subsequently, when the risk of future damage and injury is imminent. Atypical precautionary measures present a series of prerequisites and characteristics necessary to determine their applicability and scope. The Agrarian Tribunal has developed important jurisprudential criteria by recognizing the necessary prerequisites for a precautionary measure to be granted: "II. The atypical precautionary measure is based on three basic prerequisites: 1.- Residual nature (residualidad); it is necessary to verify that the right sought to be judicially protected is seriously threatened, with no possibility of being protected by a typical precautionary measure, and hence the urgency of adopting the measure. To this end, it is essential to carry out a judicial inspection, or to be accompanied by an expert in order to assess the true danger or imminent risk. This is fundamental since whoever seeks the measure could use the proceeding to delay the process or without any practical sense. Logically, such precautionary measures, since they lack a defined legal classification, must be adopted with certain and verifiable evaluative parameters by the Judge, the simple statement of one of the parties not being sufficient to order the measure. 2.- The appearance of good right (apariencia de buen derecho), in the sense that the claim of the main complaint, or the right or public good sought to be secured, has a probability of being protectable within the legal system, that is, in the final judgment on the merits. This does not mean delving into the merits of the matter, but, on the contrary, achieving procedural simplicity, since otherwise, if extensive hearings or evidence were to be incurred, the purpose for which they were conceived would be distorted. 3.- The danger of delay (peligro de demora), due to the urgency of adopting the measure and avoiding irreparable harm to one of the parties, or to the interest of the community, before the matter is decided. Thus it is established by Article 242 of the Code of Civil Procedure, indicating that the precautionary measure must be adopted to prevent serious injury from being caused, before the ruling is issued.” ([Name2]., vote No. 193 at 14:40 hours on April 23, 1997.)

**VI.** Within this order of considerations, the requirement of the new atypical precautionary measures, which could well be called “agri-environmental,” must respond effectively to the protection of the so-called “third-generation” rights, to guarantee the maximum possible protection, whether for the protection of health, the environment, and natural resources. Such rights are guaranteed at the Constitutional level as fundamental rights, especially in Articles 33, 45, and 50 of our Political Constitution.

But rules also exist at the International and Regional levels, as well as their implementation through special laws or administrative normative acts, which allow such fundamental rights to be applied and protected. Effective precautionary protection, which also finds its foundation at the constitutional level in the postulate of “Swift and Fulfilled Justice,” has created a range of possibilities at the jurisdictional level to request the protection and safeguarding of fundamental rights, beginning with the means offered by Constitutional Procedural Law, through the recourse of amparo (vía del amparo), where active standing has been recognized even for minors when it is a matter of protecting the Health of individuals, thereby protecting diffuse rights and those of the entire community. VII.- At the regional level, the Tegucigalpa Protocol to the Charter of the Organization of Central American States (ODECA), of December 13, 1991, which creates the Central American Integration System, establishing bodies with specific normative competence and laying the foundations for the consolidation of a Central American Community Law, establishes among its purposes and principles: “To establish concerted actions aimed at the preservation of the environment through respect for and harmony with nature, ensuring balanced development and rational exploitation of the area's natural resources, with a view to establishing a New Ecological Order in the region” (Article 3, subsection i), under the protection, respect, and promotion of human rights (Article 4). Under this perspective, the Guatemala Protocol to the General Treaty on Central American Economic Integration of October 29, 1993, indicates the need to gradually create a Central American agricultural and agro-environmental policy (Articles 21 and 22) under the commitment that “The States Parties undertake to harmonize and adopt common technical market rules and regulations (armonizar y adoptar normas y reglamentos técnicos comunes de mercado) that will be solely directed at satisfying the requirements for the protection of human, animal, and plant health, the environment, safety, and compliance with minimum quality standards” (Article 26, Protocol of Guatemala). In order to continually improve the common policies of the member countries, it is also established that the States Parties must establish security, police, and health measures, and agree on a Uniform Regulation that governs everything relating to health measures (Article 7). This attribution of competences, which has been expressly granted to the Council of Ministers of Economic Integration and the Central American Agricultural Council (CAC), has led to the establishment of the first community normative acts. Such community acts, like the regulations issued by the Councils of Ministers, are binding and obligatory for the States Parties, and even prevail (prevalecen) (by virtue of the principle of primacy of Community Law) over other free trade instruments subscribed bilaterally or multilaterally between the States Parties, but do not affect their validity (Article 62 of the Protocol of Guatemala). Our Constitutional Chamber, in reiterated case law (Jurisprudencia), has recognized the prevailing and binding nature of regional Treaties and of normative acts derived from Community Law, by virtue of the principle of attribution of competences expressly established in our Political Constitution (Among others, see: Constitutional Chamber, Voto No. 4638-96 of 6-9-96, which is a constitutional review (Consulta de constitucionalidad) of the Legislative Bill approving the “Social Integration Treaty”; Voto No. 4640-96 of 6-9-96, which is a constitutional review of the Legislative Bill approving the “Protocol to the General Treaty on Central American Economic Integration (Protocol of Guatemala)”. In both cases, the Chamber affirmed: “Given the institutional nature of the agreement before us, the Chamber finds no norms that are unconstitutional, nor does it note any procedural defects in the legislative approval process. However, since this treaty is an integral part of a system of transfer of competences, which, as stated, results in a community system, even though the transfer of competences has not occurred expressly, although it is foreseen in the Protocol of Tegucigalpa, all of this implies that its approval requires a qualified vote, in the terms indicated in the second paragraph of subsection 4 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution” (emphasis added). Constitutional Chamber, Voto 4242-93 of 27-08-93, 0791-94 of 8-02-94, and No. 7173-97 of 29-10-97, which recognize the supremacy of Community Law—in this case referring to the Central American Uniform Customs Code and its Regulation—over lower-ranking domestic law; Constitutional Chamber, Voto 6957-96 of 20-12-96 and No. 1293-02 of 8-02-2002, which grants supremacy to the Central American Agreement on the Basic Unification of Education over internal norms aimed at unification. The Constitutional Chamber, in Voto 4638-96, cited previously, indicated: “…the Central American Court of Justice, the body responsible for settling disputes related to community-level norms, and whose powers, operation, and composition will be regulated by its own Statute, which has not been approved by Costa Rica. As a consequence, the country and its inhabitants are at a disadvantage before the Body called upon to interpret and apply Community Law, a situation that may be of constitutional relevance, as it could imply a denial of justice for Costa Ricans, who, like the nationals of the other Central American countries, derive rights and obligations from community norms (derivan derechos y obligaciones de las normas comunitarias), and find themselves placed on an unequal footing when appearing before that Court, given the non-approval of its constitutive agreement” (emphasis added).

On the other hand, the Central American Court of Justice itself, whose judgments are mandatory and binding for the States Parties of SICA, has recognized the prevalence and primacy of Community Law over domestic law (Central American Court of Justice. Judgment of November 28, 2001. Honduras v. Nicaragua. Case concerning the revocation of legal provisions, administrative acts, and de facto actions adopted by the Republic of Nicaragua that affect and violate the legal framework and functioning of SICA. In the same sense, see judgment of October 25, 2001, in the claim filed by the Association of Authorized Customs Agents against Resolution No. 60-2000 of COMIECO, which is the Regulation of the Central American Uniform Customs Code). VIII.- Based on what was stated in the preceding recital (considerando), the Central American community legislator, particularly the Council of Ministers of Economic Integration and the Central American Agricultural Council, in use of their normative powers, have enacted the Central American Regulation on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Procedures (Reglamento Centroamericano sobre medidas y procedimientos sanitarios y fitosanitarios) (Approved by Resolution No. 37-99 COMIECO, of September 17, 1999, and ratified by the Intersectoral Council of Ministers of Economic Integration and Ministers of Agriculture, in Resolution No. 1-2002). Said regulation aims to regulate the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of the States Parties, in order to gradually and as a priority harmonize the measures and procedures in this matter “…for the purpose of protecting human and animal health and life or for preserving the health of plants, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 7, clause 2 of the Protocol to the General Treaty on Central American Economic Integration – Guatemala Protocol - and in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ( AMSF) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The AMSF shall be considered as supplementary regulation” (Article 1). The cited regulation seeks to gradually create a common policy for risk management, generating technical and scientific criteria to achieve an adequate level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection with these measures. It is the responsibility of the competent sanitary and phytosanitary Authority to apply the sanitary and phytosanitary requirements and to determine the inspection sites. A Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is created at the regional level, and at the national level a competent Authority must exist to follow up on the measures, in such a way that an integrated control system can be gradually generated, both at the national and regional levels, to prevent the occurrence of risks to the health of animals, plants, or people, and to ensure that the measures adopted are scientifically and technically rigorous, so they do not hinder agricultural business activities or intraregional trade in agricultural products. Article 12 of the Central American Regulation on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Procedures grants the competent authority at the national level sufficient powers to carry out any control, inspection, approval, and certification work, activities that must be performed with speed, proportionality, and rationality. IX.- As we can see, the Central American Regulation on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is perfectly applicable in this particular case, in the sense that the exercise of any agricultural or agro-industrial activity must comply with the minimum requirements demanded at the regional and national levels, in order to avoid damage to the health of animals, plants, and human beings, and to maintain an adequate environment. In Costa Rica, the cited principles and norms have also found application in various special laws, particularly in the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Protección a la vida silvestre), the Phytosanitary Protection Law (Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria), and Regulation No. 117 of June 19, 1997, and its amendments. In harmony with Article 50 of the Constitution, the Organic Environmental Law protects and guarantees the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as a right-duty of every citizen and every agricultural or agro-industrial company, establishing the obligation to protect soil and water resources from contamination. Expressly, Article 66 indicates: “In any water management and use capable of producing contamination, the responsibility for the treatment of discharges shall correspond to whoever produces the contamination. The competent authority shall determine the adequate technology and establish the necessary deadlines for its application.” Article 69 of the Law indicates that “In the management and use of soils, the disposal of waste that constitutes a source of contamination must be controlled. Productive activities shall avoid discharges, deposits, or infiltration of contaminating substances or materials into the soil (evitarán descargas, depósitos o infiltración de sustancias o materiales contaminantes en el suelo)…”. As we can see, these are purely preventive activities, which must be undertaken both by the agricultural or agro-industrial enterprise, and by the competent Authorities. The Wildlife Conservation Law expressly prohibits “…dumping wastewater, sewage, waste, or any contaminating substance into springs (manantiales), rivers, streams, permanent or non-permanent creeks, lakes, marshes, and natural or artificial reservoirs, estuaries, peat bogs, swamps, fresh, and brackish or salt water. Agro-industrial and industrial facilities and other installations must be provided with treatment systems to prevent solid waste or contaminated water of any type from destroying wildlife. The water quality certification will be issued by the Ministry of Health…” (Article 132). As observed, there is a competent Authority to control the discharge of wastewater, which is the Ministry of Health, responsible for controlling and certifying whether the minimum required levels are met. Particularly, according to Regulation No. 26042-S-MINAE, Article 10, “The Environmental Sanitation Division of the Ministry of Health shall proceed to issue the water quality certification stipulated in Article 132 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, based on the analysis of the operational reports presented by the generating entities and their comparison with the norms contained in this Regulation, and may also carry out sanitary inspections to verify the validity of said reports (con base en el análisis de los reportes operacionales presentados por los entes generadores y su confrontación con las normas contenidas en el presente Reglamento, pudiendo además realizar inspecciones sanitarias para comprobar la validez de dichos reportes).” This means that the certification is based on the statement of the company, and the possibility remains open for the Environmental Sanitation Division, in the face of irregular situations, to proceed with the competent sanitary inspections in order to objectively and scientifically verify whether the reality corresponds to what was indicated by the generating entity. In another order of ideas, the Phytosanitary Protection Law (Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria) No. 7664 of April 8, 1997, establishes among its primary objectives promoting sustainable production methodologies and regulating the use and management of substances applied in agriculture, seeking to protect human health and the environment (Article 2). The Law, in application of regional and international norms, imposes the necessary mechanisms for the control, inspection, and certification of agricultural and agro-industrial activities that may be risky for human, plant, and animal health. It is the responsibility of the State's Phytosanitary Authority to inspect plants, as well as the places where the activity is carried out, and to order the necessary measures to combat pests or disease hotspots that could cause health damage (Articles 12 to 22). It is the obligation of the owners or occupants, under any title, to treat, process, or destroy stubble, waste, and residues, in accordance with the technical measures dictated by the State Phytosanitary Service (Article 20), and responsibilities are established for damages caused to agriculture, the environment, and human and animal health (Article 31). The State Phytosanitary Authority is the competent Authority to order the temporary closure of establishments, for the purpose of correcting anomalies that may be detected through prior inspections by the administrative authority, or by the corresponding judicial authority (Article 38). X. This Court has issued important precedents referring to agro-environmental protection concerning precautionary measures, in the following sense: “IV…Our legislator, for many years, has been imposing a series of agro-environmental limits on productive activities, in order to protect the health of individuals and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Productive activity, of whatever nature, must be exercised within the framework of respect for human life and existence. The limits on such productive activities are framed within clear constitutional principles where, although private property and freedom of enterprise are guaranteed, those rights must be exercised within the global framework of the legal system, respecting above all public interests or the interest of the community…That is why a large number of Institutions have been created (MAG, MINAE, MS, among others), which exercise control over productive activities harmful to the environment. The aim is to prevent, in some way, the abuse of rights—prohibited by Article 22 of our Civil Code—when exercising ownership or possession over agricultural productive activities, disregarding the fundamental principles of the Political Constitution. The health of the population, as a public interest asset protected by the State—Article 1 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud)—is above any individual interest, and therefore any person is obliged to comply with the general and particular orders emanating from the health authorities—Article 4—. Agricultural activities, whether livestock farming or crop cultivation, are subject to those provisions. Among other things, if the provisions are not followed or a productive agricultural activity is carried out without the proper authorization, the closure or formal shutdown of the establishment or installation may be ordered. But that is an attribution, as has been indicated, that corresponds to the corresponding Administrative Authorities…” (Voto No. 771 at 10:40 hours of November 13, 1998. In a similar sense, and regarding the action of the Plant Protection Directorate, [Name2] No. 301 at 10:30 hours of May 7, 1998). XI.- Based on the foregoing, and on the account of facts deemed proven, the Court concludes that the appellant is correct in his grievances. First, it must be reiterated that this precautionary process is based on a judgment of plausibility or probability, in this case carried out by the Court, that the necessary elements to grant, partially and in the manner to be stated, the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) exist. The probability judgment is based on the apparent responsibility of the Cooperative Coopabuena R.L., for the risks of damage to health and the environment caused by the discharge of wastewater from its coffee pulp treatment plant. Even though there are two certifications from the Ministry of Health indicating that the effluent waters meet the minimums required in the Regulation, the fact is that such a study is based on what was affirmed by the generating entity and there are no elements of judgment, at least in the case file, to indicate that this information was compared with reality through sanitary inspections to verify the validity of said reports. On the contrary, from the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) carried out by the Trial Judge (folio 13), although it is not a technical-scientific verification, it does confirm that the discharge of waste is substantial, that it produces hotspots of infection and bad odors, and that said discharges pass through the plaintiff's property, which forced his family to abandon the property due to the health damage that his daughter apparently suffers from due to said discharges and bad odors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appearance of a valid claim, the imminent danger of causing serious and irreparable harm, and the residual nature of the measure lead the Court to grant it partially, as will be stated, ordering the competent Administrative authorities to carry out the necessary studies and inspections in order to verify that the Cooperative is in strict compliance with the current agro-environmental regulations."

"I.- Para efectos de resolver en esta instancia la medida cautelar solicitada, se tiene por acreditado lo siguiente: 1.- La niña [Nombre1] sufre de manifestaciones alérgicas, producto mayormente de su exposición a la broza de café (ver certificación médica de folio 2 y folio 26). 2.- Coopabuena R.L. tiene, contiguo al fundo del actor, un terreno que dedica a vertedero de aguas de desechos y tratamiento de la broza de café (ver contestación de la medida a folio 20 y reconocimiento judicial a folio 13). 3.- Que al frente de la vivienda del actor, corre un manantial o pequeño riachuelo, el cual está en condiciones contaminadas, observándose una espuma verde y amarillezca, similares a los residuos o líquidos de broza de café, se siente un olor fuerte y penetrante, observándose gran contaminación, larvas de moscos y mal olor (Ver reconocimiento judicial de folio 13); 4.- En la colindancia del terreno del actor, con el de la Cooperativa, también hay restos de broza de café y fuertes olores producidos por los residuos; 5.- Tanto la casa, como la finca del actor se encuentran en estado de abandono, aparentemente, producto de los malos olores y la fuerte contaminación (folio 13); 6.- Según la Unidad de Permisos y Controles de la Dirección de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Ministerio de Salud, la Planta de Tratamiento Secundaria por Medio de laguna anaeróbica de la Cooperativa, del análisis del reporte operacional de la Cooperativa, el valor de los parámetros analizados en el efluente del sistema de tratamiento cumplen con los límites permitidos en el Reglamento de Reuso y Vertido de aguas residuales. (Ver certificación de folio 38 – 40). 7.- Que la Cooperativa, cuenta con un Plan de Manejo de desechos sólidos de enero del 2003, donde se considera la variable ambiental (folio 43 – 80 ). II.- La a-quo rechazó la medida cautelar solicitada, indicando que la medida cautelar previa, consistió en el reconocimiento judicial, en la cual se dejó constando la situación que ahí se indica. Considera impertinente la solicitud de suspensión de los trabajos de la Cooperativa, pues actualmente los promoventes no viven en el fundo, por lo que no existe peligro inminente de daños irreparables. III.- La recurrente alega que las medidas cautelares de fondo, consisten en clausurar o suspender la utilización de la finca de la Cooperativa contiguo a la de los actores, y prohibir a dicha entidad evacuar desechos líquidos en el manantial que corre al frente de su propiedad. Señala que el reconocimiento judicial era solo un instrumento para verificar las condiciones de admisibilidad de la medida cautelar y que incluso se solicitó al a-quo se hiciera acompañar de peritos idóneos. Reprocha errónea valoración de la prueba, porque se echa de menos el cumplimiento de los presupuestos de apariencia de buen derecho, peligro de demora y residualidad, porque no se valora el contrato por el cual la misma Cooperativa se comprometió a buscar una solución del problema y que actualmente no tienen donde vivir, amén del riesgo de salud que constituye el vertido de aguas, para su hija. Agrega que aquí existe un interés superior, desde el punto de vista agrario y de la colectividad, donde se debe proteger el recurso hídrico y la salud de las personas. Además, al no tomarse la medida, se está impidiendo el ejercicio de la producción agraria en su fundo. IV.- Muchos conflictos judiciales de naturaleza agroambiental, requieren de medidas cautelares atípicas para garantizar la tutela judicial efectiva, en interés de la colectividad. En particular se requiere proteger la destrucción del bosque virgen o la tala indiscriminada, sin planes de manejo o con permisos forestales otorgados en forma irregular. Evitar los efectos de la fumigación aérea de químicos –insecticidas y pesticidas – dañinos para la salud del hombre, las plantas y los animales. Paralizar actividades de quemas de plantaciones que no tengan los respectivos permisos, sobre todo cuando afectan áreas de bosques. Prohibir el vertido de desechos sólidos contaminantes a ríos y quebradas que afecten las plantaciones agrarias y la salud humana. El poder cautelar del Juez Agrario en aras de conservar el ambiente y los recursos naturales vinculados con actividades agrarias productivas, y sobre todo actividades agrarias sostenibles con el medio ambiente también tiene un sólido respaldo en el proceso agrario comparado. El Estatuto de la Jurisdicción Agraria de Colombia, entre otros ejemplos, consagra un proceso especial para la preservación del ambiente rural y de los recursos naturales renovables, en donde se consagran una serie de medidas precautelativas importantísimas para garantizar el resultado del proceso. En efecto: “Desde el momento de la presentación de la demanda y en cualquier etapa del proceso, el juez, de oficio o a petición de parte, si considera que se está causando daño al ambiente o a uno o más recursos naturales renovables, o existe peligro inminente de que se produzca, aunque sea distinto del indicado en la demanda, tomará las medidas del caso, previa realización de una inspección judicial. El Juez podrá conminar al demandado, bajo apremio de multas, para que suspenda las obras o actividades constitutivas del riesgo o causantes del daño, o realice los trabajos necesarios para conjurar el primero o hacer cesar el último”. (MONCADA QUINTERO, Código Judicial Agrario, Medellín, Leyer, 1997, pág. 174. En igual sentido, véase CAMPOS RIVERA, Derecho Procesal Agrario, Santa fé, Temis, 1996 págs. 326-327). V. En reiteradas sentencias el Tribunal Agrario ha desarrollado ampliamente el tema de las medidas cautelares ( Entre otras [Nombre2]. Nº 117 de las 15 horas del 7 de febrero de 1996, Nº 635 de las 9:30 horas del 8 de octubre de 1997, Nº 767 de las 11:10 horas del 26 de noviembre de 1997 y la Nº 786 de las 11:20 horas del 26 de noviembre de 1997. Generalmente dichas medidas se practican antes de plantear un proceso ordinario, cuando existe fundado temor de que una de las partes le pueda causar a otra un daño irreparable o de difícil reparación, ante el latente peligro, en el caso del derecho agrario, de que se vea afectada la producción o los recursos naturales, pues el proceso ordinario requiere de cierto período de tiempo para su desarrollo. O bien, se solicitan como medida cautelar al plantearse la demanda o, a posteriori, cuando el riesgo a que se produzca un daño y perjuicio a futuro es inminente. Las medidas cautelares atípicas presentan una serie de presupuestos y características necesarias para determinar su procedencia y alcances. El Tribunal Agrario ha desarrollado importantes criterios jurisprudenciales, al reconocer los presupuestos necesarios para que pueda acogerse una medida cautelar: "II. La medida cautelar atípica se basa en tres presupuestos básicos: 1.- La residualidad, es necesario constatar que el derecho que se busca tutelar judicialmente está seriamente amenazado, sin posibilidad de protegerse mediante una medida cautelar típica, y de ahí la urgencia de tomar la medida. Es fundamental para ello practicar un reconocimiento judicial, o bien hacerse acompañar de un perito con el fin de valorar el verdadero peligro o riesgo inminente. Esto es fundamental por cuanto quien solicita la medida podría utilizar el trámite para atrasar el procedimiento o sin ningún sentido práctico. Lógicamente, tales medidas cautelares, por no tener una tipicidad en la ley, deben tomarse con parámetros valorativos ciertos y verificables por el Juzgador, no siendo suficiente la simple manifestación de una de las partes para ordenar la medida. 2.- La apariencia de buen derecho, en el sentido de que la pretensión de la demanda principal, o del derecho o bien público que se quiera asegurar, tenga probabilidad de ser tutelable en el ordenamiento jurídico, sea, en la sentencia de fondo. Ello no significa entrar a descubrir el fondo del asunto, sino, por el contrario, lograr la sencillez procesal, pues de lo contrario, si se incurre en audiencias, o en pruebas desmedidas, se estaría desnaturalizando el fin para el cual fueron concebidas. 3.- El peligro de demora, por la urgencia de tomar la medida y evitar daños irreparables a alguna de las partes, o al interés de la colectividad, antes de que se falle el asunto. Así lo establece el artículo 242 del Código Procesal Civil al indicar que la medida cautelar debe tomarse para evitar que se cause una lesión grave, previo al dictado de la sentencia.” ([Nombre2]., voto Nº 193 de las 14:40 horas del 23 de abril de 1997.) VI. Dentro de ese orden de consideraciones, la exigencia de las nuevas medidas cautelares atípicas, que podrían bien denominarse “agroambientales”, deben responder en modo efectivo a la protección de los derechos denominados “de la tercera generación”, para garantizar la máxima protección posible, sea a la tutela de la salud, del medio ambiente, y de los recursos naturales. Tales derechos, están garantizados a nivel Constitucional, como derechos fundamentales, especialmente en los artículos 33, 45 y 50 de nuestra Constitución Política. Pero también existen normas a nivel Internacional, Regional, así como su concreción mediante leyes especiales o actos normativos administrativos, que permiten aplicar y proteger tales derechos fundamentales. La tutela cautelar efectiva, que encuentra su asidero también a nivel constitucional, en el postulado “Justicia Pronta y cumplida”, ha creado un arco de posibilidades a nivel jurisdiccional, para solicitar la tutela y protección de los derechos fundamentales, comenzando con los medios que ofrece el Derecho Procesal Constitucional, a través de la vía del amparo, en donde se ha reconocido la legitimación activa, incluso a menores de edad, cuando se trata de proteger la Salud de las personas, amparando de esa manera derechos difusos y de la entera colectividad. VII.- A nivel regional, el Protocolo de Tegucigalpa a la Carta de la Organización de Estados Centroamericanos (ODECA), del 13 de diciembre de 1991, que crea el Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana, creando órganos con competencia normativa específica y sienta las bases para la consolidación de un Derecho comunitario centroamericano, establece dentro de sus propósitos y principios “Establecer acciones concertadas dirigidas a la preservación del medio ambiente por medio del respeto y armonía con la naturaleza, asegurando el equilibrado desarrollo y explotación racional de los recursos naturales del área, con miras al establecimiento de un Nuevo Orden Ecológico en la región” (Artículo 3 inciso i), bajo la tutela, respeto y promoción de los derechos humanos (artículo 4). Bajo esa perspectiva, el Protocolo de Guatemala, al Tratado General de Integración Económica del 29 de octubre de 1993, señala la necesidad de ir creando una política agrícola y agroambiental centroamericana (artículos 21 y 22) bajo el compromiso de que “Los Estados Parte se comprometen a armonizar y adoptar normas y reglamentos técnicos comunes de mercado que dirigirán únicamente a satisfacer los requerimientos para la protección de la salud humana, animal y vegetal, el medio ambiente, la seguridad y el cumplimiento de estándares mínimos de calidad” (artículo 26, Protocolo de Guatemala). En aras de ir perfeccionando las políticas comunes de los países miembros, también se establece que los Estados parte deben establecer medidas de seguridad, policía y sanidad, y acordar un Reglamento Uniforme que regule todo lo referente a las medidas relativas a sanidad (Artículo 7). Esa atribución de competencias, que ha sido otorgada expresamente al Consejo de Ministros de Integración Económica y al Consejo Agropecuario Centroamericano (CAC), han llevado al establecimiento de los primeros actos normativos comunitarios. Tales actos comunitarios, como los reglamentos emanados de los Consejos de Ministros, son vinculantes y obligatorios para los Estados partes, e incluso prevalecen (en virtud del principio de primacía del derecho Comunitario), sobre otros instrumentos de libre comercio, suscritos bilateral o multilateralmente entre los Estado Parte, pero no afectan la vigencia de los mismos (artículo 62 del Protocolo de Guatemala). Nuestra Sala Constitucional, en reiterada Jurisprudencia, ha reconocido el carácter prevalente y vinculante de los Tratados regionales, y de los actos normativos derivados del derecho comunitario, en virtud del principio de atribución de competencias establecido expresamente en nuestra Constitución Política (Entre otros, véanse: Sala Constitucional, Voto No. 4638-96 del 6-9-96 que es Consulta de constitucionalidad del Proyecto de Ley de aprobación del "tratado de Integración Social"; Voto No. 4640-96 de 6-9-96 que es Consulta de constitucionalidad del Proyecto de Ley de aprobación del "Protocolo al Tratado General de Integración Económica Centroamericana (Protocolo de Guatemala)". En ambos casos, la Sala afirmó: "Dada la naturaleza institucional del convenio que nos ocupa, la Sala no encuentra normas que resulten inconstitucionales, ni advierte infracciones al procedimiento de aprobación legislativo. Sin embargo, como este tratado es parte integrante de un sistema de transferencia de competencias, que como ha quedado dicho resulta en un sistema comunitario, aun cuando la transferencia de competencias no se ha dado en forma expresa, aunque prevista en el Protocolo de Tegucigalpa, todo ello implica que para su aprobación se requiere una votación calificada, en los términos que se señalan en el párrafo segundo del inciso 4 del artículo 121 de la Constitución Política" (lo subrayado no es del original). Sala Constitucional, Voto 4242-93 del 27-08-93, 0791-94 del 8-02-94 y No. 7173-97 del 29-10-97, en las cuales se reconoce la supremacía del Derecho Comunitario -en éste caso referidas al Código Aduanero Centroamericano y su Reglamento- sobre el derecho interno de rango inferior; Sala Constitucional, Voto 6957-96 del 20-12-96 y No. 1293-02 del 8-02-2002, que otorga supremacía al Convenio Centroamericano sobre Unificación Básica de la Educación, sobre normas de carácter interno, tendientes a la unificación. Sala Constitucional en el Voto 4638-96, citado anteriormente, indicó: "…la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, organismo encargado de dirimir los conflictos relacionados con normas de carácter comunitario, y cuyas atribuciones, funcionamiento e integración se regulará por su propio Estatuto, que no ha sido aprobado por Costa Rica. A consecuencia de ello, el país y sus habitantes se encuentran en desventaja frente al Órgano llamado a interpretar y aplicar el Derecho Comunitario, situación que puede resultar de relevancia constitucional, en tanto podría implicar denegación de justicia para los costarricenses, quienes, al igual que los nacionales de los otros países centroamericanos, derivan derechos y obligaciones de las normas comunitarias, y se ven colocados en un plano desigual al acudir a ese Tribunal, merced a la no aprobación de su convenio constitutivo" (lo subrayado no es del original). Por otra parte, la misma Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, cuyas sentencias son obligatorias y vinculantes para los Estados partes del SICA, ha reconocido la prevalencia y primacía del derecho comunitario respecto del derecho interno (Corte Centroamericana de Justicia. Sentencia del 28 de noviembre del 2001. Honduras c. Nicaragua. Causa sobre revocación de disposiciones legales, actos administrativos y actuaciones de hecho adoptadas por la República de Nicaragua que afectan y violan la normativa jurídica y el funcionamiento del SICA. En igual sentido véase sentencia del 25 de octubre del 2001, en la demanda interpuesta por la Asociación de Agentes Aduanales autorizados contra la resolución No. 60-2000 del COMIECO, que es el Reglamento del Código Aduanero Centroamericano). VIII.- Con base en lo dicho en el considerando anterior, el legislador comunitario centroamericano, particularmente el Consejo de Ministros de Integración Económica, y el Consejo Agropecuario Centroamericano, en uso de sus facultades normativas, han dictado el Reglamento Centroamericano sobre medidas y procedimientos sanitarios y fitosanitarios (Aprobado mediante resolución No. 37-99 COMIECO, del 17 de setiembre de 1999 y ratificado por el Consejo Intersectorial de Ministros de Integración Económica y Ministros de Agricultura, en resolución No. 1-2002). Dicho reglamento tiene como fin regular las medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias de los Estados partes, a fin de armonizar gradual y prioritariamente las medidas y procedimientos en esa materia “…con el propósito de proteger la salud y la vida humana y de los animales o para preservar la sanidad de los vegetales, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Art. 7 numeral 2 del Protocolo al Tratado General de Integración Económica Centroamericana – Protocolo de Guatemala- y en el Acuerdo sobre Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias ( AMSF) de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC). La AMSF se tendrá como normativa supletoria” (artículo 1). El citado reglamento pretende ir creando una política común para el manejo de riesgos, generando criterios técnicos y científicos para lograr con esas medidas un nivel adecuado de protección sanitaria y fitosanitaria. Le corresponde a la Autoridad sanitaria y fitosanitaria competente aplicar los requisitos sanitarios y fitosanitarios y determinar los sitios de inspección. Se crea, a nivel regional, un Comité de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias, y a nivel nacional debe existir una Autoridad competente para darle seguimiento a las medidas, de modo tal que se pueda ir generando un sistema integrado de control, tanto a nivel nacional como regional, para evitar que se produzcan riesgos a la salud de los animales, de las plantas, o de las personas, y que las medidas adoptadas tengan rigor científico y técnico, para que no obstaculicen las actividades agrarias empresariales ni el comercio intraregional de los productos agrícolas. El artículo 12 del Reglamento Centroamericano sobre Medidas y Procedimientos Sanitarios y Fitosanitarios, le otorgan a la autoridad competente a nivel nacional, facultades suficientes para realizar cualquier labor de control, inspección, aprobación y certificación, actividades que deben realizarse con celeridad, proporcionalidad y racionalidad. IX.- Como vemos, el Reglamento Centroamericano de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias es perfectamente aplicable en éste caso particular, en el sentido de que el ejercicio de cualquier actividad agraria o agroindustrial debe cumplir con los requisitos mínimos exigidos a nivel regional y nacional, a fin de evitar daños a la salud de los animales, de las plantas y de los seres humanos, y de mantener un medio ambiente adecuado. En Costa Rica, los citados principios y normas han encontrado aplicación también en diversas leyes especiales, particularmente, en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, la Ley de Protección a la vida silvestre, la Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria, y el Reglamento No. 117 del 19 de junio de 1997 y sus reformas. En consonancia con el artículo 50 Constitucional, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente protege y garantiza el respeto a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, como un derecho-deber de cada ciudadano y de cada empresa agropecuaria o agroindustrial, estableciéndose la obligatoriedad de proteger los recursos suelo y agua, de la contaminación. Expresamente el artículo 66 indica: “En cualquier manejo y aprovechamiento de agua susceptibles de producir contaminación, la responsabilidad del tratamiento de los vertidos corresponderá a quien produzca la contaminación. La autoridad competente determinará la tecnología adecuada y establecerá los plazos necesarios para aplicarla”. 69 de la Ley señala que “En el manejo y aprovechamiento de los suelos, debe controlarse la disposición de los residuos que constituyan fuente de contaminación. Las actividades productivas evitarán descargas, depósitos o infiltración de sustancias o materiales contaminantes en el suelo…”. Como vemos, se trata de actividades puramente preventivas, que deben ser tomadas tanto por la empresa agraria o agroindustrial, como por las Autoridades competentes. La Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, prohíbe en forma expresa “…arrojar aguas servidas, aguas negras, desechos o cualquier sustancia contaminante en manantiales, ríos, quebradas, arroyos permanentes o no permanentes, lagos, marismas y embalses naturales o artificiales, esteros, tuberas, pantanos, aguas dulces, y salobres o saladas. Las instalaciones agroindustriales e industriales y las demás instalaciones deberán estar provistas de sistemas de tratamientos para impedir que los desechos sólidos o aguas contaminadas de cualquier tipo destruyan la vida silvestre. La certificación de la calidad del agua será dada por el Ministerio de Salud…”. (Artículo 132) Como se observa, existe una Autoridad competente, para controlar el vertido de aguas residuales, cual es el Ministerio de Salud, encargado de controlar y certificar, si se cumplen o no los niveles mínimos exigidos. Particularmente, según el Reglamento No. 26042-S-MINAE, artículo 10, “La División de Saneamiento Ambiental del Ministerio de Salud procederá a emitir la certificación de la calidad del agua que estipula el artículo 132 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, con base en el análisis de los reportes operacionales presentados por los entes generadores y su confrontación con las normas contenidas en el presente Reglamento, pudiendo además realizar inspecciones sanitarias para comprobar la validez de dichos reportes”. Esto significa, que la certificación se basa en el dicho de la empresa, y queda abierta la posibilidad para que la División de Saneamiento Ambiental, frente a situaciones irregulares, proceda a realizar las inspecciones sanitarias competentes a fin de verificar objetiva y científicamente si la realidad corresponde a lo indicado por el ente generador. En otro orden de ideas, la Ley de Protección Fitosanitaria No. 7664 de 8 de abril de 1997, establece dentro de sus objetivos primordiales, fomentar metodologías productivas sostenibles, y regular el uso y manejo de sustancia aplicadas en la agricultura, procurando proteger la salud humana y el ambiente (artículo 2). La Ley, en aplicación de las normas regionales e internacionales, impone los mecanismos necesarios para el control, inspección y certificación de actividades agrarias e agroindustriales que pueden ser riesgosas para la salud humana, vegetal y animal. Le corresponde a la Autoridad fitosanitaria del Estado, inspeccionar los vegetales, así como los lugares en donde se desarrolla la actividad y ordenar las medidas necesarias para combatir las plagas, o focos de enfermedades que puedan producir daños a la salud (art. 12 a 22). Es obligación de los propietarios u ocupantes a cualquier título de tratar, procesar o destruir los rastrojos, desechos y residuos, de acuerdo con las medidas técnicas dictadas por el Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado (artículo 20), y se establecen las responsabilidades por daños y perjuicios ocasionados a la agricultura, al ambiente y a la salud humana y animal (art. 31). Es la Autoridad Fitosanitaria del Estado, la Autoridad competente para ordenar el cierre temporal de los establecimientos, con el fin de que se corrijan la anomalías que se puedan detectar mediante las inspecciones previas de la autoridad administrativa, o bien, de la correspondiente autoridad judicial (artículo 38). X. Este Tribunal ha dictado precedentes importantes, refiriéndose a la tutela agroambiental a propósito de medidas cautelares, en el siguiente sentido: “IV…Nuestro legislador, desde hace muchos años, ha venido imponiendo una serie de límites agroambientales a actividades productivas, con el fin de proteger la salud de las personas y el medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. La actividad productiva, de cualquier naturaleza que sea, debe ejercitarse dentro del marco de respeto a la vida y existencia humana. Los límites a dichas actividades productivas están enmarcadas dentro de claros principios constitucionales donde, si bien se garantiza la propiedad privada y la libertad de empresa, dichos derechos deben ser ejercidos dentro del marco global del ordenamiento jurídico, respetando sobre todo los intereses públicos o el interés de la colectividad…Por eso se han creado una gran cantidad de Instituciones (MAG, MINAE, MS, entre otros), que ejercen un control sobre actividades productivas dañinas al medio ambiente. Con ello se pretende evitar, de alguna manera, el abuso del derecho –prohibido por el artículo 22 de nuestro Código Civil-, al ejercitar la propiedad o posesión sobre actividades agrarias productivas, desatendiendo los principios fundamentales de la Constitución Política. La salud de la población, como bien de interés público tutelado por el Estado –artículo 1 Ley General de Salud- está por encima de cualquier interés individual, y por ello cualquier persona está en la obligación de acatar las órdenes generales y particulares emanadas de las autoridades de salud –artículo 4-. Las actividades agrarias, sean de cría de animales o cultivos de vegetales, están sujetas a dichas disposiciones. Entre otras, sino se acatan las disposiciones o se desarrolla una actividad agraria productiva sin la debida autorización, puede ordenarse la clausura o cierrre formal del establecimiento o instalación. Pero ello es una atribución, como se ha indicado, que corresponde a las Autoridades Administrativas correspondientes…” (Voto No. 771 de las 10:40 horas del 13 de noviembre de 1998. En sentido similar, y en cuanto a la actuación de la Dirección de Protección Fitosanitaria, [Nombre2]. No. 301 de las 10:30 horas del 7 de mayo de 1998). XI.- Con base en lo anteriormente expuesto, y a la relación de hechos tenidos por acreditados, el Tribunal concluye que el recurrente lleva razón en sus agravios. En primer lugar, debe reiterarse que éste proceso cautelar se basa en un juicio de verosimilitud o probabilidad, en éste caso realizado por el Tribunal, de que existen los presupuestos necesarios para acoger, parcialmente y en la forma que se dirá, la medida cautelar. El juicio de probabilidad se basa en la aparente responsabilidad de la Cooperativa Coopabuena R.L., por los riesgos de daños a la salud y al medio ambiente, causados con el vertido de aguas residuales de su planta de tratamiento de broza del Café. Aún cuando existen dos certificaciones del Ministerio de Salud que indica que las aguas efluentes cumplen con los mínimos exigidos en el Reglamento, lo cierto es que tal estudio se basa en lo afirmado por el ente generador y no existe, al menos en el expediente, elementos de juicio que permitan indicar que esa información fue confrontada con la realidad mediante inspecciones sanitarias para comprobar la validez de dichos reportes. Por el contrario, del reconocimiento judicial practicado por la Jueza de instancia (folio 13), si bien no es una verificación técnico-científica, sí constata que el vertido de los residuos es bastante, que se producen focos de infección y malos olores, y que dichos vertidos pasan por el fundo del actor, lo que obligó a su familia a abandonar la propiedad, por el daño a la salud que aparentemente presenta su hija debido a dichos vertidos y malos olores. En virtud de lo anterior, la apariencia de buen derecho, el peligro inminente de causar daños graves e irreparables, y la residualidad de la medida, llevan al Tribunal a acogerla parcialmente, conforme se dirá, ordenando a las Autoridades administrativas competentes a realizar los estudios e inspecciones necesarios a fin de verificar que la Cooperativa está en estricto apego a la normativa agroambiental vigente."