Amparo reduces visitation to Manuel Antonio National Park for lack of technical studiesAmparo reduce visitación del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio por falta de estudios técnicos

Res. No. 2023011233 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hundred hours on the twelfth of May, two thousand twenty-three.

Amparo remedy processed in case file no. 23-006531-0007-CO, filed by [Nombre1], identity card CED1, against the NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION AREAS (SINAC).

Whereas:

1.- By writing received in the Chamber on March 20, 2023, the petitioner files an amparo remedy. States that Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA) is the protected area that receives the most visitors in the country, approximately 3000 people daily. Alleges that there are no current, conclusive, or verifiable scientific studies on the tourist carrying capacity. Clarifies that the last study dates from 2010, which established at that time a maximum visit of 600 people. Points out that, currently, the large number of visitors has deteriorated and affected the biodiversity, ecosystems, and sustainability of the park. Affirms that, according to studies conducted by the International Institute for Wildlife Conservation and Management (ICONVIS) of the National University (UNA), there is an evident impact on the behavior of some species due to interaction with the large number of people. Refers that this study indicates that feeding habits, management of aggressive behaviors, stress, and a decline in the immunological capacities of the animals threaten a possible decrease in specimens or the disappearance of species from the context of the protected area. Adds that the progressive, unsustainable, and constant increase in visitors has created very strong pressure on the tourist services offered in the park, such as the increase in the amount of septic-sanitary waste from the bathrooms and the deterioration of trails. States that the waiting time for entry at the main entrance of the park has increased to up to 45 minutes, in very intense weather conditions. Notes that the State has the duty to guarantee the sustainability and conservation of protected areas and to ensure that the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and scientific stewardship are respected. Estimates that the foregoing violates their constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Requests that the remedy be granted.

2.- By a resolution issued at 13:15 hours on April 12, 2023, the amparo was admitted for processing.

3.- [Nombre2], in their capacity as regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area of SINAC, reports under oath the following: "II. ON THE MERITS: In response to the allegations made by the petitioner, the actions carried out by the Central Pacific Conservation Area are detailed, in accordance with the powers granted by law: 1. Regarding the carrying capacity of Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA). The management of visitors in a protected area must be rigorously planned to achieve the conservation objectives for which it was created and, at the same time, to ensure that visitors have a quality experience and can satisfy their expectations. For this, it is important to establish the visitation carrying capacity that the sites designated for public use can support. Tourist carrying capacity is a specific type of environmental carrying capacity and refers to the biophysical and social capacity of the environment regarding tourist activity and its development ([Nombre3], 1991, cited by [Nombre4], 1996). It represents the maximum level of visitor use that an area can sustain. Environmental carrying capacity can be defined as the capacity an ecosystem possesses to maintain organisms while maintaining its productivity, adaptability, and regeneration capacity. It represents the limit of human activity: if this is exceeded, the resource will deteriorate ([Nombre5], 1996). Various methodologies exist to regulate visitor management in protected areas. On June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas (CONAC) through agreement No. 12, Ordinary Session No. 06-2014, acknowledged and approved the Tool for managing visitation flows in the Protected Wilderness Areas of SINAC, and instructed the Executive Director to formally officialize said tool, which would be applied on a priority basis in the Protected Wilderness Areas covered by the IDB Tourism Project and as of 2015 would gradually be prioritized according to the capacities and tourism potential of the Protected Wilderness Areas. Manuel Antonio National Park was one of the 10 Protected Wilderness Areas participating in said project. In December 2015, the process of applying the tool began, and in 2016, with the help of key actors, the first fieldwork was carried out on beaches and trails in the Manuel Antonio sector of the National Park, to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline where required. Subsequently, in 2018, the technical tool was presented to the Technical Scientific Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (ACOPAC), in the session of 11-22-2018, where its implementation for the Protected Wilderness Areas of ACOPAC was agreed upon. The execution of the tool is composed of seven steps: 1. Management purpose of the Protected Wilderness Area, importance of the site. 2. Analysis of the Protected Wilderness Area's resources and the current use by visitors. 3. Description of the range of experiences for visitors according to the conditions of the Protected Wilderness Area's resources. 4. Opportunities for potential conditions and experiences at specific locations within the Protected Wilderness Area. 5. Indicators and thresholds for each opportunity. 6. Application of indicators and thresholds, analysis, and taking of management actions. 7. Adaptation and new application. I attach the tool applied in Manuel Antonio National Park, which employs 18 indicators: 1. Impact on flora by visitors (FCafl) 2. Wildlife disturbance (FCbio) 3. Water accumulation on trails (FCane) 4. Appearance of spontaneous trails (FCase) 5. Impact on the trail base with exposure of roots, rocks, and others (FCero) 6. Trail expansion - widening (FCens) 7. Negative visual impact due to the presence of solid waste (FCivn) 8. Availability of drinking water for visitor use (FCdap) 9. Human resources for visitor flow management (FCcmr) 10. Infrastructure available for tourist use (FCcmi) 11. Equipment available for tourist assistance (FCcme) 12. Perception of overcrowding by the visitor (FCphv) 13. Level of satisfaction with the visit experience (FCsev) 14. Visitor perception of the condition and functioning of tourist infrastructure (FCpit) 15. Visitor perception of the guiding service received (FCgt) 16. Frequency of crimes against the visitor (FCdcv) 17. Frequency of visitor accidents within the Park (FCfav) 18. Vandalism on enabled tourist infrastructure (FCvit) The results of these indicators were obtained through different application methods: Monitoring Sheet A-1, Monitoring Sheet B-1, Monitoring Sheet C-1, and calculation of Tourist Carrying Capacity, these are entered into a template that contains the baseline for each indicator, generating the threshold corresponding to the result. Executive Decree 42496-MINAE, Reform to the public use regulations of the PNMA (07-16-2020), Article 3. "On the carrying capacity of the public use zone (high intervention)", indicates that, based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC will determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation to the different authorized sites, via an administrative resolution. The tool generates a 'radiography of the area', helps identify the resources available for visitor flow management, the indicators for monitoring the impact of the activity within the Protected Wilderness Area, and an approximate number of visitors in the areas enabled for tourist activity. It is important to remember that the carrying capacity of a site is not rigid; it is changeable in the face of a series of factors. For several years, it has been identified that managing 3 thousand daily visitors in Manuel Antonio National Park requires 100% of the infrastructure functioning in correct condition, 100% of the required personnel managing the flow of visitors in the different areas (entry, trails, beaches), as well as having 100% of the necessary equipment for the activity within the Protected Wilderness Area (communication, incident response, infrastructure maintenance, among others). Examples of some indicators applied in PNMA: Indicator: Impact on flora by visitors (FCafl) (Inserts table) The baseline for this indicator created in 2016 corresponds to 3 trees affected with graffiti on the [Dirección1] trail, which was maintained for several years. However, the latest monitoring reports 17 affected trees on this trail, resulting in an Unacceptable Threshold. Indicator: Wildlife disturbance (FCbio) (Inserts table) In 2016, 4 critical points or sites of greatest incidence were detected: Manuel Antonio beach and its trail, [Dirección2] beach and its trail. The species with the highest incidence were the white-faced monkey, iguanas, and raccoons. Collection of annual incidents began, reaching an initial Correction Factor (FC) of 0.44. In 2019, there were 24 animal attacks (bites when trying to steal food from visitors). It was recommended to analyze the need to regulate the entry of food into the Park, since the Threshold reached was Unacceptable and although information was provided to the visitor, reports of animals stealing food were growing. After analyzing information from scientific studies provided by the National University and other investigations carried out in the Protected Wilderness Area, in July 2020, the reform to the Public Use Regulations for Manuel Antonio National Park was carried out, Decree No. 42496-MINAE, where subsection 14 of Article 12 indicates within the prohibitions for visitors: "Within the limits of Manuel Antonio National Park, hereinafter PNMA, in addition to the prohibitions indicated in current environmental regulations, visitors are prohibited from:... Entering with food and/or beverages of any type, under the conditions and with the exceptions established by the Administration of the Protected Wilderness Area". The above helped reduce the incidence of wildlife-visitor interaction, managing to lower the correction factor. A Correction Factor (FC) of 0.67 was reached in [Dirección3] and an FC of 0.56 in [Dirección4]. The FC reached an Acceptable threshold. Subsequently, when the closure and then reopening of the Protected Wilderness Areas occurred during the COVID-19 Pandemic, the correction factor reached a rating of 1, being the Optimal Threshold, that is, zero impacts on wildlife with zero incidence of attacks on visitors, remaining recorded for the history of visitor management in Manuel Antonio National Park. Indicator: Perception of overcrowding by the visitor (FCphv) (Inserts table) To establish the range, literature was consulted, with that of [Nombre6] (2008) being easy to apply and in accordance with the management volume. This presents the scale to describe the level of perceived overcrowding in different outdoor recreation activities, based on 181 studies on several continents, where they establish that: between 0% and 50% the load condition is considered as "normal low", that is, there are probably no overcrowding problems. Between 51% and 65% corresponds to "normal high", indicating the tendency to exceed carrying capacity, and the need to anticipate problems, especially if visitation is growing, and when it is more than 65% it is considered as exceeded. During 2019, Manuel Antonio National Park remained the Protected Wilderness Area of SINAC with the highest visitation, with a total of 513,050 visits, of which 144,084 were resident visitors (28%) and 368,966 non-resident visitors (72%). In that year, 600 surveys were applied, where 40.16% were Costa Ricans, 6.16% Mexicans, 26.33% Americans, 2.16% Canadians, 15.83% Europeans, 9.36% other nationalities. During Holy Week (April), of the 200 people surveyed, 83% indicated they had not perceived overcrowding and 17% indicated they had. During mid-term vacations (July), of the 200 people surveyed, 74.5% indicated they had not perceived overcrowding, 21.5% indicated they had, and 4% did not answer the question. For the end-of-year period (December), of the 200 people surveyed, 84% indicated they had not perceived overcrowding and 16% indicated they had. The highest incidence was presented during mid-term vacations (July), with 21.5%, lower than the range established for this indicator, resulting in an Optimal threshold reached. Regarding the indicators Human resources for visitor management, Infrastructure available for tourist use, and Equipment available for tourist assistance, the established thresholds are presented below. (Inserts table) An optimal scenario for the PNMA is achieved with a management capacity of 9 out of 10. Indicator: Erosion on trails due to their composition, climatic factors, and visitor use (FCero) (Inserts table) In 2016, the baseline was identified for the 3 sites: the vehicular access road, the sector connecting Manuel Antonio Beach with the bathroom facilities, and the Punta Catedral Trail. In 2019, improvements were applied in the vehicular access road sector where there was waterlogging and erosion, as well as in the part of the sector connecting Manuel Antonio Beach with the bathroom facilities, improving the Correction Factor (FC), reaching 0.88, 0.88. However, the Punta Catedral Trail reached an FC of 0.55 and is currently closed to the visitor, that is, this, added to the closed sector of the Puerto Escondido Trail, results in approximately 1,500 linear meters of trail closed to the visitor. Hence, in 2021, resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 was issued at fifteen hours five minutes on the thirtieth of April, two thousand twenty-one, which in the THEREFORE section establishes a maximum of 1500 visitors per day with a distribution by time bands as follows; from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m., 250 people, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., 250 people, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 250 people, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., 250 people, and after 11 a.m. until 2:40 p.m., a total of 500 visitors, subsequently modified by resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 at fifteen hours twenty minutes on the fifth of August, two thousand twenty-one, in which the visitor capacity is increased to a maximum of 2000 people per day. For this year 2023, the results of the PRONAMEC Protocol for the ecological monitoring of sandy beaches, applied in PNMA, will be analyzed, in order to create the baseline to include as new indicators. (Inserts table) As can be seen, the visitor flow management tool is easy to apply, allows information to be collected from different sources, including scientific research conducted in PNMA, among others. Its application is low-cost; it only requires human resources for its application and follow-up. Given the above, it is evident that said instrument exists and has been designed precisely to eliminate subjectivity in this type of decision and to have clarity on the technical-scientific and administrative elements to carry out an increase or decrease in park visitation, so that there is no doubt that the number of visitors received in each of our Protected Wilderness Areas is in accordance with the conditions of our physical facilities, but also with the number of personnel, and the degradation that the ecosystem itself may be presenting due to the recurrent human presence at the site, surveys of the experience or satisfaction of their visit, among other inputs. In the specific case of Manuel Antonio National Park, it is more than evident that today it is the National Park that presents the greatest pressure and demand for visitation, which is worrying, not only because of 'the mafia' that looms outside the boundaries, but also because of the quality and conditions of service being provided to the visitor. This entire tourist 'experience' is of special care, since a bad experience undoubtedly negatively impacts the image of the park, of this Conservation Area, of SINAC, of MINAE, and of the country in general, internally and externally; all this is constantly seen, and more so in high season, permeated by what is published in the media and now more recurrently on social media; therefore, it is of special care, our most visited park being able to have it and keep it in the best possible infrastructure conditions, with sufficient and adequate personnel so that the user experience is hopefully the best. Here, perhaps the most preponderant thing is to have all the necessary elements to increase carrying capacity, in accordance with the provisions of the official Visitor Flow Tool, duly covered, corrected, and resolved, before carrying out any increase, given that rather, at the end of December 2022, the visitor flow model was giving us a carrying capacity of just barely 1120 visitors, that is, at that moment we were already receiving 198% of the capacity that the park could then receive, according to the result of the tool officialized by SINAC itself, and currently we are facing an estimated 267.9% of the installed capacity of Manuel Antonio National Park. It is important to indicate that in accordance with Article 107 of the Public Administration Law, this directorate is obedient to the orders issued by our superiors, however we consider it valuable, timely, and of utmost importance to make our immediate superiors aware of the risks to which the administration, infrastructure, and officials are exposed when making decisions based on the demands of a single sector, which, although it is true is central and of utmost importance for the country, does not necessarily, perhaps biasedly, obey the interests of our reason for being, such as our 'public value: Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services that ensure all citizens an ecologically balanced environment, as the basis of the country's development'; our 'Mission: The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) of Costa Rica integrally manages the conservation and sustainable management of wildlife, forest resources, protected wilderness areas, hydrographic basins, and water systems, jointly with actors of society, for the well-being of present and future generations.'; and our 'Vision: A National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) that leads the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and natural resources, applying science and technique for decision-making, with participatory and equitable management to improve and maintain ecosystem services, contributing to the sustainable development of Costa Rica'. It is precisely these same balances that we as an institution must make, meaning that the prior assessments before making the decision to expand the carrying capacity of Manuel Antonio National Park, and thus for any other Protected Wilderness Area, must go first, as our vision indicates, hand in hand with sound and healthy technique, with foundations that support that said load for the Protected Wilderness Area can be sustained and supported, not only for the sake of providing good service to visitors but also, in the sound management and use made of that valuable natural resource, as correctly noted in our mission, for the well-being of present and future generations. Therefore, through official letter SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023, the undersigned and the director of Protected Wilderness Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area, proceed to elevate to the Executive Directorate of SINAC the points indicated above, so that the risks to which the administration is being exposed in making this type of decision are assessed, which undoubtedly must always be based on technique and sheltered by the existing legal framework. Likewise, in accordance with Article 50 of our political constitution and the principle of in dubio pro natura, this directorate issues official letter SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023, to the Executive Secretariat of SINAC, in which it states that: For all the above, and in accordance with the functions entrusted by Law, Article 50 of our political constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law, and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law, and the principle of in dubio pro natura, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal system governing the matter, likewise, to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical system, as well as the hierarchical duty in the geographical area under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, norms, and strategies; for all the above, it is my duty that given the absence of formal and written instructions and directives from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool and furthermore, not officialized by any administrative resolution, this directorate has no legal and technical basis, as well as no budgetary and personnel capacity, to continue receiving visitation of 3000 daily people within the PNMA, therefore, in accordance with the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services that ensure all citizens an ecologically balanced environment, you are informed that as of April 30, 2023, the conservation area will be formally requesting the person in charge of the oversight of SICORE to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on the fifth of August, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, in the sense of reducing the reservation capacity to two thousand people. In addition to the above, presenting official letter SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 before Mr. [Nombre7], Chief of Information Technologies of SINAC, in his capacity as Overseer of SICORE, the formal request to reduce the reservation capacity in SICORE for entry to Manuel Antonio National Park to 2000 daily people as of April 30th of the current year, as established in Resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on the fifth of August, two thousand twenty-one. For the reasons stated above, it is concluded that in accordance with its responsibilities and competencies, the Central Pacific Conservation Area has been carrying out actions in pursuit of safeguarding the existing natural resources in Manuel Antonio National Park." 4.- [Nombre8], in their capacity as executive director of the National System of Conservation Areas, reports under oath to the same effect. Adds: "In relation to what was indicated by ACOPAC regarding the official letters sent to this directorate, it is important to clarify that given the recent nature of their issuance and referral, we are assessing their content. This executive directorate will analyze the reports and recommendations made by the Conservation Area in order to determine the need or not to vary the carrying capacity of Manuel Antonio National Park. In addition to the above and regarding the figure of 3 thousand people currently operating, according to the methodology used for calculating visitors, the infrastructure indicator was assessed, among others, within which the capacity of the treatment plant was estimated, which has a maximum approved by the Ministry of Health set at 3 thousand people, a quantity assessed so as not to exceed the thresholds of proper functioning. Additionally, the signing of agreements with the ICT for infrastructure improvement, mainly the Punta Catedral Trail, is considered, which allows managing more visitors within the national park and seeking an adequate distribution of these, and in the personnel indicator, agreements with the Ministry of Public Security and other State institutions were assessed in order to have reservists to support surveillance work in Manuel Antonio National Park and personnel within poverty levels who would support work in cleaning and maintenance tasks." 5.- In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,

Considering:

I.- BEFOREHAND. In view of the petitioner's claim, aimed at the issuance of a precautionary measure, the Court deems that such a request lacks interest, since this remedy will be addressed on the merits.

II.- Object of the remedy. The petitioner points out that Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA) receives about 3000 people daily. Accuses that such a quantity of visitors deteriorates the ecosystem and the sustainability of the park. Notes that there are no scientific studies supporting that tourist load, as the last one is from 2010 and only justified a maximum daily visitation of 600 people. Considers that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is violated.

III.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed as duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them, as provided in the initial order:

• a)Through agreement no. 12 of ordinary session no. 06-2014 of June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas approved the "Tool for managing visitation flows in the Protected Wilderness Areas of SINAC" and instructed the executive director to officialize that tool. (See report rendered).
• b)In 2016, the first fieldwork was carried out on beaches and trails of the PNMA sector to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline where required. (See report rendered).
• c)In 2018, the Technical Scientific Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area agreed to implement the tool for the protected wilderness areas of that conservation area. (See report rendered).
• d)Through resolution no. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 at 15:05 hours on April 30, 2021, the respondent party established a maximum of 1500 daily visitors to the PNMA. (See report rendered).
• e)By resolution no. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 at 15:20 hours on August 5, 2021, the respondent party increased the capacity to a maximum of 2000 daily visitors. (See report rendered).
• f)In December 2022, the visitor flow model evidenced a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• g)In 2023, the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to 3000 daily visitors. This increase occurred without applying the respective technical tools. (Incontrovertible fact and evidence provided with the report rendered).
• h)In April 2023, daily visitation to the PNMA has been as follows: April 1, 1891 people; April 2, 2592 people; April 3, 2867 people; April 5, 2765; April 6, 2754 people; April 7, 2734 people; April 8, 2755 people; April 9, 2746 people. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• i)Currently, the respondent party estimates that the visitation of the PNMA corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• j)Through official letter no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, the regional director and the director of Protected Wilderness Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area expressed to the executive director of SINAC their concern about hierarchical decisions related to the visitation of the PNMA. (See report rendered and evidence provided).

SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 of April 17, 2023, the regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area communicated to the executive director of SINAC: “For all the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with the functions entrusted by Law, Article 50 of our political constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law, and the in dubio (sic) pro natura principle, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal system governing the matter, likewise, to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical system, as well as the hierarchical duty within the geographical scope under my charge to implement, evaluate and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, standards and strategies; for all the reasons set forth above, it is my duty that in the absence of formal and written instructions and direct guidelines from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) greater than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool and not having been formalized by any administrative resolution, this office has no legal or technical basis, as well as budgetary and personnel capacity, to continue receiving visitation of 3000 people per day within the PNMA; therefore, in accordance with the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services that ensure all citizens an ecologically balanced environment, you are hereby informed that as of April 30, 2023, the conservation area will be formally requesting the person in charge of SICORE oversight to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of three twenty in the afternoon of August five, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, in the sense of reducing the reservation capacity to two thousand people.” (See report rendered and evidence provided).

IV.- Regarding jurisprudential precedents. In the jurisprudence of this Court, it is observed that the issue of visitation at PNMA has already been raised in this venue. In this regard, the Chamber had stated:

“VIII.- On the number of park visitors. The petitioner claims that the number of visitors entering the park exceeds the number permitted by regulations. The Chamber emphasizes that it is not its role to verify the number of visitors to a national park, as this is a matter of mere legality. Nor is it observed that the petitioner’s argument is correct. According to reports rendered under oath, the number of visitors within the park does not exceed what is stipulated, because access is suspended when the maximum number of visitors has been reached, to be resumed only when tourists leave the park, thus complying with the stipulated maximum number. Consequently, the claim is rejected.” (Judgment No. 2015012955 of 9:20 a.m. on August 21, 2015).

This decision was reiterated in judgment No. 2019008005 of 10:15 a.m. on May 7, 2019:

“III.- ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENTERING THE PARK. Regarding this point, it is not for this Chamber to verify, in accordance with the applicable infraconstitutional regulations, the number of visitors who can attend a national park, as this is an ordinary legality matter appropriate for discussion in ordinary legality channels (see in similar sense judgment No. 2015012955). Consequently, the appeal regarding this point is rejected outright.” In the sub lite case, it is necessary to understand that both decisions were issued based on the regulations that governed entry to PNMA at that time, which stated:

“Article 3—The maximum permissible number of visitors per day who may remain shall be six hundred (600) people from Tuesday to Friday.

On Saturdays and Sundays, that maximum permissible number per day shall be eight hundred (800) people.

Once the maximum number indicated in the preceding paragraphs has been reached, the Area Administration shall control the visitation flow without exceeding the number of persons authorized to remain and may authorize the entry of new visitors in a proportion equal to the number of persons who conclude their visit to the Protected Wild Area.” (Executive Decree 22482-MIRENEM).

Based on such provision, the Chamber considered that it was not its responsibility to review the number of visitors who attended PNMA daily, as it was a disagreement that could be resolved in the ordinary legality venue.

However, subsequently, that article was amended by Executive Decree No. 42496 of July 16, 2020, as follows:

“Article 3: On the carrying capacity of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC shall determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation to the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution.” As extracted from the transcription, the number of visitors shall be subject to the application of technical tools, a key situation for the resolution of the sub lite case, in consideration of the preventive principle in environmental matters and the objectification of environmental protection, as will be evidenced infra. This reasoning has led the Chamber to decide to hear the matter on its merits in the sub examine case.

V.- ON THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT. Regarding this issue, in judgment No. 2022022070 of 9:20 a.m. on September 23, 2022, this Court stated:

“Concerning the nature of the grievances alleged in the sub lite case, this Court has ruled repeatedly regarding the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For example, in judgment No. 2021024807 of 9:20 a.m. on November 5, 2021, this Chamber indicated:

“On repeated occasions, the jurisprudence of this Chamber has emphasized that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is recognized both at the constitutional and conventional levels. Likewise, it has been indicated that effective protection of this right requires that resources be used rationally, a context in which the State and the general public must act according to the principles governing environmental matters. In this vein, specialized doctrine has pointed out that the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned on compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are clearly defined risks identified at least as probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits that guarantee the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts. On the other hand, the precautionary principle states that, when there is a danger of serious and irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective measures in terms of costs to prevent environmental degradation. From the foregoing, it is noted that the principle starts from reasonable scientific uncertainty in conjunction with the threat of serious and irreversible environmental damage. In general terms, a relevant difference between the preventive principle and the precautionary principle lies in the level of knowledge and certainty about the risks that an activity or work causes. While in the former such certainty exists, in the latter what is observed is a state of doubt resulting from scientific information or technical studies. Thus, the Costa Rican State is obligated to adopt measures that guarantee the effective defense and preservation of the environment in accordance with such principles. Now, such an objective obligation does not inescapably entail a subjective right of individuals to demand, through jurisdictional bodies, that a specific measure be taken, but it does entail that suitable measures be adopted in protection of that right, in the face of openly negligent attitudes of authorities, or of natural and legal persons, in accordance with the recognized theory of horizontal effect of fundamental rights (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), among whose procedural manifestations is the amparo action against private law subjects.

It is also important to highlight that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017, developed matters relating to state obligations in relation to the environment, in the interest of safeguarding the human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights.

In that opinion, the Court recognized the interrelationship between the protection of the environment and the realization of other rights, insofar as environmental degradation affects the effective enjoyment and development of human rights. In this sense, it stated:

“47. This Court has recognized the existence of an undeniable relationship between the protection of the environment and the realization of other human rights, insofar as environmental degradation and the adverse effects of climate change affect the effective enjoyment of human rights. Likewise, the preamble of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (hereinafter ‘Protocol of San Salvador’), highlights the close relationship between the validity of economic, social, and cultural rights—which includes the right to a healthy environment—and that of civil and political rights, and indicates that the different categories of rights constitute an indissoluble whole that finds its basis in the recognition of the dignity of the human person, for which reason they require permanent protection and promotion in order to achieve their full validity, without it ever being justifiable to violate some in order to realize others (…)

49. For its part, the Inter-American Commission has highlighted that several fundamental rights require, as a necessary precondition for their exercise, a minimum environmental quality, and are profoundly affected by the degradation of natural resources. In the same sense, the OAS General Assembly has recognized the close relationship between environmental protection and human rights (supra para. 22) and emphasized that climate change produces adverse effects on the enjoyment of human rights. 50. In the European context, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized that severe environmental degradation can affect individual well-being and, as a consequence, generate violations of people’s rights, such as the rights to life, respect for private and family life, and private property. Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has indicated that the right to a ‘general satisfactory environment favorable to development’ is closely related to economic and social rights insofar as the environment affects the quality of life and safety of the individual (…) 52. On the other hand, there is broad recognition in international law of the interdependent relationship between environmental protection, sustainable development, and human rights. This interrelation has been affirmed since the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (hereinafter ‘Stockholm Declaration’), where it was established that ‘[e]conomic and social development is essential for ensuring a favorable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for the improvement of the quality of life,’ affirming the need to balance development with the protection of the human environment. Subsequently, in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (hereinafter ‘Rio Declaration’), States recognized that ‘[h]uman beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development’ and, at the same time, emphasized that ‘in order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process.’ Following up on the foregoing, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development established the three pillars of sustainable development: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. Likewise, in the corresponding Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, States recognized the consideration that must be given to the possible relationship between the environment and human rights, including the right to development. 53. Furthermore, upon adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations General Assembly recognized that the scope of all people’s human rights depends on the achievement of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. In the same sense, several instruments of the Inter-American sphere have referred to environmental protection and sustainable development, such as the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which provides that ‘[t]he exercise of democracy facilitates the preservation and proper management of the environment,’ and therefore ‘it is essential that the States of the Hemisphere implement policies and strategies for environmental protection, respecting the various treaties and conventions, to achieve sustainable development for the benefit of future generations’ (…) 55. As a consequence of the close connection between environmental protection, sustainable development, and human rights (supra paras. 47 to 55), currently (i) multiple human rights protection systems recognize the right to a healthy environment as a right in itself, particularly the Inter-American human rights system, while there is no doubt that (ii) other multiple human rights are vulnerable to environmental degradation, all of which entails a series of environmental obligations for States for the purposes of fulfilling their obligations to respect and guarantee these rights. Precisely, another consequence of the interdependence and indivisibility between human rights and environmental protection is that, in determining these state obligations, the Court may make use of the principles, rights, and obligations of international environmental law, which as part of the international corpus iuris contribute decisively to setting the scope of the obligations derived from the American Convention in this matter (supra paras. 43 to 45) (…) 59. The human right to a healthy environment has been understood as a right with both individual and collective connotations. In its collective dimension, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest, owed to both present and future generations. Now, the right to a healthy environment also has an individual dimension, to the extent that its violation can have direct or indirect repercussions on persons due to its connection with other rights, such as the right to health, personal integrity, or life, among others. Environmental degradation can cause irreparable harm to human beings, which is why a healthy environment is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity.”.

This interrelationship between the environment and the enjoyment of other human rights has also been recognized by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which in resolution A/HRC/RES/46/7, adopted on March 23, 2021, at its 46th session, held:

“Recognizing also that sustainable development and the protection of the environment, including ecosystems, contribute to human well-being and to the enjoyment of human rights, in particular the rights to life, the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, an adequate standard of living, adequate food, safe drinking water and sanitation and housing, and cultural rights.”.

Also, recently, in resolution A/HRC/RES/48/13, adopted on October 8, 2021, that Council stated:

“ (…) Recognizing that sustainable development, in its three dimensions (social, economic and environmental), and the protection of the environment, including ecosystems, contribute to and promote human well-being and the enjoyment of human rights, including the enjoyment of the rights to life, the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, an adequate standard of living, adequate food, housing, safe drinking water and sanitation and participation in cultural life, for present and future generations (…)

Recognizing further that environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy human rights, including the right to life (…)

Recognizing the importance of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as fundamental to the enjoyment of all human rights (…)

1. Recognizes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right that is important for the enjoyment of human rights; 2. Notes that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is related to other rights and existing international law (…)”. (Emphasis not in the original).

In this way, the particular relevance of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is reflected, whose defense transcends the protection of this constitutional good in itself, since its preservation constitutes an essential factor for the effective safeguarding of other primordial goods of the human being (such as life, health, property, equality), such that if the former fails, the effective safeguarding of the latter is not achieved.

Beyond the foregoing, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the aforementioned advisory opinion, recognized the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, susceptible to protection regardless of any risk of harm to individual persons. In this sense, it provided:

“62. This Court considers it important to highlight that the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, unlike other rights, protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers, seas, and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence about the risk to individual persons. It is about protecting nature and the environment not only because of their connection with a utility for the human being or because of the effects that their degradation could cause on other rights of persons, such as health, life, or personal integrity, but because of their importance for the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared, also deserving of protection in themselves. In this sense, the Court notes a trend toward recognizing legal personhood and, therefore, rights to nature not only in judicial rulings but even in constitutional orders. 63. Thus, the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right is distinct from the environmental content that arises from the protection of other rights, such as the right to life or the right to personal integrity.”. (Emphasis not in the original).

This stance was adopted in the judgment of February 6, 2020, regarding the case “Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) vs. Argentina,” in which, overcoming an anthropocentric approach, the CourtIDH affirms that the right to a healthy environment, besides being fundamental for the very existence of the human being, constitutes an autonomous and universal right, such that the protection of various components of the environment (such as forests, seas, rivers, and others) constitutes a legal interest in itself. In the words of the CourtIDH: “It is about protecting nature,” not only for its “utility” or “effects” regarding human beings, “but for its importance for the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared.” Given the transcendence of this statement, it is appropriate to transcribe this section of the referenced resolution:

“203. The Court has already referred to the content and scope of this right, considering various relevant norms, in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, to which it refers. It affirmed on that occasion that the right to a healthy environment ‘constitutes a universal interest’ and ‘is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity,’ and that ‘as an autonomous right […] it protects the components of the […] environment, such as forests, seas, rivers, and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence about the risk to individual persons. It is about protecting nature,’ not only for its ‘utility’ or ‘effects’ regarding human beings, ‘but for its importance for the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared.’ The foregoing does not preclude, of course, that other human rights may be violated as a consequence of environmental damage.”. (Emphasis not in the original).

Based on the foregoing, this Chamber, as guarantor of fundamental rights, must ensure respect for conventional and constitutional obligations, which constrain the State not only to recognize the rights enshrined therein, but also to impose the legal measures required for their safeguarding” (emphasis from the original).

Coupled with the foregoing, recently, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 of July 28, 2022, which recorded:

“1. Recognizes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right; 2. Notes that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is related to other rights and existing international law; 3. Affirms that the promotion of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment requires the full implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements under the principles of international environmental law; 4. Calls upon States, international organizations, business enterprises and other relevant stakeholders to adopt policies, to enhance international cooperation, strengthen capacity-building and continue to share good practices in order to scale up efforts to ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for all”.

This resolution is the formal expression of the will of the principal deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations Organization. Consequently, it constitutes a universal political commitment that must be valued as a source of soft law of the utmost relevance.

Precisely, resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 affirms that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has the nature of a human right. With this, it significantly contributes to its positivization, resulting in its technical understanding as a “fundamental right.” Likewise, it strengthens the notion that environmental protection is an “autonomous” human right, that is, one that is valid in itself, such that, on one hand, it has its own conceptual existence distinct from the environmental content that undoubtedly arises from the protection of other rights (such as life or health) and, on the other, its object of protection transcends the human being, since it provides shelter to the various components of nature due to their transcendence for preserving the existence of living organisms in general, regardless of their utility for human beings.

Likewise, it reiterates and, through that means, strengthens the stance that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is linked to other human rights, implying that its transgression can lead to the violation of health, life, sustainable democratic development, to cite just a few examples. The foregoing confers a particularly relevant legal significance to the right in question.

In addition, the UN General Assembly prescribes that the protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment demands the full application of conventional rights related to the environment in accordance with the principles of international environmental law. From the foregoing, its indispensable inclusion within the jurisdictional control of constitutionality by this Chamber is inferred.

Finally, in harmony with the recognized theory of horizontal effect of fundamental rights (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 regulates that the obligation to protect the environment, beyond states, extends to international organizations, business enterprises, and other stakeholders, the latter term encompassing human beings in general. It is precisely in that sense that the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction contemplates the amparo action against private law subjects.

In sum, under the conceptual framework explained ut supra, this Constitutional Court, as guarantor of fundamental rights, must ensure compliance with the conventional and constitutional commitments that impose upon the Costa Rican State and society in general not only the obligation to recognize the rights, principles, and values of environmental matters, but also to implement all those measures and actions required to ensure their effective protection.” VI.- Regarding the concrete case. In the sub examine case, the petitioner states that Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA) receives approximately 3000 people daily. He alleges that such a number of visitors deteriorates the ecosystem and the park’s sustainability. He points out that there are no scientific studies supporting that tourist load, as the latest is from 2010 and only justified a maximum daily visitation of 600 people. He considers that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is violated.

After analyzing the case records, the Chamber established as proven that, through agreement No. 12 of ordinary session No. 06-2014 of June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas approved the “Tool for managing visitation flows in the Protected Wild Areas of SINAC” and instructed the executive director to formalize it. In 2016, the first field work was carried out on beaches and trails in the PNMA sector to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline in the required cases. In 2018, the Technical Scientific Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area agreed on the implementation of the tool for the protected wild areas of that conservation area. With respect to the daily visitation of PNMA, through resolution No. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 of 3:05 p.m. on April 30, 2021, the respondent party established a maximum of 1500 daily visitors. Later, by resolution No. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of 3:20 p.m. on August 5, 2021, the respondent authority increased the capacity to a maximum of 2000 daily visitors. Likewise, it was established as an uncontroverted fact—which also derives from the evidence provided with the report rendered (see, for example, official letters SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 and SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023)—that the respondent authorities increased the permitted capacity this year to 3000 daily visitors. As a consequence of the foregoing, several days in April 2023 recorded visitation numbers exceeding 2000 people: April 2, 2592 people; April 3, 2867 people; April 5, 2765; April 6, 2754 people; April 7, 2734 people; April 8, 2755 people; April 9, 2746 people. Regarding this issue, the respondent Administration considers that the visitation of PNMA currently corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. For this reason, through official letter No. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, the regional director and the director of Protected Wild Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area expressed to the executive director of SINAC their concern about the hierarchical decisions concerning the visitation of PNMA. Regarding the impact on the ecosystem, that official letter indicated: “…Without a doubt and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% above the limit that had been managed) implies a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should rather be being received at this time; which poses an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental conditions and sustainability of the sector enabled for visitors.” It must be remembered that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, which if we overexploit, future visitors may perhaps not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term; therefore, the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority on the matter..." In the same vein, by official letter no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 of April 17, 2023, the regional director of the Área de Conservación Pacífico Central informed the executive director of SINAC: "For all the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with the functions entrusted by Law, Article 50 of our Political Constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law, and the in dubio pro natura principle, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal framework governing the matter, likewise, to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical framework, as well as the hierarchical duty within the geographical scope under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, standards, and strategies; for all the foregoing, it is my duty that in the absence of formal, written instructions and directives from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga), higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool and not being formalized by any administrative resolution, this directorate has no legal and technical basis, nor the budgetary and personnel capacity, to continue receiving the visitation of 3000 people daily within the PNMA. Therefore, in accordance with the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services that ensure all citizens an ecologically balanced environment, you are informed that as of April 30, 2023, the conservation area will be formally requesting the person in charge of SICORE oversight to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August fifth, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, to reduce the reservation capacity to two thousand people." Additionally, it is of utmost relevance to the resolution of the sub iudice that the Chamber could not verify the application of the respective technical tools to increase the PNMA's visitation.

The preceding facts show that the amount of visitation at the PNMA exceeds the capacity of that park to the detriment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Even beyond the reproach argued by the plaintiff, this situation is evident from the very statements of the reporting parties. For example, these authorities estimated that the current visitation of the PNMA corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. Note that, according to the visitor flow model conducted in December 2022, the carrying capacity is 1120 daily visitors. However, during this period, the daily capacity far exceeds that amount, as the PNMA received an average of over 2500 people daily during the first days of April 2023.

At the regulatory level, the Chamber first highlights the 'Convention for the Protection of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Scenic Beauties of the Countries of America' (Law No. 3763):

"The American Governments, desirous of protecting and conserving in their natural environment, specimens of all species and genera of their indigenous flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and in regions large enough to prevent their extinction by any means within human reach; and Desirous of protecting and conserving landscapes of incomparable beauty, extraordinary geological formations, regions and natural objects of aesthetic interest or historical or scientific value, and places where primitive conditions exist within the cases to which this Convention refers; and Desirous of concluding a convention on the protection of flora, fauna, and natural scenic beauties within the purposes stated above, have agreed on the following articles:

ARTICLE 1 Definition of the terms and expressions used in this Convention.

1.- National Parks shall be understood as: The regions established for the protection and conservation of natural scenic beauties and flora and fauna of national importance, which the public can best enjoy when placed under official supervision.

(...)

ARTICLE 3 (...)

The Contracting Governments further agree to provide the national parks with facilities for public recreation and education, in accordance with the purposes pursued by this Convention." In accordance with the foregoing, the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law (Executive Decree No. 34433) provides:

"Article 70.-Management categories of ASP. For purposes of the classification of the different management categories of wild protected areas, the following technical criteria are established for each:

(...)

• c)National Parks: Geographic, terrestrial, marine, marine-coastal, freshwater areas, or a combination thereof, of national importance, established for the protection and conservation of natural beauties and biodiversity, as well as for public enjoyment. These areas present one or several ecosystems where species, habitats, and geomorphological sites are of special scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational interest or contain a natural landscape of great beauty. (...)" In the particular case of the PNMA, the Chamber highlights that it has its own regulation, specifically, the Public Use Regulation for Manuel Antonio National Park (Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, Executive Decree No. 22482-MIRENEM). As relevant to the subject of this proceeding, that decree provides:

"Considering:

(...)

3rd-That in accordance with an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), carried out on Manuel Antonio National Park, uncontrolled visitation is causing its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation.

4th-That the administration of the State-owned lands that make up this National Park corresponds to the Servicio de Parques Nacionales of the Ministerio de Recursos Nacionales, Energía y Minas, and must ensure that a true balance exists between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to ensure the preservation in perpetuity of this wild area. Therefore, THEY DECREE:

Article 1-This regulation aims to improve the quality of the visitor experience at Manuel Antonio National Park and ensure its preservation in perpetuity.

(...)

Article 3: On the carrying capacity of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC will determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation at the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution. (...)" (Underlining added).

Based on the provisions just transcribed, the Chamber establishes that the primary purpose of national parks (among them, the PNMA) is the conservation of the ecosystems present in their respective areas or zones. A secondary objective is to enable public recreation and enjoyment of the nature within them. This order of priority is not derived solely from the regulations but is the consequence of the dependency the second has on the first. That is, the prerequisite for people to enjoy nature is inexorably the conservation of nature; if it is not conserved, what is intended to be visited disappears. In the case of the PNMA, the ratio of the Public Use Regulation for Manuel Antonio National Park was manifest in indicating that visitation was causing "...its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation," for which reason it was necessary to "...ensure that a true balance exists between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to ensure the preservation in perpetuity of this wild area." In that same vein, one measure contemplated by that regulatory body to achieve the cited balance and ensure the park's conservation is the regulation of the number of visitors in the park's public use zones. Thus, the determination of visitation shall be based "...on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC..." (Article 3). The Chamber endorses this requirement, as it is an expression of the principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental):

"Regarding the environment, the object of the stated fundamental right, our Magna Carta further requires that it be 'healthy.' The 'healthy' requirement leads us to the 'regenerative capacity' and the 'succession capacity' to guarantee life. From both requirements: 'healthy' and 'balanced,' the need for sustainable development emerges; the quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now, with the concepts of 'environment,' 'healthy,' 'ecologically balanced,' the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, in the terms of sections 16 of the General Law of Public Administration and 38 of the Organic Environmental Law, state actions in environmental matters must be based on and cannot contradict the unequivocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a 'greater well-being for all the country's inhabitants.' Regarding the submission of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technique, the Chamber has called it the principle of objectification of environmental protection: 'Of the objectification of environmental protection (...) it is a principle that cannot in any way be confused with the previous one [precautionary principle or 'principle of prudent avoidance'], as, derived from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the General Law of Public Administration, it translates into the need to support decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to acts and to provisions of a general nature -both legal and regulatory-, from which the requirement of linkage to science and technique is derived, which conditions the Administration's discretion in this matter. So that in attention to the results derived from those technical studies -such as environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental)-, if an objective technical criterion is evidenced denoting the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or human health, it is mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the event of 'reasonable doubt,' it is mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.' (Ruling of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05)." (Resolution No. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, reiterated in Resolution No. 2022-012509 of 12:10 p.m. on May 31, 2022).

On the other hand, the application of the preventive principle in environmental matters also obliges the Chamber to take measures to prevent the reproached administrative conduct from negatively impacting the ecosystems protected by the PNMA. As indicated supra, this principle states:

"...the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned upon compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are risks that are clearly defined and identified as at least probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts." The statements of the respondent party reveal that there is a clear risk to the ecosystems of the PNMA if visitation is not regulated through technical tools that allow establishing the sustainable load that park can handle. What is stated in official letter no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, is reiterated:

"...Without a doubt, and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that was being managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should actually be being received at this moment; which represents an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, which if we overexploit, future visitors may perhaps not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term; therefore, the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority on the matter..." (Underlining added).

In conclusion, the result of the study carried out by the Chamber demonstrates that the respondent authorities increased the visitation allowed to the PNMA without applying the respective technical tools, even when it was evident that the installed capacity of the park would be insufficient to guarantee the balance between nature conservation and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is granted. Given that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors, it is ordered that daily visitation be reduced to that amount, without prejudice to a new technical study determining such capacity under the current conditions of the park.

VII.- NOTE BY MAGISTRATE CASTILLO VÍQUEZ. Having seen the reasons for the majority vote, I waive the note recorded in the operative part of the judgment.

VIII.- DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATE SALAZAR ALVARADO. With due respect, I dissent from the majority vote that grants the appeal, based on the following reasons:

Protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, in the Costa Rican Legal System, is safeguarded not only in Article 50 of the Political Constitution but also in a series of current laws and executive decrees (regulations), such as the Organic Environmental Law, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995; the Biodiversity Law, Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998; the Wildlife Conservation Law, Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992; and Executive Decree No. 31849 of May 24, 2004, General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, to name just a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to separate constitutional review from legality review. In this sense, it is the undersigned's view that this Chamber, by way of amparo, should only hear a matter where a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged if the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily verifiable, of certain importance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community. Otherwise, the issue must be raised and discussed through the legality path. Therefore, the mere non-compliance with obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters is proper to be heard through the legality path —administrative or jurisdictional— where, with much greater scope, the alleged non-compliances or omissions can be scrutinized. It must be borne in mind that the amparo appeal is a summary, informal, simple, and fast process, such that from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter, in the exercise of its powers, and processes a procedure, issuing administrative acts, its knowledge falls outside the scope of action of this specialized jurisdiction. For this reason, the review of administrative actions carried out regarding an environmental issue that requires, for its proper assessment, a full knowledge process is only possible in the ordinary jurisdiction, since the design of the amparo process is incompatible with the contrasting or reviewing of technical or legal criteria elaborated under the protection of current legal or regulatory norms or with the evacuation of new and greater elements of conviction necessary for the contrasting or reviewing of the criteria already contained in the administrative file of the case. The opposite would imply transforming the amparo into an ordinary process of full knowledge, which would denature it and render nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, thereby losing its condition as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the foregoing, I consider that when a public entity or body has intervened, in various forms, or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, its knowledge and oversight correspond to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. It is, precisely, the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls under the competence of the legality path. Consequently, this appeal should have been rejected outright, since its subject matter is a question proper to be discussed, analyzed, and resolved through the legality path. However, as this was not done, the appropriate course is to dismiss it, without making any pronouncement regarding the merits of the issue raised, as it corresponds to the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, to determine whether the accused administrative actions and conducts conform or not, in substance, to what is prescribed in the legal system of statutory rank, regarding the protection, safeguarding, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

IX.- Documentation provided to the file. The parties are warned that if any documents on paper have been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained on any electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. It is warned that all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on Electronic Judicial Files before the Judiciary," approved by the Full Court in Article XXVI of session no. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, published in the Judicial Bulletin no. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, approved in Article LXXXI of session no. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012.

Therefore:

The appeal is granted. [Name8] and [Name2], in their capacity as executive director and regional director of the Área de Conservación Pacífico Central, both of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, or those holding these positions, are ordered to issue the orders and make the necessary arrangements so that, within TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, counted from the notification of this judgment, visitation to Manuel Antonio National Park is reduced to the carrying capacity calculated in the flow model applied in December 2022. The respondent authorities are warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, a prison sentence of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued within an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided the crime is not more severely punished. The State is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be settled in the enforcement of the judgment by the contentious-administrative court. Magistrate Castillo Víquez files a note. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado dissents and dismisses the appeal regarding the alleged infringement of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Magistrate Garro Vargas dissents and dismisses the appeal. Notify.

Fernando Castillo V. President Paul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

José Roberto Garita N. Hubert Fernández A.

Res. Nº 2023011233 DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATE GARRO VARGAS.

In the present judgment, the Chamber decided by majority to hear the merits of the amparo where the appropriate number of people entering Manuel Antonio National Park is discussed.

However, the problem of the Park's visitation has already been brought before this Court. In this regard, the following has been stated:

"VIII.- On the number of park visitors. The plaintiff claims that the number of visitors entering the park exceeds the number allowed by the regulations. The Chamber highlights that it is not its role to verify the number of visitors to a national park, as this is a matter of mere legality. Nor is it observed that the appellant's claim is correct. According to the reports rendered under oath, the number of visitors inside the park does not exceed what is stipulated, as access is suspended when the maximum number of visitors has been reached, to be resumed only when tourists leave the park, thus complying with the stipulated maximum number. Consequently, the claim is dismissed." (Judgment No. 2015012955 of 9:20 a.m. on August 21, 2015. Emphasis is not original).

This decision was reiterated in the following terms:

"III.- ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENTERING THE PARK. Regarding this point, it is not for this Chamber to verify, in accordance with the applicable infra-constitutional regulations, the number of visitors who can attend a national park, as it is a matter of ordinary legality proper to be discussed through the ordinary legality paths (...). Consequently, the appeal is rejected outright as far as this point is concerned" (Judgment No. 2019008005 of 10:15 a.m. on May 7, 2019. Emphasis is not original).

I consider that the appropriate course in the present matter is to uphold what was said in those precedents, meaning that it is not for this Chamber to determine the number of visitors who can attend Manuel Antonio National Park and declare whether the criteria applied by the Administration are correct in light of the infra-constitutional regulations.

Indeed, the matter requires examining technical aspects that far exceed the possibilities of a summary process like the amparo appeal. It should be noted that to correctly determine the number of visitors, variables of very different types must be considered, relating to socio-environmental impact in general, infrastructure, personnel, etc. Thus, it is reported that "the carrying capacity of a site is not rigid; it is changeable given a series of factors." Furthermore, the majority orders that the daily number of visitors be 1120 people, calculated in the flow model applied in December 2022. Note that it opts for a solution that does not even assess such basic aspects as the need to specify visitor limits depending on the time of year. Moreover, that number, as reported, constitutes "198% of the capacity that the park could receive at that time." Thus, it seems that not even what is ordered by the Chamber truly manages to protect the right to an ecologically balanced environment.

This decision that I justify here is even more protective for the intervening parties, since certainly in the ordinary jurisdiction there would be a broader evidentiary phase and the possibility of resorting to robust precautionary justice.

What is said in this dissenting vote is consistent with other resolutions, including those of the majority of this Chamber, that endorse this posture. For example, in judgment no. 2022017490 —which it fell to me to draft— the following was resolved:

"In that line, this Chamber considers that the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the Costa Rican legal system is provided for not only in Article 50 of the Political Constitution —as already stated— but also in a series of current laws and executive decrees (regulations), such as the Organic Environmental Law, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, the Biodiversity Law, Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998, the Wildlife Conservation Law, Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992, and Executive Decree No. 31849 of May 24, 2004, General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, to name just a few examples.

This makes it necessary to distinguish in environmental matters when it is appropriate for the Chamber to exercise the guarantee of such right and when the matter, despite referring to said subject, must be heard by the ordinary judge to exercise the legality review that is inherent to them.

Thus, in principle, non-compliance with obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters, even if it inherently has palpable and serious repercussions, is proper to be heard through the legality path —administrative or jurisdictional—.

On the other hand, historically this Chamber has maintained the jurisprudential line that 'the amparo process is of an eminently summary nature because its sole purpose is to provide timely protection against infringements or imminent threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, so its processing does not sit well with the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings' (among many others, votes numbers 2003-14336, 2006-014421, and 2020-019038 can be consulted).

In that direction, it is the majority's view that, by way of amparo, it must be understood that, in general terms, this Chamber should hear amparo appeals alleging injury to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided that the questions and complaints, due to their complexity, do not exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal. On the contrary, it is more protective for all parties, and even for the effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the protection of natural resources, to place the conflict in an ordinary path, of full knowledge, where with more procedural opportunities the evidence can be examined and the grievances contrasted, ultimately, to judge in detail the regularity of the omissive and/or active conduct of the competent public administrations in addressing and resolving the reported environmental conflict.

Furthermore, another condition must be met: that the Administration has not intervened (see vote no. 2022-009857). Indeed, when a public entity or body has intervened in various forms or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, particularly if it is complex, the knowledge and oversight of that activity corresponds to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Precisely, it is the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls under the competence of the legality path. Indeed, it is insisted, if there has already been conduct by the Administration that, after an administrative procedure, has granted subjective rights, established sanctions, or dictated a route to solve the reported problem, all of the above based on the application of legal or infra-legal regulations, then it would fall to the contentious-administrative judges to ensure the legality of such administrative acts. In this sense, starting from the entry into force of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, it was determined that the contentious-administrative jurisdiction possesses broad powers to hear grievances such as those questioned in the sub lite. For these purposes, this Court has reiterated the following:

"[I]n light of the enactment of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Law No.

8508 of April 24, 2006) and its entry into force as of January 1, 2008, it has become clear that litigants now have a plenary and universal contentious-administrative jurisdiction, extremely expeditious and swift due to the various procedural mechanisms that this legislation incorporates into the legal system, such as the shortening of time limits for carrying out the various procedural acts, the broad scope of standing, precautionary measures, the numerus apertus of admissible claims, orality –and its sub-principles of concentration, immediacy, and speed–, the single instance with appeal only in expressly limited situations, intra-procedural conciliation, the unified process, the preferential process or ‘amparo de legalidad’, purely legal proceedings, new enforcement measures (coercive fines, substitute or commissarial execution, seizure of assets of the fiscal domain and some of the public domain), the broad powers of the corps of enforcement judges, the extension and adaptation of the effects of case law to third parties, and the flexibility of the cassation appeal. All of these novel procedural institutes have the express aim and purpose of achieving procedural economy, speed, promptness, and the effective or complete protection of the substantial legal situations of the administered parties, all with the guarantee of basic fundamental rights such as due process, defense, and the adversarial principle.” (See, for example, judgments numbers 2010-17909, 2020-011247 and 2022-003724).

In contrast to what has been said about that jurisdiction, the absence in a constitutional amparo proceeding of a full evidentiary phase that facilitates the immediacy and the adversarial testing of evidence necessarily imposes that, in the interests of adequate and prudent protection of the right, recourse be had to the ordinary jurisdiction to hear environmental conflicts that are inherently complex, such as the one raised in this specific case. Otherwise, it would mean transforming the amparo into an ordinary process of full knowledge, which would denature it and render nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, with which it would lose its status as a summary instrument for the protection of fundamental rights.” (Criterion reiterated in judgment no. 2023-009347).

In addition, my line of reasoning is consistent with the note ?signed jointly with Justices Castillo Víquez and Garita Navarro? which I was responsible for drafting regarding judgment no. 2022-009857 and in which the following considerations were made:

“We deem it necessary to record this note in which we warn that, upon better consideration, in environmental matters of such complexity ?as the one challenged in this specific case? we assess that it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal in order to place the discussion in the ordinary jurisdiction where, with greater evidentiary and procedural possibilities, as well as enforcement, the challenged conduct can be examined in detail.

Firstly, it is necessary to emphasize that we consider this Chamber competent to hear amparo appeals related to the violation of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the terms of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. This, as this Court has done so successfully in the past. However, we warn that there are questions and complaints that, due to their complexity, exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal and, in such circumstances, it is more protective of all parties' rights, and even for the effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the protection of natural resources, to place the conflict in an ordinary jurisdiction, of plenary knowledge, in which, with more procedural opportunities, the evidence can be examined and the grievances contrasted. In short, to judge in detail the regularity of the omissive and/or active conduct of the competent public administrations in attending to and resolving the reported environmental conflict.

It should be recalled that historically this Chamber has maintained the jurisprudential line that “the amparo process is of an eminently summary nature because its sole purpose is to provide timely protection against imminent violations or threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, so its processing does not lend itself well to the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings” (among many others, votes numbers 2003-14336, 2006-014421 and 2020-019038 can be consulted). This jurisprudential line merely recalls the proper nature of this process. On the other hand, since the entry into force of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, it was determined that said jurisdiction possesses broad powers to hear grievances such as those challenged in the sub lite. (…)

In contrast, the absence of a full evidentiary phase that facilitates the immediacy and the adversarial testing of evidence necessarily imposes that, in the interests of adequate and prudent protection of the right, recourse be had to the ordinary jurisdiction to hear environmental conflicts that are inherently complex, such as the one raised in this specific case. (…)

From the enumeration of grievances and the analysis of the claim of the appellant, it is possible to verify that the reported conflict is extremely complex to resolve through the amparo process and, therefore, it should be placed in an ordinary venue that, with greater tools, can hear the underlying complaint in depth, adopt precautionary measures, and issue broad and specific orders to address the indicated problem.

The Chamber must hear environmental matters in all those cases whose claim is compatible with the summary nature of the amparo appeal. Everything that can be heard and placed before the constitutional jurisdiction because the claim is compatible with the qualities and possibilities that this process grants, must remain in this venue. Not so environmental complaints whose elucidation requires, for their knowledge and adequate analysis, a full evidentiary space such as that provided for in the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. That is the exception. We consider the rule, then, to be that it is appropriate to hear an amparo appeal when the verification of the problem is relatively simple and the Chamber has the appropriate tools for timely and appropriate redress, that is, that its enforcement is also proper to a summary process.

In this regard, it is necessary to note that there are grievances that are easily verifiable and would not be so difficult to hear, but they are part of a whole. Therefore, it is better that this whole be placed in a venue that, by its characteristics, allows the matter to be heard comprehensively with the analysis of all the facets that cover the specific case.

(…)

Ultimately, we consider that, upon better consideration, it is necessary to conclude that there are conflicts that, due to their magnitude, necessarily require a full evidentiary process for their attention and resolution. This is precisely one of those cases, for which reason we consider that the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal and refer the entirety of the conflict raised ?complaint regarding staff shortages to the detriment of biodiversity? to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.

We make this note in order to guarantee due legal certainty in the jurisprudential lines of this Constitutional Jurisdiction and to specifically warn what the partial change of criterion of the undersigned justices consists of.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

Consequently, I issue my dissenting vote and declare the appeal without merit, without prejudice to the appellant resorting to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction to discuss the subject matter of this proceeding, where they will find greater guarantees for it to be examined and resolved.

Anamari Garro Vargas Magistrate It is important to indicate that in accordance with Article 107 of the Public Administration Law, this office is obedient to the orders issued by our superiors; however, we consider it valuable, timely, and of utmost importance to make our immediate superior aware of the risks to which the administration, infrastructure, and officials are exposed when making decisions based on the demands of a single sector, which, although it is central and of utmost importance to the country, does not necessarily, and perhaps biasedly, align with the interests of our reason for being, such as our "public value: Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) to ensure an ecologically balanced environment for all citizens, as the basis for the country's development"; our "Mission: The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) of Costa Rica comprehensively manages the conservation and sustainable management of wildlife, forest resources, protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), watersheds, and water systems, together with societal actors, for the well-being of current and future generations."; and our "Vision: A National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) that leads the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and natural resources, applying science and technique for decision-making, with participatory and equitable management to improve and maintain ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos), contributing to the sustainable development of Costa Rica." It is precisely these balances that we as an institution must make, meaning that the assessments prior to making the decision to expand the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of Manuel Antonio National Park, and thus of any other Protected Wild Area (Área Silvestre Protegida), must be guided, first and foremost, as our vision states, by sound and healthy technique, with foundations that support that said carrying capacity for the Protected Wild Area (ASP) can be sustained, not only for the sake of providing a good service to visitors but equally for the proper management and use of that valuable natural resource, for, as very correctly noted in our mission, the well-being of current and future generations. Therefore, via official note SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023, the undersigned and the director of Protected Wild Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) proceed to elevate the aforementioned points to the Executive Directorate of SINAC, so that the risks to which the administration is being exposed in making this type of decisions are assessed, decisions which undoubtedly must always be grounded in technique and protected by the existing legal framework. Likewise, in accordance with Article 50 of our Political Constitution and the principle of in dubio pro natura, this office issued official note SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 to the Executive Secretariat of SINAC, in which it states: For all of the foregoing, and in accordance with the functions entrusted by Law, Article 50 of our Political Constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law, and the principle of in dubio pro natura, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal framework governing the matter, as well as to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical framework, as well as the hierarchical duty in the geographical area under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, norms, and strategies; for all the above, it is my duty that, in the absence of direct instructions and directives formally and in writing from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool (herramienta de capacidad de carga) and not being officially established by any administrative resolution (resolución administrativa), this office has no legal or technical basis, nor budgetary or personnel capacity, to continue receiving visitation of 3000 people daily within the Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA). Therefore, in accordance with the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) to ensure an ecologically balanced environment for all citizens, you are informed that as of April 30, 2023, the conservation area (área de conservación) will formally request the person in charge of overseeing SICORE to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August five, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, to reduce the reservation capacity to two thousand people. In addition to the above, submitting official note SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 to Mr. [Name7], Head of Information Technologies of SINAC, in his capacity as SICORE Overseer, the formal request to reduce the reservation capacity in SICORE for entry to Manuel Antonio National Park to 2000 people daily as of April 30 of the current year, as was established in Resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August five, two thousand twenty-one. Based on the foregoing grounds, it is concluded that in accordance with its responsibilities and competencies, the Central Pacific Conservation Area has been carrying out actions in pursuit of safeguarding the natural resources existing in Manuel Antonio National Park." 4.- [Name8] testifies under oath, in his capacity as executive director of the National System of Conservation Areas, in the same vein. He adds: "Regarding what ACOPAC indicated about the official notes it sent to this office, it is important to clarify that, given the recent nature of their issuance and referral, we are currently assessing their content. This executive office will analyze the reports and recommendations made by the Conservation Area in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to vary the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of Manuel Antonio National Park. In addition to the above and with respect to the currently operating figure of 3000 people, according to the methodology used to calculate visitors, the infrastructure indicator was assessed, among others, within which the capacity of the treatment plant was estimated, which has a maximum approved by the Ministry of Health established at 3000 people, a quantity assessed so as not to exceed the thresholds of adequate functioning. Additionally, the signing of agreements with the ICT for infrastructure improvement, mainly the Sendero a Punta Catedral trail, is considered, which allows handling more visitors within the national park and seeking an adequate distribution of these, and in the personnel indicator, agreements with the Ministry of Public Security and other State institutions were assessed in order to have reservists to support surveillance tasks in Manuel Antonio National Park and personnel within poverty levels who would support cleaning and maintenance work." 5.- In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,

Considering:

I.- PRELIMINARY. Having reviewed the petitioner's claim, aimed at the issuance of a precautionary measure, the Court considers that such request lacks interest, since this appeal will be heard on its merits.

II.- Purpose of the appeal. The appellant points out that Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA) receives approximately 3000 people daily. He complains that such a number of visitors deteriorates the ecosystem and the sustainability of the park. He notes that there are no scientific studies that support this tourist load, since the last one is from 2010 and only justified a maximum daily visitation of 600 people. He considers that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is violated.

III.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them, as provided in the initial order:

• a)By means of agreement no. 12 of ordinary session no. 06-2014 of June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas approved the "Tool for managing visitation flows in the Protected Wild Areas of SINAC" (Herramienta para el manejo de los flujos de visitación en las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del SINAC) and instructed the executive director to officially establish that tool. (See report rendered).
• b)In 2016, the first fieldwork was carried out on beaches and trails of the PNMA sector to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline where required. (See report rendered).
• c)In 2018, the Technical Scientific Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area agreed to implement the tool for the protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) of that conservation area (área de conservación). (See report rendered).
• d)By resolution no. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 of 15:05 hours on April 30, 2021, the respondent party established a maximum of 1500 daily visitors to the PNMA. (See report rendered).
• e)By resolution no. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of 15:20 hours on August 5, 2021, the respondent party increased the capacity to a maximum of 2000 daily visitors. (See report rendered).
• f)In December 2022, the visitor flow model showed a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of 1120 daily visitors. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• g)In 2023, the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to 3000 daily visitors. This increase occurred without the application of the respective technical tools. (Uncontroverted fact and evidence provided with the report rendered).
• h)In April 2023, the daily visitation to the PNMA was as follows: April 1st, 1891 people; April 2nd, 2592 people; April 3rd, 2867 people; April 5th, 2765; April 6th, 2754 people; April 7th, 2734 people; April 8th, 2755 people; April 9th, 2746 people. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• i)Currently, the respondent party estimates that the visitation of the PNMA corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• j)By official note no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, the regional director and the director of Protected Wild Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area expressed to the executive director of SINAC their concern about hierarchical decisions related to the visitation of the PNMA. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• k)By official note no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 of April 17, 2023, the regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area informed the executive director of SINAC: "For all of the foregoing, and in accordance with the functions entrusted by Law, Article 50 of our Political Constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law, and the principle of in dubio (sic) pro natura, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal framework governing the matter, as well as to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical framework, as well as the hierarchical duty in the geographical area under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, norms, and strategies; for all the above, it is my duty that, in the absence of direct instructions and directives formally and in writing from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool (herramienta de capacidad de carga) and not being officially established by any administrative resolution (resolución administrativa), this office has no legal or technical basis, nor budgetary or personnel capacity, to continue receiving visitation of 3000 people daily within the PNMA. Therefore, in accordance with the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) to ensure an ecologically balanced environment for all citizens, you are informed that as of April 30, 2023, the conservation area (área de conservación) will formally request the person in charge of overseeing SICORE to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August five, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, to reduce the reservation capacity to two thousand people." (See report rendered and evidence provided).

IV.- On the jurisprudential precedent. In the jurisprudence of this Court, it is observed that the problem of visitation of the PNMA has already been raised in this venue. In this regard, the Chamber had stated:

"VIII.- On the number of visitors to the park. The petitioner claims that the number of visitors entering the park exceeds the number permitted by the regulations. The Chamber emphasizes that it is not its task to verify the number of visitors to a national park, as it is a matter of mere legality. Nor is it observed that the petitioner's claim is correct. According to the reports rendered under oath, the number of visitors inside the park does not exceed what is stipulated, as access is suspended when the maximum number of visitors has been reached, to be resumed only when tourists leave the park, thus complying with the stipulated maximum number. Consequently, the claim is dismissed." (Judgment no. 2015012955 of 9:20 hours on August 21, 2015).

This decision was reiterated in judgment no. 2019008005 of 10:15 hours on May 7, 2019:

"III.- ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENTERING THE PARK. Regarding this matter, it is not for this Chamber to verify, in accordance with the applicable infra-constitutional regulations, the number of visitors who can attend a national park, as this is a matter of ordinary legality to be discussed in the ordinary legality venues (see in a similar sense judgment no. 2015012955). Consequently, the appeal is flatly dismissed insofar as it relates to this matter." In the case at hand (sub lite), it is necessary to understand that both decisions were issued based on the regulations that governed entry to the PNMA at that time, which stated:

"Article 3.—The maximum allowable number of visitors per day who may remain shall be six hundred (600) people from Tuesday to Friday.

On Saturdays and Sundays, this maximum allowable number per day shall be eight hundred (800) people.

Once the maximum number indicated in the preceding paragraphs is reached, the Area Administration shall control the visitation flow without exceeding the number of people authorized for their stay and may authorize the entry of new visitors in a proportion equal to the number of people who conclude their visit to the Protected Wild Area (Área Silvestre Protegida)." (Decreto ejecutivo 22482-MIRENEM).

Based on that provision, the Chamber considered that it was not appropriate for it to review the number of visitors attending the PNMA daily, as it was a disagreement that could be resolved through legality channels.

However, subsequently, that article was amended by executive decree (Decreto ejecutivo) no. 42496 of July 16, 2020, as follows:

"Article 3: On the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC shall determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation at the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution (resolución administrativa)." As extracted from the transcription, the number of visitors shall be subject to the application of technical tools, a key situation for the resolution of the case at hand (sub lite), in consideration of the preventative principle in environmental matters and the principle of objectification of environmental protection, as will be evidenced below (infra). This reasoning has mediated for the Chamber to decide to hear the matter on its merits in the present case (sub examine).

V.- ON THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT. Regarding this issue, in judgment no. 2022022070 of 9:20 hours on September 23, 2022, this Court stated:

"Concerning the nature of the grievances alleged in the case at hand (sub lite), this Tribunal has repeatedly ruled regarding the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For example, in judgment no. 2021024807 of 9:20 hours on November 5, 2021, this Chamber pointed out:

'On repeated occasions, the jurisprudence of this Chamber has stressed that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is recognized both at the constitutional and conventional levels. Likewise, it has been indicated that the effective protection of this right requires that resources be used in a rational manner, a context in which the State and citizens in general must act according to the principles governing environmental matters. In this vein, specialized doctrine has pointed out that the preventative principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damages to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned on compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are risks clearly defined and identified at least as probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits that guarantee the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts. On the other hand, the precautionary principle indicates that, when there is danger of serious and irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective measures in terms of costs to prevent environmental degradation. From the above, it is noted that the principle starts from reasonable scientific uncertainty together with the threat of serious and irreversible environmental damage. In general terms, a relevant difference between the preventative principle and the precautionary principle lies in the level of knowledge and certainty of the risks that an activity or work causes. While in the former such certainty exists, in the latter what is noted is a state of doubt resulting from scientific information or technical studies. Thus, the Costa Rican State is obliged to adopt measures that guarantee the effective defense and preservation of the environment in accordance with such principles.' Now, such an objective obligation does not inevitably entail a subjective right of individuals to demand, through judicial organs, that a specific measure be taken, but it does entail the right to demand that suitable measures be adopted in protection of that right, in the face of openly negligent attitudes by the authorities, or by natural and legal persons, in accordance with the recognized theory of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), among whose procedural manifestations is the amparo action against subjects of private law.

It is also worth highlighting that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017, developed the relevant State obligations in relation to the environment, for the purpose of safeguarding the human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights.

In that opinion, the Court recognized the interrelationship between environmental protection and the realization of other rights, insofar as environmental degradation affects the effective enjoyment and development of human rights. In that regard, it stated:

“47. This Court has recognized the existence of an undeniable relationship between environmental protection and the realization of other human rights, insofar as environmental degradation and the adverse effects of climate change affect the effective enjoyment of human rights. Likewise, the preamble to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter “Protocol of San Salvador”), highlights the close relationship between the validity of economic, social and cultural rights - which includes the right to a healthy environment - and that of civil and political rights, and indicates that the different categories of rights constitute an indissoluble whole based on the recognition of the dignity of the human person, for which they require permanent protection and promotion in order to achieve their full validity, without the violation of some ever being justified for the sake of the realization of others (...)

49. For its part, the Inter-American Commission has highlighted that several rights of fundamental rank require, as a necessary precondition for their exercise, a minimum environmental quality, and are profoundly affected by the degradation of natural resources. In the same sense, the OAS General Assembly has recognized the close relationship between environmental protection and human rights (supra para. 22) and stressed that climate change produces adverse effects on the enjoyment of human rights. 50. In the European sphere, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized that severe environmental degradation can affect the well-being of the individual and, consequently, generate violations of persons' rights, such as the rights to life, to respect for private and family life68 and to private property. Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has indicated that the right to a “general satisfactory environment favorable to development” is closely related to economic and social rights insofar as the environment affects the quality of life and security of the individual (...) 52. Furthermore, there is broad recognition in international law regarding the interdependent relationship between environmental protection, sustainable development, and human rights. This interrelationship has been affirmed since the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (hereinafter “Stockholm Declaration”), where it was established that “[e]conomic and social development is indispensable to ensure a favorable living and working environment for man and to create on earth the conditions necessary for improving the quality of life,” affirming the need to balance development with the protection of the human environment. Subsequently, in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (hereinafter “Rio Declaration”), States recognized that “[h]uman beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development” and, at the same time, stressed that “in order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process.” Following up on the above, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development established the three pillars of sustainable development: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. Likewise, in the corresponding Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, States recognized the consideration that must be given to the possible relationship between the environment and human rights, including the right to development. 53. Furthermore, in adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations General Assembly recognized that the scope of the human rights of all persons depends on the achievement of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. In the same sense, several instruments in the inter-American sphere have referred to environmental protection and sustainable development, such as the Inter-American Democratic Charter which provides that “[t]he exercise of democracy facilitates the preservation and proper stewardship of the environment,” and therefore “it is essential that the states of the Hemisphere implement policies and strategies for environmental protection, respecting the various treaties and conventions, to achieve sustainable development for the benefit of future generations” (...) 55. As a consequence of the close connection between environmental protection, sustainable development, and human rights (supra paras. 47 to 55), currently (i) multiple human rights protection systems recognize the right to a healthy environment as a right in itself, particularly the inter-American human rights system, while there is no doubt that (ii) multiple other human rights are vulnerable to environmental degradation, all of which entails a series of environmental obligations for States for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations to respect and guarantee these rights. Precisely, another consequence of the interdependence and indivisibility between human rights and environmental protection is that, in determining these State obligations, the Court may make use of the principles, rights, and obligations of international environmental law, which, as part of the international corpus iuris, contribute decisively to setting the scope of the obligations derived from the American Convention in this matter (supra paras. 43 to 45) (...) 59. The human right to a healthy environment has been understood as a right with both individual and collective connotations. In its collective dimension, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest, owed to both present and future generations. Now, the right to a healthy environment also has an individual dimension, insofar as its violation can have direct or indirect repercussions on persons due to its connection with other rights, such as the right to health, personal integrity, or life, among others. Environmental degradation can cause irreparable harm to human beings, which is why a healthy environment is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity.” This interrelationship between the environment and the enjoyment of other human rights has also been recognized by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which in resolution A/HRC/RES/46/7, adopted on March 23, 2021, at the 46th session, held:

“Recognizing also that sustainable development and environmental protection, including ecosystems, contribute to human well-being and to the enjoyment of human rights, in particular the rights to life, the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, an adequate standard of living, adequate food, safe drinking water and sanitation and housing, and cultural rights.” Also, recently, in resolution A/HRC/RES/48/13, adopted on October 8, 2021, that Council stated:

“(…) Recognizing that sustainable development, in its three dimensions (social, economic and environmental), and the protection of the environment, including ecosystems, contribute to and promote human well-being and the enjoyment of human rights, including the enjoyment of the rights to life, the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, an adequate standard of living, adequate food, housing, safe drinking water and sanitation, and participation in cultural life, for present and future generations (…)

Recognizing further that environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development are some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy human rights, including the right to life (…)

Recognizing the importance of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as fundamental to the enjoyment of all human rights (…)

1. Recognizes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right that is important for the enjoyment of human rights; 2. Notes that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is related to other rights and existing international law (…)” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In this way, the particular relevance of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is reflected, the defense of which transcends the protection of this constitutional good in itself, since its preservation constitutes an essential factor for the effective safeguarding of other primordial goods of the human being (such as life, health, property, equality), so that if the former fails, the effective safeguarding of the latter is not achieved.

Beyond the foregoing, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the aforementioned advisory opinion, recognized the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, susceptible to protection independently of any risk of harm to individual persons. In that regard, it ordered:

“62. This Court considers it important to emphasize that the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, unlike other rights, protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers, seas, and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to individual persons. It is about protecting nature and the environment not only because of their connection to a utility for human beings or because of the effects that their degradation could have on other rights of persons, such as health, life, or personal integrity, but also because of their importance for the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared, also deserving of protection in themselves. In this sense, the Court notes a tendency to recognize legal personhood and, therefore, rights to nature not only in judicial rulings but even in constitutional systems. 63. In this way, the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right is distinct from the environmental content that arises from the protection of other rights, such as the right to life or the right to personal integrity.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

This position was adopted in the judgment of February 6, 2020, concerning the case “Comunidades Indígenas miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) vs. Argentina,” in which, overcoming an anthropocentric approach, the Inter-American Court affirms that the right to a healthy environment, besides being fundamental for the very existence of the human being, constitutes an autonomous and universal right, so that the protection of diverse components of the environment (such as forests, seas, rivers, and others) constitutes a legal interest in and of itself. In the words of the Inter-American Court: “It is about protecting nature,” not only for its “utility” or “effects” with respect to human beings, “but for its importance for the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared.” Given the transcendence of this affirmation, it is appropriate to transcribe this section of the referred resolution:

“203. The Court has already referred to the content and scope of this right, considering various relevant norms, in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, for which it refers to said pronouncement. It affirmed on that occasion that the right to a healthy environment “constitutes a universal interest” and “is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity,” and that “as an autonomous right […] it protects the components of the […] environment, such as forests, seas, rivers and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to individual persons. It is about protecting nature,” not only for its “utility” or “effects” with respect to human beings, “but for its importance for the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared.” The foregoing does not preclude, of course, that other human rights may be violated as a consequence of environmental damage.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

Based on the foregoing, this Chamber, as guarantor of fundamental rights, must ensure respect for the conventional and constitutional obligations that bind the State not only to recognize the rights enshrined therein, but also to impose the legal measures required for their protection” (the highlighting is from the original).

In addition to the above, recently, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution no. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 of July 28, 2022, in which it stated:

“1. Recognizes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right; 2. Notes that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is related to other rights and existing international law; 3. Affirms that the promotion of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment requires the full implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements under the principles of international environmental law; 4. Calls upon States, international organizations, business enterprises and other relevant stakeholders to adopt policies, to enhance international cooperation, strengthen capacity-building and continue to share good practices in order to scale up efforts to ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for all”.

This resolution is the formal expression of the will of the principal deliberative, policy-making, and representative organ of the United Nations Organization. Consequently, it constitutes a political commitment of a universal nature that must be valued as a source of soft law of the greatest relevance.

Precisely, resolution no. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 affirms that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has the nature of a human right. With this, it contributes significantly to its positivization, from which results its technical understanding as a “fundamental right.” Likewise, it strengthens the notion that environmental protection is an “autonomous” human right, that is, it is valid in itself, so that, on the one hand, it has its own conceptual existence distinct from the environmental content that undoubtedly arises from the protection of other rights (such as life or health) and, on the other, its object of protection transcends the human being, since it provides shelter to the diverse components of nature due to their transcendence for preserving the existence of living organisms in general, independently of their utility for human beings.

Likewise, it reiterates and, through that means, strengthens the position that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is linked to other human rights, implying that its transgression can lead to the violation of health, life, democratic sustainable development, to cite just a few examples. The foregoing confers a particularly relevant legal significance on the right in question.

In addition, the UN General Assembly stipulates that the protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment demands the full application of conventional rights related to the environment in accordance with the principles of international environmental law. From the above, its indispensable inclusion within the jurisdictional control of constitutionality by this Chamber is inferred.

Finally, in harmony with the recognized theory of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), resolution no. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 regulates that the obligation to protect the environment, beyond states, extends to international organizations, business enterprises, and other stakeholders, a last term that includes human beings in general. It is precisely in this sense that the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction contemplates the amparo action against subjects of private law.

In summary, under the conceptual framework explained ut supra, this Constitutional Court, as guarantor of fundamental rights, must ensure compliance with the conventional and constitutional commitments that impose upon the Costa Rican State and society in general not only the obligation to recognize the rights, principles, and values of environmental matters, but also to implement all those measures and actions required to ensure their effective protection.” **VI.- On the specific case.** In the *sub examine*, the petitioner points out that Manuel Antonio National Park (Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, PNMA) receives about 3000 people daily. He accuses that such a number of visitors deteriorates the ecosystem and the sustainability of the park. He notes that there are no scientific studies supporting this tourist load, since the last one is from 2010 and only justified a maximum daily visitation of 600 people. He considers that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is violated.

After analyzing the case files, the Chamber held as proven that, through agreement no. 12 of ordinary session no. 06-2014 of June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas approved the “Tool for managing visitation flows in SINAC’s Protected Wild Areas” and instructed the executive director to make it official. In 2016, the first fieldwork was carried out on beaches and trails of the PNMA sector to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline in the required cases. In 2018, the Technical Scientific Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central, ACOPAC) agreed to implement the tool for the protected wild areas of that conservation area. Regarding the daily visitation of PNMA, through resolution no. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 of 3:05 p.m. on April 30, 2021, the respondent party established a maximum of 1500 daily visitors. Later, through resolution no. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of 3:20 p.m. on August 5, 2021, the appealed authority increased the capacity to a maximum of 2000 daily visitors. Likewise, it was held as an incontrovertible fact—which is also derived from the evidence provided with the rendered report (see, for example, official letters SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 and SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023)—that the respondent authorities increased the permitted capacity this year to 3000 daily visitors. As a consequence of the above, several days in April 2023 registered visitation numbers exceeding 2000 people: April 2, 2592 people; April 3, 2867 people; April 5, 2765; April 6, 2754 people; April 7, 2734 people; April 8, 2755 people; April 9, 2746 people. Regarding this issue, the respondent Administration estimates that the visitation of PNMA currently corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. For this reason, through official letter no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, the regional director and the director of Protected Wild Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area expressed to the executive director of SINAC their concern about the hierarchical decisions concerning the visitation of PNMA. Regarding the impact on the ecosystem, that official letter indicated: “…Without a doubt and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should instead be being received at this moment; which represents an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists wish to visit PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, which if we overexploit, future visitors may not have the opportunity to observe, perhaps in the short or medium term, hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority in the matter…” In the same sense, through official letter no.

SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 of April 17, 2023, the regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) informed the executive director of SINAC: “For all of the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with the functions entrusted by Law, Article 50 of our political constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) and 25 of the Regulations to the Biodiversity Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad), and the principle of in dubio (sic) pro natura, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal framework governing the matter, and also to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical framework, as well as the hierarchical duty within the geographic scope under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, standards, and strategies; for all of the above, it is my duty that, in the absence of direct, formal, and written instructions and directives from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool, and since it has also not been formalized by any administrative resolution, this office has no legal or technical basis, nor budgetary or personnel capacity, to continue receiving the visitation of 3000 people per day in the PNMA. Therefore, in adherence to the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) that ensure all citizens a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, you are hereby informed that as of April 30, 2023, the conservation area will be formally requesting the person in charge of oversight of the SICORE to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of three twenty in the afternoon of August five, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, to reduce the reservation capacity to two thousand people”. Additionally, it is of utmost relevance for the resolution of the sub iudice matter that the Court was unable to verify the application of the respective technical tools to increase visitation to the PNMA.

The foregoing facts demonstrate that the amount of visitation to the PNMA exceeds the carrying capacity of that park, to the detriment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Indeed, beyond the reproach argued by the petitioner, this situation emerges from the very statements of the reporting parties. For example, these authorities estimated that the current visitation to the PNMA corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. Note that, according to the visitor flow model (modelo de flujo de visitantes) carried out in December 2022, the carrying capacity is 1120 daily visitors. However, during this period, the daily capacity far exceeds that amount, as the PNMA received an average of more than 2500 people per day during the first days of April 2023.

At the regulatory level, first, the Court highlights the ‘Convention for the Protection of Flora, Fauna and Natural Scenic Beauties of the American Countries’ (Law No. 3763):

“The American Governments, desirous of protecting and conserving in their natural habitat, specimens of all species and genera of their indigenous flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to prevent their extinction by any means within man’s reach; and Desirous of protecting and conserving landscapes of incomparable beauty, extraordinary geological formations, regions and natural objects of aesthetic interest or historical or scientific value, and places where primitive conditions exist within the cases to which this Convention refers; and Desirous of concluding a convention on the protection of flora, fauna, and natural scenic beauties within the purposes set forth above, have agreed upon the following articles: ARTICLE 1 Definition of the terms and expressions used in this Convention. 1.- National Parks shall mean: Regions established for the protection and conservation of the natural scenic beauties and the flora and fauna of national importance, of which the public may better enjoy when placed under official supervision.” (…) ARTICLE 3 (…) The Contracting Governments also agree to provide the national parks with facilities for public recreation and education, in accordance with the purposes pursued by this Convention.” In line with the above, the Regulations to the Biodiversity Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad) (Executive Decree No. 34433) provide:

“Article 70.-Management categories for WPA. For the purpose of classifying the different management categories of protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), the following technical criteria are established for each: (…) c) National Parks: Geographic areas, terrestrial, marine, marine-coastal, freshwater, or a combination thereof, of national importance, established for the protection and conservation of natural beauties and biodiversity, as well as for public enjoyment. These areas contain one or more ecosystems in which species, habitats, and geomorphological sites are of special scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational interest, or contain a natural landscape of great beauty.” (…)” In the particular case of the PNMA, the Court emphasizes that it has its own specific regulation, specifically, the Public Use Regulations for Manuel Antonio National Park (Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio) (Executive Decree No. 22482-MIRENEM). As relevant to the subject of this proceeding, that decree provides:

“Considering: (…) 3º-That in accordance with an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) carried out on Manuel Antonio National Park, uncontrolled visitation is (sic) causing its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk to its future preservation. 4º-That the administration of the lands owned by the State that make up this National Park falls to the National Parks Service of the Ministry of National Resources, Energy and Mines, which must ensure that there is a true balance between visitation and the conservation of the resources of the Park, in order to secure the preservation in perpetuity of this wilderness area (área silvestre). Therefore, THEY DECREE: Article 1º-The purpose of these regulations is to improve the quality of the visitor experience at Manuel Antonio National Park and to ensure its preservation in perpetuity. (…) Article 3: Regarding the carrying capacity of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC will determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation to the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution.” (…)” (Underlining added).

Based on the provisions just transcribed, the Court establishes that the priority purpose of national parks (including the PNMA) is the conservation of the ecosystems present within their respective areas or zones. A secondary objective is to enable people’s recreation and enjoyment of the nature within them. This order of priority is not derived solely from the regulations but is the consequence of the dependence the second has on the first. That is, the requirement for people to enjoy nature is inexorably the conservation of nature; if it is not conserved, what is intended to be visited disappears. In the case of the PNMA, the ratio of the Public Use Regulations for Manuel Antonio National Park was explicit in pointing out that visitation was causing “…its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk to its future preservation,” which is why it was necessary to “…ensure that there is a true balance between visitation and the conservation of the resources of the Park, in order to secure the preservation in perpetuity of this wilderness area (área silvestre).” In that same line of reasoning, a measure contemplated by that regulatory body to achieve the aforementioned balance and ensure the conservation of the park is the regulation of the number of visitors in the park’s public use zones. Thus, the determination of visitation will be based “…on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC…” (Article 3). The Court endorses this requirement, as it is an expression of the principle of objectivization of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental):

“Regarding the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth, our Magna Carta also requires that it be “healthy.” The requirement of “healthy” leads us to the “regenerative capacity” and the “succession capacity” to guarantee life. From both requirements: “healthy” and “balanced,” the need for sustainable and sustained development follows; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now, with the concepts of “environment,” “healthy,” and “ecologically balanced,” the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, under the terms of sections 16 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) and 38 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), state actions in environmental matters must be based upon and cannot contradict the unequivocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a “greater well-being for all the country’s inhabitants.” Regarding the subordination of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technique, the Court has called it the principle of objectivization of environmental protection: “From the objectivization of environmental protection (…) it is a principle that in no way can be confused with the prior one [precautionary principle or ‘principle of prudent avoidance’], as it derives from what is provided in Articles 16 and 160 of the General Law of Public Administration, and translates into the need to accredit decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to specific acts and general provisions - both legal and regulatory - from which the requirement of linkage to science and technique is derived, with which the Administration’s discretion in this matter is conditioned. So, in light of the results derived from those technical studies – such as environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental) – if an objective technical criterion is evidenced denoting the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or human health, it becomes mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in cases of ‘reasonable doubt,’ it is mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures in order to adequately protect the environment.” (Ruling of the Constitutional Court Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolution No. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, reiterated in resolution No. 2022-012509 of 12:10 p.m. on May 31, 2022).

On the other hand, the application of the preventive principle in environmental matters also obligates the Court to take measures to prevent the objected administrative conduct from negatively impacting the ecosystems protected by the PNMA. As indicated supra, that principle states:

“…the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned on compliance with certain requirements. Generally, this principle applies when there are clearly defined and identified risks, at least probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits ensuring the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to anticipate potential negative impacts.” The statements of the respondent party reveal that there is a clear risk to the ecosystems of the PNMA if visitation is not regulated through technical tools that allow the load that park can sustainably handle to be established. What was indicated in official letter No. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, is reiterated:

“…Without a doubt, and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been previously managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should actually be received at this time; which poses an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental conditions and sustainability of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife (fauna silvestre), which, if we overexploit it, future visitors may perhaps not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term; hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority on the matter…” (Underlining added).

In conclusion, the result of the study carried out by the Court demonstrates that the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to the PNMA without applying the respective technical tools, even when it was evident that the park’s installed capacity would be insufficient to guarantee the balance between the conservation of nature and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is granted. Given that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors, it is ordered that daily visitation be reduced to that amount, without prejudice to a new technical study determining that capacity under the park’s current conditions.

**VII.- NOTE OF MAGISTRATE CASTILLO VÍQUEZ.** In view of the reasons of the majority vote, I waive the note recorded in the operative part of the judgment.

**VIII.- DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATE SALAZAR ALVARADO.** With due respect, I dissent from the majority vote that grants the appeal, based on the following reasons:

The protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, in the Costa Rican Legal System, is protected not only in Article 50 of the Political Constitution but also in a series of laws and executive decrees (regulations) in force, such as the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995; the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998; the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992; and Executive Decree No. 31849 of May 24, 2004, General Regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA)), to cite just a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to separate constitutional control from legality control. In this sense, it is this undersigned’s criterion that this Court, by way of amparo, should only hear a matter in which a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged, if the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily verifiable, of certain importance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community. Otherwise, the matter must be raised and discussed in the legality proceeding. Therefore, the simple breach of obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters is appropriate to be heard in the legality proceeding – administrative or jurisdictional – where, with much greater breadth, the accused breaches or omissions may be scrutinized. It must be kept in mind that the amparo appeal is a summary, informal, simple, and quick process, such that from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter, in the exercise of its powers, and substantiates a procedure with the issuance of administrative acts, its review falls outside the scope of action of this specialized jurisdiction. Therefore, the review of administrative actions carried out regarding an environmental matter that requires, for its proper assessment, a plenary trial process, is only possible in the ordinary jurisdiction, since the design of the amparo process is incompatible with the comparison or review of technical or legal criteria developed under current legal or regulatory norms, or with the taking of new and additional elements of conviction necessary for the comparison or review of criteria already contained in the administrative file of the case. Doing otherwise would imply transforming the amparo into an ordinary plenary trial process, which would denature it and render nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, thus losing its condition as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the foregoing, I consider that when a public entity or body has intervened, in various forms, or has issued administrative acts regarding an environmental matter, its review and oversight corresponds to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. It is precisely the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls under the competence of the legality proceeding. Consequently, this appeal should have been rejected outright, as its subject matter is an issue properly to be discussed, analyzed, and resolved in the legality proceeding. However, as this was not done, the appropriate course is to declare it without merit, without making any pronouncement regarding the merits of the issue raised, as it falls to the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, to determine whether the accused administrative actions and conduct conform, in substance, to what is ordered in the legal framework at the statutory level, regarding the protection, guardianship, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

**IX.- Documentation provided to the file.** The parties are advised that if they have provided any document in paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new technology device, these must be collected from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. It is warned that any material not collected within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Full Court in Article XXVI of session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, published in Judicial Bulletin No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, approved in Article LXXXI of session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012.

**Therefore:** The appeal is granted. It is ordered to [Name8] and [Name2], respectively executive director and regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central), both of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), or whomever holds those positions, to issue the orders and carry out the necessary coordination so that, within TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, counted from the notification of this judgment, visitation to Manuel Antonio National Park (Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio) is reduced to the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) calculated in the flow model applied in December 2022. The respondent authorities are warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), imprisonment from three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be carried out or enforced, issued within an amparo appeal, and does not carry it out or enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished. The State is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the events serving as grounds for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the enforcement of judgment proceeding of the contentious-administrative court. Magistrate Castillo Víquez provides a note. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado dissents and declares the appeal without merit regarding the alleged infringement of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Magistrate Garro Vargas dissents and declares the appeal without merit.

Notify.

Fernando Castillo V. President Paul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

José Roberto Garita N. Hubert Fernández A.

Res. Nº 2023011233 DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATE GARRO VARGAS.

In the present judgment, the Chamber decided by majority to hear the merits of the amparo action where it is debated what the number of persons entering Manuel Antonio National Park should be.

That said, the issue of the Park's visitation has already been raised before this Court. In that regard, the following has been stated:

“VIII.- Regarding the number of visitors to the park. The plaintiff claims that the number of visitors entering the park exceeds the number permitted by the regulations. The Chamber emphasizes that it is not its task to verify the number of visitors to a national park, as this is a matter of mere legality. Nor is it observed that the appellant's allegation is accurate. According to the reports rendered under oath, the number of visitors inside the park does not exceed what is stipulated, because access is suspended when the maximum number of visitors has been reached, to be resumed only when tourists leave the park, thus complying with the stipulated maximum number. Consequently, the claim is rejected.” (Judgment no. 2015012955 of 9:20 a.m. on August 21, 2015. Emphasis not in the original).

This decision was reiterated in the following terms:

“III.- REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ENTERING THE PARK. Concerning this point, it is not for this Chamber to verify, in accordance with the applicable infra-constitutional regulations, the number of visitors who may attend a national park, since it is a matter of ordinary legality appropriate for discussion in the ordinary legality channels (…). Consequently, the appeal is summarily rejected with respect to this point.” (Judgment no. 2019008005 of 10:15 a.m. on May 7, 2019. Emphasis not in the original).

I believe that what is appropriate in the present matter is to uphold what was stated in those precedents, in the sense that it is not for this Chamber to determine the number of visitors who may attend Manuel Antonio National Park and to declare whether the criteria applied by the Administration are correct in light of infra-constitutional regulations.

Indeed, the matter requires examining technical aspects that far exceed the possibilities of a summary process such as the amparo appeal. It should be borne in mind that, in order to correctly determine the number of visitors, it is necessary to take into consideration variables of a very different nature, relating to the general socio-environmental impact, infrastructure, personnel, etc. Thus, it is reported that “the carrying capacity of a site is not rigid; it is changeable due to a series of factors.” Furthermore, the majority orders that the daily number of visitors be 1120 persons, calculated using the flow model applied in December 2022. Note that it opts for a solution that does not even assess aspects as basic as the need to specify visitor limits depending on the time of year. Moreover, that number, according to what was reported, constitutes “198% of the capacity that the park could receive at that time.” So it seems that not even what the Chamber ordered truly manages to protect the right to an ecologically balanced environment.

This decision that I justify here is even more protective of the intervening parties, since certainly in the ordinary jurisdiction there would be a broader evidentiary phase and the possibility of availing oneself of a robust precautionary justice system.

What is stated in this dissenting vote is consistent with other resolutions, even from the majority of this Chamber, that endorse this position. For example, in judgment no. 2022017490 —which I was responsible for drafting— the following was resolved:

“Along these lines, this Chamber considers that the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the Costa Rican legal system is provided for not only in Article 50 of the Political Constitution —as has already been stated— but also in a series of laws and current executive decrees (regulations), such as the Organic Environmental Law, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, the Biodiversity Law, Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998, the Wildlife Conservation Law, Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992, and Executive Decree No. 31849 of May 24, 2004, General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, to cite just a few examples.

This makes it necessary to distinguish in environmental matters when it is appropriate for the Chamber to exercise the guarantee of such a right and when the matter, despite referring to said area, must be heard by the ordinary judge to exercise the legality review that is proper to them.

Thus, in principle, the breach of obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters, even though it may have obvious and serious repercussions, is proper to be heard in the legality channel —administrative or jurisdictional—.

On the other hand, this Chamber has historically maintained the jurisprudential line that ‘the amparo process is of an eminently summary nature because its sole purpose is to provide timely protection against infringements or imminent threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, therefore its processing does not lend itself well to the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings’ (among many others, votes numbers 2003-14336, 2006-014421, and 2020-019038 can be consulted).

In this direction, it is the criterion of the majority that, through amparo, it should be understood that in general terms this Chamber should hear amparo appeals in which injury to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged, provided that the questions and complaints, due to their complexity, do not exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal. On the contrary, it is more protective for all parties, and even for the effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the protection of natural resources, to place the conflict in an ordinary channel, of plenary knowledge, in which with more procedural opportunities the evidence can be examined and the grievances contrasted, in short, to judge in detail the regularity of the omissive and/or active conduct of the competent public administrations in the attention and resolution of the reported environmental conflict.

Furthermore, another condition must exist: that the Administration has not intervened (see vote no. 2022-009857). Indeed, when a public entity or body has intervened in various ways or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, particularly if it is complex, the knowledge and oversight of that activity corresponds to the administrative contentious jurisdiction. Precisely, it is the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the legality channel. Indeed, it is insisted, if there has already been conduct by the Administration that, after an administrative procedure, has granted subjective rights, has established sanctions, or has dictated a route to solve the reported problem, all of the foregoing based on the application of legal or infra-legal regulations, then it would be for the administrative contentious judges to ensure the legality of such administrative acts. In this sense, from the entry into force of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, it was determined that the administrative contentious jurisdiction possesses broad powers to hear grievances such as those questioned in the sub lite case. For such purposes, this Court has reiterated the following:

‘[G]iven the enactment of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Law No. 8508 of April 24, 2006) and its entry into force as of January 1, 2008, it has become evident that litigants now have a plenary and universal administrative contentious jurisdiction, extremely expeditious and swift due to the various procedural mechanisms that this legislation incorporates into the legal system, such as the shortening of deadlines for performing various procedural acts, the broad scope of standing, precautionary measures, the numerus apertus of admissible claims, orality – and its sub-principles of concentration, immediacy, and speed – the single instance with an appeal in expressly limited situations, intra-procedural conciliation, the unified process, the preferential processing procedure or ‘amparo of legality’, processes of pure law, the new enforcement measures (coercive fines, substitute or commissioners' execution, seizure of fiscal domain assets and some public domain assets), the broad powers of the corps of enforcement judges, the extension and adaptation of the effects of case law to third parties, and the flexibility of the cassation appeal. All these novel procedural institutes have the manifest purpose and aim of achieving procedural economy, speed, promptness, and the effective or complete protection of the substantial legal situations of the administered, all with the guarantee of basic fundamental rights such as due process, the defense, and the adversarial principle.’ (See, for example, judgments numbers 2010-17909, 2020-011247, and 2022-003724).

In contrast to what was said about that jurisdiction, the absence in a constitutional amparo appeal of a plenary evidentiary phase that facilitates the immediacy and the adversarial testing of evidence necessarily requires that, in the interest of adequate and prudent protection of the right, the ordinary channel be used to hear environmental conflicts that are inherently complex, such as the one raised in the specific case. Otherwise, it would imply transforming the amparo into an ordinary process of full knowledge, which would denaturalize it and render the purposes for which it was designed nugatory, whereby it would lose its condition as a summary instrument for the protection of fundamental rights.” (Criterion reiterated in judgment no. 2023-009347).

Moreover, my resolution approach is consistent with the note —signed jointly with Magistrates Castillo Víquez and Garita Navarro— that I was responsible for drafting regarding judgment no. 2022-009857, and in which the following considerations were made:

“We deem it necessary to record this note in which we caution that, under better consideration, in environmental matters of such complexity —such as the one questioned in the specific case— we assess that it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal in order to place the discussion in the ordinary channel, where, with greater evidentiary and procedural possibilities, as well as enforcement possibilities, the questioned conduct can be examined in detail.

First, it is necessary to emphasize that we consider this Chamber competent to hear amparo appeals related to the injury of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the terms of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. The foregoing, as this Court has done so successfully in the past. However, we caution that there are questions and complaints that, due to their complexity, exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal and, in such circumstances, it is more protective for all parties, and even for the effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the protection of natural resources, to place the conflict in an ordinary channel, of plenary knowledge, in which with more procedural opportunities the evidence can be examined and the grievances contrasted. In short, to judge in detail the regularity of the omissive and/or active conduct of the competent public administrations in the attention and resolution of the reported environmental conflict.

Recall that historically this Chamber has maintained the jurisprudential line that ‘the amparo process is of an eminently summary nature because its sole purpose is to provide timely protection against infringements or imminent threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, therefore its processing does not lend itself well to the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings’ (among many others, votes numbers 2003-14336, 2006-014421, and 2020-019038 can be consulted).” This jurisprudential line merely recalls the very nature of this proceeding. Moreover, since the entry into force of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), it has been determined that said jurisdiction possesses broad powers to hear grievances such as those contested in the sub lite. (…)

In contrast, the absence of a full evidentiary phase that facilitates the immediacy and adversarial testing of evidence necessarily requires that, for the sake of adequate and prudent protection of the right, the ordinary avenue be pursued to hear environmental conflicts that are inherently complex, such as the one raised in the specific case. (…)

From the enumeration of grievances and the analysis of the petitioner’s claim, it is possible to verify that the reported conflict is extremely complex to resolve through the amparo proceeding, and therefore, it should properly be lodged in an ordinary venue that, with greater tools, can fully examine the substantive complaint, adopt precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), and issue broad and specific orders to address the identified problem.

This Chamber must hear environmental matters in all cases whose claim is compatible with the summary nature of the amparo remedy (recurso de amparo). Everything that can be heard and lodged before the constitutional jurisdiction because the claim is compatible with the qualities and possibilities that this proceeding grants must remain in this venue. This does not apply to environmental complaints whose elucidation requires, for their hearing and adequate analysis, a full evidentiary space such as that provided for in the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa). That is the exception. We therefore consider the rule to be that it is appropriate to proceed in an amparo remedy when the verification of the problem is relatively straightforward and the Chamber has the appropriate tools for timely and appropriate redress, meaning that its execution is also characteristic of a summary proceeding.

In this regard, it is necessary to note that there are grievances that are easily verifiable and would not be so difficult to hear, but they are part of a whole. Therefore, it is preferable for that whole to be lodged in a venue that, by its characteristics, allows the matter to be heard comprehensively with an analysis of all the facets surrounding the specific case.

(…)

In short, we consider that, upon better reflection, it is necessary to conclude that there are conflicts which, by their magnitude, necessarily require a full evidentiary proceeding for their attention and resolution. This is precisely one of those cases, so we consider that the appropriate course is to declare the remedy without merit (sin lugar) and remit the entirety of the conflict raised—a complaint regarding staff shortages to the detriment of biodiversity—to the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction.

We make this note in order to guarantee due legal certainty in the jurisprudential lines of this Constitutional Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Constitucional) and to specifically note what the partial change of criteria of the undersigned judges consists of.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

Consequently, except for the dissenting vote, I declare the remedy without merit (sin lugar), without prejudice to the petitioner resorting to the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction to discuss the subject matter of this proceeding, where they will find greater guarantees for this to be examined and resolved.

Anamari Garro Vargas Judge (Magistrada) Now, with the concepts of "environment," "healthy," and "ecologically balanced," the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, in the terms of articles 16 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública) and 38 of the Organic Environment Act (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), state actions in environmental matters must be based on and cannot contradict the unequivocal rules of science and technique in pursuit of achieving the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a "greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country." Regarding the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technique, the Chamber has termed this the principle of objectification of environmental protection: "The objectification of environmental protection (...) is a principle that in no way can be confused with the previous one [precautionary principle or 'principle of prudent avoidance'], insofar as, derived from the provisions of articles 16 and 160 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública), it translates into the need to accredit technical studies for decision-making in this matter, both in relation to acts and to provisions of a general nature—both legal and regulatory—, from which derives the requirement of linkage to science and technique, thereby conditioning the Administration's discretion in this matter. So that, in light of the results derived from those technical studies—such as environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental)—, if an objective technical criterion is evidenced that denotes the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or human health, it is then obligatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the case of a 'reasonable doubt,' it is obligatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment." (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05)." (Resolution no. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, reiterated in resolution no. 2022-012509 of 12:10 p.m. on May 31, 2022).

On the other hand, the application of the preventive principle in environmental matters also obliges the Chamber to take measures to prevent the reproached administrative conduct from having a negative impact on the ecosystems protected by the PNMA. As noted supra, that principle states:

"...the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned upon compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are clearly defined risks identified at least as probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits that guarantee the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts." The statements of the respondent party reveal that there is a clear risk to the ecosystems of the PNMA if visitation is not regulated through technical tools that allow establishing the load that this park can sustainably handle. The statement in official communication no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, is reiterated:

"...Without a doubt, and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should rather be received at this time; which poses an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors. We must remember that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wild fauna, which, if we over-exploit, future visitors might not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term, hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority in the matter..." (Emphasis added).

In conclusion, the result of the study conducted by the Chamber demonstrates that the respondent authorities increased the visitation allowed to the PNMA without applying the respective technical tools, even when it was evident that the installed capacity of the park would be insufficient to guarantee the balance between the conservation of nature and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is granted. Given that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors, it is ordered that daily visitation be reduced to that amount, without prejudice to a new technical study determining such capacity under the current conditions of the park. (...)

Consequently, it constitutes a political commitment of a universal nature that must be valued as a source of soft law of the utmost relevance.

Precisely, Resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 affirms that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has the nature of a human right. With this, it significantly contributes to its positivization, resulting in its technical understanding as a “fundamental right.” Likewise, it strengthens the notion that environmental protection is an “autonomous” human right, that is, it stands on its own, such that, on the one hand, it has its own conceptual existence distinct from the environmental content that undoubtedly arises from the protection of other rights (such as life or health) and, on the other, its object of protection transcends the human being, since it provides shelter to the various components of nature due to their importance for preserving the existence of living organisms in general, regardless of their usefulness to human beings.

Likewise, it reiterates and, by that means, strengthens the position that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is linked to other human rights, which implies that its transgression may lead to the violation of health, life, and democratic sustainable development, to cite just a few examples. The foregoing confers a particularly relevant legal meaning to the right in question.

In addition, the UN General Assembly mandates that the protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment demands the full application of conventional rights related to the environment in accordance with the principles of international environmental law. From the foregoing, its indispensable inclusion within the jurisdictional control of constitutionality by this Chamber is inferred.

Finally, in harmony with the recognized theory of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), Resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 regulates that the obligation to safeguard the environment, beyond states, extends to international organizations, companies, and other stakeholders, the latter term encompassing human beings in general. Precisely in that sense, the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) contemplates the amparo against subjects of private law.

In sum, under the conceptual framework explained ut supra, this Constitutional Court, as guarantor of fundamental rights, must ensure compliance with the conventional and constitutional commitments that impose on the Costa Rican State and society in general not only the obligation to recognize the rights, principles, and values of environmental matters, but also to implement all those measures and actions required to ensure the effective protection thereof.” (...)” VCG06/2023 In short, to judge in detail the regularity of the omissive and/or active conduct of the competent public administrations in attending to and resolving the reported environmental conflict.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>Recall that historically this Chamber has maintained the jurisprudential line that “the amparo proceeding is of an eminently summary nature because its sole purpose is to provide timely protection against infringements or imminent threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, and therefore its processing does not lend itself well to the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings” (among many others, see votes numbers 2003-14336, 2006-014421 and 2020-019038). This jurisprudential line merely recalls the inherent nature of this proceeding. On the other hand, from the entry into force of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, it was determined that said jurisdiction possesses broad powers to hear grievances such as those questioned in the case at bar. (…)</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>In contrast, the absence of a full evidentiary phase that facilitates the immediacy and the adversarial testing of evidence necessarily requires that, for the sake of adequate and prudent protection of the right, the ordinary route be used to hear environmental conflicts that are inherently complex, such as the one raised in this specific case. (…)</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>From the enumeration of grievances and the analysis of the appellant's claim, it is possible to verify that the reported conflict is extremely complex to resolve through the amparo proceeding and, therefore, it should be brought before an ordinary court which, with greater tools, can hear the substantive complaint in depth, adopt precautionary measures, and issue broad and specific orders to address the indicated problems.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>The Chamber must hear environmental matters in all those cases whose claim is compatible with the summary nature of the amparo remedy. Everything that can be heard and brought before the constitutional jurisdiction because the claim is compatible with the qualities and possibilities that this proceeding grants, must remain in this venue. This is not the case for environmental complaints whose elucidation requires, for their hearing and proper analysis, a full evidentiary space such as that provided for in the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction. That is the exception. We believe that the rule, then, is that it is appropriate to hear a matter in an amparo remedy when the verification of the problem is relatively simple and the Chamber has the appropriate tools for a timely and appropriate remedy, that is, that its execution is also characteristic of a summary proceeding.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>In this regard, it is necessary to note that there are grievances that are easily verifiable and would not be so difficult to hear, but they are part of a whole. Therefore, it is better for that whole to be brought before a court that, by its characteristics, allows the matter to be heard comprehensively with the analysis of all the aspects involved in the specific case.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>(…)</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>In short, we consider that, upon better consideration, it is necessary to conclude that there are conflicts which, due to their magnitude, necessarily require a full evidentiary proceeding for their attention and resolution. This is precisely one of those cases, and therefore we believe the appropriate course is to dismiss the remedy and refer the entire conflict raised—a complaint about staff shortages detrimental to biodiversity—to the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>We make this note in order to guarantee due legal certainty in the jurisprudential lines of this Constitutional Jurisdiction and to specifically warn what the partial change of criteria of the undersigned judges consists of.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>Consequently, I concur with the vote and dismiss the remedy, without prejudice to the appellant's right to resort to the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction to discuss the object of this proceeding, where they will find greater guarantees for it to be examined and resolved.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>Anamari Garro Vargas Judge</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:7.5pt; text-align:justify"><span>VCG06/2023</span></p> Likewise, in adherence to Article 50 of our Political Constitution and the principle of in dubio pro natura, this office issued official letter SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 to the Executive Secretariat of SINAC, in which it states that: For all of the above, and in adherence to the functions mandated by Law, Article 50 of our Political Constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law, and the principle of in dubio pro natura, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal system that governs the matter, likewise, to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical system, as well as the hierarchical duty within the geographical area under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, norms, and strategies; for all the above, it is my duty that in the absence of formal and written instructions and directives from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool (herramienta de capacidad de carga) and not being further formalized by any administrative resolution, this office lacks the legal and technical basis, as well as the budgetary and personnel capacity, to continue receiving the visitation of 3000 people daily within the PNMA, therefore, in adherence to the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) that ensure an ecologically balanced environment for all citizens, you are hereby informed that starting April 30, 2023, the conservation area (área de conservación) will be formally requesting the person in charge of SICORE oversight to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August fifth, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, in the sense of reducing the reservation capacity to two thousand people. In addition to the above, presenting official letter SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 before Mr. [Nombre7], Head of Information Technologies of SINAC, in his capacity as SICORE Supervisor, the formal request to reduce the reservation capacity in SICORE for entry to Manuel Antonio National Park to 2000 people daily starting April 30 of the current year, as established in Resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August fifth, two thousand twenty-one. Based on the grounds set forth, it is concluded that in adherence to its responsibilities and competencies, the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) has been carrying out actions to safeguard the natural resources existing in Manuel Antonio National Park." **4.-** [Nombre8], in his capacity as Executive Director of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), reports under oath to the same effect. He adds: "*Regarding what ACOPAC indicated about the official letters it sent to this office, it is important to clarify that given the recent nature of their issuance and referral, we are currently evaluating their content. This executive office will analyze the reports and recommendations made by the Conservation Area in order to determine the need or not to vary the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of Manuel Antonio National Park. In addition to the above and regarding the figure of 3 thousand people currently in effect, according to the methodology used to calculate visitors, the infrastructure indicator was assessed, among others, within which the capacity of the treatment plant was estimated, which has a maximum approved by the Ministry of Health established at 3 thousand people, an amount assessed to not exceed the thresholds of proper functioning. Additionally, the signing of agreements with the ICT for infrastructure improvement, mainly the Punta Catedral Trail, is considered, which allows managing more visitors within the national park and seeking an adequate distribution of these. In the personnel indicator, agreements with the Ministry of Public Security and other State institutions were assessed in order to have reservists to support surveillance work in Manuel Antonio National Park and personnel within poverty levels who would support cleaning and maintenance work.*" **5.-** In the proceedings conducted, the legal requirements have been observed.

Drafted by Judge **Rueda Leal**; and, **Considering:** **I.- PRELIMINARY.** In view of the claimant's request aimed at issuing a precautionary measure, the Court considers that such a request is moot, as this appeal will be examined on its merits.

**II.- Object of the Appeal.** The claimant states that Manuel Antonio National Park (PNMA) receives approximately 3000 people daily. He alleges that such a number of visitors deteriorates the ecosystem and the park's sustainability. He notes that there are no scientific studies supporting that tourist carrying capacity (carga turística), as the last one is from 2010 and only justified a maximum daily visitation of 600 people. He considers that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is violated.

**III.- Proven Facts.** Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them, as provided in the initial order:

• a)By agreement no. 12 of ordinary session no. 06-2014 of June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas (Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) approved the "*Tool for managing visitation flows in the SINAC Protected Wilderness Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas)*" and instructed the Executive Director to formalize that tool. (See report rendered).
• b)In 2016, the first fieldwork was carried out on beaches and trails in the PNMA sector to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline (línea base) in required cases. (See report rendered).
• c)In 2018, the Technical Scientific Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) agreed to implement the tool for the protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) of that conservation area (área de conservación). (See report rendered).
• d)By resolution no. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 of 3:05 p.m. on April 30, 2021, the respondent party established a maximum of 1500 daily visitors to the PNMA. (See report rendered).
• e)By resolution no. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of 3:20 p.m. on August 5, 2021, the respondent party increased the capacity to a maximum of 2000 daily visitors. (See report rendered).
• f)In December 2022, the visitor flow model showed a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of 1120 daily visitors. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• g)In 2023, the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to 3000 daily visitors. This increase occurred without applying the respective technical tools. (Uncontroverted fact and evidence provided with the report rendered).
• h)In April 2023, the daily visitation to the PNMA was as follows: April 1, 1891 people; April 2, 2592 people; April 3, 2867 people; April 5, 2765; April 6, 2754 people; April 7, 2734 people; April 8, 2755 people; April 9, 2746 people. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• i)Currently, the respondent party estimates that the visitation of the PNMA corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity (capacidad instalada). (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• j)By official letter no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, the Regional Director and the Director of Protected Wilderness Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) expressed to the Executive Director of SINAC their concern regarding hierarchical decisions related to the visitation of the PNMA. (See report rendered and evidence provided).
• k)By official letter no. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 of April 17, 2023, the Regional Director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) informed the Executive Director of SINAC: "*For all of the above, and in adherence to the functions mandated by Law, Article 50 of our Political Constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law and 25 of the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law, and the principle of in dubio* (sic) *pro natura, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal system that governs the matter, likewise, to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical system, as well as the hierarchical duty within the geographical area under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, norms, and strategies; for all the above, it is my duty that in the absence of formal and written instructions and directives from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool (herramienta de capacidad de carga) and not being further formalized by any administrative resolution, this office lacks the legal and technical basis, as well as the budgetary and personnel capacity, to continue receiving the visitation of 3000 people daily within the PNMA, therefore, in adherence to the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (servicios ecosistémicos) that ensure an ecologically balanced environment for all citizens, you are hereby informed that starting April 30, 2023, the conservation area (área de conservación) will be formally requesting the person in charge of SICORE oversight to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August fifth, two thousand twenty-one, currently in force, in the sense of reducing the reservation capacity to two thousand people*". (See report rendered and evidence provided).

**IV.- On the jurisprudential precedents.** In the jurisprudence of this Court, it is observed that the issue of PNMA visitation has already been raised in this venue. In this regard, the Chamber had stated:

"*VIII.- On the number of visitors to the park. The claimant complains that the number of visitors entering the park exceeds the number permitted by the regulations. The Chamber emphasizes that it is not its role to verify the number of visitors to a national park, as this is a matter of mere legality. Nor is it observed that the claimant's argument is correct. According to the reports rendered under oath, the number of visitors inside the park does not exceed what is stipulated, as access is suspended when the maximum number of visitors has been reached, to resume only when tourists leave the park, thus complying with the stipulated maximum number. Consequently, the claim is rejected.*" (Judgment no. 2015012955 of 9:20 a.m. on August 21, 2015).

This decision was reiterated in judgment no. 2019008005 of 10:15 a.m. on May 7, 2019:

"*III.- ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENTERING THE PARK. Regarding this point, it is not for this Chamber to verify, in accordance with the applicable infra-constitutional regulations, the number of visitors who can attend a national park, as this is a matter of ordinary legality to be discussed in the channels of ordinary legality (see in a similar sense judgment no. 2015012955). Consequently, the appeal is rejected outright insofar as this point is concerned.*" In the *sub lite* case, it is necessary to understand that both decisions were issued based on the regulations that governed entry to the PNMA at that time, which stated:

"*Article 3.—The maximum allowable number of visitors per day who may remain shall be six hundred (600) people from Tuesday to Friday.* *On Saturdays and Sundays, that maximum allowable number per day shall be eight hundred (800) people.* *Once the maximum number indicated in the preceding paragraphs is reached, the Area Administration will control the visitation flow without exceeding the number of people authorized to remain and may authorize the entry of new visitors in a proportion equal to the number of people who conclude their visit to the Protected Wilderness Area (Área Silvestre Protegida)*". (Executive Decree 22482-MIRENEM).

Based on that provision, the Chamber considered that it was not its place to review the number of visitors attending the PNMA daily, as it was a disagreement that could be resolved through legality channels.

However, subsequently, that article was amended by Executive Decree no. 42496 of July 16, 2020, in the following sense:

"*Article 3: On the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC will determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation to the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution.*" As can be extracted from the transcript, the number of visitors will be subject to the application of technical tools, a key situation for the resolution of the *sub lite* case, in accordance with the preventive principle (principio preventivo) in environmental matters and the principle of objectification of environmental protection, as will be evidenced *infra*. This reasoning has led the Chamber to decide to hear the matter on its merits in the *sub examine* case.

**V.- ON THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT.** Regarding this topic, in judgment no. 2022022070 of 9:20 a.m. on September 23, 2022, this Court stated:

"*Concerning the nature of the grievances alleged in the sub lite case, this Court has repeatedly ruled regarding the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For example, in judgment no. 2021024807 of 9:20 a.m. on November 5, 2021, this Chamber stated:* *"On repeated occasions, the jurisprudence of this Chamber has emphasized that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is recognized at both the constitutional and conventional levels. Likewise, it has been indicated that effective protection of this right requires that resources be used rationally, a context in which the State and citizens in general must act according to the principles governing environmental matters. In this vein, specialized doctrine has indicated that the preventive principle (principio preventivo) demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned to meeting certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are risks that are clearly defined and identified as at least probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee potential negative impacts. On the other hand, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) states that, where there is a threat of serious and irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective measures in terms of cost to prevent environmental degradation. From the above, it is observed that the principle starts from reasonable scientific uncertainty together with the threat of serious and irreversible environmental damage. In general terms, a relevant difference between the preventive principle and the precautionary principle lies in the level of knowledge and certainty of the risks that an activity or work may cause. While in the former there is such certainty, in the latter what is observed is a state of doubt resulting from scientific information or technical studies. Thus, the Costa Rican State is obliged to adopt measures that guarantee the effective defense and preservation of the environment in accordance with those principles. Now, such an objective obligation does not inevitably entail a subjective right of individuals to demand, through jurisdictional bodies, that a specific measure be taken, but it does entail that those that are suitable for protecting that right be adopted, in the face of openly negligent attitudes by authorities, or by natural or legal persons, in accordance with the recognized theory of the horizontal effect of fundamental rights (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), among whose procedural manifestations is the amparo against subjects of private law.* *It is also important to highlight that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017, developed matters relating to State obligations concerning the environment, for the purpose of safeguarding the human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights.* *In that opinion, the Court recognized the interrelationship between environmental protection and the realization of other rights, as environmental degradation affects the effective enjoyment and development of human rights. In that sense, it stated:* *"47. This Court has recognized the existence of an undeniable relationship between environmental protection and the realization of other human rights, insofar as environmental degradation and the adverse effects of climate change affect the effective enjoyment of human rights. Likewise, the preamble to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter "Protocol of San Salvador"), highlights the close relationship between the exercise of economic, social and cultural rights - which includes the right to a healthy environment - and that of civil and political rights, and indicates that the different categories of rights constitute an indissoluble whole based on the recognition of the dignity of the human person, for which reason they require permanent protection and promotion in order to achieve their full exercise, without the violation of some ever being justified for the sake of realizing others (...)* *49. For its part, the Inter-American Commission has emphasized that several fundamental rights require, as a necessary precondition for their exercise, a minimum environmental quality, and are profoundly affected by the degradation of natural resources. In the same vein, the OAS General Assembly has recognized the close relationship between environmental protection and human rights (supra para. 22) and emphasized that climate change produces adverse effects on the enjoyment of human rights. 50.* In the European context, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized that severe environmental degradation can affect an individual's well-being and, consequently, generate violations of people's rights, such as the rights to life, to respect for private and family life, and to private property. Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has indicated that the right to a “general satisfactory environment favorable to development” is closely linked to economic and social rights insofar as the environment affects the quality of life and security of the individual (…). On the other hand, there is broad recognition in international law of the interdependent relationship between environmental protection, sustainable development, and human rights. This interrelationship has been affirmed since the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (hereinafter “Stockholm Declaration”), which established that “[e]conomic and social development is essential for ensuring a favorable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for the improvement of the quality of life,” affirming the need to balance development with the protection of the human environment. Subsequently, in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (hereinafter “Rio Declaration”), States recognized that “[h]uman beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development” and, at the same time, emphasized that “in order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process.” Following up on the foregoing, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development established the three pillars of sustainable development: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. Likewise, in the corresponding Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, States recognized the consideration that must be given to the possible relationship between the environment and human rights, including the right to development.

Moreover, upon adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations General Assembly recognized that the realization of human rights for all people depends on the achievement of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. In the same vein, several instruments within the Inter-American sphere have referred to environmental protection and sustainable development, such as the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which provides that “[t]he exercise of democracy facilitates the preservation and proper stewardship of the environment,” and therefore “it is essential that the states of the Hemisphere implement policies and strategies to protect the environment, including respect for the various treaties and conventions, to achieve sustainable development for the benefit of future generations” (…). As a consequence of the close connection between environmental protection, sustainable development, and human rights (supra paras. 47 to 55), currently (i) multiple human rights protection systems recognize the right to a healthy environment as a right in itself, particularly the Inter-American human rights system, while there is no doubt that (ii) multiple other human rights are vulnerable to environmental degradation, all of which entails a series of environmental obligations for the States for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations to respect and guarantee these rights. Precisely, another consequence of the interdependence and indivisibility between human rights and environmental protection is that, in determining these State obligations, the Court may make use of the principles, rights, and obligations of international environmental law, which, as part of the international corpus iuris, contribute decisively to defining the scope of the obligations derived from the American Convention in this matter (supra paras. 43 to 45) (…).

The human right to a healthy environment has been understood as a right with both individual and collective connotations. In its collective dimension, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest, owed to both present and future generations. However, the right to a healthy environment also has an individual dimension, to the extent that its violation can have direct or indirect repercussions on people due to its connection with other rights, such as the right to health, personal integrity, or life, among others. Environmental degradation can cause irreparable harm to human beings, which is why a healthy environment is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity.

This interrelation between the environment and the enjoyment of other human rights has also been recognized by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which in resolution A/HRC/RES/46/7, adopted on March 23, 2021, at its 46th session, held:

“Recognizing also that sustainable development and the protection of the environment, including ecosystems, contribute to human well-being and to the enjoyment of human rights, in particular the rights to life, to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, to an adequate standard of living, to adequate food, to safe drinking water and sanitation, and to housing, and cultural rights.” Also, recently, in resolution A/HRC/RES/48/13, adopted on October 8, 2021, that Council stated:

“(…) Recognizing that sustainable development, in its three dimensions (social, economic and environmental), and the protection of the environment, including ecosystems, contribute to and promote human well-being and the enjoyment of human rights, including the enjoyment of the rights to life, to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, to an adequate standard of living, to adequate food, to housing, to safe drinking water and sanitation, and to participation in cultural life, for present and future generations (…)

Recognizing further that environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development are some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy human rights, including the right to life (…)

Recognizing the importance of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as fundamental to the enjoyment of all human rights (…)

1. Recognizes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right that is important for the enjoyment of human rights; 2. Notes that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is related to other rights and existing international law (…).” (Emphasis not in original).

In this way, the particular relevance of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is reflected, the defense of which transcends the protection of this constitutional right in itself, since its preservation constitutes an essential factor for the effective safeguarding of other primary rights of the human being (such as life, health, property, equality), so that if the former fails, the effective safeguarding of the latter is not achieved.

Beyond the foregoing, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the aforementioned advisory opinion, recognized the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, subject to protection regardless of any risk of harm to individual persons. In this sense, it ordered:

“62. This Court considers it important to emphasize that the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, unlike other rights, protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers, seas, and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence regarding the risk to individual persons. It is about protecting nature and the environment not only for their connection to a utility for the human being or for the effects that its degradation could cause on other rights of persons, such as health, life, or personal integrity, but for its importance to the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared, which are also deserving of protection in themselves. In this regard, the Court notes a trend towards recognizing legal personality and, therefore, rights to nature not only in judicial rulings but even in constitutional systems. 63. Thus, the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right is distinct from the environmental content that arises from the protection of other rights, such as the right to life or the right to personal integrity.” (Emphasis not in original).

This position was adopted in the judgment of February 6, 2020, regarding the case “Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) vs. Argentina,” in which, overcoming an anthropocentric focus, the Inter-American Court affirms that the right to a healthy environment, besides being fundamental for the very existence of the human being, constitutes an autonomous and universal right, so that the protection of various components of the environment (such as forests, seas, rivers, and others) constitutes a legal interest in itself. In the words of the Inter-American Court: “It is about protecting nature,” not only for its “utility” or “effects” with respect to human beings, “but for its importance to the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared.” Given the importance of this statement, it is appropriate to transcribe this section of the aforementioned ruling:

“203. The Court has already referred to the content and scope of this right, considering various relevant norms, in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, and thus refers to that pronouncement. It affirmed on that occasion that the right to a healthy environment ‘constitutes a universal interest’ and ‘is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity,’ and that ‘as an autonomous right […] it protects the components of the […] environment, such as forests, seas, rivers, and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence regarding the risk to individual persons. It is about protecting nature,’ not only for its ‘utility’ or ‘effects’ with respect to human beings, ‘but for its importance to the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared.’ The foregoing does not prevent, of course, other human rights from being violated as a consequence of environmental damage.” (Emphasis not in original).

Based on the foregoing, this Chamber, as guarantor of fundamental rights, must ensure respect for the conventional and constitutional obligations, which constrain the State not only to recognize the rights enshrined therein, but also to impose the legal measures required for their safeguarding” (emphasis in original).

In addition to the foregoing, recently, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 of July 28, 2022, which recorded:

“1. Recognizes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right; 2. Notes that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is related to other rights and existing international law; 3. Affirms that the promotion of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment requires the full implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements in accordance with the principles of international environmental law; 4. Calls upon States, international organizations, enterprises and other relevant stakeholders to adopt policies, enhance international cooperation, strengthen capacity-building and continue to share good practices in order to scale up efforts to ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for all.” This resolution is the formal expression of the will of the principal deliberative, policy-making, and representative organ of the United Nations Organization. Consequently, it constitutes a political commitment of a universal nature that must be valued as a source of soft law of the utmost relevance.

Precisely, resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 affirms that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has the nature of a human right. With this, it contributes significantly to its positivization, resulting in its technical understanding as a “fundamental right.” Likewise, it strengthens the notion that environmental protection is an “autonomous” human right, that is, one that stands on its own, so that, on the one hand, it has its own conceptual existence, distinct from the environmental content that undoubtedly arises from the protection of other rights (such as life or health), and, on the other, its object of protection transcends the human being, since it provides shelter to the various components of nature due to their importance for preserving the existence of living organisms in general, independently of their utility for human beings.

Likewise, it reiterates and, through that avenue, strengthens the position that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is linked to other human rights, which implies that its transgression can lead to the violation of health, life, and democratic sustainable development, to cite just a few examples. The foregoing confers a particularly relevant legal significance to the right in question.

In addition, the UN General Assembly prescribes that the protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment demands the full application of the conventional rights related to the environment in accordance with the principles of international environmental law. From the foregoing, its essential inclusion within the jurisdictional control of constitutionality by this Chamber is inferred.

Finally, in harmony with the recognized theory of the horizontal effectiveness of fundamental rights (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), resolution No. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 regulates that the obligation to protect the environment, beyond States, extends to international organizations, enterprises, and other relevant stakeholders, the latter term encompassing human beings in general. It is precisely in that sense that the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction contemplates the amparo action against private law subjects.

In sum, under the conceptual framework explained ut supra, this Constitutional Court, as guarantor of fundamental rights, must ensure compliance with the conventional and constitutional commitments that impose upon the Costa Rican State and society in general not only the obligation to recognize the rights, principles, and values of environmental matters, but also to implement all those measures and actions that are required to ensure their effective protection.” VI.- On the specific case. In the case at hand (sub examine), the petitioner indicates that Manuel Antonio National Park (Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, PNMA) receives about 3000 people daily. He accuses that such a number of visitors deteriorates the ecosystem and the sustainability of the park. He points out that there are no scientific studies that support this tourist load, since the last one is from 2010 and only justified a maximum daily visitation of 600 people. He considers that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is violated.

After analyzing the case file, the Chamber established as proven that, through agreement No. 12 of the ordinary session No. 06-2014 of June 23, 2014, the National Council of Conservation Areas (Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) approved the “Tool for managing visitor flows in the Protected Wild Areas of SINAC” and instructed the executive director to formalize it. In 2016, the first fieldwork was carried out on beaches and trails in the PNMA sector to identify possible indicators to monitor and create the baseline in the required cases. In 2018, the Technical Scientific Committee of the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central) agreed to implement the tool for the protected wild areas of that conservation area. Regarding the daily visitation of the PNMA, through resolution No. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 of 3:05 p.m. on April 30, 2021, the respondent party established a maximum of 1500 daily visitors. Subsequently, by resolution No. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of 3:20 p.m. on August 5, 2021, the respondent authority increased the capacity to a maximum of 2000 daily visitors. Likewise, it was established as an uncontroverted fact—which is also derived from the evidence provided with the report rendered (see, for example, official letters SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 and SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023)—that the respondent authorities increased this year the permitted capacity to 3000 daily visitors. As a consequence of the foregoing, several days in April 2023 registered visitor numbers exceeding 2000 people: April 2, 2592 people; April 3, 2867 people; April 5, 2765; April 6, 2754 people; April 7, 2734 people; April 8, 2755 people; April 9, 2746 people. Regarding this topic, the respondent Administration estimates that the visitation of the PNMA currently corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. For this reason, through official letter No. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023, the regional director and the director of Protected Wild Areas of the Central Pacific Conservation Area expressed to the executive director of SINAC their concern about the hierarchical decisions concerning the visitation of the PNMA. Regarding the impact on the ecosystem, that official letter indicated: “… Without a doubt and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) supposes a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should rather be being received at this time; which supposes an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental and sustainability conditions of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, the same that if we over-exploit, future visitors perhaps would not have the opportunity to observe in the short or medium term, hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority in the matter…” In the same sense, through official letter No. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 of April 17, 2023, the regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area communicated to the executive director of SINAC: “For all of the above, and in adherence to the functions entrusted by Law, Article 50 of our political constitution, Articles 31 and 61 of the Biodiversity Law, and 25 of the Regulations to the Biodiversity Law, and to the principle in dubio (sic) pro natura, under the responsibility in the exercise of my position to apply the legal system governing the matter, likewise, to implement national policies and all those indicated in the binding legal and technical system, as well as the hierarchical duty in the geographical area under my charge to implement, evaluate, and systematize internal policies, guidelines, methodologies, standards, and strategies; for all the reasons stated above, it is my duty that, given the absence of direct instructions and directives in a formal and written manner from my superiors regarding the change and application of a carrying capacity, higher than that established through the application of the carrying capacity tool and furthermore not being formalized by any administrative resolution, this directorate lacks the legal and technical basis, as well as budgetary and personnel capacity, to continue receiving the visitation of 3000 people daily within the PNMA. Therefore, in adherence to the duty of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services that ensure all citizens an ecologically balanced environment, you are informed that as of April 30, 2023, the conservation area will be formally requesting the person in charge of the SICORE oversight to apply resolution SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on August fifth, two thousand twenty-one, in force as of today, in the sense of reducing the reservation capacity to two thousand people.” Additionally, it is of utmost relevance for the resolution of the sub iudice case that the Chamber could not verify the application of the respective technical tools to increase the visitation of the PNMA.

The above facts demonstrate that the amount of visitation in the PNMA exceeds the capacity of that park to the detriment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Even beyond the reproach put forward by the petitioner, this situation is evident from the very statements of the reporting parties. For example, said authorities estimated that the current visitation of the PNMA corresponds to 267.9% of the installed capacity. Note that, according to the visitor flow model, carried out in December 2022, the carrying capacity is 1120 daily visitors. However, at this time, the daily capacity far exceeds that amount, since the PNMA received an average of more than 2500 people daily during the first days of April 2023.

On the regulatory level, firstly, the Chamber highlights the ‘Convention for the protection of the flora, fauna, and natural scenic beauties of the countries of America’ (Law No.

3763):

"The American Governments, desirous of protecting and conserving in their natural environment specimens of all species and genera of their indigenous flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and in regions vast enough to prevent their extinction by any means within the reach of man; and Desirous of protecting and conserving landscapes of incomparable beauty, extraordinary geological formations, regions and natural objects of aesthetic interest or historic or scientific value, and places where primitive conditions exist within the cases to which this Convention refers; and Desirous of concluding a convention on the protection of flora, fauna, and natural scenic beauties within the purposes set forth above, have agreed upon the following articles:

ARTICLE 1 Definition of the terms and expressions used in this Convention.

1.- National Parks shall be understood as: Regions established for the protection and conservation of natural scenic beauties and of flora and fauna of national importance, which the public may best enjoy when placed under official supervision.

(...)

ARTICLE 3 (...)

The Contracting Governments further agree to provide national parks with the facilities for public enjoyment and education, in accordance with the purposes pursued by this Convention." In consonance with the foregoing, the Regulation to the Biodiversity Law (Decreto Ejecutivo nro. 34433) provides:

"Article 70.-Management categories of ASP. For the purposes of classifying the different management categories of protected wilderness areas, the following technical criteria are established for each of them:

(...)

• c)National Parks: Geographic areas, terrestrial, marine, marine-coastal, freshwater, or a combination thereof, of national importance, established for the protection and conservation of natural beauties and biodiversity, as well as for public enjoyment. These areas present one or several ecosystems in which species, habitat, and geomorphological sites are of special scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational interest or contain a natural landscape of great beauty. (...)" In the particular case of the PNMA, the Chamber highlights that it has its own regulation, specifically, the Public Use Regulation for the Manuel Antonio National Park (Decreto Ejecutivo nro. 22482-MIRENEM). In what is relevant to the object of this proceeding, that decree provides:

"Considering:

(...)

3º-That in accordance with an environmental impact assessment, conducted on the Manuel Antonio National Park, uncontrolled visitation is (sic) causing its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation.

4º-That the administration of the state-owned lands that make up this National Park corresponds to the National Parks Service of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, which must ensure that there is a true balance between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to ensure the perpetual preservation of this wilderness area. Therefore,

DECREE:

Article 1º-This regulation has the purpose of improving the quality of the visitor experience at the Manuel Antonio National Park and seeking its perpetual preservation.

(...)

Article 3: On the carrying capacity of the public use zone (high intervention): Based on the results of the application of the technical tools established by the SINAC, the Regional Directorate of ACOPAC will determine the increase, decrease, or regulation of visitation to the different authorized sites, via administrative resolution. (...)" (Emphasis added).

Based on the provisions just transcribed, the Chamber establishes that the primary purpose of national parks (among them, the PNMA) is the conservation of the ecosystems present in their respective areas or zones. A secondary objective is to enable people's recreation and enjoyment of the nature found within them. This order of priority is not derived solely from the regulations, but is the consequence of the dependence that the latter has on the former. That is, the requirement for people to be able to enjoy nature is inexorably the conservation of nature; if it is not conserved, what is intended to be visited disappears. In the case of the PNMA, the ratio of the Public Use Regulation for the Manuel Antonio National Park was manifest in pointing out that visitation was causing "...its accelerated deterioration, creating a serious risk for its future preservation," and that therefore there was a need to "...ensure that there is a true balance between visitation and the conservation of the Park's resources, in order to ensure the perpetual preservation of this wilderness area." In that same line of thought, a measure contemplated by that regulatory body to achieve the cited balance and ensure the conservation of the park is the regulation of the number of visitors in the park's public use zones. Thus, the determination of visitation will be based "...on the results of the application of the technical tools established by the SINAC..." (article 3). The Chamber endorses this requirement, given that it is an expression of the principle of objectification of environmental protection:

"Regarding the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth, our Magna Carta also requires that it be 'healthy.' The requirement of 'healthy' leads us to 'regenerative capacity' and 'succession capacity' to guarantee life. From both requirements—'healthy' and 'balanced'—the need for sustainable and sustained development emerges; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now, with the concepts of 'environment,' 'healthy,' 'ecologically balanced,' the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, be they legislative or administrative, in such a way that, under the terms of articles 16 of the General Law of Public Administration and 38 of the Organic Environmental Law, state actions in environmental matters must be based on and cannot contradict the univocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, 'greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country.' Regarding the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the univocal rules of science and technique, the Chamber has called it the principle of objectification of environmental protection: 'The objectification of environmental protection (...) is a principle that in no way can be confused with the previous [precautionary principle or "principle of prudent avoidance"], insofar as, derived from the provisions of articles 16 and 160 of the General Law of Public Administration, it translates into the need to accredit technical studies for decision-making in this matter, both in relation to acts and general provisions—both legal and regulatory—, from which derives the requirement of linkage to science and technique, thereby conditioning the Administration's discretion in this matter. So that, in light of the results derived from those technical studies—such as environmental impact assessments—, if an objective technical criterion is evidenced that denotes the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or people's health, it is obligatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in case of a "reasonable doubt," it is obligatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.' (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05)." (Resolution nro. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. of September 21, 2012, reiterated in resolution nro. 2022-012509 of 12:10 p.m. of May 31, 2022).

On the other hand, the application of the preventive principle in environmental matters also obliges the Chamber to take measures to prevent the reproached administrative conduct from having a negative impact on the ecosystems protected by the PNMA. As indicated supra, that principle states:

"...the preventive principle demands that, when there is certainty of possible damage to the environment, the affecting activity must be prohibited, limited, or conditioned upon the fulfillment of certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when there are risks clearly defined and identified at least as probable; likewise, this principle is useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits that guarantee the sustainability of an activity, but there are sufficient elements to foresee eventual negative impacts." The manifestations of the respondent parties reveal that there is a clear risk to the ecosystems of the PNMA, if visitation is not regulated through technical tools that allow for establishing the load that this park can handle in a sustainable manner. We reiterate what is indicated in official communication nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 of March 16, 2023:

"...Without a doubt and as indicated above, having increased the carrying capacity to 3000 visitors (50% more than the limit that had been managed) represents a total gross load of more than 200%, as indicated in the first section, above what should rather be being received at this moment; which represents an imminent risk of deterioration to the environmental conditions and sustainability of the sector enabled for visitors. It must be remembered that tourists wish to visit the PNMA for its scenic beauty and biodiversity, largely for the opportunity to observe wildlife, which if we overexploit, future visitors might not have the opportunity to observe, perhaps in the short or medium term, hence the balance between protection and tourism development that we must promote as the authority on the matter..." (Emphasis added).

In conclusion, the result of the study carried out by the Chamber demonstrates that the respondent authorities increased the permitted visitation to the PNMA without applying the respective technical tools, even when it was evident that the park's installed capacity would be insufficient to guarantee the balance between nature conservation and its enjoyment by visitors. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is declared with merit. Given that the flow model applied in December 2022 indicates a carrying capacity of 1120 daily visitors, we order that daily visitation be reduced to that amount, without prejudice to a new technical study determining such capacity under the current conditions of the park.

**VII.- NOTE BY JUDGE CASTILLO VÍQUEZ.** In view of the reasons of the majority vote, I waive the note set forth in the operative part of the judgment.

**VIII.- DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE SALAZAR ALVARADO.** With due respect, I dissent from the majority vote that declares the appeal with merit, based on the following reasons:

The protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, in the Costa Rican Legal System, is protected not only in article 50 of the Political Constitution, but also in a series of laws and executive decrees (regulations) in force, such as the Organic Environmental Law, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995; the Biodiversity Law, Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998; the Wildlife Conservation Law, Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992; and Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849 of May 24, 2004, General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, to name just a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to separate the control of constitutionality from the control of legality. In this sense, it is the undersigned's criterion that this Chamber, via amparo, should only hear a matter in which a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged if the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily verifiable, of certain importance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community. Otherwise, the issue must be raised and discussed through the legality track. Therefore, the simple breach of obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters is appropriate to be heard in the legality track—administrative or jurisdictional—where, with much greater amplitude, the alleged breaches or omissions can be monitored. It must be kept in mind that the amparo appeal is a summary, informal, simple, and fast process, such that, from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter, in the exercise of its powers, and substantiates a procedure, through the issuance of administrative acts, its knowledge becomes alien to the scope of action of this specialized jurisdiction. Hence, the review of administrative actions carried out concerning an environmental theme that requires, for its correct assessment, a full evidentiary process, is only possible in the ordinary jurisdiction, since the design of the amparo process is incompatible with the contrasting or reviewing of technical or legal criteria elaborated under the current legal or regulatory norms, or with the evacuation of new and greater elements of conviction necessary for the contrasting or reviewing of criteria already contained in the administrative file of the case. The contrary would imply transforming the amparo into an ordinary full evidentiary process, thereby denaturing it and rendering nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, thus losing its condition as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the above, I consider that when a public entity or body has intervened, in various forms, or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, its knowledge and oversight correspond to the jurisdiction of the contentious-administrative courts. It is, precisely, the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls within the competence of the legality track. Consequently, this appeal should have been rejected outright, since its object is a question proper to be discussed, analyzed, and resolved in the legality track. However, as this was not done, the proper course is to declare it without merit, without making any pronouncement regarding the merits of the issue raised, as it corresponds to the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically, the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, to determine whether the administrative actions and conducts complained of conform or not, in substance, to the provisions of the legal system, regarding the protection, guardianship, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

**IX.- Documentation provided to the file.** The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be retrieved from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. It is warned that any material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, according to the provisions of the "Regulation on the Electronic File before the Judicial Branch," approved by the Full Court in article XXVI of session nro. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, published in the Judicial Bulletin nro. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement of the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch, approved in article LXXXI of session nro. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012.

**Therefore:** We declare the appeal with merit. We order [Name8] and [Name2], in their capacity as executive director and regional director of the Central Pacific Conservation Area, respectively, both of the National System of Conservation Areas, or whomever holds those positions, to issue the orders and carry out the necessary coordination so that, within the period of TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, counted from the notification of this judgment, visitation to the Manuel Antonio National Park is reduced to the carrying capacity calculated in the flow model applied in December 2022. We warn the respondent authorities that, in accordance with the provisions of article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued within an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not have it complied with, provided that the crime is not more severely punished. We condemn the State to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the sentence of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Judge Castillo Víquez attaches a note. Judge Salazar Alvarado dissents and declares the appeal without merit regarding the alleged infringement of article 50 of the Political Constitution. Judge Garro Vargas dissents and declares the appeal without merit. Notify.

**Fernando Castillo V.** **Presidente** **Paul Rueda L.** **Luis Fdo. Salazar A.** **Jorge Araya G.** **Anamari Garro V.** **José Roberto Garita N.** Res. No. 2023011233 DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE GARRO VARGAS.

In this judgment, the Chamber decided by majority to hear the merits of the amparo action where the number of people entering Manuel Antonio National Park is disputed.

However, the issue of Park visitation has already been raised before this Court. In this regard, the following has been stated:

"VIII.- Regarding the number of park visitors. The claimant argues that the number of visitors entering the park exceeds the number permitted by regulations. The Chamber emphasizes that it is not its task to verify the number of visitors to a national park, as this is a matter of mere legality. Nor is it observed that the appellant's claim is correct. According to the reports rendered under oath, the number of visitors inside the park does not exceed what is stipulated, because access is suspended when the maximum number of visitors has been reached, to be resumed only when tourists leave the park, thus complying with the stipulated maximum number. Consequently, the claim is rejected." (Judgment No. 2015012955 of 9:20 a.m. on August 21, 2015. Emphasis not in original).

This decision was reiterated in the following terms:

"III.- REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENTERING THE PARK. Concerning this point, it is not for this Chamber to verify, in accordance with applicable infra-constitutional regulations, the number of visitors who can attend a national park, as this is a matter of ordinary legality appropriate for discussion in ordinary legality venues (...). Consequently, the appeal is flatly rejected with regard to this point" (Judgment No. 2019008005 of 10:15 a.m. on May 7, 2019. Emphasis not in original).

I believe that the proper course in this matter is to uphold what was stated in those precedents, meaning that it is not for this Chamber to determine the number of visitors who can attend Manuel Antonio National Park and to declare whether the criteria applied by the Administration are correct in light of infra-constitutional regulations.

Indeed, the matter requires examining technical aspects that far exceed the possibilities of a summary proceeding such as the amparo appeal. It should be kept in mind that, to correctly determine the number of visitors, it is necessary to consider variables of very different kinds, relating to the overall socio-environmental impact, infrastructure, personnel, etc. Thus, it is reported that "the carrying capacity (capacidad de carga) of a site is not rigid; it is changeable due to a series of factors." Furthermore, the majority orders that the daily number of visitors be 1,120 people, calculated using the flow model applied in December 2022. Note that it opts for a solution that does not even assess aspects as basic as the need to specify visitor limits depending on the time of year. Moreover, according to the information provided, that number constitutes "198% of the capacity that the park could receive at that time." So it seems that what the Chamber ordered does not even truly manage to protect the right to an ecologically balanced environment.

This decision I am justifying here is even more protective for the intervening parties, since certainly in the ordinary jurisdiction there would be a broader evidentiary phase and the possibility of utilizing robust precautionary justice.

What is stated in this dissenting vote is consistent with other resolutions, even from the majority of this Chamber, that endorse this position. For example, in judgment No. 2022017490 —which I was responsible for drafting— the following was resolved:

"Along these lines, this Chamber considers that the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the Costa Rican legal system is provided for not only in Article 50 of the Political Constitution —as has already been stated— but also in a series of current laws and executive decrees (regulations), such as the Organic Law of the Environment, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, the Biodiversity Law, Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998, the Wildlife Conservation Law, Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992, and Executive Decree No. 31849 of May 24, 2004, General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, to cite just a few examples. This makes it necessary to distinguish, in environmental matters, when it is appropriate for the Chamber to exercise the guarantee of such a right and when the matter, despite referring to this area, must be heard by the ordinary judge to exercise the corresponding legality review. Thus, in principle, non-compliance with obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters, even though it inherently has clear and serious repercussions, is properly heard in the legality venue —administrative or jurisdictional—. On the other hand, historically this Chamber has maintained the jurisprudential line that 'the amparo proceeding is of an eminently summary nature because its sole purpose is to provide timely protection against violations or imminent threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, and therefore its processing does not lend itself well to the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings' (among many others, see votes numbers 2003-14336, 2006-014421 and 2020-019038). In this direction, it is the majority's criterion that, via amparo, it should be understood that generally this Chamber must hear amparo appeals alleging injury to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided that the questions and complaints, due to their complexity, do not exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal. On the contrary, it is more protective for all parties, and even for the effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the protection of natural resources, to place the conflict in an ordinary venue, of plenary cognizance, where with more procedural opportunities the evidence can be examined and the grievances contrasted, ultimately, to judge in detail the regularity of the omissionary and/or active conduct of the competent public administrations in attending to and resolving the denounced environmental conflict. Furthermore, another condition must be met: that the Administration has not intervened (see vote No. 2022-009857). Indeed, when a public entity or body has intervened in various ways or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, particularly if it is complex, the cognizance and oversight of that activity corresponds to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Precisely, it is the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls under the competence of the legality venue. Indeed, it is insisted, if there has already been conduct by the Administration that, following an administrative procedure, has granted subjective rights, has established sanctions, or has prescribed a route to resolve the denounced problem, all of the foregoing based on the application of legal or infra-legal regulations, then it would be up to the contentious-administrative judges to ensure the legality of such administrative acts. In this sense, from the entry into force of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, it was determined that the contentious-administrative jurisdiction possesses broad powers to hear grievances such as those questioned in the sub lite. For these purposes, this Court has reiterated the following:

"[G]iven the enactment of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Law No. 8508 of April 24, 2006) and its entry into force as of January 1, 2008, it has become evident that litigants now have a plenary and universal contentious-administrative jurisdiction, extremely expeditious and swift due to the various procedural mechanisms that this legislation incorporates into the legal system, such as the shortening of deadlines for carrying out the various procedural acts, the broad scope of standing, precautionary measures, the numerus apertus of admissible claims, orality —and its sub-principles of concentration, immediacy, and speed—, a single instance with appeal only in expressly limited situations, intra-procedural conciliation, the unified process, the preferential processing procedure or 'amparo of legality', proceedings on pure points of law, new enforcement measures (coercive fines, substitute or commissarial enforcement, seizure of assets from the fiscal domain and some from the public domain), the broad powers of the enforcement judges, the extension and adaptation of the effects of case law to third parties, and the flexibility of the cassation appeal. All these novel procedural institutes have the manifest purpose and aim of achieving procedural economy, speed, promptness, and the effective or complete protection of the substantive legal situations of the administered parties, all with the guarantee of basic fundamental rights such as due process, defense, and the adversarial principle." (See, for example, judgments numbers 2010-17909, 2020-011247 and 2022-003724).

In contrast to what has been said about that jurisdiction, the absence in a constitutional amparo appeal of a plenary evidentiary phase that facilitates immediacy and the adversarial testing of evidence necessarily requires that, for the sake of adequate and prudent protection of the right, the ordinary venue be used to hear environmental conflicts that are inherently complex, such as the one raised in the specific case. Otherwise, it would mean transforming the amparo into an ordinary proceeding of full cognizance, thereby denaturing it and rendering nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, causing it to lose its status as a summary instrument for the protection of fundamental rights." (Criterion reiterated in judgment No. 2023-009347).

Moreover, my line of resolution is consistent with the note —signed jointly with Judges Castillo Víquez and Garita Navarro— that I was responsible for drafting regarding judgment No. 2022-009857 and in which the following considerations were made:

"We deem it necessary to record this note in which we warn that, upon better consideration, in environmental matters of such complexity —as the one questioned in the specific case— we assess that it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal in order to place the discussion in the ordinary venue where, with greater evidentiary and procedural possibilities, as well as enforcement, the questioned conduct can be examined in detail. First, it is necessary to emphasize that we consider this Chamber competent to hear amparo appeals related to the injury to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the terms of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. The foregoing, as this Court has done so successfully in the past. However, we warn that there are questions and complaints that, due to their complexity, exceed the summary nature of the amparo appeal and, in such circumstances, it is more protective for all parties, and even for the effective protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the protection of natural resources, to place the conflict in an ordinary venue, of plenary cognizance, where with more procedural opportunities the evidence can be examined and the grievances contrasted. Ultimately, to judge in detail the regularity of the omissionary and/or active conduct of the competent public administrations in attending to and resolving the denounced environmental conflict. Recall that historically this Chamber has maintained the jurisprudential line that 'the amparo proceeding is of an eminently summary nature because its sole purpose is to provide timely protection against violations or imminent threats to fundamental rights and freedoms, and therefore its processing does not lend itself well to the practice of slow and complex evidentiary proceedings' (among many others, see votes numbers 2003-14336, 2006-014421 and 2020-019038). This jurisprudential line merely recalls the proper nature of this proceeding. On the other hand, from the entry into force of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, it was determined that said jurisdiction possesses broad powers to hear grievances such as those questioned in the sub lite. (...) In contrast, the absence of a plenary evidentiary phase that facilitates immediacy and the adversarial testing of evidence necessarily requires that, for the sake of adequate and prudent protection of the right, the ordinary venue be used to hear environmental conflicts that are inherently complex, such as the one raised in the specific case. (...) From the enumeration of grievances and the analysis of the claim of the appellant party, it is possible to verify that the denounced conflict is extremely complex to resolve through the amparo proceeding and, therefore, it should be placed in an ordinary venue that, with greater tools, can hear the substantive complaint in depth, adopt precautionary measures, and issue broad and specific orders to address the noted problem. The Chamber must hear environmental matters in all those cases whose claim is compatible with the summary nature of the amparo appeal. Everything that can be heard and placed before the constitutional jurisdiction because the claim is compatible with the qualities and possibilities that this proceeding grants, must remain in this venue. Not so for environmental complaints whose elucidation requires, for their cognizance and adequate analysis, a plenary evidentiary space such as that provided for in the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction. That is the exception. We consider that the rule is, therefore, that it is appropriate to hear an amparo appeal when the verification of the problem is relatively simple and the Chamber has the appropriate tools for timely and appropriate redress, that is, that its enforcement is also characteristic of a summary proceeding. In this regard, it is necessary to warn that there are grievances that are easily verifiable and their cognizance would not be so difficult, but they are part of a whole. Therefore, it is better that this whole be placed in a venue that, due to its characteristics, allows the matter to be heard comprehensively with the analysis of all the facets that comprise the specific case." In short, we consider that, under a better weighing of the matter, it is necessary to conclude that there are conflicts that, due to their magnitude, necessarily require a full evidentiary proceeding for their consideration and resolution. This is precisely one of those cases, and we therefore believe the appropriate course is to declare the appeal without merit and refer the entirety of the conflict raised —complaint regarding staff shortages to the detriment of biodiversity— to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.

We make this note in order to guarantee due legal certainty in the jurisprudential lines of this Constitutional Jurisdiction and to specifically note wherein the partial change of criteria of the undersigned judges consists." (The emphasis does not appear in the original).

Consequently, I uphold this separate opinion and declare the appeal without merit, without prejudice to the appellant's right to go before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction to discuss the subject matter of this proceeding, where they will find greater guarantees for it to be examined and resolved.

**Anamari Garro Vargas** **Judge**

Res. Nº 2023011233 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas de doce de mayo del dos mil veintitrés.

Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente nro. 23-006531-0007-CO, interpuesto por [Nombre1] , cédula de identidad CED1, contra SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN (SINAC).

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Sala el 20 de marzo de 2023, la persona accionante interpone un recurso de amparo. Manifiesta que el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (PNMA) es el área protegida que recibe más visitantes en el país, aproximadamente 3000 personas diarias. Alega que no hay estudios científicos concluyentes o comprobables actuales sobre la capacidad de carga turística. Aclara que el último estudio data de 2010, que estableció en ese momento la visita máxima de 600 personas. Señala que, actualmente, la gran cantidad de visitantes ha deteriorado y afectado la biodiversidad, los ecosistemas y la sostenibilidad del parque. Afirma que, de acuerdo con estudios realizados por el Instituto Internacional de Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre (ICONVIS) de la Universidad Nacional (UNA), hay una afectación evidente en el comportamiento de algunas especies ante la interacción con la gran cantidad de personas. Refiere que ese estudio señala que los hábitos alimentarios, manejo de conductas agresivas, estrés y descenso en las capacidades inmunológicas de los animales, amenaza con una posible disminución de ejemplares o con la desaparición de las especies del contexto del área protegida. Agrega que el aumento progresivo, insostenible y constante de visitantes, ha creado una presión muy fuerte sobre los servicios al turista que se ofrecen en el parque, como el aumento en la cantidad de desechos séptico-sanitarios de los baños y el deterioro de senderos. Enuncia que el tiempo de espera de ingreso en la entrada principal del parque ha aumentado hasta 45 minutos, en condiciones de tiempo muy intensas. Apunta que el Estado tiene el deber de garantizar la sostenibilidad y conservación de las áreas protegidas y velar porque se respeten los principios de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad y tutela científica. Estima que lo expuesto conculca su derecho constitucional a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, consagrado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Solicita que se declare con lugar el recurso.

2.- Por resolución de las 13:15 horas del 12 de abril de 2023 se dio curso al amparo.

3.- Informa bajo juramento [Nombre2] , en su condición de director regional del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central del SINAC, lo siguiente: “II. SOBRE EL FONDO: En atención a los alegatos expuestos por el recurrente, se detallan las actuaciones realizadas por el Área de Conservación Pacífico Central, de acuerdo con las competencias otorgadas por ley: 1. Sobre la capacidad de carga del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (PNMA). El manejo de visitantes en un área protegida debe ser rigurosamente planificado para alcanzar los objetivos de conservación por los cuales fue creada y, a la vez, lograr que los visitantes tengan una experiencia de calidad y puedan satisfacer sus expectativas. Para eso es importante establecer la capacidad de carga de visitación que los sitios destinados al uso público pueden soportar. La capacidad de carga turística es un tipo específico de capacidad de carga ambiental y se refiere a la capacidad biofísica y social del entorno respecto de la actividad turística y su desarrollo ([Nombre3], 1991, citado por [Nombre4], 1996). Representa el máximo nivel de uso por visitantes que un área puede mantener. Se puede definir la capacidad de carga ambiental como la capacidad que posee un ecosistema para mantener organismos mientras mantiene su productividad, adaptabilidad y capacidad de regeneración. Representa el límite de la actividad humana: si éste es excedido, el recurso se deteriorará ([Nombre5], 1996). Existen diversas metodologías para regular el manejo de visitantes en áreas protegidas. El 23 de junio del 2014 el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (CONAC) mediante el acuerdo N°12 Sesión Ordinaria N°06-2014 conoce y aprueba la Herramienta para el manejo de los flujos de visitación en las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del SINAC, e instruye al Director Ejecutivo para que oficialice formalmente dicha herramienta, la cual sería de aplicación prioritaria en las ASP cubiertas por el Proyecto BID Turismo y a partir del año 2015 paulatinamente se priorizara de acuerdo a las capacidades y el potencial turístico de las ASP. El Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio fue una de las 10 ASP participantes en dicho proyecto. En diciembre del 2015 iniciando el proceso de aplicación de la herramienta y en el año 2016 con ayuda de actores clave, efectuando el primer trabajo de campo en playas y senderos del sector Manuel Antonio del Parque Nacional, identificar posibles indicadores a monitorear y crear la línea base en los casos requeridos. Posteriormente en el año 2018 la herramienta técnica fue presentada en Comité Científico Técnico del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central (ACOPAC), en la sesión del 22-11-2018, donde se acordó su implementación para las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del ACOPAC. La ejecución de la herramienta está compuesta por siete pasos: 1. Propósito de manejo del ASP, importancia del sitio. 2. Análisis de los recursos del ASP y el uso actual por parte de los visitantes. 3. Descripción del rango de experiencias para visitantes de acuerdo a las condiciones de los recursos del ASP. 4. Oportunidades de condiciones y experiencias potenciales a lugares específicos del ASP. 5. Indicadores y umbrales para cada oportunidad 6. Aplicación de indicadores y umbrales, análisis y toma de acciones de manejo 7. Adaptación y nueva aplicación Adjunto la herramienta aplicada en el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, la cual emplea 18 indicadores: 1. Afectación de la flora por parte de visitantes (FCafl) 2. Perturbación de la fauna (FCbio) 3. Acumulación de agua en senderos (FCane) 4. Aparición de senderos espontáneos (FCase) 5. Afectación de la base del sendero con exposición de raíces, rocas y otros (FCero) 6. Expansión del sendero -ensanchamiento (FCens) 7. Impacto visual negativo debido a presencia de residuos sólidos (FCivn) 8. Disponibilidad de agua potable para uso de la visita (FCdap) 9. Recurso humano para el manejo de flujo de visitantes (FCcmr) 10. Infraestructura disponible para uso turístico (FCcmi) 11. Equipo disponible para atención turística (FCcme) 12. Percepción de hacinamiento por parte del visitante (FCphv) 13. Nivel de satisfacción de experiencia de la visita (FCsev) 14. Percepción del visitante sobre el estado y funcionamiento de la infraestructura turística (FCpit) 15. Percepción del visitante sobre el servicio de guiado recibido (FCgt) 16. Frecuencia de delitos en contra del visitante (FCdcv) 17. Frecuencia de accidentes de los visitantes dentro del Parque (FCfav) 18. Vandalismo en infraestructura turística habilitada (FCvit) Los resultados de estos indicadores se obtuvieron por diferentes métodos de aplicación: Ficha de monitoreo A-1, Ficha de monitoreo B-1, Ficha de monitoreo C-1 y cálculo de CCT, estos se ingresan a una plantilla que contiene la línea base de cada indicador, generando el umbral correspondiente al resultado. El Decreto Ejecutivo 42496-MINAE, Reforma al reglamento de uso público del PNMA (16-07-2020), el artículo 3. “Sobre la capacidad de carga de la zona de uso público (alta intervención)”, señala que, basados en los resultados de la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas establecidas por el SINAC, la Dirección Regional del ACOPAC determinará el aumento, disminución o regulación de la visitación de los diferentes sitios autorizados, vía resolución administrativa. La herramienta genera una “radiografía del área”, ayuda a identificar los recursos disponibles para el manejo de flujo de visitantes, los indicadores para monitorear el impacto de la actividad dentro del ASP y un número aproximado de visitantes en las áreas habilitadas para la actividad turística. Importante recordar que la capacidad de carga de un sitio no es rígida, es cambiante ante una seria de factores. Desde hace varios años se identificó que para manejar 3 mil visitantes diarios en el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio es necesario el 100% de la infraestructura funcionando en correcto estado, el 100% del personal requerido manejando el flujo de visitantes en las diferentes áreas (ingreso, senderos, playas), así como disponer del 100% del equipo necesario para la actividad dentro del ASP (comunicación, atención de incidentes, mantenimiento de infraestructura, entre otros). Ejemplos de algunos indicadores aplicados en el PNMA: Indicador: Afectación de la flora por parte de visitantes (FCafl) (Inserta cuadro) La línea base de este indicador creada en el año 2016 corresponde a 3 árboles afectados con grafiti en el sendero [Dirección1] , lo cual se mantuvo por varios años. No obstante, el ultimo monitoreo reporta 17 árboles afectados en este sendero, dando como resultado Umbral Inaceptable. Indicador: Perturbación de la fauna (FCbio) (Inserta cuadro) En el año 2016 se detectaron 4 puntos críticos o sitios de mayor incidencia: playa Manuel Antonio y su sendero, playa [Dirección2] y su sendero. Las especies con mayor incidencia fueron mono carablanca, iguanas y mapaches. Se inició la recolección de incidencias anuales alcanzando un FC inicial de 0,44. En el año 2019 se presentaron 24 ataques de animales (mordeduras al tratar de sustraer comida a los visitantes). Se recomendó analizar la necesidad de regular el ingreso de alimentos al Parque, ya que el Umbral alcanzado era de Inaceptable y aunque se brindaba información al visitante, los reportes de animales sustrayendo comida crecían. Luego de análisis de información de estudios científicos aportados por la Universidad Nacional y otros ante investigaciones efectuadas en el ASP, en julio del 2020 se realizó la reforma al Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, Decreto Nº 42496-MINAE, donde el inciso 14 del artículo 12 señala dentro de las prohibiciones para los visitantes: “Dentro de los límites del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, en adelante PNMA, además de las prohibiciones indicadas en la normativa ambiental vigente, queda prohibido a los visitantes:… Ingresar con alimentos y/o bebidas de cualquier tipo, bajo las condiciones y con las excepciones que establezca la Administración del ASP”. Lo anterior ayudó a disminuir la incidencia de interacción fauna – visitante, logrando bajar el factor de corrección. Se alcanzo un FC de 0,67 en [Dirección3] y un FC de 0,56 en [Dirección4] . El FC alcanzó un umbral Aceptable. Posteriormente cuando se da el cierre y luego reapertura de las ASP durante la Pandemia por COVID-19, el factor de corrección alcanzó la calificación de 1, siendo el Umbral Optimo, es decir, cero afectaciones a la fauna silvestre con cero incidencia de ataques a visitantes, quedando registrado para la historia del manejo de visitantes del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio. Indicador: Percepción de hacinamiento por parte del visitante (FCphv) (Inserta cuadro) Para establecer el rango se consultó literatura, siendo la de [Nombre6] (2008) una fácil de aplicar y acorde al volumen de manejo. Esta presenta la escala para describir el nivel del hacinamiento percibido en diferentes actividades de recreo al aire libre, basado en 181 estudios en varios continentes, donde establecen que: entre 0% y 50% la condición de carga es considerada como “normal baja”, es decir probablemente no existen problemas de hacinamiento. Entre 51% y 65% corresponde a “normal alta”, indicando la tendencia de exceder la capacidad de carga, y la necesidad de anticipar problemas, especialmente si la visitación está en crecimiento, y cuando es más de 65% se considera como sobrepasada. Durante el año 2019 el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio se mantuvo como el ASP del SINAC de mayor de visitación, con un total de 513 050 visitas, donde 144 084 eran visitantes residentes (28%) y 368 966 visitantes no residentes (72%). En este año se aplicaron 600 encuestas, donde el 40,16% eran costarricenses, 6,16% mexicanos, 26,33% estadounidenses, 2,16% canadienses, 15,83% europeos, 9,36 otras nacionalidades. En la Semana mayor (abril), de las 200 personas encuestadas, el 83% indicaron no haber percibido hacinamiento y el 17% indicaron que sí. En vacaciones de medio período (julio) de las 200 personas encuestadas, el 74,5% indicaron no haber percibido hacinamiento, 21,5% indicaron que sí y un 4% no respondió la pregunta. Para el período de Fin de año (diciembre), de las 200 personas encuestadas, el 84% indicaron no haber percibido hacinamiento y el 16% indicaron que sí. La mayor incidencia se presentó en vacaciones de medio período (Julio), con un 21,5%, inferior al rango establecido para este indicador, dando como resultado un Umbral alcanzado Optimo. Sobre los indicadores Recurso humano para el manejo de visitantes, Infraestructura disponible para uso turístico y Equipo disponible para atención turística, a continuación, los umbrales establecidos. (Inserta cuadro) Un escenario óptimo para el PNMA, se logra con una capacidad de manejo de 9 de 10. Indicador: Erosión en senderos debido a su composición, factores climáticos y uso de visitantes (FCero) (Inserta cuadro) En el año 2016 se logró identificar la línea base de los 3 sitios: camino de acceso vehicular, el sector que comunica Playa Manuel Antonio con las baterías de baños y el Sendero Punta Catedral. En el 2019 se aplicaron mejoras en el sector del camino de acceso vehicular donde presentaba de anegamiento y erosión, así como en la parte del sector que comunica Playa Manuel Antonio con las baterías de baños, mejorando el FC, alcanzando un 0,88, 0,88. Pero el Sendero Punta Catedral alcanzó un FC de 0,55 y actualmente está cerrado al visitante, es decir, este sumado al sector cerrado del Sendero Puerto Escondido, da como resultado aproximadamente 1,500 metros lineales de sendero cerrados al visitante. De ahí que en el año 2021, se emite la resolución SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 de las quince horas cinco minutos del treinta de abril del dos mil veinte uno, en el apartado del POR TANTO establece un máximo de 1500 visitantes por día con una distribución por bandas horarias de la siguiente forma; de 7 am a 8 am, 250 personas, de 8 am a 9 am, 250 personas, de 9 am a 10 pm; 250 personas, de 10 am a 11 am, 250 personas, y después de las 11 am y hasta las 2:40 pm, un total de 500 visitantes, posteriormente modificándose con la resolución SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las quince horas veinte minutos del cinco de agosto del dos mil veinte uno, en la que se aumenta el aforo de visitantes a un máximo 2000 personas diarias. Para este año 2023, se estarán analizando los resultados del Protocolo PRONAMEC para el monitoreo ecológico de las playas arenosas, aplicados en el PNMA, a fin de crear la línea base para incluir como indicadores nuevos. (Inserta cuadro) Como puede apreciarse, la herramienta para el manejo del flujo de visitantes es fácil de aplicar, permite recolectar información de diferentes fuentes, incluyendo investigaciones científicas que se realizan en el PNMA, entre otros. Su aplicación es de bajo costo, únicamente requiere recurso humano para su aplicación y seguimiento. Expuesto lo anterior, es evidente que dicho instrumento existe y ha sido concebido para justamente eliminar la subjetividad en este tipo de decisiones y se tenga claro, los elementos técnicos-científicos y administrativos para realizar un aumento o disminución en la visitación del parque, de manera que no exista duda que la cantidad de visitantes que se reciben en cada una de nuestras ASP, están acorde a las condiciones de nuestras instalaciones físicas, sino que además a la cantidad de personal, y la degradación que el mismo ecosistema pueda estar presentando por la misma recurrente presencia humana en el sitio, encuestas de la experiencia o satisfacción de su visita, entre otros insumos. Para el caso concreto del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, es más que evidente que es hoy en día el Parque Nacional que presenta mayor presión y demanda de la visitación, lo cual es preocupante, no solo por “la mafia” que cierne fuera de los límites, sino que también, por la calidad y condiciones de atención que se trata de brindar al visitante. Toda esta “experiencia” del turista es de especial cuidado, ya que una mala experiencia, repercute sin lugar a dudas de manera negativa en la imagen del parque, de ésta AC, del SINAC, del MINAE y del país en general, a lo interno y a lo externo; todo ello se ve constantemente y más en temporada alta, permeado por lo que se publica en medios de comunicación y ahora más recurrentemente en redes sociales; por lo que es de especial cuidado, siendo nuestro parque más visitado, el poder tenerlo y mantenerlo en las mejores condiciones de infraestructura posible, con el personal suficiente y adecuado para que la experiencia de usuario sea ojalá la mejor. Acá quizás lo más preponderante es tener todos los elementos necesarios para aumentar la capacidad de carga, acorde a lo dispuesto en la Herramienta oficial de Flujo de visitantes, debidamente cubiertos, subsanados y solventados, antes de llevar a cabo cualquier aumento, siendo que más bien, a finales de diciembre del 2022, el modelo de flujo de visitantes nos estaba dando apenas una capacidad de carga de apenas 1120 visitantes, es decir, ya en ese momento estábamos recibiendo 198% de la capacidad que para ese entonces el parque podía recibir, según el resultado de la herramienta lo oficializada por el mismo SINAC, y actualmente estamos ante un estimado de un 267.9% de la capacidad instalada del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio. Es importante indicar que en apego al artículo 107 de la ley de Administración Pública, esta dirección es obediente de las órdenes que nos son giradas por nuestros superiores, no obstante consideramos, valioso, oportuno y de suma importancia, hacer ver a nuestra jefatura inmediata, sobre los riesgos a los cuales se expone a la administración, la infraestructura y los funcionarios, al tomar decisiones apegadas a las demandas de un solo sector, que si bien es cierto es medular y de suma importancia para el país, no necesariamente, obedece, quizás sesgadamente, a los interés de nuestra razón de ser, como lo es nuestro “valor público: Conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y de los servicios ecosistémicos que permitan asegurarles a todos los ciudadanos un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, como base del desarrollo del país”; nuestra “Misión: El Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) de Costa Rica gestiona integralmente la conservación y manejo sostenible de la vida silvestre, los recursos forestales, las áreas silvestres protegidas, cuencas hidrográficas y sistemas hídricos, en conjunto con actores de la sociedad, para el bienestar de las actuales y futuras generaciones.”; y nuestra “Visión: Un Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) que lidera la conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y los recursos naturales, que aplica la ciencia y la técnica para la toma de decisiones, con gestión participativa y equitativa para mejorar y mantener los servicios ecosistémicos, que contribuya al desarrollo sostenible de Costa Rica”. Es justamente éstos mismos los balances que como institución debemos hacer, es decir que, las valoraciones previas a tomar la decisión de ampliar la capacidad de carga del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio y así fuere de cualquier otra Área Silvestre Protegida, deben ir en primer lugar, tal y como lo señala nuestra visión, de la mano de la buena y sana técnica, con fundamentos que sustenten que dicha carga para el ASP puede ser sostenida y sustentada, no solo en aras de prestar un buen servicio a los visitantes sino que igualmente, en el buen manejo y uso que se hace de ese valioso recurso natural, para tal y como se apunta muy correctamente en nuestra misión para el bienestar de las actuales y futuras generaciones. Por lo anterior, mediante oficio SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023, el suscrito y la directora de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central, proceden a elevar a la Dirección Ejecutiva del SINAC los puntos señalados anteriormente, para que se valoren los riesgos a los cuales se está exponiendo la administración en la toma de este tipo de decisiones, las que sin lugar a duda deben siempre estar fundamentadas en la técnica y cobijadas por el bloque de legalidad existente. Asimismo, en apego al artículo 50 de nuestra constitución política y el principio de indubio pro natura, esta dirección emite el oficio SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023, a la Secretaría Ejecutiva del SINAC, en el cual manifiesta que: Por todo lo anterior, y en apego a las funciones encomendadas por Ley, artículo 50 de nuestra constitución política, artículos 31 y 61 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y 25 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, y al principio indubio pro natura, bajo la responsabilidad en el ejercicio de mi cargo de aplicar el ordenamiento jurídico que rigen la materia, asimismo, de implementar las políticas nacionales y todas las indicadas en el ordenamiento jurídico y técnico vinculante, así como el deber jerárquico en el ámbito geográfico a mi cargo de implementar, evaluar y sistematizar, las políticas, lineamientos, metodologías, normas y estrategias internas; por todo lo expuesto anteriormente, es mi deber que ante la ausencia de instrucciones y directrices directas de manera formal y escrita por parte de mis jerarquías en cuanto al cambio y aplicación de una capacidad de carga, superior a la establecida mediante la aplicación de la herramienta de capacidad de carga y no siendo además oficializada por resolución administrativa alguna, esta dirección no tiene base legal y técnica, así como capacidad presupuestaria y de personal, para continuar recibiendo la visitación de 3000 personas diarias dentro del PNMA, por lo anterior en apego al deber de conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y de los servicios ecosistémicos que permitan asegurarles a todos los ciudadanos un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, se le comunica que a partir del día 30 de abril del 2023, el área de conservación estará solicitando formalmente al encargado de la fiscalización del SICORE, se aplique la resolución SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las quince horas veinte minutos del cinco de agosto del dos mil veinte uno, vigente a la fecha, en el sentido de reducir la capacidad de reservaciones a dos mil personas. Aunado a lo anterior presentando el oficio SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 ante el señor [Nombre7] , Jefe de Tecnologías de la información del SINAC, en su calidad de Fiscalizador del SICORE, la formal solicitud de que reduzca la capacidad de reservaciones en el SICORE para el ingreso al Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio a 2000 personas diarias a partir del 30 de abril de los corrientes, tal como fue establecido en la Resolución SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las quince horas veinte minutos del cinco de agosto del dos mil veinte uno. Por los fundamentos antes expuestos, se concluye que en apego a sus responsabilidades y competencias el Área de Conservación Pacífico Central ha venido realizando acciones en procura de salvaguardar los recursos naturales existentes en el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio”.

4.- Informa bajo juramento [Nombre8] , en su condición de director ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, en el mismo sentido. Agrega: “En relación a lo indicado por el ACOPAC sobre los oficios que hizo llegar a la presente dirección, es importante aclarar que dado lo reciente de su emisión y remisión, nos encontramos valorando el contenido de los mismos. La presente dirección ejecutiva analizará los informes y recomendaciones efectuadas por el Área de Conservación en aras de determinar la necesidad o no de variar la capacidad de carga del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio. Aunado a lo anterior y respecto a la cifra que opera actualmente de 3 mil personas, de acuerdo a la metodología empleada para el cálculo de visitantes se valoraron entre otros el indicador de infraestructura dentro del cual, se estimó la capacidad de la planta de tratamiento, la cual tiene un máximo aprobado por Ministerio de salud establecida en 3 mil personas, cantidad valorada para no sobrepasar los umbrales de un adecuado funcionamiento, adicionalmente se consideran la firma de convenios con el ICT para la mejora de infraestructura principalmente el Sendero a Punta catedral, el cual permite manejar más visitantes dentro del parque nacional y buscar una distribución adecuada de estos y en el indicador de personal se valoró los acuerdos con el Ministerio de Seguridad Publica y otras instituciones del Estado con el fin de contar con reservistas que apoyen las labores de vigilancia en el parque nacional Manuel Antonio y personal dentro de niveles de pobreza quienes apoyarían trabajos en obras de limpieza y mantenimiento”.

5.- En los procedimientos seguidos se han observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta el magistrado Rueda Leal; y,

Considerando:

I.- DE PREVIO. Vista la pretensión del recurrente, tendente al dictado de una medida cautelar, el Tribunal estima que tal solicitud carece de interés, toda vez que se entrará a conocer este recurso por el fondo.

II.- Objeto del recurso. El recurrente señala que el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (PNMA) recibe diariamente unas 3000 personas. Acusa que tal cantidad de visitantes deteriora el ecosistema y la sostenibilidad del parque. Apunta que no hay estudios científicos que respalden esa carga turística, pues el último es de 2010 y únicamente justificaba una visitación diaria máxima de 600 personas. Considera que se viola el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.

III.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque el recurrido haya omitido referirse a ellos, según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:

• a)Mediante el acuerdo nro. 12 de la sesión ordinaria nro. 06-2014 del 23 de junio de 2014, el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación aprobó la “Herramienta para el manejo de los flujos de visitación en las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del SINAC” e instruyó al director ejecutivo para que oficializara esa herramienta. (Ver informe rendido).
• b)En 2016 se efectúo el primer trabajo de campo en playas y senderos del sector del PNMA para identificar posibles indicadores a monitorear y crear la línea base en los casos requeridos. (Ver informe rendido).
• c)En 2018, el Comité Científico Técnico del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central acordó la implementación de la herramienta para las áreas silvestres protegidas de esa área de conservación. (Ver informe rendido).
• d)Mediante resolución nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 de las 15:05 horas del 30 de abril de 2021, la parte accionada estableció un máximo de 1500 visitantes diarios al PNMA. (Ver informe rendido).
• e)Por resolución nro. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las 15:20 horas del 5 de agosto de 2021, la parte recurrida aumentó el aforo a un máximo de 2000 visitantes diarios. (Ver informe rendido).
• f)En diciembre de 2022, el modelo de flujo de visitantes evidenciaba una capacidad de carga de 1120 visitantes diarios. (Ver informe rendido y prueba aportada).
• g)En 2023, las autoridades accionadas aumentaron la visitación permitida a 3000 visitantes diarios. Este aumento ocurrió sin que se aplicaran las herramientas técnicas respectivas. (Hecho incontrovertido y prueba aportada con el informe rendido).
• h)En abril de 2023, la visitación diaria al PNMA ha sido la siguiente: 1º de abril 1891 personas; 2 de abril, 2592 personas; 3 de abril, 2867 personas; 5 de abril, 2765; 6 de abril, 2754 personas; 7 de abril, 2734 personas; 8 de abril, 2755 personas; 9 de abril, 2746 personas. (Ver informe rendido y prueba aportada).
• i)Actualmente, la parte accionada estima que la visitación del PNMA corresponde a un 267.9% de la capacidad instalada. (Ver informe rendido y prueba aportada).
• j)Mediante oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 del 16 de marzo de 2023, el director regional y la directora de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central externaron al director ejecutivo del SINAC su preocupación por las decisiones jerárquicas, relacionadas con la visitación del PNMA. (Ver informe rendido y prueba aportada).
• k)Por oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 del 17 de abril de 2023, el director regional del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central comunicó al director ejecutivo del SINAC: “Por todo lo anterior, y en apego a las funciones encomendadas por Ley, artículo 50 de nuestra constitución política, artículos 31 y 61 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y 25 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, y al principio indubio (sic) pro natura, bajo la responsabilidad en el ejercicio de mi cargo de aplicar el ordenamiento jurídico que rigen la materia, asimismo, de implementar las políticas nacionales y todas las indicadas en el ordenamiento jurídico y técnico vinculante, así como el deber jerárquico en el ámbito geográfico a mi cargo de implementar, evaluar y sistematizar, las políticas, lineamientos, metodologías, normas y estrategias internas; por todo lo expuesto anteriormente, es mi deber que ante la ausencia de instrucciones y directrices directas de manera formal y escrita por parte de mis jerarquías en cuanto al cambio y aplicación de una capacidad de carga, superior a la establecida mediante la aplicación de la herramienta de capacidad de carga y no siendo además oficializada por resolución administrativa alguna, esta dirección no tiene base legal y técnica, así como capacidad presupuestaria y de personal, para continuar recibiendo la visitación de 3000 personas diarias dentro del PNMA, por lo anterior en apego al deber de conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y de los servicios ecosistémicos que permitan asegurarles a todos los ciudadanos un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, se le comunica que a partir del día 30 de abril del 2023, el área de conservación estará solicitando formalmente al encargado de la fiscalización del SICORE, se aplique la resolución SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las quince horas veinte minutos del cinco de agosto del dos mil veinte uno, vigente a la fecha, en el sentido de reducir la capacidad de reservaciones a dos mil personas”. (Ver informe rendido y prueba aportada).

IV.- Sobre los precedentes jurisprudenciales. En la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal se observa que la problemática de la visitación del PNMA ya ha sido planteada en esta sede. Al respecto, la Sala había manifestado:

“VIII.- Sobre el número de visitantes del parque. El accionante reclama que la cantidad de visitantes que ingresan al parque excede el número permitido por la normativa. La Sala resalta que no es su labor verificar el número de visitantes de un parque nacional, por tratarse de un asunto de mera legalidad. Tampoco se observa que el alegato del recurrente sea acertado. Según los informes rendidos bajo juramento, la cantidad de visitantes que se encuentran dentro del parque no exceden lo estipulado, pues el acceso se suspende cuando se ha alcanzado el número máximo de visitantes, para retomarse únicamente con la salida de turistas del parque, cumpliéndose de esa manera con el número máximo estipulado. En consecuencia, se rechaza el reclamo.” (Sentencia nro. 2015012955 de las 9:20 horas del 21 de agosto de 2015).

Esta decisión fue reiterada en la sentencia nro. 2019008005 de las 10:15 horas del 7 de mayo de 2019:

“III.- SOBRE LA CANTIDAD DE PERSONAS QUE INGRESAN AL PARQUE. Atinente a tal extremo, a esta Sala no le corresponde verificar, conformidad con la normativa infraconstitucional aplicable, el número de visitantes que pueden asistir a un parque nacional, pues se trata de un tema de legalidad ordinaria propio de discutirse en las vías de legalidad ordinaria (ver en similar sentido la sentencia n.° 2015012955). En consecuencia, se rechaza de plano el recurso en lo que a este extremo se refiere”.

En el sub lite, es menester comprender que ambas decisiones fueron dictadas con base en la normativa que regulaba el ingreso al PNMA en ese momento, que indicaba:

“Artículo 3º—El número máximo permisible de visitantes por día que podrá permanecer, será de seiscientas (600) personas de martes a viernes.

Los sábados y domingos ese número máximo permisible por día será de ochocientas (800) personas.

Una vez completado el número máximo señalado en los párrafos anteriores, la Administración del Área controlará el flujo de visitación sin sobrepasar la cantidad de personas autorizadas para su permanencia y podrá autorizar el ingreso de nuevos visitantes en una proporción igual al número de personas que concluyan su visita al Área Silvestre Protegida”. (Decreto ejecutivo 22482-MIRENEM).

Partiendo de tal disposición, la Sala estimó que no le correspondía revisar el número de visitantes que acudían diariamente al PNMA, por tratarse de una disconformidad que podía solventarse en la vía de la legalidad.

Empero, con posterioridad, ese ordinal fue reformado mediante el decreto ejecutivo nro. 42496 del 16 de julio de 2020, en el siguiente sentido:

“Artículo 3: Sobre la capacidad de carga de la zona de uso público (alta intervención): Basados en los resultados de la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas establecidas por el SINAC, la Dirección Regional del ACOPAC determinará el aumento, disminución o regulación de la visitación de los diferentes sitios autorizados, vía resolución administrativa”.

Según se extrae de la transcripción, la cantidad de visitantes quedará sujeta a la aplicación de herramientas técnicas, situación clave para la resolución del sub lite, en atención al principio preventivo en materia ambiental y al de objetivación de la tutela del ambiente, según se evidenciará infra. Este razonamiento ha mediado para que la Sala decida conocer el tema por el fondo en el sub examine.

V.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A UN AMBIENTE SANO Y ECOLÓGICAMENTE EQUILIBRADO. En cuanto a este tema, en la sentencia nro. 2022022070 de las 9:20 horas del 23 de setiembre de 2022 señaló este Tribunal:

“Concerniente a la naturaleza de los agravios acusados en el sub lite, este Tribunal se ha pronunciado en reiteradas ocasiones respecto al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Verbigracia, en la sentencia n.° 2021024807 de las 9:20 horas del 5 de noviembre de 2021, esta Cámara señaló:

“En reiteradas ocasiones, la jurisprudencia de esta Sala ha subrayado que el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado se encuentra reconocido tanto a nivel constitucional como convencional. Asimismo, se ha indicado que la protección efectiva a ese derecho requiere que los recursos sean utilizados de manera racional, contexto en que el Estado y la ciudadanía en general deben actuar según los principios que rigen la materia ambiental. En este orden de ideas, la doctrina especializada ha señalado que el principio preventivo demanda que, cuando haya certeza de posibles daños al ambiente, la actividad afectante deba ser prohibida, limitada, o condicionada al cumplimiento de ciertos requerimientos. En general, este principio aplica cuando existen riesgos claramente definidos e identificados al menos como probables; asimismo, tal principio resulta útil cuando no existen informes técnicos o permisos administrativos que garanticen la sostenibilidad de una actividad, pero hay elementos suficientes para prever eventuales impactos negativos. Por otra parte, el principio precautorio señala que, cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente. De lo anterior, se advierte que el principio parte de una incertidumbre científica razonable en conjunto con la amenaza de un daño ambiental grave e irreversible. En términos generales, una diferencia relevante entre el principio preventivo y el precautorio radica en el nivel de conocimiento y certeza de los riesgos que una actividad u obra provoque. Mientras que en el primero existe tal certeza, en el segundo lo que se advierte es un estado de duda resultado de informaciones científicas o estudios técnicos. Así, el Estado costarricense se encuentra obligado a adoptar las medidas que garanticen la defensa y preservación efectiva del ambiente conforme a tales principios. Ahora, tal obligación objetiva no apareja, ineludiblemente, un derecho subjetivo de las personas a exigir, a través de los órganos jurisdiccionales, que se tome una medida determinada, pero sí a que se adopten las que sean idóneas en tutela de ese derecho, ante actitudes abiertamente negligentes de las autoridades, o bien, de personas físicas y jurídicas, conforme la reconocida teoría de la eficacia horizontal de los derechos fundamentales (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), entre cuyas manifestaciones procesales se encuentra el amparo contra sujetos de derecho privado.

Interesa también resaltar que la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en la Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17 de 15 de noviembre de 2017, desarrolló lo atinente a las obligaciones estatales en relación con el medio ambiente, en aras de la salvaguardia a los derechos humanos consagrados en la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos.

En esa opinión, la Corte reconoció la interrelación entre la protección del medio ambiente y la realización de otros derechos, en tanto la degradación ambiental afecta el goce y desarrollo efectivo de los derechos humanos. En tal sentido, señaló:

“47. Esta Corte ha reconocido la existencia de una relación innegable entre la protección del medio ambiente y la realización de otros derechos humanos, en tanto la degradación ambiental y los efectos adversos del cambio climático afectan el goce efectivo de los derechos humanos. Asimismo, el preámbulo del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (en adelante “Protocolo de San Salvador”), resalta la estrecha relación entre la vigencia de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales -que incluye el derecho a un medio ambiente sano - y la de los derechos civiles y políticos, e indica que las diferentes categorías de derechos constituyen un todo indisoluble que encuentra su base en el reconocimiento de la dignidad de la persona humana, por lo cual exigen una tutela y promoción permanente con el objeto de lograr su vigencia plena, sin que jamás pueda justificarse la violación de unos en aras de la realización de otros (…)

49. Por su parte, la Comisión Interamericana ha resaltado que varios derechos de rango fundamental requieren, como una precondición necesaria para su ejercicio, una calidad medioambiental mínima, y se ven afectados en forma profunda por la degradación de los recursos naturales. En el mismo sentido, la Asamblea General de la OEA ha reconocido la estrecha relación entre la protección al medio ambiente y los derechos humanos (supra párr. 22) y destacado que el cambio climático produce efectos adversos en el disfrute de los derechos humanos. 50. En el ámbito europeo, el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos ha reconocido que la degradación severa del medio ambiente puede afectar el bienestar del individuo y, como consecuencia, generar violaciones a los derechos de las personas, tales como los derechos a la vida, al respeto a la vida privada y familiar68 y a la propiedad privada. De manera similar, la Comisión Africana de Derechos Humanos y de los Pueblos ha indicado que el derecho a un “medio ambiente general satisfactorio, favorable al desarrollo” está estrechamente relacionado con los derechos económicos y sociales en la medida en que el medio ambiente afecta la calidad de vida y la seguridad del individuo (…) 52. Por otra parte, existe un amplio reconocimiento en el derecho internacional sobre la relación interdependiente entre la protección al medio ambiente, el desarrollo sostenible y los derechos humanos. Dicha interrelación se ha afirmado desde la Declaración de Estocolmo sobre el Medio Ambiente Humano (en adelante “Declaración de Estocolmo”), donde se estableció que “[e]l desarrollo económico y social es indispensable para asegurar al hombre un ambiente de vida y trabajo favorable y crear en la Tierra las condiciones necesarias para mejorar la calidad de la vida”, afirmándose la necesidad de balancear el desarrollo con la protección del medio humano. Posteriormente, en la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo (en adelante “Declaración de Río”), los Estados reconocieron que “[l]os seres humanos constituyen el centro de las preocupaciones relacionadas con el desarrollo sostenible” y, a la vez, destacaron que “a fin de alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible, la protección del medio ambiente deberá constituir parte integrante del proceso de desarrollo”. En seguimiento de lo anterior, en la Declaración de Johannesburgo sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible se establecieron los tres pilares del desarrollo sostenible: el desarrollo económico, el desarrollo social y la protección ambiental. Asimismo, en el correspondiente Plan de Aplicación de las Decisiones de la Cumbre Mundial sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible, los Estados reconocieron la consideración que se debe prestar a la posible relación entre el medio ambiente y los derechos humanos, incluido el derecho al desarrollo. 53. Además, al adoptar la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas reconoció que el alcance de los derechos humanos de todas las personas depende de la consecución de las tres dimensiones del desarrollo sostenible: la económica, social y ambiental. En el mismo sentido, varios instrumentos del ámbito interamericano se han referido a la protección del medio ambiente y el desarrollo sostenible, tales como la Carta Democrática Interamericana la cual prevé que “[e]l ejercicio de la democracia facilita la preservación y el manejo adecuado del medio ambiente”, por lo cual “es esencial que los Estados del Hemisferio implementen políticas y estrategias de protección del medio ambiente, respetando los diversos tratados y convenciones, para lograr un desarrollo sostenible en beneficio de las futuras generaciones” (…) 55. Como consecuencia de la estrecha conexión entre la protección del medio ambiente, el desarrollo sostenible y los derechos humanos (supra párrs. 47 a 55), actualmente (i) múltiples sistemas de protección de derechos humanos reconocen el derecho al medio ambiente sano como un derecho en sí mismo, particularmente el sistema interamericano de derechos humanos, a la vez que no hay duda que (ii) otros múltiples derechos humanos son vulnerables a la degradación del medio ambiente, todo lo cual conlleva una serie de obligaciones ambientales de los Estados a efectos del cumplimiento de sus obligaciones de respeto y garantía de estos derechos. Precisamente, otra consecuencia de la interdependencia e indivisibilidad entre los derechos humanos y la protección del medio ambiente es que, en la determinación de estas obligaciones estatales, la Corte puede hacer uso de los principios, derechos y obligaciones del derecho ambiental internacional, los cuales como parte del corpus iuris internacional contribuyen en forma decisiva a fijar el alcance de las obligaciones derivadas de la Convención Americana en esta materia (supra párrs. 43 a 45) (…) 59. El derecho humano a un medio ambiente sano se ha entendido como un derecho con connotaciones tanto individuales como colectivas. En su dimensión colectiva, el derecho a un medio ambiente sano constituye un interés universal, que se debe tanto a las generaciones presentes y futuras. Ahora bien, el derecho al medio ambiente sano también tiene una dimensión individual, en la medida en que su vulneración puede tener repercusiones directas o indirectas sobre las personas debido a su conexidad con otros derechos, tales como el derecho a la salud, la integridad personal o la vida, entre otros. La degradación del medio ambiente puede causar daños irreparables en los seres humanos, por lo cual un medio ambiente sano es un derecho fundamental para la existencia de la humanidad.”.

Esta interrelación entre el medio ambiente y el disfrute de otros derechos humanos también ha sido reconocida por el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, quien en la resolución A/HRC/RES/46/7, adoptada el 23 de marzo de 2021 en el 46° periodo de sesiones, sostuvo:

“Reconociendo también que el desarrollo sostenible y la protección del medio ambiente, incluidos los ecosistemas, contribuyen al bienestar humano y al disfrute de los derechos humanos, en particular los derechos a la vida, al disfrute del más alto nivel posible de salud física y mental, a un nivel de vida adecuado, a una alimentación adecuada, al agua potable y el saneamiento y a la vivienda, y los derechos culturales.”.

También, recientemente, en la resolución A/HRC/RES/48/13, adoptada el 8 de octubre de 2021, ese Consejo señaló:

“(…) Reconociendo que el desarrollo sostenible, en sus tres dimensiones (social, económica y ambiental), y la protección del medio ambiente, incluidos los ecosistemas, contribuyen al bienestar humano y al disfrute de los derechos humanos y promueven ambos, incluido el disfrute de los derechos a la vida, al más alto nivel posible de salud física y mental, a un nivel de vida adecuado, a una alimentación adecuada, a la vivienda, al agua potable y el saneamiento y a la participación en la vida cultural, para las generaciones presentes y futuras (…)

Reconociendo además que la degradación del medio ambiente, el cambio climático y el desarrollo insostenible son algunas de las amenazas más acuciantes y graves a la capacidad de las generaciones presentes y futuras de disfrutar de los derechos humanos, incluido el derecho a la vida (…)

Reconociendo la importancia de un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible como algo fundamental para el disfrute de todos los derechos humanos (…)

1. Reconoce el derecho a un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible como un derecho humano importante para el disfrute de los derechos humanos; 2. Observa que el derecho a un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible está relacionado con otros derechos y el derecho internacional vigente (…)”. (El resaltado no corresponde al original).

De este modo, se refleja la particular relevancia del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, cuya defensa trasciende la protección de este bien constitucional en sí, toda vez que su preservación constituye un factor esencial para el resguardo efectivo de otros bienes primordiales del ser humano (como la vida, la salud, la propiedad, la igualdad), de modo que si en lo primero se falla, el resguardo efectivo de lo segundo no se alcanza.

Allende de lo anterior, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en la opinión supra aludida, reconoció el derecho a un ambiente sano como uno autónomo, susceptible de protección con independencia de algún riesgo de afectación a personas individuales. En tal sentido, dispuso:

“62. Esta Corte considera importante resaltar que el derecho al medio ambiente sano como derecho autónomo, a diferencia de otros derechos, protege los componentes del medio ambiente, tales como bosques, ríos, mares y otros, como intereses jurídicos en sí mismos, aún en ausencia de certeza o evidencia sobre el riesgo a las personas individuales. Se trata de proteger la naturaleza y el medio ambiente no solamente por su conexidad con una utilidad para el ser humano o por los efectos que su degradación podría causar en otros derechos de las personas, como la salud, la vida o la integridad personal, sino por su importancia para los demás organismos vivos con quienes se comparte el planeta, también merecedores de protección en sí mismos. En este sentido, la Corte advierte una tendencia a reconocer personería jurídica y, por ende, derechos a la naturaleza no solo en sentencias judiciales sino incluso en ordenamientos constitucionales. 63. De esta manera, el derecho a un medio ambiente sano como derecho autónomo es distinto al contenido ambiental que surge de la protección de otros derechos, tales como el derecho a la vida o el derecho a la integridad personal.”. (El resaltado no corresponde al original).

Esta tesitura fue adoptada en la sentencia de 6 de febrero de 2020 relativa al caso “Comunidades Indígenas miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) vs. Argentina”, en la que, superando un enfoque antropocéntrico, la CorteIDH afirma que el derecho al ambiente sano, amén de ser fundamental para la propia existencia del ser humano, constituye un derecho autónomo y universal, de manera que la protección a diversos componentes del ambiente (como bosques, mares, ríos y otros) configura un interés jurídico por sí mismo. En palabras de la CorteIDH: “Se trata de proteger la naturaleza”, no solo por su “utilidad” o “efectos” respecto de los seres humanos, “sino por su importancia para los demás organismos vivos con quienes se comparte el planeta.” Dada la trascendencia de esta afirmación, resulta oportuno transcribir este apartado de la referida resolución:

“203. La Corte ya se ha referido al contenido y alcance de este derecho, considerando diversas normas relevantes, en su Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17, por lo que se remite a dicho pronunciamiento. Afirmó en esa oportunidad que el derecho a un medio ambiente sano “constituye un interés universal” y “es un derecho fundamental para la existencia de la humanidad”, y que “como derecho autónomo […] protege los componentes del […] ambiente, tales como bosques, mares, ríos y otros, como intereses jurídicos en sí mismos, aun en ausencia de certeza o evidencia sobre el riesgo a las personas individuales. Se trata de proteger la naturaleza”, no solo por su “utilidad” o “efectos” respecto de los seres humanos, “sino por su importancia para los demás organismos vivos con quienes se comparte el planeta”. Lo anterior no obsta, desde luego, a que otros derechos humanos puedan ser vulnerados como consecuencia de daños ambientales.”. (El resaltado no corresponde al original).

Con base en lo expuesto, esta Sala, como garante de los derechos fundamentales, debe velar por el respeto a las obligaciones convencionales y constitucionales, que constriñen al Estado no solo a reconocer los derechos ahí consagrados, sino también a imponer las medidas jurídicas requeridas para su resguardo” (el resaltado es del original).

Aunado a lo anterior, recientemente, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidad adoptó la resolución nro. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 del 28 de julio de 2022, en la que se consignó:

“1. Reconoce el derecho a un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible como un derecho humano; 2. Observa que el derecho a un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible está relacionado con otros derechos y el derecho internacional vigente; 3. Afirma que la promoción del derecho humano a un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible requiere la plena aplicación de los acuerdos multilaterales relativos al medio ambiente con arreglo a los principios del derecho ambiental internacional; 4. Exhorta a los Estados, las organizaciones internacionales, las empresas y otros interesados pertinentes a que adopten políticas, aumenten la cooperación internacional, refuercen la creación de capacidad y sigan compartiendo buenas prácticas con el fin de intensificar los esfuerzos para garantizar un medio ambiente limpio, saludable y sostenible para todos”.

Esta resolución es la expresión formal de la voluntad del órgano principal de deliberación, adopción de políticas y representación de la Organización de Naciones Unidas. En consecuencia, constituye un compromiso político de carácter universal que debe ser valorado como fuente de soft law de la mayor relevancia.

Precisamente, la resolución nro. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 afirma que el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado tiene naturaleza de derecho humano. Con esto, en buena medida contribuye a su positivización, de lo que resulta su comprensión técnica como “derecho fundamental”. Asimismo, robustece la noción de que la protección al ambiente es un derecho humano “autónomo”, esto es, que vale por sí mismo, de manera que, por un lado, tiene una existencia conceptual propia y distinta al contenido ambiental que sin duda surge de la protección de otros derechos (como la vida o la salud) y, por otro, su objeto de protección trasciende al ser humano, puesto que brinda cobijo a los diversos componentes de la naturaleza debido a su trascendencia para preservar la existencia de los organismos vivos en general, independientemente de su utilidad para con los seres humanos.

Asimismo, reitera y, por esa vía, fortalece la tesitura de que el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado se encuentra vinculado con otros derechos humanos, lo que implica que su transgresión puede acarrear la vulneración de la salud, la vida, el desarrollo sostenible democrático, por citar tan solo algunos ejemplos. Lo anterior confiere un significado jurídico particularmente relevante al derecho de marras.

En adición, la Asamblea General de la ONU preceptúa que la protección al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado demanda la plena aplicación de los derechos convencionales relacionados con el ambiente en consonancia con los principios del derecho ambiental internacional. De lo anterior se colige su imprescindible inclusión dentro del control jurisdiccional de constitucionalidad por parte de esta Sala.

Por último, en armonía con la reconocida teoría de la eficacia horizontal de los derechos fundamentales (Drittwirkung der Menschenrechte), la resolución nro. A/RES/76/1-A/RES/76/300 regula que la obligación de resguardar al ambiente, allende de los estados, se extiende a organizaciones internacionales, empresas y otros interesados, término último que comprende a los seres humanos en general. Justamente es en ese sentido, que la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional contempla el amparo contra sujetos de derecho privado.

En suma, bajo el marco conceptual explicado ut supra, este Tribunal Constitucional, como garante de los derechos fundamentales, debe velar por el cumplimiento de los compromisos convencionales y constitucionales que al Estado costarricense y a la sociedad en general le imponen no solo la obligación de reconocer los derechos, principios y valores de la materia ambiental, sino también la de implementar todas aquellas medidas y actuaciones que se precisan para asegurar la efectiva protección a aquellos”.

VI.- Sobre el caso concreto. En el sub examine, el recurrente señala que el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (PNMA) recibe diariamente unas 3000 personas. Acusa que tal cantidad de visitantes deteriora el ecosistema y la sostenibilidad del parque. Apunta que no hay estudios científicos que respalden esa carga turística, pues el último es de 2010 y únicamente justificaba una visitación diaria máxima de 600 personas. Considera que se viola el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.

Luego de analizar los autos, la Sala tuvo por probado que, mediante acuerdo nro. 12 de la sesión ordinaria nro. 06-2014 del 23 de junio de 2014, el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación aprobó la “Herramienta para el manejo de los flujos de visitación en las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del SINAC” e instruyó al director ejecutivo para que la oficializara. En 2016 se efectúo el primer trabajo de campo en playas y senderos del sector del PNMA para identificar posibles indicadores a monitorear y crear la línea base en los casos requeridos. En 2018, el Comité Científico Técnico del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central acordó la implementación de la herramienta para las áreas silvestres protegidas de esa área de conservación. Con respecto a la visitación diaria del PNMA, mediante resolución nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-039-2021 de las 15:05 horas del 30 de abril de 2021, la parte accionada estableció un máximo de 1500 visitantes diarios. Luego, por resolución nro. INAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las 15:20 horas del 5 de agosto de 2021, la autoridad recurrida aumentó el aforo a un máximo de 2000 visitantes diarios. Asimismo, se tuvo como hecho incontrovertido -lo que se deriva también de las pruebas aportadas con el informe rendido (véanse, por ejemplo, los oficios SINAC-ACOPAC-D-201-2023 y SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023)- que las autoridades accionadas aumentaron este año el aforo permitido a 3000 visitantes diarios. Como consecuencia de lo anterior, varios días de abril de 2023 registraron cantidades de visitación superiores a las 2000 personas: 2 de abril, 2592 personas; 3 de abril, 2867 personas; 5 de abril, 2765; 6 de abril, 2754 personas; 7 de abril, 2734 personas; 8 de abril, 2755 personas; 9 de abril, 2746 personas. Atinente a este tema, la Administración recurrida estima que la visitación del PNMA corresponde actualmente a un 267.9% de la capacidad instalada. Por este motivo, mediante oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 del 16 de marzo de 2023, el director regional y la directora de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central externaron al director ejecutivo del SINAC su preocupación por las decisiones jerárquicas concernientes a la visitación del PNMA. En cuanto a la afectación al ecosistema, ese oficio indicó: “…Sin lugar a dudas y tal y como se indicó líneas arriba, haber aumentado la capacidad de carga a 3000 visitantes (50% de más del límite que se venía manejando) supone una carga bruta total de más del 200%, como se indicó en el primer apartado, por encima de lo que se debería más bien estar recibiendo en este momento; lo que supone un riesgo inminente de deterioro a las condiciones ambientales y de sostenibilidad del sector habilitado para visitantes. Hay que recordar que los turistas desean visitar el PNMA por su belleza escénica y biodiversidad, en gran medida por la oportunidad de observar fauna silvestre, misma que si sobre explotamos, no tendrían quizás a corto o mediano plazo la oportunidad de observar los futuros visitantes, por ello el balance entre protección y desarrollo turístico que debemos promover como autoridad en la materia…” En igual sentido, por oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-190-2023 del 17 de abril de 2023, el director regional del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central comunicó al director ejecutivo del SINAC: “Por todo lo anterior, y en apego a las funciones encomendadas por Ley, artículo 50 de nuestra constitución política, artículos 31 y 61 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y 25 del Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad, y al principio indubio (sic) pro natura, bajo la responsabilidad en el ejercicio de mi cargo de aplicar el ordenamiento jurídico que rigen la materia, asimismo, de implementar las políticas nacionales y todas las indicadas en el ordenamiento jurídico y técnico vinculante, así como el deber jerárquico en el ámbito geográfico a mi cargo de implementar, evaluar y sistematizar, las políticas, lineamientos, metodologías, normas y estrategias internas; por todo lo expuesto anteriormente, es mi deber que ante la ausencia de instrucciones y directrices directas de manera formal y escrita por parte de mis jerarquías en cuanto al cambio y aplicación de una capacidad de carga, superior a la establecida mediante la aplicación de la herramienta de capacidad de carga y no siendo además oficializada por resolución administrativa alguna, esta dirección no tiene base legal y técnica, así como capacidad presupuestaria y de personal, para continuar recibiendo la visitación de 3000 personas diarias dentro del PNMA, por lo anterior en apego al deber de conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad y de los servicios ecosistémicos que permitan asegurarles a todos los ciudadanos un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, se le comunica que a partir del día 30 de abril del 2023, el área de conservación estará solicitando formalmente al encargado de la fiscalización del SICORE, se aplique la resolución SINAC-ACOPAC-DRES-042-2021 de las quince horas veinte minutos del cinco de agosto del dos mil veinte uno, vigente a la fecha, en el sentido de reducir la capacidad de reservaciones a dos mil personas”. Adicionalmente, es de suma relevancia para la resolución del sub iudice, que la Sala no pudo verificar la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas respectivas para aumentar la visitación del PNMA.

Los hechos anteriores evidencian que la cantidad de visitación del PNMA sobrepasa la capacidad de ese parque en detrimento de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Incluso, más allá del reproche esgrimido por el accionante, tal situación se desprende de las propias manifestaciones de los informantes. Verbigracia, dichas autoridades estimaron que la visitación actual del PNMA corresponde a un 267.9% de la capacidad instalada. Obsérvese que, según el modelo de flujo de visitantes, efectuado en diciembre de 2022, la capacidad de carga es de 1120 visitantes diarios. Empero, para esta época, el aforo diario supera por mucho esa cantidad, ya que el PNMA recibió un promedio superior a las 2500 personas diarias durante los primeros días de abril de 2023.

En el plano normativo, primeramente, la Sala destaca la ‘Convención para la protección de la flora, fauna y bellezas escénicas naturales de los países de américa’ (ley nro. 3763):

“Los Gobiernos Americanos deseosos de proteger y conservar en su medio ambiente natural, ejemplares de todas las especies y géneros de su flora y su fauna indígenas, incluyendo las aves migratorias, en número suficiente y en regiones lo bastante vastas para evitar su extinción por cualquier medio al alcance del hombre; y Deseosos de proteger y conservar los paisajes de incomparable belleza, las formaciones geológicas y extraordinarias, las regiones y los objetos naturales de interés estético o valor histórico o científico, y los lugares donde existen condiciones primitivas dentro de los casos a que esta Convención se refiere; y Deseosos de concertar una convención sobre la protección de la flora, la fauna, y las bellezas escénicas naturales dentro de los propósitos arriba enunciados han convenido en los siguientes artículos:

ARTICULO 1 Definición de los términos y expresiones empleados en esta Convención.

1.-Se entenderá por Parques Nacionales: Las regiones establecidas para la protección y conservación de las bellezas escénicas naturales y de la flora y la fauna de importancia nacional, de las que el público pueda disfrutar mejor al ser puestas bajo la vigilancia oficial.

(…)

ARTICULO 3 (…)

Los Gobiernos Contratantes convienen además en proveer los parques nacionales de las facilidades para el solaz y la educación del público, de acuerdo con los fines que persigue esta Convención”.

En consonancia con lo anterior, el Reglamento a la Ley de Biodiversidad (decreto ejecutivo nro. 34433) dispone:

“Artículo 70.-Categorías de manejo de ASP. Para efectos de la clasificación de las distintas categorías de manejo de áreas silvestres protegidas se establecen los siguientes criterios técnicos para cada una de ellas:

(…)

• c)Parques Nacionales: Áreas geográficas, terrestres, marinas, marino-costeras, de agua dulce o una combinación de éstas, de importancia nacional, establecidas para la protección y la conservación de las bellezas naturales y la biodiversidad, así como para el disfrute por parte del público. Estas áreas presentan uno o varios ecosistemas en que las especies, hábitat y los sitios geomorfológicos son de especial interés científico, cultural, educativo y recreativo o contienen un paisaje natural de gran belleza. (…)” En el caso particular del PNMA, la Sala resalta que cuenta con una regulación propia, en concreto, el Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio (decreto ejecutivo nro. 22482-MIRENEM). En lo que interesa al objeto de este proceso, ese decreto dispone:

“Considerando:

(…)

3º-Que de conformidad con un estudio de impacto ambiental, efectuado sobre el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio, la visitación no controlada esta (sic) provocando su deterioro en forma acelerada, creando un grave riesgo para su preservación futura.

4º-Que administración de los terrenos propiedad del Estado que conforman este Parque Nacional, le corresponde al Servicio de Parques Nacionales del Ministerio de Recursos Nacionales, Energía y Minas, debiendo velar porque exista un verdadero equilibrio entre la visitación y la conservación de los recursos del Parque, con el fin de asegurar la preservación a perpetuidad de esta área silvestre. Por tanto,

DECRETAN:

Artículo 1º-EI presente reglamento tiene como finalidad mejorar la calidad de experiencia del visitante al Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio y procurar su preservación a perpetuidad.

(…)

Artículo 3: Sobre la capacidad de carga de la zona de uso público (alta intervención): Basados en los resultados de la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas establecidas por el SINAC, la Dirección Regional del ACOPAC determinará el aumento, disminución o regulación de la visitación de los diferentes sitios autorizados, vía resolución administrativa. (…)” (El subrayado es agregado).

Con base en las disposiciones recién transcritas, la Sala establece que la finalidad prioritaria de los parques nacionales (entre ellos, el PNMA) es la conservación de los ecosistemas presentes en sus respectivas áreas o zonas. Un objetivo secundario es posibilitar a las personas el esparcimiento y el disfrute de la naturaleza que hay en ellos. Este orden de prelación no se deriva únicamente de la normativa, sino que es la consecuencia de la dependencia que el segundo tiene de la primera. Es decir, el requisito para que las personas puedan disfrutar de la naturaleza es inexorablemente la conservación de la naturaleza; si esta no se conserva, desaparece lo que se pretende visitar. En el caso del PNMA, la ratio del Reglamento de Uso Público para el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio fue manifiesta en señalar que la visitación causaba “…su deterioro en forma acelerada, creando un grave riesgo para su preservación futura”, por lo que se debía “…velar porque exista un verdadero equilibrio entre la visitación y la conservación de los recursos del Parque, con el fin de asegurar la preservación a perpetuidad de esta área silvestre”. En ese mismo orden de ideas, una medida que contempla ese cuerpo normativo para alcanzar el citado equilibrio y asegurar la conservación del parque es la regulación de la cantidad de visitantes en las zonas de uso público del parque. Así, la determinación de la visitación se basará “…en los resultados de la aplicación de las herramientas técnicas establecidas por el SINAC…” (artículo 3). La Sala avala esta exigencia, dado que es una expresión del principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental:

“En cuanto al ambiente, objeto del derecho fundamental expuesto, nuestra Carta Magna exige además que sea “sano”. La exigencia “sano” nos conduce a la “capacidad regenerativa” y a la “capacidad de sucesión” para garantizar la vida. De ambos requisitos: “sano” y equilibrado” se desprende la necesidad de un desarrollo sostenible y sustentable; la calidad de vida y la calidad ambiental dependen de ello. Ahora bien, con los conceptos de “ambiente”, “sano” “ecológicamente equilibrado”, la norma constitucional introdujo la ciencia y la técnica en las decisiones ambientales, sean estas legislativas o administrativas, de tal manera que, en los términos de los ordinales 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, las actuaciones estatales en materia ambiental deben fundarse y no pueden contradecir las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica en aras de lograr el goce pleno y universal a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y, además, un “mayor bienestar para todos los habitantes del país”. En cuanto al sometimiento de las decisiones legislativas y administrativas a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, la Sala lo ha denominado principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental: “De la objetivación de la tutela ambiental (…) es un principio que en modo alguno puede confundirse con el anterior [principio precautorio o “principio de la evitación prudente”], en tanto, como derivado de lo dispuesto en los artículos 16 y 160 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, tanto en relación con actos como de las disposiciones de carácter general -tanto legales como reglamentarias-, de donde se deriva la exigencia de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica con lo cual, se condiciona la discrecionalidad de la Administración en esta materia. De manera que en atención a los resultados que se deriven de esos estudios técnicos -tales como los estudios de impacto ambiental-, si se evidencia un criterio técnico objetivo que denote la probabilidad de un evidente daño al ambiente, los recursos naturales o a la salud de las personas, es que resulta obligado desechar el proyecto, obra o actividad propuestas; y en caso de una "duda razonable" resulta obligado tomar decisiones en pro del ambiente (principio pro-natura), que puede traducirse en la adopción, tanto de medidas compensatorias como precautorias, a fin de proteger de la manera adecuada el ambiente.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolución nro. 2012-13367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012, reiterada en la resolución nro. 2022-012509 de las 12:10 horas del 31 de mayo de 2022).

Por otro lado, la aplicación del principio preventivo en materia ambiental también obliga a la Sala a tomar medidas para evitar que la conducta administrativa reprochada incida de manera negativa en los ecosistemas que protege el PNMA. Según se indicó supra, ese principio señala:

“…el principio preventivo demanda que, cuando haya certeza de posibles daños al ambiente, la actividad afectante deba ser prohibida, limitada, o condicionada al cumplimiento de ciertos requerimientos. En general, este principio aplica cuando existen riesgos claramente definidos e identificados al menos como probables; asimismo, tal principio resulta útil cuando no existen informes técnicos o permisos administrativos que garanticen la sostenibilidad de una actividad, pero hay elementos suficientes para prever eventuales impactos negativos.” Las manifestaciones de la parte recurrida revelan que existe un riesgo claro para los ecosistemas del PNMA, si la visitación no es regulada mediante herramientas técnicas que permitan establecer la carga que puede manejar ese parque de manera sostenible. Se reitera lo indicado en el oficio nro. SINAC-ACOPAC-D-140-2023 del 16 de marzo de 2023:

“…Sin lugar a dudas y tal y como se indicó líneas arriba, haber aumentado la capacidad de carga a 3000 visitantes (50% de más del límite que se venía manejando) supone una carga bruta total de más del 200%, como se indicó en el primer apartado, por encima de lo que se debería más bien estar recibiendo en este momento; lo que supone un riesgo inminente de deterioro a las condiciones ambientales y de sostenibilidad del sector habilitado para visitantes. Hay que recordar que los turistas desean visitar el PNMA por su belleza escénica y biodiversidad, en gran medida por la oportunidad de observar fauna silvestre, misma que si sobre explotamos, no tendrían quizás a corto o mediano plazo la oportunidad de observar los futuros visitantes, por ello el balance entre protección y desarrollo turístico que debemos promover como autoridad en la materia…” (El subrayado es agregado).

En conclusión, el resultado del estudio efectuado por la Sala demuestra que las autoridades accionadas aumentaron la visitación permitida al PNMA sin aplicar las herramientas técnicas respectivas, aun cuando se evidenciaba que la capacidad instalada del parque sería insuficiente para garantizar el equilibrio entre la conservación de la naturaleza y su disfrute por parte de los visitantes. En virtud de lo expuesto, se declara con lugar el recurso. Visto que en el modelo de flujo aplicado en diciembre de 2022 se indica una capacidad de carga de 1120 visitantes diarios, se ordena reducir la visitación diaria a esa cantidad, sin demérito de que un nuevo estudio técnico determine tal capacidad en las condiciones actuales del parque.

VII.- NOTA DEL MAGISTRADO CASTILLO VÍQUEZ. Vistas las razones del voto de mayoría renuncio a la nota consignada en la parte dispositiva de la sentencia.

VIII.- VOTO SALVADO DEL MAGISTRADO SALAZAR ALVARADO. Con el debido respeto, disiento del voto de mayoría que declara con lugar el recurso, con base en las siguientes razones:

La protección a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Costarricense, está tutelado no solo en el artículo 50, de la Constitución Política, sino también en una serie de leyes y decretos ejecutivos (reglamentos) vigentes, tales como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995; la Ley de Biodiversidad, Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998; la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992; y el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), para citar solo algunos. Esto hace necesario, en materia ambiental, separar el control de constitucionalidad del control de legalidad. En este sentido, es criterio del suscrito que esta Sala, por vía de amparo, solo debe conocer un asunto en que se alega violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, si la Administración no ha intervenido aún y cuando la violación a ese derecho sea manifiesta y evidente, de fácil constatación, de cierta importancia o gravedad y que afecte, de forma directa, a alguna persona o comunidad en concreto. De lo contrario, el tema debe plantearse y discutirse en la vía de legalidad. Por ello, el simple incumplimiento de obligaciones y deberes impuestos legalmente a las diversas administraciones públicas en materia ambiental es propio de ser conocido en la vía de legalidad –administrativa o jurisdiccional-, donde, con mucha mayor amplitud, podrán fiscalizarse los incumplimientos u omisiones que se acusen. Debe tenerse presente que el recurso de amparo es un proceso sumario, informal, sencillo y rápido, de manera tal, que desde el momento mismo en que la Administración interviene en un asunto ambiental, en ejercicio de sus competencias, y sustancia un procedimiento, con el dictado de actos administrativos, su conocimiento resulta ajeno al ámbito de acción de esta jurisdicción especializada. Por ello, la revisión de las actuaciones administrativas llevadas a cabo en torno a un tema ambiental que requiera, para su correcta valoración, de un proceso de conocimiento pleno, solo es posible en la jurisdicción ordinaria, toda vez que el diseño del proceso de amparo es incompatible con la contrastación o revisión de criterios técnicos o jurídicos elaborados al amparo de las normas legales o reglamentarias vigentes o con la evacuación de nuevos y mayores elementos de convicción necesarios para la contrastación o revisión de los criterios que ya consten en el expediente administrativo del caso. Lo contrario implicaría transformar el amparo en un proceso ordinario de pleno conocimiento, con lo cual se desnaturalizaría y se tornarían nugatorios los fines para los cuales ha sido diseñado, con lo cual, perdería su condición de instrumento para la tutela eficaz de los derechos fundamentales. Como consecuencia de lo anterior, estimo que cuando un ente u órgano público ha intervenido, en diversas formas, o ha dictado actos administrativos en relación con un asunto ambiental, su conocimiento y fiscalización corresponde a la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo. Es, precisamente, la verificación de la existencia de esa intervención administrativa lo que determina que el asunto sea competencia de la vía legalidad. En consecuencia, este recurso debió haberse rechazado de plano, ya que su objeto es una cuestión propia de ser discutida, analizada y resuelta en la vía de legalidad. Empero, como no se hizo así, lo procedente es declararlo sin lugar, sin hacer pronunciamiento alguno con respecto al fondo de la cuestión planteada por corresponderle a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contencioso-administrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.

IX.- Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidos en algún dispositivo de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en el plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. Se advierte que será destruido todo aquel material no retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en el artículo XXVI de la sesión nro. 27-11 del 22 de agosto de 2011, publicado en el Boletín Judicial nro. 19 del 26 de enero de 2012, así como en el acuerdo de Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, aprobado en el artículo LXXXI de la sesión nro. 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo de 2012.

Por tanto:

Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a [Nombre8] y [Nombre2] , por su orden director ejecutivo y director regional del Área de Conservación Pacífico Central, ambos del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, o a quienes ejerzan esos cargos, que giren las órdenes y efectúen las coordinaciones necesarias para que, en el plazo de VEINTICUATRO HORAS, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se reduzca la visitación al Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio a la capacidad de carga calculada en el modelo de flujo aplicado en diciembre de 2022. Se advierte a las autoridades recurridas que, de conformidad con lo establecido por el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada dentro de un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de fundamento a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. El magistrado Castillo Víquez pone nota. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado salva el voto y declara sin lugar el recurso en cuanto a la aducida infracción al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. La Magistrada Garro Vargas salva el voto y declara sin lugar el recurso. Notifíquese.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

José Roberto Garita N. Hubert Fernández A.

Res. Nº 2023011233 VOTO SALVADO DE LA MAGISTRADA GARRO VARGAS.

En la presente sentencia, la Sala decidió por mayoría entrar a conocer por el fondo el amparo donde se discute cuál debe ser la cantidad de personas que ingresan al Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio.

Ahora bien, la problemática de la visitación del Parque ya ha sido planteada ante este Tribunal. Al respecto, se ha manifestado lo siguiente:

“VIII.- Sobre el número de visitantes del parque. El accionante reclama que la cantidad de visitantes que ingresan al parque excede el número permitido por la normativa. La Sala resalta que no es su labor verificar el número de visitantes de un parque nacional, por tratarse de un asunto de mera legalidad. Tampoco se observa que el alegato del recurrente sea acertado. Según los informes rendidos bajo juramento, la cantidad de visitantes que se encuentran dentro del parque no exceden lo estipulado, pues el acceso se suspende cuando se ha alcanzado el número máximo de visitantes, para retomarse únicamente con la salida de turistas del parque, cumpliéndose de esa manera con el número máximo estipulado. En consecuencia, se rechaza el reclamo”. (Sentencia nro. 2015012955 de las 9:20 horas del 21 de agosto de 2015. El destacado no es del original).

Esta decisión fue reiterada en los siguientes términos:

“III.- SOBRE LA CANTIDAD DE PERSONAS QUE INGRESAN AL PARQUE. Atinente a tal extremo, a esta Sala no le corresponde verificar, conformidad con la normativa infraconstitucional aplicable, el número de visitantes que pueden asistir a un parque nacional, pues se trata de un tema de legalidad ordinaria propio de discutirse en las vías de legalidad ordinaria (…). En consecuencia, se rechaza de plano el recurso en lo que a este extremo se refiere” (Sentencia nro. 2019008005 de las 10:15 horas del 7 de mayo de 2019. El destacado no es del original).

Estimo que lo que procede en el presente asunto es mantener lo dicho en esos precedentes en el sentido de que no le corresponde a esta Sala determinar el número de visitantes que pueden asistir al Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio y declarar si los criterios aplicados por la Administración son los correctos a la luz de la normativa infra constitucional.

En efecto, el tema requiere examinar aspectos técnicos que rebasan con mucho las posibilidades de un proceso sumario como lo es el recurso de amparo. Téngase presente que para acertar sobre la determinación del número de visitantes es preciso tomar en consideración variables de muy distinta índole, relativos al impacto socioambiental en general, infraestructura, personal, etc. Así se informa que “la capacidad de carga de un sitio no es rígida, es cambiante ante una serie de factores”.

Por lo demás, la mayoría ordena que el número diario de visitantes sea de 1120 personas, calculado en el modelo de flujo aplicado en diciembre de 2022. Nótese que se decanta por una solución que ni siquiera valora aspectos tan básicos como la necesidad de precisar los límites de visitantes dependiendo de la época del año. Además, ese número, según lo informado constituye “el 198% de la capacidad que para ese entonces el parque podía recibir”. De modo que tal parece que ni siquiera lo ordenado por la Sala verdaderamente logre proteger el derecho al ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado.

Esta decisión que aquí justifico resulta incluso más garantista para las partes intervinientes, pues ciertamente en la jurisdicción ordinaria se contaría con una fase probatoria más amplia y con la posibilidad de echar mano de una robusta justicia cautelar.

Lo dicho en este voto salvado es consistente con otras resoluciones incluso de la mayoría de esta Sala que avalan esta postura. Por ejemplo, en la sentencia nro. 2022017490 ?que me correspondió redactar? se resolvió lo siguiente:

“En esa línea considera esta Sala que la protección a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense está prevista no solo en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política –como ya se ha dicho– sino también en una serie de leyes y decretos ejecutivos (reglamentos) vigentes, tales como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, la Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995, la Ley de Biodiversidad, la Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998, la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, la Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992 y el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), para citar solo algunos ejemplos.

Esto hace necesario distinguir en materia ambiental cuándo procede ejercer por parte de la Sala la garantía de tal derecho y cuándo el asunto, pese a referirse a dicha materia, debe ser conocido por el juez ordinario para ejercer el control de legalidad que le es propio.

Así, en principio, el incumplimiento de obligaciones y deberes impuestos legalmente a las diversas administraciones públicas en materia ambiental, aunque de suyo tenga palmarias y serias repercusiones, es propio de ser conocido en la vía de legalidad —administrativa o jurisdiccional—.

Por otro lado, históricamente esta Sala ha sostenido la línea jurisprudencial de que “el proceso de amparo es de carácter eminentemente sumario porque tiene como única finalidad brindar tutela oportuna contra infracciones o amenazas inminentes a los derechos y libertades fundamentales, por lo que su tramitación no se aviene bien con la práctica de diligencias probatorias lentas y complejas” (entre muchos otros se pueden consultar los votos números 2003-14336, 2006-014421 y 2020-019038).

Es esa dirección, es criterio de la mayoría que, por vía de amparo, debe entenderse que en términos generales esta Sala debe conocer de los recursos de amparo en los que se alega la lesión al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, siempre que los cuestionamientos y denuncias, por su complejidad, no rebasen la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo. Por el contrario, resulta más garantista para todas las partes, e incluso para la tutela efectiva del derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y de la protección de los recursos naturales, residenciar el conflicto en una vía ordinaria, de conocimiento plenario, en la que con más oportunidades procesales se pueda examinar la prueba y contrastar los agravios, en definitiva, para juzgar con detalle la regularidad de la conducta omisiva y/o activa de las administraciones públicas competentes en la atención y resolución del conflicto ambiental denunciado.

Además, debe darse otra condición: que la Administración no haya intervenido (ver voto n.°2022-009857). En efecto, cuando un ente u órgano público ha intervenido en diversas formas o ha dictado actos administrativos en relación con un asunto ambiental, particularmente si es de complejidad, el conocimiento y fiscalización de esa actividad corresponde a la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo. Precisamente, es la verificación de la existencia de esa intervención administrativa lo que determina que el asunto sea competencia de la vía de legalidad. En efecto, se insiste, si ya habido una conducta de la Administración que luego de un procedimiento administrativo ha otorgado derechos subjetivos, ha establecido sanciones o ha dictado una ruta para solventar la problemática denunciada, todo lo anterior sobre la base de la aplicación de normativa legal o infralegal, entonces correspondería a los jueces de lo contencioso-administrativo velar por la legalidad de tales actos administrativos. En este sentido, a partir de la entrada en vigencia del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo se determinó que la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa posee amplias competencias para conocer de agravios como los que se cuestionan en el sub lite. A tales efectos, este Tribunal ha reiterado lo siguiente:

“[A]nte la promulgación del Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo (Ley No. 8508 de 24 de abril de 2006) y su entrada en vigencia a partir del 1° de enero de 2008, ha quedado patente que ahora los justiciables cuentan con una jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa plenaria y universal, sumamente expedita y célere por los diversos mecanismos procesales que incorpora al ordenamiento jurídico esa legislación, tales como el acortamiento de los plazos para realizar los diversos actos procesales, la amplitud de la legitimación, las medidas cautelares, el numerus apertus de las pretensiones deducibles, la oralidad –y sus subprincipios concentración, inmediación y celeridad-, la única instancia con recurso de apelación en situaciones expresamente tasadas, la conciliación intra-procesal, el proceso unificado, el proceso de trámite preferente o ‘amparo de legalidad’, los procesos de puro derecho, las nuevas medidas de ejecución (multas coercitivas, ejecución sustitutiva o comisarial, embargo de bienes del dominio fiscal y algunos del dominio público), los amplios poderes del cuerpo de jueces de ejecución, la extensión y adaptación de los efectos de la jurisprudencia a terceros y la flexibilidad del recurso de casación. Todos esos institutos procesales novedosos tienen por fin y propósito manifiesto alcanzar la economía procesal, la celeridad, la prontitud y la protección efectiva o cumplida de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales de los administrados, todo con garantía de derechos fundamentales básicos como el debido proceso, la defensa y el contradictorio”. (Ver, por ejemplo, las sentencias números 2010-17909, 2020-011247 y 2022-003724).

En contraposición a lo dicho sobre esa jurisdicción, la ausencia en un recurso de amparo constitucional de una fase probatoria plenaria que facilite la inmediación y el contradictorio de la prueba imponen necesariamente que, en aras de una adecuada y prudente protección del derecho, se recurra a la vía ordinaria para conocer conflictos medio ambientales de suyo complejos como el que se plantea en el caso concreto. De lo contrario, implicaría transformar el amparo en un proceso ordinario de pleno conocimiento, con lo cual se desnaturalizaría y se tornarían nugatorios los fines para los cuales ha sido diseñado, con lo cual, perdería su condición de instrumento sumario de tutela de los derechos fundamentales”. (Criterio reiterado en la sentencia nro. 2023-009347).

Además, mi línea de resolución es congruente con la nota ?suscrita juntamente con los magistrados Castillo Víquez y Garita Navarro? que me correspondió redactar respecto de la sentencia nro. 2022-009857 y en la cual se hicieron las siguientes consideraciones:

“Estimamos necesario consignar esta nota en la que advertimos que, bajo una mejor ponderación, en asuntos ambientales de tanta complejidad ?como el que se cuestiona en el caso concreto? valoramos que corresponde desestimar el recurso para residenciar la discusión en la vía ordinaria en donde con mayores posibilidades probatorias y procesales, así como de ejecución, se examine con detalle la conducta cuestionada.

En primer lugar, se hace necesario enfatizar que consideramos que esta Sala es competente para conocer recursos de amparo relacionados con la lesión al derecho fundamental a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado en los términos del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Lo anterior, como lo ha hecho este Tribunal con tanto éxito en el pasado. Sin embargo, advertimos que hay cuestionamientos y denuncias que, por su complejidad, rebasan la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo y, en tales circunstancias, resulta más garantista para todas las partes, e incluso para la tutela efectiva del derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y de la protección de los recursos naturales, residenciar el conflicto en una vía ordinaria, de conocimiento plenario, en la que con más oportunidades procesales se pueda examinar la prueba y contrastar los agravios. En definitiva, para juzgar con detalle la regularidad de la conducta omisiva y/o activa de las administraciones públicas competentes en la atención y resolución del conflicto ambiental denunciado.

Recuérdese que históricamente esta Sala ha sostenido la línea jurisprudencial de que “el proceso de amparo es de carácter eminentemente sumario porque tiene como única finalidad brindar tutela oportuna contra infracciones o amenazas inminentes a los derechos y libertades fundamentales, por lo que su tramitación no se aviene bien con la práctica de diligencias probatorias lentas y complejas” (entre muchos otros se pueden consultar los votos números 2003-14336, 2006-014421 y 2020-019038). Esta línea jurisprudencial no hace sino recordar la naturaleza propia de este proceso. Por otra parte, a partir de la entrada en vigencia del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo se determinó que dicha jurisdicción posee amplias competencias para conocer de agravios como los que se cuestionan en el sub lite. (…)

En contraposición, la ausencia de una fase probatoria plenaria que facilite la inmediación y el contradictorio de la prueba, imponen necesariamente que, en aras de una adecuada y prudente protección del derecho, se recurra a la vía ordinaria para conocer conflictos medio ambientales de suyo complejos como el que se plantea en el caso concreto. (…)

De la enumeración de agravios y el análisis de la pretensión de la parte recurrente es posible constatar que el conflicto denunciado es sumamente complejo de resolver mediante el proceso de amparo y, por lo tanto, correspondería ser residenciado en una sede ordinaria que, con mayores herramientas, pueda conocer con profundidad la denuncia de fondo, adoptar medidas cautelares y dictar amplias y específicas órdenes para atender la problemática apuntada.

La Sala debe conocer de los asuntos ambientales en todos aquellos casos cuya pretensión sea compatible con la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo. Todo lo que pueda conocerse y residenciarse ante la jurisdicción constitucional porque la pretensión es compatible con las cualidades y posibilidades que este proceso otorga, debe mantenerse en esta sede. No así las denuncias ambientales cuya dilucidación requiera para su conocimiento y adecuado análisis un espacio probatorio plenario como el que se prevé en la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa. Esa es la excepción. Estimamos que la regla es entonces que procede conocer en un recurso de amparo cuando sea relativamente sencilla la constatación de la problemática y la Sala tenga las herramientas apropiadas para una oportuna y apropiada reparación, es decir, que su ejecución sea también propia de un proceso sumario.

Al respecto, es preciso advertir que hay agravios que son fácilmente constatables y no sería tan difícil su conocimiento, pero son parte de un todo. Por lo tanto es mejor que ese todo sea residenciado en una sede que, por sus características, permita que el asunto sea conocido integralmente con el análisis de todas las aristas que revisten el caso concreto.

(…)

En definitiva, consideramos que, bajo una mejor ponderación, se hace preciso concluir que hay conflictos que, por su magnitud, requieren necesariamente de un proceso probatorio plenario para su atención y resolución. Este es justamente uno de esos casos, por lo que estimamos que lo correspondiente es declarar sin lugar el recurso y remitir la totalidad del conflicto planteado ?denuncia por escasez de personal en detrimento de la biodiversidad? ante la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa.

Esta nota la realizamos en aras de garantizar la debida seguridad jurídica en las líneas jurisprudenciales de esta Jurisdicción Constitucional y advertir concretamente en qué consiste el cambio de criterio parcial de los suscritos magistrados”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

En consecuencia, salvo el voto y declaro sin lugar el recurso, sin demérito de que la parte recurrente acuda ante la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa a discutir el objeto de este proceso, donde encontrará mayores garantías para que este sea examinado y resuelto.

Anamari Garro Vargas