← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 17125-2024 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 21/06/2024
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is granted only against the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Public Security for violating the right of petition and access to information, ordering them to formally respond to the inquiries submitted by the petitioner in January and February 2024. The claim against the Municipality of Cóbano, which responded in a timely manner, is dismissed.Se concede el amparo únicamente contra el Ministerio de Salud y el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública por vulnerar el derecho de petición y acceso a la información, ordenándoles responder formalmente las gestiones presentadas por la recurrente en enero y febrero de 2024. Se desestima contra la Municipalidad de Cóbano, que sí respondió oportunamente.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber ruled on an amparo action filed by a resident of Cóbano against the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Municipality of Cóbano. The petitioner claimed she submitted inquiries on January 8, 18, and February 8, 2024, requesting information about requirements and authorizations for mass events in the area, as well as follow-up on these events, without receiving a response. The Chamber found that the Municipality of Cóbano had responded in a timely manner and dismissed the claim against it. However, it determined that the Ministry of Health had not formally replied to the three inquiries, and the Ministry of Public Security had not responded to the one dated January 18, 2024, violating the rights of petition and access to public information. Consequently, the Chamber partially granted the amparo and ordered both authorities to formally respond to the pending inquiries within ten days, warning that failure to comply would constitute the crime of disobedience.La Sala Constitucional resuelve un recurso de amparo interpuesto por una vecina de Cóbano contra el Ministerio de Salud, el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y la Municipalidad de Cóbano. La recurrente alegó que presentó gestiones los días 8 de enero, 18 de enero y 8 de febrero de 2024, solicitando información sobre los requisitos y autorizaciones para eventos masivos en la zona, así como el seguimiento de dichos eventos, sin obtener respuesta. La Sala constató que la Municipalidad de Cóbano sí respondió oportunamente las gestiones, por lo que declaró sin lugar el amparo en su contra. Sin embargo, determinó que el Ministerio de Salud no contestó formalmente las tres gestiones presentadas y que el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública no respondió la del 18 de enero de 2024, vulnerando los derechos de petición y acceso a la información pública. En consecuencia, se declaró parcialmente con lugar el recurso y se ordenó a ambas autoridades que en un plazo de diez días contestaran formalmente las gestiones pendientes, bajo apercibimiento de incurrir en el delito de desobediencia.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Thus, the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the lack of response are deemed proven. Consequently, since the ten-working-day period established in Article 32 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law has been widely exceeded, Articles 27 and 30 of the Constitution have been violated. These articles guarantee the right of every person to address any public official or government entity to obtain information on any matter or information of a public nature, with the aim of allowing citizens to oversee the proper performance of various public entities in the exercise of their administrative functions. Under these circumstances, the amparo action must be granted, with the consequences specified in the operative part of this judgment. IX.- Documentation submitted in the case file. The petitioner is warned that if she has submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, these must be removed from the office within a maximum of 30 working days from the notification of this judgment.Así las cosas, se tiene por acreditado lo alegado por la recurrente en cuanto a la falta de respuesta. En consecuencia, como el plazo de diez días hábiles contemplado en el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional ha sido ampliamente sobrepasado, se tiene por transgredidos los numerales 27 y 30 constitucionales, los cuales garantizan el derecho de toda persona de dirigirse ante cualquier funcionario público o entidad oficial para obtener información sobre cualquier asunto, materia o información de naturaleza pública, con la finalidad de permitir a los administrados fiscalizar el correcto desempeño de los diversos entes públicos en el ejercicio de la función administrativa. Bajo este orden de circunstancias se impone declarar con lugar el recurso, con las consecuencias que se especifican en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia. IX.- Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a la parte recurrente que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, éstos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"se tiene por transgredidos los numerales 27 y 30 constitucionales, los cuales garantizan el derecho de toda persona de dirigirse ante cualquier funcionario público o entidad oficial para obtener información sobre cualquier asunto, materia o información de naturaleza pública"
"Articles 27 and 30 of the Constitution have been violated. These articles guarantee the right of every person to address any public official or government entity to obtain information on any matter or information of a public nature."
Considerando VII
"se tiene por transgredidos los numerales 27 y 30 constitucionales, los cuales garantizan el derecho de toda persona de dirigirse ante cualquier funcionario público o entidad oficial para obtener información sobre cualquier asunto, materia o información de naturaleza pública"
Considerando VII
"la Sala observa que, previo a la interposición de este proceso, las autoridades del municipio accionado contestaron y notificaron formalmente a la recurrente la respuesta a las gestiones planteadas. De ahí que se descarta alguna lesión a sus derechos fundamentales."
"the Chamber observes that, prior to the filing of this action, the authorities of the sued municipality answered and formally notified the petitioner of the response to the inquiries raised. Hence, any violation of her fundamental rights is ruled out."
Considerando VI
"la Sala observa que, previo a la interposición de este proceso, las autoridades del municipio accionado contestaron y notificaron formalmente a la recurrente la respuesta a las gestiones planteadas. De ahí que se descarta alguna lesión a sus derechos fundamentales."
Considerando VI
"se ordena que giren las órdenes pertinentes y lleven a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de su competencia para que, dentro del plazo de DIEZ DÍAS, contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se le conteste formalmente a la amparada"
"it is ordered that they issue the pertinent orders and carry out all actions within their competence so that, within TEN DAYS from the notification of this judgment, the petitioner is formally answered."
Por tanto
"se ordena que giren las órdenes pertinentes y lleven a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de su competencia para que, dentro del plazo de DIEZ DÍAS, contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se le conteste formalmente a la amparada"
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine twenty hours on the twenty-first of June, two thousand twenty-four.
*Amparo* appeal filed by REBECA PEREZ PEREZ, identity card CED1, against the MINISTRY OF HEALTH, THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY, AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF COBANO.
Resultando:
| Tabla 01. Establecimientos revisados en el Distrito de Cóbano Operativo 27 y 28 de octubre 2023. (…) |
|---|
And 16 intervened establishments are listed. Similar to Report MS-DRRSPC-DARSPE-IT-149-2023 dated December 27, 2023, of which a copy is also provided, 9 establishments were inspected and, in addition: According to inspection record AI-YV-154-2023, the Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Cóbano identified a pickup truck with license plate [Placa1] selling fruits, mainly mandarins; officials of the Concejo proceeded to carry out the corresponding notification, and it was intervened by the Transit Police. On the other hand, according to record AI-YV-155-2023, a street vendor selling grilled meat on skewers is identified, so the seizure (decomiso) of this is proceeded with, with 12 cooked meat skewers and 58 raw meat skewers counted. According to inspection record AI-YV-156-2023, a street vendor of fruit shakes with liquor is identified; the CMD of Cóbano proceeds to seize a full bottle and another half-empty bottle of [Nombre1]; the Ministry of Health proceeds to seize coolers with fruits (coconuts, oranges), bottles with liquid, and a drum with water of questionable origin (dudosa procedencia).
At [Dirección1] # another street vendor of fruit shakes is identified, for which reason AI-YV-158-2023 was issued, which indicates that the seller offers the product to his customers; the seizure of a cooler with fruits (oranges, half a mango, pineapple), and a drum with water of questionable origin is proceeded with; at the end of the inspection, signs used as advertising are found. On the other hand, the corner of [Nombre2] was visited, a food stall located in front of the San Isidro crossing, in order to verify if it has the PSF; inspection record AI-YV-160-2023 was prepared; the place has the current PSF; however, it does not have the sign required by Law 9028, no fire extinguisher is evident, and workers have the current food handling cards (carné de manipulación de alimentos). Furthermore, according to inspection record AI-YV-161-2023, a street vendor is identified at [Dirección2] in front of the Christian church, who sells lemons and fish; the person could not be identified because the Fuerza Pública was not at the location; the seller was asked to leave.
| Tabla 02. Productos decomisados y destruidos en el Distrito de Cóbano Operativo 22 de diciembre 2023 (…) |
|---|
In such a way, the appellant is not correct in her arguments when indicating that these types of situations are never addressed, for which reason, with sufficient information, what was found in operations between the months of October and December 2023 has been detailed. The 2 mentioned technical reports are attached as evidence. Likewise, it is necessary to remind the appellant that events held on private properties such as farms or beach houses with private access cannot be intervened, the same as an event on the beach (ZMT), since these types of private properties require a search warrant (orden de allanamiento) issued by a Judge of the Republic to be able to access them. THIRD: That in January 2024, other operations were scheduled for January 24 by email, coordinating with licensing (patentes) and the health regulation inspectors (inspectoras de regulación de la salud) of our Área Rectora de Salud.
A PDF copy of the email from January 24 is provided, in which these 2024 operations were scheduled, after the complaints of the Appellant in this case. It should be noted that the Ministry of Health is not a shock sanitary police, nor an emergency one, but rather an office for following up on complaints that can be verified, from Monday to Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the ordinary course; we operate according to the Ley General de Administración Pública and we have 10 days to respond to a complaint preliminarily, and it is not always possible to intervene at night in a party without permits or in operations scheduled from one day to the next, because the scheduling of travel expenses (viáticos) and overtime is done at least 8 days in advance to give inspectors the opportunity to organize amongst themselves and with their families to participate in operations during extraordinary hours.
However, we have been able to carry out many interventions in this type of event reported in the present *amparo*, and some immediately with urgent coordination from one day to the next, but we depend on the willingness of the officials to change their family plans at a moment's notice, which is optional and not mandatory, except for very qualified exceptions that occur under the order of higher hierarchical levels. Thus, it is evident that there is a lack of truthfulness in indicating that this office is failing in addressing mass events, as well as in street vending operations, or in scheduling control operations. FOURTH: That the complaint signed by the appellant of this *Amparo* was received on January 18, 2024, and on folio 008 the appellant's signature can be seen as part of several community institutions and organizations, including the Asociación de Desarrollo de Santa Teresa y Mal País, Somos Congos, Covirena, Cámara de Turismo, Nicoya Península Water Keeper, Asociación Cívica de Playa Hermosa; this complaint was assigned number 004-2024.
Therefore, it is established that the complaints described as having been filed on January 8 and 18, 2024, have been answered in this official communication, via email. Since it turns out that the representatives of the signing organizations themselves sent an email on January 8 with these concerns to the undersigned, with the following request: 'Estimado Dr. Juan Gabriel Ledezma la presente es para hacerle algunas consultas sobre el evento llevado a cabo el día 06 de enero del presente año en el sector de San Isidro de Cóbano específicamente por el sector conocido como [Dirección3] . 1 ¿Hicieron de parte del Ministerio de salud una inspección previa al evento? 2 ¿Qué criterios tomaron para otorgar el visto bueno al evento? 3 ¿Hubo personal del Ministerio de Salud para verificar que cumplieran con todos los parámetros permitidos incluidos contaminación acústica? 4 ¿Se realizo alguna inspección del sitio posterior al evento? 5 ¿Los organizadores presentaron algún plan de manejo de residuos tanto de basura como manejo de aguas, baños, disposición de aguas negras, etc.?
Sin más por el momento agradeciendo su buena voluntad y pronta respuesta se despide [Nombre3] Presidente de la Asociación Somos Congos de Santa Teresa de Cóbano.' And on the same day, January 8, 2024, the undersigned responded to the organizations: 'Estimados señores, El evento mencionado, sucedió en fecha 6 de enero, pero nuestro personal y el de todo el país fue enviado a vacaciones por decreto ejecutivo del Gobierno. Es decir, que no contábamos con permiso para asignar personal a cubrirlo. Esto porque el evento no contaba con la Autorización final por faltante de un requisito. Es decir, que cumplieron con los requisitos establecidos en el reglamento 43432-S en el apartado de autorizaciones sanitarias, menos en el plan de seguridad aprobado por Ministerio de Seguridad. De nuestra parte y con respecto a las preguntas: "1. No hacemos inspecciones previas a Eventos, a menos que haya detonación de espectáculo de pólvora. 2.
El Visto bueno se basa en la presentación de requisitos establecidos en el reglamento de permisos 43432-S 3. No teníamos autorización para que el personal nuestro trabajara en esa fecha sin un evento con todos los permisos previos. 4. No hemos realizado inspecciones posteriores al evento porque hasta hoy estamos ingresando. 5. Los organizadores presentaron croquis con la distribución de servicios sanitarios. Pero finalmente no lograron completar todos los trámites. Quedamos a las órdenes para cualquier denuncia sobre este tipo de eventos durante el año en curso..." In other words, the undersigned responded to the organizations interested in the control of unauthorized mass events, informing them of the facts of the event they were interested in and making himself available to receive complaints of other possible events during 2024, as can be seen on folio 17 of the file provided as evidence.
But there was no response or new requests from said organizations until today. Thus, according to the database of this ARS Peninsular, there is no complaint on this same topic dated February 8, 2024; there is a complaint dated March 22, regarding a party-type activity on private property for March 23, filed by the appellant; an inter-institutional operational response was coordinated, and this complaint was handled by the official, Engineer María Arrieta, who recorded in Inspection Record AI-MF-13-2024 at 2 p.m., noting the following: "visited the site, there are no platforms (tarimas), there are some sanitary facilities in poor structural condition, on the slab (planche) there are posts and tools but no stages or sound equipment. The site is visited with CMD Cóbano officials, who notify the land owner of the consequences of holding mass event activities without corresponding permits. The person states that he does not hold mass activities nor gives permission for them to be held on the property.
He is spoken to about how to obtain the permit for these events and the consequences of holding mass events without the corresponding permits." A copy of the record is provided. Likewise, it has been assumed that the actions carried out by this directorate and other institutions have been effective. Since no new interventions in parties or unauthorized events have been requested by the appellant and the organizations accompanying her. FIFTH: That, regarding the reported topic and as evidence of the actions that continue to be carried out, the community of Manzanillo that the appellant mentions is affected by this type of party, and a complaint was filed about an event that was to be held on Saturday, March 16, 2024, at Playa Manzanillo, signed by the member of the tourism chamber CATUZA, [Nombre4], another of the organizations from the complaint, as indicated in the file. Said note, which is attached as evidence, arrived on Friday, March 15, and an immediate intervention that Friday the 15th in the afternoon was coordinated through the Cóbano operations WhatsApp group among the Police, Municipality, and Ministry of Health, managing to notify a municipal warning about this type of event.
And it was possible to coordinate a follow-up operation for the night of the following day, Saturday, March 16, with the timely participation of the same institutions, verifying that the event was not held, and reporting the actions via email the following Wednesday, March 20, through the same email channel, which is attached. Thus, although the appellant has not brought other complaints, this office continues to do even more than legally required, maintaining communication in WhatsApp security and operations groups with the personal cell phones and lines of the officials from the Municipality, Fuerza Pública Police, Tourist Police, and Ministry of Health, for the benefit of the population. A screenshot of the Operations Group with information on the event stopped on March 15 is attached..." It is evident from the report provided that the Ministry of Health, through the Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular, has not only provided the corresponding attention to what was reported by the appellant here, but has also established a series of inter-institutional operations to address this problem that apparently is frequent in that area and that has undoubtedly required greater attention from the health authorities.
The report provided not only identifies the attention given to the reported matter but also notes other activities carried out by the health authority, such as the seizure of food sold on public roads, contravening the regulations in force regarding the preparation, handling, and sale of food; closure of activities or events (parties and others) that do not have a permit and/or sanitary authorization issued by the Ministry of Health. Therefore, contrary to the statements of the protected party (amparada), this Ministry has not only diligently addressed what was reported but has also addressed this issue with true responsibility and interest, as it maintains direct communication with other institutions, such as the Fuerza Pública, the local Municipality, Tourist Police, among others, so that each one addresses, within the framework of their competences, what corresponds to them, in order to prevent this type of event from being carried out in a non-regulatory manner.
As can be observed, the Ministry of Health, specifically the Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular, has no interest whatsoever in violating fundamental rights of individuals, and especially of the protected party, since the Ministry's actions at its three management levels (Central, Regional, and Local) are always aimed at attentively, responsibly, and diligently addressing all the procedures raised by those administered, Ms. Pérez Pérez being no exception."
However, in some cases the time available for our action is very short, which requires a bit of internal logic initially, such as: having personnel available, verifying budget availability for recognizing overtime payments, since this type of activity is carried out at night, i.e., outside ordinary working hours, authorizations from this Intendancy to carry out the duties in order to guarantee the actions of the municipal inspectors designated for this intervention, and also coordinating the use of municipal vehicles with other administrative departments, since at that time we did not have a vehicle exclusively for said department. All the foregoing, without neglecting the inter-institutional efforts carried out with the Public Police Force (Fuerza Pública) and the Ministry of Public Health, which always provide us with support as long as there is the possibility of not hindering the normal or priority functions of both institutions, but unfortunately at the District level, all of the Respondents here have scarce resources to achieve a comprehensive intervention.
In addition to this, it is also important to mention, as the Appellant points out, that these activities are carried out on private property strategically located throughout the district, which are complex to access from the event site, and are many meters away, almost impossible to see from the nearest access routes with closed gates, which does not completely prevent gaining entry and carrying out the respective intervention, since as public officials we do not have the legal authority to authoritatively and illegally break into a private property, as this could cause us to incur the infraction established in article 393, subsection 4, of the Penal Code, which imposes a fine of five to thirty days on anyone who: (...) Unauthorized entry onto another's land 4) Enters fenced land belonging to another without the permission of the owner or possessor. (As amended by article 2 of Ley 8250 of May 2, 2002).
The foregoing, since the actions of municipal officials regarding their authority at said site are limited, because it is not the same to exercise actions inside a commercial establishment as on private land without municipal authorization (temporary licenses), since let us remember that municipal officials are dedicated to complying with the principle of legality that governs public administrations, and we can only carry out those actions that the law allows us; the foregoing under the protection of article 11 of the Political Constitution and article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration. Especially since the legal representatives in the District of the Judicial Branch (Prosecutor's Office - Criminal Judge) are cautious in these types of cases, as they allege that they do not have the necessary elements to warrant the request and issuance of a raid order by this Judicial Authority, after the pandemic period ended, which through an executive decree of the presidency of the republic eliminated said restriction of application in these cases.
We do not fail to state that despite this outlook, this Municipal Council is always in the best disposition to address complaints regarding this matter and minimize the impact that these types of activities may cause on the population and its surroundings. Second: That specifically regarding the three events reported by the appellant, we have that the first one, on January 6, 2024, formally processed a temporary license for a license or mass event, fully complying with the tacit list of requirements established in the Regulation for Lucrative and Non-Lucrative Activities in the District of Cóbano, specifically in its numeral 47, which indicates that the following must be complied with: These types of licenses are temporary municipal licenses authorized by the Council of Councilors of the Municipal Council, for the exercise of temporary lucrative activities, such as: civic and patron saint festivals, turnos, concerts, fairs, and others.
They may be granted for up to thirty days, and may be revoked when the operation of the activity is varied, when the safety of the event is not ensured, or when it implies a violation of the Law or public order. For the request of this type of temporary license, the following requirements must be provided, with the Municipal Council assessing which of them must be met depending on the activity to be developed: (bold and underline do not correspond to the original text) a) Duly completed municipal license application form for an occasional public spectacle, with all the data required for its processing, duly signed by the interested person or by the legal representative when applicable, in case the applicant does not process it personally, the signature must be authenticated by a notary. b) Present the tickets or tickets that will be used at the event so that the Municipal Council can proceed with their registration.
An application indicating the value of the entrance, the description, schedule, and date of the event. c) If the tickets are issued electronically, a copy of the contract with the company in charge of selling the tickets must be presented, along with a certification from a certified public accountant stating the total gross revenue collected once the event has ended. d) Authorization for use from the owner of the establishment or land where the event will be held, or failing that, a lease contract or Council agreement. e) Document issued and signed by a Civil Engineer guaranteeing that the structure where the activity will take place is in optimal condition for the requested activity, as well as the signage indicating the maximum capacity of people the facilities will structurally support. f) Suitable document proving that an ambulance with trained personnel will be present to cover the event in an eventual emergency situation. g) Temporary Permit issued by the Ministry of Health and/or the Technical Advisory Committee on Mass Gatherings. h) If activities with animals are involved, a document issued by the National Animal Health Service must be provided, as applicable. i) Civil Liability Insurance Policy. 1) Authorization from the General Directorate of Traffic guaranteeing their presence on the corresponding roads and the road closures. k) Authorization for the use of the musical repertoire, or its exemption, issued by the authors or their representatives, in accordance with Decreto Ejecutivo N°23485-MP of July 5, 1994. 1) Legal capacity or suitable identification document (identity card or CED2). m) Not having debts with the CCSS or with the Municipal Council. n) Waste management plan i) Contingency Plan o) Security plan These requirements were duly assessed as appropriate by the Collegiate Body of this Municipal Council in its extraordinary session number: 53-23, article II, subsection a, on January fifth, two thousand twenty-four, at three fifteen in the afternoon.
(see attached administrative file as evidence). Likewise, the licensing department responded to the Appellant, through official notice PAT-020-2024, and the respective administrative file was provided to her. Third: Regarding the second reported activity, I consider it opportune to clarify that this one was certainly not possible to address, not due to lack of interest on the part of the officials of this Municipal Council, but rather due to reasons of force majeure, since unfortunately the person in charge of the Municipal Council's department has at her disposal for the entire District only two inspectors, and for them to work differentiated hours, they must be notified, according to the internal Regulation of Notifications and Inspections of this Municipal Council, specifically in its article 13, which reads as follows: (...) if the municipal need requires it, the days and hours may vary, as long as the official is informed of the change at least one week in advance (Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or nights" (bold and italics do not correspond to the original text) However, despite this, on many occasions with the prior consent of the inspectors, inspections are scheduled at differentiated hours one or two days in advance, without major difficulty.
However, in the specific case mentioned on January 20, 2024, it is important to mention that it has an entry date of January 18, 2024, so at that time one of the two inspectors we had was enjoying his respective paternity leave for the birth of his daughter, a situation that, despite being somewhat untimely for carrying out the prior steps mentioned in the first fact, and being able to count on the availability of the other inspector, due to situations inherent to support or verification for the issuance of the act dictated through the respective minutes and reports, as well as for the safety of the physical integrity of these officials and the vehicle they use, they are not allowed to go out to carry out these types of actions individually, but rather jointly, so this situation being an exceptional condition, since it is impossible for us to interrupt that official's leave, as it is a right granted by law, resulting in our non-presence at the site, which was duly reported to the Appellant and at the same time she was told that she could call the Public Police Force in case the event occurred.
Fourth: Regarding the third event indicated by the Appellant on February 10, 2024, it coincided with a routine inspection ordered by the licensing department at differentiated hours, which was already authorized through official notice CMDC-PAT-2024-027, for days 09 and 10 of February of the current year, so as always we appeared at the Cóbano Public Police Force station but at that time we were informed by the public police force officers that a priority incident had arisen near Cóbano and they could not accompany us to carry out the intervention of an alleged illegal party in the Manzanillo sector, to attend to the aforementioned closure procedure, so since it was a mass event of exponential magnitude, according to the complainant, the corresponding information was recorded, through report IP-008-2024, who state textually the following regarding this matter: "(...) It should be noted that at this point, in order to carry out the intervention of an alleged illegal party in the Manzanillo sector and to attend to the aforementioned closure procedure, a request was made to the Public Police Force for accompaniment, to which they indicated that they only had one unit and two officers on duty, who were attending to another situation near Cóbano and could not accompany us, so due to the lack of accompaniment, it was decided to desist from attending to the complaint of the alleged illegal party because it involved a private property without the possibility of access, and we continued with the normal patrol, monitoring the proper functioning of commercial premises (...)" Even that day they intervened at a party in a smaller place and it was shut down, without the accompaniment of the Public Police Force.
It should be noted that it is correct that at times the Public Police Force cannot provide accompaniment; however, on many occasions this is due to the scarce resources they have in the area, and it is not possible to send two inspectors to enter a place exposing their physical integrity. Fifth: On the other hand, I do not fail to state that while it is true it was impossible to address these two activities, it is important to indicate that there are complaints about other activities that have been intervened, and while it is true the licensing department states that there is no coordination with the Public Police Force, the reality is that inter-institutional coordination does exist to address activities carried out outside the norm. There is even a chat in which the Public Police Force, the Ministry of Health, the Licensing Department, and the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department of this Council participate, as well as this Intendancy.
Of course, on many occasions we do not have the human resources to attend to such events, as was indicated to the complainant. However, I differ from the statements made by the Appellant, since a series of reports are attached, in which we have participated with both the Public Police Force and the Ministry of Health in addressing activities outside the norm, and we have also on occasions acted without accompaniment. However, it is clear that this District Municipal Council has not neglected its duties and there is a commitment to addressing these activities outside the law, despite the scarce resources this Council has for attending to this type of event and other functions. Joint work has also been carried out with the Ministry of Health and the Public Police Force, some of the cases are the following: Inspections carried out in 2022 Differentiated hours > On February 10, Official Notice IP-016-2022: Colleagues Dionicio Toruño and Darío Álvarez > participated in an operation with officials from the tourist police, Public Police Force, and Ministry of Health.
An inspection was carried out in Santiago in the sector known as [Dirección4] with the aim of identifying the location where an illegal party had been reported. Upon entering said sector, no type of activity was observed, so we proceeded to visit another location properly in Santiago on the way to Manzanillo. At the site, we were able to verify at the entrance a table with a tablecloth and a young lady apparently receiving guests. It was observed that there was a small audio system and a total of approximately 20 people in an open, large area. Furthermore, it was not possible to prove an entrance fee was charged at the location, nor was any type of bracelet observed on those present that would demonstrate the prior purchase of an entrance to the party. Likewise, a notification was made by the Ministry of Health to Mr. [Nombre5], the person in charge of the location, indicating that he cannot hold mass events as this type of activity is prohibited. > On February 11, Official Notice IP-017-2022: An inspection was carried out in the San Isidro sector in the company of an official from the Ministry of Health, two Tourist Police Officers, and five Public Police Force Officers, with the aim of verifying the holding of an alleged illegal party.
Upon arriving at the site, it was possible to observe that a party was taking place as disco-type lights were seen and music was heard at high volume from the public road. Once at the site, a large number of people were observed entering the property at the entrance, and a man identified as Jairo Pérez Hernández with identity card number CED3 was observed opening the access gate to the event location. Subsequently, the notification record was drawn up by the Ministry of Health, where Mr. Pérez was informed that if no person in charge came forward, the notification would be delivered to him. After a waiting period, the notification was delivered to Mr. Pérez, who continued trying to contact those in charge. At 01:37 hours on February 12 of the current year, Mr. Pablo Emilio Gómez Meléndez with identity card CED4 appeared at the gate, indicating that he was in charge of security for the event that was taking place at that moment.
In conversation, Mr. Gómez indicated that the event organizer is called [Nombre6] of United States nationality, who resides in Cabuya. It is worth mentioning that they were at the site for approximately one hour and thirty minutes, where people arriving at the place were told that the party could not continue, that it had already been suspended, with the help of Mr. Pérez and Mr. Gómez, who did not let people enter the location during the time we remained at the site, observing a large number of people who arrived and, upon being told this, left the site. Some resisted and tried to enter, but with the help of the Officers, they left the site. > February 12, Official Notice IP-018-019-2022: An inspection was carried out in the Cabuya sector with the aim of verifying the holding of an alleged illegal party. We proceeded to the indicated sector accompanied only by two Public Police Force Officers.
At 23:06 hours, we arrived at the property with farm number 6-81980-000 with plan P-0850670-1991 in the name of Mrs. [Nombre7], with identity card number CED5. In an initial inspection, the holding of the party could not be verified as access to the property was closed and the party could not be proven. Only an approximate 10 vehicles between motorcycles and cars were observed. At the site, no music was heard; only about 5 people were seen inside the property. As the holding of the party could not be verified, photographs were taken and we left the place. At 00:34 hours, we arrived at the property with farm number 6-177590-000 with plan P-1452260-2010 located in the sector known as [Dirección5], in the name of Mrs. [Nombre8], with identity card number CED6, where disco-type lights were observed and music was heard at high volume from the public road. Upon arriving at the access gate, a person in charge of opening and closing the property access gate was observed, who did not want to provide personal information, and when asked if there were many people at the site, he responded that people did not come to the party as, according to him, they went to the party that was taking place in Cabuya.
It is worth mentioning that while we were at the site, a motorcycle entered and a couple of minutes later left. At the site, no more people were seen entering the location; rather, they turned off the lights and cut the music. At 01:49 hours on Sunday, February 13 of the current year, a second visit was made to the location, this time without the accompaniment of the Public Police Force as they indicated they would return to the Police Station to take their lunch break, which corresponds to one hour according to what they indicated, while we continued with the patrol. The officers indicated that in case of emergency we should call them. Due to this, we decided to carry out the inspection solely with the aim of verifying if the party was taking place. Arriving at the location for the second time, a large number of vehicles were observed on the public road, people entering the property, disco-type lights, and music was heard at high volume from the public road.
Upon arriving at the access gate, the gate was observed open while people entered the site, but upon noticing our presence, the person in charge proceeded to close the gate with a padlock and immediately left the site, so no person in charge could be identified at the location. Therefore, photographs were taken and we proceeded to leave. > February 17, Official Notice IP-020-2022: At 23:31 hours, an inspection was carried out on the property with farm number 6-160828-000 with plan P-1107665-2006 located in the sector known as Alto Santiago, [Dirección6] San Isidro, in the name of Mrs. [Nombre9], with identity card number CED7, where disco-type lights were observed from the public road. Once inside the property, people entering the location were observed. Additionally, at the site, entrance tickets were being sold, and there was also private security who were equipped with bulletproof vests, communication radios, and weapons.
At the location, we spoke with Mr. [Nombre10], who indicated that it is private property and that we could not remain there. Mr. [Nombre11] indicated that he rented the property, and together with the private security personnel, they told the inspectors that they must leave the site. It should be noted that at that time the inspectors did not have the support of the Public Police Force. Once on the public road, a large number of people and parked vehicles arriving at the location were observed. At this moment, the Tourist Police mobile unit with two officers joined us to provide accompaniment. The organizers indicated that they were not going to stop the party and that they would pay the fines. It is clear that this is a modus operandi of these people who organize these types of activities, as their expense budgets already contemplate the monetary sanctions they could face. It is important to mention that the Cóbano Public Police Force station was called to obtain collaboration when we were inside the property.
However, after several attempts, we did not get a response, so we proceeded to call the 9-1-1 emergency system, where we were told that the officers were attending to a complaint and would be delayed. Around one in the morning, the Public Police Force arrived with two officers; however, the number of people at the site was large, so the decision was made to withdraw from the site due to the large number of people and private security at the site, who even outnumbered our group, which consisted of two tourist police officers, two Public Police Force officers, and two municipal inspectors. > February 19: I textually quote what is cited in official notice IC1-014-2022 "we left in the municipal vehicle license plate [Placa2], at 10:00 pm, accompanied by officials Greivin Carmona Rodríguez, municipal inspector, and Mrs. María Fernanda Arrieta Bolaños, official of the Ministry of Health, starting the patrol we moved to the Cóbano Public Police Force station, where we coordinated with the Tourist Police, so we headed through the Rio Negro sector to Santiago where we coordinate with the Tourist Police Force.
We met at the Playa Hermosa crossing to attend the complaint of the Mass Activity or Event in the Manzanillo sector. From the site, we drove to the location, where the entry of vehicles could be observed after the Manzanillo river bridge, on the right side, this being farm [Dirección7], property of Mr. [Nombre12], with identity card number CED8. At the site, one enters through an easement (servidumbre) and we arrived at a gate where a private security officer was found, Mr. Johel Antonio Gutiérrez, with identification number CED9, who asked us to enter the farm because the entrance was very narrow and saturated with vehicles and people. So we entered accompanied by the Tourist Police officers, entering a paddock area that was being used as a parking lot. There we were attended by Mr. [Nombre13], with identity card number CED10, who introduced himself as the son of the property owner and as the person in charge of the event.
He also indicated that we had to leave the location as we did not have authorization to enter since it was private property. At the paddock site, a group of people, disco lights, and music could be seen approximately 100 meters away. Therefore, at the location, Mr. [Nombre13] was informed of the suspension of the event, so the municipal closure record was made at 11:25 pm, with the observations: mass party, without municipal permits, nor those from other institutions. Regarding health, the official made a notification record. The individual present, who did not want to receive either document, signed as witnesses Greivin Carmona Rodríguez and Public Force officer Oscar Domingo Hernández Sibaja, with identity card number CED11, who again asked us to leave the location, so the documents were placed on a table and we left the site, without them complying with the suspension of the event. We proceeded to take photographs of said activity.
We left the location and headed towards the Santa Teresa sector, conducting a patrol through San Martin and Santa Teresa, where an activity was found in a commercial establishment called Mala Beach, where a complaint about an activity was received. Upon arriving at the site at 1:15 am on February 20 of the current year, a group of people was located, so colleague Fernanda Arrieta made a record for the closing time and the people left the site, continuing the patrol and returning to the municipality at 3:00 am” > February 24, Official Notice IP-022-2022: an inspection was carried out in the following sectors: -Tambor. -Cabuya on the property with farm number 6-81980-000 with plan P-0850670-1991. -In the Casa Camaleon sector on farm 6-177590-000 with plan P-1452260-2010 located in the sector known as [Dirección5], in the name of Mrs. [Nombre8], with identity card number CED6. -In the San Isidro sector on the property with farm number 6-162760-000 with plan P-976413-2005 in the name of the corporation Sociedad Agrícola Las Delicias de Cóbano S.A., with legal ID number CED12. -In the Altos de Santiago sector on farm 6-160828-000 with plan P-1107665-, located, [Dirección8], in the name of Mrs. [Nombre9], with identity card number CED7. -In the locality of Rio Negro, on farm 6-26078-000, which is held in rights in the name of Mr. [Nombre14] with identity card number CED13 and Mr. [Nombre15] with identity card number CED14.
At the time of the inspection, the access to the property was observed closed, so photographs were taken and we left the place. In none of the aforementioned places was it possible to determine the holding of any activity outside the norm, as stated in Official Notice IP-022-2022. These inspections were carried out by inspectors Josué Avilés and Dionicio Toruño, on this occasion without accompaniment from the Public Police Force or any other institution.> February 25 IP-023-2022: An inspection was carried out by inspectors Josué Avilés and Dionicio Toruño in the following sectors: Rio Negro on the property with farm number 6-26078-000, which is held in rights in the name of Mr. [Nombre14] with identity card number CED13 and Mr. [Nombre15] with identity card number CED14, due to reports of parties at the site, but no illegal party was detected. [Dirección9], San Isidro, in the name of Mrs. [Nombre9], with identity card number CED7, where illegal parties have been held.
At the time of the inspection, no party activity was observed at the site.+ San Isidro sector on the property with farm number 6-162760-000 with plan P-976413-2005 in the name of the corporation Sociedad Agrícola Las Delicias de Cóbano S.A., with legal ID number CED12, since illegal parties have been held on said property, so the inspection was carried out where the access gate to the property was observed closed. Bello Horizonte, on the property with farm number 6-161228-000 with plan P-0908107-2004, in the name of Mr. [Nombre12], with identity card number CED8, with the aim of verifying if any party was taking place at the site, since it has been the location of illegal parties. At the time of the inspection, it was verified that no activity was taking place. Bello Horizonte, property with farm number 6-76365-000 with plan P-0004168-1991 in the name of Mr. [Nombre16], with identity card number CED15, where an illegal party was taking place, but because we were without Police accompaniment at the time of the inspection and there was a large number of people entering the party at the location, we decided to record the Location of the property and photographs.
Cabuya sector, property with farm number 6-81980-000 with plan P-0850670-1991 in the name of Mrs. [Nombre7], with identity card number CED5, on said property illegal parties are held, so an inspection is carried out at the site, observing at the time of the visit that no party-related activity was taking place. > February 26, Official Notice IP-024-2022: An operation was carried out with inspectors Josue Aviles and Dionicio Toruño and two Tourist Police Officers in the following sectors: Mal País on the road that connects with Cabuya, because a complaint was filed that a party was taking place in said sector, so we headed to the location to verify the information received. Upon arriving at the indicated location, the existence of a party at the site could not be verified since the property has an access gate which was closed at the time of the inspection. It is worth mentioning that no abnormal movement was seen that would indicate a party was taking place at the site. Photographs were taken and we left the location.
Sector known as [Dirección5], on the property with farm number 6-177590-000 with plat P-1452260-2010 located in, in the name of Mrs. [Nombre8], with identity card number CED6, for the purpose of verifying whether any party is being held at the site, as it has been a venue for clandestine parties. At the time of the inspection, it is verified that no party activity is taking place at the location. Bello Horizonte, property with farm number 6-161228-000 with plat P-0908107-2004, in the name of Mr. [Nombre12], with identity card number CED8, for the purpose of verifying whether any party is being held at the site, as it has been a venue for clandestine parties. At the time of the inspection, it is verified that no party activity is taking place at the location. Bello Horizonte, property with farm number 6-76365-000 with plat P-0004168-1901 located in the sector of, in the name of Mr. [Nombre16], with identity card number CED15, where clandestine parties have previously been held.
Upon arriving at the place and conducting the inspection, it is not observed that any type of activity is taking place at the site. Finally, a complaint in the Cabuya sector could not be addressed because the vehicle presented mechanical problems, so the patrol was concluded at 02 hours on February 27. > March 3 Official Communication IP- 025-2022: A patrol is conducted only by inspectors Dionicio Toruño and Darío Alvares, as the tourist police unit that day left early and the public police force indicated they only had one patrol car and had to remain in Cóbano for any emergency; they tell the inspectors that if they have an emergency, to call them. The Ministry of Health also did not participate in this operation. The patrol was conducted in the following sectors: Tambor, where the commercial establishment called \"Bar Gitanos\" is visited, which was closed at the time of the visit; commercial establishment called \"H&B\" which remained closed at the time of the visit.
Montezuma, where the commercial establishment called \"Chicos Bar\" is visited, which remained operating normally at the time of the visit. In this sector, at 23 hours and 06 minutes, the commercial establishment called Café Orgánico is visited, which remained closed at the time of the inspection. Cabuya, property with farm number 6-81980-000 with plat P-0850670-1991 in the name of Mrs. [Nombre7], with identity card number CED5; on said property, clandestine parties are held, so an inspection is carried out at the site, observing at the time of the visit that no party-related activity is taking place. Sector of Casa Chamaleon, on property with farm number 6-177590-000 with plat P-1452260-2010 in the name of Mrs. [Nombre8], with identity card number CED6, for the purpose of verifying whether any party is being held at the site, as it has been a venue for clandestine parties. At the time of the inspection, it is verified that no party activity is taking place at the location.
Sector of Mal País, where the commercial establishment called \"la Doña\" is visited, which remained closed at the time of the inspection. Sector of Santa Teresa, where at 00 hours and 19 minutes, the commercial establishment called el Facón is visited, which was closed at the time of the inspection. Bello Horizonte: At 23 hours and 43 minutes, we arrive at the property with farm number 6-161228-000 with plat P-0908107-2004 in the name of Mr. [Nombre12], with identity card number CED8, and visit the property with farm number 6-76365-000 with plat P-0004168-1991 in the name of Mr. [Nombre16], with identity card number CED15, both located in Bello Horizonte; on these properties, clandestine parties have previously been held. Upon arriving at the place and conducting the inspection, it is not observed that any type of activity is taking place. Rio Negro, property with farm number 6-26078-000, which is held in rights in the name of Mr. [Nombre14] with identity card number CED13 and Mr. [Nombre15] with identity card number CED14, since there are complaints that clandestine parties are held at said location.
At the time of the inspection, the access to the property is observed to be closed, so photographs are taken and we withdraw from the location. Alto Santiago, property with farm number 6-160828-000 with plat P-1107665-2006, located properly [Dirección10] to San Isidro, in the name of Mrs. [Nombre9], with identity card number CED7, where clandestine parties have been held. At the time of the inspection, no party activity is observed at the site. San Isidro, property with farm number 6-162760-000 with plat P-976413-2005 in the name of the company Agrícola Las Delicias de Cóbano S.A., with legal ID CED12, since clandestine parties have been held on said property, so the inspection is carried out, where the property access gate was observed to be closed. > March 4: An inspection patrol is conducted only with officials Greivin Carmona and Luis Fernando Mayorga, since, as the colleagues indicate in report Official Communication - IC1-015-2022, they were unable to obtain support from the Public Police Force, so they state textually: \"we head towards Tambor starting the patrol; on site, Bar Gitanos is visited to verify its closed status; on site, the commercial establishment was found closed.
We continue the patrol past Bar and Restaurant H&B, where the establishment was found closed, so we return and head towards the Santa Teresa sector, where a patrol was conducted all along the coastal sector and two points with agglomerations on public street could be observed. One was in front of La Lora Amarilla due to the closing of the commercial establishment. On the way back, we pass in front of Bar and Restaurant Kooks, where the commercial establishment is found closed; on the public street, an agglomeration of people drinking alcoholic beverages and a speaker with music, so we decide to call the Cóbano delegation where the duty officer assists me and asks me to call the Santa Teresa delegation. Calls are made to the Tourist Police at 12:16 am and 12:18 am, and we receive no response. It is worth mentioning that traffic accidents due to said agglomerations could be seen. From the site, we return via Santiago and Manzanillo, conducting a patrol and verifying a possible development of activities, but none could be located; likewise, no complaints of ongoing illegal activities were received from the Public Police Force or other institutions, returning to the municipality at 2:00 am.\" > On September 10, Official Communication IP- 064-2022, an inspection was conducted by inspectors Dionicio Toruño Espinoza and Juan C. Ramírez Castro on property with farm number 6-177590-000 with plat P-1452260-2010 located in the sector known as [Dirección5], which is in the name of Mrs. [Nombre8], with identity card number CED6, where disco-type lights are observed.
Once on site, free access was corroborated up to the location where the event was going to take place. Thereupon, we proceeded to enter in the company of officers of the Public Police Force and the Ministry of Health. Upon arriving at the property, we were attended by Mrs. [Nombre17] with ID number CED16, who presented herself as the person in charge of the activity that was about to take place at the location, with Mrs. [Nombre17] indicating that it was a private party to celebrate a friend's birthday. It is worth mentioning that the location was enclosed with shade cloth with a single access where a table and an awning were located, apparently a type of entrance fee booth, although Mrs. [Nombre17] indicates that the party is free and only for a number of friends because it is a friend's birthday party. Additionally, the lady indicates that we must leave the property since we do not have a judicial order nor their authorization to enter the property, but that she will receive the notification from the Ministry of Health so that we subsequently proceed to withdraw. > On December 17, Official Communication IP.096-2022, a complaint filed with this municipality regarding the apparent holding of a clandestine party was addressed, which was supposedly taking place on a private property located in [Dirección11].
We proceeded to locate said property, establishing that it was the same property that had been intervened previously for developing a massive event of equal magnitude as the one reported on this occasion. It is worth mentioning that the property is in the name of Mrs. [Nombre8], with identity card number CED6, with farm number 6-177590-000 and with plat P-1452260-2010. Once located on site, we were able to observe that at the main entrance to the property there were two people performing security duties, who communicated via two-way radio with other people inside the property. It is important to note that the patrol was conducted without the company of Public Police Force Officers, as they indicated they had no personnel and that the personnel on duty were kept attentive to complaints arriving at the Delegation and that only if it were something very urgent would they provide us with the necessary help.
Year 2023 Differentiated Schedule Inspections January 27 according to report IP-015-2022 indicates: “a nighttime patrol is conducted; at 23 hours and 07 minutes, the property with farm number 160526 000 and plat number [Placa3] 2007 in the name of the company Gazeboo Dreaming SA., with Legal ID CED17 was visited in order to verify a supposed clandestine party that would be held on said property located in the Delicias de Cóbano sector, in the place known as [Dirección12]. Upon arriving at the location, a large number of people can be observed inside the property; disco-type lights and a DJ playing music were also observed. On site, there was private security who prohibited our entry. It is worth mentioning that during the time on site, the security personnel were asked for the person in charge of the party, presenting before us a young lady who did not want to identify herself, indicating that it was a birthday party and that she had a list of the people who would attend the location and that the security was to prevent the entry of other people who were not invited.
It is worth mentioning that upon asking the young lady for her personal information, she did not want to identify herself, and not having the company of the public police force because they indicated they had the patrol car without fuel and that they only had it to attend emergencies, the information could therefore not be obtained. In the entrance area to the property, there was a table with a laptop in which they had an Excel sheet with the data apparently of the people who would enter the location, two security personnel who opened and closed the gate for the people attending the location, and one person who was in charge of checking the supposed list. It is worth mentioning that no person was seen with a bracelet or any evidence that an entrance fee was being charged to the property. On January 28, 2023, municipal inspectors Dionicio Toruño and Dario Alvarez worked on a differentiated schedule to address a series of complaints of illegal activities that were allegedly going to be carried out in some localities.
Regarding the specific case at hand, I state textually what is indicated in inspection report number IP-016-2023: \"At 22 hours and 56 minutes, the property located between markers 77 and 78 located in MT in the Santa Teresa sector was visited, which currently does not have a concession for its development; however, it is indeed occupied. Upon arriving at the location, the property is observed closed with shade cloth, which did not allow visualization of the interior of the location; music could be heard; disco-type lights could be visualized; additionally, at the location, there was private security, located at the access to the site. Once on site, we asked for the person in charge of the event, whereupon Mrs. Tami Pamela Valdés García with identity card CED18 appeared, identifying herself as the organizer of the event and indicating that it was a surprise birthday party for her husband and that they were waiting for the guests, who were invited via WhatsApp messages.
Faced with this assertion, Mrs. Valdés was asked for the guest list, to which she stated that they did not have an attendance list and that they had only sent the invitation by Whatsapp but that she did not have it to present. Subsequently, permission was requested to enter the property, but Mrs. Valdés indicates that she will not allow access, so photographs were taken from the bed of the Municipal vehicle, license plate [Placa4], where, over the shade cloth near the access area, a table can be observed which apparently would be intended for charging the entrance fee to the event. A screen or projector playing visual content is also observed; a DJ playing music is observed at the time of the inspection; and an area apparently intended for the sale of soft drinks or alcoholic beverages is observed. At 00 hours and 45 minutes, we arrive again at the parcel located in the ZMT between the [Dirección13], in this second inspection, photographs are taken from the bed of the Municipal vehicle where a large number of people can be observed dancing inside the property.
Not being allowed entry, we proceeded to withdraw from the site after conducting the inspection and taking photographs, this in the company of Public Police Force Officers, Axel Agüero, Dlexner Peralta Vega, Romario Salazar López, Andrea Jiménez González, Oliver Diaz, and Heiner García Ruiz, Sub-Intendent of the Public Police Force of the Peninsula.\" It is worth indicating that the licensing colleagues at the time of the inspection were not clear whether the land was concessioned or not. They indicate that on site, there were private security personnel who did not allow entry to the location. That consideration must be given, when approaching a place like these, to safeguarding the colleagues' safety, as on previous occasions we have had situations in which the inspectors have seen their physical integrity compromised. That this Licensing Department, in coordination with the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, notified an Administrative Warning to the company Sunsct Camping y Cabinas SRL.
Additionally, as stated in report IP-017-2023, it indicates that same day, at 23 hours and 37 minutes, the property with farm number 161228-000 and plat number P-0908107-2004 in the name of Mr. [Nombre12], with identity card number CED8, was visited in order to verify a supposed clandestine party that would be held on said property, as the Public Police Force Officers had complaints of a supposed massive event at the location. Upon arriving at the site, a large number of people entering the property is observed, so we speak with Mr. [Nombre18] with identification number CED19, who was at the entrance to the property and indicated he was a guide for the people attending the event. He was asked about the person in charge of the event, to which he indicated that we had to enter the property to look for the person in charge. Since there was no gate and only an alley through which the other vehicles and minibuses arriving at the location entered, we proceeded to enter, in the company of two units of the Public Police Force, until reaching a paddock where the parking area apparently was and there was a checkpoint for the people entering, so we could not enter further.
Upon asking again for the person in charge, a group of people appeared who did not want to identify themselves; among them, only Mr. [Nombre19] could be recognized. They tell us that we had to leave the property, as it was private property and we do not have authorization to enter the location. At the same time, the person apparently in charge argues with the security manager about where the security was and how they allowed both the Public Police Force units and the Municipal Vehicle to enter that far into the property. We indicate that entry was via an access alley which was clear, to which they again told us we had to leave the property as it is private property. At the location, vehicles were observed parked in the area designated for parking, where they had a person in charge of security. A large number of people were also observed who continued entering the event location; music could be heard and disco-type lights could be seen; additionally, the place where the entrance was purchased could be seen inside the property.
Saturday, February 11, 2023, according to official communication IP-029-2023: At 23 hours and 35 minutes, municipal officials Dionicio Toruño and Josue Aviles arrive at the sector known as [Dirección14] in order to verify a supposed clandestine party. Upon arriving at the property where such parties are held, no event could be observed, so photographs are taken and we withdraw from the location. March 7, 2023, according to official communication 050-2023, an inspection was conducted at the commercial establishment called \"Rancho Itauna\", which holds a commercial license for the activity of Restaurant and Cabins in the name of the company LUTANO SA., with legal ID number CED20, located in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (ZMT), in order to verify a supposed party that was to take place at the location, according to a complaint filed before the Licensing Department. On the aforementioned day in the evening hours, at 21:20 hours, the commercial establishment was visited, which remained with the access gates open; however, it was not operating at the time of the visit, as can be seen in the attached photograph.
November 23, 2023, official communication IP-112-2023, a Closure is carried out of a commercial establishment called Kikas for holding an event without the proper authorization. December 23, 2023, according to official communication IP 110:2023: At 21 hours and 46 minutes, in the company of Tourist Police officers, we arrive at the sector of Bello Horizonte (Manzanillo), this properly from [Dirección15], which, according to a query to the National Registry, belongs to Mr. [Nombre12], identity card CED8, due to a supposed holding of a clandestine party. At the location, there is a metal gate closed with a chain and padlock, as shown in the attached photographs. On site, the persons in charge of the event present themselves: Mr. [Nombre13], identity card CED10, and Mr. [Nombre20], identity card CED21. They indicate that the event is a private party for approximately 200 to 300 people; however, upon showing the supposed guest list, it shows a list of 659 people.
Entry to the property is requested to conduct the inspection, to which they do not agree and keep the gate closed. At the location, private security is visible at the entrance, but because the property is very extensive, nothing else can be seen from the public road. We remain on site for a few minutes and subsequently withdraw from the location. At this point, the Tourist Police officers tell us that they must attend to a situation, so they withdraw and we continue the patrol towards the sector of Santa. Inspections Conducted 2024 Differentiated Schedules A complaint is received regarding a presumed activity to be carried out in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, specifically at a commercial establishment called UMA. According to reports CED22 and CED23, on Thursday, January 11 of the current year, at approximately 21:20 hours, in the company of inspector Josué Fdo. Avilés Zúñiga and two officers of the Cóbano Public Police Force, we went to the aforementioned site, as there was information that a massive event would take place there, with an entrance fee and the sale of alcoholic beverages, all without the corresponding permits.
Subsequently, at approximately 21:45 hours, we arrived at the location, where it was observed that a massive event (party) was indeed taking place. First, we could observe that the people attending the event had to queue to pass a first security filter, then proceed to a counter where they were charged the entrance fee for the event, which was $90 according to statements from the attendees themselves, as well as by those in charge of charging them, which could be done in cash or by card, as they had a datafono on site, as can be observed in the attached photographs. Continuing with our duties, we managed to enter, with the help of the Public Police Force officers, to the area where the entrance fee was collected, where we contacted one of the supposedly organizing persons of the event, who indicated that we should deal with their lawyer named Walter Brenes, who was on his way to the location.
After approximately 20 minutes, Attorney Walter Brenes appeared at the location, stating he was the legal representative of the event organizer and that any situation should be dealt with him. In dialogue with the attorney [Nombre21], we requested authorization to enter and take some photographs for our report; he indicated there was no problem and that we could proceed. In turn, we explained the reason for our presence at the location and that, due to the situation encountered, we would have to issue a notification for not having the respective permits and for developing a massive event in a public zone. It is worth adding that the decision was made not to carry out any type of closure, as we did not have sufficient support to carry out such an action, since we could not risk our physical integrity and that of the two Public Police Force officers, considering that there were more than 300 people on site.
However, although it was not closed at that moment, subsequent to this, through resolution CMDC-PAT-RES-2024-001, a closure is carried out on site for allowing unauthorized activities through a commercial license. > February 10, 2024, report official communication IP-008-2024, work was performed on a differentiated schedule from 19 hours until 2 hours on February 11 to address some complaints. On this day, although the attention of the party inspection was scheduled, it was not possible to attend, as the public police force was attending to, according to the inspectors, another urgent matter and did not have sufficient personnel. > February 15, 16, and 17 of the current year, report official communication IP-011-2024, working on a differentiated schedule, starting at 18:00 hours and finishing work at 00:00 hours in order to address said complaints. > March 15, 2024, Official Communication inspection report IP-016-2024: At 00 hours and 31 minutes on Saturday the 16th, we arrive at the property with farm number 6-177590-000 with plat P-1452260-2010 located in the sector known as [Dirección5], which is in the name of Mrs. [Nombre8], with identity card number CED6, where disco-type lights are observed and loud music is heard.
Upon arriving at the location, people are observed entering the property where a clandestine party is being held. On site, there is an access gate which is opened for people to enter and then closed again. The inspection was conducted in the company of two Public Police Force officers, who withdrew from the location due to an alarm alert in the Cóbano sector at the commercial establishment called Pali (as justified by the officers upon withdrawing). Given that we no longer had the company of the public police force, we decided to withdraw from the site. March, at a property located in the Manzanillo area on a farm in the name of Villas El Nido, subsequent to this, inspections were again coordinated in the company of the Public Police Force and Ministry of Health, in which it was possible to verify that the organizers had desisted from holding said activity, as stated in official communication IP-017-2024, which tacitly indicates: \"Subsequently, coordination was made with personnel from the Ministry of Health and Public Police Force to visit the Manzanillo area, properly the property where a massive event (clandestine party) was to take place.
Once on site, it could be observed that there was no type of activity, so we withdrew from the location.\" > March 21, 2024, report IP-022-2024, the Municipal inspectors participate in an inter-institutional operation. I quote what was indicated by the officials in said report: \"(...) Subsequently, at approximately 23:00 hours, we joined the operation maintained by authorities of the Judicial Investigation Agency and the Public Police Force, moving to the sector of Las Brisas (La Managuita), where different actions were carried out by the police authorities, such as the approach of people at the location and entry to sites where some type of commercial activity was taking place (boarding rooms, clandestine bars).\" • March 22, 2024, once again we appear with the Ministry of Health to make a formal notification at a location where a presumed clandestine party is reported, properly in the Mal Pais sector of Casa Camaleon, [Dirección16] to Manzanillo; said party is announced for March 23, 2024.
According to report IP-021, it indicates: \"At approximately 14:00 hours on March 22 of the current year, we appeared at the site of interest, managing to observe that there was no indication at the location that an event like the one reported was going to take place, as no movement could be observed, such as stage installations, electrical installations, or movement of portable toilets, as can be seen in the attached photographs. Finalizing the procedures carried out, we spoke on site with Mr. Luis Angel Mora Montoya, son of the property owner and person in charge of said farm, indicating the reason for our visit and at the same time giving him the warning that such activities could not take place at said location.\" While it is true that in some responses given to the petitioner it is indicated that no coordination is made with the Ministry of Health or Public Police Force, the truth is that several coordinations are made each year as indicated by said reports.
On the other hand, it is also a reality that on occasions we do not have all the resources we need to address some complaints. Sixth: By virtue of the foregoing and given the lack of limited human resources that we currently have, and the growth and development that our District has been experiencing, the licensing department of this Municipal Council saw the need not only to acquire its own vehicle but also considered including within the 2024 extraordinary budget a project called Oversight of Commercial and Liquor Licenses, which aims to hire 3 more inspectors and two Bodycams, which includes the purchase of services and training for the use of a drone. This is intended to ensure we have officials covering two shifts, as at this moment all nighttime inspections are done with officials' overtime hours.”
Drafted by Judge Garro Vargas; and,
Considering:
I.Purpose of the appeal. The appellant states that on January 8, January 18, and February 8, all of 2024, she has filed submissions before the respondent authorities regarding the holding of some massive events in Santiago de Cóbano. She maintains that such events are held without the required prerequisites regulating temporary massive events and without environmental requirements, with the aggravating factor that the respondents have not provided her with any response. She requests the Chamber's intervention.
Actions of the Ministry of Health.
a. On January 8, 2024, the appellant appeared before the Peninsular Health Rectorate Area with a submission regarding the massive events in Santiago de Cóbano, specifically, the event to be held by “DEEP HOUSE BIBLE” and “WONDERLAND”. In said note, she expressly requested the following: “1- We request that we be informed of which requirements from the provisions of standard 54 of CHAPTER IX. ON SANITARY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR TEMPORARY EVENTS OF MASS CONCENTRATION OF PERSONS, provided for in the General Regulation for operating sanitary permits, habilitation permits and authorization for temporary events of mass concentration of persons, granted by the Ministry of Health, have been fulfilled. We request that the administrative file be made available to us for photocopying. 2- Have each and every one of the stipulations of numerals 55 and following of the General Regulation for operating sanitary permits, habilitation permits and authorization for temporary events of mass concentration of persons been fulfilled?” 3- Are you supervising the before, during, and after of the event in accordance with numeral 60 of the General Regulation for sanitary operating permits, enabling permits, and authorization for temporary mass gathering events?
We request that you provide us with the reports (actas) of what was found and the sanitary orders issued. We request that you provide us with the name of the officials who have participated in the supervisions. In the event you do not attend the before, during, and after supervisions, we request that you justify to us the reason why? 4- Has coordination been made with the local emergency committee? If not, we request that you explain the reason why? 5- Was it verified that the platforms (tarimas) and the stage had the authorizations of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos? 6- Do the authorizations from the Cuerpo de Bomberos exist? 7- Were controls established for the management of solid and liquid waste? To which sanitary landfill will the solid waste be transferred? What is the existing potable water management plan? How is wastewater managed? 8- Is there an environmental license issued by SETENA, and if it does not exist, what is the justification? 9- Was participation made together with officials of the Fuerza Pública in the supervision of the event? 10- How many people are estimated to arrive at the event according to the request made to them? 11- Will there be sales of food and beverages and liquor? 12- What mitigation measures were established to avoid noise pollution (contaminación sónica)? 13- Until what time was the event authorized?
Will there be officials from the Ministry of Health at the end of the event supervising the authorized closing time? We request that our questions be answered and that we be permitted access to the case file (expediente) since our group and associates have the right to know the details of the authorizations that entail environmental, social, and economic impacts to the community.” Said petition has the corresponding receipt stamp (see the filing brief and evidence provided); b. On January 18, 2024, the petitioner appeared before the Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular with a petition regarding the mass events in Santiago de Cóbano, specifically, the mass events in Bello Horizonte and “WONDERLAN PRODUCTION.” In said note, she expressly requested the following: “1- We request that you indicate to us which requirements established in rule 54 of CHAPTER IX. ON SANITARY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR TEMPORARY MASS GATHERING EVENTS provided in the General Regulation for sanitary operating permits, enabling permits, and authorization for temporary mass gathering events, have been granted by the Ministry of Health? 2- For the granting of permits, have each and every one of the stipulations of numerals 55 and following of the General Regulation for sanitary operating permits, enabling permits, and authorization for temporary mass gathering events been complied with? 3- Will you be supervising the before, during, and after of the event in accordance with numeral 60 of the General Regulation for sanitary operating permits, enabling permits, and authorization for temporary mass gathering events?
After the event, we request that you provide us with the reports (actas) of what was found and the sanitary orders issued. We request that you provide us with the name of the officials who have participated in the supervisions. In the event you do not attend the before, during, and after supervisions, we request that you justify to us the reason why? Regardless of whether or not there is the use of gunpowder, it is a mass event as described in the cited rules. 4- Was coordination made with the local emergency committee? If not, we request that you explain the reason why? 5- Was a call made for the activation of the local emergency committee? 6- Will it be verified that the platforms (tarimas) and the stage have the authorizations of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos? Did the authorizations from the Cuerpo de Bomberos exist for safety sites in case of extreme events and to avoid damage in case of fires? 7- Were the safe sites for people signposted?
If this information does not exist, we request that you justify to us why it was not requested. 8- Were controls established for the management of solid and liquid waste? To which sanitary landfill will the solid waste be transferred? What is the existing potable water management plan? How will wastewater be managed? 9- Is there an environmental license issued by SETENA, and if it does not exist, what is the justification? 10- Will participation be made together with officials of the Fuerza Pública in the supervision of the event? 11- How many people will arrive at the event according to the request made to them? 12- Will there be sales of food and beverages and liquor?, 13- What health (salubridad) measures will be requested for the cooks, even if they are at meat stands? 14- What mitigation measures were established to avoid noise pollution (contaminación sónica)? 15- What environmental and health parameters do they take into account? 16- Until what time was the event authorized? 17- If there is no personnel to verify the before, during, and after, why is an event of this massive type permitted?
We request that if the participation of the respective officials is not guaranteed, the permits granted be revoked since no one would be controlling or supervising considerable gatherings of people. 18- What is understood by an approval (visto bueno) issued by you? as has been indicated for previous events. What implications and institutional controls does an approval (visto bueno) have? 19- If control of the event will not be maintained in the before, during, and after, we request that no permit be granted if it has not been authorized as of today. 20- Do the INS policies for the event and the platforms exist? If they do not exist, we request the revocation of what has been granted as enabling acts for safety reasons and to comply with what our legal system requires. At the very least, issue a sanitary order to suspend the event to the Municipality and the event organizer. 21- For the mass event of January 6 of the current year in SANTIAGO de COBANO, more than 600 people arrived, as has been stated from the Concejo de Distrito de Cóbano in a Council session, so it is clear that mass events exist and must be controlled or sanitary operating permits should not be given.
We request that our questions be answered and that we be permitted access to the case file (expediente) since our group and associates have the right to know the details of the authorizations that entail environmental, social, and economic impacts to the community.” Said petition has the corresponding receipt stamp (see the filing brief and evidence provided); c. On February 8, 2024, the petitioner appeared before the Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular with a petition regarding the mass events in Santiago de Cóbano, specifically, the mass event organized by “NUDRA PRODUCTIONS.” In said note, she expressly requested the following: “1- We request that you indicate to us which requirements established in rule 54 of CHAPTER IX. ON SANITARY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR TEMPORARY MASS GATHERING EVENTS provided in the General Regulation for sanitary operating permits, enabling permits, and authorization for temporary mass gathering events, have been granted by the Ministry of Health? 2- For the granting of permits, have each and every one of the stipulations of numerals 55 and following of the General Regulation for sanitary operating permits, enabling permits, and authorization for temporary mass gathering events been complied with? 3- Will you be supervising the before, during, and after of the event in accordance with numeral 60 of the General Regulation for sanitary operating permits, enabling permits, and authorization for temporary mass gathering events?
After the event, we request that you provide us with the reports (actas) of what was found and the sanitary orders issued. We request that you provide us with the name of the officials who have participated in the supervisions. In the event you do not attend the before, during, and after supervisions, we request that you justify to us the reason why? Regardless of whether or not there is the use of gunpowder, it is a mass event as described in the cited rules. 4- Was coordination made with the local emergency committee? If not, we request that you explain the reason why? 5- Was a call made for the activation of the local emergency committee? 6- Will it be verified that the platforms (tarimas) and the stage have the authorizations of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos? Did the authorizations from the Cuerpo de Bomberos exist for safety sites in case of extreme events and to avoid damage in case of fires? 7- Were the safe sites for people signposted?
If this information does not exist, we request that you justify to us why it was not requested. 8- Were controls established for the management of solid and liquid waste? To which sanitary landfill will the solid waste be transferred? What is the existing potable water management plan? How will wastewater be managed? 9- Is there an environmental license issued by SETENA, and if it does not exist, what is the justification? 10- Will participation be made together with officials of the Fuerza Pública in the supervision of the event? 11- How many people will arrive at the event according to the request made to them? 12- Will there be sales of food and beverages and liquor?, 13- What health (salubridad) measures will be requested for the cooks, even if they are at meat stands? 14- What mitigation measures were established to avoid noise pollution (contaminación sónica)? 15- What environmental and health parameters do they take into account? 16- Until what time was the event authorized? 17- If there is no personnel to verify the before, during, and after, why is an event of this massive type permitted?
We request that if the participation of the respective officials is not guaranteed, the permits granted be revoked since no one would be controlling or supervising considerable gatherings of people. 18- What is understood by an approval (visto bueno) issued by you? as has been indicated for previous events. What implications and institutional controls does an approval (visto bueno) have? 19- If control of the event will not be maintained in the before, during, and after, we request that no permit be granted if it has not been authorized as of today. 20- Do the INS policies for the event and the platforms exist? If they do not exist, we request the revocation of what has been granted as enabling acts for safety reasons and to comply with what our legal system requires. At the very least, issue a sanitary order to suspend the event to the Municipality and the event organizer. 21- For the mass event of January 6 and the one on January 20 of the current year, both in COBANO, more than 600 people arrived, so it is clear that mass events exist and must be controlled or sanitary operating permits should not be given.
We request that our questions be answered and that we be permitted access to the case file (expediente) since our group and associates have the right to know the details of the authorizations that entail environmental, social, and economic impacts to the community.” Said petition has the corresponding receipt stamp (see the filing brief and evidence provided).
Actions of the Municipalidad de Cóbano.
a. On January 8, 2024, the petitioner appeared before the Municipalidad de Cóbano with a petition regarding the mass events in Santiago de Cóbano, specifically, the mass event in Bello Horizonte. In said note, she expressly requested the following: “1- What type of enabling act did you grant for this event of January 20 of the current year? We request a copy of it. 2- Are you supervising the before, during, and after of it? In the event you do not attend the before, during, and after supervisions, we request that you justify to us the reason why? 3- Has coordination been made with the local emergency committee for said event? 4- Was collaboration requested with the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Health? 5- Was it verified that the platforms (tarimas) and the stage had the authorizations of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos? 6- Were liquor licenses (patentes de licores) and licenses for food sales established? 7- What type of license (patente) was issued for the event of this January 20? 8- Were controls established for the management of solid and liquid waste? 9- To which sanitary landfill will the solid waste be transferred?
What is the existing potable water management plan? How is wastewater managed? 10- Is there an environmental license issued by SETENA, and if it does not exist, what is the justification? 12- How many people are estimated to arrive at the event according to the request made to them? 13- What mitigation measures were established to avoid noise pollution (contaminación sónica)? 14- Until what time was the event authorized? Will there be officials from the Ministry of Health at the end of the event supervising the authorized closing time? 15- We request a copy of the administrative case file (expediente) for this event of January 20. We request that the license or authorized licenses be revoked if there are no measures to control wastewater, noise, solid waste management, and if mechanisms are not established to soundproof the noise. 16- Do the INS policies for the event and the platforms (sic) exist?
If they do not exist, we request the revocation of what has been granted as enabling acts for safety reasons and to comply with what our legal system requires. 17- For the last mass event that was held and for which our complaint has not yet been answered, we request that you indicate how many infraction reports (actas de infracciones) were made by the inspector and that you provide us with copies of them. We request that our questions be answered and that we be permitted access to the case file (expediente) since our group and associates have the right to know the details of the authorizations that entail environmental, social, and economic impacts to the community.” Said petition bears the corresponding receipt stamp from the Departamento de Patentes (see the filing brief and evidence provided); b. On February 8, 2024, the petitioner appeared before the Municipalidad de Cóbano with a petition regarding the mass events in Santiago de Cóbano, specifically, the mass event called “MUDRA PRODUCTIONS.” In said note, she expressly requested the following: “1- What type of enabling act did you grant for this event of the 10th of the current month?
We request a copy of it. 2- Are you supervising the before, during, and after of it? In the event you do not attend the before, during, and after supervisions, we request that you justify to us the reason why? 3- Has coordination been made with the local emergency committee for said event? 4- Was collaboration requested with the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Health? 5- Will it be verified that the platforms (tarimas) and the stage had the authorizations of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos and the Bomberos de Costa Rica? 6- Were liquor licenses (patentes de licores) and licenses for food sales established? 7- What type of license (patente) was issued for the event of this February 10? 8- Were controls established for the management of solid and liquid waste? 9- To which sanitary landfill will the solid waste be transferred? What is the existing potable water management plan?
How is wastewater managed? 10- Is there an environmental license issued by SETENA, and if it does not exist, what is the justification, since it is a high-impact activity that involves waste management, licensed sales, noise, possible alteration of natural spaces, etc.? 12- How many people are estimated to arrive at the event according to the request made to them? 13- What mitigation measures were established to avoid noise pollution (contaminación sónica)? 14- Until what time was the event authorized? Will there be officials from the Ministry of Health at the end of the event supervising the authorized closing time? 15- We request a copy of the administrative case file (expediente) for this event of February 10. We request that the license or authorized licenses be revoked if there are no measures to control wastewater, noise, solid waste management, and if mechanisms are not established to soundproof the noise. 16- Do the INS policies for the event and the platforms (sic) exist?
If they do not exist, we request the revocation of what has been granted as enabling acts for safety reasons and to comply with what our legal system requires. 17- Will sales of meats and liquors, etc., authorized by this office, be made? Is there a liquor license (patente de licores)? 17- For the last mass events that were held, such as the one on January 20 for example, and for which our complaint has not yet been answered, we request that you indicate how many infraction reports (actas de infracciones) were made by the inspector and that you provide us with copies of them. We request that our questions be answered and that we be permitted access to the case file (expediente) since our group and associates have the right to know the details of the authorizations that entail environmental, social, and economic impacts to the community.” Said petition bears the corresponding receipt stamp from the Departamento de Patentes (see the filing brief and evidence provided); c. By means of official letter no. CMDC-PAT-2024-029 dated February 9, 2024, the acting head of Licensing (Patentes a. i.) of the Municipalidad de Cóbano provided the following response to the petitioner regarding the activity promoted by “WONDERLAND” on January 20, 2024: “1.
What type of enabling act did you grant for this event of January 20 of the current year? We request a copy of the permit. Answer: No license was granted for said event, nor was any permit requested for it by the organizers. 2. Are you supervising the event in the before, during, and after of it? In the event you do not attend the supervisions in the before, during, and after, we request that you justify to us why? Answer: In some cases we carry out inspection (fiscalización), but not in all cases do we have available resources for these inspections, especially if we do not have accompaniment from the Fuerza Pública since they also have scarce resources. 3. Has coordination been made with the local emergency committee for said event? Answer: These coordinations are not carried out with the Emergency Committee. 4. Was collaboration requested with the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Health?
Answer: No. 5. Will it be verified that the platforms (tarimas) and the stage have the authorizations of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos and the Bomberos de Costa Rica? Answer: No permit was granted. 6. Were liquor licenses (patentes de licores) and licenses for food sales established? Answer: No permit was granted. 7. What type of license (patente) was issued for the event of this January 20? 8. Answer: No permit was granted. 9. Will controls for the management of solid and liquid waste be established, or were they already established? Answer: No permit was granted. 10. To which sanitary landfill will the solid waste be transferred? What is the existing potable water management plan? How is wastewater managed? Answer: No permit was granted. 11. Is there an environmental license issued by SETENA, and if it does not exist, what is the justification? Answer: No permit was granted. 12.
How many people are estimated to arrive at the event according to the request made to them? Answer: It is not on record. No permit was granted. 13. What mitigation measures were established to avoid noise pollution (contaminación sónica)? Answer: No permit was granted. 14. Until what time was the event authorized? Will there be officials from the Municipality supervising the authorized closing time? Answer: No permit was granted. 15. We request a copy of the administrative case file (expediente) for this event of January 20. We request that the license or authorized licenses be revoked if there are no measures to control wastewater, noise, solid waste management, and if mechanisms are not established to soundproof the noise. Answer: It is not on record. No permit was granted. 16. Do the INS policies for the event and the platforms exist? If they do not exist, we request the revocation of what has been granted as enabling acts for safety reasons and to comply with what our legal system requires.
Answer: No permit was granted, therefore no documentation exists. 17. For the last mass event that was held and for which our complaint has not yet been answered, we request that you indicate how many infraction reports (actas de infracciones) were made by the inspector and that you provide us with copies of them. Answer: In this case, a report was drawn up after the event, which was forwarded to the Council. As indicated in another previously communicated document, this department did not have the resources to attend said inspection, therefore there was no issuance of reports (levantamiento de actas) by the inspectors during the event.” (see the filing brief and evidence provided); d. By means of official letter no. CMDC-PAT-2024-030 dated February 9, 2024, the acting head of Licensing (Patentes a. i.) of the Municipalidad de Cóbano provided the following response to the petitioner regarding the activity that was to be held on February 10 of the current year: “1.
What type of enabling act did you grant for this event of February 10 of the current year? We request a copy of the permit. Answer: No license was granted for said event, nor was any permit requested for it by the organizers. 2. Are you supervising the event in the before, during, and after of it? In the event you do not attend the supervisions in the before, during, and after, we request that you justify to us why? Answer: We have inspection (fiscalización) scheduled for that day, however, we only have two municipal inspectors, and we are not certain if the Ministry of Health will attend or if we will have the police resources to attend the event. 3. Has coordination been made with the local emergency committee for said event? Answer: These coordinations are not carried out with the Emergency Committee. 4. Was collaboration requested with the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Health?
Answer: The intendancy (intendencia) has requested collaboration. 5. Will it be verified that the platforms (tarimas) and the stage have the authorizations of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos and the Bomberos de Costa Rica? Answer: No permit was granted. 6. Were liquor licenses (patentes de licores) and licenses for food sales established? Answer: No permit was granted. 7. What type of license (patente) was issued for the event of this January 20? Answer: No permit was granted. 8. Will controls for the management of solid and liquid waste be established, or were they already established? Answer: No permit was granted. 9. To which sanitary landfill will the solid waste be transferred? What is the existing potable water management plan? How is wastewater managed? Answer: No permit was granted. 10. Is there an environmental license issued by SETENA, and if it does not exist, what is the justification?
Answer: No permit was granted. 11. How many people are estimated to arrive at the event according to the request made to them? Answer: It is not on record. No permit was granted. 12. What mitigation measures were established to avoid noise pollution (contaminación sónica)? Answer: No permit was granted. 13. Until what time was the event authorized? Will there be officials from the Municipality supervising the authorized closing time? Answer: No permit was granted. 14. Do we request a copy of the administrative case file (expediente) for this event of February 10? Answer: No permit was granted, therefore there is no case file to provide. 15. Do the INS policies for the event and the platforms exist? If they do not exist, we request the revocation of what has been granted as enabling acts for safety reasons and to comply with what our legal system requires. Answer: No permit was granted, therefore no documentation exists. 16.
Will sales of meat and liquors, etc., authorized by this office, be made? Do liquor licenses (patentes de licores) exist? Answer: As previously indicated, no permit was granted at the site. 17. For the last mass event that was held on January 20, for example, our complaint has not yet been answered; we request that you indicate how many infraction reports (actas de infracciones) were made by the inspector and that you provide us with copies of them. Answer: A response is attached via official letter PAT-029-2023.” (see the filing brief and evidence provided).
Actions of the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública).
a. On January 18, 2024, the petitioner appeared before the Delegación Policial de Cóbano with a petition regarding the mass events in Santiago de Cóbano, specifically, the mass events in Bello Horizonte and “WONDERLAN PRODUCTION.” In said note, she expressly requested the following: “Do you participate in controlling and supervising in any way in these mass events, whether individually as a ministry, or as part of the local emergency committee? Do you participate individually or as part of the local emergency committee for the event of this January 20 in the before, during, and after? Are controls carried out by this Ministry during and after each event like this one that will take place in Bello Horizonte, Manzanillo? Were you informed by the Concejo de Distrito or the Ministry of Health about this mass event of January 20?” Said petition bears the corresponding receipt stamp from the Delegación Policial de Cóbano (see the filing brief and evidence provided).
III.Unproven fact. The following fact is not deemed duly proven: Sole. That the authorities of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Public Security have provided a response to the petitions filed by the petitioner on January 8, 2024, January 18, 2024, and February 8, 2024 (the rulings).
IV.On the specific case. In the case at hand (sub lite), the petitioner states that on January 8, January 18, and February 8, all of 2024, she filed petitions before the respondent authorities in relation to the holding of certain mass events in Santiago de Cóbano. She maintains that such events are held without the requirements provided for that regulate temporary mass events and without environmental requirements, with the aggravating factor that the respondents have not provided her with any response. She requests the intervention of this Chamber (Sala).
In this regard, from the list of proven facts, it is demonstrated that the petitioner went before the authorities of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Municipalidad de Cóbano to file petitions of her interest. In that sense, from reading the transcriptions of what was petitioned, it is determined that she requested information related to the requirements and authorizations that the respondents must provide for the granting of permits in the holding of mass events, as well as the follow-up to these. The foregoing, because she considers that the respondents do not proactively intervene to exercise their controls and supervisions in safeguarding the right to health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Based on the foregoing, to facilitate the resolution of the matter, in the following recitals (considerandos), the lack of response by each respondent authority will be analyzed.
VI.Regarding the lack of response from the Municipalidad de Cóbano. On this particular point, it is demonstrated that, indeed, on the dates January 8, 2024, and February 8, 2024, the petitioner filed two petitions before the Departamento de Patentes of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, related to the events that were to be held in Bello Horizonte and the one called “MUDRA PRODUCTIONS.” It is verified that said requests bear the corresponding receipt stamp from the Departamento de Patentes.
Subsequently, it is on record that through official letters no. CMDC-PAT-2024-029 and no. CMDC-PAT-2024-030, both dated February 9, 2024, the acting head of Licensing (Patentes a. i.) of the Municipalidad de Cóbano provided a response and addressed what was petitioned by the protected party (amparada). It is observed that the petitioner herself, in her filing brief, provides the response granted, demonstrating that such official letters were duly notified to her.
Thus, the Chamber observes that, prior to the filing of this proceeding, the authorities of the respondent municipality answered and formally notified the petitioner of the response to the petitions filed. Hence, any injury to her fundamental rights is ruled out. Now, if the petitioner disagrees with the response received, that is outside the competence of this jurisdiction, for which reason they must raise the corresponding matter before the respondent authority itself. Consequently, the proper course is to dismiss this aspect of the recourse (recurso), as is hereby ordered.
In this regard, first, it is clear from the report rendered under oath by the Minister of Public Security that it stated the appellant had not filed any request related to the holding of mass events; however, contrary to that, the evidence provided by the petitioner in the filing brief exists, which is the request of January 18, 2024, submitted by the claimant before the Cóbano Police Delegation, through which she requested information related to the events to be held in Bello Horizonte and by “WONDERLAN PRODUCTION”. This request bears the received stamp of the Cóbano Police Delegation. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that the authorities of the Ministry of Public Security have not formally answered the appellant’s request filed since January 18, 2024.
Thus, what was alleged by the appellant regarding the lack of response is considered proven. Consequently, since the period of ten business days provided for in Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional has been widely exceeded, it is considered that constitutional articles 27 and 30 have been violated, which guarantee the right of every person to address any public official or official entity to obtain information on any matter, subject, or information of a public nature, with the purpose of allowing those administered to oversee the correct performance of the various public entities in the exercise of their administrative function.
Under this set of circumstances, it is necessary to declare the appeal partially granted, with the consequences specified in the operative part of this judgment.
VIII.On the lack of response from the Ministry of Health. On this matter, it is documented that on the dates of January 8, 2024, January 18, 2024, and February 8, 2024, the appellant filed three requests before the Peninsular Health Governing Area of the Ministry of Health, related to the events to be held by “DEEP HOUSE BIBLE”, “WONDERLAND”, “MUDRA PRODUCTIONS”, and in Bello Horizonte.
Now, although the authorities of the Ministry of Health reported on all the actions they have taken to comply with the requirements established for authorizing the holding of mass events; as well as the actions taken to follow up on said events through inspections or food seizures when appropriate, the fact is that there is no record that they have proceeded to formally answer the requests filed by the claimant. Observe that the responses do not correspond to the inquiries alleged by the appellant; since those were filed by [Nombre3], that is, they involve a different person and different requests from those formulated by the petitioner.
Thus, what was alleged by the appellant regarding the lack of response is considered proven. Consequently, since the period of ten business days provided for in Article 32 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional has been widely exceeded, it is considered that constitutional articles 27 and 30 have been violated, which guarantee the right of every person to address any public official or official entity to obtain information on any matter, subject, or information of a public nature, with the purpose of allowing those administered to oversee the correct performance of the various public entities in the exercise of their administrative function.
Under this set of circumstances, it is necessary to declare the appeal partially granted, with the consequences specified in the operative part of this judgment.
IX.Documentation provided to the file. The appellant is warned that if any paper document has been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional 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. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial”, approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The appeal is partially granted only with respect to the authorities of the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Health. Mario Zamora Cordero, in his capacity as Minister of Public Security, or whoever holds that position, is ordered to issue the pertinent orders and carry out all actions within the scope of his competence so that, within a period of TEN DAYS, counted from the notification of this judgment, the petitioner is formally responded to regarding the request filed on January 18, 2024, as applicable, and is notified accordingly. Likewise, Mary Denissa Munive Angermüller, in her capacity as Minister, and Juan Gabriel Ledezma Acevedo, in his capacity as director of the Peninsular Health Governing Area, both of the Ministry of Health, or whoever holds those positions, are ordered to issue the pertinent orders and carry out all actions within the scope of their competence so that, within a period of TEN DAYS, counted from the notification of this judgment, the petitioner is formally responded to regarding the requests filed on January 8, 2024, January 18, 2024, and February 8, 2024, as applicable, and is notified accordingly.
The foregoing is ordered with the warning to reserve sensitive and restricted-access data, protected by the Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales and other relevant regulations, if any. The respondent authority is warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, 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 enforce it, provided the crime is not more severely penalized. The State is ordered 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 judgment in administrative litigation proceedings. Regarding the authorities of the Municipality of Cóbano, the appeal is dismissed. Notify.- Fernando Castillo V.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ana Cristina Fernandez A.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
*M1CTLZ6ELQQ61*
*240093740007CO* SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veintiuno de junio de dos mil veinticuatro .
Recurso de amparo interpuesto por REBECA PEREZ PEREZ, cédula de identidad CED1, contra el MINISTERIO DE SALUD, EL MINISTERIO DE SEGURIDAD PUBLICA Y LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE COBANO.
Resultando:
Redacta la Magistrada Garro Vargas; y,
Considerando:
I.Objeto del recurso. La recurrente manifiesta que los días 8 de enero, 18 de enero y 8 de febrero, todos del 2024, ha presentado gestiones ante las autoridades recurridas en relaciones con la realización de unos eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano. Sostiene que tales eventos se realizan sin los requisitos previstos que regulan los eventos masivos temporales y sin las exigencias ambientales, con el agravante de que los recurridos no le han brindado alguna respuesta. Solicita la intervención de la Sala.
II.Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
Actuaciones del Ministerio de Salud.
a. El 8 de enero de 2024, la recurrente se apersonó ante el Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular con una gestión por los eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano, específicamente, el evento que se hará por “DEEP HOUSE BIBLE” y “WONDERLAND”. En dicha nota solicitó expresamente lo siguiente: “1- Pedimos se nos señale cuáles requisitos de los establecidos en la norma 54 del CAPÍTULO IX. DE LAS AUTORIZACIONES SANITARIAS PARA EVENTOS TEMPORALES DE CONCENTRACION MASIVA DE PERSONAS previstas en Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, otorgados por el Ministerio de Salud previstos, se han cumplido. Pedimos se nos permita el expediente administrativo para fotocopiarlo. 2- ¿Se han cumplido todas y cada una de las estipulaciones de los numerales 55 y siguientes del Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas? 3- ¿Están ustedes supervisando el antes, el durante y el después del evento conforme el numeral 60 del Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas?
Pedimos se nos aporten las actas de lo encontrado y las ordenes sanitarias giradas. Pedimos se nos aporte el nombre de los funcionarios que han participado en las supervisiones. En caso de no asistir a las supervisiones el antes, el durante y el después, pedimos ¿se nos justifique el por qué? 4- ¿Se ha coordinado con la comisión local de emergencias? De no ser así, ¿pedimos se nos explique el por qué? 5- ¿Se verificó que las tarimas y el escenario tenían las autorizaciones del Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos? 6- ¿Existen las autorizaciones del Cuerpo de Bomberos? 7- ¿Se establecieron los controles para el manejo de residuos sólidos y líquidos? ¿A qué relleno sanitario serán trasladados los residuos sólidos? ¿Cuál es el plan de manejo de agua potable existente? ¿Cómo se manejan las aguas residuales? 8- Existe licencia ambiental emitida por SETENA y sino existe, ¿cuál es la justificación? 9- ¿Se participó junto con funcionarios de la Fuerza Pública en la supervisión del evento? 10- ¿Cuántas personas se estima que lleguen al evento según la petición que les han realizado? 11- ¿Existirán ventas de comidas y bebidas y licor? 12- ¿Qué medidas de mitigación se establecieron para evitar la contaminación sónica? 13- ¿Hasta qué hora se autorizó el evento?
¿Existirán funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud al finalizar el evento fiscalizando la hora de cierre autorizado? Pedimos se nos contesten las preguntas y se nos permita tener el acceso al expediente pues nuestro grupo y asociados tienen derecho a conocer los pormenores de las autorizaciones que implican impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos a la comunidad”. Dicha gestión cuenta con el recibido correspondiente (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada); b. El 18 de enero de 2024, la recurrente se apersonó ante el Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular con una gestión por los eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano, específicamente, los eventos masivos en Bello Horizonte y “WONDERLAN PRODUCTION”. En dicha nota solicitó expresamente lo siguiente: “1- Pedimos se nos señale ¿cuáles requisitos de los establecidos en la norma 54 del CAPÍTULO IX. DE LAS AUTORIZACIONES SANITARIAS PARA EVENTOS TEMPORALES DE CONCENTRACION MASIVA DE PERSONAS previstos en Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, se han otorgado por el Ministerio de Salud? 2- ¿para el otorgamiento de permisos se han cumplido todas y cada una de las estipulaciones de los numerales 55 y siguientes del Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas? 3- ¿Estarán ustedes supervisando el antes, el durante y el después del evento conforme el numeral 60 del Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas?
Para luego del evento, pedimos se nos aporten las actas de lo encontrado y las ordenes sanitarias giradas. Pedimos se nos aporte el nombre de los funcionarios que han participado en las supervisiones. En caso de no asistir a las supervisiones del antes, el durante y el después, pedimos ¿se nos justifique el por qué? Independientemente de si existe o el uso de pólvora, es un evento masivo como el descrito en las normas citadas. 4- ¿Se coordinó con la comisión local de emergencias? De no ser así, ¿pedimos se nos explique el por qué? 5- ¿Se hizo llamamiento para la activación de la comisión local de emergencia? 6- ¿Se va a verificar que las tarimas y el escenario tengan las autorizaciones del Colegio de lngenieros y Arquitectos? ¿Existieron las autorizaciones del Cuerpo de Bomberos para sitios de seguridad en caso de eventos extremos y para evitar daños en caso de incendios? 7- ¿Se señalizaron los sitios seguros para las personas?
De no existir esta información pedimos se nos justifique por qué no se pidió. 8- ¿Se establecieron los controles para el manejo de residuos sólidos y líquidos? ¿A qué relleno sanitario serán trasladados los residuos sólidos? ¿Cuál es el plan de manejo de agua potable existente? ¿Cómo se manejarán las aguas residuales? 9- Existe licencia ambiental emitida por SETENA y sino existe, ¿cuál es la justificación? 10- ¿Se participará junto con funcionarios de la Fuerza Pública en la supervisión del evento? 11- ¿Cuántas personas llegarán al evento según la petición que les han realizado? 12- ¿Existirán ventas de comidas y bebidas y licor?, 13- ¿Qué medidas de salubridad se pedirá para las y los cocineros aunque sea de puestos de carnes? 14- ¿Qué medidas de mitigación se establecieron para evitar la contaminación sónica? 15- ¿Qué parámetros ambientales y de salud toman en cuenta? 16- ¿Hasta qué hora se autorizó el evento? 17- ¿Sino existe un personaI para verificar el antes el durante y el después, por qué se permite un evento de este tipo masivo?
Pedimos que sino se garantiza la participación de los funcionarios respectivos se revoquen los permisos otorgados pues nadie estaría controlando ni fiscalizando aglomeraciones considerables de personas. 18- ¿Qué se entiende por un visto bueno emitido por ustedes? tal y como se ha señalado para eventos anteriores. ¿Qué implicaciones y controles institucionales tiene un visto bueno? 19- Sino se mantendrá un control del evento en el antes, durante y el después, pedimos no se otorgue ningún permiso si es que el mismo no se ha autorizado al día de hoy. 20- ¿Existen las pólizas del INS para el evento y las tarinas? De no existir las mismas pedimos la revocatoria de lo otorgado como actos habilitadores por motivos de seguridad y para cumplir con lo que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Al menos emítase orden sanitaria de suspender el evento a la Municipalidad y al gestionante del evento. 21- Para el evento masivo del 6 de enero del año en curso en SANTIAGO de COBANO llegaron más de 600 personas conforme se ha externado desde el Concejo de Distrito de Cóbano en sesión del Concejo, entonces es claro que los eventos masivos existen y deben ser controlados o no se deben dar permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento.
Pedimos se nos contesten las preguntas y se nos permita tener el acceso al expediente pues nuestro grupo y asociados tienen derecho a conocer los pormenores de las autorizaciones que implican impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos a la comunidad”. Dicha gestión cuenta con el recibido correspondiente (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada); c. El 8 de febrero de 2024, la recurrente se apersonó ante el Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular con una gestión por los eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano, específicamente, el evento masivo organizado por “NUDRA PRODUCTIONS”. En dicha nota solicitó expresamente lo siguiente: “1- Pedimos se nos señale ¿cuáles requisitos de los establecidos en la norma 54 del CAPÍTULO IX. DE LAS AUTORIZACIONES SANITARIAS PARA EVENTOS TEMPORALES DE CONCENTRACION MASIVA DE PERSONAS previstos en Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas, se han otorgado por el Ministerio de Salud? 2- ¿para el otorgamiento de permisos se han cumplido todas y cada una de las estipulaciones de los numerales 55 y siguientes del Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas? 3- ¿Estarán ustedes supervisando el antes, el durante y el después del evento conforme el numeral 60 del Reglamento general para permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento, permisos de habilitación y autorización para eventos temporales de concentración masiva de personas?
Para luego del evento, pedimos se nos aporten las actas de lo encontrado y las ordenes sanitarias giradas. Pedimos se nos aporte el nombre de los funcionarios que han participado en las supervisiones. En caso de no asistir a las supervisiones del antes, el durante y el después, pedimos ¿se nos justifique el por qué? Independientemente de si existe o el uso de pólvora, es un evento masivo como el descrito en las normas citadas. 4- ¿Se coordinó con la comisión local de emergencias? De no ser así, ¿pedimos se nos explique el por qué? 5- ¿Se hizo llamamiento para la activación de la comisión local de emergencia? 6- ¿Se va a verificar que las tarimas y el escenario tengan las autorizaciones del Colegio de lngenieros y Arquitectos? ¿Existieron las autorizaciones del Cuerpo de Bomberos para sitios de seguridad en caso de eventos extremos y para evitar daños en caso de incendios? 7- ¿Se señalizaron los sitios seguros para las personas?
De no existir esta información pedimos se nos justifique por qué no se pidió. 8- ¿Se establecieron los controles para el manejo de residuos sólidos y líquidos? ¿A qué relleno sanitario serán trasladados los residuos sólidos? ¿Cuál es el plan de manejo de agua potable existente? ¿Cómo se manejarán las aguas residuales? 9- Existe licencia ambiental emitida por SETENA y sino existe, ¿cuál es la justificación? 10- ¿Se participará junto con funcionarios de la Fuerza Pública en la supervisión del evento? 11- ¿Cuántas personas llegarán al evento según la petición que les han realizado? 12- ¿Existirán ventas de comidas y bebidas y licor?, 13- ¿Qué medidas de salubridad se pedirá para las y los cocineros aunque sea de puestos de carnes? 14- ¿Qué medidas de mitigación se establecieron para evitar la contaminación sónica? 15- ¿Qué parámetros ambientales y de salud toman en cuenta? 16- ¿Hasta qué hora se autorizó el evento? 17- ¿Sino existe un personaI para verificar el antes el durante y el después, por qué se permite un evento de este tipo masivo?
Pedimos que sino se garantiza la participación de los funcionarios respectivos se revoquen los permisos otorgados pues nadie estaría controlando ni fiscalizando aglomeraciones considerables de personas. 18- ¿Qué se entiende por un visto bueno emitido por ustedes? tal y como se ha señalado para eventos anteriores. ¿Qué implicaciones y controles institucionales tiene un visto bueno? 19- Sino se mantendrá un control del evento en el antes, durante y el después, pedimos no se otorgue ningún permiso si es que el mismo no se ha autorizado al día de hoy. 20- ¿Existen las pólizas del INS para el evento y las tarinas? De no existir las mismas pedimos la revocatoria de lo otorgado como actos habilitadores por motivos de seguridad y para cumplir con lo que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Al menos emítase orden sanitaria de suspender el evento a la Municipalidad y al gestionante del evento. 21- Para el evento masivo del 6 de enero y el del 20 de enero del año en curso ambos en COBANO llegaron más de 600 personas, entonces es claro que los eventos masivo existen y deben ser controlados o no se deben dar permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento.
Pedimos se nos contesten las preguntas y se nos permita tener el acceso al expediente pues nuestro grupo y asociados tienen derecho a conocer los pormenores de las autorizaciones que implican impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos a la comunidad”. Dicha gestión cuenta con el recibido correspondiente (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada).
Actuaciones de la Municipalidad de Cóbano.
a. El 8 de enero de 2024, la recurrente se apersonó ante la Municipalidad de Cóbano con una gestión a por los eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano, específicamente, el evento masivo en Bello Horizonte. En dicha nota solicitó expresamente lo siguiente: “1- ¿Qué tipo de acto habilitador otorgaron para este acto del 20 de enero en curso? Pedimos una copia del mismo. 2- ¿Están ustedes supervisando el antes, el durante y el después del mismo. En caso de no asistir a las supervisiones el antes, el durante y el después, pedimos ¿se nos justifique el por qué? 3- ¿Se ha coordinado con la comisión local de emergencias para dicho evento? 4- ¿Se pidió colaboración con el Ministerio de Seguridad y el Ministerio de Salud? 5- ¿Se verificó que las tarimas y el escenario tenían las autorizaciones del Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos? 6- ¿Se establecieron patentes de licores y para ventas de comidas? 7- ¿Qué tipo de patente se emitió para el evento de este 20 de enero? 8- ¿Se establecieron los controles para el manejo de residuos sólidos y líquidos? 9- ¿A qué relleno sanitario serán trasladados los residuos sólidos?
¿Cuál es el plan de manejo de agua potable existente? ¿Cómo se manejan las aguas residuales? 10- Existe licencia ambiental emitida por SETENA y sino existe, ¿cuál es la justificación? 12- ¿Cuántas personas se estima que lleguen al evento según la petición que les han realizado? 13- ¿Qué medidas de mitigación se establecieron para evitar la contaminación sónica? 14- ¿Hasta qué hora se autorizó el evento? ¿Existirán funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud al finalizar el evento fiscalizando la hora de cierre autorizado? 15- Pedimos una copia del expediente administrativo de este evento del 20 de enero. Pedimos se revoque la patente o patentes autorizadas sino existen medidas para controlar, aguas residuales, el ruido, el manejo de residuos sólidos y si no se establecen mecanismos para insonorizar el ruido. 16- Existen las pólizas del INS para el evento y las tarinas (sic)? De no existir las mismas pedimos la revocatoria de lo otorgado como actos habilitadores por motivos de seguridad y para cumplir con lo que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. 17- Para el evento masivo pasado que se realizó y que aún no nos han contestado nuestra denuncia, pedimos se nos señalen cuántas actas de infracciones se realizaron por parte del inspector y que se nos aporten copias de las mismas.
Pedimos se nos contesten las preguntas y se nos permita tener el acceso al expediente pues nuestro grupo y asociados tienen derecho a conocer los pormenores de las autorizaciones que implican impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos a la comunidad”. Dicha gestión cuenta con el sello de recibido correspondiente por el Departamento de Patentes (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada); b. El 8 de febrero de 2024, la recurrente se apersonó ante la Municipalidad de Cóbano con una gestión por los eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano, específicamente, el evento masivo denominado “MUDRA PRODUCTIONS”. En dicha nota solicitó expresamente lo siguiente: “1- ¿Qué tipo de acto habilitador otorgaron para este acto del 10 de en curso? Pedimos una copia del mismo. 2- ¿Están ustedes supervisando el antes, el durante y el después del mismo. En caso de no asistir a las supervisiones el antes, el durante y el después, pedimos ¿se nos justifique el por qué? 3- ¿Se ha coordinado con la comisión local de emergencias para dicho evento? 4- ¿Se pidió colaboración con el Ministerio de Seguridad y el Ministerio de Salud? 5- ¿Se verificará que las tarimas y el escenario tenían las autorizaciones del Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos y de Bomberos de Costa Rica? 6- ¿Se establecieron patentes de licores y para ventas de comidas? 7- ¿Qué tipo de patente se emitió para el evento de este 10 de febrero? 8- ¿Se establecieron los controles para el manejo de residuos sólidos y líquidos? 9- ¿A qué relleno sanitario serán trasladados los residuos sólidos?
¿Cuál es el plan de manejo de agua potable existente? ¿Cómo se manejan las aguas residuales? 10- Existe licencia ambiental emitida por SETENA y sino existe, ¿cuál es la justificación pues es una actividad de alto impacto que involucra manejo de residuos, ventas patentes, ruido, alteración posible de espacios naturales etc? 12- ¿Cuántas personas se estima que lleguen al evento según la petición que les han realizado? 13- ¿Qué medidas de mitigación se establecieron para evitar la contaminación sónica? 14- ¿Hasta qué hora se autorizó el evento? ¿Existirán funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud al finalizar el evento fiscalizando la hora de cierre autorizado? 15- Pedimos una copia del expediente administrativo de este evento del 10 de febrero. Pedimos se revoque la patente o patentes autorizadas sino existen medidas para controlar, aguas residuales, el ruido, el manejo de residuos sólidos y si no se establecen mecanismos para insonorizar el ruido. 16- Existen las pólizas del INS para el evento y las tarinas (sic)?
De no existir las mismas pedimos la revocatoria de lo otorgado como actos habilitadores por motivos de seguridad y para cumplir con lo que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. 17- ¿Se harán ventas de carnes y licores etc autorizadas por esta oficina? ¿Existe patente de licores? 17- Para el evento masivo pasado que se realizaron, como el del 20 de enero por ejemplo y que aún no nos han contestado nuestra denuncia, pedimos se nos señalen cuántas actas de infracciones se realizaron por parte del inspector y que se nos aporten copias de las mismas. Pedimos se nos contesten las preguntas y se nos permita tener el acceso al expediente pues nuestro grupo y asociados tienen derecho a conocer los pormenores de las autorizaciones que implican impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos a la comunidad”. Dicha gestión cuenta con el sello de recibido correspondiente por el Departamento de Patentes (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada); c. Mediante oficio nro. CMDC-PAT-2024-029 del 9 de febrero de 2024, el encargado de Patentes a. i. de la Municipalidad de Cóbano brindó la siguiente respuesta a la recurrente respecto a la actividad promovida por “WONDERLAND” el 20 de enero de 2024: “1.
¿Qué tipo de acto habilitador otorgaron para este acto del 20 de enero en curso? Pedimos una copia del permiso. Respuesta: No se otorgó ninguna licencia para dicho evento, ni se solicitó ningún permiso para el mismo por parte de los organizadores. 2. ¿Están ustedes supervisando el evento en el antes, el durante y el después del mismo? En caso de no asistir a las supervisiones en el antes, el durante y el después, pedimos ¿se nos justifique por qué? Respuesta: En algunos casos realizamos fiscalización, pero no en todos los casos contamos con recurso disponible para estas inspecciones, sobre todo si no tenemos acompañamiento de la fuerza pública ya que ellos también cuentan con recursos escasos 3. ¿Se ha coordinado con la comisión local de emergencias para dicho evento? Respuesta: No se realizan estas coordinaciones con la Comisión de Emergencias. 4. ¿Se pidió colaboración con el Ministerio de Seguridad y el Ministerio de Salud?
Respuesta: No 5. ¿se verificará que las tarimas y el escenario tengan las autorizaciones del Colegio de lngenieros y Arquitectos y de Bomberos de Costa Rica? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 6. ¿se establecieron patentes de licores y para ventas de comidas? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 7. ¿Qué tipo de patente se emitió para el evento de este 20 de enero? 8. Respuesta No se otorgó ningún permiso. 9. ¿se establecerán, o se establecieron ya los controles para el manejo de residuos sólidos y líquidos? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 10. ¿A qué relleno sanitario serán trasladados los residuos sólidos? ¿cuál es el plan de manejo de agua potable existente? ¿Cómo se manejan las aguas residuales? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 11. Existe licencia ambiental emitida por SETENA y si no existe, ¿cuál es la justificación? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 12. ¿Cuántas personas se estima que lleguen al evento según la petición que les han realizado?
Respuesta: No consta, No se otorgó ningún permiso. 13. ¿Qué medidas de mitigación se establecieron para evitar la contaminación sónica? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 14. ¿Hasta qué hora se autorizó el evento? ¿Existirán funcionarios de la Municipalidad fiscalizando la hora de cierre autorizado? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 15. Pedimos una copia del expediente administrativo de este evento del 20 de enero. Pedimos se revoque la patente o patentes autorizadas sino existen medidas para controlar, aguas residuales, el ruido, el manejo de residuos sólidos y si no se establecen mecanismos para insonorizar el ruido. Respuesta: No consta no se otorgó ningún permiso. 16. ¿Existen las pólizas del INS para el evento y las tarinas? De no existir las mismas pedimos la revocatoria de lo otorgado como actos habilitadores por motivos de seguridad y para cumplir con lo que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico.
Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso por lo que no existe ninguna documentación. 17.Para el evento masivo pasado que se realizó y que aún no nos han contestado nuestra denuncia, pedimos se nos señalen cuántas actas de infracciones se realizaron por parte del inspector y que se nos aporten copias de las mismas. Respuesta: En este caso se levantó un informe posterior al evento el cual fue trasladado al Concejo, como se indicó en otro documento comunicado anteriormente, este departamento no contaba con el recurso para atender dicha inspección por lo tanto no hubo levantamiento de actas por parte de los inspectores durante el evento” (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada); d. Mediante oficio nro. CMDC-PAT-2024-030 del 9 de febrero de 2024, el encargado de Patentes a. i. de la Municipalidad de Cóbano brindó la siguiente respuesta a la recurrente respecto a la actividad que se realizara el 10 de febrero del año en curso: “1.
¿Qué tipo de acto habilitador otorgaron para este acto del 10 de febrero en curso? Pedimos una copia del permiso. Respuesta: No se otorgó ninguna licencia para dicho evento, ni se solicitó ningún permiso para el mismo por parte de los organizadores. 2. ¿Están ustedes supervisando el evento en el antes, el durante y el después del mismo? En caso de no asistir a las supervisiones en el antes, el durante y el después, pedimos ¿se nos justifique por qué? Respuesta: Tenemos fiscalización para ese día, no obstante, solo contamos con dos inspectores municipales, no tenemos claridad si Ministerio de Salud asistirá o si contaremos con el recurso policial para atender el evento. 3. ¿Se ha coordinado con la comisión local de emergencias para dicho evento? Respuesta: No se realizan estas coordinaciones con la Comisión de Emergencias. 4. ¿Se pidió colaboración con el Ministerio de Seguridad y el Ministerio de Salud?
Respuesta: La intendencia ha solicitado la colaboración. 5. ¿se verificará que las tarimas y el escenario tengan las autorizaciones del Colegio de lngenieros y Arquitectos y de Bomberos de Costa Rica? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 6. ¿se establecieron patentes de licores y para ventas de comidas? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 7. ¿Qué tipo de patente se emitió para el evento de este 20 de enero? Respuesta No se otorgó ningún permiso. 8. ¿se establecerán, o se establecieron ya los controles para el manejo de residuos sólidos y líquidos? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 9. ¿A qué relleno sanitario serán trasladados los residuos sólidos? ¿cuál es el plan de manejo de agua potable existente? ¿Cómo se manejan las aguas residuales? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 10. Existe licencia ambiental emitida por SETENA y si no existe, ¿cuál es la justificación? Respuesta No se otorgó ningún permiso. 11.
¿Cuántas personas se estima que lleguen al evento según la petición que les han realizado? Respuesta: No consta, No se otorgó ningún permiso. 12. ¿Qué medidas de mitigación se establecieron para evitar la contaminación sónica? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 13. ¿Hasta qué hora se autorizó el evento? ¿Existirán funcionarios de la Municipalidad fiscalizando la hora de cierre autorizado? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso. 14. ¿Pedimos copia del Expediente administrativo de este evento del 10 de febrero? Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso por lo cual no hay expediente que aportar. 15. ¿Existen las pólizas del INS para el evento y las tarinas? De no existir las mismas pedimos la revocatoria de lo otorgado como actos habilitadores por motivos de seguridad y para cumplir con lo que exige nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Respuesta: No se otorgó ningún permiso por lo que no existe ninguna documentación. 16.
¿Se harán ventas de carne y licores etx autorizadas por esta oficina? ¿Existen patentes de licores? Respuesta: como se indicó anteriormente No se otorgó ningún permiso en el sitio. 17.Para el evento masivo pasado que se realizó el 20 de enero por ejemplo aún no nos han contestado nuestra denuncia, pedimos se nos señalen cuántas actas de infracciones se realizaron por parte del inspector y que se nos aporten copias de las mismas. Respuesta: Se adjunta respuesta mediante oficio PAT-029-2023” (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada).
Actuaciones del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública.
a. El 18 de enero de 2024, la recurrente se apersonó ante la Delegación Policial de Cóbano con una gestión por los eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano, específicamente, los eventos masivos en Bello Horizonte y “WONDERLAN PRODUCTION”. En dicha nota solicitó expresamente lo siguiente: “¿Participan ustedes controlando y fiscalizando de alguna manera en estos eventos masivos, sea de forma individual como ministerio, o como parte de la comisión local de emergencias? ¿Participan ustedes de forma individual o como parte de la comisión local de emergencias para el evento de este 20 de enero en el antes, durante y el después? ¿Se hacen controles por parte de este Ministerio durante y después de cada evento como este que se realizará en Bello Horizonte, Manzanillo? ¿Se les informó a ustedes por parte del Concejo de Distrito o el Ministerio de Salud sobre este evento masivo del 20 de enero?”. Dicha gestión cuenta con el sello de recibido correspondiente por la Delegación Policial de Cóbano (ver escrito de interposición y prueba aportada).
III.Hecho no probado. No se estima como debidamente demostrado el siguiente hecho: Único. Que las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud y del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública le hayan dado respuesta a las gestiones planteadas por la recurrente el 8 de enero de 2024, el 18 de enero de 2024 y el 8 de febrero de 2024 (los autos).
IV.Sobre el caso concreto. En el sub lite, la recurrente manifiesta que los días 8 de enero, 18 de enero y 8 de febrero, todos del 2024, ha presentado gestiones ante las autoridades recurridas en relaciones con la realización de unos eventos masivos en Santiago de Cóbano. Sostiene que tales eventos se realizan sin los requisitos previstos que regulan los eventos masivos temporales y sin las exigencias ambientales, con el agravante de que los recurridos no le han brindado alguna respuesta. Solicita la intervención de la Sala.
Al respecto, del elenco de hechos probados se tiene por demostrado que la recurrente acudió ante las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud, del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y de la Municipalidad de Cóbano a formular gestiones de su interés. En ese sentido, de la lectura de las transcripciones de lo peticionado se determina que pidió información relacionada con los requerimientos y autorizaciones que deben brindar los recurridos para el otorgamiento de permisos en la celebración de eventos masivos; así como también el seguimiento a estos. Lo anterior, pues considera que los accionados no intervienen proactivamente para ejercer sus controles y fiscalizaciones en resguardo al derecho a la salud y al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. A partir de lo expuesto, para facilitar la resolución del asunto, en los siguientes considerandos se procederá a analizar la falta de respuesta por cada autoridad accionada.
VI.Sobre la falta de respuesta por parte de la Municipalidad de Cóbano. Sobre el particular, se tiene por demostrado que, efectivamente, en las fechas 8 de enero de 2024 y 8 de febrero de 2024 la recurrente planteó dos gestiones ante el Departamento de Patentes de la Municipalidad de Cóbano, relacionadas con los eventos que se iban a realizar en Bello Horizonte y el denominado “MUDRA PRODUCTIONS”. Se verifica que dichas solicitudes cuentan con el sello de recibido correspondiente por el Departamento de Patentes.
Posteriormente, consta que a través de los oficios nro. CMDC-PAT-2024-029 y nro. CMDC-PAT-2024-030, ambos del 9 de febrero de 2024, el encargado de Patentes a. i. de la Municipalidad de Cóbano brindó respuesta y atendió lo peticionado por la amparada. Véase que la propia recurrente en su escrito de interposición aporta la respuesta otorgada, demostrando que tales oficios le fueron debidamente notificados.
Así las cosas, la Sala observa que, previo a la interposición de este proceso, las autoridades del municipio accionado contestaron y notificaron formalmente a la recurrente la respuesta a las gestiones planteadas. De ahí que se descarta alguna lesión a sus derechos fundamentales. Ahora bien, si la parte recurrente se encuentra disconforme con la respuesta recibida, eso es ajeno a la competencia de esta jurisdicción, razón por la cual, deberán plantear lo correspondiente ante la propia autoridad recurrida. En consecuencia, lo procedente es desestimar este extremo del recurso, como en efecto se ordena.
VII.Sobre la falta de respuesta por parte del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. Al respecto, en primer lugar, se desprende que el informe rendido bajo juramento por parte del ministro de Seguridad Pública se indicó que la recurrente no había planteado alguna gestión relacionada con la realización de eventos masivos; sin embargo, contrario a ello, consta la prueba aportada por la amparada en el escrito de interposición, que es la gestión del 18 de enero de 2024 presentada por la accionante ante la Delegación Policial de Cóbano, por medio de la cual solicitó información relacionada con los eventos que se iban a realizar en Bello Horizonte y “WONDERLAN PRODUCTION”. Tal gestión cuenta con el sello de recibido por la Delegación Policial de Cóbano. No obstante, se ha demostrado que las autoridades del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública hayan contestado formalmente a la recurrente la gestión formulada desde el 18 de enero de 2024.
Así las cosas, se tiene por acreditado lo alegado por la recurrente en cuanto a la falta de respuesta. En consecuencia, como el plazo de diez días hábiles contemplado en el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional ha sido ampliamente sobrepasado, se tiene por transgredidos los numerales 27 y 30 constitucionales, los cuales garantizan el derecho de toda persona de dirigirse ante cualquier funcionario público o entidad oficial para obtener información sobre cualquier asunto, materia o información de naturaleza pública, con la finalidad de permitir a los administrados fiscalizar el correcto desempeño de los diversos entes públicos en el ejercicio de la función administrativa.
Bajo este orden de circunstancias se impone declarar con lugar el recurso, con las consecuencias que se especifican en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
VIII.Sobre la falta de respuesta por parte del Ministerio de Salud. Sobre el particular, consta que en las fechas 8 de enero de 2024, 18 de enero de 2024 y 8 de febrero de 2024 la recurrente planteó tres gestiones ante el Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular del Ministerio de Salud, relacionadas con los eventos que se iban a realizar por “DEEP HOUSE BIBLE”, “WONDERLAND”, “MUDRA PRODUCTIONS” y en Bello Horizonte.
Ahora, si bien las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud informaron sobre todas las actuaciones que han realizado para cumplir con los requerimientos establecidos para la autorización de la celebración de los eventos masivos; así como también de las acciones efectuadas para dar un seguimiento a dichos eventos a través de inspecciones o de decomiso de alimentos cuando así proceda, lo cierto es que no consta que hayan procedido a contestar formalmente las gestiones interpuestas por la accionante. Véase que las respuestas no corresponden a las consultas alegadas por la recurrente; puesto que esas fueron planteadas por [Nombre3] , es decir, se trata de una persona diferente y de peticiones distintas a las formuladas por la amparada.
Así las cosas, se tiene por acreditado lo alegado por la recurrente en cuanto a la falta de respuesta. En consecuencia, como el plazo de diez días hábiles contemplado en el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional ha sido ampliamente sobrepasado, se tiene por transgredidos los numerales 27 y 30 constitucionales, los cuales garantizan el derecho de toda persona de dirigirse ante cualquier funcionario público o entidad oficial para obtener información sobre cualquier asunto, materia o información de naturaleza pública, con la finalidad de permitir a los administrados fiscalizar el correcto desempeño de los diversos entes públicos en el ejercicio de la función administrativa.
Bajo este orden de circunstancias se impone declarar con lugar el recurso, con las consecuencias que se especifican en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
IX.Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a la parte recurrente que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, éstos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso solamente respecto a las autoridades del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y del Ministerio de Salud. Se ordena a Mario Zamora Cordero, en su condición de ministro de Seguridad Pública, o a quien ocupe ese cargo, que giren las órdenes pertinentes y lleven a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de su competencia para que, dentro del plazo de DIEZ DÍAS, contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se le conteste formalmente a la amparada la gestión planteada el 18 de enero de 2024, según corresponda y se le notifique lo pertinente. Asimismo, se le ordena a Mary Denissa Munive Angermüller, en su condición de ministra, y a Juan Gabriel Ledezma Acevedo, en su condición de director del Área Rectora de Salud Peninsular, ambos del Ministerio de Salud, o a quienes ocupen esos cargos, que giren las órdenes pertinentes y lleven a cabo todas las actuaciones que estén dentro del ámbito de su competencia para que, dentro del plazo de DIEZ DÍAS, contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se le conteste formalmente a la amparada las gestiones planteadas el 8 de enero de 2024, el 18 de enero de 2024 y el 8 de febrero de 2024 según corresponda y se le notifique lo pertinente.
Lo anterior se dispone con la advertencia de reservar los datos sensibles y de acceso restringido, protegidos por la Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales y demás normativa atinente, en caso de haberlos. Se advierte a la autoridad recurrida 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 base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquida en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. En cuanto a las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Cóbano se desestima el recurso. Notifíquese.- Fernando Castillo V.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ana Cristina Fernandez A.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
*M1CTLZ6ELQQ61*
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.