← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 29220-2025 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 12/09/2025
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber orders the archiving of the amparo, finding that the alleged facts pertain to ongoing non-compliance proceedings in another case, without ruling on the merits of the alleged violations.La Sala Constitucional ordena el archivo del recurso de amparo por considerar que los hechos alegados corresponden a gestiones de desobediencia en trámite en otro expediente, sin pronunciarse sobre el fondo de las violaciones denunciadas.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber orders the archiving of the amparo filed by a citizen against MINAE and SINAC, alleging non-compliance with judgments 12745-2019 and 3959-2024, issuance of Directive 09-2023, and failure to act on environmental damage in the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Ramsar site 783). The Chamber finds that the alleged facts have already been the subject of precautionary measures and follow-up in case 14-19174-0007-CO, where the unconstitutionality action and non-compliance proceedings are being handled. It therefore considers that the proper avenue for demanding compliance is the original proceeding, not a new amparo. It notes that the complaints against Hotel Almendros y Corales are being processed in criminal proceedings. Judge Rueda Leal dissents, arguing that the amparo should have been processed regarding that hotel.La Sala Constitucional ordena el archivo del recurso de amparo interpuesto por un ciudadano contra el MINAE y el SINAC, en el que denunciaba el incumplimiento de las sentencias 12745-2019 y 3959-2024, la emisión de la Directriz 09-2023, y la falta de acción frente a daños ambientales en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo (sitio Ramsar 783). La Sala determina que los hechos alegados ya han sido objeto de medidas cautelares y de seguimiento dentro del expediente 14-19174-0007-CO, donde se tramita la acción de inconstitucionalidad y las gestiones de desobediencia. Por tanto, considera que la vía para reclamar el cumplimiento de dichas sentencias es el proceso original y no un nuevo amparo. Se indica que las denuncias contra el Hotel Almendros y Corales se tramitan en la vía penal. El magistrado Rueda Leal salva el voto por considerar que debió tramitarse el amparo en relación con ese hotel.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Therefore, the alleged facts cannot be the subject of a new remedy; on the contrary, as stated in judgment number 2025009536 of nine hours fifteen minutes on March twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty-five, the alleged disobedience must be claimed in the corresponding case file. Given that the non-compliance proceeding is ongoing in case 14-019174-0007-CO, it is inappropriate to refer to the same facts. Consequently, the proper course is to order the archiving of this proceeding. It is worth noting that regarding the actions of Hotel Almendros y Corales concerning illegal drainages, opening of roads, forest subdivision, and light pollution—as has been demonstrated—they are being addressed in criminal proceedings. Thus, it will be in that forum where the appropriate legal decision will be rendered.Por lo anterior lo alegado no puede ser motivo de un nuevo recurso; por el contrario tal y como se indicó en la sentencia número 2025009536 de las nueve horas quince minutos del veintiocho de marzo de dos mil veinticinco la supuesta desobediencia debe alegarse en el expediente que corresponde. Así las cosas y tomando en cuenta que en el expediente 14-019174-0007-CO la gestión de incumplimiento se encuentra en trámite, resulta improcedente referirse a los mismos hechos. Por lo expuesto, lo procedente es ordenar el archivo de este proceso. Cabe resaltar que en cuanto a la actuación del Hotel Almendros y Corales referente a los drenajes ilegales, apertura de caminos, fraccionamiento de bosques y contaminación lumínica – tal y como quedó demostrado- está siendo conocido en la vía penal. De manera que será en esa vía donde se disponga lo que en Derecho corresponda.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Lo procedente es que todos los escritos contenidos en los registros electrónicos de este proceso... se agreguen al expediente número 14-19174-0007-CO, para que allí se resuelva lo que en Derecho corresponda."
"The proper course is that all the writings contained in the electronic records of this proceeding... be added to case number 14-19174-0007-CO, so that the appropriate legal decision may be rendered there."
Considerando II
"Lo procedente es que todos los escritos contenidos en los registros electrónicos de este proceso... se agreguen al expediente número 14-19174-0007-CO, para que allí se resuelva lo que en Derecho corresponda."
Considerando II
"Cabe resaltar que en cuanto a la actuación del Hotel Almendros y Corales referente a los drenajes ilegales, apertura de caminos, fraccionamiento de bosques y contaminación lumínica – tal y como quedó demostrado- está siendo conocido en la vía penal."
"It is worth noting that regarding the actions of Hotel Almendros y Corales concerning illegal drainages, opening of roads, forest subdivision, and light pollution—as has been demonstrated—they are being addressed in criminal proceedings."
Considerando II
"Cabe resaltar que en cuanto a la actuación del Hotel Almendros y Corales referente a los drenajes ilegales, apertura de caminos, fraccionamiento de bosques y contaminación lumínica – tal y como quedó demostrado- está siendo conocido en la vía penal."
Considerando II
Full documentDocumento completo
RESULTANDO:
2306-91 of 14 hours 24 minutes on November 6, 1991: "As they are outside of commerce, these goods cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use can be acquired, but not a right to property. The use permit (permiso de uso) is a unilateral legal act issued by the Administration, in the exercise of its functions, and what is placed in the hands of the individual is the beneficial ownership (dominio útil) of the good, with the State always reserving direct ownership (dominio directo) over the thing." (Emphasis added) On this matter, the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la Republica) has indicated in its opinion C100-95 of May 10, 1995: "It is understood that the previous private attitudes do not produce any legitimation to occupy the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), unless there had been an assertive express manifestation in their favor by the Municipality and in cases where it is legally appropriate. ... 'The respective municipality, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), and the corresponding authorities and dependencies, must issue and enforce the measures they deem necessary, to conserve or prevent the original conditions of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and its natural resources from being harmed.' (Article 17 of Law No. 6043) (Emphasis added) In accordance with Law 6043, in its article 73, it subjects the Protected Wild Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas) that have forested areas (aras boscosas) or lands of forest aptitude (terrenos de aptitud forestal) to SINAC: "The rest of the forested areas (áreas boscosas) and lands of forest aptitude (terrenos de aptitud forestal) of the coastlines are also under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and are governed by their specific regulations, namely Forest Law No. 7575 (Ley Forestal Nº 7575), article 13 and concordant, and Ruling 4587-97 of the Constitutional Chamber (Voto de la Sala Constitucional 4587-97)." (...) To date, ACLAC has not issued any administrative permit (permiso administrativo) in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the Canton of Talamanca (Cantón de Talamanca), nor does it have the competence to issue land-use permits (permisos de uso de suelo), which is the responsibility of the Municipality.
(...) In accordance with the above, there is no knowledge that the Municipality of Talamanca has granted land-use permits (permisos de uso de suelo) violating the lands listed in the Certification of State Natural Heritage for the Canton of Talamanca 2025 (Certificación de Patrimonio Natural de Estado para el Cantón de Talamanca 2025) dated March 17, 2025; therefore, your request for the formation of an external Commission to the Conservation Area (Área de Conservación), based on assumptions that have no scientific or documentary support, is not appropriate. If you have any specific case or complaint, please communicate it with the corresponding evidence..." By note DVA-064-2025 of June 3, 2025, this situation was explained again: "Your claim that our Ministry complete a generic list of use permits issued by the Municipality of Talamanca transfers beyond our competencies, because those documentary archives do not belong to us and therefore we do not have access to them; furthermore, because this is information from private users or municipal taxpayers, it is up to the Municipality to identify the information that can be public and restrict what is appropriate, as it contains sensitive, private, or restricted information.
I must indicate that the Municipality is a local government with political, administrative, and financial autonomy, as established in article 4 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal). Due to the foregoing, what you indicated regarding MINAE completing the information on municipal use permits is not appropriate, as was expressed to you in the cited note. There must be legal clarity that private properties, even if located within a protected area, are not part of the State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), as established by the Office of the Attorney General in its official opinion OP-OJ-076-2021: '...private properties included in private wildlife refuges (refugios de vida silvestre privados) and in the private part of mixed refuges (refugios mixtos), do not lose that nature and cannot be considered public domain goods (bienes demaniales) forming part of the State Natural Heritage, although they are subject to the use limitations indicated by regulation.' Under this understanding, all citizens who require a municipal service or authorization for any activity or work must carry out the procedures before the corresponding Municipality, which includes the RNVSGM, mixed category, in its private area.
(...) We reiterate what was indicated in note DVA-059-2025, regarding 'To date, ACLAC has not issued any administrative permit (permiso administrativo) in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the Canton of Talamanca, nor does it have the competence to issue land-use permits (permisos de uso de suelo), which is the responsibility of the Municipality', likewise, it is reiterated that no use permits have been issued in the Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo) either; ..." Thus, as things stand, according to what has been presented, it is concluded regarding the facts that support the appeal before us: First Fact: Accepted in the following terms: The Gandoca Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca Manzanillo) is a Mixed refuge, meaning that there is private property and lands owned by the State, where only training, ecotourism, and research activities are authorized on public domain lands (terrenos demaniales), as well as productive activities on private lands, according to the current regulations already indicated.
Second Fact: Denied. The appellant is incorrect in pointing out what was ordered by judgment 12745-2019 of July 10, 2019, for not adhering to the literal meaning of what was resolved. Given that this Ministry has begun the execution of the delimitation of the forested area (Área boscosa) of the 188 hectares of the strip adjacent to the Gandoca-Manzanillo Mixed National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Mixto Gandoca-Manzanillo), it therefore does not correspond to a prohibitive management category, but a designation that promotes the conservation and rational use of the wetlands and other sites that comprise it. Third Fact: Denied. The issued Directive 09-2023 (Directriz 09-2023) has lost its practical effect and is without application, as officially communicated by DECI-MINAE-086-2025 of March 14, 2025. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), through judgment 2024-034408, dismissed the proceedings of Mr.
Nombre121413 regarding this directive, confirming that the matter had been duly attended to. Since January 2025, the ACLAC suspended the issuance of forest use permits (permisos de aprovechamiento forestal) in the 188-hectare strip mentioned in the constitutional resolutions. Regarding Report SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021, this point was not mentioned in the notes sent by the appellant AEL-00230-2025 of May 29, 2025, and AEL-00239-202 of June 4, 2025, which motivated this Amparo. This being, for this honorable Chamber, a new allegation; the appellant files an amparo appeal which is processed under file No. 24-005929-0007-CO in which, through report SINAC-ACLAC-DR-227-2024 of March 12, 2024, it explains the technical-scientific reasons why document SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021 is not an official MINAE document. In which compliance was made with judgment 2024-010951 by delivering the updated certification of State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) on August 14, 2024, through SINAC-ACLAC-DR-0672-2024.
Fourth Fact: Denied. In response to the complaints filed in February 2025, the Conservation Area's own diligences were carried out, leading to the filing of the respective judicial complaint and which was notified to Mr. Nombre121413 on February 10, 2025. Through report CARTA-SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PH-028-2025, it was determined that there is currently no invasion and, on the contrary, natural regeneration is observed at the site. Fifth Fact: Denied. The Area or Ministry maintains protection and oversight activities, as demonstrated in the case of the former Hotel Las Palmas, where inspections were carried out and complaints were filed for damages to the natural heritage. Field inspections show that previously affected areas, such as the site of the former Hotel Las Palmas, show natural regeneration processes and are free of current invasions. (SEE IMAGES) The complaints about alleged illegal drainage (drenajes ilegales) at the Hotel Almendros and Corales are under investigation in file 21-000239-0597-PE.
Sixth and Seventh Facts: Denied. Municipalities maintain exclusive competence to issue land-use permits (permisos de uso de suelo) in the maritime-terrestrial zone, according to the legal framework established in the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) and the Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre). Private properties within the mixed refuge maintain their constitutional attributes, although they are subject to the Management Plan (Plan de Manejo) of the protected area. MINAE does not have the competence to supervise or filter municipal permits, this being a legally inappropriate claim by the appellant. In addition to the above, through official letters DVA-059-2025 of May 29, 2025, and DVA-064-2025 of June 3, 2025, a response was given to the request, including an extension of the response to the first letter. Eighth Fact: Denied. Answered in the same terms as section three.
In conclusion, it is evident that the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) has provided diligent and timely attention to the queries submitted by Mr. Nombre121413, thus complying with the established deadlines and procedures. Additionally, it is verified that this request constitutes a reiteration of a topic already addressed in previous procedures carried out by the appellant at different times and under different request numbers. This situation has been duly documented and supported through attention letters and response receipts, which reveals an inappropriate and recurrent use of administrative mechanisms by the applicant. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Nombre121413 is incorrect in wanting to allege non-compliance with his requests, as MINAE demonstrates with documentary evidence that no constitutional right has been violated, because Mr. Nombre121413's claim is for the Administration to comply with his requests, even though they are not legally viable nor have a basis in science or technique, this being an abusive situation on the part of a citizen.
In conclusion, his procedures have been attended to on time and he must abide by the provisions of the cited documents backed by legality and technical criteria. Therefore, it is demonstrated that the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through its corresponding instances, has not incurred in any non-compliance regarding the right to petition and access to information. On the contrary, it has acted respectfully, transparently, and patiently in attending to each of the requests submitted, thus guaranteeing compliance with its institutional obligations. PETITION. Main: In accordance with the provisions of this report and the documentary evidence provided, I respectfully request the Honorable Magistrates to DECLARE this Amparo WITHOUT MERIT. I request that our Ministry be exempted from the payment of procedural costs. Subsidiary: In the event that your honorable authority considers that the administration has responsibility, we kindly and respectfully request not to be condemned in costs."
The natural resources defined and characterized within the Gandoca-Manzanillo Refuge are subject to the existing Management Plan; therefore, the fact that criminal acts are committed by some individuals who violate the laws does not mean that the administrative authorities are engaging in acts of tolerance or indifference regarding those events, as is improperly attempted to be made to believe. The administrative proceedings against these individuals are documented, and the alleged crimes have been reported to the judicial authority. It is important to clarify that wetlands can be located on public or private lands. These are not under a prohibition regime, but rather one of rational use, as they can have a wide range of uses: recreation and tourism, hydraulic power generation to obtain energy, fishing, aquaculture, salt production, shrimp farming, docks, water transportation routes, including state public infrastructure (Decreto Ejecutivo No.49838), etc. All wetlands, whether or not declared by the State, whether or not they form part of protected wilderness areas, of the Natural Heritage of the State, and those on private property, must be protected at the appropriate level because they are of public interest.
Protection does not inherently involve a total prohibition of activities. Each project or construction must be assessed prior to decision-making. 1.- Wetlands administered by SINAC are those that: a) Have been declared part of the Natural Heritage of the State. Wetlands declared as Natural Heritage of the State shall be considered those associated with forest ecosystems and, additionally, located on public domain assets or lands owned by the State or other public entities or bodies. b) Those declared as protected wilderness areas. c) Those included within protected wilderness areas. The provisions of Article 18 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) apply to these wetlands. 2.- Wetlands included in the RAMSAR list shall be governed by the provisions of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat and the rules provided in the national legal system applicable to wetlands included in these lists. 3.- Wetlands not declared as Natural Heritage of the State and wetlands located on private properties are governed by the general wetland conservation rules established in Article 45 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), and Decreto Ejecutivo 39838-MINAE applies to them.
The National Wetlands Registry contains the wetlands inventoried and delimited by Costa Rica; therefore, the assertions made by Mr. Nombre121413, in which he claims alleged omissions in this regard, are not receivable. The Costa Rican State has made multiple legal efforts to map and conserve wetlands. Proof of this is Decreto Ejecutivo No.42760-MINAE (formerly DE-35803-MINAET): "Technical criteria for the location, identification, classification, and delimitation of wetland ecosystems" from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, based on Article 140, subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution, Article 103, subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, Law No.6227 of May 2, 1978, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat "Ramsar Convention" ratified by Law No.7224 of April 9, 1991, Article 41 of the Organic Environmental Law No.7554 of October 4, 1995, and Articles 22, 51, and 58 of the Biodiversity Law No.7788 of April 30, 1998; which supports the protection of wetlands both inside and outside protected wilderness areas and allows their use depending on whether the land is public or private.
MINAE and SINAC oversee these activities through their General Management Plan or by addressing technical criteria and environmental complaints handled via the SITADA platform filed outside protected wilderness areas. Additionally, wetland criteria are issued through the Platform, and there is a Wetlands Registry and a Wetlands Inventory. Second: Judgment No. 12745-2019 and Delimitation of 188 Hectares. The scope of the judgment is clear and cannot be distorted. Voto Constitucional No.2019-12745, issued at 12:10 hours on July 10, 2019, states what is important for the purposes of this Report as follows: “ (…)..no evidence was presented that the law per se affected wetlands or violated the principle of inviolability of the maritime-terrestrial zone (intangibilidad de la zona marítimo terrestre); the principle of inviolability of the maritime-terrestrial zone cannot be breached, nor can it be interpreted that the lands excluded from the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge by Law No. 9223 that are located within the two-hundred-meter-wide strip along the coast, measured horizontally from the ordinary high-water line, as well as the areas occupied by mangroves and estuaries (public zone), and the one-hundred-fifty-meter strip contiguous to these (restricted zone), among other assets, were released from the special regime covering the maritime-terrestrial zone…(..) Rather, to achieve a fair balance between environmental protection and the socioeconomic needs of the people, the appropriate course is to declare the filed unconstitutionality action partially with merit, annulling the norm only with respect to the territories comprised in the forest zone —188 hectares— as ordered by the Procuraduría General de la República in its reports, and consequently, order SINAC to proceed to delimit the aforementioned area.
In the event that it is determined that these are public domain assets —not private domain assets—, SINAC, together with the State Attorney, must exercise the corresponding legal actions in defense of public heritage. Regarding property rights —if they are eventually determined—, what is appropriate is for the competent authorities to impose the corresponding social interest limitations on the properties for the sake of environmental protection. (…) POR TANTO: 1) By majority vote, the action is partially granted, annulling the challenged Law No. 9223 ‘Recognition of the rights of the inhabitants of the Southern Caribbean’ only with respect to the territories comprised in the forest zone, as ordered by the Procuraduría General de la República in its reports. By virtue of the foregoing, the National System of Conservation Areas is ordered to proceed, within a period of twelve months, counted from the full publication of this pronouncement in the Judicial Bulletin, to delimit the aforementioned area and, together with the Procuraduría General de la República, to exercise the corresponding legal actions in defense of public heritage.
This declaration of unconstitutionality shall have declarative and retroactive effect to the date the norm took effect, all without prejudice to good faith acquired rights…(..)” (Emphasis is ours) Consequently, delimitation is the main action, and it is not correct to indicate that the “totality” of the 188 hectares must be recovered, as what is expressly stated is conditioned on the appearance of public assets: “In the event that it is determined that these are public domain assets —not private domain assets—, SINAC, together with the State Attorney, must exercise the corresponding legal actions in defense of public heritage…” The scope of the Voto also does not indicate recovering “degraded wetlands”; what is stated by Mr. Nombre121413 is not what is expressed in the Voto. Therefore, this assertion is incorrect and attempts to give a different meaning and scope to the Voto when Mr. Nombre121413 states: “…
The judgment is not limited to the delimitation of a forest area, as suggested by the respondents, but includes the recovery of degraded ecosystems, which implies concrete actions to restore wetlands and forests affected by occupations and improper uses..” MINAE has diligently presented the Progress Reports for compliance with the Voto, which report on everything from the methodology to the progress of the legal and technical group that conducted the terrestrial “sweep” and drone support for greater precision, as well as how the map will be constructed. It is absolutely improper for Mr. Nombre121413 to state, “The five ‘Progress Reports’ mentioned lack detail on specific measures for the recovery of the 188 hectares, such as the removal of illegal structures, the restoration of wetlands,” as the foregoing suggests an apparent intention to mislead by making comments without sufficient technical basis.
In addition to the above, it is important to note that an adequate study of the Compliance Progress Reports provided by MINAE has not been carried out, because the Final Report has not yet been presented. Improper assessments are made, such as: “MINAE does not provide technical evidence proving the completion of the delimitation process or its official registration with the National Registry.” Third: Directive 09-2023 and Report SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021. Directive 09-2023 serves no purpose to comment on, as it has no effect. Regarding Report SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021, it must be reiterated that compliance with Judgment No. 3959-2024 was indeed communicated to the Chamber via official letter SINAC-ACLAC-DR-0445-2024 dated May 17, 2024, with technical support from report SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PH-030-2024 dated May 17, 2024. This report allowed the update of the Certification of Natural Heritage of the State in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the Canton of Talamanca, issued via certification SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PNE-C-092-2024, in compliance with judgment No.2024010951, under Expediente 24-005929-0007-CO.
The process of revisions and observations by the competent institutions allows the update of certification SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PNE-C-092-2024 via consecutive number SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PNE-C-014-2025, with support from technical report SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PH-006-2025 dated February 13, 2025. The latter (SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PNE-C-014-2025) being the certification in force to date. It is important to make clear that the preliminary report SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021 (Informe Fonseca), mentioned by Mr. Nombre121413, was one of the base inputs for the review of the Natural Heritage of the State in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the Canton of Talamanca, just as the Constitutional Chamber requested. Report CARTA-SINAC-ACLAC-DR-0827-2025 dated July 31, 2025, provided in EXPEDIENTE No.23-014549-0007-CO, broadly systematizes the review and complementation process for the Certification of Natural Heritage of the State to which this preliminary report was subjected, with the objective of ensuring its inputs met the corresponding technical, scientific, and legal requirements for its officialization. Therefore, what Mr. Nombre121413 states is neither true nor correct, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from the text of communication note ACLAC-DR-0827-2025:
Fourth: Former Hotel Las Palmas. Judgment No.12745-2019 does not refer to the site that the appellant wants to include in the 188-hectare area, which he calls the “former Hotel Las Palmas.” Although the site was demolished by judicial order approximately 14 years ago, Report SINAC-ACLAC-PPCP-C-027-2025 showed with evidence that the place is undergoing an accelerated process of natural restoration, under the protection of the Natural Heritage of the State, duly signposted by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, included as Natural Heritage of the State 2025 as recorded in certification SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PNE-C-014-2025, and has had this designation since 2017 regarding the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone. Fifth: Hotel Almendros y Corales. In reality, there is an open criminal case against Hotel Almendros y Corales, where the alleged illegal activities are being investigated under Expediente 21-000239-0597-PE.
MINAE-SINAC carries out oversight and control tasks in conjunction with the Municipality of Talamanca with the intention of preventing any action detrimental to the environment. Facts Six and Seven: Municipal Permits and MINAE Competencies. Mr. Nombre121413 does not accept that the Municipality of Talamanca has its own exclusive competencies. Citizens must respect municipal guidelines, since construction permits are the responsibility of the Municipalities, and citizens who have private properties within the Refuge must abide by municipal regulations and are not under MINAE supervision. The wetlands in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone are delimited, and the Municipality of Talamanca was notified and has the documents, maps, and shapes (layers) generated for this purpose so that it knows their precise location; therefore, it is not true to assert that the delimitation has not been done and that the Municipality grants permits without any care whatsoever, as erroneously indicated when citing: “…The lack of official delimitation of the wetlands, which is SINAC's responsibility, facilitates the issuance of permits incompatible with conservation..” That being the case, we, the undersigned, estimate that the allegations made by Mr. Nombre121413 contain no scientific basis and, on the contrary, consist of absolutely subjective statements that could even mislead the honorable Constitutional Chamber.”
This evidence demonstrates extremely serious harm to the environment, in violation of the principle of non-regression in environmental matters and the natural heritage of the State, particularly in sectors such as Punta Uva and Playa Grande, where illegal logging, drainage, and filling have been recorded, promoting real estate developments to the detriment of sensitive ecosystems. The PGR, in its report PGR-ESC-003-2025, highlights that these acts constitute "extremely serious harm to the environment" and requests the extension of precautionary measures, which reinforces the urgency of vigorous intervention by this high court. This additional evidence corroborates the arguments set forth in my initial appeal and underscores the imperative need for the Chamber to issue a firm and expeditious resolution, ordering MINAE and SINAC to strictly comply with the delimitations based on the 2020 and 2021 reports, to suspend any property registration process in the affected areas, and to exercise the corresponding legal actions to restore the protection of Ramsar Site 783.
Failure to act swiftly would perpetuate irreversible damage to the public heritage and ecological balance, contravening constitutional mandates on environmental matters. I respectfully request that this evidence be incorporated into the case file, assessed on its merits, and considered for the final resolution. I remain at the disposal of the Chamber for any clarification or expansion that may be required" (see electronic record).
Drafted by Magistrate Alvarado Paniagua; and,
Considering:
The appellant comes before the Chamber and states that the Gandoca Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge, Ramsar Site No. 783, is a protected area of international importance, recognized since 1995 for its biodiversity, including wetlands, mangroves, forests, and critical habitats for species such as sea turtles. He notes that the Constitutional Chamber, through judgment No. 12745-2019, ordered the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) to delimit and recover 188 hectares of wetlands and forests illegally declassified within the Refuge, a mandate that remains unfulfilled. He points out that, in August 2023, the Minister of Environment and Energy, Franz Tattenbach Capra, issued Directive No. 09-2023, which discredits report No. SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021, which identified 165.12 hectares of wetlands in Talamanca, classifying it as an "internal draft" without official validity. He maintains that this directive, questioned by the Environmental Prosecutor's Office and the Procuraduría General de la República, encourages the occupation, drainage, and filling of protected wetlands, violating the principle of non-regression in environmental matters.
He argues that the facilities of the former Hotel Las Palmas, located within the Refuge, were demolished by order of SINAC due to detected environmental damage. However, the site remains abandoned and is currently facing an invasion that compromises the protected ecosystems, failing to comply with the restoration obligations ordered by the Constitutional Chamber. He asserts that this abandonment has been facilitated by Directive No. 09-2023 and the inaction of SINAC officials. He comments that the Hotel Almendros y Corales, built on a wetland and forest within Ramsar Site No. 783, generates serious environmental damage, including illegal drainage, road openings, forest fragmentation (fraccionamiento de bosques), and light pollution that affects the arrival of sea turtles. He narrates that, despite the evidence provided to the Vice Minister, in official communications Nos. AEL-00230-2020 and AEL-00239-2025, the respondent has responded with evasions, merely announcing "inspections" without adopting immediate measures, such as the closure of the drainage systems.
He states that in official communication No. DVA-073-2025, dated June 18, 2025, Vice Minister Rodríguez Zúñiga dismisses his complaints, arguing that MINAE and SINAC lack competence to supervise municipal permits, and that activities on private properties are protected by the regulations. He claims that this response sidesteps the obligation to protect the Ramsar Site and omits the damages attributable to the technical inconsistencies of MINAE, such as the lack of wetland delimitation. He argues that the Municipality of Talamanca, according to its website (https://www.municipalidadtalamanca.go.cr), issues administrative permits such as municipal plan approvals (visados municipales), commercial and construction land uses (usos de suelo comercial y de construcción), and construction permits, without adequately verifying their impact on Ramsar Site No. 783. He accuses that these permits, granted on private properties within the Refuge, facilitate activities incompatible with conservation, due to the lack of official delimitation of the wetlands, a responsibility of SINAC and MINAE.
He affirms that the Constitutional Chamber, in its resolution No. 3959-2024, ordered the formalization of report No. SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021 on the delimitation of wetlands, a mandate that MINAE and SINAC have failed to comply with, perpetuating the legal uncertainty that facilitates real estate development and invasions in protected areas.
This Chamber, through judgment number 2024003959 at nine thirty hours on February sixteenth, two thousand twenty-four, resolved:
The appellant questions that since 2017, the Municipality of Talamanca entered into an agreement with the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo for the preparation of a Coastal Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Costero); however, he alleges that said Plan omitted the wetlands listed in the report called "Characterization and delimitation of wetlands in the maritime-terrestrial zone of the coast of the canton of Talamanca" (Caracterización y delimitación de humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca), violating Article 50 of the Constitution.
(…)
In the sub lite case, the appellant questions that since 2017, the Municipality of Talamanca entered into an agreement with the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo for the preparation of a Coastal Regulatory Plan; however, he alleges that said Plan omitted the wetlands listed in the report called "Characterization and delimitation of wetlands in the maritime-terrestrial zone of the coast of the canton of Talamanca," violating Article 50 of the Constitution. In this regard, from the study of the case file records, it is clear that, indeed, on October 13, 2017, the Municipality of Talamanca entered into a "Cooperation Agreement" with the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo for the formulation of the Coastal Regulatory Plan of Talamanca, which has environmental viability, according to certification No. SINAC-ACLAC-DRPNE-C-011-2017 of June 30, 2017, from the National System of Conservation Areas, which certified the delimitation of the State Natural Heritage in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the canton of Talamanca, composed of two technical inputs: a forest technical report and a wetland technical report.
Now, in relation to the object of the appeal, the representative of the National System of Conservation Areas reported under the solemnity of oath that the document called "Characterization and delimitation of wetlands in the maritime-terrestrial zone of the coast of the canton of Talamanca" has not been approved by the Regional Directorate of the La Amistad Caribe Conservation Area for use as a document of general scope. In addition to this, he affirms that it is an internal technical guide of the National System of Conservation Areas, whose information has not yet been validated or formalized by the National Council of Conservation Areas of the National System of Conservation Areas.
(…)
VII.In this particular case, the acting regional director of the La Amistad Caribe Conservation Area indicated to this Tribunal, in her report, that the document called "Characterization and delimitation of wetlands in the maritime-terrestrial zone of the coast of the canton of Talamanca" has not been approved by the Regional Directorate of the La Amistad Caribe Conservation Area for use as a document of general scope and that it is an internal technical guide of the National System of Conservation Areas, still without validation or formalization by the National Council of Conservation Areas of the National System of Conservation Areas. Likewise, that by means of official communication No. SINAC-ACLAC-DRPNE-C-011-2017 of June 30, 2017, the delimitation of the State Natural Heritage in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the canton of Talamanca was certified—considering the wetlands for their protection. On the other hand, despite requests for expansion of the report, the only explanation offered focuses on those two specific formal aspects: what was certified as State natural heritage in 2017 and the preliminary condition of the 2021 study.
However, it omits any reference to technical or material obstacles to updating that aspect of the State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado). That is, it does not indicate to this Chamber what the current state of the wetlands is in the canton of Talamanca, nor does it offer any reason why the studies that justified the 2017 decision are technically superior to the 2021 material. Or, conversely, the reasons are not set forth explaining why the 2021 study does not correspond to reality or to technical criteria for the protection of the State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado). Based on the foregoing, this Court considers that in application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), since this amparo concerns environmentally relevant assets that constitute the State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado), specifically the wetlands in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the coastline of the canton of Talamanca, the appeal must be granted with the consequences set forth in the operative part of this judgment.
(…)
Por tanto:
The appeal is granted. It is ordered: i) to Maylin Mora Arias, in her capacity as acting regional director of the La Amistad Caribe Conservation Area (Área de Conservación La Amistad Caribe) of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional del Áreas de Conservación), or to whoever holds that position in her stead, to conclude, within a period of THREE MONTHS, counted from the notification of this judgment, the procedure to supplement the certification of State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) of the Canton of Talamanca with the “Characterization and delimitation of wetlands in the maritime-terrestrial zone of the coastline of the canton of Talamanca” of June 2021; ii) to Delio Antonio Robles Loaiza, in his capacity as acting head of the Department of Urbanism, and to Daniel Brenes Arroyo, in charge of the Unit of Technical and Operational Criteria for Territorial Planning, both of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), as well as to Rugeli Morales Rodríguez, mayor, and to Yahaira Mora Blanco, council president, both of the Municipality of Talamanca, to take the necessary steps to incorporate the aforementioned update into the Coastal Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Costero) of the Canton of Talamanca.
The respondent authorities are warned that pursuant to Article 71 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed upon anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo proceeding, and fails to comply with it or fails to have it complied with, provided the offense is not more severely punished. The State, the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), and the Municipality of Talamanca are 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-judgment proceeding before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado dissents and denies the appeal, as it falls to the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, to determine whether the challenged administrative actions and conduct substantively conform to the legal provisions regarding the protection, safeguarding, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Notify.
Subsequently, by judgment number 2025009536 of nine hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-eighth of March of two thousand twenty-five, it resolved:
“II.- REGARDING WHAT WAS RESOLVED BY THIS CHAMBER IN FILE N° 14-19174-0007-CO, RELATED TO THE SITUATION RAISED BY THE PETITIONER. As affirmed by the petitioner, this Chamber processed the unconstitutionality action N° 14-19174-0007-CO filed by the —petitioner herein— Nombre121413 , to which, by resolution of eleven hours and twenty-three minutes on the seventeenth of December of two thousand fourteen, this Chamber ordered that it proceed “so that LAW NUMBER Placa22278 OF MARCH 10, 2014 be declared unconstitutional.” Thus, on the matter and after a detailed study of the case file, this Chamber issued judgment number 2019-012745 of twelve hours and ten minutes on the tenth of July of two thousand nineteen, by which it ordered the following:
“1) By majority, the action is granted, annulling the challenged Law, no. 9223 “Recognition of the rights of the inhabitants of the Southern Caribbean” only with respect to the territories comprised within the forested zone, as indicated by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) in its reports. By virtue of the foregoing, the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) is ordered to proceed, within a period of twelve months, counted from the full publication of this ruling in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial), to delimit the aforementioned area and, jointly with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), to exercise the corresponding legal actions in defense of public property. This declaration of unconstitutionality shall have declaratory and retroactive effect to the date the norm took effect, all without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith.
“(…)
Then, by resolution of twelve hours fifty-six minutes on the seventh of March of two thousand twenty-five, this Chamber ordered a series of precautionary measures, namely:
“(…) In accordance with the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 41 of the cited Law, and pursuant to the remaining competencies of this Constitutional Jurisdiction, any precautionary measure of conservation or security that prudence advises may be ordered, to prevent material risks or to avoid further damages as a consequence of the acts carried out. It is thus resolved that, in the time interval of the delimitation and until the Final Report on compliance with judgment no. 2019-12745 of 12:10 hours on July 10, 2019 reaches this Chamber; while this Chamber does not order otherwise; and to avoid serious and irreparable damages to the environment, THE FOLLOWING PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES ARE ISSUED: A) The granting of new concessions or permits is suspended; and the execution of concessions or permits already granted is suspended, by the Municipality of Talamanca, over the 20.1 hectares of land classified as forest located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo).
Given that, fundamentally, the petitioner alleges the alleged disobedience to what was ordered by this Chamber within the aforementioned file 14-19174-0007-CO, specifically by the municipal authorities, and given that within that same file, this Chamber has recently ordered several “precautionary measures” by resolution of twelve hours fifty-six minutes on the seventh of March of two thousand twenty-five, namely that: “A) The granting of new concessions or permits is suspended; and the execution of concessions or permits already granted is suspended, by the Municipality of Talamanca, over the 20.1 hectares of land classified as forest located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo). B) Directive 09-2023 of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which provides that the official boundaries of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo) are those established in Law No. 9223, Recognition of the rights of the inhabitants of the Southern Caribbean, in force since April 8, 2014, is suspended.
Given that the aforementioned official communication, signed by Nombre14330 in her capacity as Defender of the Inhabitants of the Republic, is clearly directed expressly to file 14-019174-0007-CO and not to the present appeal, the appropriate course is that the brief contained in the electronic record of this proceeding at 15:41:45 hours on the twenty-eighth of February of two thousand twenty-five be added to file number 14-19174-0007-CO, so that what is legally appropriate may be resolved there.
(…)
Por tanto:
Sever all the briefs incorporated into the digital file at 14:45:10 hours on 02/20/2025, at 08:44:12 hours on 02/25/2025, at 14:39:07 hours on 02/25/2025, at 15:25:48 hours on 02/27/2025, at 15:25:48 hours on 02/27/2025; at 15:46:38 hours on 02/27/2025; at 15:41:45 hours on 02/28/2025; at 15:41:46 hours on 02/28/2025; at 14:09:19 hours on 03/03/2025 and refer them to File No. 14-19174-0007-CO. Archive this file”.
The petitioner affirms that the Constitutional Chamber, through judgment no. 12745-2019, ordered the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC) to delimit and recover 188 hectares of wetlands and forests illegally removed from protection (desafectados) within the Refuge, an order which remains unfulfilled, and that, despite the foregoing, in August 2023, the Minister of Environment and Energy issued Directive no. 09-2023, violating the principle of environmental non-regression (principio de no regresión ambiental). He adds that the refuge remains abandoned and is facing a current invasion that compromises the protected ecosystems, failing to comply with the restoration obligations ordered by the Constitutional Chamber. He states that the vice-minister has been negligent regarding the complaints he has filed, which circumvents the obligation to protect the Ramsar site.
Finally, he states that the Municipality of Talamanca issues administrative permits such as municipal visas (visados municipales), commercial and construction land uses (usos de suelo comercial y de construcción), and construction permits, without adequately verifying their impact on Ramsar site no. 783. In view of this situation and taking into account that in the background cited above, it was indicated that in file 14-19174-0007-CO this Chamber has already ordered several “precautionary measures” such as: “A) The granting of new concessions or permits is suspended; and the execution of concessions or permits already granted is suspended, by the Municipality of Talamanca, over the 20.1 hectares of land classified as forest located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the Gandoca-Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo).
In addition to the foregoing, it was determined that recently, in judgment number 2025023012 of nine hours twenty minutes on the twenty-third of July of two thousand twenty-five, the order was reiterated to the acting regional director of the La Amistad Caribe Conservation Area (Área de Conservación La Amistad Caribe) of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional del Áreas de Conservación), to the acting head of the Department of Urbanism, and to the head of the Unit of Technical and Operational Criteria for Territorial Planning, both of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), as well as to the council president, both of the Municipality of Talamanca, to proceed with compliance with judgment number 2024003959 of 09:30 hours on February 16, 2024, under the conditions stated therein —that is, to supplement the certification of State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) of the Canton of Talamanca with the “Characterization and delimitation of wetlands in the maritime-terrestrial zone of the coastline of the canton of Talamanca” of June 2021; as well as to take the necessary steps to incorporate the update into the Coastal Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Costero) of the Canton of Talamanca—.
Based on the foregoing, what is alleged cannot be the subject of a new appeal; on the contrary, as indicated in judgment number 2025009536 of nine hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-eighth of March of two thousand twenty-five, the alleged disobedience must be alleged in the corresponding file. Thus, taking into account that in file 14-019174-0007-CO the non-compliance proceeding is pending, it is inappropriate to refer to the same facts. For the reasons stated, the appropriate course is to order the archiving of this proceeding. It should be noted that with respect to the actions of the Hotel Almendros y Corales regarding illegal drainage, road openings, fragmentation of forests (fraccionamiento de bosques), and light pollution —as has been demonstrated— are being heard in the criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, it shall be in that jurisdiction where what is legally appropriate shall be ordered.
III.Dissenting vote of Magistrate Rueda Leal. In the sub examine, the petitioner alludes to environmental harm caused by the hotel Almendros y Corales, which, according to him, continues to operate. In this regard, in the filing brief, situations were mentioned that are directly attributed to that establishment, namely: “5. The Hotel Almendros y Corales, built on a wetland and forest within Ramsar site 783, generates serious environmental damages, including illegal drainage, road openings, fragmentation of forests (fraccionamiento de bosques), and light pollution that affects the arrival of sea turtles. Despite the evidence provided by the undersigned to the Vice-Minister in official communications AEL-00230-2020 and AEL-00239-2025, the respondent has responded with evasions, merely announcing “inspections” without immediate measures such as the closure of drainage systems. (…) 1. Right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution): The refusal to halt the invasion of the lands of the Hotel Las Palmas and the activities of the Hotel Almendros y Corales, together with the lack of restoration of degraded areas, compromises the integrity of the protected ecosystems, affecting biodiversity and the essential ecosystem services for local communities”.
Even in the prayer for relief, the petition requests: “2. Order the Vice-Minister of Environment, Eng. Jorge Mario Rodríguez Zúñiga, and MINAE to immediately suspend all real estate development and invasive activities in Ramsar site 783, including the occupation of the lands of the former Hotel Las Palmas and the operations of the Hotel Almendros y Corales, until compliance with the delimitation and protection ordered in Judgments No. 12745-2019 and No. 3959-2024 is achieved. 3. Demand the immediate closure of the illegal drainage systems operated by the Hotel Almendros y Corales, as well as the quantification and repair of the environmental damages caused by their activities, including the light pollution that affects sea turtles, in accordance with the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and the Ramsar Convention”.
Therefore, prior to resolving what is legally appropriate, the appropriate course is to require (prevenir) the petitioner to provide the legal status (personería jurídica) under which said hotel operates, for the purpose of treating it as a party and granting it a hearing on the facts that involve it.
The parties are hereby required (se previene) that if any document on paper has been submitted, 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, any material not withdrawn within this period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the “Regulation on the Electronic File before the Judicial Branch” (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial), approved by the Full Court in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch, in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Archive the file. Magistrate Rueda Leal dissents and orders the continuation of the amparo proceeding for the purpose of requiring (prevenga) the petitioner to provide the legal status (personería jurídica) of the hotel Almendros y Corales in order to treat it as a party and grant it a hearing on the facts that involve it. Notify.
Nombre137 V.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas veinticinco minutos del doce de setiembre de dos mil veinticinco .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente número 25-017781-0007-CO interpuesto por Nombre121413 , cédula de identidad CED2111, contra el MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA.
Resultando:
Cuarto: Antiguo Hotel Las Palmas. La Sentencia No.12745-2019 no se refiere al sitio que el recurrente quiere incluir en el área de las 188 hectáreas al cual llama “antiguo Hotel Las Palmas”. Si bien el sitio fue demolido por orden judicial hace aproximadamente 14 años, el Informe SINAC-ACLAC-PPCP-C-027-2025 mostró con evidencias que el lugar se encuentra en un proceso acelerado de restauración natural, bajo la protección del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, debidamente rotulado por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, incluido como Patrimonio Natural del Estado 2025 según consta en la certificación SINAC-ACLAC-DRFVS-PNE-C-014-2025 y con esa connotación desde el año 2017, en lo que respecta a la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Quinto: Hotel Almendros y Corales. En realidad existe una causa penal abierta contra el Hotel Almendros y Corales, donde se investigan las presuntas actividades ilegales bajo Expediente 21- 000239-0597-PE.
El MINAE-SINAC realiza labores de fiscalización y control en conjunto con la Municipalidad de Talamanca con la intención de prevenir cualquier acción en detrimento del ambiente. Hechos Sexto y Sétimo: Permisos Municipales y Competencias del MINAE. El Señor Nombre121413 no acepta que el Municipio de Talamanca tiene competencias propias y exclusivas. Los ciudadanos deben respetar los lineamientos municipales, toda vez que los permisos de construcción son competencia de los Municipios y los ciudadanos que tienen propiedades privadas dentro del Refugio, deben acatar las normas municipales y no se encuentran bajo supervisión del MINAE. Los humedales en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre se encuentran delimitados y la Municipalidad de Talamanca fue notificada y cuenta con los documentos, mapas y shapes (capas), que se generaron al efecto para que conozca de su ubicación puntal, por lo que no es cierto afirmar que no se ha hecho la delimitación y que el Municipio otorga permisos sin algún cuidado alguno, como erróneamente se indicó al citar: “…La falta de delimitación oficial de los humedales, responsabilidad del SINAC, facilita la emisión de permisos incompatibles con la conservación..” Así las cosas, los suscritos estimamos que los alegatos realizados por el Señor Nombre121413 , no contienen sustento científico y por el contrario atienden manifestaciones absolutamente subjetivas, que inclusive pueden hacer caer en error a la honorable Sala Constitucional”.
Redacta la Magistrada Alvarado Paniagua; y,
Considerando:
El recurrente acude a la Sala y expone que, el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca Manzanillo, sitio Ramsar nro. 783, es un área protegida de importancia internacional, reconocida desde 1995 por su biodiversidad, incluyendo humedales, manglares, bosques y hábitats críticos para especies como las tortugas marinas. Acota que la Sala Constitucional, mediante la sentencia nro. 12745-2019, ordenó al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) delimitar y recuperar 188 hectáreas de humedales y bosques desafectados ilegalmente dentro del Refugio, mandato que permanece incumplido. Señala que, en agosto de 2023, el ministro de Ambiente y Energía, Franz Tattenbach Capra, emitió la Directriz nro. 09-2023, que desacredita el informe nro. SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021, el cual identificaba 165,12 hectáreas de humedales en Talamanca, catalogándolo como un "borrador interno" sin validez oficial.
Sostiene que esa directriz, cuestionada por la Fiscalía Ambiental y la Procuraduría General de la República, fomenta la ocupación, el drenaje y el relleno de humedales protegidos, violando el principio de no regresión ambiental. Esgrime que las instalaciones del antiguo Hotel Las Palmas, ubicadas dentro del Refugio, fueron demolidas por orden del SINAC debido a daños ambientales detectados. Sin embargo, el sitio permanece en abandono y enfrenta una invasión actual que compromete los ecosistemas protegidos, incumpliendo las obligaciones de restauración ordenadas por la Sala Constitucional. Asegura que ese abandono ha sido facilitado por la Directriz nro. 09-2023 y la inacción de los funcionarios del SINAC. Comenta que el Hotel Almendros y Corales, construido en un humedal y bosque dentro del sitio Ramsar nro. 783, genera daños ambientales graves, incluyendo drenajes ilegales, apertura de caminos, fraccionamiento de bosques y contaminación lumínica que afecta el arribo de tortugas marinas.
Narra que, a pesar de las pruebas aportadas al viceministro, en los oficios nros. AEL-00230-2020 y AEL-00239-2025, el recurrido ha respondido con evasivas, limitándose a anunciar "inspecciones" sin adoptar medidas inmediatas, como la clausura de los drenajes. Manifiesta que en el oficio nro. DVA-073-2025, fechado el 18 de junio de 2025, el viceministro Rodríguez Zúñiga desestima sus denuncias, argumentando que el MINAE y el SINAC carecen de competencia para supervisar permisos municipales, y que las actividades en propiedades privadas están amparadas por la normativa. Reclama que esa respuesta soslaya la obligación de proteger el sitio Ramsar y omite los daños imputables a las inconsistencias técnicas del MINAE, como la falta de delimitación de los humedales. Arguye que la Municipalidad de Talamanca, según su portal web (https://www.municipalidadtalamanca.go.cr), emite permisos administrativos como visados municipales, usos de suelo comercial y de construcción, y permisos de construcción, sin verificar adecuadamente su impacto en el sitio Ramsar nro. 783.
Acusa que esos permisos, otorgados en propiedades privadas dentro del Refugio, facilitan actividades incompatibles con la conservación, debido a la falta de delimitación oficial de los humedales, responsabilidad del SINAC y el MINAE. Afirma que la Sala Constitucional, en su resolución nro. 3959-2024, ordenó oficializar el informe nro. SINAC-ACC-OTOF-698-2021 sobre la delimitación de humedales, mandato que el MINAE y el SINAC han incumplido, perpetuando la incertidumbre jurídica que facilita el desarrollo inmobiliario y las invasiones en áreas protegidas.
Esta Sala mediante sentencia número 2024003959 de las nueve horas treinta minutos del dieciséis de febrero de dos mil veinticuatro resolvió:
El recurrente cuestiona que desde el 2017, la Municipalidad de Talamanca realizó un convenio con el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo para la confección de un Plan Regulador Costero; sin embargo, alega que en dicho Plan se omitieron los humedales enlistados en el informe denominado “Caracterización y delimitación de humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca”, transgrediendo el artículo 50 constitucional.
(…)
En el sub lite, el recurrente cuestiona que desde el 2017 la Municipalidad de Talamanca realizó un convenio con el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo para la confección de un Plan Regulador Costero; sin embargo, alega que en dicho Plan se omitieron los humedales enlistados en el informe denominado “Caracterización y delimitación de humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca”, transgrediendo el artículo 50 constitucional. Al respecto, del estudio de los autos, se tiene que, efectivamente, el 13 de octubre de 2017, la Municipalidad de Talamanca suscribió con el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo un “Convenio de Cooperación” para la formulación del Plan Regulador Costero de Talamanca, el cual cuenta con viabilidad ambiental, de acuerdo con la certificación nro. SINAC-ACLAC-DRPNE-C-011-2017 del 30 de junio de 2017, del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, que certificó la delimitación del Patrimonio Natural del Estado en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del cantón de Talamanca, compuesto por dos insumos técnicos: informe de bosque técnico forestal e informe técnico de humedales.
Ahora bien, en relación con el objeto del recurso, el representante del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación informó bajo la solemnidad del juramento que el documento denominado “Caracterización y delimitación de humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca” no ha sido aprobado por la Dirección Regional del Área de Conservación La Amistad Caribe para utilizarse como un documento de alcance general. Aunado a ello, afirma que se trata de una guía técnica interna del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, cuya información aún no ha sido validada ni oficializada por parte del Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación.
(…)
VII.En este caso en particular, la directora regional a. i. del Área de Conservación La Amistad Caribe indicó a este Tribunal, en su informe, que el documento denominado “Caracterización y delimitación de humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca” no ha sido aprobado por la Dirección Regional del Área de Conservación La Amistad Caribe para utilizarse como un documento de alcance general y que se trata de una guía técnica interna del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, aún sin validar ni oficializar por parte del Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. Asimismo, que mediante oficio No. SINAC-ACLAC-DRPNE-C-011-2017 del 30 de junio de 2017 se certificó la delimitación del Patrimonio Natural del Estado en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del cantón de Talamanca -considerando los humedales para su protección-. Por otra parte, pese a las solicitudes de ampliación de informe la única explicación ofrecida se concentra en esos dos aspectos formales puntuales: lo que se certificó como patrimonio natural del Estado en 2017 y la condición preliminar del estudio de 2021.
Sin embargo, omite referirse a obstáculos de índole técnico o material para actualizar ese aspecto del patrimonio natural del Estado. Es decir, no indica a la Sala cuál es el estado actual de los humedales en el cantón de Talamanca, ni ofrece razón alguna por la cual los estudios que justificaron la decisión de 2017 son técnicamente superiores al material de 2021. O, dicho a la inversa, no se exponen los motivos por los cuales el estudio de 2021 no corresponden a la realidad o a criterios técnicos de tutela del patrimonio natural del Estado. Por lo anterior, considera este Tribunal que en aplicación del principio precautorio, al versar este amparo sobre bienes ambientalmente relevantes, constitutivos del patrimonio natural del Estado, específicamente de los humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca, debe declararse con lugar el recurso con las consecuencias expuestas en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
(…)
Por tanto:
Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena: i) a Maylin Mora Arias, en su condición de directora regional a. i. del Área de Conservación La Amistad Caribe del Sistema Nacional del Áreas de Conservación, o a quien en su lugar ejerza ese cargo, concluir, en el plazo de TRES MESES, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, el trámite para complementar la certificación de Patrimonio Natural del Estado en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del Cantón de Talamanca con la “Caracterización y delimitación de humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca” de junio de 2021; ii) a Delio Antonio Robles Loaiza, en su condición de jefe a. i. del Departamento de Urbanismo, y a Daniel Brenes Arroyo, encargado de la Unidad de Criterios Técnicos y Operativos de Ordenamiento Territorial, ambos del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, así como a Rugeli Morales Rodríguez, alcalde, y a Yahaira Mora Blanco, presidente del Concejo, ambos de la Municipalidad de Talamanca, disponer lo necesario para incorporar la actualización arriba mencionada en el Plan Regulador Costero del Cantón de Talamanca.
Se advierte a las autoridades recurridas que según lo dispuesto en 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 en 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, el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo y a la Municipalidad de Talamanca al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en la vía de ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. El Magistrado Salazar Alvarado salva el voto y declara sin lugar el recurso, por corresponderle a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contenciosoadministrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Notifíquese”.
Posteriormente mediante sentencia número 2025009536 de las nueve horas quince minutos del veintiocho de marzo de dos mil veinticinco resolvió:
“II.- SOBRE LO RESUELTO POR ESTA SALA EN EL EXPEDIENTE N° 14-19174-0007-CO, RELACIONADO CON LA SITUACIÓN PLANTEADA POR EL RECURRENTE. Tal y como lo afirma el recurrente esta Sala tramitó a la acción de inconstitucionalidad N° 14-19174-0007-CO interpuesta por el -aquí recurrente- Nombre121413 , a la cual mediante resolución de las once horas y veintitrés minutos del diecisiete de diciembre del dos mil catorce esta Sala dispuso darle curso “para que se declare inconstitucional la LEY NÚMERO Placa22278 10 DE MARZO DE 2014”.
Así, sobre el particular y luego del estudio detallado de los autos esta Sala dictó la sentencia número 2019-012745 de las doce horas y diez minutos de diez de julio de dos mil diecinueve, mediante la cual dispuso lo siguiente:
“1) Por mayoría se declara con lugar la acción, anulando la Ley impugnada, n.° 9223 "Reconocimiento de los derechos de los habitantes del Caribe Sur" únicamente en lo que respecta a los territorios comprendidos en la zona boscosa, conforme lo dispuesto por la Procuraduría General de la República en sus informes. En virtud de lo anterior, se ordena al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación que proceda, dentro del plazo de doce meses, contado a partir de la publicación íntegra de este pronunciamiento en el Boletín Judicial, a delimitar el área antes mencionada y, en conjunto con la Procuraduría General de la República, ejercer las acciones legales correspondientes en defensa del patrimonio público. Esta declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad tendrá efecto declarativo y retroactivo a la fecha de vigencia de la norma, todo sin perjuicio de derechos adquiridos de buena fe.2) El Magistrado Cruz Castro pone nota. 3) Los Magistrados Hernández López, Salazar Alvarado, y Araya García salvan el voto y declaran sin lugar la acción, no obstante indican que el Estado está obligado a ejercer las acciones necesarias para reivindicar las tierras que se encuentren ilegalmente ocupadas en las zonas protegidas conforme lo indica la ley. 4) Reséñese esta sentencia en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta y publíquese íntegramente en el Boletín Judicial.
Notifíquese al accionante, a la Presidenta de la Asamblea Legislativa o a quien ocupe su cargo, a la Procuraduría General de la República y a todos los intervinientes.” Posteriormente y dada la presentación de varios escritos donde -entre otros- el propio señor Nombre121413 reclamó el incumplimiento de la resolución N° 2019-1245 del 10 de julio del 2019 esta Sala emitió la sentencia 2024026300, mediante la cual dispuso lo siguiente:
“(…)
Luego mediante resolución de las doce horas cincuenta y seis minutos del siete de marzo de dos mil veinticinco, esta Sala dispuso una serie de medidas cautelares, a saber:
“(…) De conformidad con lo dispuesto por el párrafo cuarto del artículo 41 de la citada Ley, y conforme al resto de competencias de esta Jurisdicción Constitucional, se podrá dictar cualquier medida cautelar de conservación o seguridad que la prudencia aconseje, para prevenir riesgos materiales o evitar que se produzcan otros daños como consecuencia de los hechos realizados. Así se resuelve que, en el intervalo de tiempo de la delimitación y hasta tanto no llegue a esta Sala el Informe Final de cumplimiento de la sentencia n°2019-12745 de las 12:10 horas del 10 de julio del 2019; mientras esta Sala no disponga otra cosa; y para evitar daños graves e irreparables al ambiente, se DICTAN LAS SIGUIENTES MEDIDAS CAUTELARES: A) Se suspende el otorgamiento de concesiones o permisos nuevos; y se suspende la ejecución de concesiones o permisos ya otorgados, por parte de Municipalidad de Talamanca, sobre las 20,1 has de terrenos clasificados como bosque que se ubican dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo.
Dado que en lo fundamental la parte recurrente alega la presunta desobediencia a lo ordenado por esta Sala dentro del expediente 14-19174-0007-CO anteriormente indicado, ello por parte de las autoridades municipales, y siendo que dentro del mismo ya esta Sala ha ordenado recientemente varias “medidas cautelares” mediante resolución de las doce horas cincuenta y seis minutos del siete de marzo de dos mil veinticinco, a saber que: “A) Se suspende el otorgamiento de concesiones o permisos nuevos; y se suspende la ejecución de concesiones o permisos ya otorgados, por parte de Municipalidad de Talamanca, sobre las 20,1 has de terrenos clasificados como bosque que se ubican dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo. B) Se suspende la directriz 09-2023 del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía que dispone que los límites oficiales del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo son los establecidos en la Ley N° 9223, Reconocimiento de los derechos de los habitantes del Caribe Sur, vigente desde el 8 de abril 2014.
Dado que claramente el oficio mencionado y suscrito por Nombre14330 en su condición de Defensora de los Habitantes de la República viene dirigido expresamente al expediente 14-019174-0007-CO y no al presente recurso, lo procedente es que el escrito contenido en el registro electrónico de este proceso a las 15:41:45 horas del veintiocho de febrero de dos mil veinticinco se agregue al expediente número 14-19174-0007-CO, para que allí se resuelva lo que en Derecho corresponda.
(…)
Por tanto:
Desglósense todos los escritos incorporados al expediente digital a las 14:45:10 horas del 20/02/2025, a las 08:44:12 horas del 25/02/2025, a las 14:39:07 horas del 25/02/2025, a las 15:25:48 horas del 27/02/2025, a las 15:25:48 horas, del 27/02/2025; a las 15:46:38 horas, del 27/02/2025; a las 15:41:45 horas, del 28/02/2025; a las 15:41:46 horas, del 28/02/2025; a las 14:09:19 horas del 03/03/2025 y remítanse al expediente No. 14-19174-0007-CO. Archívese este expediente”.
El recurrente afirma que la Sala Constitucional, mediante la sentencia nro. 12745-2019, ordenó al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) delimitar y recuperar 188 hectáreas de humedales y bosques desafectados ilegalmente dentro del Refugio, mandato que permanece incumplido y que, pese a lo anterior en agosto de 2023, el ministro de Ambiente y Energía, emitió la Directriz nro. 09-2023 violentado el principio de no regresión ambienta. Agrega que el refugio permanece en abandono y enfrenta una invasión actual que compromete los ecosistemas protegidos, incumpliendo las obligaciones de restauración ordenadas por la Sala Constitucional. Expone que el viceministro ha ido omiso en las denuncias que ha presentado lo cual soslaya la obligación de proteger el sitio Ramsar. Finalmente expone que la Municipalidad de Talamanca emite permisos administrativos como visados municipales, usos de suelo comercial y de construcción, y permisos de construcción, sin verificar adecuadamente su impacto en el sitio Ramsar nro. 783.
Ante ese panorama y tomando en cuenta que en los antecedentes citados supra se indicó que en el expediente 14-19174-0007-CO ya esta Sala ha ordenado varias “medidas cautelares” tales como: “A) Se suspende el otorgamiento de concesiones o permisos nuevos; y se suspende la ejecución de concesiones o permisos ya otorgados, por parte de Municipalidad de Talamanca, sobre las 20,1 has de terrenos clasificados como bosque que se ubican dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo. B) Se suspende la directriz 09-2023 del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía que dispone que los límites oficiales del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Gandoca-Manzanillo son los establecidos en la Ley N° 9223, Reconocimiento de los derechos de los habitantes del Caribe Sur, vigente desde el 8 de abril 2014. C) Se declara la moratoria total sobre el otorgamiento de permisos de corta y aprovechamiento forestal, por parte del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC), en las áreas de los siete bloques de bosque que deben ser retornadas formal, material y normativamente al REGAMA.
Tanto los permisos nuevos como los permisos ya otorgados quedan suspendidos de inmediato, particularmente el indicado por la Procuraduría General de la República, permiso 011-2024-ACLAC-SLT. (…)” (el resaltado no corresponde al original).
Aunado a lo anterior se determinó que recientemente en la sentencia número 2025023012 de las nueve horas veinte minutos del veintitrés de julio de dos mil veinticinco fue reiterada la orden a la directora regional a. i. del Área de Conservación La Amistad Caribe del Sistema Nacional del Áreas de Conservación, al jefe a. i. del Departamento de Urbanismo, y al encargado de la Unidad de Criterios Técnicos y Operativos de Ordenamiento Territorial, ambos del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, así como al presidente del Concejo, ambos de la Municipalidad de Talamanca para que procedan al cumplimiento de la sentencia número 2024003959 de las 09:30 horas del 16 de febrero de 2024, en las condiciones ahí consignadas -es decir complementar la certificación de Patrimonio Natural del Estado en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del Cantón de Talamanca con la “Caracterización y delimitación de humedales en la zona marítimo terrestre del litoral del cantón de Talamanca” de junio de 2021; así como disponer lo necesario para incorporar la actualización en el Plan Regulador Costero del Cantón de Talamanca-.
Por lo anterior lo alegado no puede ser motivo de un nuevo recurso; por el contrario tal y como se indicó en la sentencia número 2025009536 de las nueve horas quince minutos del veintiocho de marzo de dos mil veinticinco la supuesta desobediencia debe alegarse en el expediente que corresponde. Así las cosas y tomando en cuenta que en el expediente 14-019174-0007-CO la gestión de incumplimiento se encuentra en trámite, resulta improcedente referirse a los mismos hechos. Por lo expuesto, lo procedente es ordenar el archivo de este proceso. Cabe resaltar que en cuanto a la actuación del Hotel Almendros y Corales referente a los drenajes ilegales, apertura de caminos, fraccionamiento de bosques y contaminación lumínica – tal y como quedó demostrado- está siendo conocido en la vía penal. De manera que será en esa vía donde se disponga lo que en Derecho corresponda.
III.Voto salvado del magistrado Rueda Leal. En el sub examine, la parte recurrente alude la afectación ambiental por parte del hotel Almendros y Corales, el cual, según indica, sigue en operación. Al respecto, en el escrito de interposición se mencionaron situaciones que se le atribuyen directamente a tal establecimiento, a saber: “5. El Hotel Almendros y Corales, construido en un humedal y bosque dentro del sitio Ramsar 783, genera daños ambientales graves, incluyendo drenajes ilegales, apertura de caminos, fraccionamiento de bosques y contaminación lumínica que afecta el arribo de tortugas marinas. A pesar de las pruebas aportadas por el suscrito al Viceministro en los oficios AEL-00230-2020 y AEL-00239-2025, el recurrido ha respondido con evasivas, limitándose a anunciar “inspecciones” sin medidas inmediatas como la clausura de drenajes. (…) 1. Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política): La negativa a detener la invasión de los terrenos del Hotel Las Palmas y las actividades del Hotel Almendros y Corales, junto con la falta de restauración de áreas degradadas, compromete la integridad de los ecosistemas protegidos, afectando la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos esenciales para las comunidades locales”.
Incluso, en la pretensión del recurso se pide: “2. Ordenar al Viceministro de Ambiente, Ing. Jorge Mario Rodríguez Zúñiga, y al MINAE la inmediata suspensión de todo desarrollo inmobiliario y actividades invasoras en el sitio Ramsar 783, incluyendo la ocupación de los terrenos del antiguo Hotel Las Palmas y las operaciones del Hotel Almendros y Corales, hasta que se cumpla con la delimitación y protección ordenadas en las sentencias N.° 12745-2019 y N.° 3959-2024. 3. Exigir la clausura inmediata de los drenajes ilegales operados por el Hotel Almendros y Corales, así como la cuantificación y reparación de los daños ambientales causados por sus actividades, incluyendo la contaminación lumínica que afecta a las tortugas marinas, conforme a la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y la Convención Ramsar”.
Por ello, previo a resolver lo que derecho corresponda, lo que procede es prevenir a la parte accionante que aporte la personería jurídica con la que opera tal hotel, a los efectos de tenerlo como parte y darle audiencia sobre los hechos que lo involucran.
Se previene a las partes 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:
Archívese el expediente. El magistrado Rueda Leal salva el voto y ordena continuar la tramitación del amparo a los efectos de que prevenga a la parte accionante aportar la personería jurídica del hotel Almendros y Corales para tenerlo como parte y darle audiencia sobre los hechos que lo involucran. Notifíquese.
Nombre137 V.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Alexandra Alvarado P.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.