Freedom of movement and access restriction to protected area during judicial evictionLibertad de tránsito y restricción de acceso a área protegida en desalojo judicial

Habeas corpus appeal processed under case number 25-038005-0007-CO, filed by Nombre59095, identification number CED43820, on behalf of Nombre99565, identification number CED55153, against the MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY.

Whereas:

1.- By writ received at the Secretariat of the Chamber, at [ ] hours on [ ] of 2022, the appellants file a habeas corpus appeal against the MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY. They state, in summary, that the protected party is an older adult, a cattle rancher, and a resident of Chamorro de Cutris de San Carlos. They add that their represented party has a hearing disability. They assert that, on December 4, 2025, the protected party was traveling in his vehicle on cantonal road 210-249, accompanied by Mr. Julio César Téllez Torres and Mr. Freddy José Rojas Mena, and were heading toward the property whose possession he has exercised for years, which is located from the school of the community of Chorreras, three kilometers east, on national route 1856, where he carries out cattle ranching activity. They clarify that this property in the possession of their represented party was not part of the recent evictions (desalojos) carried out in Finca Río San Juan, in Chorreras. They note that the property in the possession of Mr. Rojas is also not part of the seventy-three demolished structures. They add that their represented party is not charged within the case pursued by the Environmental Prosecutor's Office in which Resolution 25-000857-306-PE of the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela was issued. They assert that he has not been notified in that proceeding either, nor has he been warned that he must vacate the described property. They point out that his possession derives from properties whose possession derived from contracts with the IDA, which have never been resolved. They accuse that, that day—December 4, 2025—the protected party and his companions were stopped at a Public Force (Fuerza Pública) checkpoint, which was located one kilometer before the School of Chorreras, specifically at the Dirección7441, and was informed by a duly identified officer of the Public Force that he could not pass or access the property in his possession, due to superior orders from the Ministry of Public Security, Senasa, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, and SINAC, of MINAET. According to what was reported to the protected party, the order was that he could not enter "protected areas" and he was equally prevented from accessing Dirección10503. They express that their represented party's son, Nombre104430, immediately contacted the regional director of SENASA, in Santa Rosa de Pocosol, and the Vice Minister of Agriculture and Livestock, Fernando Vargas, who told him that they had no connection with the blockade of the indicated cantonal and national roads. They recount that, that day, the protected party had to attend matters of his cattle ranching activity and was evidently and grossly prevented from doing so, therefore the right of free transit backed by the Political Constitution, and by international human rights treaties ratified by Costa Rica, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognize freedom of movement and residence, has been violated to his detriment. They request that the present amparo appeal be granted and that the respondents be ordered not to violate and prevent the passage of Mr. Nombre99565 to the property in his possession, likewise that they not engage again in conduct injurious to the fundamental rights of the protected party.

2.- By resolution at 09:19 hours on December 17, 2025, proceedings were initiated on the present appeal.

3.- Marlon Cubillo Hernández, in his capacity as General Director of the Public Force, reports under oath, that according to what was indicated by Intendant Wilford Roblero Hernández, Deputy Chief of the Los Chiles Police Delegation, the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) filed before the Prosecutor's Office of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, a criminal complaint for the crime of Invasion of a Protection Area, processed under case file 25-000857-0306-PE. He details that, on a date prior to May 7, 2025, persons of unknown identities invaded the Corredor Fronterizo National Wildlife Refuge, located in the locality of Chorreras and Las Crucitas de Cutris, San Carlos, and within the border strip built houses, commercial premises, and developed agricultural and cattle ranching activities without any authorization. He points out that, subsequently, the Criminal Court of the Judicial Circuit of Alajuela hears the case and accepts the request of the Prosecutor's Office of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos; that is, the application of section 140 of the Criminal Procedural Code, insofar as it considers that there is a probability of being in the presence of criminal conduct; and on the other hand, the constitutional and legal mandate to endeavor to conserve areas destined for environmental protection must be fulfilled. He indicates that, for this, it was determined:

* The invasion is carried out within a National Wildlife Refuge, * That, although use and lease permits had been granted in said border strip, they have since expired and have not been renewed since 2010.

* That the persons who occupy or could be occupying these lands do so illegitimately, * Evidence was provided (satellite image from the years 2014 to 2017) that said structures did not exist.

* Constructions lack respective permits from State entities, and therefore must be considered illegal, * There is a sufficient and required degree of probability to assess the imposition of the precautionary measure; coupled with this, detriment to natural resources is verified by the actions taken, which definitively endanger the delicate balance of the ecosystems that these refuges protect, giving rise to the need for the State, through the Judicial Branch, to intervene in the reported acts, with the aim of preventing greater injury to the environment or, in the worst case, that it be irreversible; with the implementation of the intended precautionary measure and the restitution of things to their previous state.

He explains that, in this regard, four resolutions have been issued, three of them dictated by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela and another by the Trial Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos. He notes that, by provision of the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, ratified by the Trial Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, the demolition of seventy-six structures was ordered: houses (some under construction), small grocery stores (pulperías), a bar-restaurant, the demolition and cleaning of debris; in case of failure to perform the obligation, it corresponds to the Municipality of San Caños and SINAC to carry it out and dispose of the waste. He asserts that the interested parties were warned, in case of failure to comply with the ordered, of the possibility of being prosecuted for the crime of disobedience to authority. He concludes that there is a sufficient and required degree of probability to assess the imposition of the precautionary measure; coupled with this, detriment to natural resources is verified by the actions undertaken, which definitively endanger the delicate balance of the ecosystems that these refuges protect, giving rise to the need for the State, through the Judicial Branch, to intervene with the aim of avoiding greater injury to the environment or, in the worst case, that it be irreversible. He refers that the Public Force only performed support and accompaniment tasks for the staff of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), who were in charge of managing the procedures for the execution of the eviction. He details that, prior to the execution of the judicial eviction in case file 25-000857-0306-PE, the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), through official letter CARTA SINAC-ACAHN-DR329-2025, signed by the acting regional director of the Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area, requested the collaboration of the Public Force for the execution of the eviction. He warns that, in said resolutions, the Municipality of San Carlos is ordered that, in the event of non-compliance by the persons exercising possession over said properties, the Local Government, with the collaboration of the System of Conservation Areas and with the assistance of police forces, must perform the demolition and disposal tasks for the generated waste, under the same ordered conditions. He explains that, for this reason, the presence of the Public Force was due not only to the execution of the eviction itself, but also to guarantee the safety of the persons carrying out the demolition and waste disposal tasks, as well as to prevent third parties from being able to dispose of materials resulting from the demolitions. He describes that the Public Force officers who were engaged in carrying out the eviction acted in compliance with the provisions of Articles 8, 10, and 22 of the General Police Law, seeking to guarantee public order and citizen security. He notes that, prior to the execution of the eviction, all inter-institutional coordination was carried out so that the process was as minimally harmful as possible. He mentions that, on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at approximately 06:00 hours, the eviction ordered in case file 25-000857-0306-PE began, in which authorities such as SINAC, Municipality of San Carlos, SENASA, PANI, Public Force, Public Prosecutor's Office, Costa Rica Fire Department, COOPELESCA, Immigration Police, Directorate of Intelligence and State Security participated. He says that, during its execution, the Public Force, among other procedures, established a perimeter in the area to be evicted; controlled the entry and exit of persons, identified persons, registered structures, and others, focused on guaranteeing the safety of the persons to be evicted, as well as the participating authorities. He adds that the resolution and locations of the properties to be evicted, established in resolution No. 967-2025, of the Trial Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos seat, handed down at 13:20 hours on September 22, 2025, include the properties established in the resolution at 15:48 hours on July 14, 2025, of the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela. He specifies that, on November 26, 2025, Public Force personnel, among them Mounted Police, accompanied by representatives of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), arrived at the property and, at the site, identified a person who claimed to be a farmhand for Nombre99565; also, a large number of cattle were observed in a pasture area, for which police personnel collaborated in the tasks of herding the cattle to pen approximately thirty-seven head of cattle, the same which, according to the planning prior to said eviction, was to be placed at the disposal of the National Animal Health Service (Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal). He specifies that, on December 4, 2025, the protected party Nombre99565 was traveling on the Dirección7441 and was preparing to enter the evicted zone, which was in the process of demolition and waste disposal, for which he was approached by Public Force personnel who were guarding the site to prevent unauthorized persons from being able to dispose of residual objects and materials at the request of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC). He highlights that, by virtue of this, Public Force representatives informed him that he could not enter said sector, since it had previously been evicted. He highlights that the execution of the operation for compliance with the judicial resolutions ordering the eviction of the sector known as Las Chorreras is still continuing with the phase of collection and extraction of waste generated as a result of the demolition, which is essential for the proper recovery of the site and the protection of the natural heritage of the State. He points out that, at that moment, the protected party Nombre99565 did not present any document accrediting any of the authorized activities within a protection area; these being research, training, and ecotourism activities. He affirms that it is not true that the protected party was detained by the Public Force; however, it was explained to him that he could not enter the evicted area, since, as has been previously specified, the Public Force was guarding the area because there are still procedures for the demolition of structures and waste disposal. He explains that the Regional Director of the Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area indicated that, in response to the judicial resolutions ordering the eviction and demolition of structures located in Chorreras, there are still farms that were not included within the order issued by the Court, and that some persons still reside on said properties, who depend on the use of the only access road that crosses the intervened site for their entry and exit. Therefore, with the purpose of not affecting the rights of the persons who remain on this farm, and as long as a judicial resolution ordering their eviction is not issued, authorization is requested to permit transit for the entry and exit of said persons and vehicles, given that the protected party and his companions do not appear on the list indicated in the official letter. He clarifies that neither the protected party nor the persons accompanying him were admitted to any police unit or vehicle. He reveals that, regarding the police operation carried out, Sub-Intendant Roblero Hernández, forwarded official letter CARTA-SlNAC-ACAHN-DR-489-2025 of December 9, 2025, signed by the Regional Director, Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area, which states: "for security reasons, it is considered convenient and necessary not to permit the entry of unauthorized persons to the site while the cleaning and waste removal work is being developed within the Chorreras sector, with the purpose of preventing risk situations and interference with the operational work." He reiterates that the Public Force acted in accordance with its constitutional and legal functions and powers of vigilance and conservation of public order, and that there has been no illegitimate apprehension in an arbitrary manner, abuse of authority, or other transgression of the constitutional rights of the aggrieved party. He warns that the appellant did not demonstrate any legal link to the property to be evicted, and as previously stated, the land corresponds to a National Wildlife Refuge of the Border Corridor, which, being a wild protected area, forms part of the forest heritage of the State, for which reason, in compliance with the Wildlife Conservation Law No. 7317, the Public Force supported the National System of Conservation Areas in the execution of the eviction for its recovery as legally corresponds, ensuring the maintenance of public order and citizen security. He considers that no fundamental right has been injured and requests that the appeal be declared WITHOUT MERIT and the case file be archived.

4.- By writ filed at 21:22 hours on December 29, 2025, the appellant replies to the report rendered by the General Director of the Public Force and points out that the filed appeal has nothing to do, at least directly, with the precautionary measure ordered by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, since the protected party was heading from his place of residence in Chamorro to the property where he has approximately eighty hectares of pasture and one hundred heifers that form part of the assets through which he carries out the cattle ranching activity he is engaged in. He adds that said property has been in the possession of Mr. Nombre99565 for more than fifty years, and was not part of the recent evictions carried out in Finca Río San Juan, in Chorreras. He denounces that the protected party could not access his property due to the checkpoint located three kilometers before the School of Chorreras, properly at Dirección7441, even though that land is not part of those evicted because it is not located within the Refuge. He requests that the appeal be granted, ordering that the access and free transit of the protected party to the property in his possession, which is located from the school of the community of Chorreras three kilometers east, on national route 1856, the same which was not part of the properties recently evicted at Finca Río San Juan, in Chorreras, where he currently carries out agricultural activity (cattle that were not removed by SENSA), cannot be impeded.

5.- In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Salazar Alvarado; and,

Considering:

I.- Purpose of the appeal. The appellant party alleges that Public Force officers did not allow him to continue his journey toward the property he holds in possession due to a checkpoint located on the highway, and there he was told that he could not enter protected areas. He maintains that the police action constituted an arbitrary detention and an illegitimate restriction on his freedom of movement.

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

• a)The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) filed a criminal complaint before the Prosecutor's Office of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos seat, for the alleged crime of Invasion of a Protection Area, which is processed under case file No. 25-000857-0306-PE (see report and case records).
• b)In the previously indicated complaint, it was alleged that, on a date prior to May 7, 2025, persons of unknown identities entered and occupied, in an unauthorized manner, lands located within the Corredor Fronterizo National Wildlife Refuge, specifically in the locality known as Las Chorreras and Las Crucitas de Cutris, canton of San Carlos, an area considered to form part of the natural heritage of the State, and there, houses, commercial premises, small grocery stores (pulperías), a bar-restaurant were built, as well as agricultural and cattle ranching activities were developed, without any legal authorization from the competent authorities (see case records).
• c)By resolution at 13:24 hours on June 20, 2025, which was expanded by that at 15:48 hours on July 14, 2025, and in turn supplemented by that at 09:53 hours on July 16, 2025, the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela accepted the request of the Prosecutor's Office and ordered the application of Article 140 of the Criminal Procedural Code, considering that there was a sufficient degree of probability of the commission of a criminal act and a real risk of environmental impact, therefore a period of one month from the notification of this resolution was granted to proceed with the demolition and total cleaning of the debris generated by the activity, and in case of non-compliance by these persons, the Municipality of San Carlos, with the collaboration of the System of Conservation Areas and with the assistance of police forces, the tasks of demolition and disposal of the generated waste (see copy of the resolutions).
• d)By resolution No. 967-2025, at 13:20 hours on September 22, 2025, the Trial Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos, confirmed the previously indicated resolutions, and they are only modified insofar as it is ordered to extend the period to two months from the finality of this resolution to execute the eviction ordered by the Criminal Court (see copy of the resolution).
• e)The Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela and the Trial Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Carlos seat, ordered, as a precautionary measure, the demolition of seventy-six structures located within the invaded area, as well as the cleaning and disposal of debris, and in case of non-compliance by the occupying persons, the Municipality of San Carlos, with the collaboration of SINAC and the assistance of police forces, was to execute the demolition and waste disposal tasks (see resolutions).
• f)At approximately 06:00 hours on November 25, 2025, the eviction operation began within the framework of case file No. 25-000857-0306-PE, with the participation of various State institutions, among them SINAC, Municipality of San Carlos, Public Force, Public Prosecutor's Office, Costa Rica Fire Department, SENASA, PANI, COOPELESCA, Immigration Police, and the Directorate of Intelligence and State Security; demolition activities for structures and waste collection by personnel from the Municipality, SINAC, and others were reported, and Nombre99565 appeared, who indicated he was the owner of a cattle herd, which needed to be placed outside the protection area (see record of action).
• g)During the execution of the eviction, the Public Force limited itself to performing support and accompaniment tasks, such as establishing security perimeters, controlling the entry and exit of persons, identifying occupants, and safeguarding public order (see report).
• h)On December 4, 2025, the protected party attempted to enter the previously evicted zone, which was in the process of demolition and waste disposal, and the Public Force informed him that he could not access the place, due to the fact that operational and security tasks were ongoing (see report).
• i)At that moment, the aggrieved party did not present any document accrediting the undertaking of legally authorized activities within the protected area, such as research, training, or ecotourism, or any legal link legitimizing the possession or occupation of the property located within the Corredor Fronterizo National Wildlife Refuge (see report).
• j)Mr. Nombre99565, nor the persons accompanying him, were detained, apprehended, or transferred to police facilities or inside official vehicles by the Public Force (see report).
• k)The restriction on entry to the intervened area was due to security reasons, while cleaning and waste removal work was being carried out (see the Regional Director of the Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area through official letter CARTA-SINAC-ACAHN-DR-489-2025 of December 9, 2025).
• l)The actions of the Public Force were carried out in support of SINAC and in compliance with the issued judicial resolutions, without accrediting abuse of authority, arbitrary detention, or harm to the fundamental rights of the protected party or his companions (see reports).
• m)Through CARTA-SINAC-ACAHN-DR-489-2025, of December 9, 2025, the Regional Directorate of the Arenal Huetar Norte Conservation Area informed the Commander of the Ministry of Public Security of the conclusion of the demolition phase of the structures located within the National Wildlife Refuge, but the phase of collection and extraction of generated waste still continues, for which reason, for security reasons, it is considered convenient not to permit the entry of unauthorized persons to the site while the cleaning and waste removal work is being developed within the Chorreras sector, with the purpose of preventing risk situations and interference with the operational work, and it is requested to maintain the security post (see copy of the official letter).
• n)Through official letter CARTA SINAC-ACAHN-DR-329-2025, of December 15, 2025, SINAC communicated to the Public Force that there are farms that were not included within the order issued by the Court whose occupants depend on the use of the only access road that crosses the intervened site for their entry, for which the list of authorized persons and the license plate of their vehicles is sent, on which the name of the protected party does not appear (see copy of the official letter).

III.- Regarding the freedom of transit recognized in section 22 of the Political Constitution. The Political Constitution provides, in its Article 22, the following:

"ARTICLE 22.- Every Costa Rican may move and remain at any point of the Republic or outside it, provided he is free from liability, and return when it suits him. Requirements that impede their entry into the country may not be demanded of Costa Ricans." This Court has indicated that one of the purposes of the habeas corpus appeal is to protect any illegitimate restriction on the freedom of transit and movement, provided for in Article 22 of the Political Constitution. This constitutional guarantee is a consequence of the general principle of personal freedom and constitutes a fundamental guarantee, whose protection corresponds to this Constitutional Court. However, the Chamber has also recognized, in its jurisprudence, that the freedom of movement may be limited, among other scenarios, in the cases expressly regulated by numeral 28 of the Political Constitution (see Rulings No. 2019-024692, No. 2017-011142, and No. 2017-010309, among others).

Thus, it has indicated that:

"(…) It should be noted that, by virtue of this public interest, the State is legitimated to establish certain special rules regarding the circulation of automobiles, in pursuit of the well-being and common good of persons. In addition to the above, it is clear that the right enshrined in Article 22 of the Political Constitution – freedom of transit – is not an unlimited and unrestricted guarantee – as was clarified in the aforementioned ruling – just as occurs with some fundamental rights, since although they are fully recognized guarantees by public authorities, these must respond to, and be consistent with, certain general principles and collective interests that must integrate their interpretation and application in reality" (see Ruling No. 2020-006917 at 09:20 hours on April 3, 2020).

IV.- Regarding the merits. In the sub lite, the appellant denounces the alleged violation of the fundamental right to free transit of the protected party, due to having been prevented from entering a piece of land he claims to have possessed for more than fifty years, located in the sector known as Las Chorreras. According to his allegation, Public Force officers prohibited his access because of a checkpoint installed on a national route, an action which, in his opinion, constituted an arbitrary detention and an illegitimate restriction on his freedom of movement.

For their part, the respondent authorities stated, under oath, that the appellant was not detained or deprived of his personal freedom, but rather was only prevented from entering a specific area that was subject to judicial intervention, in which demolition work on illegal structures and waste removal were being executed. They indicated that said restriction was due to reasons of security, public order, and environmental protection.

As indicated above, Article 22 of the Political Constitution recognizes the fundamental right of every person to transit freely through the national territory. However, this right is not absolute, as it admits reasonable, proportional, and legally justified limitations, when these pursue a constitutionally legitimate aim. Therefore, not every spatial or circumstantial restriction constitutes a violation of the right to transit, especially when it concerns areas with restricted access for reasons of public safety, zones subject to judicial intervention, public domain assets (bienes demaniales), or protected areas of the State, as well as temporary measures intended to prevent risks to the physical integrity of persons.

From the analysis of the specific case, this Chamber verifies that there was no detention whatsoever of the protected party, since at no time was he deprived of his personal freedom, led against his will, or retained by police authority.

Note that the officers of the Fuerza Pública acted in compliance with the provisions of Articles 8, 10, and 22 of the Ley General de Policía, in support of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, and in execution of final judicial decisions issued by the Juzgado Penal and the Tribunal, both of the II Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, for the purpose of safeguarding public order, property, and the safety of the persons present at the site.

Thus, the restriction of access to the area in question responded to objective safety reasons, aimed at, among other purposes, preventing accidents during the demolition activities, avoiding interference with the operational work, preventing the removal of materials resulting from said demolitions, and protecting the environmental recovery process of a protected wilderness area. In this context, the implementation of vehicle checkpoints or controls, as well as the prohibition of circulation, does not per se constitute an unlawful or arbitrary action, provided it is duly linked to the prevention or investigation of criminal acts and is carried out under parameters of reasonableness, in light of the specific circumstances, as occurred in the case under examination.

Thus, the mere prohibition of entry to the area in question, because it was subject to a judicial precautionary measure and undergoing demolition, does not amount to a detention nor does it constitute an unlawful restriction of the right of transit, insofar as the petitioner retained full freedom to travel throughout the rest of the national territory. Note that the challenged measure was temporary, specific, and reasonable, adopted on the basis of final judicial decisions, and responded to constitutionally legitimate purposes, such as environmental protection (Article 50 of the Constitución Política) and citizen safety.

Finally, as to whether the ward should have been permitted to circulate through the protected area, the truth is that he did not prove before the police authorities or before this Chamber the existence of a legal link that legitimated his entry or stay at the site, nor did he demonstrate that he had authorization to carry out permitted activities within a wildlife refuge, or that it has been shown that the land he claims to own is located outside the area of the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Corredor Fronterizo; or that it is not subject to eviction by judicial order. Therefore, the foregoing constitutes a dispute that must be aired in the corresponding ordinary administrative or judicial pathway, for purposes of determining the eventual appropriateness of his entry. For this reason, this matter falls outside the scope of competence of this constitutional jurisdiction.

V.- Conclusion. By virtue of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal, as no constitutional violation whatsoever susceptible to protection in this venue has been established.

VII.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE CASE FILE. The parties are advised that, if they have provided any paper document, 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 removed from the office within a maximum period of thirty working days, counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in Session No. 27-11, of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19, of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in Session No. 43-12, held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The appeal is dismissed.- Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador --  It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 08-05-2026 12:07:58.

Sala Constitucional Clase de asunto: Recurso de hábeas corpus Analizado por: SALA CONSTITUCIONAL  Res. Nº 2026002674 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veintitres de enero de dos mil veintiseis .

Recurso de hábeas corpus que se tramita en expediente número 25-038005-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre59095, cédula de identidad CED43820, a favor de Nombre99565, cédula de identidad CED55153, contra el MINISTERIO DE SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala, a las horas del de 2022, los recurrentes interponen recurso de habeas corpus contra el MINISTERIO DE SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA. Manifiesta, en resumen, que el tutelado es una persona adulta mayor, ganadero y vecino de Chamorro de Cutris de San Carlos. Agrega que su representado presenta discapacidad auditiva. Afirma que, el 4 de diciembre de 2025, el tutelado se desplazaba en su vehículo por el camino cantonal 210-249, en compañía de los señores Julio César Téllez Torres y Freddy José Rojas Mena, y se dirigían hacia el inmueble cuya posesión ha ejercido por años, el cual se ubica de la escuela de la comunidad de Chorreras, tres kilómetros al este, sobre la ruta nacional 1856, donde realiza la actividad ganadera. Aclara que, este inmueble en posesión de su representado, no fue parte de los desalojos recientemente realizados en Finca Río San Juan, en Chorreras. Acota que, el inmueble en posesión del señor Rojas tampoco forma parte de las setenta y tres estructuras derribadas. Agrega que, su representado no es imputado dentro de la causa impulsada por la Fiscalía Ambiental en la que se emitió la Resolución 25-000857- 306-PE del Tribunal Penal del II Circuito Judicial de Alajuela. Afirma que, tampoco ha sido notificado en ese proceso, ni se le ha prevenido que debe desalojar el inmueble descrito. Apunta que, su posesión deviene de inmuebles cuya posesión se derivó de contratos del IDA, que nunca han sido resueltos. Acusa que, ese día -4 de diciembre de 2025- el tutelado y sus acompañantes fueron detenidos en un retén de la Fuerza Pública, el cual se ubicaba un kilómetro antes de la Escuela de Chorreras, propiamente en la Dirección7441 y fue informado por un oficial debidamente identificado de la Fuerza Pública, que no podría pasar o acceder al inmueble en su posesión, debido a órdenes superiores del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Senasa, del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, y del SINAC, del MINAET. De acuerdo con lo informado al tutelado la orden es que no podía ingresar en "zonas protegidas" e igualmente se le impidió acceder a la Dirección10503. Expresa que, el hijo de su representado Nombre104430, se comunicó de inmediato con el director regional del SENASA, en Santa Rosa de Pocosol, y con el Viceministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, Fernando Vargas quienes le dijeron, que no tenían ninguna relación con el bloqueo de las carreteras indicadas cantonal y nacional. Narra que, ese día el tutelado debía de atender asuntos propios de su actividad ganadera y le fue impedido de forma evidente y grosera, por lo que se ha violentado en su perjuicio el derecho de libre tránsito respaldado por la Constitución Política, así por tratados internacionales de derechos humanos ratificados por Costa Rica, como la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos y el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, que reconocen la libertad de circulación y residencia. Solicita se declare con lugar el presente recurso de amparo y se ordene a los recurridos no violentar e impedir el paso del señor Nombre99565 al inmueble en su posesión, asimismo que no vuelvan a incurrir en conductas lesivas a los derechos fundamentales del amparado.

2.- Mediante resolución de las 09:19 horas del 17 de diciembre de 2025 se dio curso al presente recurso.

3.- Informa bajo juramento Marlon Cubillo Hernández, en calidad de Director General de la Fuerza Pública, que según lo indicado por el Intendente Wilford Roblero Hernández, Sub Jefe de la Delegación Policial de los Chiles, el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación interpuso ante la Fiscalía del ll Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos una denuncia penal por el delito de Invasión a Área de Protección, tramitada bajo expediente 25-000857-0306- PE. Detalla que, en fecha anterior al 07 de mayo de 2025, personas de calidades ignoradas, invadieron el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Corredor Fronterizo, ubicado en la localidad de Chorreras y Las Crucitas de Cutris, San Carlos, y dentro del cordón fronterizo construyeron casas de habitación, locales comerciales, desarrollo de actividades agrícolas y ganaderas: sin autorización alguna. Señala que, posteriormente el Juzgado Penal del Circuito Judicial de Alajuela conoce la causa y acoge la solicitud de la Fiscalía del ll Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos; sea la aplicación del ordinal 140, del Código Procesal Penal, en el tanto que considera que existe una probabilidad de encontrarse ante una conducta delictiva; y por otro lado debe cumplirse con el mandato constitucional y legal de procurar la conservación de las zonas destinadas a la protección ambiental. Indica que, para ello se determinó :

 La invasión se realiza dentro de un Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre, Que, pese a que se hablan otorgado permisos de uso y arrendamiento en dicha franja fronteriza, los mismos ya vencieron y no han sido renovados desde el año 2010.

 Que las personas que ocupan o podrían estar ocupando estos terrenos lo hacen de manera ilegitima,  Se aportó prueba (imagen satelital de los años 2014 al 2017), de que dichas estructuras no existían.

 Construcciones carecen de permisos respectivos por las entidades de' Estado, por lo que deben considerarse ilegales,  Se cuenta con el grado de probabilidad suficiente y requerido para valorar la imposición de la medida cautelar; aunado a ello, se verifica detrimento en los recursos naturales por las acciones realizadas, que en definitiva ponen en peligro el delicado balance de los ecosistemas que estos refugios protegen, surgiendo la necesidad que el Estado por medio del Poder Judicial, intervenga los hechos denunciados, con la finalidad de evitar una lesión mayor al medio ambiente o en el peor de los casos que sea irreversible; con la implementación de la medida cautelar pretendida y la restitución de las cosas a su estado anterior.

4.- Mediante escrito ingresado a las 21:22 horas del 29 de diciembre de 2025, el recurrente replica el informe rendido por el Director General de la Fuerza Pública y señala que, el recurso interpuesto no tiene nada que ver, al menos de forma directa, con la medida cautelar ordenada por el Juzgado Penal del II Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, ya que el tutelado se dirigía de su lugar de residencia en Chamorro al inmueble en el que tiene cerca de ochenta hectáreas de potrero y cien novillas que forman parte del patrimonio mediante el que realiza la actividad ganadera a la que se dedica. Agrega que, dicho inmueble está en posesión de don Nombre99565 desde hace más de cincuenta años, y no fue parte de los desalojos recientemente realizados en Finca Río San Juan, en Chorreras. Denuncia que, el hecho de que el amparado no pudo acceder a su inmueble debido al retén que se ubicaba tres kilómetros antes de la Escuela de Chorreras, propiamente en la Dirección7441, a pesar de que ese terreno no forma parte de los desalojados porque no se encuentra ubicado dentro del Refugio. Solicita se declare con lugar el mismo ordenando que no se puede impedir el acceso y libre tránsito del amparado al inmueble que se encuentra en posesión que se ubica de la escuela de la comunidad de Chorreras tres kilómetros al este, sobre la ruta nacional 1856, mismo que no fue parte de los inmuebles desalojados recientemente en Finca Río San Juan, en Chorreras, en el que realiza actualmente actividad agropecuaria (ganado que no fue retirado por el SENSA).

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

Redacta el Magistrado Salazar Alvarado; y,

Considerando:

I.- Objeto del recurso. La parte recurrente alega, que oficiales de la Fuerza Pública no le permitieron continuar su trayecto hacia la propiedad que tiene en posesión debido a un retén ubicado sobre la carretera y allí se le dijo que no podía entrar a zonas protegidas. Sostiene que, la actuación policial constituyó una detención arbitraria y una restricción ilegítima a su libertad de desplazamiento.

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

• a)El Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) interpuso denuncia penal ante la Fiscalía del II Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, sede San Carlos, por el presunto delito de Invasión a Área de Protección, la cual se tramita bajo el expediente N° 25-000857-0306-PE (ver informe y autos).
• b)En la supra indicada denuncia se alegó que, en fecha anterior al 07 de mayo de 2025, personas de calidades ignoradas ingresaron y ocuparon de manera no autorizada terrenos ubicados dentro del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Corredor Fronterizo, específicamente en la localidad conocida como Las Chorreras y Las Crucitas de Cutris, cantón de San Carlos, zona que se considera que forma parte del patrimonio natural del Estado y allí, se construyeron casas de habitación, locales comerciales, pulperías, un bar-restaurante, así como se desarrollaron actividades agrícolas y ganaderas, sin contar con autorización legal alguna de las autoridades competentes (ver autos).
• c)Mediante resolución de las 13:24 horas del 20 de junio de 2025, la cual fue ampliada por la de las 15:48 horas del 14 de julio de 2025, y a su vez adicionada por la de 09:53 horas del 16 de julio de 2025, el Juzgado Penal del II Circuito Judicial de Alajuela acogió la solicitud de la Fiscalía y ordenó la aplicación del artículo 140, del Código Procesal Penal, al estimar que existía un grado suficiente de probabilidad de la comisión de un hecho delictivo y un riesgo real de afectación ambiental, por lo que se concedió el plazo de un mes contado a partir de la notificación de la presente resolución proceder con la demolición y limpieza total de los escombros que la actividad genere y en caso de incumplimiento de estas personas, la Municipalidad de San Carlos con la colaboración del Sistema de áreas de Conservación y con el auxilio de los cuerpos de policía las labores de demolición y disposición de los residuos que se genere (ver copia de las resoluciones).
• d)Mediante resolución N° 967-2025, de las 13:20 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2025, el Tribunal de Juicio del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Carlos confirmó las supra indicadas resoluciones y únicamente se modifica en cuanto a que se ordena ampliar por el plazo a dos meses contados a partir de la firmeza de la presente resolución que se ejecute el desalojo ordenado por el Juzgado Penal (ver copia de la resolución).
• e)El Juzgado Penal del II Circuito Judicial de Alajuela y el Tribunal de Juicio del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, sede San Carlos, ordenaron, como medida cautelar, la demolición de setenta y seis estructuras ubicadas dentro del área invadida, así como la limpieza y disposición de los escombros y en caso de incumplimiento por parte de las personas ocupantes, la Municipalidad de San Carlos, con la colaboración del SINAC y el auxilio de los cuerpos policiales, debía ejecutar las labores de demolición y disposición de residuos (ver resoluciones).
• f)Aproximadamente a las 06:00 horas del 25 de noviembre de 2025, inició el operativo de desalojo en el marco del expediente N° 25-000857-0306-PE, con la participación de diversas instituciones del Estado, entre ellas SINAC, Municipalidad de San Carlos, Fuerza Pública, Ministerio Público, Bomberos de Costa Rica, SENASA, PANI, COOPELESCA, Policía de Migración y la Dirección de Inteligencia y Seguridad del Estado, se reportaron actividades de demolición de estructuras y recolección de residuos por parte de personal de la Municipalidad, SINAC y otros y se presenta Nombre99565, quien indicó ser propietario de un hato ganadero, el cual era necesario ubicar fuera del área de protección (ver levantamiento de acta).
• g)Durante la ejecución del desalojo la Fuerza Pública se limitó a realizar labores de apoyo y acompañamiento, tales como el establecimiento de perímetros de seguridad, control de ingreso y salida de personas, identificación de ocupantes y resguardo del orden público (ver informe).
• h)El 04 de diciembre de 2025, el tutelado intentó ingresar a la zona previamente desalojada, la cual se encontraba en proceso de demolición y disposición de residuos y la Fuerza Pública le informó que no podía acceder al lugar, en razón de que se mantenían labores operativas y de seguridad (ver informe).
• i)En ese momento, el amparado no presentó documento alguno que acreditara la realización de actividades legalmente autorizadas dentro del área protegida, tales como investigación, capacitación o ecoturismo o algún vínculo jurídico que legitimara la posesión u ocupación del inmueble ubicado dentro del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Corredor Fronterizo (ver informe).
• j)El señor Nombre99565, ni las personas que lo acompañaban, fueron detenidos, aprehendidos ni trasladados a dependencias policiales o dentro de vehículos oficiales por parte de la Fuerza Pública (ver informe).
• k)La restricción de ingreso al área intervenida obedeció a razones de seguridad, mientras se desarrollaban los trabajos de limpieza y remoción de residuos (ver la Directora Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte mediante oficio CARTA-SINAC-ACAHN-DR-489-2025 del 09 de diciembre de 2025).
• l)Las actuaciones de la Fuerza Pública se realizaron en apoyo al SINAC y en cumplimiento de las resoluciones judiciales emitidas, sin que se acreditara abuso de autoridad, detención arbitraria ni lesión a derechos fundamentales del tutelado ni sus acompañantes (ver informes).

m)Mediante CARTA-SINAC-ACAHN-DR-489-2025, del 09 de diciembre, 2025, la Dirección Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte informó al Comandante del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública la conclusión de la fase de demolición de las estructuras ubicadas dentro del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre, pero aún se continua con la fase de recolección y extracción de residuos generados, por lo que por razones de seguridad, se considera conveniente no permitir el ingreso de personas ajenas al sitio mientras se desarrollan los trabajos de limpieza y remoción de residuos dentro del sector de Chorreras, con el fin de prevenir situaciones de riesgo e interferencia con los trabajos operativos, y se solicita mantener el puesto de seguridad (ver copia del oficio).

• n)Mediante oficio CARTA SINAC-ACAHN-DR-329-2025, del 15 de diciembre de 2025, el SINAC comunicó a la Fuerza Pública que existen fincas que no fueran incluidas dentro de la orden emitida por el Juzgado quienes dependen del uso de la única vía de acceso que atraviesa el sitio intervenido para su ingreso, por lo que se remite la lista de personas autorizadas y la placa de sus vehículos, en la que no aparece el nombre del tutelado (ver copia del oficio).

III.- Sobre la libertad de tránsito reconocida en el ordinal 22, de la Constitución Política. La Constitución Política dispone, en su artículo 22, lo siguiente:

“ARTÍCULO 22.- Todo costarricense puede trasladarse y permanecer en cualquier punto de la República o fuera de ella , siempre que se encuentre libre de responsabilidad, y volver cuando le convenga. No se podrá exigir a los costarricenses requisitos que impidan su ingreso al país”.

Este Tribunal ha señalado que uno de los objetos del recurso de hábeas corpus es tutelar cualquier restricción ilegítima a la libertad de tránsito y movimiento, prevista en el artículo 22, de la Constitución Política. Esta garantía constitucional es consecuencia del principio general de libertad personal y constituye una garantía fundamental, cuya tutela corresponde a este Tribunal Constitucional. No obstante, la Sala también ha reconocido, en su jurisprudencia, que la libertad de movimiento puede ser limitada, entre otros supuestos, en los casos expresamente regulados por el numeral 28, de la Constitución Política (ver Sentencias Nº 2019-024692, N° 2017-011142 y N° 2017-010309, entre otras).

Así las cosas, ha señalado que:

“(…) Debe hacerse notar que en virtud de este interés público, el Estado se encuentra legitimado para establecer ciertas reglas especiales en cuanto a la circulación de automóviles, en procura del bienestar y bien común de las personas. Aunado a lo anterior, es claro que el derecho que consagra el artículo 22 de la Constitución Política -libertad de tránsito- no es una garantía ilimitada e irrestricta -tal y como se aclaró en la sentencia mencionada supra-, al igual que ocurre con algunos derechos fundamentales, pues si bien son garantías plenamente reconocidas por las autoridades públicas, éstas deben responder, y ser acordes, a ciertos principios generales e intereses colectivos que deben integrar su interpretación y aplicación en la realidad” (ver Sentencia Nº 2020-006917 de las 09:20 horas del 3 de abril de 2020).

IV.- Sobre el fondo. En el sub lite, el recurrente denuncia la supuesta violación del derecho fundamental al libre tránsito del tutelado, al habérsele impedido el ingreso a un terreno que afirma poseer desde hace más de cincuenta años, ubicado en el sector conocido como Las Chorreras. Según su alegato, funcionarios de la Fuerza Pública le prohibieron el acceso en razón de un retén instalado en una ruta nacional, actuación que, a su juicio, constituyó una detención arbitraria y una restricción ilegítima a su libertad de desplazamiento.

Por su parte, las autoridades recurridas manifestaron, bajo juramento, que el recurrente no fue detenido ni privado de su libertad personal, sino que únicamente se le impidió el ingreso a un área específica que se encontraba sometida a intervención judicial, en la que se ejecutaban labores de demolición de estructuras ilegales y remoción de residuos. Indicaron que dicha restricción obedeció a razones de seguridad, orden público y protección ambiental.

Tal como se indicó líneas atrás, el artículo 22, de la Constitución Política, reconoce el derecho fundamental de toda persona a transitar libremente por el territorio nacional. No obstante, este derecho no es absoluto, pues admite limitaciones razonables, proporcionales y legalmente justificadas, cuando estas persigan un fin constitucionalmente legítimo. Por ende, no toda restricción espacial o circunstancial configura una violación al derecho de tránsito, en especial cuando se trata de áreas de acceso restringido por motivos de seguridad pública, zonas sometidas a intervención judicial, bienes demaniales o áreas protegidas del Estado, así como medidas temporales destinadas a prevenir riesgos a la integridad física de las personas.

Del análisis del caso concreto, esta Sala constata que no existió detención alguna del tutelado, toda vez que en ningún momento fue privado de su libertad personal, conducido contra su voluntad o retenido por autoridad policial. Nótese que los funcionarios de la Fuerza Pública actuaron en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en los artículos 8, 10 y 22, de la Ley General de Policía, en apoyo al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, y en ejecución de resoluciones judiciales firmes dictadas por el Juzgado Penal y el Tribunal, ambos del II Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, con el fin de resguardar el orden público, los bienes y la seguridad de las personas presentes en el lugar.

De manera que, la restricción de acceso al área denunciada respondió a razones objetivas de seguridad, orientadas, entre otros fines, a prevenir accidentes durante las labores de demolición, evitar interferencias con los trabajos operativos, impedir la sustracción de materiales producto de dichas demoliciones y proteger el proceso de recuperación ambiental de un área silvestre protegida. En este contexto, la implementación de retenes o controles vehiculares, así como la prohibición de circulación, no constituye per se una actuación ilegítima o arbitraria, siempre que esté debidamente vinculada a la prevención o investigación de hechos delictivos y se ejecute bajo parámetros de razonabilidad, atendiendo a las circunstancias concretas, como sucedió en el caso bajo estudio.

Así las cosas, la sola prohibición de ingreso a la zona en cuestión, por encontrarse bajo una medida cautelar judicial y en proceso de demolición, no equivale a una detención ni configura una restricción ilegítima del derecho de tránsito, en tanto el recurrente conservó plena libertad para desplazarse por el resto del territorio nacional. Nótese que, la medida cuestionada fue temporal, específica y razonable, adoptada con fundamento en resoluciones judiciales firmes, y respondió a fines constitucionalmente legítimos, como la protección del ambiente (artículo 50, de la Constitución Política) y la seguridad ciudadana.

Finalmente, si se le debía permitir al tutelado circular por la zona protegida, lo cierto es que no acreditó ante las autoridades policiales ni ante esta Sala, la existencia de un vínculo jurídico que legitimara su ingreso o permanencia en el sitio, ni demostró contar con autorización para realizar actividades permitidas dentro de un refugio de vida silvestre o bien, que se haya demostrado que el terreno que dice poseer, se encuentre fuera del área del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Corredor Fronterizo; o bien que, no está sujeto a desalojo por orden judicial. Entonces, lo expuesto constituye una controversia que debe ventilarse en la vía administrativa o judicial ordinaria correspondiente, a efectos de determinar la eventual procedencia de su ingreso. En razón de ello, dicho extremo escapa al ámbito de competencia de esta jurisdicción constitucional.

V.- Conclusión. En virtud de lo expuesto, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso, al no configurarse violación constitucional alguna susceptible de tutela en esta sede.

VII.- DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE. 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, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de treinta 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 N° 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 sin lugar el recurso.- Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- 