Constitutionality of sport hunting and the seasonal hunting decreeConstitucionalidad de la caza deportiva y el decreto de vedas

*040075730007CO* *040075730007CO* Res. Nº 2006-010973 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at eighteen hours and five minutes of July twenty-sixth, two thousand six.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Nombre01, of legal age, married once, attorney, bearer of identity card CED01, Ombudsman of the Republic, and Nombre02, with a single surname due to his Canadian nationality, of legal age, married once, businessman, residence card number 125-140350-000777, resident of La Garita de Alajuela, in his capacity as President of the Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, holder of legal entity number 3-006-171553, against Executive Decree # 31737 MINAE, articles 28 through 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Law and 16 through 18 of its Regulation, Executive Decree # 26435-MINAE. Also participating in the proceedings were Allan René Flores Moya, Acting Minister of Environment and Energy, and Farid Beirute Brenes representing the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. Intervening as coadjuvants are Ruth Solano Vásquez, identity card CED02, President of the Asociación de Justicia para la Naturaleza, legal entity number 3-002-110034-32, Luis Diego Marín Schumacher, identity card CED03, President of APREFLOFAS, Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, legal entity number 3-002-071676-32, Ignacio Escorriola Giovannini, identity card CED04, Legal Counsel of Vida, Asociación de Voluntariado, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental, legal entity CED05, Randall Arauz Vargas, identity card CED06, President of Pretoma, Asociación Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas, legal entity CED07, María Elena Founier, identity card CED08, President of the Asociación Conservacionista Yisky, Noemí Canet Moya, identity card CED09, President of the College of Biologists; Luis Diego Acuña Delcore, identity card CED10.

Whereas:

1. 1By filing received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at thirteen hours and forty-two minutes on August fourth, two thousand four, the claimant requests that the unconstitutionality be declared of Executive Decree No. 31737-MINAE; articles 28 through 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Law and articles 16 through 18 of Executive Decree No. 26435-MINAE, considering them contrary to article 50 of the Political Constitution and to the international conventions signed by the country on the matter. They indicate that, without being based on prior scientific studies, Executive Decree No. 31737-MINAE "Regulations for Minor and Major Hunting and Continental and Insular Fishing," sets the rules for practicing the hunting of wild species. Articles 28 through 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Law and articles 16 through 18 of the regulation to that law, Executive Decree No. 26435-MINAE, on the other hand, allow the practice of hunting for entertainment purposes, which endangers the environment and the ecological balance.Specifically, they maintain that the challenged rules are issued under the assumption that sport and recreational hunting is necessary to reduce species overpopulation and better use of space, without technical studies existing to demonstrate this. There are no scientific studies on the impact of hunting on wild species populations, and the Minister of Environment and Energy himself acknowledges that the ministry lacks the resources and personnel to conduct the research before drafting the respective decree that sets the annual rules for hunting (in this case, Decree No. 31737-MINAE). According to the Ombudsman's Office, it also lacks the budget to exercise surveillance over hunters. For this reason, there is no record of the number of pieces hunted. They also allege that the decree is deficient by dividing the country into hunting areas that do not correspond to the true distribution of species and allows the use of techniques and conditions harmful to the environment, such as hunting with dogs, for example, which has the drawback that they can spread diseases in the ecosystems of wild species, since dogs do not recognize where a reserve begins, so the pursuit of prey can end within them; dogs also do not discriminate the animals they pursue by age or sex.In the case of goldfinch hunting - another example - capture is permitted in certain areas, but it is not taken into account that these birds migrate periodically such that although hunted outside a restricted area, there is a negative impact on supposedly protected populations. Another inconsistency is that it permits the hunting of two pacas per hunter, a species that is scarce even within protected areas. All these deficiencies, which are due to the lack of research to formulate the rules, constitute a failure to comply with the State's duty to preserve the environment and scenic beauties, as provided in article 50 of the Political Constitution. In this regard, they consider applicable the precedent of this Chamber handed down in judgment 1250-03, regarding the arbitrary and unsupervised permission of the sea turtle hunting activity, upheld by this Chamber.
2. 2By resolution at thirteen hours and forty minutes on October twenty-ninth, two thousand four (visible on folio 33 of the case file), the action was admitted for proceedings, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and to the Minister of Environment and Energy.
3. 3The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic submitted its report (folios 54 through 75), noting that the arguments on which the action is based refer mainly to sport hunting, although the challenged regulations also regulate the exercise of scientific hunting and subsistence hunting. It also notes that from the Wildlife Conservation Law, only the article regulating matters related to hunting was challenged, not that related to continental and insular fishing, whose regulation is contained in articles 61 through 69 of the cited law. The Attorney General's Office considers that the Wildlife Conservation Law and its regulation are based on the principle of sustainable development, which grants the administration the power to create the state bodies responsible for the conservation of wildlife, indicate their competencies, and regulate the activities of private law subjects related to wildlife.For this reason, the exercise of hunting and fishing are activities subject to regulation, control, and supervision by the environmental Public Administration. The Dirección General de Vida Silvestre is the competent body to prohibit the hunting and fishing of animals belonging to reduced or endangered populations, for which said directorate will make the respective declaration, but it also implies the subjection of hunting activity to prior authorization by the environmental public administration, which is competent to grant hunting licenses, therefore, they consider that the Wildlife Conservation Law and its regulation are not unconstitutional. Regarding sport hunting, that is, that carried out for diversion, recreation, and leisure purposes, it does not present defects of unconstitutionality, since it is up to the environmental public administration to exercise its powers and competencies so that the principle of sustainable development is not violated and it is not exercised with danger to species conservation.In this sense, it considers that article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law must be understood in relation to the purposes of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, without endangering the existence of the different species because these must be protected and safeguarded so that they do not disappear, and not in its literal sense. The Attorney General's Office requests that in the event that the Constitutional Chamber considers that sport hunting constitutes a violation of the principle established in article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law, in turn contained in article 50 of the Constitution, it recommends annulling only subsection a) of article 28 and article 33 of the Wildlife Conservation Law. Regarding decree number 31737-MINAE, which regulates in detail the activity of hunting, continental and insular fishing, establishing prohibitions, closed seasons, hunting and fishing zones, the number of pieces, and the type of weapons, they consider that by application of the precautionary principle, they must have the technical scientific studies that support the decisions made therein, so the scientific certainty that a specific provision, be it a norm or a concrete legal act, does not entail damages to the environment, is a constitutional requirement.In its judgment, it is up to this Chamber to determine whether or not the challenged decree has a scientific technical backing that guarantees respect for a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
4. 4Mr. Allan Rene Flores Moya, Acting Minister of Environment and Energy, responds on folio 41 to the granted hearing, stating that Wildlife Conservation Law number 7317 aims to regulate and manage in a rational manner the use of wildlife, without causing detriment to it, in accordance with the challenged legal regulations, and that article 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Law grants the Executive Branch the power to establish the closed seasons (vedas) and types of weapons that may be used in hunting and fishing regulated by law. Also, that article 16 of the Regulation to the Wildlife Conservation Law establishes that an annual Executive Decree must be issued with the respective regulations, prohibiting the hunting or fishing of species that do not appear included in the lists of minor and major hunting species. It is precisely in consideration of that regulation that Executive Decree 31737 MINAE has its support, granting the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre the power of planning, developing, and controlling continental or insular, aquatic, and terrestrial wildlife throughout the national territory, establishing the procedures and requirements for its conservation, also prohibiting the hunting, fishing, and extraction of continental or insular flora and fauna of endangered species, with the exception of sustainably conducted reproduction.He explains that the species included in Executive Decree 31737-MINAE respond to a cultural pattern that has been maintained over time, and that despite the exercise of hunting, populations are maintained in forest areas (áreas de bosques), being the same object of hunting due to their reproductive potential. He says that although direct population censuses have not been conducted for the majority of these species, MINAE technicians have been able to determine, through indirect methods such as sightings and hunter reports, the good state of the populations, whose sustainable use is permitted. An exact count is also not needed to conclude that some species, as occurs with black-bellied whistling ducks (piches), band-tailed pigeons (palomas collajeras), purple pigeons (palomas moradas), and some migratory species, such as the blue-winged teal (cerceta aliazul), the white-winged dove (paloma ala blanca), and the mourning dove (paloma arrocera), constitute large populations, sometimes damaging crops like blackberry, sorghum, corn, rice, precisely because of their high biotic potential that allows them to reproduce very quickly, producing multiple litters per year.He explains that controlled hunting when population peaks occur avoids much more harmful practices such as mass poisonings, which in turn produce often irreversible damage to other species, such as foxes, weasels, and raptors that die by the thousands from eating poisoned meat. It is considered that the habitat available for the species authorized for hunting is ensured, in a good proportion, by the National System of Conservation Areas declared by MINAE, since they occupy more than twenty-five percent of the national territory. To carry out a correct study, the only thing that can be obtained are population indices that help us in decision-making for the management of wild species, given that not even developed countries have absolute population studies. Currently in the country, two hundred thirty-nine species of mammals have been described, of which twelve species are subject to controlled hunting, which is five percent of the total, thereby not endangering the environment and the ecological balance.Regarding birds, eight hundred forty species, of which seventeen are subject to hunting, which means two percent of the totality of species in the country. One of the greatest threats, causing the most damage to wildlife species, is illegal and furtive hunting by residents surrounding these protected areas, since they do not respect the authorized number of pieces or reproduction seasons, hunt all types of animals, male or female, and use unauthorized methods. The species whose harvest has been permitted over the last thirty-five years or more through Closed Season Tables (Cuadros de Veda), which are adjusted when deemed necessary according to reproduction periods, have maintained their populations in relation to the available habitat, as occurs with pigeons, local and migratory ducks that have increased exponentially due to changes in agriculture, through the planting of products like sorghum, corn, rice, beans, etc. He emphasizes that for the preparation of the decrees, use was made of research conducted by experts privately and with national and foreign institutions.Likewise, the experience of officials in the field of biology was used. He considers that a possible declaration of unconstitutionality of the mentioned articles would cause an unbridled increase in illegal hunting, which would have a negative effect on wild species populations. In some countries, total bans have been declared, an action that has caused havoc in natural populations of wild animals. He concludes indicating that the implications of a declaration of unconstitutionality of articles 28 to 34 of the Law and 16 to 18 of the Regulation of the Wildlife Conservation Law would bring inconvenient consequences, placing the country at the tail end of conservation and management thereof, as has unfortunately happened in countries like India, Kenya, Venezuela, which with similar regulations managed to tie the hands of Wildlife biologists, who could not stop the drastic decline of their wild animal populations.Therefore, if these articles were eliminated from the legal system, there would be a lack of adequate control over the exercise of hunting and a census of those who practice it and the obtaining of results of scientific interest. Another important point to consider is the existence of people who, due to their difficult economic situation, generally residents of areas far from the urban core of our country, make use of hunting wild animals as a means of obtaining cheap protein, and through these regulations, they have been able to be detected and regulated appropriately. With respect to article 11 of the Biodiversity Law, there are no sufficient evidentiary elements demonstrating that the exercise of sport hunting has caused damage to the populations of wild species subject to this activity. He affirms that resolution 9.24 of the International Convention on Trade and Trafficking of Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora does not injure the pro natura principle given that the animals whose controlled hunting is permitted does not threaten the conservation and survival of the species, especially since said regulation is only applicable to species that are subject to international trade.The Constitutional Chamber has understood the environment as a potential for development to be used appropriately, acting in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political order relationships, since, otherwise, its productivity for the present and the future would degrade and would put at risk the patrimony of coming generations. He requests that the filed action of unconstitutionality be dismissed.
5. 5The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in Judicial Bulletins 219, 220, and 221 of November ninth, tenth, and eleventh, two thousand four respectively (folio 40).
6. 6Ruth Solano Vásquez, identity card CED11, President of the Asociación de Justicia para la Naturaleza, Luis Diego Marín Schumacher, President of APREFLOFAS, Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, Ignacio Escorriola Giovannini, Legal Counsel of Vida, Asociación de Voluntariado, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental, Randall Arauz Vargas, President of Pretoma, Asociación Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas, María Elena Founier, President of the Asociación Conservacionista Yisky, Noemí Canet Moya, President of the College of Biologists, request to be considered coadjuvants of the petitioners based on the provisions of article 34 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. They allege that as organizations dedicated to promoting the protection and preservation of the environment, they have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the action. They state that the action of unconstitutionality brought by the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) and the Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, against articles 28 through 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Law # 7317 and articles 16 through 18 of the Regulation of this law, decree 26435-MINAE, as well as decree number 31737-MINAE, omits a series of procedures and requirements of a legal, technical, and scientific nature that violate the right of Costa Ricans to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.They argue that the technical justification has been set aside for authorizing sport hunting and the establishment of hunting quotas, the sustainability of the practice of sport hunting and the impact of this activity on the involved species, other wild species and the ecosystem, the knowledge of the state of the populations of the species permitted to be hunted, the number of individuals of each species that can be captured per hunting season, the permitted hunting zones, the permitted hunting methods, the logistical and operational capacity of MINAE to supervise sport hunters. They state that MINAE does not require any type of sanitary control over the hunting dogs used for hunting, nor does it require any type of sanitary control over the birds used to hunt other birds. MINAE allows sport hunters the introduction of domestic animals and wild animals into free-living populations, without requesting any type of sanitary control.They maintain that the practice of sport hunting injures the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, article 50 of the Political Constitution, the protection of natural beauties, article 89 of the Political Constitution, in addition to the Convention for the Protection of Flora, Fauna, and Natural Scenic Beauties of the Countries of America, ratified by Law 3763; the Agreement for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wild Areas in Central America, ratified by Law # 7433, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Law # 7416.
7. 7Luis Diego Acuña Delcore states that he proceeds to set forth some additional considerations to what was set out by the Minister of Environment and Energy that could be useful for the dismissal of the action. He indicates that the claimants do not provide solid evidentiary elements in support of their assertions that would legally allow room for the application of the precautionary principle or "in dubio pro natura" that would justify the declaration of unconstitutionality. It is not true that studies are not carried out when setting the regulatory policies for sport hunting. Despite the scarcity of resources affecting almost the entirety of the Costa Rican Public Sector, and as a member thereof, the Environmental Administrative Authority, when including in the lists of species with threatened populations certain animals that make up the national wild fauna, whether resident or migratory, and establishing the closed season tables (cuadros de vedas), that Authority makes use of various perfectly valid tools used even at the international level, such as sightings and the experience of biologists, the experiences of park ranger officials.None of the few animal species of game value whose hunting is permitted by national legislation are included in the lists of species with reduced populations, seriously threatened, or on the verge of extinction. Sport hunters constitute important and effective ad hoc guardians of wildlife, since they must ensure that the appropriate conditions exist for the survival of the animal species to be hunted.
8. 8Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Minister of Environment and Energy, reports (folio 157) that the Ministry of Environment and Energy is responsible for the sustained and sustainable management of natural resources in the country. The petitioners aim for direct censuses to be conducted of the different species of ducks, pigeons, and fish that migrate to the country by the hundreds of thousands prior to their use, when the truth is that most of the time the number that effectively reaches our coasts depends on climatic factors, the relative abundance of food along their migratory routes, the direction of the wind. He explains that the problem at the national level, both in fauna conservation and in forest conservation, is furtive hunting and uncontrolled felling, which would be aggravated by the intended declaration of unconstitutionality. He indicates that the discussion regarding the advisability of a total prohibition of hunting activity has been widely discussed in the country, and that the College of Biologists of Costa Rica recommended that the activity should be maintained in a sustained manner.On the other hand, he affirms that hunting licenses have a cost that fluctuates between four thousand and twenty thousand colones depending on whether they are minor or major hunting licenses, money that is destined for conservation and to help sustain the entire structure and management of wild animal populations. He argues that wild fauna is constituted by vertebrate and invertebrate animals that live in natural conditions in the national territory, hence, it would be extensible to continental fishing. Consequently, fishing throughout the national territory would have to be prohibited, since specific counts of fish in the rivers, lagoons, and estuaries existing in the country have not been carried out. He explains that Costa Rica is one of the most advanced countries in Latin America in the management of the conservation of its natural resources, this due to the implementation of conservation programs.He says that the preventive and precautionary criteria as defined by article 11 of the Biodiversity Law must be applied when biodiversity is seen as threatened, not postponing the adoption of effective protection measures due to lack of legal certainty. He requests that the action filed be dismissed in all its extremes.
9. 9On folio 180 there appears a filing submitted by Nombre02, in which he reiterates that in Costa Rica there are no technical scientific studies for the species whose capture is permitted under the guise of sport hunting.
10. 10By resolution at thirteen hours and thirty-five minutes on March second, two thousand five, the hearings granted to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Ministry of Environment and Energy in the resolution at thirteen hours and forty minutes on October twenty-ninth, two thousand four, are considered answered. As untimely, the coadjuvancy presented at folio 87 by Ruth Solano Vásquez and Others is rejected. The statements of Mr. Luis Diego Acuña Delcore (folios 136 to 140) are considered made.
11. 11On folio 205 is a filing submitted by Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Minister of Environment and Energy, in which he expresses the difficulty of carrying out an exact count of birds, for which he provides two photographs taken on the farm of Mr. Nombre03, who denounces the problem caused by blue-winged teal (patos ala azul) and black-bellied whistling ducks (piches) in rice and sorghum crops.
12. 12By filing submitted on April sixth, two thousand five, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Minister of Environment and Energy (folio 208), adds that the challenged regulations come to establish and regulate hunting and fishing for the rational and sustainable use in a manner that guarantees the survival of the species. He comments that the "Closed Season Table (Cuadro de Vedas)" does not violate the precautionary and preventive principles established in the Political Constitution and International Treaties, for having been issued without having exact population censuses of the different species that live permanently or temporarily in the national territory. He affirms that there is no danger or threat whatsoever to the elements of Costa Rican biodiversity, given that the hunting authorization represents neither five percent of the mammal species nor two percent of the bird species in the country.He adds (folio 225) that a total prohibition of sport hunting would result in enormous harm to the species one wishes to protect and would be a violation of the treaties and agreements signed by Costa Rica. He maintains that the Wildlife Conservation Law and the Biodiversity Law, international conventions, the International Convention for the Traffic of Endangered Species, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Biodiversity Convention, all coincide on the sustainable use of natural resources, allowing even the export and import of endangered animals, provided they are Hunting Trophies for personal use, because of the incentive for Conservation that giving them value implies. Thus, and despite the fact that the population of the African White Rhinoceros was down to less than two thousand specimens and was in Appendix I of CITES when its hunting was permitted, it now numbers around fifteen thousand specimens, precisely because of how profitable its conservation is to harvest them as hunting trophies, which can be exported without problems to the country of origin of the one who hunted them.Thus, and independently of the relative abundance or scarcity of the animal species whose hunting is permitted in the country — which he repeats, none of them are found with reduced populations, much less in danger of extinction — and independently of whether or not exact population censuses have been done to determine their number — a thing he reiterates is impossible to do neither here nor anywhere — what can be done to bring down the entire System of Costa Rican Conservation Areas is to prohibit the sustainable use of biodiversity.
13. 13On folio 235 is a filing submitted by Nombre02, in which he provides a copy of the letter sent by several groups of voluntary COVIRENA inspectors to the Minister of Environment and Energy.
14. 14By resolution at thirteen hours and thirty-five minutes on March second, two thousand five, this action was assigned by the Presidency of the Chamber to Magistrate Luis Paulino Mora Mora.
15. 15The oral and public hearing is dispensed with as there are sufficient elements of judgment in the case file to render judgment (article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction).
16. 16The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.

Drafted by Magistrate Mora Mora; and,

Considering:

I.On admissibility: The Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) is directly legitimized to file this action of unconstitutionality by express provision of the third paragraph of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.

For its part, the standing of the petitioner Nombre02 is active and direct, insofar as the state duty to protect the environment safeguards a collective interest whose defense exempts the petitioner from the prior matter required by the first paragraph of Article 75 of the aforementioned law, in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph thereof, as this Constitutional Chamber has interpreted in abundant case law when analyzing Article 50 of our Constitución Política.

II.Object of the challenge. This action seeks to determine whether Articles 28 to 35 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and 16 to 18 of its regulation, Decreto number 26435-MINAE, as well as Decreto number 31737-MINAE, are unconstitutional for being contrary to the provisions of Articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution, and the provisions of international treaties on the matter, signed, approved, and ratified by the Costa Rican state.

The petitioners' arguments revolve around two aspects:

• a)that hunting and fishing regulated in the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and the regulations developing it violate the constitutional principle establishing the state's duty to protect and preserve life in all its forms, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and the duty to protect natural beauties (Articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution). Likewise, that this violates the provisions of the Convenio para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad y Protección de Áreas Silvestres Prioritarias en América Central, Ley number 7433, and the principle contained in Article 9.1 of the Ley de Biodiversidad (LB) number 7788 of April 30, 1998.
• b)that the annual closed season decree, in this case number 31737-MINAE, was issued without the technical-environmental studies guaranteeing its environmental viability, which constitutes a breach of the preventive and precautionary principles established in Article 11 of the Ley de Biodiversidad, as well as in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

It is clear from the filing brief that both arguments primarily refer to sport hunting, although the regulations against which it was filed regulate, in addition to the latter, the exercise of scientific hunting and subsistence hunting. In this sense, the action is considered filed regarding sport hunting only. It is also worth clarifying that of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, only the articles regulating matters related to hunting were challenged, not those related to continental and island fishing, whose regulation is contained in Articles 61 to 69 of the aforementioned law.

III.On the merits. The challenged articles of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre regulate matters related to the exercise of sport, scientific, and subsistence hunting. It literally states:

“ARTICULO 28.- For the purpose of regulating the exercise of hunting, it is classified into:

• a)Sport: when carried out for entertainment, recreation, or leisure purposes.
• b)Scientific: when carried out for scientific study purposes.
• c)Subsistence: when carried out to meet the food needs of persons of limited economic means, verified through the rules dictated by the Regulation to this Law.” As the Procuraduría rightly points out, the remaining articles establish the legal framework for the executive branch and the environmental public administration to regulate and exercise oversight and control powers in relation to the exercise of hunting in its three modalities. It is worth noting that the control and oversight of the hunting activity occurs through the granting of hunting licenses. For this reason, Article 29 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre establishes the principle that hunting may only be practiced with the corresponding license, the issuance of which is the responsibility of the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS) of the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), as established in Article 30 thereof. The Executive Branch is responsible for establishing closed seasons (vedas) and the type of weapons to be used in hunting, as stipulated in numeral 34 of the aforementioned Law. Precisely, Decreto 31737-MINAE, challenged in this action, is the decree by which the executive branch established the closed seasons for the year 2004.

For their part, numerals 16 to 18 of the regulation to the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, Decreto number 26435-MINAE, indicate the basic guidelines that the executive branch must follow in establishing the closed seasons which it annually sets by decree. In this regard, it regulates matters concerning authorized hunting methods and, specifically, matters related to the type of weapons that may be used. These provisions are complemented each year by what is established in the respective closed season decree. Thus, the regulatory framework governing the exercise of big game and small game hunting (caza mayor y menor) consists of the provisions of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, Articles 28 to 35, the regulation to the law in its Articles 16 to 18, which, in addition to hunting, regulates continental and island fishing, and the corresponding closed season decree. These latter two norms, the regulation and the annual closed season decree, constitute the development that, in the exercise of its regulatory power, the executive branch makes of what is stipulated in the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre regarding the exercise of hunting and, as applicable, continental and island fishing.

IV.On the constitutionality of sport hunting. Costa Rican legislation uses a concept of conservation of our natural resources based on their rational use, given their renewable nature. From this point of view, the State's obligation is to ensure the adoption of legislation and actions aimed at securing the protection and conservation of fauna and flora with a concept of balance. Precisely, the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and its regulation aim to regulate and rationally maintain the use of wildlife without its degradation. Within this context, the Executive Branch has the obligation to establish the closed seasons and types of weapons that may be used in the hunting and fishing regulated by the law (Article 34), and its Regulation establishes the obligation to issue an annual decree with the respective regulations (Article 16), prohibiting the hunting or fishing of endangered species with the exception of sustainably conducted reproduction. In this sense, the challenged executive decree 31737-MINAE has its legal basis in Articles 6, 12, 14, and 18 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre.

V.The argument that sport hunting of wild species in and of itself endangers the environment and the ecological balance protected in Article 50 of the Constitution is not shared by this Chamber. This is in view of the fact that the entire regulatory scheme is based on the idea that the use and exploitation (aprovechamiento) that human beings can make of wildlife, seen as a natural resource, must be in such a way that it does not endanger the survival of species through rational use and exploitation. This is a perspective founded on the principle of sustainable development, which has constitutional support and backing in the international regulations signed by our country. Likewise, the concept of sustainable development has been developed by constitutional case law since ruling 3705-93. In this way, sport hunting constitutes a legal form of exploitation of wild fauna, subject to State regulation, control, and oversight, regardless of its ethical compatibility.

In addition to the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, the Convention for the Protection of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Scenic Beauties of the Countries of America (CITES) establishes the legal framework for the hunting activity, including sport hunting, to be exercised in a sustainable manner. To claim that the defense of Article 50 of our Constitution includes respect for life in all its forms, without exception, would imply the non-application of the principle of sustainable development. The consequences would be such that animal breeding activities for human consumption, and scientific and subsistence hunting and fishing—not just sport hunting—could not be carried out. Therefore, as the Procuraduría rightly points out in its response, Article 9.1 of the Ley de Biodiversidad must be understood in relation to the aims of conservation and sustainable use of national resources. In the specific case, this implies the State's duty to protect all existing species of flora and fauna from irrational use, understood as that which could endanger the existence of the different species.

In this sense, as long as the concept regulated by the Law conforms to the principle of rational use of natural resources, that is, sustainable development that allows for their renewal, the legislation meets the requirements of Article 50 of the Constitution and the international treaties signed by our country.

VI.However, the fact that the existence of sport hunting in itself is not unconstitutional does not mean that its specific regulation is not; that is, that Decreto 31737-MINAE, issued pursuant to the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, which regulates in detail hunting and continental/island fishing for the year 2004, respects the stated principles, which brings us to the second point of challenge in this action. Here we encounter a problem of verifying the effects that the challenged decree may be producing on the flora and fauna, given that its generic nature prevents determining the effects it produces on each species. This is precisely the central point of the plaintiffs' argument. They indicate that in the absence of specific scientific studies for each species, the authorization of sport hunting is, in itself, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the precautionary principle, and that, therefore, until such technical studies exist, the authorization contained in the decree to issue sport hunting licenses must be prohibited.

In support of this thesis, they cite the precedent of this Chamber set in the case of the closed season for green turtle hunting, indicating that for the decree to be constitutional, it must indicate which species can be hunted or fished, and with which weapons and methods, only based on solid technical-scientific support for each species that guarantees respect for the environment. The Procuraduría indicates that the questioned decree must withstand the constitutional test, in this case, respect for the precautionary principle, and that although there is a strictly technical-scientific field that the constitutional judge cannot evaluate, it is within their purview to verify whether the requirement as such is met, and whether it reasonably satisfies what in technical matters are called “univocal and exactly applicable technical and scientific rules” protected in Article 158.4 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

What this implies is that, although the Chamber does not have the technical-scientific elements to determine whether environmental protection is met for each species, in general, the decree has some technical-scientific backing that gives it a constitutional appearance, even though its particular effects cannot be broadly deduced from it given that it affects an undetermined number of species. Undoubtedly, the issue is complicated because even if the decree withstands this analysis, it is not known for certain whether it actually produces harmful effects on one or several specific species, which, as is known, due to the chain of effects, would always result in an impact on the environment in general, thereby bringing us back to the first argument raised regarding whether it is possible at all to hunt animals without affecting the environment. As can be seen, the crux of the matter lies in understanding that the balance sought by both our Constitution and our legislation is not, and cannot be, perfect, but only reasonable, that is, a rational exploitation of natural resources that allows for their renewable use.

There will always be, as a result of human intervention, an unbalancing effect on nature, whose effects must not be such that they endanger its sustainability. That being the case, it is enough for the challenged decree to have a technical-scientific basis that is credible to this Chamber to pass the constitutional test. It does not have to be the best scientific study, only one that respects “univocal and exactly applicable technical and scientific rules.” From a scientific point of view, this may be heresy, but not from a legal point of view, which has other rules of the game. It remains a concern for this Chamber that this is the case; nevertheless, it would be virtually impossible “in the abstract” to determine the effects that the application of the decree may have on each species affected by it. Therefore, the legal system has another solution for this type of case: the concrete analysis of its effects through the recurso de amparo, which is precisely meant to measure the concrete application that general regulations may have in a specific situation that results in an infringement of a fundamental right.

This does not mean, as the Procuraduría rightly warns, that the decree is not required to have technical-scientific backing. And it is here where there is a contrast between what the MINAE considers technical-scientific backing and what the appellants consider as such. The heart of the matter is that MINAE bases the drafting of the decree on the experience of its biologists with more than twenty years of experience, on particular investigations or those of national and foreign institutions, the historical behavior of the species involved, among others (as noted in official communication DM-1780-2003 of September 5, 2003, on folio 120), and the petitioners consider that for this technical-scientific study to be valid, it must be a specific study of each species. Thus, the Chamber is put in the position of choosing between two systems used, both scientific, to determine not which is better—which is not within the scope of the action, which is limited, as the Procuraduría recognizes, to determining whether respect for the precautionary principle is met, i.e., whether it has some scientifically reasonable basis that guarantees environmental protection.

We already know that nothing perfect can be expected in this matter, which is based rather on the concept of sustainable development and not on avoiding any impact on it. Within this context, for this Chamber, the challenged decree is not per se unconstitutional, as it has technical-scientific backing. Although this backing probably can and should be better, its impact on one or several specific species cannot be established in the abstract; effects that can indeed be determined through the concrete analysis of each allegedly affected species, should the case arise, via the recurso de amparo. One could say that the impossibility of knowing in the abstract whether the environmental balance is guaranteed is, in itself, proof of the violation of the precautionary principle, and this would be true, as occurred in the precedent of the sea turtle case 1250-03, were it not for the fact that the State has also provided evidence that the prohibition per se of sport hunting in general, and of certain species in particular regulated in the questioned decree, could, in turn, bring about adverse effects on the environment if not controlled, as mentioned by the Minister of Environment and Energy in their briefs on folios 157 and 205.

Evidence has even been provided of the overpopulation of several species that produce harmful effects on crops or other species, which need to be controlled through sport hunting and other methods to avoid the use of techniques that indiscriminately affect the environment, such as mass poisonings that would affect other species, including those outside the decree. In such a way that the very annulment of the challenged regulation could signify, in turn, a violation of the State's duty to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, inevitably, the concrete effects of the challenged decree must be assessed against each specific case and with an analysis of the technical-scientific studies submitted as evidence, and not in the abstract as intended in this action.

VII-. Finally, this Chamber considers that future decrees of this kind must establish specific limits on the maximum number of licenses to be granted per zone, per species, and the number of specimens allowed, as well as establish centralized control and monitoring of the same, to avoid excesses that could result in a violation of Article 50 of our Constitution.

Por tanto:

The action is declared without merit. The Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) must comply with the obligation indicated in the last considerando of this judgment. Notify.

Ana Virginia Calzada M. Presidenta a.i Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Horacio González Q. Jorge Araya G.

In that regard, they consider applicable the precedent of this Chamber handed down in judgment 1250-03, regarding the arbitrary and unsupervised permit for the activity of hunting sea turtles, which was granted by this Chamber.

1. 2By resolution at one forty in the afternoon on October twenty-nine, two thousand four (visible on folio 33 of the case file), the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General and the Minister of Environment and Energy.
2. 3The Office of the Attorney General submitted its report (folios 54 to 75), pointing out that the arguments on which the action is based refer mainly to sport hunting, although the challenged regulations also govern the exercise of scientific and subsistence hunting. It also notes that, of the Wildlife Conservation Law, only the article regulating hunting was challenged, not the provisions related to continental and insular fishing, whose regulation is contained in articles 61 to 69 of the cited law. The Office of the Attorney General considers that the Wildlife Conservation Law and its regulations are based on the principle of sustainable development, which grants the administration the power to create the state bodies responsible for wildlife conservation, to define their powers, and to regulate the activities of private legal subjects related to wildlife. For this reason, the exercise of hunting and fishing are activities subject to regulation, control, and oversight by the environmental Public Administration.The Dirección General de Vida Silvestre is the competent body to prohibit the hunting and fishing of animals belonging to reduced populations or those in danger of extinction, for which purpose said directorate shall issue the respective declaration, but it also implies subjecting the activity of hunting to prior authorization by the environmental public administration, which is competent to grant hunting licenses. Therefore, they consider that the Wildlife Conservation Law and its regulations are not unconstitutional. Regarding sport hunting, that is, hunting carried out for purposes of amusement, recreation, and leisure, it does not present defects of unconstitutionality, since it is the responsibility of the environmental public administration to exercise its powers and competencies so that the principle of sustainable development is not violated and the activity is not carried out in a manner dangerous to the conservation of species.In that sense, they consider that Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law must be understood in relation to the purposes of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, without endangering the existence of the different species because they must be protected and safeguarded so they do not disappear, and not in its literal sense. The Office of the Attorney General requests that, if the Constitutional Chamber considers that sport hunting constitutes a violation of the principle established in Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law, itself contained in Article 50 of the Constitution, it recommends annulling only subsection a) of Article 28 and Article 33 of the Wildlife Conservation Law. Regarding decree number 31737-MINAE, which regulates the hunting, continental and insular fishing activity in detail, establishing prohibitions, closed seasons, hunting and fishing zones, the number of specimens, and the type of weapons, they consider that, by application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), the technical-scientific studies supporting the decisions made therein must be available.Therefore, scientific certainty that a specific provision—be it a rule or a concrete juridical act—does not entail harm to the environment is a constitutional requirement. In its opinion, it is for this Chamber to determine whether the challenged decree has or does not have technical-scientific backing that guarantees respect for a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
3. 4Mr. Allan Rene Flores Moya, Acting Minister of Environment and Energy, responds to the granted hearing on folio 41, stating that Wildlife Conservation Law number 7317 aims to regulate and rationally manage the use of wildlife, without resulting in its detriment, in accordance with the challenged legal provisions. He states that Article 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Law grants the Executive Branch the power to establish closed seasons and the types of weapons that may be used in hunting and fishing as regulated by law. Likewise, he indicates that Article 16 of the Regulation to the Wildlife Conservation Law establishes that an annual Executive Decree must be issued with the respective regulations, prohibiting the hunting or fishing of species not included in the lists of minor and major hunting species. It is precisely in response to that regulation that Decreto Ejecutivo 31737 MINAE is supported, which grants the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre the power to plan, develop, and control continental or insular, aquatic, and terrestrial wildlife throughout the national territory, establishing the procedures and requirements for its conservation, also prohibiting the hunting, fishing, and extraction of continental or insular flora and fauna of species in danger of extinction, except for sustainably conducted reproduction.He explains that the species included in Decreto Ejecutivo 31737-MINAE respond to a cultural pattern that has been maintained over time, and that despite hunting, populations are maintained in forested areas, these populations being targeted for hunting due to their reproductive potential. He says that even though direct population censuses have not been conducted for most of these species, MINAE technicians have been able to determine, using indirect methods such as sightings and hunter reports, the good condition of the populations whose sustainable use is permitted. Nor is an exact count needed to conclude that some species—such as black-bellied whistling ducks, band-tailed pigeons, red-billed pigeons, and some migratory species like the blue-winged teal, white-winged dove, and mourning dove—constitute large populations, sometimes damaging crops like blackberry, sorghum, corn, and rice, precisely because of their high biotic potential that allows them to reproduce very quickly, producing multiple broods per year.He explains that controlled hunting, when population peaks occur, avoids much more harmful practices such as mass poisonings, which in turn often cause irreversible damage to other species like foxes, weasels, and birds of prey that die by the thousands from eating poisoned meat. It is considered that the habitat available for the species authorized for hunting is secured, to a large extent, by the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación declared by MINAE, as they occupy more than twenty-five percent of the national territory. To carry out a proper study, the only thing that can be obtained are population indices that help us in decision-making for managing wild species, given that even developed countries do not have absolute population studies. Currently, two hundred thirty-nine species of mammals have been described in the country, of which twelve species are the target of controlled hunting, which is five percent of the total, meaning the environment and the ecological balance are not endangered.Regarding birds, of eight hundred forty species, seventeen are the target of hunting, representing two percent of the total species in the country. One of the greatest threats, causing the most damage to wild species, is the illegal and furtive hunting by inhabitants of the areas surrounding these protected areas, as they do not respect the authorized number of specimens or reproductive seasons, they hunt any type of animal, male or female, and use unauthorized methods. The species whose harvest has been permitted over the last thirty-five years or more through Hunting Schedules (Cuadros de Veda), which are adjusted when deemed necessary according to reproductive periods, have maintained their populations relative to the available habitat, as occurs with doves, local and migratory ducks that have increased exponentially due to changes in agriculture, from plantings of products like sorghum, corn, rice, beans, etc. He emphasizes that, in drafting the decrees, research conducted by private experts and with national and foreign institutions was used.Similarly, the experience of officials in the field of biology was utilized. He considers that the potential declaration of unconstitutionality of the mentioned articles would cause an unrestrained increase in illegal hunting, which would have a negative effect on wild species populations. In some countries, total bans have been declared, an action that has caused devastation in the natural populations of wild animals. He concludes by indicating that the consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality for Articles 28 to 34 of the Law and Articles 16 to 18 of the Regulation of the Wildlife Conservation Law would bring inconvenient consequences, placing the country at the rear guard of conservation and management of these resources, as has unfortunately occurred in countries like India, Kenya, and Venezuela, which with similar regulations managed to tie the hands of wildlife biologists, who were unable to halt the drastic decline of their wild animal populations.Therefore, eliminating these articles from the legal system would result in a lack of adequate control over the exercise of hunting, a census of those who practice it, and the obtaining of results of scientific interest. Another important point to consider is the existence of people who, due to their difficult economic situation, generally residents of areas far from the urban centers of our country, use the hunting of wild animals as a means of obtaining cheap protein, and through these regulations, they have been detected and regulated appropriately. Regarding Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law, there are no sufficient elements of proof demonstrating that the exercise of sport hunting has caused damage to the populations of wild species that are the target of this activity. He affirms that Resolution 9.24 of the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora does not harm the pro natura principle, given that the animals whose controlled hunting is permitted does not threaten the conservation and survival of the species, especially since said regulation is only applicable to species that are subject to international trade.The Constitutional Chamber has understood the environment as a development potential to be properly used, requiring integrated action in its natural, socio-cultural, technological, and political relations, as otherwise its productivity would be degraded for the present and the future and would put the heritage of future generations at risk. He requests that the action of unconstitutionality filed be declared without merit.
4. 5The notices referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in Judicial Bulletins (Boletines Judiciales) 219, 220, and 221 of November nine, ten, and eleven, two thousand four, respectively (folio 40).
5. 6Ruth Solano Vásquez, identity card CED11, President of the Asociación de Justicia para la Naturaleza, Luis Diego Marín Schumacher, President of APREFLOFAS, Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, Ignacio Escorriola Giovannini, Fiscal of Vida, Asociación de Voluntariado, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental, Randall Arauz Vargas, President of Pretoma, Asociación Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas, María Elena Founier, President of the Asociación Conservacionista Yisky, Noemí Canet Moya, President of the Colegio de Biólogos, request to be considered as coadjuvants of the petitioners based on the provisions of Article 34 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. They allege that, as organizations dedicated to promoting the protection and preservation of the environment, they have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the action. They state that the action of unconstitutionality brought by the Defensoría de los Habitantes and the Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, against Articles 28 to 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Law # 7317 and Articles 16 to 18 of the Regulation of this law, decree 26435-MINAE, as well as decree number 31737-MINAE, omits a series of legal, technical, and scientific procedures and requirements that violate the right of Costa Ricans to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.They argue that the technical justification for authorizing sport hunting and establishing hunting quotas, the sustainability of the practice of sport hunting and the impact of this activity on the involved species, other wild species, and the ecosystem, the knowledge of the state of the populations of the species permitted to be hunted, the number of individuals of each species that can be taken per hunting season, the permitted hunting zones, the permitted hunting methods, and the logistical and operational capacity of MINAE to oversee sport hunters have all been disregarded. They establish that MINAE does not require any type of sanitary control over the hunting dogs used to hunt, nor does it require any type of sanitary control over the birds used to hunt other birds. MINAE allows sport hunters to introduce domestic animals and wild animals within free-living populations without requesting any type of sanitary control.They maintain that the practice of sport hunting violates every person's right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the protection of natural beauties, Article 89 of the Political Constitution, in addition to the Convention for the Protection of the Flora, Fauna, and Natural Scenic Beauties of the Countries of America, ratified by Law 3763; the Agreement for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America, ratified in Law # 7433, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Law # 7416.
6. 7Luis Diego Acuña Delcore states that he proceeds to raise some additional considerations to what was presented by the Minister of Environment and Energy that could be useful for rejecting the action. He indicates that the petitioners do not provide solid evidentiary elements in support of their assertions that would legally allow for the application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) or “in dubio pro natura” to justify a declaration of unconstitutionality. It is not true that studies are not conducted when setting regulatory policies for sport hunting. Despite the lack of resources affecting almost the entire Costa Rican Public Sector, and as part of it, the Environmental Administrative Authority, when including certain animals that make up the national resident or migratory wildlife in the lists of species with threatened populations and establishing the hunting schedules (cuadros de vedas), that Authority makes use of various perfectly valid tools even used internationally, such as sightings and the experience of biologists, and the experiences of park ranger officials.None of the few animal species of hunting value whose hunting is permitted by national legislation are included in the lists of species with reduced populations, seriously threatened or in danger of extinction. Sport hunters constitute important and effective ad hoc guardians of wildlife, as they must ensure that the appropriate conditions for the survival of the animal species to be hunted are present.
7. 8Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Minister of Environment and Energy, reports (folio 157) that the Ministry of Environment and Energy is responsible for the sustained and sustainable management of the country's natural resources. The petitioners seek direct censuses of the different species of ducks, pigeons, and fish that migrate to the country by the hundreds of thousands prior to their use, when the reality is that, most of the time, the quantity that actually reaches our coasts depends on climatic factors, the relative abundance of food along their migratory routes, and wind direction. He explains that the national-level problem, both in fauna conservation and in forest conservation, is furtive hunting and uncontrolled logging, which would be aggravated by the intended declaration of unconstitutionality. He indicates that the discussion regarding the advisability of a total prohibition of hunting activity has been widely discussed in the country, and the Colegio de Biólogos of Costa Rica recommended that the activity be maintained in a sustained manner.Furthermore, he states that hunting licenses have a cost that fluctuates between four thousand and twenty thousand colones, depending on whether they are for minor or major hunting licenses, money that is allocated to conservation and to help support the entire structure and management of wild animal populations. He argues that wildlife is constituted by vertebrate and invertebrate animals that live in natural conditions within the national territory; hence, this would extend to continental fishing, and consequently, fishing would have to be prohibited throughout the entire national territory, since specific counts of fish in the country's rivers, lagoons, and estuaries have not been made. He explains that Costa Rica is one of the most advanced countries in Latin America in managing the conservation of its natural resources, due to the implementation of conservation programs. He says that the preventive and precautionary criteria, as defined in Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law, must be applied when biodiversity is threatened, not postponing the adoption of effective protective measures due to a lack of legal certainty. He requests that the action filed be rejected in all its aspects.
8. 9A document appears on folio 180 presented by Nombre02, in which he reiterates that Costa Rica does not have technical-scientific studies for the species whose capture is permitted under sport hunting.
9. 10By resolution at one thirty-five in the afternoon on March two, two thousand five, the hearings granted to the Office of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Environment and Energy in the resolution at one forty in the afternoon on October twenty-nine, two thousand four, are deemed answered. As untimely, the joinder presented on folio 87 by Ruth Solano Vásquez and Others is rejected. The statements made by Mr. Luis Diego Acuña Delcore (folios 136 to 140) are noted.
10. 11A document presented by Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Minister of Environment and Energy, appears on folio 205, stating the difficulty of conducting an exact count of birds, for which he provides two photographs taken at the farm of Mr. Nombre03, who reports the problem caused by blue-winged teal ducks and black-bellied whistling ducks in rice and sorghum crops.
11. 12In a document filed on April six, two thousand five, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Minister of Environment and Energy (folio 208), adds that the challenged regulations come to establish and regulate hunting and fishing for rational and sustainable use, so as to guarantee the survival of the species. He comments that the "Hunting Schedule" (Cuadro de Vedas) does not violate the precautionary and preventive principles established in the Political Constitution and International Treaties, for having been enacted without having exact population censuses of the different species that live permanently or temporarily within the national territory. He affirms that there is no danger or threat whatsoever to the elements of Costa Rican biodiversity, given that the hunting authorization does not represent even five percent of mammal species nor two percent of bird species in the country. He adds (folio 225) that a total prohibition of sport hunting would result in enormous harm to the species intended to be protected and would be a violation of the treaties and agreements signed by Costa Rica.He maintains that the Wildlife Conservation Law and the Biodiversity Law, international agreements, the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Convention on Biodiversity, all coincide on the sustainable use of natural resources, allowing the export and import even of endangered animals, provided they are Hunting Trophies for personal use, because of the incentive for conservation implied by giving them a value.

Thus, and despite the fact that the population of the African White Rhinoceros was less than two thousand specimens and was in Appendix I of CITES when its hunting was permitted, it now numbers around fifteen thousand specimens, precisely because its conservation for harvesting as hunting trophies, which can be exported without problems to the country of origin of the hunter, is profitable. Thus, and regardless of the relative abundance or scarcity of the animal species whose hunting is permitted in the country—which, it is repeated, none of them has reduced populations and even less are in danger of extinction—and regardless of whether or not exact population censuses have been conducted to determine their number—a thing that it reiterates is impossible to do here or anywhere—what could be done to dismantle the entire Costa Rican System of Conservation Areas is to prohibit the sustainable use of biodiversity.

1. 13On folio 235, a written submission appears presented by Nombre02, in which he provides a copy of the letter sent by several groups of volunteer inspectors from COVIRENA to the Minister of Environment and Energy.
2. 14By resolution of thirteen thirty-five hours on March second, two thousand five, this action was assigned by the Presidency of the Chamber to Magistrate Luis Paulino Mora Mora.
3. 15The oral and public hearing is dispensed with because there are sufficient elements of judgment in the case file to issue a judgment (Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).
4. 16The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.

Drafted by Magistrate Mora Mora; and,

Considering:

I.On admissibility: The Defensoría de los Habitantes is directly legitimized to file this unconstitutionality action by express provision of the third paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. For his part, the standing (legitimación) of the claimant Nombre02 is active and direct insofar as the state duty of environmental protection safeguards a collective interest whose defense exempts the claimant from the prior issue required by the first paragraph of Article 75 of the cited law, in accordance with what is established in the second paragraph ibidem, as this Constitutional Chamber has interpreted in abundant jurisprudence when analyzing Article 50 of our Political Constitution.

II.Object of the challenge. This action aims to determine whether Articles 28 to 35 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and 16 to 18 of its regulations, decreto número 26435-MINAE, as well as decreto número 31737-MINAE, are unconstitutional for being contrary to the provisions of Articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution, and what is established in international treaties on the matter, signed, approved, and ratified by the Costa Rican state.

The claimants' arguments revolve around two aspects:

• a)that hunting and fishing regulated in the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and the regulations that develop it violate the constitutional principle establishing the state's duty to protect and preserve life in all its forms, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the duty to protect natural beauties (Articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution). Likewise, that this violates the provisions of the Convenio para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad y Protección de Áreas Silvestres prioritarias en América Central, Ley número 7433, and the principle contained in Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad, LB) number 7788 of April 30, 1998.
• b)that the annual decree of closed seasons, in this case number 31737-MINAE, was issued without the technical-environmental studies that guarantee its environmental viability, which constitutes a breach of the preventive and precautionary principle, established in Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), as well as in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

It is clear from the action filing brief that both arguments refer mainly to sport hunting, although the regulations against which it was filed also regulate, in addition to the latter, the practice of scientific and subsistence hunting; in that sense, the action is deemed filed regarding sport hunting only. Likewise, it is necessary to clarify that of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, only the articles regulating matters related to hunting were challenged, not those related to continental and insular fishing, whose regulation is contained in Articles 61 to 69 of the cited law.

III.On the merits. The challenged articles of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre regulate matters related to the practice of sport, scientific, and subsistence hunting. It textually establishes:

“ARTICLE 28.- With the objective of regulating the practice of hunting, it is classified into:

• a)Sport: when carried out for purposes of amusement, recreation, or leisure.
• b)Scientific: when carried out for scientific study purposes.
• c)Subsistence: when carried out to meet the food needs of people with limited economic resources, verified through the standards dictated by the Regulations of this Law.” As the Attorney General's Office rightly points out, the remaining articles establish the legal framework for the executive branch and the public environmental administration to regulate and exercise oversight and control powers in relation to the practice of hunting in its three modalities. It is worth noting that the control and oversight of hunting activity occurs through the granting of hunting licenses; consequently, Article 29 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre establishes the principle that hunting may only be practiced with the corresponding license, the issuance of which is the responsibility of the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS) of the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), as established in Article 30 ibidem. It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to establish closed seasons and the type of weapons to be used in hunting, as provided in numeral 34 of the cited Law. Precisely, decreto 31737-MINAE, challenged in this action, is the decree through which the executive branch established the closed seasons for the year 2004.

For their part, numerals 16 to 18 of the regulations to the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, decree number 26435-MINAE, indicate the basic guidelines that the executive branch must follow in establishing the closed seasons that it annually establishes by decree. In this regard, it regulates matters related to authorized hunting methods and, specifically, matters related to the type of weapons that may be used. These provisions are complemented each year by what the respective closed season decree establishes. In this way, the regulatory framework governing matters related to the practice of big and small game hunting consists of what is established in the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, Articles 28 to 35, the regulations to the law in its Articles 16 to 18, which in addition to hunting, regulates matters related to continental and insular fishing, and the corresponding closed season decree. These last two norms, the regulation and the annual closed season decree, constitute the development that, in exercise of its regulatory power, the executive branch makes of what the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre provides regarding the practice of hunting and, where applicable, continental and insular fishing.

IV.On the constitutionality of sport hunting. Costa Rican legislation uses a concept of conservation of our natural resources based on their rational use, given their renewable nature. From this point of view, the State's obligation is to ensure the adoption of legislation and actions aimed at ensuring the protection and conservation of fauna and flora with a concept of balance. Precisely, the purpose of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and its regulations is to regulate and maintain in a rational manner the use of wildlife without its detriment occurring. Within this context, the Executive Branch has the obligation to establish the closed seasons and types of weapons that may be used in hunting and fishing regulated by the law (Article 34), and its Regulations establish the obligation to issue an annual decree with the respective regulations (Article 16), prohibiting the hunting or fishing of species in danger of extinction with the exception of sustainably carried out reproduction. In that sense, the challenged executive decree 31737-MINAE has its legal basis in Articles 6, 12, 14, and 18 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre.

V.The argument that the sport hunting of wild species in itself endangers the environment and the ecological balance safeguarded in Article 50 of the Constitution is not shared by this Chamber, in view of the fact that the entire regulatory scheme is based on the idea that the use and exploitation that human beings can make of wildlife, seen as a natural resource, must be such that it cannot endanger the survival of species through their rational use and exploitation. It is a perspective grounded in the principle of sustainable development, which has constitutional support and backing in the international regulations signed by our country. Likewise, the concept of sustainable development has been developed by constitutional jurisprudence since judgment 3705-93. In this way, sport hunting constitutes a legal form of use of wild fauna, subject to State regulation, control, and oversight, regardless of its ethical compatibility.

In addition to the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (CITES) establishes the legal framework for hunting activity, including sport hunting, to be exercised sustainably. To claim that the defense of Article 50 of our Constitution includes respect for life in all its forms, without exception, would imply the non-application of the principle of sustainable development, with consequences such that animal breeding activities for human consumption and scientific and subsistence hunting and fishing, not just sport hunting, could not be carried out. Therefore, as the Attorney General's Office rightly points out in its response, Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad) must be understood in relation to the purposes of conservation and sustainable use of national resources, which in the specific case implies the State's duty to protect all existing species of flora and fauna from irrational use, understood as that which could endanger the existence of the different species.

In that sense, as long as the concept that the Law regulates complies with the principle of rational use of natural resources, that is, a sustainable development that allows their renewal, the legislation meets the requirements of Article 50 of the Constitution and the international treaties signed by our country.

VI.Now, the fact that the existence of sport hunting in itself is not unconstitutional does not mean that its specific regulation is not, that is, that decreto 31737-MINAE, issued pursuant to the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, which regulates in detail continental and insular hunting and fishing for the year 2004, is respectful of the indicated principles, which brings us to the second point of challenge of this action. Here we encounter a problem of verifying the effects that the challenged decree may be producing on flora and fauna, given that its generic nature prevents determining the effects it produces on each species. This is precisely the central point of the claimants' argument, who indicate that in the absence of specific scientific studies for each species, the authorization of sport hunting in itself is a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and of the precautionary principle, and that therefore, until such technical studies exist, the authorization contained in the decree to issue sport hunting licenses must be prohibited.

In support of this thesis, they cite the precedent of this Chamber issued in the case of the closed season on green turtle hunting, indicating that for the decree to be constitutional, it must indicate which species may be hunted or fished, and with what weapons and methods, only based on solid technical-scientific backing for each species that guarantees respect for the environment. The Attorney General's Office indicates that the questioned decree must withstand the constitutional test, in this case respect for the precautionary principle, and that although there is a strictly technical-scientific scope that the constitutional judge cannot evaluate, it is their responsibility to verify whether the requirement as such is met, and whether this reasonably satisfies what in technical matters are called “univocal scientific and technical rules of exact application” safeguarded in Article 158.4 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

What this implies is that although the Chamber does not have the technical-scientific elements to determine whether environmental protection is met for each species, in general the decree has some technical-scientific backing that gives it a constitutional character, even if its particular effects cannot be roughly inferred from it given that it affects an indeterminate number of species. Undoubtedly, the issue is complicated because even if the decree withstands that analysis, it is not known for certain whether it actually produces harmful effects on one or several specific species which, as is known, due to the chain of its effects would always result in an impact on the environment in general, which brings us back to the first argument raised about whether it is possible at all to hunt animals without affecting the environment. As can be seen, the crux of the matter is understanding that the balance sought by both our Constitution and our legislation is not and cannot be perfect, but only reasonable, that is, a rational use of natural resources that allows their renewable use.

There will always be a disequilibrating effect on nature as a result of human intervention, the effects of which must not be such that they endanger its sustainability. Thus, it is sufficient that the challenged decree has a technical-scientific basis that deserves this Chamber's faith to pass the constitutionality test. It does not have to be the best scientific study, only one that respects the “univocal scientific and technical rules of exact application,” which from a scientific point of view may be a heresy, but not from the legal point of view, which has other rules of the game. It remains a concern for this Chamber that this is so; nonetheless, it would be virtually impossible “in abstracto” to determine the effects that the application of the decree could have on each species affected by it, for which reason the legal system has another solution for this type of case, which is the concrete analysis of its effects, through the amparo appeal, which is precisely for measuring the concrete application that general regulations may have in a specific situation that results in an impact on a fundamental right.

This does not mean, as the Attorney General's Office rightly warns, that the decree is not required to have technical-scientific backing, and it is here where a contradiction arises between what MINAE considers technical-scientific backing and what the appellants consider as such. The heart of the matter is that MINAE bases the preparation of the decree on the experience of its biologists with more than twenty years of experience, on particular investigations or those of national and foreign institutions, the historical behavior of the species involved, among others, (as indicated in official communication DM-1780-2003 of September five, two thousand three on folio 120), and the claimants consider that this technical-scientific study, to be valid, must be a specific study of each species. Thus, the Chamber is made to choose between two systems used, both scientific, to determine not which is the best, which is not within the scope of the action, which is limited, as the Attorney General's Office recognizes, to determining whether respect for the precautionary principle is met, that is, whether it has some scientifically reasonable basis that guarantees environmental protection, since we already know that nothing perfect can be expected in this matter, which is based rather on the concept of sustainable development and not on any impact on it.

Within that context, for this Chamber, the challenged decree is not per se unconstitutional, as it has technical-scientific backing that, although it probably can and should be better, its impact on one or several specific species cannot be established in abstracto, effects that can indeed be achieved through the concrete analysis of each supposedly affected species, if the case arises, by means of the amparo appeal. It could be said that the impossibility of knowing in abstracto whether the environmental balance is guaranteed is in itself proof of the violation of the precautionary principle, and this would be true, as resulted in the precedent of the sea turtle case 1250-03, were it not for the fact that the State has also provided evidence that the per se prohibition of sport hunting in general, and of certain species in particular regulated in the questioned decree, could in turn bring adverse effects on the environment if not controlled, as mentioned by the Minister of Environment and Energy in his briefs on folios 157 and 205.

Even evidence has been provided of the overpopulation of several species that produce harmful effects on crops or on other species, which need to be controlled through sport hunting and other methods to avoid the use of techniques that indiscriminately affect the environment, such as mass poisonings that would affect other species, even those not covered by the decree, such that the very annulment of the challenged regulations could in turn mean a violation of the state's duty to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, inevitably, the concrete effects of the challenged decree must be assessed against each specific case and with analysis of the technical-scientific studies submitted as evidence, and not in abstracto as intended in this action.

VII-. Finally, this Chamber considers that future decrees of this kind must establish specific limits on the maximum number of licenses to be granted per zone, per species, and the number of allowed specimens, as well as establish centralized control and monitoring of the same, to avoid excesses that could result in a violation of Article 50 of our Constitution.

Therefore:

The action is declared without merit. The Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) must comply with the obligation indicated in the last considering clause of this judgment. Notify.

</p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial">Acting President</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Luis Paulino Mora M.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">Adrián Vargas B.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Gilbert Armijo S.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">Fernando Cruz C.</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Horacio González Q.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">Jorge Araya G. </span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p> answers the hearing granted on page 41, stating that the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (Wildlife Conservation Law) number 7317 aims to regulate and rationally manage the use of wildlife, without detriment to it, in accordance with the challenged legal regulations, and that article 34 of the Ley de Conservación a la Vida Silvestre (Wildlife Conservation Law) gives the Executive Branch the power to establish closed seasons and types of weapons that may be used in the hunting and fishing regulated by law.

Likewise, that article 16 of the Reglamento a la Ley de la Conservación a la Vida Silvestre (Regulation to the Wildlife Conservation Law) establishes that an annual Decreto Ejecutivo (Executive Decree) must be issued with the respective regulations, prohibiting the hunting or fishing of species not included in the lists of minor and major game species. It is precisely in accordance with that regulation that Decreto Ejecutivo 31737 MINAE is supported, which grants the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (General Directorate of Wildlife) the power to plan, develop, and control continental or insular, aquatic, and terrestrial wildlife throughout the national territory, establishing procedures and requirements for its conservation, and also prohibiting the hunting, fishing, and extraction of continental or insular flora and fauna of endangered species, with the exception of sustainably conducted reproduction.

It explains that the species included in Decreto Ejecutivo 31737-MINAE respond to a cultural pattern that has been maintained through time, and that despite the practice of hunting, populations are maintained in forest areas, being subject to hunting due to their reproductive potential. It states that although direct population censuses have not been conducted for most of these species, MINAE technicians have been able to determine the good condition of the populations through indirect methods such as sightings and hunter reports, whose sustainable use is permitted; nor is an exact count needed to conclude that some species, such as piches, collajera pigeons, purple pigeons, and some migratory species like the blue-winged teal (cerceta aliazul), white-winged dove (paloma ala blanca), and rice pigeon (paloma arrocera), constitute large populations, sometimes damaging crops like blackberry, sorghum, corn, and rice, precisely due to their high biotic potential (potencial biótico) that allows them to reproduce very quickly, producing multiple litters per year.

It explains that controlled hunting when population peaks occur avoids much more harmful practices such as mass poisonings, which in turn often cause irreversible damage to other species, such as foxes, weasels, and birds of prey that die by the thousands from eating the poisoned meat. It is considered that the available habitat for the species authorized for hunting is assured, in a good proportion, by the National System of Conservation Areas declared by MINAE, as they occupy more than twenty-five percent of the national territory. To carry out a correct study, the only thing that can be obtained are population indices to assist in decision-making for wild species management, as not even developed countries have absolute population studies. Currently, two hundred thirty-nine species of mammals have been described in the country, of which twelve species are subject to controlled hunting, representing five percent of the total, which does not endanger the environment and ecological balance.

Regarding birds, eight hundred forty species have been described, of which seventeen are subject to hunting, representing two percent of the total species in the country. One of the greatest threats and causes of greatest damage to wildlife species is illegal and furtive hunting by inhabitants surrounding these protected areas, as the number of authorized pieces and reproduction seasons are not respected, they hunt all types of animals, male or female, and use unauthorized methods. The species whose harvest has been permitted over the last thirty-five years or more through Closed Season Tables (Cuadros de Veda), which are adjusted when deemed necessary according to reproduction periods, have maintained their populations in relation to the available habitat, as occurs with pigeons, local and migratory ducks that have increased exponentially due to changes in agriculture, from the sowing of products such as sorghum, corn, rice, beans, etc. It emphasizes that in drafting the decrees, research conducted by experts at a private level and with national and foreign institutions was used.

Likewise, the experience of officials in the biology field was used. It considers that a possible declaration of unconstitutionality of the mentioned articles would cause an excessive increase in illegal hunting, which would have a negative effect on wildlife species populations. In some countries, total bans have been declared, an action that has caused havoc in the natural populations of wild animals. It concludes by indicating that the implications of a declaration of unconstitutionality of articles 28 to 34 of the Law and 16 to 18 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (Regulation to the Wildlife Conservation Law) would bring inconvenient consequences, placing the country at the forefront of their conservation and management, as has unfortunately occurred in countries like India, Kenya, and Venezuela, which, with similar regulations, managed to tie the hands of Wildlife biologists, who could not stop the drastic decline of their wild animal populations.

Therefore, if these articles are eliminated from the legal system, there would be a lack of adequate control over the practice of hunting and a census of those who practice it, as well as the obtaining of results of scientific interest. Another important point to consider is the existence of people who, due to their difficult economic situation, generally residents of areas far from the urban core of our country, use wild animal hunting as a means of obtaining cheap protein, and through these regulations, they have been able to be detected and appropriately regulated. Regarding article 11 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad (Biodiversity Law), there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the practice of sport hunting has caused damage to the wildlife species populations subject to this activity. It affirms that resolution 9.24 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora does not harm the pro natura principle, given that the animals whose controlled hunting is permitted do not threaten the conservation and survival of the species, especially since said regulation is only applicable to species that are subject to international trade.

The Sala Constitucional (Constitutional Chamber) has understood the environment as a potential for development to be used appropriately, requiring integrated action in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations; otherwise, its productivity would degrade for the present and the future and would put the heritage of future generations at risk. It requests that the filed action of unconstitutionality be declared without merit.

1. 5The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in Judicial Bulletins 219, 220, and 221 of November ninth, tenth, and eleventh, two thousand four, respectively (page 40).
2. 6Ruth Solano Vásquez, identity card CED11, Presidenta of the Asociación de Justicia para la Naturaleza, Luis Diego Marín Schumacher, Presidente of APREFLOFAS, Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, Ignacio Escorriola Giovannini, Fiscal of Vida, Asociación de Voluntariado, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental, Randall Arauz Vargas, Presidente of Pretoma, Asociación Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas, María Elena Founier, Presidenta of the Asociación Conservacionista Yisky, Noemí Canet Moya, Presidenta of the Colegio de Biólogos request to be considered as co-adjuvants to the appellants based on the provisions of article 34 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. They allege that, as organizations dedicated to promoting the protection and preservation of the environment, they have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the action. They state that the action of unconstitutionality promoted by the Defensoría de los Habitantes and the Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, regarding articles 28 to 34 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre # 7317 and articles 16 to 18 of the Regulation to this law, Decreto 26435-MINAE, as well as decree number 31737-MINAE, omit a series of legal, technical, and scientific procedures and requirements that violate the right of Costa Ricans to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.They argue that technical justification for authorizing sport hunting and establishing hunting quotas, the sustainability of the practice of sport hunting, and the impact of this activity on the involved species, other wild species, and the ecosystem, knowledge of the population status of the species permitted to be hunted, the number of individuals of each species that can be captured per hunting season, the permitted hunting zones, the permitted hunting methods, and the logistical and operational capacity of MINAE to supervise sport hunters have been set aside. They establish that MINAE does not require any type of sanitary control over the hunting dogs used for hunting, nor does it require any type of sanitary control over the birds used to hunt other birds. MINAE allows sport hunters to introduce domestic animals and wild animals into the free-living populations without requiring any type of sanitary control.They maintain that the practice of sport hunting harms the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, article 50 of the Constitución Política (Political Constitution), the protection of natural beauties, article 89 of the Constitución Política, as well as the Convention for the Protection of Flora, Fauna, and Natural Scenic Beauties of the Countries of America, ratified by Ley 3763; the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wild Areas in Central America, ratified in Ley # 7433; and the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Ley # 7416.
3. 7Luis Diego Acuña Delcore states that he proceeds to raise some additional considerations to what was stated by the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía that could be useful for the rejection of the action. He indicates that the plaintiffs do not provide solid evidentiary elements in support of their assertions that would legally allow for the application of the precautionary principle or of "in dubio pro natura" that would justify the declaration of unconstitutionality. It is not true that studies are not conducted when setting the regulatory policies for sport hunting. Despite the lack of resources that affects almost the entire Costa Rican Public Sector, and as a member thereof, the Environmental Administrative Authority, when including in the lists of species with threatened populations certain animals that are part of the national wild fauna, resident or migratory, and establishing the closed season tables, that Authority uses various perfectly valid tools utilized even at the international level, such as sightings and the experience of biologists, the experiences of park ranger officials.None of the few game animal species whose hunting is permitted by national legislation are included within the lists of species with reduced, seriously threatened, or endangered populations. Sport hunters constitute important and effective ad hoc guardians of wildlife, as they must ensure that suitable conditions for the survival of the animal species to be hunted are maintained.
4. 8Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, reports (page 157) that the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía is responsible for the sustained and sustainable management of natural resources in the country. The appellants intend for direct censuses to be conducted on the different species of ducks, pigeons, and fish that migrate to the country by the hundreds of thousands prior to their use, when the truth is that most of the time, the amount that actually reaches our coasts depends on climatic factors, the relative abundance of food on their migratory routes, and wind direction. He explains that the problem at the national level, both in the conservation of fauna and in the conservation of forests, is furtive hunting and uncontrolled logging, which would be aggravated by the intended declaration of unconstitutionality. He indicates that the discussion regarding the advisability of a total prohibition of hunting activity has been widely discussed in the country, and the Colegio de Biólogos of Costa Rica recommended that the activity should be maintained in a sustained manner.On the other hand, he affirms that hunting licenses cost between four thousand and twenty thousand colones depending on whether they are minor or major game licenses, money that is used for conservation and to help support the entire structure and management of wild animal populations. He argues that wildlife consists of vertebrate and invertebrate animals that live in natural conditions in the national territory; hence, it would be extended to continental fishing, and consequently, fishing would have to be prohibited throughout the national territory, since specific counts of fish in the rivers, lagoons, and estuaries existing in the country have not been made. He explains that Costa Rica is one of the most advanced countries in Latin America in the management of the conservation of its natural resources, due to the implementation of conservation programs. He says that preventive and precautionary criteria, as defined in article 11 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad, must be applied when biodiversity is threatened, not postponing the adoption of effective protection measures due to a lack of legal certainty. He requests that the action presented be rejected in its entirety.
5. 9On page 180, a brief appears filed by Nombre02, in which he reiterates that in Costa Rica, there are no scientific technical studies for the species whose capture is permitted under sport hunting.
6. 10By resolution of thirteen thirty-five hours on March second, two thousand five, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía in the resolution of thirteen forty hours on October twenty-ninth, two thousand four, are deemed answered. As untimely, the co-adjuvancy filed on page 87 by Ruth Solano Vásquez and Others is rejected. The statements by Mr. Luis Diego Acuña Delcore are deemed to have been made (pages 136 to 140).
7. 11On page 205, a brief is filed by Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, in which he states the difficulty of conducting an exact count of birds, for which he provides two photographs taken on the farm of Mr. Nombre03, who reports the problem caused by blue-winged teals and piches in rice and sorghum crops.
8. 12By brief filed on April sixth, two thousand five, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía (page 208), adds that the challenged regulations establish and regulate hunting and fishing for rational and sustainable use so as to guarantee the survival of the species. He comments that the "Cuadro de Vedas" (Closed Season Table) does not violate the precautionary and preventive principles established in the Constitución Política and International Treaties for having been issued without exact population censuses of the various species that live permanently or temporarily in the national territory. He affirms that there is no danger or threat to any elements of Costa Rican biodiversity, as the hunting authorization represents neither five percent of mammal species nor two percent of bird species in the country. He adds (page 225) that a total prohibition of sport hunting would result in enormous harm to the species intended to be protected and would violate the treaties and conventions signed by Costa Rica.He maintains that the Ley de la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and the Ley de la Biodiversidad, international conventions, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, like the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the Convention on Biodiversity, agree on the sustainable use of natural resources, even allowing the export and import of endangered animals, provided they are Hunting Trophies for personal use, because of the incentive for Conservation that giving them value implies. Thus, despite the fact that the African White Rhinoceros population was less than two thousand specimens and was in CITES Appendix I when its hunting was permitted, it now numbers around fifteen thousand specimens, precisely because its conservation to harvest them as hunting trophies, which can be exported without problems to the country of origin of the hunter, is profitable. Thus, and regardless of the relative abundance or scarcity of the animal species whose hunting is permitted in the country—none of which, he repeats, have reduced populations, much less are in danger of extinction—and regardless of whether or not exact population censuses have been conducted to determine their number—a thing he reiterates is impossible to do neither here nor anywhere—what can be done to destroy the entire Costa Rican Conservation Area System is to prohibit the sustainable use of biodiversity.
9. 13On page 235, a brief appears filed by Nombre02, in which he provides a copy of the letter sent by several groups of volunteer inspectors from COVIRENA to the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía.
10. 14By resolution of thirteen thirty-five hours on March second, two thousand five, this action was assigned by the Presidency of the Chamber to Magistrate Luis Paulino Mora Mora.
11. 15The oral and public hearing is dispensed with as there are sufficient elements of judgment in the file to render a judgment (article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).
12. 16In the proceedings, the prescriptions of law have been fulfilled.

Drafted by Magistrate Mora Mora; and,

Considering:

I.On admissibility: The Defensoría de los Habitantes is directly legitimized to file this action of unconstitutionality by express provision of the third paragraph of article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. For its part, the standing of the plaintiff Nombre02 is active and direct, insofar as the State's duty to protect the environment safeguards a collective interest whose defense exempts the plaintiff from the prior matter required by the first paragraph of article 75 of the cited law, in accordance with the second paragraph of the same, as this Sala Constitucional has interpreted in abundant jurisprudence when analyzing article 50 of our Constitución Política.

II.Object of the challenge. This action aims to determine whether articles 28 to 35 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and 16 to 18 of its regulation, decree number 26435-MINAE, as well as decree number 31737-MINAE, are unconstitutional for being contrary to the provisions of articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution, and what is established by international treaties on the matter, signed, approved, and ratified by the Costa Rican state.

The arguments of the plaintiffs revolve around two aspects:

• a)that hunting and fishing regulated in the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and the regulations that develop it violate the constitutional principle that establishes the State's duty to protect and preserve life in all its forms, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the duty to protect natural beauties (articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution).

Likewise, that this violates the provisions of the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America, Law No. 7433, and the principle contained in Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law (LB) No. 7788 of April 30, 1998.

• b)that the annual closed season decree, in this case Decree No. 31737-MINAE, was issued without the technical-environmental studies that guarantee its environmental viability, which constitutes a breach of the preventive and precautionary principles (principio preventivo y precautorio), established in Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law, as well as in the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

It is clear from the filing brief of the action that both arguments refer, mainly, to sport hunting (cacería deportiva), although the regulations against which it was filed regulate, in addition to the latter, the exercise of scientific hunting (cacería científica) and subsistence hunting (cacería de subsistencia); in that sense, the action is deemed filed as to sport hunting only. Likewise, it should be clarified that of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre), only the articles regulating matters related to hunting were challenged, not those related to continental and insular fishing, whose regulation is contained in Articles 61 to 69 of the cited law.

III.On the merits. The challenged articles of the Wildlife Conservation Law regulate matters related to the exercise of hunting, sport, scientific, and subsistence. They textually establish:

"ARTICLE 28.- With the objective of regulating the exercise of hunting, this is classified into:

• a)Sport: when carried out for purposes of amusement, recreation, or leisure.
• b)Scientific: when carried out for scientific study purposes.
• c)Subsistence: when carried out to meet the food needs of persons of scarce economic resources, verified through the rules dictated by the Regulations to this Law." As the Attorney General's Office rightly points out, the remaining articles establish the legal framework for the executive branch and the public environmental administration to regulate and exercise oversight and control powers in relation to the exercise of hunting in its three modalities. It is worth noting that the control and oversight of the hunting activity occurs through the granting of hunting licenses; in view of the foregoing, Article 29 of the Wildlife Conservation Law establishes the principle that hunting may only be practiced with the corresponding license, the issuance of which is the responsibility of the General Directorate of Wildlife (Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, DGVS) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), as established in Article 30 ibidem. It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to establish the closed seasons (vedas) and the type of weapons to be used in hunting, just as numeral 34 of the cited Law provides. Precisely, Decree 31737-MINAE, challenged in this action, is the decree through which the executive branch established the closed seasons for the year 2004.

For their part, numerals 16 to 18 of the regulations to the Wildlife Conservation Law, Decree No. 26435-MINAE, indicate the basic guidelines that the executive branch must follow in establishing the closed seasons that it annually establishes by decree. In this sense, it regulates matters related to authorized hunting methods and, specifically, matters related to the type of weapons that may be used. These provisions come to be complemented each year by what the respective closed season decree establishes. In this manner, the regulatory framework that regulates matters related to the exercise of big game (caza mayor) and small game (caza menor) hunting is constituted by what the Wildlife Conservation Law establishes, Articles 28 to 35, the regulations to the law in its Articles 16 to 18, which in addition to hunting, regulates matters related to continental and insular fishing, and the corresponding closed season decree. These last two norms, the regulations and the annual closed season decree, come to be the development that, in exercise of its normative power, the executive branch makes of what the Wildlife Conservation Law provides on the exercise of hunting and, as applicable, continental and insular fishing.

IV.On the constitutionality of sport hunting. Costa Rican legislation uses a concept of conservation of our natural resources based on their rational use, given their renewable nature. From this point of view, the State's obligation is to ensure the adoption of legislation and actions aimed at ensuring the protection and conservation of fauna and flora with a concept of balance. Precisely, the Wildlife Conservation Law and its regulations aim to regulate and maintain the use of wildlife in a rational manner without causing detriment to it. Within this context, the Executive Branch has the obligation to establish the closed seasons and types of weapons that may be used in the hunting and fishing regulated by the law (Article 34), and its Regulations establish the obligation to issue an annual decree with the respective regulations (Article 16), prohibiting the hunting or fishing of endangered species with the exception of sustainably conducted reproduction. In that sense, the challenged Executive Decree 31737-MINAE has its legal basis in Articles 6, 12, 14, and 18 of the Wildlife Conservation Law.

V.The argument that sport hunting of wild species in itself endangers the environment and the ecological balance protected in Article 50 of the Constitution is not shared by this Chamber, in view that the entire normative scheme is based on the use and utilization (aprovechamiento) that human beings can make of wildlife, viewed as a natural resource, in such a way that it cannot endanger the survival of species through its rational use and exploitation. This is a perspective founded on the principle of sustainable development that has constitutional support and backing in the international regulations signed by our country. Likewise, the concept of sustainable development has been developed by constitutional jurisprudence since ruling 3705-93. In this way, sport hunting constitutes a legal form of utilization of wild fauna, subject to State regulation, control, and oversight, independently of its ethical compatibility.

In addition to the Wildlife Conservation Law, the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (CITES) establishes the legal framework so that the activity of hunting, including sport hunting, is exercised in a sustainable manner. Attempting to claim that the defense of Article 50 of our Constitution includes respect for life in all its forms, without exception, would imply the disapplication of the principle of sustainable development, with consequences such that animal husbandry activities for human consumption and scientific and subsistence hunting and fishing could not be carried out, not just sport hunting, so that as the Attorney General's Office rightly points out in its response, Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law must be understood in relation to the goals of conservation and sustainable use of national resources, which in the specific case implies the State's duty to protect all existing species of flora and fauna from irrational use, understood as that which could endanger the existence of the different species.

In that sense, as long as the concept that the Law regulates conforms to the principle of rational use of natural resources, that is, of a sustainable development that allows their renewal, the legislation satisfies the requirements of Article 50 of the Constitution and the international treaties signed by our country.

VI.Now then, the fact that the existence of sport hunting by itself is not unconstitutional does not mean that its specific regulation is not; that is, that Decree 31737-MINAE, issued in accordance with the Wildlife Conservation Law, which regulates in detail hunting and continental and insular fishing for the year 2004, is respectful of the indicated principles, which brings us to the second point of challenge in this action. Here we encounter a problem of verifying the effects that the challenged decree may be producing on flora and fauna, given that its generic nature prevents determining the effects it produces on each species. This is precisely the central point of the plaintiffs' argument, who indicate that in the absence of specific scientific studies for each species, the authorization of sport hunting in itself results in a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), and that therefore, until such technical studies exist, the authorization contained in the decree to issue sport hunting licenses must be prohibited.

In support of that thesis, they cite the precedent of this Chamber issued in the case of the closed season on green turtle hunting, indicating that for the decree to be constitutional, it must indicate which species may be hunted or fished, and with what weapons and methods, only based on solid technical-scientific backing for each species that guarantees respect for the environment. The Attorney General's Office indicates that the questioned decree must withstand the constitutional test, in this case respect for the precautionary principle, and that although there exists a strictly technical-scientific scope that the constitutional judge cannot enter to evaluate, it is indeed his or her responsibility to verify whether the requirement, as such, is met, and whether it reasonably satisfies what in technical matters are called "technical and scientific rules of unambiguous meaning and exact application" protected in Article 158.4 of the General Law of Public Administration.

What this implies is that although the Chamber does not have the technical-scientific elements to determine if environmental protection is fulfilled for each species, in general the decree has some technical-scientific backing that gives it a constitutional nuance, even if its particular effects cannot be deduced *grosso modo* from it given that it affects an indeterminate number of species. Undoubtedly, the topic is complicated because even if the decree withstands that analysis, it is not known for certain whether it actually produces harmful effects on one or several specific species which, as is known, due to the chain of its effects would always result in an impact on the environment in general, with which we return to the first argument raised regarding whether it is at all possible to hunt animals without affecting the environment. As can be seen, the heart of the matter is in understanding that the balance that both our Constitution and our legislation seek is not and cannot be perfect, but only reasonable, that is, a rational utilization of natural resources that permits their renewable use.

There will always be, as a product of human intervention, an unbalancing effect on nature, the effects of which must not be such that they endanger its sustainability. Thus, the matter stands; it is enough that the challenged decree has a technical-scientific basis that deserves faith from this Chamber to overcome the constitutionality test. It does not have to be the best scientific study, only one that respects the "technical and scientific rules of unambiguous meaning and exact application," which from a scientific point of view may be a heresy, but not from the legal point of view which has other rules of the game. This being so does not cease to be a concern for this Chamber; however, it would be virtually impossible to determine "in the abstract" the effects that the application of the decree may have on each species affected by it, for which reason the legal system has another solution for this type of case, which is the concrete analysis of its effects, through the recurso de amparo, which is precisely for measuring the concrete application that the general regulation may have in a specific situation that results in an impact on a fundamental right.

That does not mean, as the Attorney General's Office rightly warns, that the decree is not obligated to have technical-scientific backing, and it is here where a contrast occurs between what the MINAE considers technical-scientific backing and what the appellants consider as such. The center of the matter is that the MINAE bases the elaboration of the decree on the experience of its biologists with more than twenty years of experience, on particular investigations or those of national and foreign institutions, the historical behavior of the involved species, among others (as indicated in official letter DM-1780-2003 of September 5, 2003 on folio 120), and the petitioners consider that said technical-scientific study, to be valid, must be a specific study of each species. Thus, the matter before the Chamber is to choose between two systems used, both scientific, to determine, not which is better, which is not within the scope of the action, which is limited, as the Attorney General's Office recognizes, to determining if respect for the precautionary principle is complied with, that is, if it has some scientifically reasonable basis that guarantees environmental protection, since we already know that nothing perfect can be intended in this matter, which is based rather on the concept of sustainable development and not on any impact upon it.

Within that context, for this Chamber, the challenged decree is not unconstitutional *per se*, since it has technical-scientific backing that, although it probably can and should be better, its impact on one or several specific species cannot be established in the abstract, effects that can indeed be achieved through the concrete analysis of each supposedly affected species, should the case arise, by means of the recurso de amparo. It could be said that the impossibility of knowing in the abstract whether the environmental balance is guaranteed is in itself proof of the violation of the precautionary principle, and that would be true, as resulted in the precedent of the case of the marine turtles 1250-03, were it not because the State has also provided evidence that the *per se* prohibition of sport hunting in general and of certain species in particular regulated in the questioned decree can, in turn, bring adverse effects on the environment if not controlled, as mentioned by the Minister of Environment and Energy in his briefs on folios 157 and 205.

Even evidence has been provided of the overpopulation of various species that produce harmful effects on crops or on other species, which need to be controlled through sport hunting and other methods to avoid the use of techniques that indiscriminately affect the environment, such as mass poisonings that would affect other species, including those outside the decree, in such a way that the very annulment of the challenged regulation could signify, in turn, a violation of the State's duty to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, things stand; inevitably, the concrete effects of the challenged decree must be assessed against each specific case and with an analysis of the technical-scientific studies that are submitted as evidence, and not in the abstract as is intended in this action.

VII.Finally, this Chamber considers that future decrees of this kind must establish specific limits on the number of maximum licenses to be granted per zone, per species, and the number of pieces allowed, as well as establish centralized control and monitoring of the same, to avoid excesses that could result in a violation of Article 50 of our Constitution.

Por tanto:

The action is declared without merit. The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) must comply with the obligation indicated in the last considerando of this judgment. Let it be notified.

Presidenta a.i Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Horacio González Q. Jorge Araya G.

*040075730007CO* *040075730007CO* Res. Nº 2006-010973 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las dieciocho horas y cinco minutos del veintiséis de julio del dos mil seis.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Nombre01, mayor, casado una vez, abogado, portador de la cédula de identidad CED01, Defensor de los Habitantes de la República y Nombre02, con único apellido en razón de su nacionalidad canadiense, mayor, casado una vez, empresario, cédula de residencia número uno dos cinco- uno cuatro cero tres cinco cero- cero cero cero siete siete siete, vecino de la Garita de Alajuela, en su calidad de Presidente de la Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, titular de la persona jurídica número tres- cero cero seis- ciento setenta y un mil quinientos cincuenta y tres, contra el Decreto Ejecutivo # 31737 MINAE, los artículos 28 al 34 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y 16 al 18 de su Reglamento, Decreto Ejecutivo # 26435-MINAE. Intervinieron también en el proceso Allan René Flores Moya, Ministro del Ambiente y Energía a.i y Farid Beirute Brenes en representación de la Procuraduría General de la República.

Como coadyuvantes intervienen Ruth Solano Vásquez, cédula de identidad CED02, Presidenta de la Asociación de Justicia para la Naturaleza, cédula jurídica número tres-cero cero dos-uno uno cero cero cero tres cuatro-treinta y dos, Luis Diego Marín Schumacher, cédula de identidad CED03, Presidente de APREFLOFAS, Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, cédula jurídica tres cero cero dos-cero siete uno seis siete seis-treinta y dos, Ignacio Escorriola Giovannini, cédula de identidad CED04, Fiscal de Vida, Asociación de Voluntariado, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental, cédula jurídica CED05, Randall Arauz Vargas, cédula de identidad CED06, Presidente de Pretoma, Asociación Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas, cédula jurídica CED07, María Elena Founier, cédula de identidad CED08, Presidenta de la Asociación Conservacionista Yisky, Noemí Canet Moya, cédula de identidad CED09, Presidenta del Colegio de Biólogos; Luis Diego Acuña Delcore, cédula de identidad CED10. .

Resultando:

1. 1Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las trece horas cuarenta y dos minutos del cuatro de agosto del dos mil cuatro, la accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31737-MINAE; los artículos 28 al 34 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y los artículos 16 al 18 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 26435-MINAE, por estimarlos contrarios al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política y a los convenios internacionales suscritos por el país en la materia. Señalan que, sin basarse en estudios científicos previos, el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31737-MINAE "Regulaciones para la Caza Menor y Mayor y Pesca Continental e Insular", fija las reglas para practicar la cacería de especies silvestres. Los artículos 28 al 34 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y los artículos 16 al 18 del reglamento a esa ley, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 26435-MINAE, por otra parte, permiten la práctica de la caza con fines de entretenimiento, lo cual pone en peligro el ambiente y el equilibrio ecológico.Específicamente, sostienen que las normas impugnadas que se emiten bajo el presupuesto de que la caza deportiva y recreativa es necesaria para reducir la sobrepoblación de especies y el mejor aprovechamiento del espacio, sin que existan estudios técnicos que lo demuestren. No hay estudios científicos del impacto de la cacería en la población de las especies silvestres, y el mismo Ministro de Ambiente y Energía reconoce, que el ministerio no cuenta con recursos ni personal para realizar las investigaciones antes de redactar el decreto respectivo que fija las reglas anuales para la cacería (en este caso el Decreto No. 31737-MINAE). Según la Defensoría tampoco cuenta con presupuesto para ejercer la vigilancia de los cazadores. Por ese motivo no hay ningún registro de la cantidad de piezas cazadas. Asimismo alega que el decreto es deficiente al dividir al país en áreas de caza que no responden a la verdadera distribución de las especies y permite el uso de técnicas y condiciones dañinas al ambiente, como es la cacería con perros, por ejemplo, que tiene el inconveniente de que pueden diseminar enfermedades en los ecosistemas de las especies silvestres, ya que los perros no reconocen dónde se inicia una reserva, por lo que la persecución de una presa puede terminar dentro de ellas; los perros tampoco discriminan los animales que persiguen por edad o sexo.En el caso de la caza de jilgueros -otro ejemplo-, se permite la captura en ciertas áreas, pero no se toma en cuenta que estas aves migran periódicamente de tal manera que aunque cazadas fuera de un área restringida, hay un impacto negativo en las poblaciones supuestamente protegidas. Otra inconsistencia es que permite la cacería de dos tepezcuintles por cazador, especie que es escasa incluso dentro de las áreas protegidas. Todas estas deficiencias, que obedecen a la falta de investigaciones para formular las normas, constituyen un incumplimiento del deber del Estado de preservar el ambiente y las bellezas escénicas, tal como lo dispone el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. En ese sentido estiman aplicable el antecedente de esta Sala dictado en sentencia 1250-03, por el permiso arbitrario y no vigilado de la actividad de caza de tortugas marinas declarado con lugar por esta Sala.
2. 2Por resolución de las trece horas cuarenta minutos del veintinueve de octubre del dos mil cuatro (visible a folio 33 del expediente), se le dio curso a la acción, confiriéndole audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía.
3. 3La Procuraduría General de la República rindió su informe (folios 54 al 75 señala que los argumentos en que se basa la acción se refieren principalmente a la cacería deportiva, aunque la normativa impugnada regula también el ejercicio de la cacería científica y la de subsistencia. Asimismo señala que de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre sólo fue impugnado el artículo que regula lo relacionado con la caza, no así lo relacionado con la pesca continental e insular, cuya regulación esta contenida en los artículos 61 al 69 de la citada ley. Estima la Procuraduría que la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y su reglamento se basan en el principio de desarrollo sostenible, que le da la potestad a la administración de crear los órganos estatales encargados de la conservación de la vida silvestre, señalar sus competencias y regular las actividades de los sujetos de derecho privado relacionados con la vida silvestre.Por esa razón el ejercicio de la caza y la pesca son actividades sometidas a regulación, control y fiscalización por parte de la Administración Pública ambiental. La Dirección General de Vida Silvestre es la competente para prohibir la caza y la pesca de animales pertenecientes a poblaciones reducidas o en peligro de extinción, para lo cuál dicha dirección hará la declaratoria respectiva, pero además implica el sometimiento de la actividad de la caza a la previa autorización por parte de la administración pública ambiental, la cuál es competente para otorgar las licencias de caza, por lo que, consideran que la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre y su reglamento no son inconstitucionales. En cuanto a la caza deportiva es decir, aquella realizada con fines de diversión, recreación y esparcimiento no presenta vicios de inconstitucionalidad, pues corresponde a la administración pública ambiental ejercer sus potestades y competencias a fin de que no se violente el principio de desarrollo sostenible y no se ejerza con peligro para la conservación de especies.En ese sentido considera que el artículo 9.1 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad hay que entenderlo en relación con los fines de la conservación y uso sostenible de los recursos naturales, sin pone en peligro la existencia de las distintas especies porque estas deben ser protegidas y tuteladas para que no desaparezcan y o en su sentido literal. Solicita la Procuraduría que en caso de que la Sala Constitucional considere que la cacería deportiva constituye una violación al principio establecido en el artículo 9.1 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad, a su vez contenido en el artículo 50 constitucional, recomienda anular únicamente el inciso a) del artículo 28 y el artículo 33 de la Ley de la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre. En cuanto al decreto número 31737-MINAE, que regula en detalle la actividad de caza, pesca continental e insular, estableciendo las prohibiciones, las vedas, las zonas de caza y pesca, el número de piezas y el tipo de armas, estiman que por aplicación del principio precautorio deben de contar con los estudios técnicos científicos que sustenten las decisiones allí tomadas, por lo que la certeza científica de que una determinada disposición, sea una norma o un acto jurídico concreto, no conlleva perjuicios para el ambiente, es una exigencia constitucional. A su juicio corresponde a esta Sala determinar si el decreto impugnado cuenta o no con un respaldo técnico científico que garantice el respeto a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
4. 4El señor Allan Rene Flores Moya, Ministro del Ambiente y Energía a.i. contesta a folio 41 la audiencia concedida, manifestando que la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre número 7317 tiene como objetivo regular y manejar en forma racional el uso de la vida silvestre, sin que se de un detrimento de ésta, de conformidad con las normativas jurídicas impugnadas, y que artículo 34 de la Ley de Conservación a la Vida Silvestre le da al Poder Ejecutivo la potestad de establecer las vedas y tipos de armas que se podrán utilizar en la caza y pesca que por ley se regula. Asimismo que el artículo 16 del Reglamento a la Ley de la Conservación a la Vida Silvestre, establece que se deberá dictar un Decreto Ejecutivo anual con las regulaciones respectivas prohibiéndose la caza o la pesca de las especies que no aparezcan contempladas en las listas de especies de caza menor y mayor. Es precisamente en atención a esa normativa que tiene sustento el Decreto Ejecutivo 31737 MINAE que le da a la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre la potestad de planificación, desarrollar y controlar la vida silvestre continental o insular, acuática, terrestres en todo el territorio nacional, estableciendo los procedimientos y requisitos para su conservación prohibiéndose además la caza, la pesca y la extracción de flora y fauna continentales o insulares de especies en vías de extinción con excepción de la reproducción efectuada sosteniblemente.Explica que las especies que se incluyen en el Decreto Ejecutivo 31737-MINAE responden a un patrón cultural que se ha mantenido a través de los tiempos, y que a pesar del ejercicio de la cacería se mantienen poblaciones en áreas de bosques, siendo las mismas objeto de cacería por potencial reproductivo. Dice que a pesar de que no se han realizado censos poblacionales directos de la mayoría de estas especies, los técnicos del MINAE han podido determinar mediante métodos indirectos como lo son los avistamientos y reportes de cazadores, el buen estado de las poblaciones, cuyo aprovechamiento sostenible se permite, tampoco se necesita de un conteo exacto para concluir que algunas especies como ocurre con los piches, palomas collajeras, palomas moradas, y algunas especies migratorias, como la cerceta aliazul, la paloma ala blanca, y la paloma arrocera se constituyen en grandes poblaciones, dañando en ocasiones los cultivos como la mora, el sorgo, el maíz, el arroz, precisamente por su alto potencial biótico que les permite reproducirse muy rápidamente, produciendo múltiples camadas al año.Explica que la caza controlada cuando se producen picos de la población evita prácticas mucho más dañinas como los envenamientos masivos, que a su vez producen daños muchas veces irreversibles en otras especies, como zorros, comadrejas y aves rapaces que se mueren por miles al comerse la carne envenenada. Se considera que el hábitat disponible para las especies que se autorizan para la caza esta asegurada, en una buena proporción por el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación declaradas por el Minae, ya que ocupan más del veinticinco por ciento del territorio nacional. Para llevar a cabo un estudio correcto, lo único que se puede obtener son índices de población que nos ayuden en la toma de decisiones para el manejo de las especies silvestres, siendo que, ni los países desarrollados cuentan con estudios de poblaciones absolutos. Actualmente en el país se han descrito doscientas treinta y nueve especies de mamíferos de las cuales doce especies son objeto de cacería controlada, que son un cinco por ciento del total, con lo que no se pone en peligro el ambiente y el equilibrio ecológico.Con respecto a las aves ochocientos cuarenta especies de las cuales diecisiete son objeto de caza, lo que significa un dos por ciento de la totalidad de las especies del país. Una de las amenazas más grandes y que causa mayores daños sobre las especies de vida silvestre es la caza ilegal y furtiva de los pobladores de alrededores de estas áreas protegidas, ya que, no se respetan el número de piezas autorizadas, temporadas de reproducción, cazan todo tipo de animal, macho o hembra, usan métodos no autorizados. Las especies cuya cosecha se ha venido permitiendo a través de los últimos treinta y cinco años o más mediante Cuadros de Veda, que se ajustan cuando se considera necesario de acuerdo a las épocas de reproducción, han mantenido sus poblaciones en relación al hábitat disponible, como ocurre con las palomas, patos locales y migratorios que han aumentado exponencialmente ante los cambios en la agricultura, por los siembros de productos como el sorgo, el maíz, el arroz, frijoles, etc. Recalca que para la confección de los decretos se hizo uso de investigaciones realizadas por expertos a nivel particular y con instituciones nacionales y extranjeras.Asimismo se utilizó la experiencia de los funcionarios en la rama de la biología. Considera que la posible declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad de los artículos mencionados provocaría un aumento desmedido de la cacería ilegal, lo cuál tendría un efecto negativo sobre las poblaciones de especies silvestres. En algunos países se han declarado vedas totales acción que ha causado estragos en las poblaciones naturales de animales silvestres. Concluye indicando que los alcances de una declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 28 al 34 de la Ley y 16 al 18 del Reglamento de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre traería como consecuencias inconvenientes, colocando al país a la zaga de la conservación y manejo de los mismos, como desgraciadamente ha ocurrido en países como la India, Kenia, Venezuela, los cuales con regulaciones similares lograron atarles las manos a los biólogos de Vida Silvestre, quienes no pudieron detener la disminución drástica de las poblaciones de sus animales salvajes, por lo que de eliminarse estos artículos del ordenamiento jurídico se carecería de un control adecuado del ejercicio de la caza y de un censo de quienes la practican y la obtención de resultados de interés científicos.Otro punto importante a considerar es la existencia de personas que por su difícil situación económica, residentes generalmente de las zonas alejadas del núcleo urbano de nuestro país, hacen uso de la cacería de animales silvestres como un medio de obtener proteína barata y mediante estas regulaciones han podido ser detectadas y reguladas apropiadamente. Con respecto al artículo 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad no existen elementos de prueba suficientes que demuestren que el ejercicio de la cacería deportiva haya causado daño a las poblaciones de especies silvestres que son objeto de esta actividad. Afirma que la resolución 9, 24 de la Convención Internacional sobre el Tráfico y Comercio de Especies Amenazadas de fauna y flora silvestres, no lesiona el principio pro natura dado que los animales cuya caza controlada se permite no atenta contra la conservación y supervivencia de las especies, máxime que dicha normativa sólo es aplicable a especies que son objeto de comercio internacional.La Sala Constitucional ha entendido al ambiente como un potencial de desarrollo para utilizarlo adecuadamente debiendo actuarse de modo integrado en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicas y de orden político, ya que, en caso contrario se degradaría su productividad para el presente y el futuro y pondría en riesgo el patrimonio de las generaciones venideras. Solicita se declare sin lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta.
5. 5Los edictos a que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en los Boletines Judiciales 219, 220 y 221 del nueve, diez y once de noviembre del dos mil cuatro respectivamente (folio 40).
6. 6Ruth Solano Vásquez, cédula de identidad CED11, Presidenta de la Asociación de Justicia para la Naturaleza, Luis Diego Marín Schumacher, Presidente de APREFLOFAS, Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, Ignacio Escorriola Giovannini, Fiscal de Vida, Asociación de Voluntariado, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental, Randall Arauz Vargas, Presidente de Pretoma, Asociación Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas, María Elena Founier, Presidenta de la Asociación Conservacionista Yisky, Noemí Canet Moya, Presidenta del Colegio de Biólogos solicitan se les tengan como coadyuvantes de los recurrentes con base en lo dispuesto en el artículo 34 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Alegan que como organizaciones dedicadas a promover la protección y preservación del ambiente tienen interés legítimo en el resultado de la acción, refieren que la acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por la Defensoría de los Habitantes y la Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, los artículos 28 al 34 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre # 7317 y los artículos 16 al 18 del Reglamento de esta ley, decreto 26435-MINAE, así como el decreto número 31737-MINAE omiten una serie de procedimientos y requerimientos de orden legal, técnico y científico que violan el derecho de los costarricenses de gozar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.Aducen que se ha dejado de lado la justificación técnica para autorizar la caza deportiva y el establecimiento de cuotas de caza, la sostenibilidad de la práctica de la cacería deportiva y el impacto de esta actividad sobre la especie involucrada, otras especies silvestres y el ecosistema, el conocimiento del estado de las poblaciones de las especies que se permite cazar, el número de individuos de cada especie que se pueden capturar por temporada de caza, las zonas de caza permitidas, los métodos de cacería permitidos, la capacidad logística y operativa del Minae para fiscalizar a los cazadores deportivos. Establecen que el MINAE no exige ningún tipo de control sanitario sobre los perros de cacería utilizados para cazar, no exige ningún tipo de control sanitario sobre las aves utilizadas para cazar a otras aves. El MINAE permite a los cazadores deportivos la introducción de animales domésticos y animales silvestres dentro de la población de las poblaciones de vida libre, sin solicitar ningún tipo de control sanitario.Sostiene que la práctica de la cacería deportiva lesiona el derecho de toda persona a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, la protección de las bellezas naturales, artículo 89 de la Constitución Política, además de la Convención para la Protección de la Flora, de la Fauna, de las Bellezas Escénicas Naturales de los Países de América, ratificado por la Ley 3763; el Convenio para la Conservación de las Biodiversidad y Protección de Áreas Silvestres Prioritarias en América Central, ratificado en la Ley # 7433, y el Convenio Sobre la Diversidad Biológica, ratificada por la Ley # 7416.
7. 7Luis Diego Acuña Delcore manifiesta que procede a plantear algunas consideraciones adicionales a lo expuesto por el Ministro de Ambiente y Energía que podrían ser de utilidad para el rechazo de la acción. Indica que los accionantes no aportan elementos probatorios sólidos en sustento de sus aseveraciones que legalmente permitieran dar cabida a la aplicación del principio precautorio o de “in dubio pro natura” que justifique la declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad. No es cierto que no se hagan estudios a la hora de fijar las políticas regulatorias de la caza deportiva. A pesar de la carencia de recursos que se afecta a la casi totalidad del Sector Público Costarricense y como integrante del mismo a la Autoridad Administrativa Ambiental a la hora de incluir en los listados de especies con poblaciones amenazadas ciertos animales de los que integran la fauna silvestre nacional, residente o migratoria, y establecer los cuadros de vedas, esa Autoridad echa mano a diversas herramientas perfectamente válidas y utilizados incluso a nivel internacional, como es el caso de los avistamientos y la experiencia de los biólogos, las vivencias de los funcionarios guarda parques.Ninguna de las pocas especies de animales de valor cinegético cuya cacería permite la legislación nacional está comprendida dentro de los listados de especies con poblaciones reducidas, seriamente amenazadas o en vía de extinción. Los cazadores deportivos constituyen importantes y efectivos guardianes ad hoc de la vida silvestre, ya que, deben velar por que se den las condiciones adecuadas para la supervivencia de las especies de animales a cazar.
8. 8Informa Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía (folio 157) que el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía es el encargado del manejo sostenido y sostenible de los recursos naturales en el país. Los recurrentes pretenden que se hagan censos directos de las distintas especies de patos, palomas y peces que emigran al país por cientos de miles de previo a su utilización, cuando lo cierto es que la mayoría de las veces la cantidad que efectivamente llega a nuestras costas depende de factores climáticos, de la abundancia relativa de la comida en sus rutas migratorias, en la dirección del viento. Explica que el problema a nivel nacional tanto en la conservación de la fauna como en la conservación de los bosques es la caza furtiva y la tala sin control, lo que se vendría a agravar con la declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad pretendida. Indica que la discusión relativa a la conveniencia de una prohibición total de la actividad cinegética ha sido ampliamente discutida en el país, siendo que, el Colegio de Biólogos del Costa Rica recomendaron que la actividad debía mantenerse en forma sostenida.Por otra parte, afirma que las licencias de caza tienen un costo que fluctúa entre los cuatro mil y los veinte mil colones dependiendo de si se trata de licencias de caza menor o mayor, dinero que se destina a la conservación y para ayudar al sostenimiento de toda la estructura y manejo de las poblaciones de animales silvestres. Aduce que la fauna silvestre la constituyen los animales vertebrados e invertebrados que viven en condiciones naturales en el territorio nacional, de ahí que, se haría extensible a la pesca continental, en consecuencia, habría que prohibir la pesca en todo el territorio nacional, pues no se han hecho conteos específicos de peces en los ríos, lagunas y esteros existentes en el país. Explica que Costa Rica es uno de los países más avanzados en América Latina en el manejo de la conservación de sus recursos naturales, esto debido a la implementación de programas de conservación.Dice que los criterios preventivos y precautorios tal y como lo definen el artículo 11 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad se deben de aplicar cuando la biodiversidad se ve amenazada, no postergando la adopción de medidas eficaces de las protección por falta de certeza jurídica. Solicita que la acción presentada sea rechaza en todos sus extremos.
9. 9A folio 180 aparece escrito presentado por Nombre02, en el cuál reitera que en Costa Rica no se cuenta con estudios técnicos científicos para las especies cuya captura es permitida al amparo de la cacería deportiva.
10. 10Mediante resolución de las trece horas treinta y cinco minutos del dos de marzo del dos mil cinco se tienen por contestadas las audiencias conferidas a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía en la resolución de las trece horas cuarenta minutos del veintinueve de octubre del dos mil cuatro. Por extemporánea, se rechaza la coadyuvancia presentada, a folio 87, por Ruth Solano Vásquez y Otros. Se tienen por hechas las manifestaciones del señor Luis Diego Acuña Delcore (folios 136 a 140).
11. 11Consta a folio 205 escrito presentado por Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía en el que manifiesta la dificultad de realizar el conteo exacto de las aves, para lo cuál aporta dos fotografías tomadas en la finca del señor Nombre03, quien denuncia el problema que causan los patos ala azul y los piches en los cultivos de arroz y de sorgo.
12. 12Por escrito presentado el seis de abril del dos mil cinco, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía (folio 208) añade que la normativa impugnada viene a establecer y regular la caza y la pesca para el aprovechamiento de las manera racional y sostenible de modo que se garantice la supervivencia de las especies. Comenta que el “Cuadro de Vedas” no viola los principios precautorios y preventivos establecidos en la Constitución Política y los Tratados Internacionales, por haber sido dictada sin contar con los censos poblacionales exactos de las distintas especies que viven en forma permanente o temporal en el territorio nacional. Afirma que no existe peligro o amenaza alguna de los elementos de la biodiversidad costarricense, por cuanto la autorización de caza no representa ni el cinco por ciento de las especies de mamíferos ni el dos por ciento de las especies de las aves en el país.Añade (folio 225) que una prohibición total de la caza deportiva redundaría en un enorme perjuicio para las especies que se desea proteger y sería violatoria de los tratados y convenios suscritos por Costa Rica. Sostiene que la Ley de la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y la Ley de la Biodiversidad, los convenios internacionales, la Convención Internacional para el Tráfico de las Especies en Peligro de Extinción, como la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, la Convención de las Biodiversidad coinciden en el uso sostenible de los recursos naturales, permitiendo la exportación e importación incluso de animales en peligro de extinción, siempre y cuando se trate de Trofeos de Caza para uso personal, por el incentivo para la Conservación de el darles un valor implica. Así y a pesar de la que la población del Rinoceronte Blanco Africano andaba en menos de dos mil ejemplares y estaba en el Apéndice I de Cites cuando se permitió su caza, ahora ronda los quince mil especimenes, precisamente por lo rentable que resulta su conservación para cosecharlos como trofeos de caza, que pueden ser exportados sin problemas al país de origen de quién los cazó.Así e independientemente de la abundancia o escasez relativa de las especies de animales cuya caza se permite en el país- que repite, ninguna de ellas se encuentra con poblaciones reducidas y menos en peligro de extinción- e independientemente de que se hayan hecho o no los censos poblacionales exactos como para determinar su número – cosa que reitera es imposible de hacer ni aquí ni en ninguna parte- lo que se puede hacer para dar traste con todo el Sistema de Áreas de Conservación Costarricense es prohibir el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad.
13. 13A folio 235 aparece escrito presentado por Nombre02, en el cuál aporta copia de la carta enviada por varios grupos de inspectores voluntarios de COVIRENA al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía.
14. 14Mediante resolución de las trece horas treinta y cinco minutos del dos de marzo del dos mil cinco, esta acción fue turnada por la Presidencia de la Sala al Magistrado Luis Paulino Mora Mora.
15. 15Se prescinde de la audiencia oral y pública por existir elementos de juicio suficientes en el expediente para dictar sentencia (artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional)
16. 16En los procedimientos se han cumplido las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta el Magistrado Mora Mora; y,

Considerando:

I.Sobre la admisibilidad: La Defensoría de los Habitantes está directamente legitimada para interponer esta acción de inconstitucionalidad por disposición expresa del párrafo tercero del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Por su parte, la legitimación del accionante Nombre02, es activa y directa en el tanto el deber estatal de protección del ambiente tutela un interés colectivo cuya defensa exime al accionante del asunto previo exigido por el párrafo primero del artículo 75 de la citada ley, de conformidad con lo que establece el párrafo segundo ibídem, tal y como lo ha interpretado esta Sala Constitucional en abundante jurisprudencia al analizar el artículo 50 de nuestra Constitución Política.

II.Objeto de la impugnación. Esta acción tiene por objeto determinar si los artículos 28 a 35 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre y 16 a 18 de su reglamento, decreto número 26435-MINAE, así como el decreto número 31737- MINAE, son inconstitucionales por ser contrarios a lo que disponen los artículos 50 y 89 de la Constitución, y lo que establecen los tratados internacionales sobre la materia, suscritos aprobados y ratificados por el estado costarricense.

Los argumentos de los accionantes giran en torno a dos aspectos:

• a)que la caza y la pesca reguladas en la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre y la normativa que la desarrolla, quebranta el principio constitucional que establece el deber del estado de proteger y preservar la vida en todas sus formas, el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, así como el deber de proteger las bellezas naturales (artículos 50 y 89 de la Constitución). Asimismo, que con ello se viola lo dispuesto en el Convenio para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad y Protección de Áreas Silvestres prioritarias en América Central, Ley número 7433, y el principio contenido en el artículo 9.1 de la Ley de Biodiversidad (LB) número 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998.
• b)que el decreto anual de vedas, en este caso el número 31737-MINAE, se dictó sin los estudios técnico-ambientales que garanticen su viabilidad ambiental, lo que constituye un quebranto del principio preventivo y precautorio, establecidos en el artículo 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, así como en la Convención Internacional Sobre el Tráfico y Comercio de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestre (CITES).

Queda claro del escrito de interposición de la acción que ambos argumentos se refieren, principalmente, a la cacería deportiva, aunque la normativa contra la cual fue interpuesta regula, además de esta última, el ejercicio de la cacería científica y la de subsistencia, en ese sentido se tiene por interpuesta la acción en cuanto a la cacería deportiva únicamente. Asimismo cabe aclarar que de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre sólo fue impugnado el articulado que regula lo relacionado con la caza, no así lo relacionado con la pesca continental e insular, cuya regulación está contenida en los artículos 61 a 69 de la citada ley.

III.Sobre el fondo. Los artículos de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre impugnados, regulan lo relacionado con el ejercicio de la caza, deportiva, científica y de subsistencia. Establece textualmente:

“ARTICULO 28.- Con el objetivo de regular el ejercicio de la caza, esta se clasifica en:

• a)Deportiva: cuando se realice con fines de diversión, recreación o esparcimiento.
• b)Científica: cuando se realice con fines de estudio científico.
• c)De subsistencia: cuando se realice para llenar necesidades alimentarias de personas de escasos recursos económicos, comprobados mediante las normas que dicte el Reglamento de esta Ley.” Como bien señala la Procuraduría, el articulado restante establece el marco legal para que el poder ejecutivo y la administración pública ambiental regulen y ejerzan potestades de fiscalización y control en relación con el ejercicio de la caza en sus tres modalidades. Cabe destacar que el control y fiscalización de la actividad de caza se da por medio del otorgamiento de licencias de caza, en razón de lo anterior, el artículo 29 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre establece el principio de que sólo podrá practicarse la caza con la correspondiente licencia, cuya expedición compete a la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (DGVS) del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), según lo establece el artículo 30 ibídem. Compete al Poder Ejecutivo establecer las vedas y el tipo de armas a utilizar en la caza, tal y como lo dispone el numeral 34 de la citada Ley. Precisamente, el decreto 31737-MINAE, impugnado en esta acción, es el decreto mediante el cual el poder ejecutivo estableció las vedas para el año 2004.

Por su parte, los numerales 16 al 18 del reglamento a la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, decreto número 26435-MINAE, señalan los lineamientos básicos que debe seguir el poder ejecutivo en el establecimiento de la vedas que anualmente establece por medio de decreto. En este sentido, regula lo relativo a los métodos de caza autorizados y, específicamente, lo relacionado con el tipo de armas que pueden ser utilizadas. Estas disposiciones vienen a ser complementadas cada año con lo que establece el respectivo decreto de vedas. De esta manera, el marco normativo que regula lo relativo al ejercicio de la caza mayor y menor, está constituido por lo que establece la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, artículos 28 a 35, el reglamento a la ley en sus artículos 16 a 18, que además de la caza, regula lo relativo a la pesca continental e insular, y el correspondiente decreto de vedas. Estas últimas dos normas, el reglamento y el decreto anual de vedas, vienen a ser el desarrollo que, en ejercicio de su potestad normativa, el poder ejecutivo hace de lo que dispone la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre sobre el ejercicio de la caza y, en su caso, de la pesca continental e insular.

IV.Sobre la constitucionalidad de la caza deportiva. La legislación costarricense utiliza un concepto de conservación de nuestros recursos naturales basado en el uso racional de los mismos, dada su naturaleza renovable. Desde este punto de vista la obligación del Estado es velar por la adopción de legislación y acciones tendentes a asegurar la protección y conservación de la fauna y la flora con un concepto de equilibrio. Precisamente la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre y su reglamento tiene como objeto regular y mantener en forma racional el uso de la vida silvestre sin que se de un detrimento de ésta. Dentro de este contexto el Poder Ejecutivo tiene la obligación de establecer las vedas y tipos de armas que se podrán utilizar en la caza y pesca que regula la ley (artículo 34) y su Reglamento establece la obligación de emitir un decreto anual con las regulaciones respectivas (artículo 16) prohibiéndose la caza o la pesca de las especies en vías de extinción con excepción de la reproducción efectuada sosteniblemente. En ese sentido el decreto ejecutivo 31737- MINAE impugnado, tiene su sustento jurídico en los artículos 6, 12, 14 y 18 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre.

V.El argumento de que la cacería deportiva de especies silvestres por sí mismo pone en peligro el ambiente y el equilibrio ecológico tutelado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución, no es compartido por esta Sala, en vista de que todo el esquema normativo se basa en que el uso y aprovechamiento que el ser humano puede hacer de la vida silvestre, vista como recurso natural, de tal forma que no puede poner en peligro la superviviencia de las especies con su uso y explotación racional. Se trata de una perspectiva fundamentada en el principio de desarrollo sostenible que tiene sustento constitucional y respaldo en la normativa internacional suscrita por nuestro país. Asimismo el concepto de desarrollo sostenible ha sido desarrollado por la jurisprudencia constitucional a partir de la sentencia 3705-93. De esta forma la cacería deportiva constituye una forma legal de aprovechamiento de la fauna silvestre, sometida a regulación, control y fiscalización del Estado, independientemente de su compatibilidad ética.

Además de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, la Convención para la Protección de la Flora, Fauna y Bellezas Escénicas Naturales de los Países de América (CITES), establece el marco jurídico para que la actividad de la caza, incluida la deportiva, se ejerza en forma sostenible. Pretender que la defensa del artículo 50 de nuestra Constitución incluye el respeto a la vida en todas sus formas, sin excepción, implicaría la desaplicación del principio de desarrollo sostenible, con consecuencias tales que no podrían realizarse actividades de crianza de animales pare el consumo humano y de la caza y pesca científica y de subsistencia, no sólo la deportiva, por lo que como bien lo apunta la Procuraduría en su respuesta, el artículo 9.1 de la Ley de Biodiversidad hay que entenderlo en relación con los fines de conservación y uso sostenible de los recursos nacionales, lo que en el caso concreto implica, el deber del Estado de proteger a todas las especies de flora y fauna existentes del uso irracional entendido como aquél que pueda poner en peligro la existencia de las distintas especies.

En ese sentido, mientras que el concepto que la Ley regula sea conforme al principio de uso racional de los recursos naturales, es decir de un desarrollo sostenible que permita su renovación, la legislación cumple con las exigencias del artículo 50 de la Constitución y los tratados internacionales suscritos por nuestro país.

VI.Ahora bien, el hecho de que la existencia de la caza deportiva por sí misma no sea inconstitucional, no quiere decir que su regulación específica no lo sea, es decir, que el decreto 31737-MINAE, dictado conforme a la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, que regula en detalle la caza y pesca continental e insular para el año 2004, sea respetuosa de los principios señalados, lo cual nos lleva al segundo punto de impugnación de esta acción. Aquí nos topamos con un problema de comprobación de los efectos que el decreto impugnado pueda estar produciendo en la flora y fauna, dado que su naturaleza genérica, impide determinar los efectos que en cada especie produce. Este es precisamente el punto central del argumento de los actores que señalan que al no existir estudios científicos específicos para cada especie, la autorización de caza deportiva en sí misma resulta violatoria del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y del principio precautorio, y que por lo tanto, hasta tanto no existan tales estudios técnicos, la autorización contenida en el decreto para emitir licencias de caza deportiva debe ser prohibida.

En apoyo a esa tesis, citan el antecedente de esta Sala dictado en el caso de la veda a la caza de la tortuga verde, indicando que el decreto para ser constitucional debe indicar cuales especies se pueden cazar o pescar, y con qué armas y métodos, sólo a partir de un sólido respaldo técnico científico para cada especie que garantice el respeto al ambiente. La Procuraduría indica que el decreto cuestionado debe resistir el test constitucional en este caso el respeto al principio precautorio, y que aunque existe un ámbito estrictamente técnico científico que el juez constitucional no puede entrar a valorar, sí le corresponde constatar si el requisito en cuanto a tal, se cumple, y si éste razonablemente satisface lo que en materia técnica se llaman “reglas técnicas y científicas de sentido unívoco y aplicación exacta” tutelado en el artículo 158.4 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública.

Lo que esto implica es que si bien la Sala no tiene los elementos técnico-científicos para determinar si en cada especie se cumple con la protección del ambiente, en general el decreto - tiene algún respaldo técnico científico que le de un matiz constitucional, aún y cuando sus efectos particulares no se puedan desprender grosso modo del mismo dado que afecta a un número indeterminado de especies. Sin duda que el tema es complicado porque aunque el decreto resista ese análisis, no se sabe si a ciencia cierta en realidad produce efectos nocivos en una o varias especies determinadas que, como se sabe, debido a la cadena de sus efectos resultaría siempre en una afectación del ambiente en general, con lo cual volvemos a caer en el primer argumento planteado sobre si es posible del todo cazar animales sin afectar el ambiente. Como puede verse el quid del asunto está en entender que el equilibrio que pretenden tanto nuestra Constitución como nuestra legislación no es ni puede ser perfecto, sino únicamente razonable es decir de un aprovechamiento racional de los recursos naturales que permita su uso renovable.

Siempre habrá producto de la intervención del ser humano un efecto desequilibrante en la naturaleza, cuyos efectos no deben ser tales que pongan en peligro su sostenibilidad. Así las cosas, basta con que el decreto impugnado tenga una base técnico científica que le merezca fe a esta Sala, para superar el test de constitucionalidad. No tiene que ser el mejor estudio científico, sólo aquél que respete las “reglas técnicas y científicas de sentido unívoco y aplicación exacta”, lo cual desde el punto de vista científico puede resultar una herejía, pero no desde el punto de vista legal que tiene otras reglas del juego. No deja de ser una preocupación para esta Sala que ello sea así, no obstante sería virtualmente imposible “en abstracto” determinar los efectos que la aplicación del decreto pueda tener en cada especie afectada por el mismo, por lo cual el sistema legal tiene otra solución para este tipo de casos y es el análisis concreto de sus efectos, mediante el recurso de amparo que es precisamente para medir la aplicación concreta que la normativa general pueda tener en una situación concreta que derive en una afectación de un derecho fundamental.

Eso no quiere decir, como bien lo advierte la Procuraduría que el decreto no esté obligado a tener un respaldo técnico científico, y es aquí donde se da una contraposición en entre lo que el Minae considera un respaldo técnico-científico y lo que los recurrentes consideran como tal. El centro del asunto está en que el Minae basa la elaboración del decreto en la experiencia de sus biólogos de más de veinte años de experiencia, de investigaciones particulares o de instituciones nacionales y extranjeros, el comportamiento histórico de las especies involucradazas, entre otros,(como seseñala en el oficio DM-1780-2003 del cinco de setiembre del 2003 a folio 120), y los accionantes estiman que ese estudio técnico científico para ser válido debe ser un estudio específico de cada especie. Así las cosas, se pone a la Sala a escoger entre dos sistemas utilizados, ambos científicos, para determinar, no cuál es el mejor, lo cual no está dentro de los alcances de la acción, que se limita como lo reconoce la Procuraduría, a determinar si se cumple con el respeto al principio precautorio es decir, si el mismo tiene alguna base científicamente razonable que garantice la protección al medio ambiente, pues ya sabemos que no puede pretenderse nada perfecto en esta materia que se basa más bien en el concepto de desarrollo sostenible y no en toda afectación del mismo.

Dentro de ese contexto, para esta Sala no resulta per sé inconstitucional el decreto impugnado, pues tiene un respaldo técnico-científico que, aunque probablemente puede y debe ser mejor, no se puede establecer en abstracto su afectación sobre una o varias especies determinadas, efectos que sí se pueden lograr mediante el análisis concreto de cada especie supuestamente afectada, si se diera el caso, por medio del recurso de amparo. Podría decirse que la imposibilidad de saber en abstracto si el equilibrio ambiental está garantizado es por sí mismo la prueba de la violación al principio precautorio, y ello sería cierto, como resultó en el antecedente del caso de las tortugas marinas 1250-03, si no fuera porque el Estado también ha aportado prueba de que la prohibición per sé de la caza deportiva en general y de ciertas especies en particular reguladas en el decreto cuestionado, pueden traer a su vez efectos adversos sobre el ambiente de no ser controladas, como lo menciona el Ministro de Ambiente y Energía en sus escritos de folios 157 y 205.

Incluso se ha aportado prueba de la sobrepoblación de varias especies que producen efectos nocivos sobre cultivos o sobre otras especies, que requieren ser controlados por medio de la caza deportiva y otros métodos para evitar el uso de técnicas que afectan indiscriminadamente el ambiente, como son los envenenamientos masivos que afectarían otras especies, incluso las que están fuera del decreto, de tal forma que la propia anulación de la normativa impugnada podría significar, a su vez, una violación al deber del estado de garantizar un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Así las cosas inevitablemente los efectos concretos del decreto impugnado, deberán de valorarse frente a cada caso específico y con análisis de los estudios técnico-científicos que como prueba sean sometidos y no en abstracto como se pretende en esta acción.

VII-. Finalmente estima esta Sala que los decretos futuros de esta especie deben establecer límites determinados sobre el número de licencias máximas a otorgar por zona, por especie y el número de piezas permitidas, así como establecer un control y monitoreo centralizado de las mismas, para evitar excesos que pudieran resultar en una violación al artículo 50 de nuestra Constitución.

Por tanto:

Se declara sin lugar la acción. Debe el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) cumplir con la obligación señalada en el último considerando de esta sentencia. Notifíquese.

Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta a.i Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Horacio González Q. Jorge Araya G.