Unconstitutionality of Nuclear and Arms Activities in Health Operating PermitsInconstitucionalidad de actividades nucleares y armamentistas en permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento

Res. No. 2008-14193 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours and three minutes of September twenty-fourth, two thousand eight.

An unconstitutionality action brought by Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños, of legal age, single, law student, bearer of identity card number 1-1086-0159, a resident of Heredia, against several phrases contained in Annex 1 of Executive Decree No. 33240-S. Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, representing the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, and María Luisa Ávila Agüero, representing the Ministry of Health, also participated in the proceedings.

Whereas:

1. 1By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at fifteen hours fifty-five minutes of October twenty-seventh, 2006, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of several phrases contained in Annex 1 of Executive Decree No. 33240-S be declared. He alleges that such provisions violate Articles 1, 7, 9, 11, 18, 21, and 28 of the Political Constitution, 1.1 in relation to Article 5.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, II and VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, Articles 1 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Purposes and Principles listed in Chapter I of the Charter of the United Nations, I of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the Ley de Armas y Explosivos No. 7539 of July 10, 1995, as well as the rulings of the International Court of Justice in the case referring to “Nuclear Tests”, and also against the obligation undertaken by the country through its intervention in the case related to the “legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons”.All of the foregoing to the detriment of the fundamental right of Costa Ricans to peace recognized by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment 2004-9992 of 14:30 hours of September 8, 2004, and embodied in the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, approved by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 39/11 of November twelfth, 1984.
2. 2To support the standing he holds to bring this unconstitutionality action, he states that it derives from the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional in that he acts in defense of diffuse interests or those that concern the community, and there is no individual and direct harm.
3. 3By resolution at nine hours thirty minutes of the twenty-sixth (visible on folio 22 of the case file), the action was admitted for processing, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Ministry of Health.
4. 4The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic submitted its report visible on folios 28 through 41. It makes no observation regarding the standing claimed by the petitioner. As to the merits, it states that the violations of constitutional values, principles, and norms, as well as international precepts, have not occurred. For an infringement of the Law of the Constitution to occur, it is necessary that a confrontation exists between the text of the challenged rule or act, its effects, or its interpretation or application by public authorities, and the constitutional values, principles, and norms (Article 3 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). In constitutional proceedings for the defense of the Political Constitution, with the exception of prior constitutional review, where the Constitutional Court, in our system, issues a consultative opinion or advisory ruling, it is not possible to challenge rules or acts of the legal system that have not yet emerged into legal life or which, having done so, are not, in themselves, sufficient to violate the Law of the Constitution.We must also except preparatory acts from the preceding statement when these cause a definitive legal state. The provisions regulated by Executive Decree No. 33240, General Regulations for the granting of sanitary operating permits by the Ministry of Health, cannot be disregarded for a correct and just resolution of this matter. Likewise, one must keep in mind the provisions of the Ley de Armas y Explosivos, in its Articles 72 and 73, as well as Article 75 of the Regulations to the Ley de Armas y Explosivos, Executive Decree No. 25120 of April 17, 1996. From the foregoing, it follows that in these cases, the operating permit granted by the Ministry of Health constitutes a prerequisite before the permit for the manufacture of arms or for developing other collateral activities related to this economic activity, such as the extraction of uranium and thorium minerals, the manufacture of nuclear fuel, and the manufacture of steam generators, could be granted.Although the term permit is used, in this case, this is a matter of authorization, in its legal scope of empowerment or permission, by means of which the individual is authorized to carry out a certain lawful activity, upon prior verification that they have fulfilled the requirements and conditions required by the legal system and the technical specifications to guarantee, protect, and promote general interests. Once the permit is granted, in some cases, the administered party may carry out the economic activity for which it was requested; in others, it constitutes one requirement among several that must be met before they are definitively authorized to carry out the corresponding activity. Furthermore, the authorization is a technique situated within the preventive policing function. The authorization technique is compatible with the organization of fundamental freedoms and rights under a preventive regime.It also fully conforms to cases where a pre-existing right of the administered party exists. Having the above as a frame of reference, it is clear that the sanitary operating permit granted by the Ministry of Health is a prerequisite for the competent body, in this case the Directorate of Armaments of the Ministry of Public Security, to grant the arms manufacturing permit or the development of related activities. Ergo, the regulation and authorization for granting the former constitutes a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement to violate the Law of the Constitution. In other words, granting a sanitary operating permit to an administered party to carry out one of the challenged activities is not vested, per se, with sufficient legal force to violate the Law of the Constitution, since for that to happen, the Executive Branch necessarily had to have reformed the Regulations to the Ley de Armas y Explosivos, expanding the competence of the body responsible for granting the final authorization, which was precisely the one that could effectively breach the Law of the Constitution.By not doing so, evidently, no injury has been caused to any value—in this case, peace—to any principle (those of normative hierarchy, Article 7 of the Constitution, and the principle of legal reserve, Article 28 of the Constitution and 19 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), much less to the other constitutional articles and norms found in international conventions. In this case, the application of the norm—granting a sanitary operating permit to an administered party—by itself could not have caused the alleged unconstitutionalities, since other acts by the Public Administration were required for that purpose, acts which were never authorized by the Executive Branch through the pertinent reforms to the regulatory norms, especially those of the executive regulations to Law No. 7530. Although someone could argue that the Executive Branch did not reform the executive regulations to Law No. 7530 due to ignorance or clumsiness; however, even giving the benefit of the doubt to those who might reason in that manner, the act in itself did not have sufficient legal force to breach the Law of the Constitution and, consequently, the requirement provided for in Article 3 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional for upholding an unconstitutionality action is not met.Moreover, immediately after being warned by public opinion of the potential, not real, consequences of the executive decree in the challenged norms, which had come into force on August 28, 2006, the Executive Branch repealed it through Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 33410, a repeal that came into force on October 23, 2006, meaning, neither more nor less, that the challenged provisions were in force for less than two months. This, coupled with the fact that it was by itself insufficient to authorize the operation of a company dedicated to the manufacture of arms or the challenged related activities, constitutes irrefutable evidence ratifying the proposed thesis, in the sense that no injury to the Law of the Constitution ever occurred. Therefore, it can be concluded that since the challenged norms were repealed, no injury was caused to the protected constitutional legal good, and since we are in the present case facing a mere requirement that by itself was not sufficient to authorize the challenged economic activities, this matter has lost its current relevance.On the contrary, upholding this unconstitutionality action would produce significant and unnecessary damage to the image of the State of Costa Rica regarding the stance it has permanently and throughout its history assumed in the concert of Nations, in favor of peace, alternative means of peaceful dispute resolution in controversies between States, and the fight it has undertaken against the arms race. Now then, when the State of Costa Rica acts contrary to those values and principles, it is obvious to state that the Constitutional Chamber, as guardian of the Law of the Constitution and as its supreme interpreter, must rise to its defense, as it rightly did in the past in ruling No. 9992-04, for those who damage the image of the State of Costa Rica are the constituted powers, while the Constitutional Court is responsible for repairing the injury inflicted upon said Law; a situation that does not arise in the present matter. The Office of the Attorney General recommends dismissing the action on the merits.
5. 5Ms. María Luisa Ávila Agüero, representing the Ministry of Health, responds on folio 42 to the granted hearing, stating that the CIIU is a code assigned to activities or establishments according to the International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities, which corresponds to recommendations of the Statistical Office of the United Nations Organization. It is a classification for statistical purposes and allows for the standardization of the classification of industrial establishments for economic and commercial purposes. In Costa Rica, this classification is made official and published by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC) and is used by other institutions such as the C.C.S.S., the National Banking System, the Customs System, the C.N.F.L., and other Ministries. With this preamble, it is necessary to indicate that through Executive Decree No. 30465-S of May 9, 2002, the Directorate for Protection of the Human Environment of the Ministry of Health promulgated the "Reglamento General para el otorgamiento de permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud," including in it an annex with a table of activities that took the CIIU 2002 (International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities) Code as a reference.After the Decree came into force, it was detected that the table taken as a reference omitted some activities, which created the need to update it, making it necessary to include or exclude some of the contemplated activities. For this reason, in 2004, the Directorate for Protection of the Human Environment of the Ministry under her charge proposed drafting a new Regulation, with the participation of various stakeholders. Thus, such work materialized with Executive Decree No. 33240.S of June 30, 2006. The objective of that Regulation is to simplify and improve the procedures that the administered party must carry out before the Public Administration. The Regulation arose from a need to organize a series of activities that were previously unregulated and to classify, according to sanitary risk, different economic, productive, and human activities, being consistent with the need to reduce bureaucratic red tape and also to update the international CIIU code, which is a statistical classification.It must be remembered that the Ministry of Health does not grant authorizations for a specific activity, but only sanitary operating permits, which verify compliance with adequate working conditions and the protection of the environment and the health of persons working in various premises or establishments. The Annex to the Reglamento General para el otorgamiento de permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud does not constitute a normative provision; it is a mere classification of activities according to the risk they present, which will allow the health authorities to prioritize their intervention and their inspection, surveillance, and control functions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Ministry of Health, faithful to the pacifist and anti-militarist policy of the President of the Republic, and in view of the erroneous interpretation given to the Reglamento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento, decided to repeal classification CIIU 2927, which referred to the Fabrication of Arms and Munitions.The Ley de Armas y Explosivos No. 7530 establishes in its Article 25 the prohibition on the manufacture of seven types of arms and munitions; Article 20 establishes the arms that are permitted. The current legal system does not expressly prohibit the installation of factories for any type of arms; hence, the Decree in question imposes greater requirements and restrictions on said activities. Therefore, it considers it inadvisable to repeal the regulations relating to the manufacture of arms, since that activity, within the framework of arms not prohibited in the country, is legally recognized as a lawful activity. Being a lawful activity, it is an unavoidable obligation of the Executive Branch to regulate them, as otherwise, it could incur an omission by not doing so. Regarding the extraction of minerals, such activity is regulated by the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (ratified by Law 7571), in which the country undertakes not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, or retain chemical weapons.Such substances do not appear within the aforementioned classification. These initiatives seek to defend the interest that exists regarding the utilization of the potential benefits that may derive from that type of energy and to facilitate the safe transfer of those materials in order to protect human life and the environment. Regarding thorium and uranium, the Código de Minería, in Article 4, establishes among other things that radioactive minerals are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by it or by private parties in accordance with the law through a concession. It is clear then that these are activities partially permitted in the country but subject to control. That being the case, it is necessary to regulate them. Within the General Description of Economic Activities managed by the C.C.S.S., code 1200 classifies the extraction of uranium and thorium minerals, which coincides with the Correlation Table between the CIIU, Rev 3, and the DIIU, Rev 2, or Manual of Codes of Economic Activities, managed by the Directorate of Environmental Quality Management of MINAE.From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the challenged provisions do not harm national or international regulations and that the petitioner's request was already addressed by repealing classification CIIU 2927, referring to the Fabrication of Arms and Munitions.
6. 6The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in numbers 70, 71, and 72 of the Judicial Bulletin, of April 11, 12, and 13, 2007 (folio 27).
7. 7In a document of August 11, 2008 (folio 47), the petitioner requested prompt dispatch of this matter and the holding of an oral hearing.
8. 8The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by Article 9 ibidem, considering this resolution to be sufficiently grounded in clear principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.
9. 9The prescriptions of the law have been observed in the proceedings.

Drafted by Magistrate Armijo Sancho; and:

I.On admissibility. In the first place, in accordance with Article 73, subsection a), of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, an unconstitutionality action is admissible against laws or general provisions that infringe, by action or omission, constitutional norms or principles. In this case, the petitioner challenges certain sections contained in the Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, a normative provision of general application. This has allowed the preliminary admission of the action filed. Regarding the petitioner's standing, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a prior pending case is not required when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct harm, or when it involves the defense of diffuse interests, or those that concern the community as a whole.

In this sense, and in relation to the defense of the right to peace invoked by the petitioner, this Chamber, in judgment No. 2004-9992 of September 8, 2004, stated that the right to peace is a third-generation right and constitutes a "foundational" value of the Nation of Costa Rica, which "empowers any Costa Rican to defend it, without the need for a prior case" and that it can be considered as "an interest that concerns the community as a whole," the latter in consideration of what was stated in judgment No. 8239-2001 of August 14, 2001, in which this Chamber stated: "I.- .(...). Finally, when the second paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional speaks of interests 'that concern the community as a whole,' it refers to the legal goods explained in the previous lines...[the environment, cultural heritage, defense of the country's territorial integrity, and proper management of public spending, among others]... that is, those whose ownership rests with the very holders of sovereignty, in each of the inhabitants of the Republic.

Therefore, it is not a matter of any person being able to come to the Constitutional Chamber to protect just any interest (public action), but rather that any individual can act in defense of those goods that affect the entire national community, without it being valid to attempt any exhaustive enumeration in this field." Consequently, the Chamber considers that the petitioner has standing to file the action, and proceeds with its analysis on the merits.

II. Object of the challenge. Executive Decree No. 33240-S, Annex 1

"1200 EXTRACTION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM MINERALS. This class includes the extraction of minerals valued mainly for their uranium or thorium content, such as pitchblende. It also includes the concentration of these minerals." "2330 MANUFACTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL. This class includes the extraction of uranium metal from pitchblende and other uranium-bearing minerals. (Manufacture of alloys, dispersions, and mixtures of natural uranium and its compounds, and the manufacture of other radioactive elements, isotopes, and compounds." "2813 MANUFACTURE OF STEAM GENERATORS, EXCEPT HOT WATER BOILERS FOR CENTRAL HEATING. This class covers the manufacture of nuclear reactors for all purposes, except for the separation of isotopes. The expression 'nuclear reactor' generally applies to all apparatus and machinery within the enclosure protected by the biological shield, including, if necessary, the shield itself.

The expression also covers all apparatus and devices located outside the enclosure but which are an integral part of those contained within it. Manufacture of boilers generating water vapor and other vapors other than hot water boilers for heating, even if they also produce low-pressure steam. Manufacture of auxiliary installations for boilers, such as economizers, superheaters, steam collectors and accumulators. Also, soot removers, gas recovery units, and slag removers." "2927 MANUFACTURE OF ARMS AND MUNITIONS. This class includes the manufacture of: Firearms. Portable arms, shotguns, and air and compressed gas pistols. Manufacture of portable arms and accessories, heavy and light artillery; Firearms. Heavy weapons, artillery pieces, heavy machine guns, etc." (This classification was repealed by Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 33410 of October 23, 2006)."

III.Regarding the repeal of section 2927 of Annex I of Executive Decree No. 33240-S. The challenged section 2927, included in Annex I called "Classification of Commercial Establishments and Activities According to Environmental Sanitary Risk," contained in the Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, issued through Executive Decree number 33240-S, was repealed by Executive Decree No. 33410-S, published in La Gaceta No. 212 of November 6, 2006, as follows from Article 1 of the latter, which provided: "Repeal classification CIIU 2927 of Annex A of Executive Decree No. 33240-S- of June 30, 2006…". Given this circumstance, the Office of the Attorney General considers that the challenged provision has lost current relevance, in accordance with what was stated by the Constitutional Chamber in resolution No. 2004-10400 of September 22, 2004, and therefore it is unnecessary for the Chamber to rule on its content.

IV.On the normative nature of the challenged, effective sections of Annex I of Decree 33240-S. This Chamber has stated that:

"…Constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for declaring unconstitutionality, guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution and adjudicates the conformity or non-conformity with it of the laws, provisions, or acts challenged, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic of Costa Rica" (judgment No. 1319-97 of March 4, 1997).

Now then, in accordance with Article 73, subsection a), the laws or any general provision challenged in the unconstitutionality proceeding must possess a "normative nature," such that their content regulates and delimits the conduct of individuals in a general manner. Otherwise, the challenged provision cannot be heard through the unconstitutionality action, whose purpose is to control the conformity of "laws and other general provisions" with the Law of the Constitution. This has been repeatedly stated by this Court in judgments No. 4422-93 of September 7, 1993, No. 3936-95 of July 18, 1995, and No. 16773-2005 of November 30, 2005. Article 1 of the Reglamento General para el otorgamiento de permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud provides that its object is "to regulate and control the granting of sanitary operating permits for any agricultural, industrial, commercial, or service activity or establishment; and for those activities that by provision of the law, require these sanitary permits to operate in the national territory, as well as to establish the requirements for processing them." For its part, Article 3 states: "With the purpose of regulating human activities that directly or indirectly affect the health of people and the environment, the Ministry of Health establishes the classification of these into three risk categories, considering for this purpose sanitary and environmental criteria, which allow it to exercise control and surveillance and guarantee compliance with the technical, legal, and administrative norms and regulations in force." As a development of such classification, Article 6 expresses: "(…)the Ministry of Health establishes in Annex No. 1 of this Regulation, the table for the Classification of Activities or establishments according to sanitary risk, which uses the CIIU Code as a reference, and includes the classification by level of sanitary and environmental risk, with the objective of strengthening the processes of execution, development, evaluation, control, and surveillance of activities that require a S.O.P. [Sanitary Operating Permit]; and guaranteeing compliance with current legislation." This is the Annex in which the challenged sections are found.

The Minister of Health states in her report that the CIIU is a Code assigned to activities or establishments according to the International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities, prepared according to the recommendations provided by the Statistical Office of the United Nations Organization. Its purpose is statistical and allows for the standardization of the classification of industrial establishments for economic and commercial purposes. In Costa Rica, this classification is made official and published by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC). It seeks to optimize the inspection, surveillance, and control function of the authorities by classifying activities according to the risk they represent. Analyzing the challenged sections, the Chamber observes that these are contained in an Annex called "CLASSIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL SANITARY RISK." In general, the sections are ordered according to the activity to which they refer and contain a description of the activity and/or of the establishments that make up each category.

For example, section 1200 regarding "Extraction of Uranium and Thorium Minerals" is located in the category relating to the activity of "Mining and Quarrying," while sections 2330 "Manufacture of Nuclear Fuel," 2813 "Manufacture of Steam Generators…," and 2927 (already repealed) "Manufacture of Arms and Munitions" are located in category "D. Manufacturing Industry." The Chamber observes that the challenged sections describe the activities that are included within a specific category and give a brief explanation of some concepts, and although they require a singular act of application to develop their full effectiveness, their mere inclusion within the indicated categories is an indicator of an endorsement by the Executive Branch and the legal system—since they undoubtedly form part of it—of the development of such activities on Costa Rican soil. It is unnecessary to wait for the moment of granting a specific sanitary operating permit to examine its conformity with the Constitution, especially considering that the granting of the permit would eventually be incorporating a subjective right into the sphere of the individual, whose subsequent reversal is neither automatic nor simple, which could cause damage to the interests invoked by the petitioner.

Evidently, the authorization that the Ministry of Health could grant under the challenged provisions must be understood in harmony with provisions of a higher normative rank, such as the Código de Minería, in the case of mineral extraction and fuel manufacturing. But this is not an obstacle to subjecting the provisions of the Annex that are challenged to a constitutional review, as an identifiable part of a complex authorization scheme.

V. On the right to peace

Although when the Constitution alludes to peace, it refers to its concertation and negotiation being part of the functions of certain state bodies (Articles 121, subsection 6) and 147, subsection 1°), the scope of this concept has been recognized and enhanced by the jurisprudence of this Court. In this regard, the Chamber has indicated that it is a supreme value of the Political Constitution (judgment # 1739-92 of July 1, 1992) and a fundamental value of Costa Rican identity (judgment #1313-93 of March 26, 1993). Likewise, it has been considered a value not only of national rank but also international, in light of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, adopted by Resolution #39/11 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of November 12, 1984, the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution #2131 (XX) of December 21, 1965, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted in resolution #2625 (XXV) of the General Assembly of October 24, 1970 (judgment #2004-9992 of September 8, 2004). In this last cited judgment, the Chamber stated:

“(…) it is clear that the Costa Rican people, tired of a history of death, confrontations, dictators, and marginalization from the benefits of development, freely and wisely chose, starting in nineteen forty-nine, to embrace the sentiment that had long accompanied Costa Ricans, of adopting peace as the guiding value of society. On that date, this historical change crystallized, a new spirit was proclaimed, a spirit of peace and tolerance. From then on, symbolically, the barracks became a museum or teaching center and the country adopts reason and law as a mechanism to resolve its problems internally and externally. Likewise, it bets on human development and we proclaim our right to live free and in peace. That day this nation took a turn, we decided that any cost we must incur to fight for peace will always be less than the irreparable costs of war. That philosophy is what culminates in the "Proclamation of perpetual, active, and unarmed neutrality" of our country, and the numerous international instruments signed in the same vein -cited abundantly by the parties-, as an extension of that deeply rooted constitutional value, which serves as a constitutional parameter when analyzing the challenged acts. In this same sense, the jurisprudence of this Chamber has pronounced, highlighting the value of peace as a legal and political principle, in its judgments by stating:

"... hence, laws, in general, norms and acts of authority require for their validity, not only to have been enacted by competent bodies and due procedures, but also to pass substantive review for their concordance with the supreme norms, principles, and values of the Constitution..., such as those of order, peace, security, justice, liberty, etc., which are configured as patterns of reasonableness (see judgment number 1739-92).

In another judgment referring to the fundamental values of Costa Rican identity:

"... can be summarized... in those of democracy, the Social State of Law, the essential dignity of the human being, and the system of liberty," in addition to peace (Article 12 of the Political Constitution), and Justice..." (see judgment number 1313-93)”.

The foregoing evidences that the right to peace has in the Costa Rican system a normative recognition derived not only from the text of the Political Constitution, but also from the International Treaties ratified by our country, a jurisprudential recognition derived from the judgments issued by the Constitutional Chamber; and above all a social recognition, in accordance with the feelings and actions of the Costa Ricans themselves. Now then, the construction of peace, as a certain part of European doctrine affirms, constitutes an open task whose achievement makes every inhabitant of the country responsible and committed, and especially, those who exercise power within the States. Hence, the greatest effort to achieve, maintain, and consolidate the country's peace falls upon the Government authorities, coupled with the purpose of strengthening relations of peaceful cooperation among all peoples.

Therefore, the pursuit of peace in a State is not only limited to the internal sphere, but also the external, so that it is respected by other States. When referring to peace as a value, it must be noted that every constitutional value, as a sector of European doctrine affirms, possesses a triple dimension: a) foundational, on a static plane, of every constitutional provision and institution, of the entire legal system; b) guiding, on a dynamic plane, of the legal order but also of the political order, grounded in pre-determined goals and ends that render illegitimate any normative provision that pursues different ends and obstructs the same constitutional values; and c) critical, which implies that the constitutional value is suitable to serve as a criterion or parameter for evaluating the entire legal system, whereby any infra-constitutional norm can be controlled based on its conformity or non-conformity with constitutional values.

Thus, conceived peace as a value, the three referred dimensions are attributable to it, whereby it acts as a foundation for the set of norms and institutions, with the object of strengthening peaceful relations on the internal and external plane of the State; it guides normative interpretation in the search for solutions that in turn foster it; and it invalidates any normative provision or activity of public powers that undermines national or international social Peace. These three dimensions must be taken into consideration by the States.

VI.On the precautionary principle in environmental matters. And the matter, finally, must not only be considered inseparably linked to the value of peace, but also to the right to a healthy environment. Regarding the latter, it is considered pertinent to recall the precautionary principle, as one of those that characterize the protection of the right in question. By judgment #2004-01923 of 14:55 hours on February 25, 2004, the following was stated:

“One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary or prudent avoidance principle. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states “Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” In the domestic legal system, the Biodiversity Law (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its article 11, enshrines the following principles as hermeneutical parameters: “1.- Preventive criterion: It is recognized that it is vitally important to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary or in dubio pro natura criterion: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing the adoption of effective protection measures.” In Vote of this Chamber No. 1250-99 of 11:24 hours on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Votes Nos. 9773-00 of 9:44 hours on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 of 16:32 hours on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003) this Court held the following: “(...) Prevention seeks to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources.

Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible affectation of the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage –or a doubt about it–, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even postpone the activity in question. The foregoing is because in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion proves ineffective, since once the socially harmful biological consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral transcendence, but it will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment.” Subsequently, in Vote No. 3480-03 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, this Court indicated that “Properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty regarding whether such facts will effectively produce harmful effects on the environment.”

VII.On the merits. Applying the foregoing considerations to the provisions being challenged, an additional distinction must be made between those that are still in force and the one that has already been repealed. Regarding those that refer to the extraction of minerals, manufacture of nuclear fuel, and steam generators, it must be recalled that States that promote peace are obligated to adopt an "unconditional or ethical pacifism," as a sector of doctrine calls it, which starts from the premise that peace and war are obviously antagonistic and each, respectively, a value that must be achieved and a disvalue that must be eradicated. Consequently, a State that accepts peace as a fundamental constitutional value cannot settle for the limited notion that peace is the absence of war, but must go further, continuously preventing and rejecting every decision and action that could propitiate and lead to such a circumstance.

Certainly among the activities that can be considered opposed to the pacifist spirit of a nation or country is the manufacture of weapons and the production of certain minerals or chemical substances. They are directly linked to situations of violence, even in circumstances of legitimate defense. There are even certain types of weapons -firearms, chemical, biological, etc.- that are manufactured specifically to be used in wars. Consequently, a State that aspires to foster peace, both nationally and internationally, must take special care when authorizing the manufacture and/or importation of weapons and chemical substances in its territory, flatly rejecting those that by their nature have been designed and created to favor the disvalue of war. In view of the fact that there are many types of weapons on the market, from weapons of war to others whose fundamental purpose is to assist in the protection of citizens and public or private property, as well as to allow the practice of some sporting activities, such as hunting and target shooting, the Costa Rican legal system permits the manufacture and importation of some types of light weapons, under strict control measures.

The Ley de Armas y Explosivos provides in Article 1 that said law shall regulate “…the acquisition, possession, registration, carrying, sale, importation, exportation, manufacture, and storage of weapons, ammunition, explosives, and gunpowder, in any of their presentations, and of the raw materials to produce products regulated by this Law, in all its aspects, as well as the installation of security devices.” Article 19 indicates that there are permitted weapons and prohibited weapons. The former are regulated in Article 20 and the latter in Article 25. Article 26 prohibits the use, production, or introduction into the country of toxic or lethal gases, chemical compounds, viruses, or bacteria that produce irreversible physical or mental consequences, to be used as a weapon. Also, the police use of ammunition intended for hunting is prohibited. Article 68 regulates the manufacture, storage, trade, importation, and exportation of weapons, ammunition, explosives, pyrotechnic devices, and gunpowder.

Hence, even though there is a group of weapons and chemical substances and components whose importation and manufacture is permitted by the legal system, such authorization must be understood in a highly restrictive sense, in respect for the aforementioned constitutional value. In the same way, the extraction of minerals is an activity regulated, partially, by the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, which Costa Rica ratified by Ley #7571. However, these substances are not contained in the challenged classification. Thorium and uranium, for their part, are radioactive minerals, and although the Mining Code reserves their exploitation to the State, whether by itself or through concession to private parties, their well-known military use and their highly contaminating nature compel the consideration of their belonging to the list challenged here as unconstitutional.

VIII.The Chamber cannot help but estimate that the inclusion in a catalog of permitted activities -and over which, in the end, competence is conferred on the Ministry of Health to authorize private parties to develop them- of the combination of topics set forth in the present unconstitutionality action (extraction of uranium and thorium; production of nuclear fuel and manufacture of nuclear reactors) is contrary to the value of peace due to its possible links with war activity, as well as to the right to a healthy environment, insofar as its harmful consequences in the ecological and human health field, and, therefore, its inclusion in a catalog of possible activities to be authorized by a public body is unconstitutional.

IX.Conclusion. In accordance with the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that sections 1200, 2330, and 2813 of Annex 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo #33240-S are contrary to the value of peace and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and must be annulled as unconstitutional.

X.The foregoing is without prejudice to warning that, if the problem of the peaceful use of nuclear energy arises in our country, the legal, technical, and practical guarantees must be provided that its use will be undoubtedly peaceful and compatible with respect for the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It is equally important to expressly state that this pronouncement in no way prevents the medicinal use of nuclear energy.

Por tanto:

The action is declared with merit. Sections 1200 Extracción de Minerales de Uranio y Torio (Extraction of Uranium and Thorium Minerals), 2330 Elaboración de Combustible Nuclear (Production of Nuclear Fuel), and 2813 Fabricación de Generadores de Vapor (Manufacture of Steam Generators) of Anexo #1 (Annex #1) of Decreto Ejecutivo #33240-S of June 30, 2006, are annulled, all without prejudice to what was stated in the last considerando. This judgment has declaratory and retroactive effects to the effective date of the annulled norm, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith. Report this pronouncement in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta and publish it in full in the Boletín Judicial. Notify.- Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Rosa María Abdelnour G. Gastón Certad M.

While someone might allege that the Executive Branch did not reform the executive regulation to Law No. 7530 due to ignorance or ineptitude; however, even granting the benefit of the doubt to those who might reason in that way, the act itself did not have sufficient legal force to violate the Law of the Constitution and, consequently, the requirement set forth in numeral 3 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction for upholding an unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) is not met. Furthermore, the Executive Branch, immediately after being warned by public opinion of the potential, not actual, consequences of the executive decree in the challenged provisions, which had entered into force on August 28, 2006, repealed it through Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 33410, a repeal that entered into force as of October 23, 2006, meaning, neither more nor less, that the challenged part was in force for less than two months.

That, coupled with the fact that by itself it was insufficient to authorize the operation of a company engaged in the manufacture of arms or the related activities that are challenged, constitutes irrefutable evidence that comes to ratify the thesis raised, in the sense that no violation of the Law of the Constitution ever occurred. Therefore, it can be concluded that since the challenged provisions were repealed and since no violation whatsoever occurred to the protected constitutional legal right, and because the present case involves a mere requirement that by itself was not sufficient to authorize the economic activities being challenged, it has lost actual interest. On the contrary, upholding this unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) would cause significant and unnecessary damage to the image of the State of Costa Rica regarding the stance it has assumed, permanently and throughout its history in the concert of Nations, in favor of peace, of alternative means of peaceful settlement of disputes between States, and in the fight it has undertaken against the arms race.

Now, when the State of Costa Rica acts against those values and principles, it is obvious to state that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), as guardian of the Law of the Constitution and as its supreme interpreter, must come to its defense, just as it rightly did in the past in vote No. 9992-04, since those who damage the image of the State of Costa Rica are the constituted powers, whereas it is up to the Constitutional Court to repair the violation inflicted upon the said Law; a situation that does not arise in the present matter. The Attorney General's Office recommends rejecting the filed action on the merits.

1. 5Mrs. María Luisa Ávila Agüero, representing the Ministry of Health, responds at folio 42 to the hearing granted, stating that the ISIC is a code assigned to activities or establishments according to the International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities, which corresponds to recommendations from the Statistics Office of the United Nations Organization. It is a classification for statistical purposes and allows the standardization of the classification of industrial establishments for economic and commercial purposes. In Costa Rica, this classification is formalized and published by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos, INEC) and is used by other institutions such as the C.C.S.S., the National Banking System, the Customs System, the C.N.F.L., and other Ministries. With that preamble, it is necessary to indicate that through Executive Decree No. 30465-S of May 9, 2002, the Directorate of Human Environment Protection of the Ministry of Health promulgated the “General Regulation for the Granting of Sanitary Operating Permits by the Ministry of Health” (Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento por parte del Ministerio de Salud), including therein an annex with a table of activities that took as a reference the ISIC Code 2002 (International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities).After the Decree entered into force, it was detected that the table taken as a reference omitted some activities, so the need arose to update it, which made it necessary to include or exclude some of the activities contemplated. Therefore, in 2004, the Directorate of Human Environment Protection of the Ministry under her charge set out to draft a new Regulation, with the participation of various actors. Thus, such work materialized with Executive Decree No. 33240.S of June 30, 2006. The objective of that Regulation is to simplify and improve the procedures that the administered party must carry out before the Public Administration. The Regulation arose from a need to put in order a series of activities that until then were unrestricted and to classify, according to sanitary risk, different economic, productive, and human activities, being consistent with the need to reduce red tape and also update the international ISIC code, which is a statistical classification.It is necessary to recall that the Ministry of Health does not grant authorizations for a specific activity, but only sanitary operating permits, which verify compliance with adequate working conditions and the protection of the environment and the health of people working in various premises or establishments. The Annex to the General Regulation for the Granting of Sanitary Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health does not constitute a normative provision; it is a mere classification of activities according to the risk they present, which will allow health authorities to prioritize their intervention and their inspection, surveillance, and control functions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Ministry of Health, faithful to the pacifist and anti-militarist policy of Mr. President of the Republic, and given the erroneous interpretation given to the Regulation of Sanitary Operating Permits, made the decision to repeal ISIC classification 2927, which referred to the Manufacture of Arms and Ammunition.The Arms and Explosives Law No. 7530 establishes in its Article 25 the prohibition on manufacturing seven types of arms and ammunition; Article 20 establishes the arms that are permitted. The current legal system does not expressly prohibit the installation of factories of any type of arms; hence, the Decree in question imposes greater requirements and restrictions on said activities. For this reason, it considers it inadvisable to repeal the regulations relating to the manufacture of arms, since that activity, within the framework of arms not prohibited in the country, is legally recognized as a lawful activity. Being a lawful activity, it is an unavoidable obligation of the Executive Branch to regulate them, since otherwise, it could incur in omission for not doing so. In relation to the extraction of minerals, such activity is regulated by the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (ratified by Law 7571) in which the country commits not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons.Within the aforementioned classification, such substances do not appear. Those initiatives attempt to defend the interest that exists in relation to taking advantage of the potential benefits that may derive from that type of energy and to facilitate the safe transfer of those materials in order to protect human life and the environment. In relation to thorium and uranium, the Mining Code (Código de Minería) in Article 4 establishes, among other things, that radioactive minerals are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by it or by private parties in accordance with the law through a concession. It is clear then that these are activities partially permitted in the country, but subject to control. That being the case, it is necessary to regulate them. Within the General Description of Economic Activities managed by the C.C.S.S., code 1200 classifies the extraction of uranium and thorium minerals, which coincides with the Correlation Table between the ISIC, Rev 3 and the ISIC, Rev 2 or Economic Activities Code Manual, managed by the Directorate of Environmental Quality Management (Dirección de Gestión de Calidad Ambiental) of MINAE.From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the challenged provisions do not violate national or international regulations and that the petitioner's request has already been addressed by repealing ISIC classification 2927, referring to the Manufacture of Arms and Ammunition.
2. 6The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 70, 71, and 72 of the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial), of April 11, 12, and 13, 2007 (folio 27).
3. 7In a motion dated August 11, 2008 (folio 47), the plaintiff requested prompt dispatch of this matter and the holding of an oral hearing.
4. 8The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, deeming this resolution to be sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.
5. 9The prescriptions of law have been observed in the proceedings.

Drafted by Judge Armijo Sancho; and;

I.On admissibility. First, in accordance with Article 73 subsection a) of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, an unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) is appropriate against laws or provisions of a general nature that infringe, by action or omission, constitutional norms or principles. In this case, the plaintiff challenges certain sections contained in the General Regulation for the Granting of Sanitary Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health (Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud), a normative provision of general application. This has allowed the preliminary admission of the filed action. Regarding the plaintiff's standing (legitimación), in accordance with Article 75, second paragraph, of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, a prior pending case is not necessary when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct violation or it concerns the defense of diffuse interests (intereses difusos), or those that concern the community as a whole.

In this sense, and in relation to the defense of the right to peace that the plaintiff invokes, this Chamber, in judgment #2004-9992 dated September 8, 2004, stated that the right to peace is a third-generation right and constitutes a "founding" value (valor “fundante”) of the Nation of Costa Rica, which "entitles any Costa Rican to defend it, without the need for a prior trial" and can be considered as "an interest that concerns the community as a whole," this latter point in consideration of what was stated in judgment #8239-2001 of August 14, 2001, in which this Chamber stated: "I.- .(…). Finally, when paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction speaks of interests "that concern the community as a whole," it refers to the legal rights explained in the preceding lines...[the environment, cultural heritage, the defense of the country's territorial integrity and the proper management of public spending, among others]... that is, those whose ownership rests with the very holders of sovereignty, in each of the inhabitants of the Republic.

It is therefore not a matter of any person being able to come to the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in protection of any interests (popular action), but rather that any individual can act in defense of those rights that affect the entire national community, without any attempt at an exhaustive enumeration being valid in this field either." Consequently, the Chamber considers that the plaintiff has standing to file the action, and proceeds to its analysis on the merits.

II. Object of the challenge. Executive Decree No. 33240-S, Annex 1.-

"1200 EXTRACTION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM MINERALS. This class includes the extraction of minerals estimated mainly for their uranium or thorium content, such as pitchblende. It also includes the concentration of those minerals." "2330 PROCESSING OF NUCLEAR FUEL. This class includes the extraction of uranium metal from pitchblende and other uranium-bearing minerals. (Manufacture of alloys, dispersions, and mixtures of natural uranium and its compounds and the manufacture of other radioactive elements, isotopes, and compounds." "2813 MANUFACTURE OF STEAM GENERATORS, EXCEPT HOT WATER BOILERS FOR CENTRAL HEATING. This class covers the manufacture of nuclear reactors for all purposes, except for isotope separation. The term "nuclear reactor" generally applies to all apparatus and machines found within the enclosure protected by the biological shielding, including, if applicable, the shielding itself.

The term also covers all apparatus and devices located outside the enclosure but that are an integral part of those contained within it. Manufacture of boilers generating water vapor and other vapors that are not hot water boilers for heating, even if they also produce low-pressure steam. Manufacture of auxiliary installations for boilers, such as economizers, superheaters, steam collectors, and accumulators. Also, soot removers, gas recuperators, and sludge extractors." "2927 MANUFACTURE OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION. This class includes the manufacture of: Firearms. Portable arms, shotguns, and air and compressed gas pistols. Manufacture of portable arms and accessories, heavy and light artillery; Firearms. Heavy arms, artillery pieces, heavy machine guns, etc." (This classification repealed by Article 1 of executive decree No. 33410 of October 23, 2006)".

III.Regarding the repeal of section 2927 of Annex I of Executive Decree No. 33240-S. The challenged section 2927, included in Annex I called "Classification of Commercial Establishments and Activities According to Environmental Sanitary Risk" (Clasificación de Establecimientos Comerciales y Actividades Según el Riesgo Sanitario Ambiental), contained in the General Regulation for the Granting of Sanitary Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health (Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud), issued through Executive Decree number 33240-S, was repealed by Executive Decree #33410-S, published in La Gaceta #212 of November 6, 2006, as is evident from Article 1 of the latter, which provided: "Repeal ISIC classification 2927 from Annex A of Executive Decree No. 33240-S- of June 30, 2006…". Given this circumstance, the Attorney General's Office considers that the challenged part has lost actual interest in accordance with what was indicated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in resolution #2004-10400 of September 22, 2004, which is why it is unnecessary for the Chamber to rule on its content.

IV. On the normative nature of the remaining challenged sections of Annex I of Decree 33240-S. This Chamber has stated that

"… The constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the proceedings for declaration of unconstitutionality, guarantees the primacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or non-conformity with it of the laws, provisions, or acts challenged, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic of Costa Rica" (judgment #1319-97 of March 4, 1997).

Now, pursuant to Article 73 subsection a), the laws or any general provision challenged in the unconstitutionality process must possess "normative character" (carácter normativo), such that their content regulates and delimits the conduct of individuals in a general manner. Otherwise, the challenged part cannot be heard through the unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad), the purpose of which is to control the conformity of "laws and other general provisions" with the Law of the Constitution. This Court has repeatedly so indicated in judgments #4422-93 of September 7, 1993, #3936-95 of July 18, 1995, and #16773-2005 of November 30, 2005. Article 1 of the General Regulation for the Granting of Sanitary Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health states that its purpose is "to regulate and control the granting of sanitary operating permits (permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento) for any agricultural, industrial, commercial, or service activity or establishment; and for those activities that by provision of law require these sanitary operating permits to operate in the national territory, as well as to establish the requirements for their processing." For its part, Article 3 states: "For the purpose of regulating human activities that directly or indirectly affect the health of people and the environment, the Ministry of Health establishes the classification of these into three risk categories, considering for this purpose sanitary and environmental criteria, which allow it to exercise control and surveillance and guarantee compliance with the norms and technical, legal, and administrative regulations in force." As a development of such classification, Article 6 states: "(…) the Ministry of Health establishes in Annex No. 1 of this Regulation, the table for the Classification of Activities or Establishments according to sanitary risk, which uses as a reference the ISIC Code, and includes the classification by level of sanitary and environmental risk with the objective of strengthening the execution, development, evaluation, control, and surveillance processes of activities that require a P.S.F. [Sanitary Operating Permit (Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento)]; and guarantee compliance with current legislation." This is the Annex in which the challenged sections are found.

The Minister of Health points out in her report that the ISIC is a Code assigned to activities or establishments according to the International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities, prepared according to the recommendations issued by the Statistics Office of the United Nations Organization. Its purpose is statistical and allows the standardization of the classification of industrial establishments for economic and commercial purposes. In Costa Rica, this classification is formalized and published by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos, INEC). It seeks to optimize the inspection, surveillance, and control function of the authorities through the classification of activities according to the risk they represent. Analyzing the challenged sections, the Chamber observes that these are contained in an Annex called "CLASSIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL SANITARY RISK" (CLASIFICACIÓN DE ESTABLECIMIENTOS Y ACTIVIDADES SEGÚN RIESGO SANITARIO AMBIENTAL).

In general, the sections are ordered according to the activity to which they refer and contain a description of the activity and/or the establishments that make up each category. Thus, for example, section 1200 relating to the "Extraction of Uranium and Thorium Minerals" is located in the category relating to the activity of "Mining and Quarrying," while sections 2330 "Processing of Nuclear Fuel," 2813 "Manufacture of Steam Generators…," and 2927 (already repealed) "Manufacture of Arms and Ammunition" are located in category "D. Manufacturing Industry." The Chamber observes that the challenged sections describe the activities that are included within a specific category and give a brief explanation of some concepts, and although they require a singular act of application to develop full efficacy, their mere inclusion within the indicated categories is an indicator of an endorsement by the Executive Branch and the legal system – since they undoubtedly form part of it – of the development of such activities on Costa Rican soil.

It is unnecessary to wait for the moment a specific sanitary operating permit is granted to examine its conformity with the Constitution, especially considering that the granting of the permit would eventually be incorporating a subjective right into the sphere of the private individual, whose subsequent reversal is neither automatic nor succinct, which could give rise to causing damage to the interests that the plaintiff invokes. Evidently, the authorization that the Ministry of Health might grant under the protection of the questioned provisions must be understood in harmony with provisions of higher normative rank, such as the Mining Code (Código de Minería), in the case of mineral extraction and fuel processing. But that is no obstacle to subjecting the provisions challenged from the Annex, as an identifiable part of a complex authorization scheme, to constitutional scrutiny.

V.On the right to peace. While when the Constitution refers to peace, it refers to its arrangement and negotiation being part of the functions of certain state bodies (Articles 121 subsection 6) and 147 subsection 1), the scope of this concept has been recognized and enhanced by the jurisprudence of this Court. In this sense, the Chamber has indicated that it is a supreme value of the Political Constitution (judgment # 1739-92 of July 1, 1992) and a fundamental value of the Costa Rican identity (judgment #1313-93 of March 26, 1993). Likewise, it has been considered a value of not only national but also international rank in consideration of the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, adopted by Resolution #39/11 of the United Nations General Assembly of November 12, 1984, the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Internal Affairs of States and Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution #2131 (XX) of December 21, 1965, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations adopted in resolution #2625 (XXV) of the General Assembly of October 24, 1970 (judgment #2004-9992 of September 8, 2004). In this last cited judgment, the Chamber stated:

"(…) it is clear that the Costa Rican people, tired of a history of death, confrontations, dictators, and marginalization from the benefits of development, freely and wisely chose, starting in nineteen forty-nine, to gather the sentiment that for a long time accompanied Costa Ricans, of adopting peace as the guiding value of society. On that date, that historic change crystallized, a new spirit was proclaimed, a spirit of peace and tolerance." From that moment on, symbolically the barracks became a museum or teaching center and the country adopted reason and law as mechanisms to resolve its problems internally and externally. Likewise, we wager on human development and proclaim our right to live free and in peace. That day this nation took a turn; we decided that any cost we must bear to fight for peace will always be less than the irreparable costs of war. That philosophy is what culminates in our country's "Proclamation of perpetual, active, and unarmed neutrality," and the numerous international instruments signed in the same vein—cited abundantly by the parties—as an extension of that deeply rooted constitutional value, which serves as a constitutional parameter when analyzing the challenged acts. The jurisprudence of this Chamber has pronounced itself in this same sense, highlighting the value of peace as a legal and political principle, in its rulings by stating:

"... hence, laws, in general, norms, and acts of authority require for their validity not only having been enacted by competent bodies and through due procedures, but also passing substantive review for their concordance with the supreme norms, principles, and values of the Constitution..., such as those of order, peace, security, justice, liberty, etc., which are configured as standards of reasonableness (see ruling number 1739-92).

In another ruling referring to the fundamental values of Costa Rican identity:

"...can be summarized... in those of democracy, the Social State of Law, the essential dignity of the human being, and the system of liberty," in addition to peace (Article 12 of the Political Constitution), and Justice..." (see ruling number 1313-93)".

The foregoing demonstrates that the right to peace enjoys normative recognition in the Costa Rican system derived not only from the text of the Political Constitution, but also from the International Treaties ratified by our country; a jurisprudential recognition derived from the rulings issued by the Constitutional Chamber; and above all, a social recognition, in accordance with the feelings and actions of Costa Ricans themselves. That being said, the construction of peace, as a certain sector of European doctrine affirms, constitutes an open task whose achievement makes every inhabitant of the country responsible and committed, and especially those who exercise power within States. Hence, the greatest effort to achieve, maintain, and consolidate the country's peace falls upon Government authorities, coupled with the purpose of strengthening peaceful cooperation relations among all peoples.

Therefore, the search for peace in a State is not limited solely to the internal sphere, but also the external, so that it is respected by other States. When referring to peace as a value, one must consider that every constitutional value, as a sector of European doctrine affirms, possesses a triple dimension: a) foundational, on a static level, of every constitutional provision and institution, of the entire legal system; b) orienting, on a dynamic level, of the legal order but also the political order, grounded in predetermined goals and ends that render illegitimate any normative provision that pursues different ends and obstructs the same constitutional values; and c) critical, which implies that the constitutional value is suitable for serving as a criterion or parameter for evaluating the entire legal system, such that every infra-constitutional norm can be scrutinized based on its conformity or lack thereof with constitutional values.

Thus, conceived as a value, peace is attributable the three referred dimensions, whereby it acts as the foundation of the set of norms and institutions, with the objective of strengthening peaceful relations in the internal and external sphere of the State; it guides normative interpretation in the search for solutions that in turn foster it; and it invalidates any normative provision or activity of public authorities that undermines national or international social Peace. These three dimensions must be taken into consideration by States.

VI.On the precautionary principle in environmental matters. And the matter, finally, must be considered not only inseparably linked to the value of peace, but also to the right to a healthy environment. Regarding the latter, it is pertinent to recall the precautionary principle, as one of those characterizing the protection of the right in question. Ruling #2004-01923 of 14:55 hours on February 25, 2004, stated the following:

"One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle or principle of prudent avoidance. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally states 'Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' In the domestic legal system, the Biodiversity Law (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, adopts the following principles as hermeneutical parameters: '1.- Preventive criterion: It is recognized that it is of vital importance to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary criterion or in dubio pro natura: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures.' In Vote of this Chamber No. 1250-99 of 11:24 hours on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Votes Nos. 9773-00 of 9:44 hours on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 of 16:32 hours on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003), this Tribunal considered the following: '(...) Prevention aims to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources.

Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible impact on the environment or people's health. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage –or a doubt in that regard-, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question postponed. The foregoing because in environmental matters, ex post facto coercion proves ineffective, since if the biologically and socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance, but will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment.' Subsequently, in Vote No. 3480-03 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, this Tribunal indicated that 'Well understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will indeed produce harmful effects on the environment.'"

VII.On the merits. Applying the foregoing considerations to the provisions under challenge, an additional distinction must be made between those still in force and the one that has already been repealed. Regarding those referring to the extraction of minerals, manufacture of nuclear fuel, and steam generators, it must be remembered that States that promote peace commit to adopting an "unconditional or ethical pacifism," as a sector of doctrine calls it, which starts from the premise that peace and war are obviously antagonistic, and each is respectively a value to be achieved and a disvalue to be eradicated. Consequently, a State that accepts peace as a fundamental constitutional value cannot settle for the limited notion that peace is the absence of war, but must go further, continuously preventing and rejecting any decision and action that could foster and lead to such a circumstance. Certainly, among the activities that can be considered opposed to the pacifist spirit of a nation or country is the manufacture of weapons and the production of certain minerals or chemical substances.

They are directly linked to situations of violence, even in circumstances of legitimate defense. Indeed, there are certain types of weapons—firearms, chemical, biological, etc.—that are manufactured specifically for use in wars. Consequently, a State that aspires to foster peace, both domestically and internationally, must take special care when authorizing the manufacture and/or importation of weapons and chemical substances into its territory, categorically rejecting those that, by their nature, have been designed and created to favor the disvalue of war. Given that there are many types of weapons on the market, from weapons of war to others whose fundamental purpose is to assist in protecting citizens and public or private property, as well as to allow the practice of certain sporting activities, such as hunting and target shooting, the Costa Rican legal system permits the manufacture and importation of some types of light weapons, under strict control measures.

The Law on Weapons and Explosives provides in Article 1 that this law shall regulate *"...the acquisition, possession, registration, carrying, sale, importation, exportation, manufacture, and storage of weapons, ammunition, explosives, and gunpowder, in any of their presentations, and of the raw materials for producing products regulated by this Law, in all its aspects, as well as the installation of security devices."* Article 19 indicates that there are permitted weapons and prohibited weapons. The former are regulated in Article 20 and the latter in Article 25. Article 26 prohibits the use, production, or introduction into the country of toxic or lethal gases, chemical compounds, viruses, or bacteria that produce irreversible physical or mental consequences, for use as a weapon. The police use of ammunition intended for hunting is also prohibited. Article 68 regulates the manufacture, storage, trade, importation, and exportation of weapons, ammunition, explosives, devices, and gunpowder.

Hence, even though there is a group of weapons and chemical substances and components whose importation and manufacture is permitted by the legal system, such authorization must be understood in a highly restrictive sense, in respect for the aforementioned constitutional value. Similarly, the extraction of minerals is an activity regulated, in part, by the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, which Costa Rica ratified through Law #7571. However, those substances are not contained in the challenged classification. Thorium and uranium, for their part, are radioactive minerals, and although the Mining Code reserves their exploitation to the State, whether by itself or through concession to private parties, their known use in warfare and their highly contaminating nature compel considering their inclusion in the list challenged here as unconstitutional.

VIII.The Chamber cannot but consider that the inclusion, in a catalog of permitted activities—and over which, ultimately, competence is conferred upon the Ministry of Health to authorize private parties to develop them—of the combination of topics set forth in this unconstitutionality action (extraction of uranium and thorium; production of nuclear fuel; and manufacture of nuclear reactors) is contrary to the value of peace due to its possible links with warfare activity, as well as to the right to a healthy environment, to the extent of its harmful consequences in the ecological field and in human health, and, therefore, their inclusion in a catalog of possible activities to be authorized by a public authority is unconstitutional.

IX.Conclusion. In accordance with the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that items 1200, 2330, and 2813 of Annex 1 of Executive Decree #33240-S are contrary to the value of peace and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and must be annulled as unconstitutional.

X.The foregoing is without prejudice to warning that, should the problem of the peaceful use of nuclear energy arise in our country, the legal, technical, and practical guarantees must be provided that its use will be undoubtedly peaceful and compatible with respect for the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It is equally important to leave express record that this pronouncement does not in any way impede the medicinal use of nuclear energy.

Por tanto:

The action is declared with merit. Items 1200 Extraction of Uranium and Thorium Minerals, 2330 Production of Nuclear Fuel, and 2813 Manufacture of Steam Generators of Annex #1 of Executive Decree #33240-S of June 30, 2006, are annulled, all without prejudice to what was stated in the last considering clause. This ruling has declaratory and retroactive effects to the effective date of the annulled norm, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith. Let this pronouncement be summarized in the Official Gazette La Gaceta and published in its entirety in the Judicial Bulletin. Notify.-         Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta                 Luis Paulino Mora M.                                                             Adrián Vargas B.

                  Gilbert Armijo S.                                                                    Fernando Cruz C.

                  Rosa María Abdelnour G.                                                       Gastón Certad M.

      Res. No. 2008-14193 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours and three minutes on the twenty-fourth of September, two thousand eight.- Action of unconstitutionality brought by Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños, of legal age, single, law student, bearer of identity card number 1-1086-0159, resident of Heredia against several phrases contained in Anexo 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240-S. Also participating in the proceeding were Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel representing the Procuraduría General de la República and María Luisa Ávila Agüero representing the Ministerio de Salud.

Whereas:

1. 1By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at fifteen hours and fifty-five minutes on October twenty-seventh, 2006, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of several phrases contained in Anexo 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240-S be declared. He alleges that such provisions violate Articles 1, 7, 9, 11, 18, 21, and 28 of the Constitución Política, 1.1 in relation to Article 5.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, II and VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Purposes and Principles enumerated in Chapter I of the Charter of the United Nations, I of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the Ley de Armas de Armas y Explosivos N° 7539 of July 10, 1995, as well as the resolutions of the International Court of Justice in the case concerning "Nuclear Tests," as well as against the obligation undertaken by the country through its intervention in the case related to the "legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons." All of the foregoing to the detriment of the fundamental right of Costa Ricans to peace recognized by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment 2004-9992 at 14:30 hours on September 8, 2004, and enshrined in the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 39/11 of November twelfth, 1984.
2. 2In order to substantiate the standing he holds to bring this action of unconstitutionality, he indicates that it derives from the provisions of Article 75, second paragraph, of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional insofar as he acts in defense of diffuse interests (intereses difusos) or those that pertain to the community and there is no individual and direct injury.
3. 3By resolution at nine hours and thirty minutes on the twenty-sixth (visible at folio 22 of the file), the action was allowed to proceed, granting an audience to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Ministerio de Salud.
4. 4The Procuraduría General de la República submitted its report visible at folios 28 to 41. It makes no observation regarding the standing claimed by the petitioner. As to the merits, it indicates that violations of constitutional values, principles, and norms, as well as international precepts, have not occurred. For an infraction of the Derecho de la Constitución to occur, there must be a confrontation of the text of the questioned norm or act, its effects, or its interpretation or application by public authorities, with constitutional values, principles, and norms (Article 3 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). In constitutional proceedings defending the Constitución Política, with the exception of prior constitutional review, where the Constitutional Court, in our system, issues an advisory opinion or ruling, it is not possible to challenge norms or acts of the legal system that have not yet come into legal existence or that, having done so, are not, in themselves, sufficient to violate the Derecho de la Constitución.From the foregoing statement, we must also except preparatory acts when these create a definitive legal situation. One cannot ignore what Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240, Reglamento General para el otorgamiento de permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, regulates, for a correct and just resolution of this matter. Likewise, one must bear in mind what the Ley de Armas y Explosivos provides, in its Articles 72 and 73, as well as Article 75 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Armas y Explosivos, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25120 of April 17, 1996. From the foregoing, it follows that in these cases, the operating permit (permiso de funcionamiento) granted by the Ministerio de Salud constitutes a prerequisite for the permit to manufacture arms or to develop other activities collateral to this economic activity to be granted, such as: the extraction of uranium and thorium minerals, the production of nuclear fuel, and the manufacture of steam generators.Notwithstanding that it is called a permit (permiso), in this case, we are dealing with an authorization (autorización), in its legal scope of enablement or permission, by which the individual is authorized to carry out a specific lawful activity, upon prior verification that they have fulfilled the requirements and conditions demanded by the legal system and the technical specifications to guarantee, protect, and promote general interests. From the moment the permit is granted, in some cases, the administered party can exercise the economic activity for which they requested it; in others, it constitutes one requirement, among several, that must be fulfilled before they are definitively authorized to carry out the corresponding activity. Furthermore, the authorization is a technique located within the policing function of a preventive nature. The technique of authorization is compatible with the organization of fundamental freedoms and rights under the preventive regime.It also fully adapts to cases where there is a pre-existing right of the administered party. Having the above as a frame of reference, it is clear that the operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) granted by the Ministerio de Salud is a prerequisite for the competent body, in this case the Dirección de Armamento of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, to grant the permit for the manufacture of arms or the development of related activities. Ergo, the regulation and authorization for granting the former constitutes a necessary requirement, but not a sufficient one, to violate the Derecho de la Constitución. Stated differently, granting an operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) to an administered party to carry out one of the challenged activities is not vested, per se, with sufficient legal force to violate the Derecho de la Constitución, because for that, the Poder Ejecutivo would necessarily have had to have amended the Reglamento a la Ley de Armas y Explosivos, expanding the competence of the body in charge of granting the final authorization, which was, precisely, the one that could effectively breach the Derecho de la Constitución.Not having done so, evidently, no injury has been caused to a value, in this case, peace, nor to any principle (those of normative hierarchy, Article 7 of the Constitution, and the principle of legal reserve, Articles 28 of the Constitution and 19 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), much less to the other constitutional articles and norms found in international conventions. In this case, the application of the norm—granting an operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) to an administered party—by itself could not have caused the alleged unconstitutionalities, since that required other acts of the Public Administration, which were never authorized by the Poder Ejecutivo through the pertinent amendments to the regulatory norms, especially those of the executive regulation to Ley N° 7530. While someone might allege that the Poder Ejecutivo did not amend the executive regulation to Law No. 7530 due to ignorance or clumsiness; however, even giving the benefit of the doubt to those who might reason in that way, the act in itself did not have sufficient legal force to breach the Derecho de la Constitución, and, consequently, the requirement set forth in numeral 3 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional for granting an action of unconstitutionality is not met.Even more so, the Poder Ejecutivo, immediately after being warned by public opinion of the potential, not real, consequences of the executive decree in the challenged norms, which had entered into force on August 28, 2006, repealed it through Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33410, a repeal that entered into force as of October 23, 2006, which means, neither more nor less, that the questioned matter was in force for less than two months. This, coupled with the fact that by itself it was insufficient to authorize the operation of a company dedicated to the manufacture of arms or the related activities being challenged, constitutes irrefutable evidence that confirms the thesis put forward, in the sense that the injury to the Derecho de la Constitución never occurred. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the challenged norms having been repealed, no injury whatsoever having been caused to the protected constitutional legal right, and being in the present case faced with a mere requirement that by itself was not sufficient to authorize the challenged economic activities, this action has lost its current interest.On the contrary, upholding this action of unconstitutionality would cause significant and unnecessary damage to the image of the State of Costa Rica regarding the stance it has assumed, permanently and throughout its history in the concert of Nations, in favor of peace, of alternative means of peaceful resolution of disputes between States, and in the struggle it has undertaken against the arms race. That said, when the State of Costa Rica acts against those values and principles, it is obvious to state that the Constitutional Chamber, as guardian of the Derecho de la Constitución and its supreme interpreter, must come to its defense, as it rightly did in the past in vote no. 9992-04, for it is the constituted powers that damage the image of the State of Costa Rica, whereas the Constitutional Court is responsible for repairing the injury inflicted upon said Law; a situation that does not arise in the present matter. The Procuraduría General recommends rejecting the action on the merits.
5. 5Ms. María Luisa Ávila Agüero, representing the Ministerio de Salud, replies to the granted audience at folio 42, stating that the ISIC is a code assigned to activities or establishments according to the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, which corresponds to recommendations of the Statistical Office of the United Nations Organization. It is a classification for statistical purposes and allows the standardization of the classification of industrial establishments for economic and commercial purposes. In Costa Rica, this classification is made official and published by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INEC) and is used by other institutions such as the C.C.S.S., the National Banking System, the Customs System, the C.N.F.L., and other Ministries. With that preamble, it is necessary to indicate that by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 30465-S of May 9, 2002, the Dirección de Protección al Ambiente Humano of the Ministerio de Salud promulgated the "Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento por parte del Ministerio de Salud," including in it an annex with a table of activities that took as a reference the ISIC Code 2002 (International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities).After the Decree entered into force, it was detected that the table taken as reference omitted some activities, so the need to update it arose, making it necessary to include or exclude some of the activities contemplated. Therefore, in 2004, the Dirección de Protección al Ambiente Humano of the Ministry under her charge proposed drafting a new Regulation, with the participation of various stakeholders. Thus, such work materialized with Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240.S of June 30, 2006. The objective of that Regulation is to simplify and improve the procedures that the administered party must carry out before the Public Administration. The Regulation arose from a need to put in order a series of activities that until that moment were unregulated and to classify, according to health risk, different economic, productive, and human activities, being consistent with the need to reduce bureaucratic red tape and also update the international ISIC code, which is a statistical classification.It is necessary to remember that the Ministerio de Salud does not grant authorizations for a specific activity, but only operating permits (permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento), which merely verify compliance with adequate working conditions and protection of the environment and the health of people working in various premises or establishments. The Annex to the Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud does not constitute a normative provision; it is a mere classification of activities according to the risk they present, which will allow health authorities to prioritize their intervention and their inspection, surveillance, and control functions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Ministerio de Salud, faithful to the pacifist and anti-militarist policy of the President of the Republic, and faced with the erroneous interpretation given to the Reglamento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento, made the decision to repeal ISIC classification 2927, which referred to the Manufacture of Arms and Ammunition.The Ley de Armas y Explosivos N° 7530 establishes in its Article 25 the prohibition on manufacturing seven types of arms and ammunition; Article 20 establishes the arms that are permitted. The current legal system does not expressly prohibit the installation of factories for any type of arms; hence, the Decree in question imposes greater requirements and restrictions on such activities. Therefore, it considers it inadvisable to repeal the regulations relating to the manufacture of arms, since that activity, within the framework of arms not prohibited in the country, is legally recognized as a lawful activity. Being a lawful activity, it is an unavoidable obligation of the Poder Ejecutivo to regulate them, because otherwise, it could incur in an omission for not doing so. Regarding the extraction of minerals, such activity is regulated by the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (ratified by Ley 7571), in which the country undertakes not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, or retain chemical weapons.Such substances do not appear within the aforementioned classification. These initiatives attempt to defend the interest that exists regarding the utilization of the potential benefits that may derive from that type of energy and to facilitate the safe transfer of those materials in order to protect human life and the environment. Regarding thorium and uranium, the Código de Minería, in Article 4 establishes, among other things, that radioactive minerals are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by the State or by private parties according to the law by means of a concession. It is clear then that these are activities partially permitted in the country, but subject to control. This being so, it is necessary to regulate them. Within the General Description of Economic Activities managed by the C.C.S.S., code 1200 classifies the extraction of uranium and thorium minerals, which coincides with the Correlation Table between ISIC, Rev 3 and ISIC, Rev 2 or Manual of Economic Activity Codes, managed by the Dirección de Gestión de Calidad Ambiental of MINAE.From what has been stated, it can be concluded that the challenged matter does not harm national or international norms, and that the petitioner's request has already been addressed by repealing ISIC classification 2927, referring to the Manufacture of Arms and Ammunition.
6. 6The notices referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in numbers 70, 71, and 72 of the Boletín Judicial, on April 11, 12, and 13, 2007 (folio 27).
7. 7In a brief dated August 11, 2008 (folio 47), the petitioner requested prompt dispatch of the present matter and the holding of an oral hearing.
8. 8The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 *ibidem*, deeming this resolution sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.
9. 9The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.

Drafted by Magistrate Armijo Sancho; and;

I.On admissibility. First, in accordance with Article 73, subsection a) of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, an action of unconstitutionality is admissible against laws or provisions of a general nature that infringe, by action or omission, constitutional norms or principles. In this case, the petitioner questions certain sections contained in the Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, a normative provision of general application. This has allowed the preliminary admission of the action brought. Regarding the petitioner's standing, in accordance with Article 75, second paragraph of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a prior pending case is not necessary when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury, or it concerns the defense of diffuse interests (intereses difusos), or those that pertain to the community as a whole.

In this sense, and in relation to the defense of the right to peace that the petitioner invokes, this Chamber, in judgment #2004-9992 dated September 8, 2004, stated that the right to peace is a third-generation right and constitutes a "fundamental" value of the Nation of Costa Rica, which "legitimizes any Costa Rican to defend it, without the need for a prior trial" and that it can be considered as "an interest that pertains to the community as a whole," the latter in accordance with what was indicated in judgment #8239-2001 of August 14, 2001, in which this Chamber stated: *"I.- (...). Finally, when the 2nd paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional speaks of interests 'that pertain to the community as a whole,' it refers to the legal rights explained in the preceding lines... [the environment, cultural heritage, the defense of the territorial integrity of the country and the proper management of public expenditure, among others]... that is, those whose ownership rests in the very holders of sovereignty, in each of the inhabitants of the Republic.

It is not, therefore, a matter of just any person being able to appeal to the Constitutional Chamber in protection of just any interests (popular action), but rather that every individual may act in defense of those rights that affect the entire national community, without any attempt at an exhaustive enumeration being valid in this field either."* Consequently, the Chamber considers that the petitioner has standing to bring the action, and proceeds to its analysis on the merits.

II. Object of the challenge

Executive Decree No. 33240-S, Annex 1.- "1200 EXTRACTION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM MINERALS. This class includes the extraction of minerals valued mainly for their uranium or thorium content, such as pitchblende. It also includes the concentration of such minerals." "2330 MANUFACTURE OF NUCLEAR FUEL. This class includes the extraction of uranium metal from pitchblende and other uranium-bearing minerals. (Manufacture of alloys, dispersions, and mixtures of natural uranium and its compounds and the manufacture of other elements, isotopes, and radioactive compounds." "2813 MANUFACTURE OF STEAM GENERATORS, EXCEPT HOT WATER BOILERS FOR CENTRAL HEATING. This class covers the manufacture of nuclear reactors for all purposes, except for isotope separation. The term 'nuclear reactor' generally applies to all apparatus and machines located within the area protected by the biological shield, including, if necessary, the shield itself.

The term also covers all apparatus and devices located outside the area but which are an integral part of those within it. Manufacture of boilers for generating steam and other vapors, other than hot water boilers for heating, even if they also produce low-pressure steam. Manufacture of auxiliary installations for boilers, such as economizers, superheaters, steam collectors, and accumulators. Also, soot removers, gas recoverers, and mud removers." "2927 MANUFACTURE OF WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION. This class includes the manufacture of: Firearms. Portable weapons, shotguns, and air and compressed gas pistols. Manufacture of portable weapons and accessories, heavy and light artillery; Firearms. Heavy weapons, artillery pieces, heavy machine guns, etc." (This classification repealed by Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 33410 of October 23, 2006)".

III.Regarding the repeal of subsection 2927 of Annex I of Executive Decree No. 33240-S. The challenged subsection 2927, included in Annex I called "Classification of Commercial Establishments and Activities According to Environmental Health Risk" (Clasificación de Establecimientos Comerciales y Actividades Según el Riesgo Sanitario Ambiental), contained in the General Regulation for the Granting of Sanitary Operating Permits of the Ministry of Health, issued by Executive Decree number 33240-S, was repealed by Executive Decree #33410-S, published in Gazette #212 of November 6, 2006, as can be deduced from Article 1 of the latter, which ordered: *"Repeal the ISIC classification 2927 of Annex A of Executive Decree No. 33240-S- of June 30, 2006…"*. Given this circumstance, the Attorney General's Office considers that the challenged matter has lost current interest in accordance with what was indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in resolution #2004-10400 of September 22, 2004, for which reason it is unnecessary for the Chamber to rule on its content.

IV.On the normative character of the challenged provisions in force of Annex I of Decree 33240-S. This Chamber has stated that:

*"…Constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for declaring unconstitutionality, guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or non-conformity with it of the challenged laws, provisions, or acts, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic of Costa Rica"* (judgment #1319-97 of March 4, 1997).

Now, according to Article 73 subsection a), the laws or any general provision challenged in the unconstitutionality process must possess "normative character", so that their content regulates and delimits the conduct of individuals in a general manner. Otherwise, the challenged matter cannot be heard through the action of unconstitutionality, whose purpose is to control the conformity of *"laws and other general provisions"* with the Law of the Constitution. This has been repeatedly indicated by this Tribunal in judgments #4422-93 of September 7, 1993, #3936-95 of July 18, 1995, and #16773-2005 of November 30, 2005. Article 1 of the General Regulation for the granting of sanitary operating permits of the Ministry of Health provides that its object is *"to regulate and control the granting of sanitary operating permits for any agricultural, industrial, commercial, or service activity or establishment; and for those activities that by provision of law require these sanitary permits to operate in the national territory, as well as to establish the requirements for processing them"*.

For its part, Article 3 states: *"For the purpose of regulating human activities that directly or indirectly affect the health of persons and the environment, the Ministry of Health establishes the classification of these into three risk categories, considering sanitary and environmental criteria for this purpose, which allow it to exercise control and surveillance and guarantee compliance with current technical, legal, and administrative norms and regulations"*. As a development of such classification, Article 6 expresses: *"(…) the Ministry of Health establishes in Annex No. 1 of this Regulation, the table of Classification of Activities or establishments according to sanitary risk, which uses the ISIC Code as a reference, and includes the classification by level of sanitary and environmental risk with the objective of strengthening the processes of execution, development, evaluation, control, and surveillance of activities that require a S.O.P. [Sanitary Operating Permit]; and guaranteeing compliance with current legislation"*.

This is the Annex in which the challenged subsections are found. The Minister of Health points out in her report that the ISIC is a Code assigned to activities or establishments according to the International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities, prepared according to the recommendations issued by the Statistical Office of the United Nations. Its purpose is statistical and allows the standardization of the classification of industrial establishments for economic and commercial purposes. In Costa Rica, this classification is made official and published by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC). It seeks to optimize the inspection, surveillance, and control function of the authorities through the classification of activities according to the risk they represent. Analyzing the challenged subsections, the Chamber observes that these are contained in an Annex called "CLASSIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISK" (CLASIFICACIÓN DE ESTABLECIMIENTOS Y ACTIVIDADES SEGÚN RIESGO SANITARIO AMBIENTAL).

In general, the subsections are ordered according to the activity to which they refer and contain a description of the activity and/or the establishments that make up each category. Thus, for example, subsection 1200 relating to the "Extraction of Uranium and Thorium Minerals" is located in the category related to the activity of "Mining and Quarrying" while subsections 2330 "Manufacture of Nuclear Fuel", 2813 "Manufacture of Steam Generators…" and 2927 (now repealed) "Manufacture of Weapons and Ammunition" are located in the category of "D. Manufacturing Industry". The Chamber observes that the challenged subsections describe the activities that are included within a specific category and give a brief explanation of some concepts, and although they require a singular act of application to develop full effectiveness, their mere inclusion within the indicated categories is an indicator of an endorsement by the Executive Branch and the legal order – as they undoubtedly form part of it – of the development of such activities on Costa Rican soil.

It is unnecessary to wait for the moment of granting a specific sanitary operating permit to examine its conformity with the Constitution, especially if one takes into account that the granting of the permit would eventually be incorporating into the sphere of the individual a subjective right, whose subsequent reversal is neither automatic nor summary, which could occasion damage to the interests invoked by the petitioner. Evidently, the authorization that the Ministry of Health might grant under the protection of the questioned provisions must be understood in harmony with provisions of higher normative rank such as the Mining Code (Código de Minería), in the case of extraction of minerals and the manufacture of fuels. But that is no obstacle to subjecting the provisions challenged from the Annex to constitutionality review, as an identifiable part of a complex authorization scheme.

V.On the right to peace. Although when the Constitution alludes to peace, it refers to its negotiation and arrangement being part of the functions of certain state bodies (Articles 121 subsection 6) and 147 subsection 1), the scope of this concept has been recognized and enhanced by the jurisprudence of this Tribunal. In this sense, the Chamber has indicated that it is a supreme value of the Political Constitution (judgment # 1739-92 of July 1, 1992) and a fundamental value of Costa Rican identity (judgment #1313-93 of March 26, 1993). Likewise, it has been considered as a value not only of national rank but also international in consideration of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, adopted by Resolution #39/11 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of November 12, 1984, the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Internal Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution #2131 (XX) of December 21, 1965, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations adopted in resolution #2625 (XXV) of the General Assembly of October 24, 1970 (judgment #2004-9992 of September 8, 2004). In this last cited judgment, the Chamber stated:

*"(…) it is clear that the Costa Rican people, tired of a history of death, confrontations, dictators, and marginalization from the benefits of development, freely and wisely chose, beginning in nineteen forty-nine, to embrace the sentiment that had long accompanied Costa Ricans, of adopting peace as the guiding value of society. On that date, this historic change crystallizes, a new spirit is proclaimed, a spirit of peace and tolerance. From then on, symbolically, the barracks became a museum or teaching center, and the country adopts reason and law as the mechanism to solve its problems internally and externally. Likewise, we bet on human development and proclaim our right to live free and in peace. That day this nation took a turn, we decided that any cost we must bear to fight for peace will always be less than the irreparable costs of war. That philosophy is what culminates with the "Proclamation of Perpetual, Active, and Unarmed Neutrality" of our country, and the numerous international instruments signed in the same sense - cited abundantly by the parties -, as an extension of that deeply rooted constitutional value, which serves as a constitutional parameter when analyzing the challenged acts.

In this same sense, the jurisprudence of this Chamber has pronounced, highlighting the value of peace as a legal and political principle, in its judgments stating:* *"... hence, laws, in general, norms, and acts of authority require for their validity, not only to have been enacted by competent bodies and due procedures, but also to pass substantive review for their concordance with the supreme norms, principles, and values of the Constitution..., such as order, peace, security, justice, freedom, etc., which are configured as patterns of reasonableness (see judgment number 1739-92).* *In another judgment referring to the fundamental values of Costa Rican identity:* *"...can be summarized... in those of democracy, the Social State of Law, the essential dignity of the human being, and the system of freedom", in addition to peace (Article 12 of the Political Constitution), and Justice..." (see judgment number 1313-93)"*.

The foregoing demonstrates that the right to peace has a normative recognition in the Costa Rican system that derives not only from the text of the Political Constitution but also from the International Treaties ratified by our country, a jurisprudential recognition derived from the judgments issued by the Constitutional Chamber; and above all, a social recognition, in accordance with the feelings and actions of the Costa Ricans themselves. Now, the construction of peace, as a certain part of European doctrine affirms, constitutes an open task whose achievement makes each inhabitant of the country responsible and committed, and especially those who exercise power within the States. Hence, the greatest effort to achieve, maintain, and consolidate the country's peace falls upon the Government authorities, coupled with the purpose of strengthening relations of peaceful cooperation among all peoples.

Therefore, the pursuit of peace in a State is not only circumscribed to the internal sphere but also to the external one, so that peace is respected by other States. When referring to peace as a value, one must note that every constitutional value, as one sector of European doctrine affirms, possesses a triple dimension: a) foundational, on a static level, of every constitutional provision and institution, of the entire legal order; b) guiding, on a dynamic level, of the legal order but also the political one, founded on predetermined goals and ends that make any normative provision that pursues different ends and obstructs those same constitutional values illegitimate; and c) critical, which implies that the constitutional value is suitable for serving as a criterion or parameter for evaluating the entire legal order, by which every infra-constitutional norm can be controlled based on its conformity or not with the constitutional values.

Thus, peace conceived as a value is attributable to the three referred dimensions, by which it acts as the foundation of the set of norms and institutions, with the object of strengthening peaceful relations in the internal and external plane of the State; it guides normative interpretation in the search for solutions that in turn foster it; and it invalidates any normative provision or activity of public powers that diminishes national or international social Peace. These three dimensions must be taken into consideration by the States.

VI.On the precautionary principle in environmental matters. And the matter, finally, must not only be considered inseparably linked to the value of peace but also to the right to a healthy environment. Regarding the latter, it is considered pertinent to recall the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), as one of those that characterize the protection of the right in question. In judgment #2004-01923 at 14:55 hours on February 25, 2004, the following was stated:

*"One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary or prudent avoidance principle. This principle is contained in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration, which literally indicates 'Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation'. In the domestic legal order, the Biodiversity Law (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, adopts the following principles as hermeneutic parameters: '1.- Preventive criterion: It is recognized that it is vitally important to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of biodiversity loss or its threats. 2.- Precautionary criterion or in dubio pro natura: When there is danger or threat of serious or imminent damage to the elements of biodiversity and the knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of effective protection measures'.

In Vote of this Chamber No. 1250-99 at 11:24 hours on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Votes Nos. 9773-00 at 9:44 hours on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 at 16:32 hours on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 at 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003), this Tribunal held the following: '(...) Prevention seeks to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid containing the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. Thus, in the event that there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage – or a doubt about it –, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question postponed. This is because in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, in that once the biologically socially harmful consequences have already occurred, repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damages caused to the environment'.

Subsequently, in Vote No. 3480-03 at 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, this Tribunal indicated that: 'Properly understood, the precautionary principle refers to the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will actually produce harmful effects on the environment'."*

VII.On the merits. Having applied the foregoing considerations to the provisions being questioned, an additional distinction must be made between those that are still in force and the one that has already been repealed. Regarding those that refer to the extraction of minerals, manufacture of nuclear fuel, and steam generators, it must be recalled that States that promote peace commit themselves to adopting an "unconditional or ethical pacifism", as one sector of doctrine calls it, which is based on the premise that peace and war are obviously antagonistic and each respectively, a value to be achieved and a disvalue to be eradicated. Consequently, a State that accepts peace as a fundamental constitutional value cannot be satisfied with the limited notion that peace is the absence of war, but must go further, continually preventing and rejecting any decision and action that could lead to and result in such a circumstance.

Certainly, among the activities that can be considered opposed to the pacifist spirit of a nation or country are the manufacture of weapons and the production of certain minerals or chemical substances. They are directly linked to situations of violence, even in circumstances of legitimate defense. There are even certain types of weapons - firearms, chemical, biological, etc. - that are manufactured specifically to be used in wars. Consequently, a State that aspires to promote peace, both nationally and internationally, must take special care when authorizing the manufacture and/or importation of weapons and chemical substances in its territory, flatly rejecting those that by their nature have been thought of and created to favor the disvalue of war. Given that there are many types of weapons on the market, from war weapons to others whose fundamental purpose is to assist in the protection of citizenship and public or private property, as well as to allow the practice of some sporting activities, such as hunting and target shooting, the Costa Rican legal system permits the manufacture and importation of some types of light weapons, under strict control measures.

The Law on Weapons and Explosives (Ley de Armas y Explosivos) provides in Article 1 that this law shall regulate *"…the acquisition, possession, registration, carrying, sale, importation, exportation, manufacture, and storage of weapons, ammunition, explosives, and gunpowder, in any of their forms, and of the raw materials for producing products regulated by this Law, in all their aspects, as well as the installation of safety devices."* Article 19 indicates that there are permitted weapons and prohibited weapons. The former are regulated in Article 20 and the latter in Article 25. Article 26 prohibits the use, production, or introduction into the country of toxic or lethal gases, chemical compounds, viruses, or bacteria that produce irreversible physical or mental consequences, to be used as a weapon. Also, the police use of ammunition intended for hunting is prohibited. Article 68 regulates the manufacture, storage, trade, importation, and exportation of weapons, ammunition, explosives, devices, and gunpowder.

Hence, even though there is a group of weapons and chemical substances and components whose importation and manufacture is permitted by the legal system, such authorization must be understood in a highly restrictive sense, in respect of the mentioned constitutional value. In the same way, the extraction of minerals is an activity regulated, in part, by the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, which Costa Rica ratified by Law #7571. Nevertheless, the challenged classification does not contain such substances. Thorium and uranium, for their part, are radioactive minerals, and although the Mining Code reserves their exploitation to the State, whether by itself or through concession to private parties, their known use in warfare and their highly contaminating nature oblige us to consider their inclusion in the list challenged here as unconstitutional.

VIII.This Chamber cannot but consider that the inclusion in a catalog of permitted activities—over which, in the final analysis, competence is conferred upon the Ministry of Health to authorize private parties to develop them—of the combination of subjects set forth in this unconstitutionality action (extraction of uranium and thorium; production of nuclear fuel and manufacture of nuclear reactors) is contrary to the value of peace due to its possible links to war activities, as well as to the right to a healthy environment, to the extent that its harmful consequences in the ecological and human health fields [make it so], and, therefore, its provision in a catalog of possible activities to be authorized by a public entity is unconstitutional.

IX.Conclusion. In accordance with the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that items 1200, 2330, and 2813 of Anexo 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo #33240-S are contrary to the value of peace and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and must be annulled as unconstitutional.

X.The foregoing is without prejudice to the warning that, if the problem of the peaceful use of nuclear energy is raised in our country, the legal, technical, and practical guarantees that its use will be undoubtedly peaceful and compatible with respect for the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment must be provided. It is equally important to expressly record that this pronouncement does not in any way prevent the medicinal use of nuclear energy.

Por tanto:

The action is declared with merit. Items 1200 Extracción de Minerales de Uranio y Torio, 2330 Elaboración de Combustible Nuclear, and 2813 Fabricación de Generadores de Vapor of Anexo #1 of Decreto Ejecutivo #33240-S of June 30, 2006, are annulled, all without prejudice to what was stated in the last considerando. This judgment has declaratory and retroactive effects to the effective date of the annulled norm, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith. Summarize this pronouncement in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta and publish it in its entirety in the Boletín Judicial. Notifíquese.-       Ana Virginia Calzada M. Presidenta     Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.

      Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

      Rosa María Abdelnour G. Gastón Certad M.

     

* 060131830007CO * usuario1 usuario1 3 1 2008-11-25T22:13:00Z 2009-03-20T20:31:00Z 1 6941 38177 Poder Judicial 318 90 45028 11.6505 BestFit 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 * 060131830007CO * Res. Nº 2008-14193 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas con tres minutos del veinticuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho.- Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños, mayor, soltero, estudiante de Derecho, portador de la cédula de identidad número 1-1086-0159, vecino de Heredia contra varias frases contenidas en el Anexo 1° del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240-S. Intervinieron también en el proceso Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel en representación de la Procuraduría General de la República y María Luisa Ávila Agüero en representación del Ministerio de Salud.

Resultando:

1. 1Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las quince horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintisiete de octubre del 2006, el accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de varias frases contenidas en el Anexo 1° del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240- S. Alega que tales disposiciones violan los artículos 1°, 7, 9, 11, 18, 21 y 28 de la Constitución Política, 1.1 en relación con el artículo 5.1 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, II y VI del Tratado de No-Proliferación Nuclear, 26 de la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados de 1969, 1° y 9 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 1° del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, los Propósitos y Principios enumerados en el Capítulo I de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, I del Tratado de Tlatelolco, La Ley de Armas de Armas y Explosivos N° 7539 del 10 de julio de 1995, así como las resoluciones de la Corte Internacional de Justicia en el caso referido a “Los Ensayos Nucleares” , así como en contra de la obligación contraída por el país mediante su intervención en el caso relacionado con la “legalidad del uso o amenaza del uso de las armas nucleares”.Todo lo anterior en detrimento del derecho fundamental de los costarricenses a la paz reconocido por la Sala Constitucional en la sentencia 2004-9992 de las 14:30 horas del 8 de setiembre del 2004 y recogido en la Declaración del Derecho de los pueblos a la Paz, aprobada por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en resolución 39/11 del doce de noviembre de 1984.
2. 2A efecto de fundamentar la legitimación que ostenta para promover esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, señala que deriva de lo dispuesto en el artículo 75 párrafo segundo de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional en cuanto actúa en defensa de intereses difusos o que atañen a la colectividad y no existe lesión individual y directa.
3. 3Por resolución de las nueve horas treinta minutos del veintiséis (visible a folio 22 del expediente), se le dio curso a la acción, confiriéndole audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Ministerio de Salud.
4. 4La Procuraduría General de la República rindió su informe visible a folios 28 a 41. No hace ningún observación en relación con la legitimación alegada por el accionante. En cuanto al fondo, señala que las violaciones a los valores, principios y normas constitucionales, así como a los preceptos internacionales, no se han producido. Para que ocurra una infracción al Derecho de la Constitución es necesario que se dé una confrontación del texto de la norma o acto cuestionado, de sus efectos, o de su interpretación o aplicación por las autoridades públicas, con los valores, principios y normas constitucionales (artículo 3 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional ). En los procesos constitucionales de defensa de la Constitución Política, con excepción del control previo de constitucional, donde el Tribunal Constitucional, en nuestro medio, emite una opinión consultiva o dictamen, no es posible impugnar normas o actos del ordenamiento jurídico que aún no han surgido a la vida jurídica o que habiéndolo no son, en sí mismo, suficiente para vulnerar el Derecho de la Constitución.De la anterior afirmación debemos también exceptuar a los actos preparatorios cuando estos causan estado. No se puede dejar de lado lo que regula el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240, Reglamento General para el otorgamiento de permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, para una correcta y justa solución de este asunto. Asimismo, hay que tener presente lo que dispone la Ley de Armas y Explosivos, en sus artículos 72 y 73, así como el artículo 75 del Reglamento a la Ley de Armas y Explosivos, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25120 de 17 de abril de 1996. De lo anterior se deduce, que en estos casos, el permiso de funcionamiento que concede el Ministerio de Salud constituye un requisito previo para que se pudiera otorgar el permiso para la fabricación de armas o para desarrollar las otras actividades colaterales a esta actividad económica como serían: la extracción de minerales de uranio y torio, la elaboración de combustible nuclear y la fabricación de generadores de vapor.No obstante que se habla de permiso, en este caso se está ante un caso de autorización, en su alcance jurídico de habilitación o permisión, por medio del cual se le autoriza al justiciable a realizar una determinada actividad lícita, previa comprobación de que ha cumplido con los requisitos y condiciones que exige el ordenamiento jurídico y las especificaciones técnicas para garantizar, proteger y promover los intereses generales. A partir de que se concede el permiso, en algunos casos, el administrado puede ejercer la actividad económica para lo cual lo pidió; en otros, constituye un requisito, entre varios, que debe cumplir antes de que se le autorice, en forma definitiva, realizar la actividad correspondiente. Además, la autorización es una técnica que se ubica dentro de la función de policía de contenido preventivo. La técnica de la autorización es compatible con la organización de las libertades y derechos fundamentales bajo el régimen preventivo.También se adecua plenamente a los casos en los que hay un derecho preexiste del administrado. Teniendo como marco de referencia lo anterior, es claro que el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento que otorga el Ministerio de Salud es un requisito previo para que el órgano competente, en este caso la Dirección de Armamento del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, otorgue el permiso de fabricación de armas o el desarrollo de actividades conexas. Ergo, la regulación y autorización para que se conceda el primero constituye un requisito necesario, pero no suficiente, para vulnerar el Derecho de la Constitución. Dicho en otras palabras, el otorgarle un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento a un administrado para que desarrolle una de las actividades que se impugnan, no está revestido, per se, con la fuerza jurídica suficiente, para vulnerar el Derecho de la Constitución, pues para ello el Poder Ejecutivo tenía necesariamente que haber reformado el Reglamento a la Ley de Armas y Explosivos, ampliándole la competencia al órgano encargado de conceder la autorización final y, que era, precisamente, la que podía efectivamente quebrantar el Derecho de la Constitución.Al no hacerlo, evidentemente, no se ha producido ninguna lesión a un valor, en este caso, a la paz, a ningún principio (los de jerarquía normativa, artículo 7 constitucional, y el de reserva de ley, artículos 28 constitucional y 19 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública ), ni mucho menos a los otros artículos constitucionales y normas que se encuentran en los convenios internacionales. En este caso, la aplicación de la norma –otorgar un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento a un administrado- por sí solo no pudo provocar las inconstitucionalidades que se alegan, ya que para ello se requería de otros actos de la Administración Pública, los cuales nunca fueron autorizados por el Poder Ejecutivo a través de las reformas pertinentes a las normas reglamentarias, en especial las del reglamento ejecutivo a la Ley N° 7530. Si bien alguien podría alegar que el Poder Ejecutivo no reformó el reglamento ejecutivo a la Ley n.° 7530 por desconocimiento o por torpeza; empero, aun dando el beneficio de la duda a quienes llegaran a razonar de esa forma, el acto en sí mismo no tuvo la fuerza jurídica suficiente para quebrantar el Derecho de la Constitución y, por consiguiente, no se cumple con el requisito que prevé el numeral 3 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional para declarar con lugar una acción de inconstitucionalidad.Aún más, el Poder Ejecutivo, inmediatamente después de ser advertido por la opinión pública de las potenciales consecuencias, no reales, del decreto ejecutivo en las normas impugnadas, el cual había entrado en vigencia el 28 de agosto del 2006, lo deroga mediante el artículo 1° del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33410, derogatoria que entra en vigencia a partir del 23 de octubre del 2006, lo que significa, ni más ni menos, que lo cuestionado estuvo vigente menos de dos meses. Ello aunado al hecho de que por sí mismo era insuficiente para autorizar el funcionamiento de una empresa dedicada a la fabricación de armas o de actividades conexas que se impugnan, constituyen pruebas irrefutables que vienen a ratificar la tesis planteada, en el sentido de que nunca se produjo la lesión al Derecho de la Constitución. Por ello se puede concluir que al haberse derogado las normas que se impugnan y al no haberse producido lesión alguna al bien jurídico constitucional tutelado, y por estar en el presente caso ante un mero requisito que por sí mismo no era suficiente para autorizar las actividades económicas que se impugnan, este perdió interés actual.Por el contrario, acoger esta acción de inconstitucionalidad le estaría produciría un daño importante e innecesario a la imagen del Estado de Costa Rica en la postura que ha asumido, en forma permanente y a lo largo de su historia en el concierto de las Naciones, a favor de la paz, de los medios alternativos de solución pacífica en las controversias entre los Estados y en la lucha que ha emprendido contra la carrera armamentista. Ahora bien, cuando el Estado de Costa Rica actúa en contra de esos valores y principios, resulta obvio afirmar que la Sala Constitucional , como guardián del Derecho de la Constitución y como intérprete supremo de él, debe salir en su defensa, tal y como acertadamente lo hizo en el pasado en el voto n.° 9992-04, pues quienes dañan la imagen del Estado de Costa Rica son los poderes constituidos, mientras que al Tribunal Constitucional le corresponde reparar la lesión infringida al citado Derecho; situación que no se presenta en el presente asunto. La Procuraduría General recomienda rechazar por el fondo la acción interpuesta.
5. 5La señora María Luisa Ávila Agüero en representación del Ministerio de Salud contesta a folio 42 la audiencia concedida, manifestando que el CIIU es una código asignado a las actividades o establecimientos según la Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme de todas las actividades económicas, que corresponde a recomendaciones de la Oficina de Estadística de las Organización de Naciones Unidas. Es una clasificación con fines estadísticos y permite la estandarización de la clasificación de establecimientos industriales con fines económicos y comerciales. En Costa Rica, esta clasificación es oficializada y publicada por el Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INEC) y es utilizada por otras instituciones tales como la C.C.S.S., el Sistema Bancario Nacional, el Sistema Aduanero, la C.N.F.L. y otros Ministerios. Con ese preámbulo es preciso indicar que por Decreto Ejecutivo N° 30465-S del 9 de mayo del 2002, la Dirección de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Ministerio de Salud promulgó el “Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento por parte del Ministerio de Salud” incluyendo en el mismo un anexo con una tabla de actividades que tomó como referencia el Código CIIU 2002 (Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme de todas las actividades económicas).Luego de que el Decreto entró en vigencia, se detectó que la tabla tomada como referencia omitía algunas actividades, por lo que surgió la necesidad de actualizarla, lo que hizo necesario incluir o excluir algunas de las actividades contempladas. Por ello, en el año 2004, la Dirección de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Ministerio a su cargo, se propuso redactar un nuevo Reglamento, con la participación de diversos actores. Así, tales labores se materializaron con el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240.S del 30 de junio del 2006. El objetivo de ese Reglamento, es simplificar y mejorar los trámites que el administrado debe realizar ante la Administración Pública. El Reglamento surgió como una necesidad de poner en orden una serie de actividades que hasta el momento estaban libres y de clasificar, según el riesgo sanitario, diferentes actividades económicas, productivas y humanas, siendo consecuentes con la necesidad de reducir la tramitología y además actualizar el código internacional CIIU que es una clasificación estadística.Es preciso recordar que el Ministerio de Salud no da autorizaciones para una determinada actividad, sino solamente permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento que lo que constata es el cumplimiento de adecuadas condiciones laborales y de protección al ambiente y a la salud de las personas que laboran en diversos locales o establecimientos. El Anexo al Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, no constituye una disposición normativa; se trata de una mera clasificación de actividades según el riesgo que aquella presente, lo que permitirá a las autoridades de salud priorizar su intervención y sus funciones de inspección, vigilancia y control. No obstante lo anterior, el Ministerio de Salud, fiel a la política pacifista y antimilitar del señor Presidente de la República, y ante la errónea interpretación dada al Reglamento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento, tomó la decisión de derogar la clasificación CIIU 2927, la cual se refería a la Fabricación de Armas y Municiones.La Ley de Armas y Explosivos N° 7530 establece en su artículo 25 la prohibición para fabricación de siete tipos de armas y municiones; en el artículo 20 establece las armas que sí son permitidas. El ordenamiento jurídico actual no prohíbe expresamente la instalación de fábricas de cualquier tipo de armas; de ahí que el Decreto en cuestión pone mayores requisitos y restricciones a dichas actividades. Por ello, estima inconveniente derogar las regulaciones relativas a la fabricación de armas pues dicha actividad, en el marco de las armas no prohibidas en el país, es legalmente reconocida como una actividad lícita. Siendo una actividad lícita, es una obligación indeclinable del Poder Ejecutivo regularlas, pues de lo contrario, podría incurrir en omisión por no hacerlo. En relación con la extracción de minerales, tal actividad está regulada por la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre la Prohibición del Desarrollo, la producción, el almacenamiento y el empleo de armas químicas y sobre su destrucción (ratificada por Ley 7571) en la que el país se compromete a no desarrollar, producir, adquirir de otro modo, almacenar o conservar armas químicas.Dentro de la clasificación aludida, no aparecen tales sustancias. Esas iniciativas intentan defender el interés que existe en relación con el aprovechamiento de los beneficios potenciales que puedan derivarse de ese tipo de energía y facilitar la transferencia segura de esos materiales con el fin de proteger la vida humana y el ambiente. En relación con el torio y el uranio, el Código de Minería en el artículo 4 establece entre otras cosas, que los minerales radioactivos se reservan para el Estado y que sólo podrán ser explotados por éste o por particulares de acuerdo con la ley mediante concesión. Es claro entonces que se trata de actividades parcialmente permitidas en el país, pero sujetas a control. Siendo así, es preciso regularlas. Dentro de la Descripción General de Actividades Económicas que maneja la C.C.S.S. en el código 1200 se clasifica la extracción de minerales de uranio y torio, lo que coincide con la Tabla de Correlación entre la CIIU, Rev 3 y la DIIU, Rev 2 o Manual de Código de Actividades Económicas, que maneja la Dirección de Gestión de Calidad Ambiental del MINAE.A partir de lo expuesto se puede concluir que lo impugnado no lesiona la normativa nacional o internacional y que la petición del accionante ya fue atendida al derogarse la clasificación CIIU 2927, referida a la Fabricación de Armas y Municiones.
6. 6Los edictos a que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en los números 70, 71 y 72 del Boletín Judicial, de los días 11, 12 y 13 de abril de 2007 (folio 27).
7. 7En escrito del 11 de agosto de 2008 (folio 47) el actor reclamó pronto despacho del presente asunto y la celebración de vista oral.
8. 8Se prescinde de la vista señalada en los artículos 10 y 85 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, con base en la potestad que otorga a la Sala el numeral 9 ibidem, al estimar suficientemente fundada esta resolución en principios y normas evidentes, así como en la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal.
9. 9En los procedimientos se ha cumplido las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta el Magistrado Armijo Sancho: y;

I.Sobre la admisibilidad. En primer término, de conformidad con el artículo 73 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional inciso a), cabe acción de inconstitucionalidad contra leyes o disposiciones de carácter general que infrinjan, por acción u omisión, normas o principios constitucionales. En este caso, el accionante cuestiona ciertos apartados contenidos en el Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, disposición normativa de aplicación general. Ello ha permitido la admisión preliminar de la acción interpuesta. En cuanto a la legitimación del accionante, de conformidad con el artículo 75 párrafo segundo de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, no es necesario el caso previo pendiente de resolución cuando por la naturaleza del asunto no exista lesión individual y directa o se trate de la defensa de intereses difusos, o que atañen a la colectividad en su conjunto.

En este sentido, y en relación con la defensa del derecho a la paz que el accionante invoca, esta Sala en la sentencia #2004-9992 de fecha 8 de septiembre de 2004, manifestó que el derecho a la paz es un derecho de tercera generación y constituye un valor “fundante” de la Nación de Costa Rica, que “legitima a cualquier costarricense para defenderlo, sin necesidad de juicio previo” y que puede ser considerado como “un interés que atañe a la colectividad en su conjunto”, esto último en atención a lo señalado en la sentencia #8239-2001 del 14 de agosto de 2001 en la que esta Sala expuso: “I.- .(…).Finalmente, cuando el párrafo 2° del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional habla de intereses " que atañen a la colectividad en su conjunto ", se refiere a los bienes jurídicos explicados en las líneas anteriores...[el medio ambiente, el patrimonio cultural, la defensa de la integridad territorial del país y del buen manejo del gasto público, entre otros]... es decir, aquellos cuya titularidad reposa en los mismos detentadores de la soberanía, en cada uno de los habitantes de la República.

No se trata por ende de que cualquier persona pueda acudir a la Sala Constitucional en tutela de cualesquiera intereses (acción popular), sino que todo individuo puede actuar en defensa de aquellos bienes que afectan a toda la colectividad nacional, sin que tampoco en este campo sea válido ensayar cualquier intento de enumeración taxativa”. En consecuencia, la Sala estima que el accionante está legitimado para interponer la acción, y procede a su análisis por el fondo.

II. Objeto de la impugnación. Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240-S, Anexo 1°.-

“1200 EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES DE URANIO Y TORIO. En esta clase se incluye la extracción de minerales estimados principalmente por su contenido de uranio o torio, como por ejemplo la pecblenda. También se incluye la concentración de esos minerales.” “2330 ELABORACIÓN DE COMBUSTIBLE NUCLEAR. En esta clase se incluye la extracción de metal de uranio a partir de la pecblenda y otros minerales que contienen uranio. (Fabricación de aleaciones, dispersiones y mezclas de uranio natural y sus compuestos y la fabricación de otros elementos, isótopos y compuestos radiactivos.” “2813 FABRICACIÓN DE GENERADORES DE VAPOR, EXCEPTO CALDERAS DE AGUA CALIENTE PARA CALEFACCIÓN CENTRAL. Esta clase abarca la fabricación de reactores nucleares para todos los fines, menos para la separación de isótopos. La expresión “reactor nuclear” se aplica en general a todos los aparatos y máquinas que se encuentran dentro del recinto protegido por el blindaje biológico, con inclusión, si es preciso, del propio blindaje.

La expresión también abarca a todos los aparatos y artefactos que se encuentran fuera del recinto pero son parte integrante de los contenidos en él. Fabricación de calderas generadoras de vapor de agua y otros vapores que no sean calderas de agua caliente para calefacción, aunque también produzcan vapor a baja presión. Fabricación de instalaciones auxiliares para calderas, tales como economizadores, recalentadores, recolectores y acumuladores de vapor. Asimismo, deshollinadores, recuperadores de gases y sacabarros.” “2927 FABRICACIÓN DE ARMAS Y MUNICIONES. En esta clase se incluye la fabricación de: Armas de fuego. Armas portátiles, escopetas y pistolas de aire y gas comprimido. Fabricación de armas portátiles y accesorios, artillería pesada y ligera; Armas de fuego. Armas pesadas, piezas de artillería, ametralladoras pesadas, etc.” (Derogada esta clasificación mediante el artículo 1º del decreto ejecutivo Nº 33410 del 23 de octubre del 2006)”.

III.Respecto a la derogatoria del apartado 2927 del Anexo I del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240-S. El apartado 2927 impugnado, incluido en el Anexo I denominado “Clasificación de Establecimientos Comerciales y Actividades Según el Riesgo Sanitario Ambiental”, contenido en el Reglamento General para el Otorgamiento de Permisos Sanitarios de Funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, emitido mediante Decreto Ejecutivo número 33240-S, fue derogado mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo #33410-S, publicado en la Gaceta #212 del 6 de noviembre de 2006, tal y como se desprende del artículo 1° de éste último, que dispuso: “Deróguese la clasificación CIIU 2927 del Anexo A del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33240-S- del 30 de junio del 2006…”. Ante tal circunstancia la Procuraduría estima que lo impugnado ha perdido interés actual de conformidad con lo señalado por la Sala Constitucional en la resolución #2004-10400 de 22 de septiembre de 2004, motivo por el cual es innecesario que la Sala se pronuncie sobre su contenido.

IV.Sobre el carácter normativo de los apartados vigentes impugnados del Anexo I del Decreto 33240-S. Esta Sala ha manifestado que:

“…La jurisdicción constitucional, ejercida en una de sus modalidades a través de los procedimientos de declaración de inconstitucionalidad, garantiza la primacía de la Constitución y enjuicia la conformidad o disconformidad con ella de las leyes, disposiciones o actos impugnados, como su concordancia con las normas y principios del derecho internacional o comunitario vigentes en la República de Costa Rica” (sentencia #1319-97 del 4 de marzo de 1997).

Ahora bien, conforme al artículo 73 inciso a), las leyes o cualquier disposición general impugnada en el proceso de inconstitucionalidad deben poseer “carácter normativo”, de modo que su contenido regule y delimite la conducta de individuos de forma general. De lo contrario, lo impugnado no puede ser conocido a través de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, cuyo fin es controlar la conformidad de las “leyes y otros disposiciones generales” con el Derecho de la Constitución. Así lo ha señalado en forma reiterada este Tribunal en las sentencias #4422-93 del 7 de septiembre de 1993, #3936-95 del 18 de julio de 1995 y #16773-2005 del 30 de noviembre de 2005. Dispone el artículo 1° del Reglamento General para el otorgamiento de permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, que su objeto es “regular y controlar el otorgamiento de permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento de toda actividad o establecimiento agropecuario, industrial, comercial o de servicios; y de aquellas actividades que por disposición de la ley, requieren de estos permisos sanitarios para operar en el territorio nacional, así como establecer los requisitos para el trámite de los mismos”.

Por su parte, el artículo 3º señala: “Con el propósito de regular las actividades humanas que inciden directa o indirectamente en la salud de las personas y el ambiente, el Ministerio de Salud establece la clasificación de éstas en tres categorías de riesgo, considerando para ello criterios sanitarios y ambientales, que le permitan ejercer el control y la vigilancia y que garanticen el cumplimiento de las normas y reglamentos técnicos, jurídicos y administrativos vigentes”. Como desarrollo de tal clasificación el artículo 6° expresa: “(…)el Ministerio de Salud establece en el Anexo Nº 1 del presente Reglamento, la tabla de Clasificación de Actividades o establecimientos según riesgo sanitario, la cual utiliza como referencia el Código CIIU, e incluye la clasificación por nivel de riesgo sanitario y ambiental teniendo como objetivo fortalecer los procesos de ejecución, desarrollo, evaluación, control y vigilancia de las actividades que requieren P.S.F.[Permiso Sanitario de Funcionamiento]; y garantizar el cumplimiento de la legislación vigente”.

Este es el Anexo en el cual se encuentran los apartados impugnados. Señala la Ministra de Salud en su informe que el CIIU es un Código asignado a las actividades o establecimientos según la Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme de todas las actividades económicas, elaborado según las recomendaciones vertidas por la Oficina de Estadística de la Organización de Naciones Unidas. Su fin es estadístico y permite la estandarización de la clasificación de establecimientos industriales con fines económicos y comerciales. En Costa Rica, esta clasificación es oficializada y publicada por el Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INEC). Busca optimizar la función de inspección, vigilancia y control de las autoridades mediante la clasificación de actividades según el riesgo que representen. Analizando los apartados impugnados, la Sala observa que estos están contenidos en un Anexo denominado “CLASIFICACIÓN DE ESTABLECIMIENTOS Y ACTIVIDADES SEGÚN RIESGO SANITARIO AMBIENTAL”.

En general, los apartados están ordenados según la actividad a la que se refieran y contienen una descripción de la actividad y/o de los establecimientos que integran cada categoría. Así por ejemplo, el apartado 1200 relativo a la “Extracción de Minerales de Uranio y Torio” está ubicado en la categoría relativa a la actividad de “Explotación de Minas y Canteras” mientras los apartados 2330 “Elaboración de Combustible Nuclear”, 2813 “Fabricación de Generadores de Vapor…” y el 2927 (ya derogado) “Fabricación de Armas y Municiones” están ubicados en la categoría de “D. Industria Manufacturera”. La Sala observa que los apartados impugnados describen las actividades que están comprendidas dentro de una determinada categoría y dan una breve explicación sobre algunos conceptos, y aunque requieren de un acto singular de aplicación para desarrollar plena eficacia su sola previsión dentro de las categorías señaladas son un indicador de un aval del Poder Ejecutivo y del ordenamiento jurídico –pues indudablemente forman parte de él– del desarrollo de tales actividades en suelo costarricense.

Es innecesario esperar el momento de la concesión de un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento concreto para examinar su conformidad con la Constitución, sobre todo si se tiene en cuenta que la concesión del permiso estaría eventualmente incorporando en la esfera del particular un derecho subjetivo, cuya posterior reversión no es automática ni sucinta, con lo que podría darse ocasión a provocar daños a los intereses que el accionante invoca. Evidentemente la autorización que pudiera otorgar el Ministerio de Salud al amparo de las disposiciones cuestionadas debe entenderse en armonía con disposiciones de rango normativo superior como el Código de Minería, en el caso de extracción de minerales y la elaboración de combustibles. Pero ello no es óbice para someter al examen de constitucionalidad las previsiones que se impugnan del Anexo, como parte individualizable de un esquema complejo de autorizaciones.

V.Sobre el derecho a la paz. Si bien cuando la Constitución alude a la paz, se refiere a que su concertación y negociación es parte de las funciones de determinados órganos estatales (artículos 121 inciso 6) y 147 inciso 1°), el alcance de este concepto ha sido reconocido y potenciado por la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal. En este sentido, la Sala ha señalado que se trata de un valor supremo de la Constitución Política (sentencia # 1739-92 del 1° de julio de 1992) y un valor fundamental de la identidad costarricense (sentencia #1313-93 del 26 de marzo de 1993). Asimismo, se le ha considerado como valor no sólo de rango nacional sino también internacional en atención a lo dispuesto en la Carta de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, la Declaración sobre el Derecho de los Pueblos a la Paz, adoptada por la Resolución #39/11 de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas del 12 de noviembre de 1984, la Declaración sobre la Inadmisibilidad de Intervención en los asuntos internos de los Estados y Protección de su independencia y soberanía, adoptada por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en la resolución #2131 (XX) del 21 de diciembre de 1965 y la Declaración sobre los principios del Derecho Internacional referente a las relaciones de amistad y a la cooperación entre los Estados de conformidad con la Carta de las Naciones Unidas adoptada en la resolución #2625 (XXV) de la Asamblea General del 24 de octubre de 1970 (sentencia #2004-9992 del 8 de septiembre de 2004). En esta última sentencia citada, la Sala manifestó:

“(…) es claro que el pueblo costarricense, cansado de una historia de muerte, enfrentamientos, de dictadores y marginación de los beneficios del desarrollo, eligió libre y sabiamente a partir de mil novecientos cuarenta y nueve, recoger el sentimiento que desde hace mucho acompañaba a los costarricenses, de adoptar la paz como valor rector de la sociedad. En esa fecha se cristaliza ese cambio histórico, se proclama un nuevo espíritu, un espíritu de paz y tolerancia. A partir de entonces simbólicamente el cuartel pasó a ser un museo o centro de enseñanza y el país adopta la razón y el derecho como mecanismo para resolver sus problemas interna y externamente. Asimismo, se apuesta por el desarrollo humano y proclamamos nuestro derecho a vivir libres y en paz. Ese día esta nación dio un giro, decidimos que cualquier costo que debamos correr para luchar por la paz, siempre será menor que los costos irreparables de la guerra.

Esa filosofía es la que culmina con la "Proclama de neutralidad perpetua, activa y no armada" de nuestro país, y los numerosos instrumentos internacionales firmados en el mismo sentido -citados en forma abundante por las partes-, como extensión de ese arraigado valor constitucional, que sirve como parámetro constitucional a la hora de analizar los actos impugnados. En este mismo sentido se ha pronunciado la jurisprudencia de esta Sala que ha resaltado el valor paz como principio jurídico y político, en sus sentencias al señalar:

"... de allí que las leyes, en general, las normas y los actos de autoridad requieran para su validez, no sólo haber sido promulgados por órganos competentes y procedimientos debidos, sino también pasar la revisión de fondo por su concordancia con las normas, principios y valores supremos de la Constitución..., como son los de orden, paz, seguridad, justicia, libertad, etc, que se configuran como patrones de razonabilidad (ver sentencia número 1739-92).

En otra sentencia refiriéndose a los valores fundamentales de la identidad costarricense:

"...pueden resumirse... en los de la democracia, el Estado Social de Derecho, la dignidad esencial del ser humano y el sistema de libertad", además de la paz (artículo 12 de la Constitución Política), y la Justicia..." (ver sentencia número 1313-93)”.

Lo anterior, evidencia que el derecho a la paz tiene en el sistema costarricense un reconocimiento normativo que se deriva, no solo del texto de la Constitución Política, sino de los Tratados Internacionales ratificados por nuestro país, un reconocimiento jurisprudencial derivado de las sentencias emitidas por la Sala Constitucional; y sobre todo un reconocimiento social, conforme al sentir y el actuar de los propios costarricenses. Ahora bien, la construcción de la paz, como lo afirma cierta parte de la doctrina europea, constituye una tarea abierta cuyo logro responsabiliza y compromete a cada habitante del país, y en especial, a quienes ejercen el poder dentro de los Estados. De ahí que sobre las autoridades del Gobierno recae el esfuerzo mayor de alcanzar, mantener y consolidar la paz del país, aunado a la finalidad de fortalecer las relaciones de cooperación pacífica entre todos los pueblos.

Por ello, la búsqueda de la paz en un Estado no solo se circunscribe al ámbito interno, sino también externo, de modo que aquella sea respetada por los demás Estados. Al hacer referencia a la paz como un valor, debe repararse en que todo valor constitucional, como lo afirma un sector de la doctrina europea, posee una triple dimensión: a) fundamentadora en un plano estático de toda disposición e institución constitucional, de todo el ordenamiento jurídico; b) orientadora en un plano dinámico, del orden jurídico pero también del político cimentado en metas y fines predeterminados que tornan ilegítima cualquier disposición normativa que persiga fines distintos y obstaculice los mismos valores constitucionales; y c) crítica, lo cual implica que el valor constitucional es idóneo para servir de criterio o parámetro de evaluación de todo el ordenamiento jurídico, por lo cual toda norma infraconstitucional puede ser controlada a partir de su conformidad o no con los valores constitucionales.

Así, concebida la paz como un valor, le son atribuibles las tres dimensiones referidas, por lo cual actúa como fundamento del conjunto de normas e instituciones, con el objeto de fortalecer relaciones pacíficas en el plano interno y externo del Estado; orienta la interpretación normativa en la búsqueda de soluciones que a su vez la fomenten; e invalida cualquier disposición normativa o actividad de los poderes públicos que menoscabe la Paz social nacional o internacional. Esas tres dimensiones deberán ser tomadas en consideración por los Estados.

VI.Sobre el principio precautorio en materia ambiental. Y es que el asunto, finalmente, no solo debe considerarse inescindiblemente unido al valor de la paz, sino también al derecho a un medio ambiente sano. En cuanto a este último se considera pertinente recordar el principio precautorio, como uno de los que caracterizan la protección del derecho en cuestión. Por sentencia #2004-01923 de las 14:55 horas del 25 de febrero del 2004 se manifestó lo que sigue:

“Uno de los principios rectores del Derecho Ambiental lo constituye el precautorio o de evitación prudente. Este principio se encuentra recogido en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo o Declaración de Río, la cual literalmente indica “Principio 15.- Con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente, los Estados deberán aplicar ampliamente el criterio de precaución conforme a sus capacidades. Cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente”. En el ordenamiento jurídico interno la Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 del 30 de abril de 1998), en su artículo 11 recoge como parámetros hermenéuticos los siguientes principios: “1.- Criterio preventivo: Se reconoce que es de vital importancia anticipar, prevenir y atacar las causas de la pérdida de biodiversidad o sus amenazas. 2.- Criterios precautorio o indubio pro natura: Cuando exista peligro o amenaza de daños graves o inminentes a los elementos de la biodiversidad y al conocimiento asociado con estos, la ausencia de certeza científica no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces de protección”.

En el Voto de esta Sala No. 1250-99 de las 11:24 horas del 19 de febrero de 1999 (reiterado en los Votos Nos. 9773-00 de las 9:44 horas del 3 de noviembre del 2000, 1711-01 de las 16:32 horas del 27 de febrero del 2001 y 6322-03 de las 14:14 horas del 3 de julio del 2003) este Tribunal estimó lo siguiente: “(...) La prevención pretende anticiparse a los efectos negativos, y asegurar la protección, conservación y adecuada gestión de los recursos. Consecuentemente, el principio rector de prevención se fundamenta en la necesidad de tomar y asumir todas las medidas precautorias para evitar contener la posible afectación del ambiente o la salud de las personas. De esta forma, en caso de que exista un riesgo de daño grave o irreversible –o una duda al respecto-, se debe adoptar una medida de precaución e inclusive posponer la actividad de que se trate. Lo anterior debido a que en materia ambiental la coacción a posteriori resulta ineficaz, por cuanto de haberse producido ya las consecuencias biológicas socialmente nocivas, la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados en el ambiente”.

Posteriormente, en el Voto No. 3480-03 de las 14:02 horas del 2 de mayo del 2003, este Tribunal indicó que “Bien entendido el principio precautorio, el mismo se refiere a la adopción de medidas no ante el desconocimiento de hechos generadores de riesgo, sino ante la carencia de certeza respecto de que tales hechos efectivamente producirán efectos nocivos en el ambiente”.

VII.Sobre el fondo. Aplicadas las anteriores consideraciones a las disposiciones que se cuestionan, cabe hacer una diferencia adicional, entre aquellas que aún están vigentes y la que ya fue objeto de derogatoria. En cuanto a aquellas que se refieren a la extracción de minerales, fabricación de combustible nuclear y generadores de vapor, debe recordarse que los Estados que promueven la paz se obligan a adoptar un “pacifismo incondicional o ético”, como lo denomina un sector de la doctrina, el cual parte de la premisa de que la paz y la guerra son obviamente antagónicos y cada cual respectivamente, un valor que debe lograrse y un disvalor que debe erradicarse. Por consiguiente, un Estado que acepte la paz como un valor constitucional fundamental no podrá conformarse con la noción limitada de que paz es ausencia de guerra, sino que deberá ir más allá, previniendo y rechazar continuamente toda decisión y actuación que pueda propiciar y desembocar tal circunstancia.

Ciertamente entre las actividades que puede considerarse opuestas al espíritu pacifista de una nación o país, está la fabricación de armas y la producción de determinados minerales o sustancias químicas. Ellas están directamente ligadas a situaciones de violencia, aun en circunstancias de legítima defensa. Incluso existen determinado tipo de armas -de fuego, químicas, biológicas, etc.- que se fabrican específicamente para ser utilizadas en guerras. Por consiguiente, un Estado que aspire a propiciar la paz, tanto a nivel interno como internacional deberá poner especial cuidado al autorizar la fabricación y/o importación de armas y sustancias químicas en su territorio, rechazando rotundamente aquellas que por su naturaleza han sido pensadas y creadas para favorecer el antivalor de la guerra. En vista de que existen en el mercado muchos tipos de armas, desde armas de guerra hasta otras cuyo propósito fundamental es coadyuvar en la protección de la ciudadanía y de la propiedad pública o privada, así como permitir la práctica de algunas actividades deportivas, como la caza y el tiro al blanco, el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense permite la fabricación y la importación de algunos tipos de armas ligeras, bajo estrictas medidas de control.

La Ley de Armas y Explosivos dispone en el artículo 1° que esa ley regulará “…la adquisición, posesión, inscripción, portación, venta, importación, exportación, fabricación y el almacenaje de armas, municiones, explosivos y pólvora, en cualquiera de sus presentaciones, y de las materias primas para elaborar productos regulados por la presente Ley, en todos sus aspectos, así como la instalación de dispositivos de seguridad.” En el artículo 19 indica que existen armas permitidas y armas prohibidas. Las primeras las regula en el artículo 20 y las segundas en el 25. En el artículo 26 prohíbe el uso, producción o la introducción al país de gases, compuestos químicos, virus o bacterias tóxicas o letales, que produzcan consecuencias físicas o mentales irreversibles, para ser utilizados como arma. También, se prohíbe el uso policial de las municiones destinadas a la cacería. El artículo 68 regula la fabricación, almacenamiento, comercio, importación y exportación de armas municiones, explosivos, artificios y pólvora.

De ahí que aún cuando existe un grupo de armas y de sustancias y componentes químicos cuya importación y fabricación es permitida por el ordenamiento jurídico; debe entenderse tal autorización en sentido altamente restrictivo, en respeto del valor constitucional mencionado. De la misma forma, la extracción de minerales, es una actividad regulada, parcialmente, por la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre la Prohibición del Desarrollo, la producción, el almacenamiento y el empleo de armas químicas y su destrucción, la cual Costa Rica ratificó por Ley #7571. No obstante, en la clasificación impugnada, no están contenidas esas sustancias. El torio y el uranio, por su parte, son minerales radioactivos, y aunque el Código de Minería reserva al Estado su explotación, sea por sí mismo o a través de la concesión a particulares, su conocido empleo bélico y su carácter altamente contaminante obligan a considerar inconstitucional su pertenencia al listado que se impugna aquí.

VIII.La Sala no puede menos que estimar que la inclusión en un catálogo de actividades permitidas -y sobre las que, al fin y al cabo, se confiere competencia al Ministerio de Salud para autorizar a particulares a desarrollarlas- de la combinación de temas que se expone en la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad (extracción de uranio y torio; elaboración de combustible nuclear y fabricación de reactores nucleares) resulta contraria al valor de la paz por sus posibles vínculos con la actividad bélica, así como al derecho al medio ambiente sano, en la medida en que sus consecuencias perjudiciales en el campo ecológico y de la salud humana y, por ende, es inconstitucional su previsión en un catálogo de posibles actividades a autorizar por una instancia pública.

IX.Conclusión. De conformidad con lo expuesto, la Sala concluye que los apartados 1200, 2330 y 2813 del Anexo 1° del Decreto Ejecutivo #33240-S resultan contrarios al valor de la paz y el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, debiendo anularse por inconstitucionales.

X.Lo anterior, sin perjuicio de advertir que, de plantearse en nuestro país el problema del uso pacífico de la energía nuclear, deben suministrarse las garantías jurídicas, técnicas y prácticas de que su uso será indubitablemente pacífico y compatible con el respeto del derecho a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Igualmente importa dejar constancia expresa de que este pronunciamiento no impide de forma alguna el empleo medicinal de la energía nuclear.

Por tanto:

Se declara con lugar la acción. Se anulan los apartados 1200 Extracción de Minerales de Uranio y Torio, 2330 Elaboración de Combustible Nuclear, y 2813 Fabricación de Generadores de Vapor del Anexo #1 del Decreto Ejecutivo #33240-S del 30 de junio del 2006, todo sin perjuicio de lo dicho en el último considerando. Esta sentencia tiene efectos declarativos y retroactivos a la fecha de vigencia de la norma anulada, sin perjuicio de derechos adquiridos de buena fe. Reséñese este pronunciamiento en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta y publíquese íntegramente en el Boletín Judicial. Notifíquese.- Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

Rosa María Abdelnour G. Gastón Certad M.