Mining Code rules declared unconstitutional for postponing the environmental impact studyDeclaratoria de inconstitucionalidad de normas del Código de Minería por posponer el estudio de impacto ambiental

*080149000007CO* Res. No. 2009017155 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and zero minutes on November fifth, two thousand nine.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by FREDDY PACHECO LEON, of legal age, divorced, doctor in Biological Sciences, identity card number 0103490573, resident of San Pablo de Heredia; against articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Mining Code, Law 6797 of 10-04-1982 and its amendments.

Resultando:

1.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:16 hours on November 3, two thousand eight, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Mining Code be declared. He alleges that the norms are challenged insofar as they postpone the submission of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) until after the concession for the exploitation of mining developments has been granted, thereby inverting the logical process based on legislation and technical-scientific norms, regarding those human activities—such as the mining industry—capable of negatively impacting the environment and that, consequently, require prior studies of their environmental and social repercussions or consequences, as well as their economic quantification, in order to analyze them in contrast to the gains or advantages of the proposed project. The challenged norms authorize the Executive Branch to grant mining exploitation concessions with high environmental impact, without having to previously verify the negative environmental effects of the specific mining project and without the developer having the prior obligation to demonstrate, technically and scientifically, that it is capable of mitigating and compensating such environmental damages, so that they do not have irreversible effects. He considers that the only way in which it can be guaranteed that a specific development project is not contrary to the environment, is through the scientific-technical procedure called "environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental)", which allows for the identification and prediction of what effects it will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making. He estimates that the norms of the Mining Code challenged here should have been repealed years ago, for contradicting higher-ranking precepts that were incorporated into the national legal system, especially after the reform of article 50 of the Constitution—which incorporated the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment—for which reason said norms are null and void by full right, "for being affected by supervening unconstitutionality". In light of International Environmental Law, a violation also occurs since the Costa Rican State, by not requiring an environmental impact study for the mining industry prior to granting the respective exploitation concession, is violating the preventive and precautionary principles, which in our legal system constitute parameters of constitutionality. In practice and in relation to a specific case of mining exploitation, the environmental impact study becomes the ideal technical-scientific instrument so that the environmental administration can make decisions regarding the authorization of a specific mining development, assessing and classifying environmental risks. It is only through this procedure that it can determine, in application of the preventive and precautionary principles, the regulatory measures for the operation of the project under approval, whether to establish permanent or temporary operating limits, to require specific processes or technologies, or to prohibit it entirely. He refers that this Chamber has held that those provisions that exempt or reduce the requirements for environmental impact assessment of human activities prior to their development, violate the Law of the Constitution and, specifically, the precautionary principle. For example, in judgment 2008-15760 of 14:30 hours on October 23, 2008, this jurisprudential line was confirmed, by establishing that it is unconstitutional to postpone the submission of the environmental impact assessment until after a concession for the construction, administration and exploitation of tourist marinas and docks is granted, by disregarding the state duty to preventively protect the environment and by limiting the right to citizen participation in matters related to it. He considers that what was resolved applies mutatis mutandis to the norms of the Mining Code challenged here. Finally, the cited precepts are also contrary to article 11 of the Constitution, since they do not comply with the principle of legality (principio de juridicidad) of the Administration, with the aggravating factor that they authorize acts of the environmental Administration and the Executive Branch, declarative of subjective rights in favor of private parties, by granting a concession for the exploitation of mineral deposits for industrial use, without prior approval of the respective environmental impact study; acts which, if later reversed because they were issued against the technical norms governing the matter, generate State liability and the obligation to indemnify.

Drafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,

Considerando:

I.- On admissibility. Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the admissibility requirements for actions of unconstitutionality. Thus, the first paragraph requires the existence of a prior matter, in a jurisdictional or administrative venue, in which the unconstitutionality of the norm is invoked, as a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest considered injured. This conceptualizes the general rule of the need to have a prior matter, with the possibilities of directly appearing before the Chamber being exceptional, and which are regulated in the second paragraph in those cases in which "[...] due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury, or it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, or those that pertain to the community as a whole". The Chamber has indicated that diffuse interests are those whose ownership belongs to groups of people not formally organized, but united based on a specific social need, a physical characteristic, their ethnic origin, a specific personal or ideological orientation, the consumption of a certain product, etc. The interest, in these cases, is spread, diluted (diffuse) among an unidentified plurality of subjects. In these cases, of course, the challenge that a member of one of these sectors could make, protected by paragraph 2 of article 75, must necessarily refer to provisions that affect them as such. So, through the various resolutions of this Chamber, the existence of a diffuse interest has been recognized in claims against the violation of the environment, precisely in attention to the provisions of article 50 of the Political Constitution, from which it has developed a theory of direct standing in these cases. The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has been conceptualized as a "third generation" right, which is a right and duty of each of the inhabitants, and as such, its values enjoy privileged protection through which anyone can claim its protection, precisely based on the authorization that article 75 paragraph 2 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction confers in this regard, so that the action of unconstitutionality can be directly filed, which is why, in cases where neither the interested party nor the resolution admitting the action indicates that special standing, the action filed is admissible, insofar as it becomes a means of protecting that type of interest when what is claimed is the protection of the environment and natural resources.

II.- On the standing of the petitioners in the specific case. This Court considers that the petitioner Freddy Pacheco León is duly authorized to bring action in this venue directly, that is, without the need for a prior matter, since, as already indicated, there exists a legitimate interest of citizens in general regarding the adequate protection of the environment, whereby it can well be said that there is a diffuse interest in relation to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Likewise, the Office of the Ombudsman is duly authorized not only due to the existence of diffuse interests, but also by holding direct standing in accordance with the third paragraph of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.

III.- Joinders. The passive joinders filed on July 23, 2009 by Juan María González in his capacity as President of the Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica (folio 211), on July 24, 2009 by Juan Carlos Hernández Jiménez in his capacity as special general attorney-in-fact of the company Industrias Infinito S.A. (folio 215), by Jorge Herrera Ocampo in his capacity as Executive Director of the College of Geologists of Costa Rica (folio 230) and Marco Vinicio Solís Rojas in his capacity as President of the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of the Northern Zone (folio 232) are admitted. The foregoing by reason of complying with the provisions of article 83 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, for having submitted them on time and for manifesting a legitimate interest in the resolution of this matter.

III.- Object of the challenge. The petitioners challenge articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) and 6.1 of the Mining Code, articles 3 subsection m) and 19 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), 1 and 2 of decree No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008 and resolutions No. 3638-2005-SETENA of 9 hours 25 minutes on December 12, 2005 that grants environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) to the Crucitas Mining Project, as well as resolution No. 170-2008 of 12 hours 50 minutes on February 4, 2008 that approves a subsequent modification of that project, considering them contrary to articles 50 of the Political Constitution and article 14 subsection 1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America and the Charter of the Organization of American States, and to the principles relating to environmental protection: principle of sustainable development, precautionary principle, pro natura principle, principle of reasonableness and proportionality and "pro homine" principle. For better understanding, the norms under study are cited:

From the Mining Code:

"Article 34.- The holder of an exploitation concession shall be obligated to: (…) ch) Elaborate a complete study on the environmental impact of the exploitation process, that complies with the requirements contemplated in article 97; and comply with the norms that regulate environmental pollution and the recovery of renewable natural resources.(…)" "Article 97.- The Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, through the Directorate of Geology, Mines and Hydrocarbons, shall be responsible for all the functions that said Directorate currently has, in addition to the following, specifically related to mining activity: (…) g) The Directorate of Geology, Mines and Hydrocarbons shall communicate to the concessionaires of exploration permits the norms for the elaboration of studies on the environmental impact, as well as the specific norms for the protection of the environment and the conservation of natural resources. These norms shall be prepared by the corresponding governmental body, with the participation of the colleges of biologists, geologists, chemists and engineers, and the universities." "Article 6°.- All mining activity is declared of public utility, both in exploration and exploitation works. The concentration, processing, transformation, transportation of mineral substances and the private or state-owned lands necessary for these purposes shall have the same character.

Except with express authorization from the Legislative Assembly, permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned, in accordance with the analysis of the studies on the social and environmental impact that are carried out, in which the affected communities shall participate, when such studies are related to the health and safety of the inhabitants of communities located near transportation routes, aqueducts, oil pipelines, fuel deposits, explosives, civil defense works, towns, cemeteries, airports, hydroelectric plants or works of public importance. The studies on the social and environmental impact shall contemplate an analysis of the alternative use of the land in various economic activities. The environmental impact analysis shall include the distances and other conditions for each specific permit referred to in this article. Permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned by reason of national interest. In case of rescission, the national interest shall be declared by the Legislative Assembly." From the Forestry Law:

"Article 3°.- Definitions For the purposes of this law, the following is considered: (…) m) Activities of national convenience (Actividades de conveniencia nacional): Activities carried out by centralized State agencies, autonomous institutions or private enterprise, whose social benefits are greater than the socio-environmental costs. The balance must be made through appropriate instruments." "Article 19.- Authorized Activities On land covered by forest, it shall not be permitted to change land use (cambio de uso del suelo), nor to establish forest plantations. However, the State Forestry Administration may grant permission in these areas for the following purposes: (…) b) Carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience." From Decree No. 34801-MINAET OF October 13, 2008:

"Article 1.- The Crucitas Mining Project developed by the company Industrias Infinito S.A. is declared of public interest and national convenience.

Article 2.- By virtue of this declaration, the developing company, with prior authorization from the corresponding office of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), may proceed with the cutting of trees (including species that are prohibited) and the development of infrastructure works in protection areas, as indicated in the project." IV.- Regarding articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Mining Code. Both petitioners accuse the cited articles of the Mining Code of violating article 50 of the Constitution and article 14 subsection 1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, because, by referring these norms to "concessionaire", it implies that the environmental impact study is a requirement demanded after the granting of the mining concession. The issue in question has already been the subject of a ruling by this Court. Recently, in the optional legislative consultation of constitutionality related to the project of "Modification of several articles of Law No. 7744, Concession and Operation of Tourist Marinas", legislative file No. 14,836, in judgment No. 2008-15760 of 14:30 hours on October 23, 2008, it was ordered that preventive assessments are an unavoidable requirement to guarantee the environment, in concordant application of articles 21, 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution. From article 50 of the Fundamental Norm itself, it follows that the State is responsible for guaranteeing, defending and preserving the right of every human being to "a healthy and ecologically balanced environment". Even prior to the constitutional reform of article 50, this Court highlighted the requirement of environmental assessment studies, conceived as technical studies in environmental matters, prior to the granting of rights in activities that may eventually harm the environment. In accordance with the foregoing, approving a regulation that seeks to invert the normal and natural order of administrative procedures, granting the concession for construction, administration and exploitation prior to the completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment, would be unconstitutional, since it reverses the logical order of procedures, disregarding the State's duty to protect the integrity of the environment, enshrined in article 50 of the Political Constitution. Furthermore, if we adhere to the binding jurisprudence of this Court, it is not admissible to de-constitutionalize the guarantee of a state response in defense of the environment, which must be timely and prior to the granting of the corresponding permits or concessions (see judgments numbers 6240-1993, 4245-2001, 1220-2002, 1221-2002, 6466-2002). In the case of article 34 subsection ch), it is evident that the environmental impact study it orders must be carried out by "the holder of an exploitation concession", which obviously assumes that the latter has been previously granted. Article 97 subsection g), for its part, imposes on the Directorate of Geology, Mines and Hydrocarbons the duty to communicate "to the concessionaires of exploration permits" the norms for the elaboration of studies on the environmental impact. Thus, both norms demand such a requirement, with the difference that the second does so in relation to an exploration permit and the first with an effective concession. Tasks that in any case have the capacity—albeit to a greater or lesser extent—to alter the environment from the moment it allows the permittee to extract and dispose of "necessary, non-commercial, minimum quantities of raw mineral substances" and even to make excavations (articles 23 subsection c and 24 subsection e, ibidem). The inversion of the proper order of the factors in the questioned norms had already been previously considered by the Chamber, only indirectly, since the study did not examine the merits of the articles of the law challenged here, but rather in relation to the Regulation to the Mining Code, executive decree number 29300-MINAE, given that what was claimed on that occasion was that the Regulation required the environmental impact study as a prerequisite for granting the concession, which contradicts what is provided in the law, which establishes it for the holder of the concession, that is, subsequently. On this point, in judgment No. 2001-04245 of 15:01 hours on May 23, 2001, the Chamber decided to reject the action on the merits, pointing out regarding this issue that the argument was not receivable, because the requirement established in article 29 of the questioned Decree, which consists of the obligation to prepare an environmental impact study as a prior procedure before submitting the request for a permit or concession to the National Mining Registry, did not contradict or modify the Mining Code, since in the national legal system there are numerous norms that require, as an indispensable requirement to initiate activities, works or projects that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or dangerous materials, the prior approval of the environmental impact assessment. Thus, this requirement finds support in articles 11, 21, 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, in numerous international instruments that are of obligatory compliance and enjoy full enforceability, including the Rio Convention on Environment and Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and Agenda 21, in articles 92 to 97 of the Biodiversity Law, number 7788, articles 17, 14-28, 31, 38, 44, 45, 56 to 72, 83, 88 to 89, 99, 98 and 101 of the Organic Law of the Environment, number 7554, in numeral 6 b) of the Law of Use, Management and Conservation of Soils, number 7779, Article 41 of the Hydrocarbons Law, number 7399, in numerals 3, 6.2, 101, 102 and 103 of the Mining Code and in articles 11, 239 and 240 of the General Law of Public Administration. Likewise, in article 3 of the Mining Code itself, which provides that any exploration permit or exploitation concession requires the prior analysis and approval of the environmental impact study or assessment. That is, without properly entering into the analysis of the norms of the Code, it was considered that the order stipulated in its Regulation—environmental impact study prior to the granting of the concession—is constitutionally correct. Thus, and based on the set of cited jurisprudential precedents, the unconstitutionality of the norms questioned in this case is evident and manifest for violating article 50 of the Political Constitution, to the extent that the factual assumptions contemplated in the challenged norms are the same as those that were the subject of exhaustive analysis by the Chamber in the aforementioned rulings, by not conforming to the precautionary principle, which imposes the need to adopt preventive measures, not only when faced with ignorance of risk-generating facts, but also when faced with the lack of certainty that such facts will effectively produce harmful effects on the environment. However, the consequence of nullity of this declaration does not imply the disappearance of the requirement, nor the unavoidable satisfaction of those environmental commitments that it is legitimate to demand from the concessionaire in the exploration or exploitation phase, as part of the control and monitoring measures that it is of rigor to apply in these cases, since article 3 of the Mining Code maintains its validity and states:

"Exploration or exploitation of mineral substances may not be carried out without the prior exploration permit or exploitation concession. The Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, through the Directorate of Geology, Mines and Hydrocarbons, shall be responsible for granting exclusive exploration permits and exploitation concessions, prior analysis and approval of the study made by the corresponding governmental control body on the environmental impact of such activities…" In this case, the rest of the legal system comes to adequately fill the created void, through provisions that do not allow ignoring the need for environmental impact studies, which, although by the legislator's discretion their realization was entrusted to the applicant for the concession or exploration, are not exempt from the control that the State's technical body makes of it and from the responsibilities, both administrative and criminal, that may be imposed on those who participate in its elaboration and verification of the information provided. So, it is absolutely clear that the pronouncement made here in no way leads to the omission of these studies, prior to the granting of the relevant permits or concessions. Magistrates Armijo, Cruz and Molina give additional reasons.

V.- Unconstitutionality by connexity of article 24 subsection ch) and article 105 first paragraph of the Mining Code. Now then, articles 24 and 105 first paragraph of the cited Code, relating to mining exploration permits and the obligations of the concessionaire, contain provisions that, at first glance, share the defect of unconstitutionality detected in the challenged numerals 34 and 97. Indeed, these norms state:

"Article 24.- The holder of an exploration permit shall be obligated to: …ch) Elaborate a preliminary environmental impact study, prior to exploration, specifying the scope of the activity defined in article ninety-three; and to comply with the norms that regulate environmental pollution and the protection of renewable natural resources." "Article 105.- To guarantee a rational and sustainable use of national resources and protect their future uses, the concessionaires, in a prior and public manner, must carry out environmental impact studies of their activities…" To the extent that the elaboration of the environmental impact study is assigned as an obligation to the "holder of an exploration permit", or "concessionaire", the same deficiency previously discussed is incurred, even though it must be carried out "prior to the exploration", since by then the right would already exist, granted in violation of the norms and precepts already explained. Article 89 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction provides that the judgment declaring the unconstitutionality of a legal norm or general provision shall also declare that of the other precepts thereof, or of any other law or provision whose annulment is evidently necessary by connexity or consequence. In that respect, it is appropriate to extend the effects of the granting of the action equally to the norms cited in the subsection and paragraph set forth.

VI.On the challenged article 19 subsection b) of the Forestry Law. The Office of the Ombudsman, in its capacity as petitioner, states that the application of article 19.2 of the Forestry Law is unconstitutional, because it establishes "national convenience" as an exception to forest protection. It acknowledges that to apply such exception, the social benefits must be greater than the socio-environmental costs, however, referring to the particular case of the Crucitas Mining Project, it indicates that the interpretation and application being given is unconstitutional, since the socio-environmental costs are greater than the social costs. The challenged article is located within the Forestry Law in Title III "Private Forest Property", Chapter I "Forest Management", which provides that on land covered by forest, it shall not be permitted to change land use (cambio de uso del suelo), nor to establish forest plantations. However, the State Forestry Administration may grant permission in these areas, for certain specific purposes, among which is subsection b, which authorizes it to carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience. This norm in particular was the subject of a ruling by this Court in judgment No. 2006-17126, in which, after analyzing the guiding principles in environmental matters, the Chamber concluded that both article 19 subsection b) challenged here and article 34 of the Forestry Law are not contrary to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as long as it is not an authorization for public institutions to "legitimately" harm the environment, nor a regime of exception. On that occasion, it was clearly established that the possibility of changing the known land use is reserved solely for private forestry heritage, with which, the natural heritage of the State is not "affected" (articles 1, second paragraph and 18 of the Forestry Law).

Likewise, only on the occasion of an emergency or exceptional situation under the terms set forth in Article 180 of the Constitution ("to satisfy urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal commotion, or public calamity") can the binding nature of environmental regulations be exempted—as with the rest of the legal system, as this Court considered in the aforementioned judgment number 1992-2340. By virtue of this, environmental regulations (principles and rules) are irrefutably applicable to public institutions, regarding the fulfillment of the purposes entrusted to them (public management), in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution. It is true that the challenged rules do provide for the case in which the use of private properties subject to an affectation on the State's forest heritage (patrimonio forestal del Estado) can be modified, to allow the construction of infrastructure works of social convenience, but as was duly established, it is not an exceptional regime that authorizes public institutions to pollute the environment, since likewise, the case to which it is intended to be applied must be subject to the environmental regulations in force. What is established in this provision refers to properties on which a limitation of evident social interest has been imposed, supported by the purpose of preservation and protection of the environment, hence the impossibility of their land-use change (cambio de uso) was contemplated as a general rule (first paragraph of Article 19 and the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 34 of the Ley Forestal); however, given the purpose of the general interest of the national community, both rights must be weighed and their use balanced in accordance with a principle of sustainable human development, which recognizes the need for a balanced interrelationship between the critical elements of economic development (tourism, investment, employment, infrastructure, sound finances, and the tax system), social policy (education, health, security), and environmental protection. This development has been defined by the United Nations as the expansion of options for all people in a society, which is a comprehensive concept because it includes men and women as the center of development, the protection of life opportunities for future generations, and the natural systems on which all life depends. The fundamental purpose is to create an enabling environment in which everyone can enjoy long, healthy, and creative lives, since economic growth is also a means for human development. Hence, what is relevant is to permit the industrial and technological development of peoples, but one that is tolerable in its use of the physical and social environment, in order to achieve economic and social progress. The responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of private parties, which justifies State intervention. Now then, it is precisely because of the binding nature of the environmental legal system that the decision cannot be arbitrary, and therefore the Administration's discretion is conditioned on respect for the body of legality, referring to the nature of the forest and the project or work, qualified as of "national convenience," which is defined in Article 2 of the Reglamento de la Ley Forestal, number 25.721-MINAE, as follows:

"Activities of national convenience are those related to the study and execution of projects or activities of public interest carried out by centralized dependencies or autonomous institutions or private enterprise, which provide benefits to all or a large part of society, such as: water catchment, transport, and supply; oil pipelines, road construction, electricity generation, transmission, and distribution, transport of mining activities, irrigation and drainage canals, recovery of areas with forestry vocation, conservation and sustainable management of forests, and others of a similar nature that MINAE determines according to the country's needs." As well as to respect for environmental principles and regulations, by virtue of which the performance of technical studies is mandated (Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) to certify the appropriateness of the project in the designated location, the impact that such works will have on the environment in order to determine the necessary compensatory measures to mitigate negative effects, submission to technical controls before, during, and after the construction of the works by the corresponding public authorities (in particular, MINAE and SETENA); a forestry regent (regente forestal) and a management plan (plan de manejo) are required (Articles 20 and 21 of the Ley Forestal) for its implementation, and of course, there is the possibility of revoking the permit if the requirements that allowed the authorization are not met, that is, if the environment is damaged; and naturally, to the reasonableness or proportionality of the measure, as the reference rules well provide, so that "the clearing of the forest shall be limited, proportional, and reasonable for the purposes set forth above." The possibility of changing the land use of private properties that have been previously affected for the preservation of the forest resource was based precisely on the concept of sustainable development that must be incorporated into the content of due environmental protection; with which, as already indicated, it is not only possible, but necessary to promote the economic and social development of the population—in compliance with the precept contained in the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution, according to which the State must strive for the greatest well-being for all inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth; clearly, in accordance with respect for environmental rules, otherwise a serious paralysis in the development of our country would be caused, neither desired nor intended by the constituents, nor by the legislators who had the responsibility of enacting the Law in question. Thus, this Court maintains the criterion previously expressed, noting that what is provided in the challenged rule is not harmful to the right to a healthy and balanced environment, since at the moment of specifying a project as one of national convenience, the environmental impacts produced by it must first be verified and a comparison made with the social benefits it entails, which cannot be verified abstractly in the rule, but in the analysis of each specific case, via an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) and not an unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad). On the other hand, the problem raised by the petitioner is based not on the unconstitutionality per se of the rule, but on the interpretation and application of this article by the Executive Branch in Decreto N.34801-MINAET issued for the specific case of the Crucitas Mining Project, reason for which, regarding these allegations, we are not faced with the prerequisites of an unconstitutionality action, but of an amparo appeal, based on the provisions of Article 73 subsection b) of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional—which provides that an unconstitutionality action will be admissible against subjective acts if they are not susceptible to habeas corpus or amparo appeals. Therefore, we are not only faced with a provision regarding which the Chamber has already determined that the alleged unconstitutionality does not exist, but also, what is alleged in this regard should have been the subject of an amparo appeal, as these are administrative actions susceptible to being heard in that venue, according to the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 29 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, since it is there where violations of Article 50 of the Constitution can or cannot be proven (see judgments numbers 1994-1160 at 10:30 a.m. on March 2, 1994, and 1994-3454 at ten thirty a.m. on July eight, nineteen ninety-four). Based on the foregoing, the appropriate course is to reject the action on the merits, as far as this rule is concerned. Magistrates Armijo and Molina declare the action against this rule with merit, with all its consequences.

VII.- Regarding Article 6 of the Código de Minería. The petitioner Defensoría requests the unconstitutionality of the first paragraph of this article, arguing that the word "all" recognizes all mining activity as being of public utility, ignoring that there are types of mining that are more polluting than others that directly violate the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution. It also alleges that "the environmental alterations produced by underground mining are lesser, less radical, less extensive, and less general than those produced by surface mining." This Court considers that it cannot be affirmed in a generalized manner that all mining activity harms the environment, without considering the mitigation of its impacts, and without assessing the social and economic effects produced around this industry in each specific case. As the Procuraduría General de la República rightly indicates, this activity, executed in a sustainable manner, both nationally and globally, is of great importance from the point of view of obtaining materials (sand, gravel, aggregates, clays for bricks, limestone and shales for cement manufacturing, as well as some fuels and other minerals) and raw materials essential for the final production of goods or the execution of infrastructure works. Furthermore, it is also not accurate to affirm that all open-pit mining is more harmful than underground mining, as this will depend on the processes applied to each of them. If the Executive Branch considers that a mining project can or should be declared of national convenience, it must have accredited the superiority of the benefits over the socio-environmental costs through the application of appropriate procedures or instruments. Therefore, incentivizing a specific activity is a matter of opportunity and convenience, as has been done in other economic areas of the country. Currently, for example, in Law No. 6990 "Ley de Incentivos de desarrollo Turístico," Article 1 declares the tourism industry of public utility, and in the "Ley sobre el régimen de productores, beneficiadores y exportadores de café," Law No. 2762, Article 2 declares matters relating to the production, processing, marketing, quality, and prestige of Costa Rican coffee to be of public interest, for all the purposes set forth in this law." On the other hand, an integral reading of Article 6 in question must be made, because although it begins by stating that all mining activity is declared of public utility, both in exploration works and in exploitation works, and that the concentration, beneficiation, transformation, transport of mineral substances, and the privately or state-owned lands necessary for those purposes will have the same character, the rule continues by stating the following: "Except with express authorization from the Legislative Assembly, permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned, according to the analysis of the studies on the social and environmental impact that are conducted, in which the affected communities shall participate, when such studies relate to the health and safety of the inhabitants of communities located near transportation routes, aqueducts, oil pipelines, fuel deposits, explosives, civil defense works, towns, cemeteries, airports, hydroelectric plants, or works of public importance. The studies on the social and environmental impact shall contemplate an analysis of the alternative use of the land in various economic activities. The environmental impact analysis shall include the distances and other conditions for each specific permit referred to in this article. Permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned for reasons of national interest. In the event of rescission, the national interest shall be declared by the Legislative Assembly." Therefore, we are not faced with an unrestricted authorization, since this regulation must be applied in accordance with the environmental protection guaranteed by the Political Constitution in Article 50. According to the interpretation that this Chamber has given to this provision and to the international agreements signed by our country on environmental matters, the environment must be understood as a development potential to be used appropriately, acting in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships, since otherwise, its productivity is degraded for the present and the future, and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems arise when the methods of exploiting natural resources lead to a degradation of ecosystems exceeding their regeneration capacity, which results in broad sectors of the population being harmed and a high environmental and social cost being generated that leads to a deterioration in the quality of life; because precisely the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain a development and evolution favorable to human beings. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that although humans have the right to use the environment for their own development, they also have the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter of the principle of "injury," already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On the one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself. Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy operating. Soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as living space, food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation—would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources. On the other hand, the goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of human beings and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, environmental quality and the survival of other species. Speaking of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life means speaking of the demand for natural resources at an individual level and the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products. The declaration made at the Earth Summit in 1992 proclaimed and recognized the integral and interdependent nature of the planet; this implies the acceptance of certain principles that inform the transition from current development styles to sustainability. The signatory States, among which is Costa Rica, committed themselves, within the preservation of sustainable development, to the protection above all of human beings. The starting point was the principle that every person has the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature; the right of present and future generations to ensure that development is carried out in such a way as to satisfy their environmental and development needs was included; the sovereign power of States to exploit their resources was maintained, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure that activities carried out within their jurisdiction and control do not cause environmental damage to other States or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction. They established the duty of States to cooperate in the conservation, protection, and restoration of the environment and their common but differentiated responsibilities in that regard; thus, international cooperation in the promotion and support of economic growth and sustainable development will better address the problems of environmental degradation. Likewise, a special duty was imposed on developed countries based on their responsibility in the pursuit of sustainable development, given the evident pressure that the technologies they develop and the financial resources they possess exert on the global environment. That is why the rules aimed at protecting the environment must have a technical basis, because their application must stem from the conditions under which the use and exploitation of natural resources must be subject. This is so because, as the damage and pollution of the environment are assessable, the impact of these elements requires scientific analysis and treatment. Social, economic, and environmental factors were aspects evaluated by the legislators when they reformed the Código de Minería through Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982. From the minutes of the respective legislative record, it can be deduced that their intention was to enact a new Código de Minería that was essential to modernize the legislation in force and provide an adequate legal framework for the needs of the new stage of development in the mining sector, because the legislation existing at that time was very deficient and there was no national mining policy for promotion and development, as was the case in other sectors of the economy. In their discussion, they had a diagnosis of the mining sector in Costa Rica issued in December 1978 by the OAS (folio 598 of volume III), with the aim of identifying the problems of mining activity in the country, and a study was requested from the Universidad Nacional, Facultad de Ciencias, Tierra y Mar, Escuela de Ciencias Ambientales, which was issued by Engineer Carlos Torres Acosta in January 1980. Likewise, they were advised with the presence of several specialists in geology, environmentalists, and others, as well as foreign advice from the government of Venezuela, where an inspection was even carried out, and finally the legislative text was modified, including a chapter on environmental protection. Thus, it was clear to the legislator that although their intention was to incentivize an economic activity that was abandoned in our country due to deficient legislation, the importance of preventing any damage to the environment was not set aside, and therefore a prior study was required for any mining exploration or exploitation. As previously indicated, the Chamber recognizes the need for a balanced interrelationship between the critical elements of economic development (tourism, investment, employment, infrastructure, sound finances, and the tax system), social policy (education, health, security), and environmental protection. However, the responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of private parties, which justifies State intervention. The foregoing, because excessive protection of the environment that nullifies all economic activity can cause private parties to incur disproportionate and unnecessary costs, making some productive activities ruinous and generating poverty and unemployment, which would negatively impact people. But equally, uncontrolled and irresponsible economic activity can produce irreversible damage to the ecosystem, which is why the application of the principle "in dubio pro natura" is imperative, in the sense that if there is doubt as to whether an activity produces environmental damage or not, its protection must be prioritized, and consequently, said activity must be limited or prohibited. However, the determination of that doubt cannot and should not be left to the discretion of groups, whatever they may be, but rather to technical studies, since this principle will apply when there is a danger of serious or irreversible damage to the environment. Precisely Article 3 of the Código de Minería provides that every exploration permit or exploitation concession requires prior analysis and approval of the environmental impact study or assessment (estudio o evaluación de impacto ambiental). The foregoing, because undoubtedly the effects produced by a mining project require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) due to the consequences usually produced in the development of the mining industry, and this prior assessment will determine whether the project is environmentally viable. As a result of the foregoing, the declaration of public utility of an activity such as mining is not unconstitutional per se, as long as it is interpreted in light of the provisions of Article 50 of our Political Constitution according to the terms set forth. Magistrates Armijo, Cruz, and Molina dissent and declare Article 6 cited unconstitutional with all its consequences.

VIII.- Regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 3 subsection m) of the Ley Forestal. The petitioner alleges that the concept of "activity of national convenience" that impacts the environment in the way it is developed in open-pit mining is not an activity of national convenience, and that therefore, the interpretation and application being given in Decreto 34801-MINAET is unconstitutional, for contradicting Article 50 of the Political Constitution. On this aspect, it must be noted that in the first place, the challenged Article 3 simply constitutes a reference rule within the Ley Forestal, since it establishes the definitions of some important concepts for the purpose of applying forestry legislation. Note that subsection m) does nothing more than define what should be understood as a matter of national convenience:

"…m) Activities of national convenience: Activities carried out by the centralized dependencies of the State, autonomous institutions, or private enterprise, whose social benefits are greater than the socio-environmental costs. The balance shall be made using the appropriate instruments." What is provided in that sense does not make the provision unconstitutional, since as indicated, it constitutes a mere reference of what should be understood as a matter of national convenience, in those rules where the legislation so states. Any unconstitutionality related to Article 50 of the Political Constitution would have to be verified in each particular case in which said definition has been applied and that affected the right to a healthy and balanced environment. From the petitioner's own allegation, it is evident that in reality their disagreement is not with the rule itself, but with the assessment and application that the Executive Branch made of it in Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35801-MINAET, which is not suitable for determination via an unconstitutionality action, but rather constitutes subject matter for an amparo appeal in that sense. That is why, with respect to this study, it is appropriate to declare the action without merit as far as this rule is concerned.

IX.- Regarding decreto No. 34801-MINAET. As the majority of the Chamber held in judgments No. 2008-17292 and 2008-17293, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, which declares the Crucitas Mining Project to be of public interest and national convenience, is a concrete and particularized provision, with no general scope or normative character, which is limited to qualifying the public interest and national convenience of a project clearly individualized in terms of subject and content. Therefore, if the questioned provision infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, this must be examined in the amparo venue and not in the (residual) action venue (in the same sense, No. 1993-4422 at 10:30 a.m. on September 7, 1993). Consequently, the action must be flatly rejected as to these points. Magistrates Armijo, Cruz, and Molina dissent and order the continuation of the proceedings of the action.

X.- Also challenged are the resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, number N° 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, which approves the Estudio de Impacto Ambiental and grants Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) to the Crucitas Mining Project, and N° 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, which approved the Modification of the Crucitas Mining Project, for contravening Article 50 of the Political Constitution. The Chamber observes that these resolutions do not have general scope or normative character, but were issued to resolve particular cases. In similar situations, the Chamber's jurisprudence has been reiterated to the effect that the avenue for challenging acts of this nature is not the unconstitutionality action but the amparo appeal—see judgment No. 2005-16773 at 4:50 p.m. on November 30, 2005—, so the appropriate course is to also flatly reject the action regarding these points, and order that the filing document be separated and certified, so that it can be processed as an amparo appeal regarding what pertains to the interpretation and application of Article 3 subsection m) and Article 19 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal, as well as the challenge of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET and the resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.

XI.- Conclusion. In light of all the foregoing, it is appropriate to declare the action with merit only regarding Articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Código de Minería, as well as, by connection, Articles 24 subsection ch) and 105, first paragraph, of the same Code, for violating Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Likewise, reject on the merits the action against Article 19 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal, based on the precedents of this Court, declare the action without merit with respect to Article 3 subsection m) of the same Law as it is a mere definition as a reference framework for forestry legislation, and finally; flatly reject the action regarding the alleged unconstitutional interpretation and application of numbers 3 subsection m) and 19 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal in Decreto Ejecutivo Number 34801-MINAET; the challenge of Decreto Ejecutivo Number 34801-MINAET itself and of the resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, numbers 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, and 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, as these are matters reviewable via amparo, being faced with the application of a concrete and particularized provision. Regarding Article 6 of the Código de Minería, it is declared without merit as long as it is interpreted in accordance with Article 50 in the terms set forth in this judgment. Regarding the effects of the declaration of unconstitutionality decreed for Articles 34 subsection ch), 97 subsection g), and the related regulations of the Código de Minería, it is reiterated that in accordance with the current Article 3 of that same Code, the obligation remains for applicants for a mining exploration or exploitation concession to conduct the corresponding environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental), prior to any concession granted for such purposes.

Therefore:

It is unanimously declared that the action is granted with respect to articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Código de Minería and, consequently, articles 24 subsection ch) and 105 first paragraph of the Código de Minería are annulled for being unconstitutional and by connection. Regarding article 6 of the Código de Minería, by majority it is declared that it is not unconstitutional, provided it is interpreted in accordance with article 50 of the Constitución Política in the terms of this judgment. Unanimously, the action is declared without merit in relation to article 3 subsection m) of the Ley Forestal. By majority, it is rejected on the merits regarding article 19 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal. In relation to articles 1 and 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo Número 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, by majority the action is summarily rejected. Regarding the resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, numbers 3638-2005-SETENA of 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, and 170-2008-SETENA of 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, they are unanimously summarily rejected. This judgment has declaratory and retroactive effects to the effective date of the annulled norms, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith and legal relationships or situations that may have been consolidated by statute of limitations (prescripción), expiration (caducidad), or by virtue of a judgment having the authority of res judicata (cosa juzgada material). In relation to the declared unconstitutionality of articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Código de Minería, Magistrates Armijo, Cruz, and Molina give additional reasons. Likewise, they dissent (salvan el voto) and declare article 6 of the Código de Minería unconstitutional with its consequences; and regarding Decreto No. 34801-MINAET they dissent (salvan el voto) and order to continue with the proceeding as established in vote No. 2008-17292. Magistrates Armijo and Molina also declare article 19 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal unconstitutional with its consequences. Let this pronouncement be communicated to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. Let this pronouncement be summarized in the Diario oficial La Gaceta and published in its entirety in the Boletín Judicial. Let it be notified.

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

Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. José Luis Molina Q.

Dissenting vote (Voto salvado) of Magistrates Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro, and Molina Quesada, with the writing of the first:

I.- The undersigned Magistrates disagree with the criterion held by the majority of this Tribunal Constitucional in judgment No. 2009-17155 of 2:55 p.m. on November 5, 2009, in that it has refused, on the one hand, to declare the unconstitutionality of article 6° of the Código de Minería and, on the other, to continue with the proceeding of the action regarding the challenge of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET.

II.- On the contrary, it is considered that article 6° of the Código de Minería is unconstitutional, insofar as this provision can be used to circumvent the scope of the right protected in article 50 of the Constitución Política, as well as in the International Instruments on Human Rights relating to the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This provision has no other purpose than to disregard the entire protection regime for environmental matters due to mining exploitation (explotación minera), which is why its unconstitutionality is manifest. The broad and unrestricted declaration of mining as being of public utility, as provided in the first paragraph of the sixth article of the mining code, defines as a priority for economic and social development an activity that contravenes the content and scope of article fifty of the constitution; the nature and harmful effects on the environment of mining activity in general, and particularly open-pit metallic mining, does not justify the creation of a privileged legal regime; for this reason, it is contrary to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment to declare all mining activity as being of priority public interest. The Constitution itself defines very well what is of national utility: the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Based on this unquestionable value and principle, it is not possible to admit that an activity that has such a negative impact on the environment as mining can be considered of national utility. The content of the second paragraph of article six of the mining code does not resolve the constitutional defect contained in the first paragraph of said norm; it is a provision that keeps unalterable a priority that, due to its generic and unlimited content, is not compatible with a provision of such importance as the one contained in article fifty of the Constitution. This interpretation does not imply the absolute exclusion of mining activity; however, it is not admissible for a norm to declare, in the abstract and without any nuance, that mining is of public utility.

III.- Finally, the Magistrates subscribing to this dissenting vote (voto salvado) do not appreciate any circumstance that prevents the examination, in this action of unconstitutionality, of the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET, which declares the Proyecto Minero Crucitas of public interest and national convenience, which is why the proceeding of the action regarding the challenge of this norm must be continued.

IV.- For the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrates dissent (salvan su voto) in the terms indicated.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

Dissenting vote (Voto salvado) of Magistrates Armijo Sancho and Molina Quesada:

I.- The undersigned Magistrates dissent (salvan el voto) and declare contrary to the Law of the Constitution what is provided by article 19 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal insofar as it establishes national convenience as an exception to forest protection. The foregoing is particularly evident in the case of the Proyecto Minero Crucitas, in which the socio-environmental costs are much greater than the social costs. On this point, in the Dissenting Vote (Voto salvado) of Magistrate Armijo Sancho in judgment No. 2006-17126, the following was indicated regarding the conformity of articles 19 subsection b) and 34 of the Ley Forestal: "I disagree with the criterion held by the majority of the Tribunal Constitucional in judgment N°2006-17126 of 3:04 p.m. on November 28, 2004, in that it declares this action of unconstitutionality without merit, it being considered that articles 19 subsection b) and 34 of the Ley Forestal do not violate the Law of the Constitution. On the contrary, the undersigned Magistrate dissents (salva el voto) and declares this matter granted, since it is clearly evident that the challenged norms grant authorization to public institutions to violate the right protected in article 50 of the Constitución Política, which from no point of view should be circumvented by this Tribunal Constitucional. The foregoing because these norms empower the State Forest Administration to carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience, on projects that have previously been declared protection areas, and on which there is a prohibition on cutting or eliminating trees. The nonsense of the challenged norms is evident, then, as they configure a regime of exception to the protection contemplated in the Ley Forestal. For the foregoing, I dissent (salvo mi voto) and declare the action granted, declaring unconstitutional articles 19 subsection b) and 34 of the Ley Forestal, Ley N°7575".

II.- For the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrates dissent (salvan el voto) and declare the action granted, insofar as it is directed against article 19 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal, in the terms indicated.

Gilbert Armijo S. José Luis Molina Q.

Separate note (Nota separada) of Magistrates Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro, and Molina Quesada with the writing of the first:

At this point, although it was initially intended to record some additional reasons in a separate note for declaring what is provided by articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 of the Código de Minería contrary to the Law of the Constitution, once the arguments presented by the majority of the Tribunal Constitucional to sustain this unconstitutionality were read, we consider it unnecessary to make said note, but only to reiterate that these provisions are unconstitutional, to the extent that they establish that the environmental impact study requirement is subsequent to the granting of the mining concession (concesión minera), which is contrary to article 50 of the Constitution, as well as to various International Instruments regarding environmental protection that are applicable in the national territory.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional *080149000007CO* **Exp: 08-014900-0007-CO** **Res. Nº 2009017155** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and zero minutes on the fifth of November, two thousand nine.** Unconstitutionality action brought by FREDDY PACHECO LEON, of legal age, divorced, Doctor in Biological Sciences, with identity card number 0103490573, resident of San Pablo de Heredia; against Articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Mining Code, Law 6797 of 04-10-1982 and its amendments.

**Resultando:** **1.-** By means of a written brief received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:16 hours on the 3rd of November, two thousand eight, the plaintiff requests that the unconstitutionality of Articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Mining Code be declared. He alleges that the rules are challenged in that they postpone the submission of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) until after the concession for the exploitation of mining developments has been granted, thereby reversing the logical process based on legislation and technical-scientific standards with respect to those human activities—such as the mining industry—capable of negatively impacting the environment and which, consequently, require prior studies of their environmental and social repercussions or consequences, as well as their economic quantification, in order to analyze them in contrast to the gains or advantages of the proposed project. The challenged rules authorize the Executive Branch to grant mining exploitation concessions of high environmental impact without the need to verify beforehand the negative environmental effects of the specific mining project and without the developer having the prior obligation to demonstrate, technically and scientifically, that it is capable of mitigating and compensating for such environmental damages so that they do not have irreversible effects. He considers that the only way to guarantee that a specific development project is not contrary to the environment is through the technical-scientific procedure called “environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental),” which allows the identification and prediction of what effects it will have on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making. He believes that the rules of the Mining Code challenged here should have been repealed years ago because they contradict higher-ranking precepts that were incorporated into the national legal system, especially since the reform of constitutional Article 50—which incorporated the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment—and therefore these rules are null and void by operation of law, “as they are affected by supervening unconstitutionality (inconstitucionalidad sobreviniente).” In light of International Environmental Law, a violation also occurs since the Costa Rican State, by not requiring for the mining industry the prior environmental impact study before granting the concession for the respective exploitation, is violating the preventive and precautionary principles (principios preventivo y precautorio), which in our legal system constitute parameters of constitutionality. In practice and in relation to a specific case of mining exploitation, the environmental impact study becomes the ideal technical-scientific instrument so that the environmental administration can make decisions regarding the authorization of a specific mining development, assessing and classifying the environmental risks. It is only through this procedure that it can determine, in application of the preventive and precautionary principles, the regulatory measures for the operation of the project under approval, whether to establish permanent or temporary operating limits, to require specific processes or technologies, or to prohibit it in its entirety.

It states that this Chamber has held that those provisions that exempt or reduce the requirements for environmental impact assessment of human activities prior to their development violate the Right of the Constitution and, specifically, the precautionary principle. For example, in judgment 2008-15760 of 14:30 hours on October 23, 2008, this jurisprudential line was confirmed, by establishing that it is unconstitutional to postpone the presentation of the environmental impact assessment until after a concession is granted for the construction, administration, and exploitation of tourist marinas and docks, as it disregards the state duty to preventively protect the environment and limits the right to citizen participation in matters related to it. It considers that the decision applies mutatis mutandis to the norms of the Mining Code challenged here. Finally, the cited precepts are also contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution, as they do not comply with the principle of juridicity of the Administration (principle of legality), with the aggravating factor that they authorize acts by the environmental Administration and the Executive Branch, declarative of subjective rights in favor of private parties, by granting concessions for the exploitation of mineral deposits for industrial use, without prior approval of the respective environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental); acts that if later reversed for having been issued against the technical norms governing the matter, generate State liability and the obligation to indemnify.&nbsp;<span style='color:#010101'> </span></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;\r\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Drafted by Magistrate <b>Calzada Miranda</b>; and,</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p align=center style='text-align:center'><b><span lang=EN style='font-family:\r\n\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Considering:</span></b><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><b><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I.-</span></b><span\r\nlang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'> </span><b><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>On admissibility. </span></b><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes the admissibility requirements for unconstitutionality actions. Thus, the first paragraph requires the existence of a prior matter, in a judicial or administrative venue, in which the unconstitutionality of the norm is invoked, as a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest considered harmed. The general rule of the need for a prior matter is thus conceptualized, with the possibilities of directly appealing to the Chamber being exceptional, and which are regulated in the second paragraph in those cases in which <i>&quot;[...] by the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct injury, or it involves the defense of diffuse interests (intereses difusos), or those that concern the community as a whole&quot;. </i>The Chamber has indicated that diffuse interests are those whose ownership belongs to groups of people not formally organized, but united based on a specific social need, a physical characteristic, their ethnic origin, a particular personal or ideological orientation, the consumption of a certain product, etc. The interest, in these cases, is blurred, diluted (diffuse) among an unidentified plurality of subjects. In these cases, of course, the challenge that a member of one of these sectors could make under paragraph 2 of Article 75 must necessarily refer to provisions that affect them as such. Thus, through the various resolutions of this Chamber, the existence of a diffuse interest in claims against the violation of the environment has been recognized, precisely in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, based on which a theory of direct standing has been developed in these cases. The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has been conceptualized as a &quot;third generation&quot; right, which is a right and duty of every inhabitant, and as such, its values enjoy privileged protection through which any person can claim its protection, precisely based on the authorization conferred in this regard by Article 75, paragraph 2 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, meaning that the unconstitutionality action can be directly filed, which is why, in cases where neither the interested party nor the resolution admitting the action indicates this special standing, the filed action is admissible, as long as it becomes a means of protecting that type of interest when what is claimed is the protection of the environment and natural resources.</span><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>II.-&nbsp;\r\nOn the standing of the plaintiffs in the specific case. </b>This Tribunal considers that the plaintiff Freddy Pacheco León is duly legitimized to bring action in this venue directly, that is, without the need for a prior matter, since as already indicated, there is a legitimate interest of citizens in general regarding the adequate protection of the environment, whereby it can well be said that it concerns the existence of a diffuse interest in relation to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Likewise, the Defensoría de los Habitantes is duly legitimized not only due to the existence of diffuse interests, but also because it holds direct standing in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.&nbsp; </span><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>III.-\r\nJoinders. </b>The passive joinders presented on July 23, 2009 by Juan María González in his capacity as President of the Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica (folio 211), on July 24, 2009 by Juan Carlos Hernández Jiménez in his capacity as special general attorney-in-fact of the company Industrias Infinito S.A. (folio 215), by Jorge Herrera Ocampo in his capacity as Executive Director of the Colegio de Geólogos de Costa Rica (folio 230), and Marco Vinicio Solís Rojas in his capacity as President of the Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Turismo de la Zona Norte (folio 232) are admitted. The foregoing for complying with the provisions of Article 83 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, for having filed them on time and demonstrating a legitimate interest in the resolution of this matter.</span><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><b><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";mso-ansi-language:EN'>III.- Object of\r\nthe challenge</span></b><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\ncolor:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>. The plaintiffs challenge Articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) and 6.1 of the Código de Minería, Articles 3 subsection m) and 19 of the Ley Forestal, 1 and 2 of Decreto No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, and resolutions No. 3638-2005-SETENA of 9 hours 25 minutes on December 12, 2005, which grants environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to the Proyecto Minero Crucitas, as well as resolution No. 170-2008 of 12 hours 50 minutes on February 4, 2008, which approves a subsequent modification of that project, deeming them contrary to Article 50 of the Political Constitution and Article 14 subsection 1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America, and the Charter of the Organization of American States, and to the principles relating to environmental protection: the principle of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the pro natura principle, the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, and the “pro homine” principle. For better understanding, the norms under study are cited below:</span><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>From\r\nthe Código de Minería: </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>“Article 34.- The holder of an exploitation concession (concesión de explotación) shall be obliged to: </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\ncolor:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(…) </span></i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\ncolor:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>ch) Prepare a complete study on the environmental impact of the exploitation process, which meets the requirements set forth in Article 97; and comply with the norms that regulate environmental contamination and the recovery of renewable natural resources.(…)” </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\ncolor:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>“Article 97.- The Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce, through the Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos, shall be responsible for all the functions currently held by that Directorate, in addition to the following, specifically related to mining activity: </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\ncolor:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(…) </span></i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\ncolor:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>g) The Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos shall communicate to the holders of exploration permits the norms for the preparation of studies on environmental impact, as well as the specific norms for environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources. These norms shall be prepared by the corresponding governmental body, with the participation of the professional associations of biologists, geologists, chemists, and engineers, and of the universities.” </span></i><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.85pt;\r\nmargin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>“Article 6°.- All mining activity is declared of public utility, both in exploration works and in exploitation works. The concentration, beneficiation, transformation, and transportation of mineral substances and the privately or state-owned lands necessary for these purposes shall have the same character.</span></i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.85pt;\r\nmargin-bottom:.0001pt'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";\r\nmso-ansi-language:EN'>Except with the express authorization of the Legislative Assembly, the permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned, according to the analysis of the studies on social and environmental impact that are conducted, in which the affected communities shall participate, when such studies relate to the health and safety of the inhabitants of communities located near transportation routes, aqueducts, oil pipelines, fuel depots, explosives, civil defense works, towns, cemeteries, airports, hydroelectric plants, or works of public importance. The studies on social and environmental impact shall include an analysis of the alternative use of the land in various economic activities. The analysis of environmental impact shall include the distances and other conditions for each specific permit referred to in this article. The permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned in the national interest. In the event of rescission, the national interest shall be declared by the Legislative Assembly. ” </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>From\r\nthe Ley Forestal: </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";mso-ansi-language:EN'>“Article 3°.- Definitions </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;\r\nFor the purposes of this law, the following is considered: </span></i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(…)\r\n</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>m)\r\nActivities of national convenience (conveniencia nacional): Activities carried out by the centralized agencies of the State, autonomous institutions, or private enterprise, whose social benefits are greater than the socio-environmental costs. The balance must be made using the appropriate instruments.” </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>“Article\r\n19.- Authorized activities </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>On\r\nlands covered by forest, land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) shall not be permitted, nor shall forest plantations be established. However, the State Forest Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) may grant a permit in these areas for the following purposes: </span></i><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(…)\r\n</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>b)\r\nCarry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience.” </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>From\r\nDecreto No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008: </span><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span\r\nlang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'>“Article 1.- The Proyecto Minero Crucitas developed by the company Industrias Infinito S.A. is declared of public interest and national convenience. </span></i><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><i><span\r\nlang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'>Article 2.- By virtue of this declaration, the developing company, with prior authorization from the corresponding office of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, may proceed with the cutting of trees (including species that are banned) and the development of infrastructure works in protection areas, as indicated in the project.” </span></i><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p><span lang=EN style='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>IV.-&nbsp;\r\nOn Articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g of the Código de Minería. </b><span\r\nstyle='color:#010101'>Both plaintiffs accuse that the cited articles of the Código de Minería violate Article 50 of the Constitution and Article 14 subsection 1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in that by referring these norms to “concessionaire”, it implies that the environmental impact study is a requirement demanded after the granting of the mining concession. The matter at hand has already been the subject of a pronouncement by this Tribunal. Recently, in the facultative legislative consultation of constitutionality regarding the bill for the “<i>Modification of several articles of Law No. 7744, Concession and Operation of Tourist Marinas</i>”, legislative file No. 14.836, in judgment No. 2008-15760 of 14:30 hours on October 23, 2008, it was ordered that preventive evaluations are an unavoidable requirement for guaranteeing the environment, in concordant application of Articles 21, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution. From Article 50 of the Fundamental Norm itself, it follows that it corresponds to the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right of every human being to “a healthy and ecologically balanced environment”. Even prior to the constitutional reform of Article 50, this Tribunal highlighted the requirement of environmental evaluation studies, conceived as technical studies in environmental matters, prior to the granting of rights in activities that could eventually harm the environment. In accordance with the foregoing, approving a regulation that seeks to invert the normal and natural order of administrative procedures, granting the concession for construction, administration, and exploitation before the Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed, would be unconstitutional, as it reverses the logical order of procedures, disregarding the State's duty to protect the integrity of the environment, enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Furthermore, if we adhere to the binding jurisprudence of this Tribunal, it is not admissible to deconstitutionalize the guarantee of a state response in defense of the environment, which must be timely and prior to the granting of the corresponding permits or concessions (see judgments numbers 6240-1993, 4245-2001, 1220-2002, 1221-2002, 6466-2002). In the case of Article 34 subsection ch), it is evident that the environmental impact study that is ordered must be carried out by <i>“the holder of an exploitation concession”</i>, which obviously assumes that the latter has been previously granted. Article 97 subsection g), for its part, imposes on the Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos the duty to communicate <i>“to the holders of exploration permits”</i> the norms for the preparation of environmental impact studies. So, both norms require this requirement, with the difference that the second does so in relation to an exploration permit and the first with an effective concession. Activities that in any case possess the capacity—albeit to a greater or lesser extent—to alter the environment from the moment they allow the permit holder to extract and dispose of “minimum necessary, non-commercial quantities of raw mineral substances” and even to make excavations (Articles 23 subsection c and 24 subsection e, <i>ibidem</i>).<b> </b>The inversion of the proper order of the factors in the norms under question had already been considered previously by the Chamber, only indirectly, since the study did not examine the merits of the law articles challenged here, but in relation to the Reglamento al Código de Minería, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE, given that what was claimed on that occasion was that the Regulation required the environmental impact study as a prerequisite to the granting of the concession, which contradicts what is provided in the law, which establishes it for the holder of the concession, i.e., subsequently. In this regard, in judgment No. 2001-04245 of 15:01 hours on May 23, 2001, the Chamber decided to reject the action on the merits, indicating on this topic that the argument was not acceptable, because the requirement established in Article 29 of the questioned Decree, which consists of the obligation to prepare an environmental impact study as a prerequisite to submitting the application for a permit or concession to the Registro Nacional Minero, did not contradict or modify the Código de Minería, since in the national legal system there are numerous norms that require, as an indispensable prerequisite for initiating activities, works, or projects that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate residues, toxic or hazardous materials, the prior approval of the environmental impact assessment. Thus, this requirement finds support in Articles 11, 21, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution, in numerous international instruments that are mandatory and enjoy full enforceability, among them the Rio Convention on Environment and Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Agenda 21, in Articles 92 to 97 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad, number 7788, Articles 17, 14 - 28, 31, 38, 44, 45, 56 to 72, 83, 88 to 89, 99, 98, and 101 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, number 7554, in numeral 6 b) of the Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos, number 7779, Article 41 of the Ley de Hidrocarburos, number 7399, in numerals 3, 6.2, 101, 102, and 103 of the Código de Minería, and in Articles 11, 239, and 240 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Likewise, in Article 3 of the Código de Minería itself, which provides that every exploration permit or exploitation concession requires the prior analysis and approval of the environmental impact study or assessment. That is, without entering properly into the analysis of the norms of the Code, it was considered that the order stipulated in its Regulation—environmental impact study prior to the granting of the concession—is constitutionally correct.<b> </b>Thus, and based on the set of cited jurisprudential precedents, the unconstitutionality of the norms under question in this case is evident and manifest for violating Article 50 of the Political Constitution, insofar as the factual assumptions contemplated in the challenged norms are the same as those that were the subject of exhaustive analysis by the Chamber in the mentioned rulings, as they do not conform to the precautionary principle, which imposes the need to adopt preventive measures, not only in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts, but also in the absence of certainty that such facts will indeed produce harmful effects on the environment. However, the consequence of nullity of this declaration does not imply the disappearance of the requirement, nor the unavoidable satisfaction of those environmental commitments that it is legitimate to demand from the concessionaire during the exploration or exploitation phase, as part of the control and monitoring measures that are strictly applicable in these cases, since Article 3 of the Código de Minería remains in force and states:</span></span><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:42.55pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:\r\n0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:\r\n\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";mso-ansi-language:EN'>“Explorations or exploitations of mineral substances may not be carried out without the prior exploration permit or exploitation concession. It shall be the responsibility of the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce, through the Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos, to grant exclusive exploration permits and exploitation concessions, after prior analysis and approval of the study conducted by the corresponding governmental control body on the environmental impact of such activities…”</span></i><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><span lang=EN\r\nstyle='font-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";mso-ansi-language:EN'>In this case, the rest of the legal system adequately fills the created void, through provisions that do not allow ignoring the need for environmental impact studies, which although at the discretion of the legislator their execution was entrusted to the applicant for the concession or exploration, are not exempt from the control that the technical body of the State performs over it, nor from the administrative as well as criminal responsibilities that may be imposed on those who participate in their preparation and the verification of the submitted information. Thus, it is absolutely clear that the pronouncement made here does not lead, in any way, to the omission of these studies, prior to the granting of the relevant permits or concessions.</span><span\r\nlang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> The Magistrates Armijo, Cruz, and Molina provide additional reasons.

**V.- Unconstitutionality by connection of Article 24, subsection ch) and the first paragraph of Article 105 of the Mining Code.** Now, Articles 24 and the first paragraph of Article 105 of the cited Code, concerning mining exploration permits and the obligations of the concessionaire (concesionario), contain provisions that, at first glance, share the defect of unconstitutionality detected in the challenged numerals 34 and 97. Indeed, these norms state:

*“Article 24.- The holder of an exploration permit (permiso) shall be obligated to:* *…ch) Prepare a preliminary environmental impact study (estudio preliminar del impacto ambiental), prior to exploration, specifying the scope of the activity as defined in Article ninety-three; and to comply with the regulations governing environmental contamination and the protection of renewable natural resources.”* *“Article 105.-* *To guarantee rational and sustainable use of national resources and protect their future uses, the concessionaires (concesionarios), in a prior and public manner, must conduct environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) of their activities…”* To the extent that the preparation of the environmental impact study is assigned as an obligation to the *“holder of an exploration permit,” or “concessionaire,” (concesionario)* the same deficiency discussed above is incurred, even though it must be carried out *“prior to exploration”*, since by then the right would already have been granted in violation of the rules and precepts already explained. Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law provides that the judgment declaring the unconstitutionality of a law or general provision shall also declare that of the other precepts thereof, or of any other law or provision whose annulment is evidently necessary by connection or consequence. To that extent, it is appropriate to extend the effects of the upholding of the action equally to the norms cited in the stated subsection and paragraph.

**VI. Regarding the challenged Article 19, subsection b) of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal).** The Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes), in its capacity as plaintiff, argues that the application of Article 19.2 of the Forestry Law is unconstitutional, because it establishes “national convenience (conveniencia nacional)” as an exception to forest protection. It acknowledges that to apply such an exception, the social benefits must be greater than the socio-environmental costs; however, referring to the particular case of the Crucitas Mining Project, it indicates that the interpretation and application being given is unconstitutional, since the socio-environmental costs are greater than the social costs. The challenged article is located within the Forestry Law in Title III “Private Forest Property (Propiedad Forestal Privada),” Chapter I “Forest Management (Manejo de Bosques),” which provides that on land covered by forest, <u>land-use change (cambio del uso del suelo)</u> shall not be permitted, nor shall forest plantations be established. However, the State Forest Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) may grant permission in those areas, for certain specific purposes, among which is subsection b, which authorizes it to carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience (conveniencia nacional). This particular norm was the subject of a ruling by this Court in judgment No. 2006-17126, in which, after analyzing the guiding principles in environmental matters, the Chamber concluded that both Article 19, subsection b) challenged here and Article 34 of the Forestry Law are not contrary to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided that it is not an authorization for public institutions to “legitimately” harm the environment, nor is it an exception regime. On that occasion, it was clearly established that the possibility of land-use change that is known is reserved solely for private forest assets, with which the natural heritage of the State is not “affected” (Articles 1, second paragraph and 18 of the Forestry Law). Likewise, it is only on the occasion of an emergency or exception situation under the terms provided in Article 180 of the Constitution (“to satisfy urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal commotion or public calamity”) that the binding nature of environmental regulations can be excepted – just like the rest of the legal system, as this Court considered in the cited judgment number 1992-2340. By virtue of this, environmental regulations (principles and norms) are of irrefutable application for public institutions, regarding the fulfillment of the purposes entrusted (public management), in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution. It is true that the challenged norms do foresee the case in which the destination of private properties subject to an affectation on the State’s forest assets can be modified, to allow the construction of infrastructure works of social convenience, but as was duly established, <u>it is not an exception regime that authorizes public institutions to contaminate the environment,</u> because equally, the case to which one intends to apply it must be subject to the environmental regulations in force. What is established in this provision refers to properties on which a limitation of evident social interest has been imposed, based on the purpose of preservation and protection of the environment, hence the general rule was contemplated as the impossibility of its change of use (first paragraph of Article 19 and first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 34 of the Forestry Law); however, given the purpose of the general interest of the national community, both rights must be weighed and their use balanced in accordance with a principle of sustainable human development, according to which the need for a balanced inter-relationship is recognized between the critical elements of economic development (tourism, investment, employment, infrastructure, sound finances, and tax system), social policy (education, health, security), and environmental protection. This development has been defined by the United Nations as the expansion of options for all people in a society, which is a comprehensive concept because it includes men and women as the center of development, the protection of opportunities in the lives of future generations, and the natural systems on which life in its entirety depends. The fundamental purpose is the creation of an enabling environment in which everyone can enjoy long, healthy, and creative lives, since economic growth is also a means for human development. Hence, what is relevant is to allow industrial and technological development of peoples, but tolerable when using the physical and social environment, in order to achieve economic and social progress. The responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of private parties, justifying State intervention. Now, it is precisely because of the binding nature of the environmental legal order that the decision cannot be arbitrary, and therefore the Administration's discretion is conditioned on respect for the legality block, referring to the nature of the forest and the project or work, classified as of "national convenience (conveniencia nacional)", which is defined in Article 2 of the Regulation to the Forestry Law (Reglamento de la Ley Forestal), number 25.721-MINAE, as follows:

*"Activities of national convenience (conveniencia nacional) are those related to the study and execution of projects or activities of public interest carried out by centralized dependencies or autonomous institutions or private enterprise, that provide benefits to all or a large part of society, such as: water catchment, transport, and supply; oil pipelines, road construction, electricity generation, transmission, and distribution, transport of mining activities, irrigation and drainage canals, recovery of areas with forestry vocation, conservation and sustainable management of forests, and others of a similar nature determined by MINAE according to the country's needs."* As well as respect for environmental principles and regulations, by virtue of which the performance of technical studies is required (Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law) to accredit the relevance of the project in the arranged location, the impact that such works will have on the environment in order to determine the compensatory measures necessary to mitigate the negative effects, submission to technical controls before, during, and after the execution of the works by the corresponding public authorities (in particular, MINAE and SETENA); a forestry regent (regente forestal) and a management plan (plan de manejo) are required (Articles 20 and 21 of the Forestry Law) for its implementation, and of course, the possibility of revocation of the permit exists if the requirements that allowed the authorization are not met, that is, if the environment is damaged; and of course, to the reasonableness or proportionality of the measure, as the reference norms well foresee, so that "the cutting of the forest shall be limited, proportional, and reasonable for the purposes set forth above." The possibility of land-use change for private properties that have been previously affected for the preservation of the forest resource was grounded precisely in the concept of sustainable development that must be incorporated into the content of due environmental protection; whereby, as already indicated, it is not only possible but necessary to promote the economic and social development of the population – in compliance with the precept contained in the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution, according to which the State must procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth; of course, in accordance with respect for environmental norms, otherwise a serious paralysis in the development of our country would be caused, neither desired nor intended by the constituents, nor by the legislators who had the responsibility of enacting the Law in question. Thus, this Court maintains the criterion previously expressed, noting that what is provided in the challenged norm is not harmful to the right to a healthy and balanced environment, because at the time of concretizing a project as one of national convenience (conveniencia nacional), the environmental impacts produced by it must be previously verified and a comparison made with the social benefits it entails, which cannot be verified abstractly in the norm, but in the analysis of each specific case, via an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) and not an unconstitutionality action. On the other hand, the problem raised by the plaintiff is based not on the unconstitutionality per se of the norm, but on the interpretation and application of this article by the Executive Branch in Decree N.34801-MINAET issued for the specific case of the Crucitas Mining Project, reason for which regarding these allegations, we are not facing the prerequisites of an unconstitutionality action, but of an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), based on what is dictated in Article 73, subsection b) of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law – which provides that the unconstitutionality action shall be admissible against subjective acts if they are not susceptible to habeas corpus or amparo appeals-. Thus, we are not only facing a provision regarding which the Chamber has already determined that the alleged unconstitutionality does not exist, but moreover, what was alleged in this sense should have been the subject of an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), as it concerns administrative actions susceptible to being heard through that channel, according to the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 29 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, because it is there that violations of Article 50 of the Constitution may or may not be proven (see judgments numbers 1994-1160 of 10:30 a.m. on March 2, 1994, and 1994-3454 of ten-thirty a.m. on July eight, nineteen ninety-four). By reason of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to reject the action on the merits, regarding this norm. Magistrates Armijo and Molina uphold the action against this norm with all its consequences.

**VII.- Regarding Article 6 of the Mining Code.** The plaintiff Office of the Ombudsman requests the unconstitutionality of the first paragraph of this article, arguing that the word “all (toda)” recognizes all mining activity as being of public utility, ignoring that there are types of mining that are more contaminating than others that directly violate the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution. It also alleges that “the environmental alterations produced by underground mining are smaller, less radical, less extensive, and less general than those produced by surface mining.” This Court considers that it cannot be affirmed in a generalized manner that all mining activity harms the environment, without considering the mitigation of its impacts, and without assessing the social and economic effects that occur around this industry in each specific case. As the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República) well indicates, this activity, executed in a sustainable manner, both nationally and worldwide, is of great importance from the point of view of obtaining materials (sand (arena), gravel, aggregates, clays for bricks, limestone and shales for cement manufacturing, as well as some fuels and other minerals) and raw materials indispensable for the final elaboration of products or the execution of infrastructure works. Furthermore, it is also not accurate to affirm that all open-pit mining is more harmful than underground mining, as this will depend on the application processes for each of them. If the Executive Branch deems that a mining project can or should be declared of national convenience (conveniencia nacional), it must have accredited the superiority of the benefits over the socio-environmental costs through the application of appropriate procedures or instruments. Thus, incentivizing a specific activity is a matter of opportunity and convenience, as has been done in other economic areas of the country. Currently, for example, in Law No. 6990 “Law on Tourism Development Incentives”, Article 1 declares the tourism industry to be of public utility, and in the “Law on the regime of coffee producers, processors, and exporters”, Law No. 2762, Article 2 declares matters relating to the production, processing, marketing, quality, and prestige of Costa Rican coffee to be of public interest, for all the purposes indicated in this law.” On the other hand, an integral reading of Article 6 in question must be made, because although it begins by stating that all mining activity is declared of public utility, both in exploration and exploitation works, and that the concentration, beneficiation, transformation, transportation of mineral substances and the lands of private or state property necessary for these purposes shall have the same character, the norm continues by stating the following: *“Except with express authorization from the Legislative Assembly, the permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned, according to the analysis of the social and environmental impact studies that are conducted, in which the affected communities shall participate, when such studies relate to the health and safety of the inhabitants of communities located near transportation routes, aqueducts, oil pipelines, fuel depots, explosives, civil defense works, towns, cemeteries, airports, hydroelectric plants, or works of public importance. The social and environmental impact studies shall contemplate an analysis of the alternative land use in various economic activities. The environmental impact analysis shall include the distances and other conditions for each specific permit referred to in this article. The permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned by reason of national interest. In case of rescission, the national interest shall be declared by the Legislative Assembly.”* So we are not facing an unrestricted authorization, because this regulation must be applied in accordance with the environmental protection guaranteed by the Political Constitution in Article 50. According to the interpretation that this Chamber has given to this provision and to the international agreements signed by our country on environmental matters, the environment must be understood as a potential for development to be used appropriately, and it must be acted upon in an integrated manner in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political order relationships, since, otherwise, its productivity is degraded for the present and the future, and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the modes of exploiting natural resources lead to a degradation of ecosystems exceeding their regeneration capacity, which leads to large sectors of the population being harmed and a high environmental and social cost being generated, resulting in a deterioration of the quality of life; because precisely the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain development and evolution favorable to the human being. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is to understand that while man has the right to use the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter, of the principle of "injury (lesión)", already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On the one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself. Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy operating. The soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands – such as living space, food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation – would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources. On the other hand, the goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, of environmental quality and the survival of other species. To speak of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is to speak of the demand for natural resources at the individual level and the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer products, production, and export. The declaration made at the Earth Summit in 1992 proclaimed and recognized the integral and interdependent nature of the planet; this means the acceptance of certain principles that inform the transition from current development styles to sustainability. The signatory States, among which Costa Rica figures, committed, within the preservation of sustainable development, to the protection above all of the human being. It started from the principle that every person has the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature; it included the right of present and future generations that development be carried out in such a way that it satisfies their environmental and progress needs; the sovereign power of States to exploit their resources was maintained, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure that activities carried out within their jurisdiction and control do not cause environmental damage to other States or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction. They established the duty of States to cooperate in the conservation, protection, and restoration of the environment and their common responsibilities in that sense; in this way, international cooperation in the promotion and support of economic growth and sustainable development will allow for better addressing the problems of environmental degradation. Likewise, a special duty was imposed on developed countries based on their responsibility in the pursuit of sustainable development, given the evident pressure that the technologies they develop and the financial resources they possess exert on the global environment. That is why norms aimed at protecting the environment must have a technical basis, because their application must start from the conditions under which the use and exploitation of natural resources must be subject. This is so because, as environmental damages and contamination are evaluable, the impact of these elements requires scientific analysis and treatment. Social, economic, and environmental factors were aspects valued by the legislators when they reformed the Mining Code through Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982. From the records of the respective legislative file, it is clear that their intention was to enact a new Mining Code that was essential to modernize the legislation in force and provide an adequate legal framework to the needs of the new stage of development of the mining sector, since the existing legislation at that time was very deficient and there was no national mining policy for promotion and development, as existed in other sectors of the economy. In their discussion, they had a diagnosis of the mining sector in Costa Rica issued in December 1978, by the OAS (folio 598 of volume III), in order to identify the problems of mining activity in the country, just as a study was requested from the National University, Faculty of Earth and Sea Sciences, School of Environmental Sciences, which was issued by Engineer Carlos Torres Acosta in January 1980. Likewise, they sought advice with the presence of various specialists in geology, environmentalists, and others, as well as foreign advisory services from the government of Venezuela, where an inspection was even carried out, and finally the legislative text was modified, including a chapter on environmental protection. Thus, it was clear to the legislator that, although their intention was to incentivize an economic activity that was abandoned in our country due to deficient legislation, the importance of preventing any damage produced to the environment was not set aside, and for this reason a study was required prior to any mining exploration or exploitation. As previously indicated, the Chamber recognizes the need for a balanced inter-relationship between the critical elements of economic development (tourism, investment, employment, infrastructure, sound finances, and tax system), social policy (education, health, security), and environmental protection. However, the responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of private parties, justifying State intervention. The foregoing, because excessive environmental protection that annuls all economic activity can cause private parties to incur disproportionate and unnecessary costs, making some productive activities ruinous and generating poverty and unemployment, which would negatively impact people. But equally, uncontrolled and irresponsible economic activity can cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem, which is why the application of the principle “in dubio pro natura” is imposed, in the sense that if there is doubt about whether an activity causes damage to the environment or not, its protection must be prioritized and, consequently, said activity must be limited or prohibited. However, the determination of that doubt cannot, and should not, be left to the discretion of groups of any kind, but rather to technical studies, because this will apply when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage to the environment. Precisely Article 3 of the Mining Code provides that every exploration permit or exploitation concession requires prior analysis and approval of the environmental impact study or assessment (estudio o evaluación de impacto ambiental).

The foregoing, because without a doubt the effects produced by a mining project require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) due to the consequences that are usually produced in the development of the mining industry, and this prior evaluation will determine if the project is environmentally viable. As a consequence of the foregoing, the declaration of public utility for an activity such as mining is not unconstitutional per se, as long as it is interpreted in light of the provisions of Article 50 of our Constitución Política according to the stated terms. Justices Armijo, Cruz, and Molina dissent and declare the cited Article 6 unconstitutional with all its consequences.

**VIII.- Regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 3, subsection m) of the Ley Forestal.** The plaintiff alleges that the concept of "activity of national convenience" that impacts the environment in the way it develops in open-pit mining is not an activity of national convenience, and that therefore, the interpretation and application being given in Decreto 34801-MINAET is unconstitutional, for contravening Article 50 of the Constitución Política. On this aspect, it must be noted that in the first place, the challenged Article 3 constitutes simply a reference rule within the Ley Forestal, as it establishes the definitions of some important concepts for applying forest legislation. Note that subsection m) merely defines what should be understood as a matter of national convenience:

*“…m) Activities of national convenience: Activities carried out by centralized State agencies, autonomous institutions, or private enterprise, whose social benefits are greater than the socio-environmental costs. The balance shall be made through the appropriate instruments.”* The provision in that sense does not make the disposition unconstitutional, since as indicated, it constitutes a mere reference of what should be understood as a matter of national convenience, in those norms where the legislation so records it. Any unconstitutionality related to Article 50 of the Constitución Política would have to be verified in each particular case where said definition was applied and which affected the right to a healthy and balanced environment. From the plaintiff's own argument, it is clear that their disagreement is not with the norm itself, but with the assessment and application that the Poder Ejecutivo made of it in Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35801-MINAET, which is not appropriate to be determined via an acción de inconstitucionalidad, but rather constitutes matière for an amparo in that sense. It is for this reason that, regarding this study, it is appropriate to dismiss the action as far as this norm is concerned.

**IX.- Regarding decree No. 34801-MINAET**. Just as the majority of the Sala ruled in judgments No. 2008-17292 and 2008-17293, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, which declares the Proyecto Minero Crucitas of public interest and national convenience, is a concrete and particularized provision, without general scope or normative character, that limits itself to qualifying the public interest and national convenience of a clearly individualized project in terms of subject and content. Therefore, if the questioned provision infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitución Política, this must be examined through the amparo process and not through the (residual) acción process (in the same sense No. 1993-4422 at 10:30 a.m. on September 7, 1993). Consequently, the action must be flatly rejected regarding these aspects. Justices Armijo, Cruz, and Molina dissent and order the continuation of the action's course.

**X.-** The resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental are also challenged, number N° 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, which approves the Environmental Impact Study and grants Environmental Viability to the Proyecto Minero Crucitas, and N° 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, which approved the Modification of the Proyecto Minero Crucitas, for contravening Article 50 of the Constitución Política. The Sala finds that such resolutions have no general scope or normative character, but rather were issued to resolve particular cases. In similar cases, the jurisprudence of the Sala has been reiterated in the sense that the avenue for challenging acts of this nature is not the acción de inconstitucionalidad but rather the amparo – see judgment Nº 2005-16773 at 4:50 p.m. on November 30, 2005 –, so the appropriate course is to flatly reject the action also regarding these aspects, and to order that the filing brief be separated and certified, so that it may be processed as an amparo remedy with respect to the interpretation and application of Articles 3, subsection m) and 19, subsection b) of the Ley Forestal, as well as the challenge of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET and the resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.

**XI.- Conclusion.** By reason of all the foregoing, it is appropriate to partially uphold the action only regarding Articles 34, subsection ch) and 97, subsection g) of the Código de Minería, as well as by connection, Articles 24, subsection ch) and 105, first paragraph of the same Code, for violating Article 50 of the Constitución Política. Likewise, to dismiss on the merits the action against Article 19, subsection b) of the Ley Forestal, based on the precedents of this Tribunal, to dismiss the action regarding Article 3, subsection m) of the same Law as it is a mere definition as a reference framework for forest legislation, and finally; to flatly reject the action as to the alleged unconstitutional interpretation and application of numerals 3, subsection m) and 19, subsection b) of the Ley Forestal in Decreto Ejecutivo Número 34801-MINAET; the challenge of Decreto Ejecutivo Número 34801-MINAET itself and of the resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, numbers 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, and 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, as these are matters reviewable via amparo, being confronted with the application of a concrete and particularized provision. Regarding Article 6 of the Código de Minería, we proceed to dismiss it provided it is interpreted in accordance with Article 50 in the terms set forth in this judgment. In relation to the effects of the declaration of unconstitutionality decreed for Articles 34, subsection ch), 97, subsection g), and the related regulations of the Código de Minería, it is reiterated that in accordance with Article 3 in force of that same Code, the obligation remains for applicants of a mining exploration or exploitation concession to carry out the corresponding environmental impact assessments, prior to any concession granted for such purposes.

**Por tanto:** Se declara con lugar la acción in unanimous form, against Articles 34, subsection ch) and 97, subsection g) of the Código de Minería and consequently, Articles 24, subsection ch) and 105, first paragraph of the Código de Minería are annulled for unconstitutionality and by connection. As for Article 6 of the Código de Minería, by majority it is declared that it is not unconstitutional, provided it is interpreted in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitución Política in the terms of this judgment. Unanimously, the action is dismissed in relation to Article 3, subsection m) of the Ley Forestal. By majority, it is dismissed on the merits regarding Article 19, subsection b) of the Ley Forestal. In relation to Articles 1 and 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo Número 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, by majority, the action is flatly rejected. Regarding the resolutions of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, numbers 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, and 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, they are unanimously rejected flatly. This judgment has declaratory and retroactive effects to the date of effectiveness of the annulled norms, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith and the legal relations or situations that may have been consolidated by prescription, expiration, or by virtue of a judgment having the authority of material res judicata. In relation to the declared unconstitutionality of Articles 34, subsection ch) and 97, subsection g) of the Código de Minería, Justices Armijo, Cruz, and Molina give additional reasons. Likewise, they dissent and declare Article 6 of the Código de Minería unconstitutional with its consequences; and regarding Decreto No. 34801-MINAET, they dissent and order the continuation of the course as established in Voto No. 2008-17292. Justices Armijo and Molina also declare Article 19, subsection b) of the Ley Forestal unconstitutional with its consequences. Comuníquese this ruling to the Poderes Legislativo, Ejecutivo, and Judicial. Reséñese this ruling in the Diario oficial La Gaceta and publíquese in its entirety in the Boletín Judicial. Notifíquese.

Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.

Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. José Luis Molina Q.

Voto salvado of Magistrates Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro, and Molina Quesada, drafted by the first:

**I.-** The undersigned Justices disagree with the criterion held by the majority of this Constitutional Tribunal in judgment No. 2009-17155 at 2:55 p.m. on November 5, 2009, in that it has refused, on one hand, to declare the unconstitutionality of Article 6 of the Código de Minería and, on the other, to continue with the processing of the action concerning the challenge of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET.

**II.-** On the contrary, it is considered that Article 6 of the Código de Minería is unconstitutional, as this provision can be used to circumvent the scope of the right protected in Article 50 of the Constitución Política, as well as in the International Instruments on Human Rights regarding the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This provision has no other purpose than to disregard the entire regime of environmental protection due to mining exploitation, which is why its unconstitutionality is manifest. The broad and unrestricted declaration of mining as of public utility, as provided in the first paragraph of Article six of the mining code, defines as a priority for economic and social development an activity that contravenes the content and scope of Article fifty of the constitution; the nature and harmful effects on the environment of mining activity in general and particularly open-pit metallic mining, do not justify the creation of a privileged legal regime; for this reason, it is contrary to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment that all mining activity be declared of priority public interest. The Constitution itself defines very well what is of national utility: the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Based on this unquestionable value and principle, it is not possible to admit that an activity that affects the environment as negatively as mining can be considered of national utility. The content of the second paragraph of Article six of the mining code does not resolve the constitutional defect contained in the first paragraph of said norm; it is a provision that maintains inalterable a priority that, due to its generic and unlimited content, is not compatible with a provision of such transcendence as that contained in Article fifty of the Constitution. This interpretation does not imply the absolute exclusion of mining activity; however, it is not admissible for a norm to declare, in the abstract and without any nuance, that mining is of public utility.

**III.-** Finally, the Justices subscribing this dissenting vote do not appreciate any circumstance that prevents the review, in this acción de inconstitucionalidad, of the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET, which declares the Proyecto Minero Crucitas of public interest and national convenience, which is why the processing of the action concerning the challenge of this norm must continue.

**IV.-** For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Justices dissent in the indicated terms.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

Voto salvado of Justices Armijo Sancho and Molina Quesada:

I .- The undersigned Justices dissent and declare contrary to the Derecho de la Constitución the provision of Article 19, subsection b) of the Ley Forestal insofar as it establishes national convenience as an exception to forest protection. The foregoing is particularly evident in the case of the Proyecto Minero Crucitas, in which the socio-environmental costs are much greater than the social costs. On this point, in the Voto salvado of Magistrate Armijo Sancho in judgment No. 2006-17126, it was indicated with respect to the compliance of Articles 19, subsection b) and 34 of the Ley Forestal, the following: "I disagree with the criterion held by the majority of the Constitutional Tribunal in judgment N°2006-17126 at 3:04 p.m. on November 28, 2004, in which it dismisses this acción de inconstitucionalidad, considering that Articles 19, subsection b) and 34 of the Ley Forestal do not injure the Derecho de la Constitución. On the contrary, the undersigned Justice dissents and upholds this matter, for it is clearly evident that the challenged norms grant authorization to public institutions to violate the right protected in Article 50 of the Constitución Política, which from no point of view should be circumvented by this Constitutional Tribunal. The foregoing because these norms empower the Administración Forestal del Estado to carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience, on projects that have previously been declared protected areas, and on which there is a prohibition on cutting or eliminating trees. It is evident, then, the senselessness of the challenged norms, which configure a regime of exception to the protection contemplated in the Ley Forestal." Based on the foregoing, I dissent and uphold the action, declaring Article 19(b) and Article 34 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), Law No. 7575, unconstitutional.” II.- Based on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrates dissent and uphold the action, insofar as it is directed against Article 19(b) of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), in the terms indicated.

Gilbert Armijo S. José Luis Molina Q.

Separate note by Magistrates Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro, and Molina Quesada, drafted by the first:

At this point, although we initially intended to set out in a separate note some additional reasons for declaring the provisions of Article 34(ch) and Article 97 of the Mining Code contrary to Constitutional Law, having read the arguments presented by the majority of the Constitutional Court to support this unconstitutionality, we consider it unnecessary to draft said note, and merely reiterate that these provisions are unconstitutional, insofar as they establish that the environmental impact assessment (estudio del impacto ambiental) requirement takes place *after* the granting of the mining concession, which is contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution, as well as to various International Instruments applicable within the national territory regarding environmental protection.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

Telephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Email: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional *080149000007CO* **Exp: 08-014900-0007-CO** **Res. Nº 2009017155** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and zero minutes of November fifth, two thousand nine.** Action of unconstitutionality brought by FREDDY PACHECO LEON, of legal age, divorced, Doctor of Biological Sciences, with identity card number 0103490573, resident of San Pablo de Heredia; against Articles 34, subsection ch) and 97, subsection g) of the Mining Code, Law 6797 of 10-04-1982 and its amendments.

**Whereas:** **1.-** By a brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:16 hours on November 3, 2008, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of Articles 34, subsection ch) and 97, subsection g) of the Mining Code be declared. He alleges that the norms are challenged insofar as they postpone the submission of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) until after the grant of the exploitation concession for mining developments, thereby inverting the logical process supported by legislation and technical-scientific norms regarding those human activities – such as the mining industry – capable of negatively impacting the environment and which, consequently, require prior studies of their environmental and social repercussions or consequences, as well as their economic quantification, in order to analyze them in contrast to the profits or advantages of the proposed project. The challenged norms authorize the Executive Branch to grant high-impact mining exploitation concessions without the need to first verify the negative environmental effects of the specific mining project and without the developer having the prior obligation to demonstrate, technically and scientifically, that it is capable of mitigating and compensating such environmental damages so that they do not have irreversible effects. He considers that the only way to guarantee that a given development project is not contrary to the environment is through the scientific-technical procedure called an “environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental),” which allows for the identification and prediction of what effects it will exert on the environment, quantifying and weighing them to lead to decision-making. He believes that the norms of the Mining Code challenged here should have been repealed years ago, for contravening higher-ranking precepts that were incorporated into the national legal system, especially starting with the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution – which incorporated the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment – and therefore these norms are null and void ab initio, “as they are affected by supervening unconstitutionality.” In light of International Environmental Law, a violation also occurs because the Costa Rican State, by not requiring a prior environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the mining industry before granting the respective exploitation concession, is violating the preventive and precautionary principles, which in our legal system constitute parameters of constitutionality. In practice and in relation to a specific case of mining exploitation, the environmental impact assessment becomes the ideal technical-scientific instrument for the environmental administration to make decisions regarding the authorization of a specific mining development, evaluating and classifying environmental risks. It is only through this procedure that it can determine, in application of the preventive and precautionary principles, the regulatory measures for the operation of the project under approval, whether to establish permanent or temporary operating limits, to require specific processes or technologies, or to prohibit it entirely. It argues that this Chamber has held that those provisions that exempt or reduce the requirements for environmental impact assessment of human activities prior to their development violate the Constitution and, specifically, the precautionary principle. For example, in judgment 2008-15760 of 14:30 hours on October 23, 2008, this jurisprudential line was confirmed, establishing that it is unconstitutional to postpone the submission of the environmental impact assessment until after granting a concession for the construction, administration, and exploitation of tourist marinas and docks, as it disregards the state's duty to preventively protect the environment and limits the right to citizen participation in matters related to it. It considers that the decision applies mutatis mutandis to the provisions of the Mining Code challenged here. Finally, the cited precepts are also contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution, as they do not comply with the principle of legality (principio de juridicidad) of the Administration, with the aggravating factor that they authorize acts by the environmental Administration and the Executive Branch, declaratory of subjective rights in favor of private parties, by granting concessions for the exploitation of industrial mineral deposits, without prior approval of the respective environmental impact assessment; acts that, if later reversed for having been issued against the technical standards governing the matter, generate State liability and the obligation to compensate.&nbsp;<span style='color:#010101'> </span> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Drafted by Magistrate **Calzada Miranda**; and, **Considering:** **I.-** **On admissibility.** Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the admissibility requirements for unconstitutionality actions. Thus, the first paragraph requires the existence of a prior matter, in a jurisdictional or administrative venue, in which the unconstitutionality of the norm is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered harmed. This is thus conceptualized as the general rule of the need for a prior matter, with the possibilities of resorting directly to the Chamber being exceptional, and which are regulated in the second paragraph in those cases where *"[...] by the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct harm, or it involves the defense of diffuse interests, or those that concern the community as a whole".* The Chamber has indicated that diffuse interests are those whose ownership belongs to groups of people not formally organized, but united based on a specific social need, a physical characteristic, their ethnic origin, a specific personal or ideological orientation, the consumption of a certain product, etc. The interest, in these cases, is blurred, diluted (diffuse) among an unidentified plurality of subjects. In these cases, of course, the challenge that a member of one of these sectors could make, protected by paragraph 2 of Article 75, must necessarily refer to provisions that affect them as such. Thus, through the various resolutions of this Chamber, the existence of a diffuse interest in claims against the violation of the environment has been recognized, precisely in consideration of the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, from which it has developed a theory of direct standing in these cases. The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has been conceptualized as a "third generation" right, which is a right and duty of each inhabitant, and as such, its values enjoy privileged protection through which any person can claim its protection, precisely based on the authorization conferred in this regard by Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, so that the unconstitutionality action can be filed directly. For this reason, in cases where neither the interested party nor the resolution processing the action indicates that special standing, the action filed is admissible, insofar as it becomes a means of protecting such interests when the claim is for the protection of the environment and natural resources.

**II.- On the standing of the plaintiffs in the specific case.** This Tribunal considers that the plaintiff Freddy Pacheco León is duly legitimized to bring action in this venue directly, that is, without the need for a prior matter, since, as already indicated, there is a legitimate interest of citizens in general regarding the adequate protection of the environment, whereby it can well be said that there is a diffuse interest in relation to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Likewise, the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) is duly legitimized not only by the existence of diffuse interests, but also by having direct standing in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.

**III.- Interventions.** The passive interventions filed on July 23, 2009 by Juan María González in his capacity as President of the Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica (folio 211), on July 24, 2009 by Juan Carlos Hernández Jiménez in his capacity as special general attorney for the company Industrias Infinito S.A. (folio 215), by Jorge Herrera Ocampo in his capacity as Executive Director of the College of Geologists of Costa Rica (folio 230), and Marco Vinicio Solís Rojas in his capacity as President of the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of the Northern Zone (folio 232) are admitted. The foregoing is because they comply with the provisions of Article 83 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, having been filed in time and expressing a legitimate interest in the resolution of this matter.

**III.- Object of the challenge**. The plaintiffs challenge Articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) and 6.1 of the Mining Code, Articles 3 subsection m) and 19 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), 1 and 2 of Decree No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, and resolutions No. 3638-2005-SETENA of 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, which grants environmental viability to the Crucitas Mining Project (Proyecto Minero Crucitas), as well as resolution No. 170-2008 of 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, which approves a subsequent modification of that project, considering them contrary to Article 50 of the Political Constitution and Article 14 subsection 1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America, and the Charter of the Organization of American States, and to the principles relating to environmental protection: the principle of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the pro natura principle, the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, and the "pro homine" principle. For better understanding, the norms under study are cited below:

From the Mining Code:

*“Article 34.- The holder of an exploitation concession shall be obliged to:* *(…)* *ch) Prepare a complete study on the environmental impact of the exploitation process, which meets the requirements set forth in Article 97; and comply with the norms that regulate environmental contamination and the recovery of renewable natural resources. (...)"* *“Article 97.- The Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, through the Directorate of Geology, Mines and Hydrocarbons (Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos), shall be responsible for all the functions that said Directorate currently has, in addition to the following, specifically related to mining activity:* *(…)* *g) The Directorate of Geology, Mines and Hydrocarbons shall communicate to the concessionaires of exploration permits the norms for preparing studies on environmental impact, as well as the specific norms for environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources. These norms shall be prepared by the corresponding governmental body, with the participation of the colleges of biologists, geologists, chemists, and engineers, and the universities."* *“Article 6.- All mining activity is declared of public utility, both in exploration and exploitation works. The concentration, beneficiation, transformation, and transport of mineral substances and the private or state-owned land necessary for those purposes shall have the same character.* *Except with express authorization from the Legislative Assembly, permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned, in accordance with the analysis of the social and environmental impact studies (estudios sobre el impacto social y ambiental) that are carried out, in which the affected communities will participate, when such studies relate to the health and safety of the inhabitants of communities located near transportation routes, aqueducts, pipelines, fuel depots, explosives, civil defense works, towns, cemeteries, airports, hydroelectric plants, or works of public importance. The studies on social and environmental impact shall include an analysis of the alternative use of the land in various economic activities. The environmental impact analysis shall include the distances and other conditions for each specific permit referred to in this article. Permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned for reasons of national interest. In the event of rescission, the national interest shall be declared by the Legislative Assembly."* From the Forestry Law:

*“Article 3.- Definitions* *For the purposes of this law, the following is considered:* *(…)* *m) Activities of national convenience: Activities carried out by centralized State agencies, autonomous institutions, or private companies, whose social benefits are greater than the socio-environmental costs. The balance shall be made through the appropriate instruments."* *“Article 19.- Authorized activities* *On land covered by forest, it shall not be permitted to change land use (cambio de uso del suelo), nor to establish forest plantations. However, the State Forestry Administration may grant permission in those areas for the following purposes:* *(…)* *b) To carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience."* From Decree No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008:

*“Article 1.- The Crucitas Mining Project, developed by the company Industrias Infinito S.A., is declared of public interest and national convenience.* *Article 2.- By virtue of this declaration, the developing company, with prior authorization from the corresponding office of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), may proceed with the felling of trees (including species that are protected) and the development of infrastructure works in protection areas, as indicated in the project."* **IV.- Regarding Articles 34 subsection ch) and 97 subsection g) of the Mining Code.** Both plaintiffs accuse the cited articles of the Mining Code of violating Article 50 of the Constitution and Article 14 subsection 1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, because by referring these norms to a "concessionaire," it implies that the environmental impact assessment is a requirement demanded after the granting of the mining concession. The matter in question has already been the subject of a ruling by this Tribunal. Recently, in the optional legislative consultation of constitutionality regarding the bill for the *"Modification of several articles of Law No. 7744, Concession and Operation of Tourist Marinas"*, legislative file No. 14,836, in judgment No. 2008-15760 of 14:30 hours on October 23, 2008, it was ordered that preventive assessments are an unavoidable requirement for environmental guarantee, in concordant application of Articles 21, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution. From Article 50 of the Fundamental Norm itself, it follows that it is the State's responsibility to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right of every human being to "a healthy and ecologically balanced environment." Even before the constitutional reform of Article 50, this Tribunal highlighted the requirement for environmental assessment studies, conceived as technical studies in environmental matters, prior to granting rights in activities that could potentially harm the environment. In accordance with the foregoing, approving a regulation that seeks to invert the normal and natural order of administrative procedures, granting the concession for construction, administration, and exploitation before the environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) has been completed, would be unconstitutional, as it reverses the logical order of procedures, disregarding the State's duty to protect the integrity of the environment, enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Furthermore, if we adhere to the binding jurisprudence of this Tribunal, it is not admissible to deconstitutionalize the guarantee of a state response in defense of the environment, which must be timely and prior to the granting of corresponding permits or concessions (see judgments numbers 6240-1993, 4245-2001, 1220-2002, 1221-2002, 6466-2002). In the case of Article 34 subsection ch), it is evident that the environmental impact assessment required must be carried out by *"the holder of an exploitation concession"*, which obviously assumes that the latter has been previously granted. Article 97 subsection g), for its part, imposes on the Directorate of Geology, Mines and Hydrocarbons the duty to communicate *"to the concessionaires of exploration permits"* the norms for preparing environmental impact studies. Thus, both norms require such a requirement, with the difference that the second does so in relation to an exploration permit and the first with an effective concession. These are activities that in any case have the capacity—whether to a greater or lesser extent—to alter the environment from the moment they allow the permit holder to extract and dispose of "minimum necessary, non-commercial, quantities of raw mineral substances" and even to make excavations (Articles 23 subsection c and 24 subsection e, *ibidem*). The inversion of the proper order of factors in the questioned norms had already been previously considered by the Chamber, only indirectly, as the study did not examine the merits of the articles of the law challenged here, but rather in relation to the Regulation to the Mining Code, Executive Decree number 29300-MINAE, since what was claimed on that occasion was that the Regulation required the environmental impact assessment as a prerequisite for granting the concession, which contradicts what is stipulated in the law, which establishes it for the concession holder, i.e., after the fact. On this particular, in judgment No. 2001-04245 of 15:01 hours on May 23, 2001, the Chamber decided to reject the action on the merits, pointing out regarding this issue that the argument was not receivable, because the requirement established in Article 29 of the questioned Decree, which consists of the obligation to prepare an environmental impact assessment as a prior step to submitting the permit or concession application to the National Mining Registry, did not contradict or modify the Mining Code, as in the national legal system there are numerous norms that require, as an indispensable prerequisite for initiating activities, works, or projects that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, the prior approval of the environmental impact assessment. Thus, this requirement is supported by Articles 11, 21, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution, in numerous international instruments that are of mandatory compliance and enjoy full enforceability, among them the Rio Convention on Environment and Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Agenda 21, in Articles 92 to 97 of the Biodiversity Law, number 7788, Articles 17, 14 - 28, 31, 38, 44, 45, 56 to 72, 83, 88 to 89, 99, 98, and 101 of the Organic Law of the Environment, number 7554, in numeral 6 b) of the Law on Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils, number 7779, Article 41 of the Hydrocarbons Law, number 7399, in numerals 3, 6.2, 101, 102, and 103 of the Mining Code, and in Articles 11, 239, and 240 of the General Law of Public Administration. Likewise, in Article 3 of the Mining Code itself, which stipulates that every exploration permit or exploitation concession requires prior analysis and approval of the environmental impact study or assessment. That is, without properly entering into the analysis of the Mining Code norms, it was considered that the order stipulated in its Regulation—environmental impact assessment prior to granting the concession—is constitutionally correct. Thus, and based on the set of cited jurisprudential precedents, the unconstitutionality of the norms questioned in this case is evident and manifest for violating Article 50 of the Political Constitution, insofar as the factual assumptions contemplated in the challenged norms are the same as those that were the subject of exhaustive analysis by the Chamber in the mentioned rulings, as they do not conform to the precautionary principle, which imposes the need to adopt preventive measures, not only in the face of ignorance of risk-generating facts but also in the face of a lack of certainty that such facts will actually produce harmful effects on the environment. However, the consequence of nullity of this declaration does not imply the disappearance of the requirement, nor the unavoidable satisfaction of those environmental commitments that it is legitimate to demand of the concessionaire in the exploration or exploitation phase, as part of the control and monitoring measures that are rigorously applied in these cases, since Article 3 of the Mining Code remains in force and states:

*"No explorations or exploitations of mineral substances may be carried out without the prior exploration permit or the exploitation concession.* It shall be the responsibility of the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce, through the Directorate of Geology, Mines, and Hydrocarbons, to grant exclusive exploration permits and exploitation concessions, following the analysis and approval of the study conducted by the corresponding government oversight body regarding the environmental impact of such activities…”</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language:EN'>In this case, the rest of the legal system adequately fills the gap created, through provisions that do not allow the need for environmental impact studies to be ignored. These studies, although by the legislator's discretion their execution was entrusted to the applicant for the concession or exploration, are not exempt from the control that the State's technical body exercises over them, nor from the administrative and criminal liabilities that may be imposed on those who participate in their preparation and the verification of the information provided. Thus, it is absolutely clear that the pronouncement made here does not, in any way, lead to the omission of these studies prior to the granting of the respective permits or concessions. Justices Armijo, Cruz, and Molina give additional reasons.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><b><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language:EN'>V.- Unconstitutionality by Connection of Article 24, subsection ch), and Article 105, first paragraph, of the Mining Code.</span></b><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language:EN'> Now, Articles 24 and 105, first paragraph, of the cited Code, relating to mining exploration permits and the obligations of the concessionaire, contain provisions that, at first glance, share the defect of unconstitutionality detected in the challenged numerals 34 and 97. Indeed, these norms state:</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left: 1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language:EN'>“Article 24.- The <u>holder of an exploration permit</u> shall be obligated to:</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left: 1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language:EN'>…ch) Prepare a preliminary study of the environmental impact, prior to exploration, specifying the scope of the activity as defined in Article ninety-three; and comply with the norms regulating environmental contamination and the protection of renewable natural resources.”</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left: 1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language:EN'>“Article 105.- </span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:25.5pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left: 1.0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language:EN'>To guarantee a rational and sustainable use of national resources and protect their future uses, <u>the concessionaires</u>, in a prior and public manner, must carry out environmental impact studies of their activities…”</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:42.55pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left: 0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:1.0cm'><span lang=EN style='font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language:EN'>To the extent that the preparation of the environmental impact study is assigned as an obligation to the <i>“holder of an exploration permit,” or “concessionaire,”</i> the same deficiency previously discussed is incurred, even though it must be carried out <i>“prior to exploration,”</i> since by that time the right would already exist, granted in violation of the norms and precepts already explained. Article 89 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction provides that the judgment declaring the unconstitutionality of a legal norm or general provision shall also declare that of the other precepts thereof, or of any other law or provision whose annulment is evidently necessary by connection or consequence. To that extent, it is appropriate to extend the effects of the upholding of the action equally to the norms cited in the exposed subsection and paragraph.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><b><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language: EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; VI. Regarding the challenged Article 19, subsection b), of the Forestry Law</span></b><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>. The Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes), in its capacity as plaintiff, states that the application of Article 19.2 of the Forestry Law is unconstitutional, because it establishes “national convenience (conveniencia nacional)” as an exception to forest protection. It acknowledges that for such an exception to be applied, the social benefits must be greater than the socio-environmental costs; however, referring to the specific case of the Crucitas Mining Project, it indicates that the interpretation and application being given is unconstitutional, since the socio-environmental costs are greater than the social costs. The challenged article is located within the Forestry Law in Title III “Private Forest Property,” Chapter I “Forest Management,” which provides that on lands covered by forest, <u>it shall not be permitted to change the land use (cambio del uso del suelo)</u>, nor to establish forest plantations. However, the State Forest Administration may grant permission in those areas for certain specific purposes, among which is subsection b, which authorizes it to carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience (conveniencia nacional). This norm in particular was the subject of a pronouncement by this Tribunal in judgment No. 2006-17126, in which, after analyzing the guiding principles in environmental matters, the Chamber concluded that both Article 19, subsection b) challenged here and Article 34 of the Forestry Law are not contrary to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided it is not an authorization for public institutions to “legitimately” harm the environment, nor is it a regime of exception. On that occasion, it was clearly established that the possibility of the land-use change (cambio del uso del suelo) in question is reserved solely for private forest heritage, which does not “affect” the State’s natural heritage (Articles 1, second paragraph, and 18 of the Forestry Law). Likewise, it is only on the occasion of an emergency or exception situation under the terms provided in Constitutional Article 180 (“to satisfy urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, commotion, or public calamity”) that the binding nature of environmental regulations can be excepted – just like the rest of the legal system, as this Tribunal considered in the cited judgment number 1992-2340. Pursuant to this, environmental regulations (principles and norms) are irrefutably applicable to public institutions in matters related to the fulfillment of their entrusted purposes (public management), in accordance with the provisions of Constitutional Article 50. It is true that the challenged norms do provide for the case where the purpose of private properties subject to an encumbrance on the State’s forest heritage can be modified to allow the construction of infrastructure works of social convenience, but as duly established, <u>it is not a regime of exception that authorizes public institutions to contaminate the environment,</u> because equally, the case to which it is intended to be applied must be subject to the environmental regulations in force. What is established in this provision refers to<b> </b>properties on which a limitation of evident social interest has been imposed, grounded in the purpose of environmental preservation and protection, hence the impossibility of its change of use was contemplated as a general rule (first paragraph of Article 19 and first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 34 of the Forestry Law); however, given the purpose of the general interest of the national community, both rights must be weighed and their use balanced according to a principle of sustainable human development, according<b> </b>to which the need for a balanced interrelation among the critical elements of economic development (tourism, investment, employment, infrastructure, sound finances, and tax system), social policy (education, health, security), and environmental protection is recognized. This development has been defined by the United Nations as the expansion of options for all people in a society, which is a comprehensive concept because it includes men and women as the center of development, the protection of life opportunities for future generations, and the natural systems on which life in its entirety depends. The fundamental purpose is the creation of an enabling environment in which all can enjoy long, healthy, and creative lives, since economic growth is also a means for human development. Hence, what is relevant is to allow industrial and technological development of peoples, but tolerable when using the physical and social environment, in order to achieve economic and social progress. The responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of individuals, which justifies State intervention. Now, it is precisely because of the binding nature of the environmental legal framework that the decision cannot be arbitrary, and therefore the Administration's discretion is conditioned on respect for the body of legality, referring to the nature of the forest and of the project or work, qualified as of “national convenience (conveniencia nacional),” which is defined in Article 2 of the Regulation to the Forestry Law, number 25721-MINAE, as follows:</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><i><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-ansi-language: EN'>&quot;Activities of national convenience are those related to the study and execution of projects or activities of public interest carried out by centralized dependencies or autonomous institutions or private enterprise, which provide benefits to all or a large part of society, such as: water catchment, transport, and supply; oil pipelines, road construction, generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, transport for mining activities, irrigation and drainage channels, recovery of areas with forestry vocation, conservation and sustainable management of forests, and others of a similar nature as determined by MINAE according to the country's needs.&quot;</span></i><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>As well as respect for environmental principles and regulations, under which the performance of technical studies is mandated (Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law) to accredit the pertinence of the project in the designated location, the impact that such works will have on the environment in order to determine the necessary compensatory measures (medidas compensatorias) to mitigate the negative effects, subjection to technical controls before, during, and after the construction of the works, to be carried out by the corresponding public authorities (in particular, MINAE and SETENA); a forestry regent and a management plan are required (Articles 20 and 21 of the Forestry Law) for its implementation, and of course, the possibility exists for the revocation of the permit if the requirements that allowed the authorization are not met, that is, if the environment is damaged; and of course, to the reasonableness or proportionality of the measure, as the referenced norms properly provide, so that “the clearing of the forest shall be limited, proportional, and reasonable for the purposes stated above.” The possibility of the land-use change (cambio del uso del suelo) for private properties that have been previously encumbered for the preservation of forest resources was founded precisely on the concept of sustainable development that must be incorporated into the content of due environmental protection; therefore, as already indicated, the promotion of economic and social development of the population is not only possible but necessary – in compliance with the precept contained in the first paragraph of Constitutional Article 50, according to which the State must seek the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth; clearly, in accordance with the respect for environmental norms; otherwise, a serious paralysis in the development of our country would be caused, which was neither desired nor intended by the constituents, nor by the legislators who had the responsibility to enact the Law in question. So things stand, this Tribunal maintains the criterion previously expressed, stating that what is provided in the challenged norm is not harmful to the right to a healthy and balanced environment, because at the moment a project is being considered as one of national convenience (conveniencia nacional), the environmental impacts that it produces must be previously verified and a comparison made with the social benefits it implies, which cannot be verified abstractly in the norm, but rather in the analysis of each specific case, via amparo appeal and not through a claim of unconstitutionality. On the other hand, the problem raised by the plaintiff is based not on the unconstitutionality per se of the norm, but on the interpretation and application of this article by the Executive Branch in Decreto N.34801-MINAET issued for the specific case of the Crucitas Mining Project, which is why, regarding these allegations, the matter is not one of the prerequisites for a claim of unconstitutionality, but rather for an amparo appeal, based on what is dictated in Article 73, subsection b) of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction – which provides that the claim of unconstitutionality is admissible against subjective acts if they are not susceptible to habeas corpus or amparo appeals. Consequently, we are not only faced with a provision regarding which the Chamber already determined that the alleged unconstitutionality does not exist, but furthermore, what is alleged in this sense should have been the subject of an amparo appeal, as these are administrative actions that are susceptible to being heard in that venue, according to the provisions of Article 29, last paragraph, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, because it is there that violations of Constitutional Article 50 can or cannot be verified (see judgments number 1994-1160 of 10:30 a.m. on March 2, 1994, and 1994-3454 of ten thirty a.m. on July eight, nineteen ninety-four). For the reasons stated, the proper course is to reject the action on the merits with respect to this norm. Justices Armijo and Molina declare the action against this norm with merit, with all its consequences.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:34.0pt'><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp; <b>VII.- Regarding Article 6 of the Mining Code. </b>The Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría), as plaintiff, requests the unconstitutionality of the first paragraph of this article, arguing that the word “all (toda)” recognizes all mining activity as being of public utility, ignoring that some types of mining are more contaminating than others, which directly violate the provisions of Constitutional Article 50. It likewise alleges that “the environmental alterations produced by underground mining are smaller, less radical, less extensive, and less general than those produced by surface mining.” This Tribunal considers that it cannot be stated generally that all mining activity harms the environment, without considering the mitigation of its impacts, and without assessing the social and economic effects produced around this industry in each specific case. As the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) properly indicates, this activity, executed in a sustainable manner, both nationally and globally, is of great importance from the standpoint of obtaining materials (</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><a href="http://es.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578635/Arena.html"><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101'>sand</span></a></span><span lang=EN style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language: EN'>, gravel, aggregates, clays for bricks, limestone and shales for cement manufacturing, as well as some fuels and other minerals) and raw materials essential for the final production of goods or the execution of infrastructure works. Moreover, it is also not accurate to state that all open-pit mining is more harmful than underground mining, as this will depend on the application processes for each one. If the Executive Branch considers that a mining project can or should be declared of national convenience (conveniencia nacional), it must have established proof of the superiority of the benefits over the socio-environmental costs through the application of appropriate procedures or instruments. Thus, incentivizing a specific activity is a matter of opportunity and convenience, as has been done in other economic areas of the country. Currently, for example, in Law No. 6990 “Law of Tourism Development Incentives,” Article 1 declares the tourism industry to be of public utility, and in the “Law on the regime of coffee producers, processors, and exporters,” Law No. 2762, Article 2 declares everything related to the production, processing, marketing, quality, and prestige of coffee of Costa Rica to be of public interest, for all effects indicated by this law.” On the other hand, a comprehensive reading of Article 6 in question must be made, because even though it begins by stating that all mining activity is declared of public utility, both in exploration work and in exploitation, and that the concentration, processing (beneficio), transformation, transport of mineral substances, and the privately or state-owned lands necessary for those purposes shall have the same character, the norm continues by stating the following:<i> “Except with express authorization from the Legislative Assembly, the permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned, in accordance with the analysis of the studies on the social and environmental impact that are conducted, in which the affected communities shall participate, when such studies relate to the health and safety of the inhabitants of communities located near transportation routes, aqueducts, oil pipelines, fuel deposits, explosives, civil defense works, population centers, cemeteries, airports, hydroelectric plants, or works of public importance. The studies on social and environmental impact shall contemplate an analysis of the alternative use of the land in various economic activities. The environmental impact analysis shall comprise the distances and other conditions for each specific permit referred to in this article. The permits or concessions may be denied or conditioned on grounds of national interest. In the event of rescission, the national interest shall be declared by the Legislative Assembly<b>.</b>” </i>Thus, we are not faced with an unrestricted authorization, because this regulation must be applied in accordance with the environmental protection guaranteed by the Political Constitution in Article 50. According to the interpretation this Chamber has given to this provision and to the international agreements signed by our country on environmental matters, the environment must be understood as a development potential to be used appropriately, requiring integrated action in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations, because, otherwise, its productivity for the present and the future is degraded and the heritage of future generations could be put at risk. The origins of environmental problems are complex and correspond to an articulation of natural and social processes within the framework of the socioeconomic development style adopted by the country. For example, environmental problems occur when the modalities of exploitation of natural resources give rise to a degradation of ecosystems exceeding their regeneration capacity, which leads to large sectors of the population being harmed and generates a high environmental and social cost that results in a deterioration of the quality of life; because precisely the primary objective of the use and protection of the environment is to obtain a development and evolution favorable to human beings. Environmental quality is a fundamental parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is understanding that while man has the right to make use of the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this subject matter of the principle of "harmful use (lesión)," already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself. Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy operating. Soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands – such as living space, food, energy, housing, health, and recreation – would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources. On the other hand, the goals of sustainable development relate to the survival and well-being of human beings and to the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, of environmental quality and the survival of other species. Speaking of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is speaking of the demand for natural resources at the individual level and the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products. The declaration made at the Earth Summit in 1992 proclaimed and recognized the integral and interdependent nature of the planet; this means the acceptance of certain principles that inform the transition from current development styles to sustainability. The signatory States, among which Costa Rica appears, committed themselves, within the preservation of sustainable development, above all to the protection of human beings. It was based on the principle that every person has the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature; the right of present and future generations for development to be carried out in a manner that satisfies their environmental and progress needs was included; the sovereign power of States to exploit their resources was maintained, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure that activities carried out within their jurisdiction and control do not cause environmental damage to other States or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction. They established the duty of States to cooperate in the conservation, protection, and restoration of the environment and their common responsibilities in that regard; in this way, international cooperation in the promotion and support of economic growth and sustainable development will better address the problems of environmental degradation. Likewise, a special duty was imposed on developed countries based on their responsibility in the pursuit of sustainable development, given the evident pressure that the technologies they develop and the financial resources they possess exert on the global environment. That is why norms aimed at protecting the environment must have a technical basis, because their application must start from the conditions under which the use and exploitation of natural resources must be subjected. This is so because, since environmental damages and contamination are assessable, the impact of these elements requires scientific analysis and treatment. Social, economic, and environmental factors were aspects evaluated by the legislators when they reformed the Mining Code through Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982. From the records of the respective legislative file, it is clear that their intention was to enact a new Mining Code that was indispensable to modernize the existing legislation and provide an adequate legal framework for the needs of the new stage of development in the mining sector, because the legislation existing at that time was very deficient and there was no national mining policy for promotion and development, as was the case in other sectors of the economy. In their discussion, they had a diagnosis of the mining sector in Costa Rica issued in December 1978 by the OAS (folio 598 of volume III) to identify the problems of mining activity in the country, and a study was also requested from the National University, Faculty of Earth and Marine Sciences, School of Environmental Sciences, which was issued by Engineer Carlos Torres Acosta in January 1980. Likewise, they sought advice from several geology specialists, environmentalists, and others, as well as foreign advisory services from the government of Venezuela, where an inspection was even carried out, and finally the legislative text was modified, including a chapter on environmental protection. So things stood, it was clear to the legislator that, although their intention was to incentivize an economic activity that was abandoned in our country due to deficient legislation, the importance of preventing any damage caused to the environment was not set aside, and therefore a study was required prior to any mining exploration or exploitation. As previously indicated, the Chamber recognizes the need for a balanced interrelation among the critical elements of economic development (tourism, investment, employment, infrastructure, sound finances, and tax system), social policy (education, health, security), and environmental protection. However, the responsibility consists of balancing environmental protection, economic development, and the activities of individuals, which justifies State intervention.

This is because excessive environmental protection that negates all economic activity can cause individuals to incur disproportionate and unnecessary costs, making some productive activities ruinous and generating poverty and unemployment, which would negatively impact people. But equally, uncontrolled and irresponsible economic activity can produce irreversible damage to the ecosystem, which is why the application of the principle "in dubio pro natura" is imposed, meaning that if there is doubt as to whether an activity causes environmental damage or not, its protection must be prioritized and consequently, said activity must be limited or prohibited. However, the determination of that doubt cannot, and should not, be left to the discretion of any groups whatsoever, but rather to technical studies, as this principle applies when there is danger of serious or irreversible environmental damage. Precisely, Article 3 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) provides that every exploration permit or exploitation concession requires prior analysis and approval of the environmental impact study or assessment (estudio o evaluación de impacto ambiental). This is because, without a doubt, the effects produced by a mining project require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) due to the consequences that usually occur in the development of the mining industry, and this prior assessment will determine if the project is environmentally viable. Consequently, the declaration of public utility for an activity such as mining is not unconstitutional per se, as long as it is interpreted in light of the provisions of Article 50 of our Political Constitution according to the terms set forth. Magistrates Armijo, Cruz, and Molina dissent and declare cited Article 6 unconstitutional with all its consequences.

**VIII.- Regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 3, subsection m) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal).** The claimant alleges that the concept of "activity of national convenience" that impacts the environment in the manner developed in open-pit mining is not an activity of national convenience, and therefore, the interpretation and application being given in Decree 34801-MINAET is unconstitutional, for contravening Article 50 of the Political Constitution. On this aspect, it must first be noted that challenged Article 3 constitutes simply a reference norm within the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), as it establishes the definitions of some important concepts for the purpose of applying forest legislation. Note that subsection m) merely defines what should be understood as a matter of national convenience:

“...m) Activities of national convenience: Activities carried out by centralized State agencies, autonomous institutions, or private enterprise, whose social benefits are greater than the socio-environmental costs. The balance must be made using the appropriate instruments.” The provision in that sense does not make the rule unconstitutional, since, as indicated, it constitutes a mere reference to what should be understood as a matter of national convenience in those norms where the legislation so states. Any unconstitutionality related to Article 50 of the Political Constitution would have to be verified in each particular case where said definition was applied and affected the right to a healthy and balanced environment. From the claimant's own argument, it is clear that her disagreement is not actually with the norm itself, but with the assessment and application that the Executive Branch made of it in Executive Decree No. 35801-MINAET, which is not something to be determined via an unconstitutionality action, but rather constitutes matter for an amparo in that sense. That is why, with respect to this review, the action regarding this norm must be declared without merit.

**IX.- Regarding Decree No. 34801-MINAET.** As established by the majority of this Chamber in rulings No. 2008-17292 and 2008-17293, Executive Decree No. 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, which declares the Crucitas Mining Project to be of public interest and national convenience, is a concrete and particularized provision, without general scope or normative character, which is limited to classifying the public interest and national convenience of a clearly individualized project in terms of subject and content. Therefore, if the questioned provision infringes upon the fundamental right enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, this must be examined via an amparo and not in the (residual) unconstitutionality action (in the same sense, No. 1993-4422 at 10:30 a.m. on September 7, 1993). Consequently, the action must be rejected outright regarding these points. Magistrates Armijo, Cruz, and Molina dissent and order the action to continue its course.

**X.-** The resolutions of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) are also challenged, number No. 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, which approves the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) and grants Environmental Viability to the Crucitas Mining Project, and No. 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, which approved the Modification of the Crucitas Mining Project, for contravening Article 50 of the Political Constitution. The Chamber observes that such resolutions have neither general scope nor normative character, but were issued to resolve particular cases. In similar cases, the Chamber's jurisprudence has been consistent in stating that the means of challenging acts of this nature is not the unconstitutionality action but the amparo – see ruling No. 2005-16773 at 4:50 p.m. on November 30, 2005 – therefore, it is appropriate to also reject the action outright regarding these points, and order that the filing brief be detached and certified, so that it may be processed as an amparo remedy concerning the interpretation and application of Article 3, subsection m) and Article 19, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), as well as the challenge to Executive Decree No. 34801-MINAET and the resolutions of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA).

**XI.- Conclusion.** In view of all the foregoing, the action must be declared with merit only regarding Article 34, subsection ch) and Article 97, subsection g) of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), and by extension, Article 24, subsection ch) and Article 105, first paragraph of the same Code, for violating Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Likewise, reject the action on its merits against Article 19, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), based on the precedents of this Tribunal; declare the action without merit regarding Article 3, subsection m) of the same Law, since it is a mere definition as a reference framework for forest legislation; and finally, reject the action outright regarding the alleged unconstitutional interpretation and application of numerals 3, subsection m) and 19, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) in Executive Decree Number 34801-MINAET; the challenge of Executive Decree Number 34801-MINAET itself; and the resolutions of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), numbers 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, and 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, as this constitutes matter reviewable via amparo, being the application of a concrete and particularized provision. Regarding Article 6 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), it is declared without merit as long as it is interpreted in accordance with Article 50 under the terms set forth in this ruling. Concerning the effects of the declared unconstitutionality of Article 34, subsection ch), Article 97, subsection g), and the related regulations of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), it is reiterated that in accordance with current Article 3 of that same Code, the obligation remains for applicants for a mining exploration or exploitation concession to carry out the corresponding environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) prior to any concession granted for such purposes.

**Por tanto:** Se declara con lugar la acción in a unanimous form against Article 34, subsection ch) and Article 97, subsection g) of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), and consequently, Article 24, subsection ch) and Article 105, first paragraph of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) are annulled as unconstitutional and by extension. Regarding Article 6 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), by majority it is declared that it is not unconstitutional, provided it is interpreted in accordance with Article 50 of the Political Constitution under the terms of this ruling. Unanimously, the action is declared without merit in relation to Article 3, subsection m) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal). By majority, the action is rejected on its merits regarding Article 19, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal). In relation to Articles 1 and 2 of Executive Decree Number 34801-MINAET of October 13, 2008, by majority the action is rejected outright. Regarding the resolutions of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), numbers 3638-2005-SETENA at 9:25 a.m. on December 12, 2005, and 170-2008-SETENA at 12:50 p.m. on February 4, 2008, they are unanimously rejected outright. This ruling has declaratory and retroactive effects to the effective date of the annulled norms, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith and legal relationships or situations that may have been consolidated by statute of limitations, expiration, or by virtue of a judgment having the authority of material res judicata. In relation to the declared unconstitutionality of Article 34, subsection ch) and Article 97, subsection g) of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), Magistrates Armijo, Cruz, and Molina give additional reasons. Likewise, they dissent and declare Article 6 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) unconstitutional with its consequences; and regarding Decree No. 34801-MINAET, they dissent and order that the course be continued as established in vote No. 2008-17292. Magistrates Armijo and Molina also declare Article 19, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) unconstitutional with its consequences. This pronouncement shall be communicated to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. This pronouncement shall be summarized in the Official Gazette La Gaceta and published in full in the Judicial Bulletin. Notify.

Ana Virginia Calzada M. Presidenta Luis Paulino Mora M. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Adrián Vargas B.

Gilbert Armijo S. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; José Luis Molina Q.

Dissenting vote of Magistrates Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro, and Molina Quesada, authored by the first:

**I.-** The undersigned Magistrates disagree with the criterion held by the majority of this Constitutional Tribunal in ruling No. 2009-17155 of 2:55 p.m. on November 5, 2009, insofar as it has refused, on the one hand, to declare the unconstitutionality of Article 6 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) and, on the other, to continue processing the action with regard to the challenge of Executive Decree No. 34801-MINAET.

**II.-** On the contrary, it is considered that Article 6 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) is unconstitutional, as this provision can be used to circumvent the scope of the right protected in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, as well as in the International Human Rights Instruments relating to the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This provision has no other purpose than to disregard the entire regime of environmental protection due to mining exploitation, which is why its unconstitutionality is manifest. The broad and unrestricted declaration of mining as a public utility, as provided in the first paragraph of Article Six of the Mining Code, defines an activity that contravenes the content and scope of Article Fifty of the Constitution as a priority for economic and social development; the nature and harmful environmental effects of mining activity in general, and particularly open-pit metallic mining, do not justify the creation of a privileged legal regime; for this reason, it is contrary to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment to declare all mining activity to be of priority public interest. The Constitution itself defines very well what is of national utility: the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Based on this unquestionable value and principle, it is not possible to admit that an activity that negatively impacts the environment as much as mining can be considered of national utility. The content of the second paragraph of Article Six of the Mining Code does not resolve the constitutional defect contained in the first paragraph of said norm; it is a provision that maintains an unalterable priority that, due to its generic and unlimited content, is not compatible with a provision of such importance as the one contained in Article Fifty of the Constitution. This interpretation does not imply the absolute exclusion of mining activity; however, it is not admissible for a norm to declare, in the abstract and without any nuance, that mining is of public utility.

**III.-** Finally, the Magistrates signing this dissenting vote do not see any circumstance that prevents the review, in this unconstitutionality action, of the provisions of Executive Decree No. 34801-MINAET, which declares the Crucitas Mining Project to be of public interest and national convenience, which is why the processing of the action must continue with respect to the challenge of this norm.

**IV.-** For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrates dissent in the terms indicated.

Gilbert Armijo S. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

Dissenting vote of Magistrates Armijo Sancho and Molina Quesada:

I.- The undersigned Magistrates dissent and declare the provision of Article 19, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) contrary to the Law of the Constitution, insofar as it establishes national convenience as an exception to forest protection. This is particularly evident in the case of the Crucitas Mining Project, in which the socio-environmental costs are much greater than the social costs. On this matter, in the Dissenting Vote of Magistrate Armijo Sancho in ruling No. 2006-17126, the following was indicated regarding the conformity of Article 19, subsection b) and Article 34 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal): “I disagree with the criterion held by the majority of the Constitutional Tribunal in ruling N°2006-17126 of 3:04 p.m. on November 28, 2004, insofar as it declares this unconstitutionality action without merit, considering that Article 19, subsection b) and Article 34 of the Forest Law do not violate the Law of the Constitution. On the contrary, the undersigned Magistrate dissents and declares this matter with merit, since it is clearly evident that the challenged norms grant public institutions authorization to violate the right protected in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which from no point of view should be overlooked by this Constitutional Tribunal. This is because these norms empower the State Forestry Administration to carry out infrastructure projects, state or private, of national convenience, on projects that have previously been declared protection areas and on which cutting or removing trees is prohibited. The nonsense of the challenged norms is evident, then, as they configure an exception regime to the protection contemplated in the Forest Law (Ley Forestal).” For the foregoing reasons, I dissent and I declare the action admissible, declaring unconstitutional Article 19, subsection b) and Article 34 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), Law No. 7575.

II.- For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrates dissent and declare the action admissible, insofar as it is directed against Article 19, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), in the terms indicated.

Gilbert Armijo S. José Luis Molina Q.

Separate note by Magistrates Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro, and Molina Quesada authored by the former:

At this point, although it was initially intended to set forth in a separate note some additional reasons for declaring the provisions of Article 34, subsection ch) and Article 97 of the Mining Code contrary to Constitutional Law, after reading the arguments presented by the majority of the Constitutional Court to uphold this unconstitutionality, we consider it unnecessary to produce said note, and instead we merely reiterate that these provisions are unconstitutional, insofar as they establish that the requirement of the environmental impact assessment (estudio del impacto ambiental) is subsequent to the granting of the mining concession, which is contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution, as well as to various International Instruments applicable in the national territory regarding environmental protection.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

Telephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional

*080149000007CO* Res. Nº 2009017155 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas y cero minutos del cinco de noviembre del dos mil nueve.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por FREDDY PACHECO LEON, mayor, divorciado, doctor en Ciencias Biológicas, con cédula de identidad número 0103490573, vecino de San Pablo de Heredia; contra los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 inciso g) del Código de Minería, Ley 6797 del 04-10-1982 y sus reformas.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 11:16 horas del 3 de noviembre del dos mil ocho, el accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 inciso g) del Código de Minería. Alega que las normas se impugnan en cuanto posponen la presentación de la evaluación de impacto ambiental para después de otorgada la concesión de explotación de desarrollos mineros, con lo cual se invierte el proceso lógico sustentado en la legislación y normas técnico científicas, respecto de aquellas actividades humanas -como la industria minera- capaces de impactar negativamente el ambiente y que, por consecuencia, requieren de estudios previos de sus repercusiones o consecuencias ambientales y sociales, así como de su cuantificación económica, para analizarlos en contraposición a las ganancias o ventajas del proyecto propuesto. Las normas impugnadas autorizan al Poder Ejecutivo para otorgar concesiones de explotación minera de alto impacto ambiental, sin que se deba verificar previamente los efectos ambientales negativos del proyecto minero concreto y sin que el desarrollista tenga la obligación previa de demostrar, técnica y científicamente, que está en capacidad de mitigar y compensar tales daños ambientales, para que no tengan efectos irreversibles. Considera que la única forma por la cual se puede garantizar que un proyecto de desarrollo determinado no sea contrario al ambiente, es mediante el procedimiento científico-técnico denominado “estudio de impacto ambiental”, que permite identificar y predecir cuáles efectos ejercerá sobre el ambiente, cuantificándolos y ponderándolos para conducir a la toma de decisiones. Estima que las normas del Código de Minería aquí impugnadas debieron derogarse hace años, por contrariar preceptos de rango superior que fueron incorporados al ordenamiento jurídico nacional, especialmente a partir de la reforma del artículo 50 constitucional -que incorporó el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado- por lo que dichas normas resultan nulas de pleno derecho, “por estar afectados de inconstitucionalidad sobreviniente”. A la luz del Derecho Internacional Ambiental, se produce también una violación toda vez que el Estado costarricense, al no exigir para la industria minera el estudio de impacto ambiental previo a otorgar la concesión para la explotación respectiva, está violentando los principios preventivo y precautorio, que en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico constituyen parámetros de constitucionalidad. En la práctica y con relación a un caso concreto de explotación minera, el estudio de impacto ambiental se convierte en el instrumento técnico-científico idóneo para que la administración ambiental pueda tomar decisiones respecto a la autorización de un desarrollo minero determinado, valorando y clasificando los riesgos ambientales. Es únicamente por medio de este procedimiento que puede determinar, en aplicación de los principios preventivo y precautorio, las medidas regulatorias de la operación del proyecto en aprobación, bien sea para establecer límites permanentes o temporales de operación, para exigir determinados procesos o tecnologías o para prohibirlo en su totalidad. Refiere que esta Sala ha sostenido que aquellas disposiciones que eximan o reduzcan las exigencias de evaluación de impacto ambiental de actividades humanas de previo a su desarrollo, violan el Derecho de la Constitución y, en específico, el principio precautorio. Por ejemplo, en la sentencia 2008-15760 de las 14:30 horas del 23 de octubre del 2008, se confirmó esta línea jurisprudencial, al establecer que es inconstitucional posponer la presentación de la evaluación de impacto ambiental para después de otorgada una concesión para la construcción, administración y explotación de marinas y atracaderos turísticos, al desconocerse el deber estatal de proteger preventivamente el medio ambiente y por limitar el derecho a la participación ciudadana de asuntos relacionados con éste. Considera que lo resuelto, aplica mutatis mutandis a las normas aquí impugnadas del Código de Minería. Finalmente, los citados preceptos son también contrarios al artículo 11 constitucional, pues no cumplen el principio de juridicidad de la Administración (principio de legalidad), con el agravante de que autorizan actos de la Administración ambiental y del Poder Ejecutivo, declarativos de derechos subjetivos a favor de particulares, al concesionar la explotación de yacimientos de minerales de uso industrial, sin previa aprobación del respectivo estudio de impacto ambiental; actos que si después son reversados por haberse dictado contra las normas técnicas que rigen la materia, generan responsabilidad del Estado y la obligación de indemnizar.

Redacta la Magistrada Calzada Miranda; y,

Considerando:

I.- Sobre la admisibilidad. El artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece los presupuestos de admisibilidad para las acciones de inconstitucionalidad. De esta suerte, en el párrafo primero se exige la existencia de un asunto previo, en sede jurisdiccional o administrativa, en que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad de la norma, como medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés considerado lesionado. Se conceptúa así, la regla general de la necesidad de contar con un asunto previo, siendo excepcionales las posibilidades de acudir en forma directa a la Sala, y que se encuentran regulados en el párrafo segundo en aquellos supuestos en que "[...] 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". La Sala ha señalado, que los intereses difusos son aquellos cuya titularidad pertenece a grupos de personas no organizadas formalmente, pero unidas a partir de una determinada necesidad social, una característica física, su origen étnico, una determinada orientación personal o ideológica, el consumo de un cierto producto, etc. El interés, en estos casos, se encuentra difuminado, diluido (difuso) entre una pluralidad no identificada de sujetos. En estos casos, claro, la impugnación que el miembro de uno de estos sectores podría efectuar amparado en el párrafo 2° del artículo 75, deberá estar referida necesariamente a disposiciones que lo afecten en cuanto tal. De suerte que a través de las diversas resoluciones de esta Sala, se ha reconocido la existencia de un interés difuso en los reclamos contra la violación del medio ambiente, precisamente en atención de lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, a partir de las cuales ha elaborado una teoría de legitimación directa. en estos casos. El derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado se ha conceptualizado como un derecho de "tercera generación", que es derecho y deber de cada uno de los habitantes, y que como tal, sus valores gozan de una protección privilegiada mediante la cual cualquier persona puede reclamar su protección, precisamente basada en la autorización que al respecto confiere el artículo 75 párrafo 2° de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, de manera que puede interponer directamente la acción de inconstitucionalidad, razón por la que, en los casos en que ni el interesado ni la resolución de curso de la acción se indique esa especial legitimación, la acción interpuesta es admisible, en el tanto se convierte en un medio de protección de ese tipo de intereses cuando lo reclamado sea la protección del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales.

II.- De la legitimación de los accionantes en el caso concreto. Considera este Tribunal que el accionante Freddy Pacheco León se encuentra debidamente legitimado para accionar en esta vía en forma directa, o sea sin necesidad de un asunto previo, toda vez que según ya fue indicado existe un interés legítimo de los ciudadanos en general respecto de la protección adecuada del medio ambiente, con lo cual bien puede decirse que se trata de la existencia de un interés difuso en relación con el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. De igual modo, la Defensoría de los Habitantes se encuentra debidamente legitimada no sólo por la existencia de intereses difusos, sino además por ostentar la legitimación directa de conformidad con el párrafo tercero del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.

III.- Coadyuvancias. Se admiten las coadyuvancias pasivas presentadas el 23 de julio de 2009 por Juan María González en su condición de Presidente de la Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica (folio 211), el 24 de julio de 2009 por Juan Carlos Hernández Jiménez en su condición de apoderado generalísimo especial de la sociedad Industrias Infinito S.A. (folio 215), por Jorge Herrera Ocampo en su condición de Director Ejecutivo del Colegio de Geólogos de Costa Rica (folio 230) y Marco Vinicio Solís Rojas en su condición de Presidente de la Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Turismo de la Zona Norte (folio 232). Lo anterior en razón de cumplir con lo dispuesto en el artículo 83 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, por haber presentado las mismas en tiempo y manifestar un interés legítimo en la resolución de este asunto.

III.- Objeto de la impugnación. Los accionantes impugnan los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 inciso g) y 6.1 del Código de Minería, artículos 3 inciso m) y 19 de la Ley Forestal, 1 y 2 del decreto No. 34801-MINAET de 13 de octubre del 2008 y las resoluciones No. 3638-2005-SETENA de las 9 horas 25 minutos del 12 de diciembre del 2005 que otorga la viabilidad ambiental al Proyecto Minero Crucitas, así como la resolución No. 170-2008 de las 12 horas 50 minutos del 4 de febrero del 2008 que aprueba una modificación posterior de ese proyecto, por estimarlos contrarios a los artículos 50 de la Constitución Política y del artículo 14 inciso 1) de la Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica, el Convenio Internacional sobre el Comercio de Especies Amenazadas de Flora y Fauna Silvestres, la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, la Convención Marco sobre el Cambio Climático, el Convenio para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad y Protección de Áreas Silvestres Prioritarias en América Central y la Carta de la Organización de Estados Americanos, y a los principios relativos a la protección del ambiente: principio del desarrollo sostenible, principio precautorio, principio pro natura, principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad y principio “pro homine”. Para efectos de mejor comprensión, se procede a citar las normas de estudio:

Del Código de Minería:

“Artículo 34.- El titular de una concesión de explotación estará obligado a:

(…)

ch) Elaborar un estudio completo sobre el impacto ambiental del proceso de explotación, que cumpla con los requisitos contemplados en el artículo 97; y cumplir con las normas que regulan la contaminación ambiental y la recuperación de los recursos naturales renovables.(…)” “Artículo 97.- Al Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio, por medio de la Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos, le corresponderán todas las funciones que actualmente tiene esa Dirección, además de las siguientes, específicamente relacionadas con la actividad minera:

(…)

• g)La Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos comunicará a los concesionarios de permisos de exploración las normas para la elaboración de los estudios sobre el impacto ambiental, al igual que las normas específicas para la protección del ambiente y la conservación de los recursos naturales. Estas normas serán elaboradas por el organismo gubernamental correspondiente, con la participación de los colegios de biólogos, de geólogos, de químicos y de ingenieros, y de las universidades.” “Artículo 6°.- Se declara de utilidad pública toda la actividad minera, tanto en los trabajos de exploración, como en los de transformación, transporte de sustancias minerales y los terrenos de propiedad particular o estatal necesarios para esos fines.

Excepto con autorización expresa de la Asamblea Legislativa, los permisos o concesiones podrán negarse o condicionarse, de acuerdo con el análisis de los estudios sobre el impacto social y ambiental que se hagan, en los cuales participarán las comunidades afectadas, cuando tales estudios tengan relación con la salud y la seguridad de los habitantes de comunidades ubicadas en las cercanías de las vías de transporte, acueductos, oleoductos, depósitos de combustible, explosivos, obras de defensa civil, poblaciones, cementerios, aeropuertos, plantas hidroeléctricas u obras de importancia pública. Los estudios sobre el impacto social y ambiental contemplarán un análisis del uso alternativo de la tierra en varias actividades económicas. El análisis del impacto ambiental comprenderá las distancias y las otras condiciones para cada permiso específico a que se refiere este artículo. Los permisos o concesiones podrán negarse o condicionarse en razón del interés nacional. En caso de rescisión, el interés nacional será declarado por la Asamblea Legislativa. ” De la Ley Forestal:

“Artículo 3°.- Definiciones Para los efectos de esta ley se considera:

(…)

• m)Actividades de conveniencia nacional: Actividades realizadas por las dependencias centralizadas del Estado, las instituciones autónomas o la empresa privada, cuyos beneficios sociales sean mayores que los costos socio-ambientales. El balance deberá hacerse mediante los instrumentos adecuados.” “Artículo 19.- Actividades autorizadas En terrenos cubiertos de bosque, no se permitirá cambiar el uso del suelo, ni establecer plantaciones forestales. Sin embargo, la Administración Forestal del Estado podrá otorgar permiso en esas áreas para los siguientes fines:

(…)

• b)Llevar a cabo proyectos de infraestructura, estatales o privados, de conveniencia nacional.” Del Decreto No. 34801-MINAET DE 13 de octubre del 2008:

“Artículo 1.- Se declara de interés público y conveniencia nacional el Proyecto Minero Crucitas desarrollado por la empresa Industrias Infinito S.A.

Artículo 2.- En virtud de la presente declaratoria, la empresa desarrolladora, previa autorización de la oficina correspondiente del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, podrá proceder a la corta de árboles (inclusive de las especies que estén vedadas) y al desarrollo de las obras de infraestructura en áreas de protección, según se indica en el proyecto.” IV.- Sobre los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 inciso g del Código de Minería. Ambos accionantes acusan que los artículos citados del Código de Minería violan el artículo 50 constitucional y el 14 inciso 1) de la Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica, por cuanto al referirse estas normas a “concesionario”, implica que el estudio de impacto ambiental es un requisito que se exige con posterioridad al otorgamiento de la concesión minera. El tema en cuestión ya ha sido objeto de pronunciamiento por parte de este Tribunal. Recientemente en la consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad relativa al proyecto de “Modificación de varios artículos de la Ley Nº 7744, Concesión y Operación de Marinas Turísticas”, expediente legislativo Nº 14.836, en la sentencia No. 2008-15760 de las 14:30 horas del 23 de octubre del 2008, se dispuso que las evaluaciones preventivas son un requisito ineludible de garantía al ambiente, en aplicación concordante de los artículos 21, 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política. Del mismo artículo 50 de la Norma Fundamental se desprende que corresponde al Estado garantizar, defender y preservar el derecho de todo ser humano a “un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado”. Incluso, con anterioridad a la reforma constitucional del artículo 50, este Tribunal resaltó la exigencia de los estudios de evaluación ambiental, concebidos como estudios técnicos en materia ambiental, de previo al otorgamiento de derechos en actividades que, eventualmente, lesionen el ambiente. De conformidad con lo normal y natural de los procedimientos administrativos, otorgando la concesión para la construcción, administración y explotación de previo a que se haya finalizado la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, resultaría inconstitucional, toda vez que revierte el orden lógico de los procedimientos, desconociendo el deber del Estado de proteger la integridad del ambiente, consagrado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Además, si nos atenemos a la jurisprudencia vinculante de este Tribunal, no es admisible desconstitucionalizar la garantía de respuesta estatal en defensa del ambiente, la cual, debe ser oportuna y previa al otorgamiento de permisos o concesiones correspondientes (ver sentencias números 6240-1993, 4245-2001, 1220-2002, 1221-2002, 6466-2002). En el caso del artículo 34 inciso ch), resulta evidente que el estudio de impacto ambiental que se ordena, debe realizarlo “el titular de una concesión de explotación”, lo que parte obviamente de que ésta última haya sido otorgada previamente. El artículo 97 inciso g), por su parte, impone a la Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos el deber de comunicar “a los concesionarios de permisos de exploración” las normas para la elaboración de los estudios sobre el impacto ambiental. De manera que, ambas normas exigen tal requisito, con la diferencia de que la segunda lo hace con relación a un permiso de exploración y la primera con una concesión efectiva. Labores que en todo caso poseen capacidad -aunque sea en mayor o menor medida- de alteración del medio desde el momento en que permite al permisionario extraer y disponer de “cantidades mínimas necesarias, no comerciales, de sustancias minerales en bruto” e incluso de hacer excavaciones (artículos 23 inciso c y 24 inciso e, ibidem). La inversión del orden propio de los factores en las normas cuestionadas, ya había sido considerado previamente por la Sala, sólo que de manera indirecta, pues el estudio no examinó por el fondo los artículos de la ley aquí impugnados, sino con relación al Reglamento al Código de Minería, decreto ejecutivo número 29300-MINAE, toda vez que lo reclamado en aquella oportunidad, era que el Reglamento exigía el estudio de impacto ambiental como requisito previo al otorgamiento de la concesión, lo que contradice lo dispuesto en la ley, que lo establece para el titular de la concesión, o sea con posterioridad. Sobre este particular en sentencia Nº 2001-04245 de las 15:01 horas del 23 de mayo del 2001, la Sala dispuso rechazar por el fondo la acción, señalando en cuanto a este tema, que el argumento no era de recibo, por cuanto el requisito establecido en el artículo 29 del Decreto cuestionado, y que consiste en la obligación de elaborar un estudio de impacto ambiental como trámite previo a la presentación de la solicitud de permiso o concesión al Registro Nacional Minero, no contradecía ni modificaba el Código de Minería, pues en el ordenamiento jurídico nacional existen numerosas normas que exigen, como requisito indispensable para iniciar actividades, obras o proyectos que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, la aprobación previa de la evaluación de impacto ambiental. Así, este requisito encuentra sustento en los artículos 11, 21, 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política, en numerosos instrumentos internacionales que son de obligado acatamiento y gozan de plena ejecutoriedad, entre ellos la Convención de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, la Convención Marco sobre el Cambio Climático y la Agenda 21, en los artículos 92 a 97 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad, número 7788, artículos 17, 14 - 28, 31, 38, 44, 45, 56 a 72, 83, 88 a 89, 99, 98 y 101 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, número 7554, en el numeral 6 b) de la Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos, número 7779, Artículo 41 de la Ley de Hidrocarburos, número 7399, en los numerales 3, 6.2, 101, 102 y 103 del Código de Minería y en los artículos 11, 239 y 240 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Asimismo, en el propio artículo 3 del Código de Minería, que dispone que todo permiso de exploración o concesión de explotación requiere de previo el análisis y la aprobación del estudio o evaluación de impacto ambiental. Es decir, sin entrar propiamente en el análisis de las normas del Código, se estimó que el orden estipulado en su Reglamento -estudio de impacto ambiental previo al otorgamiento de la concesión-, es constitucionalmente correcto. Así las cosas y partiendo del conjunto de precedentes jurisprudenciales citados, la inconstitucionalidad de las normas cuestionadas en este caso resulta evidente y manifiesta por violentar el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, en la medida en que los supuestos de hecho contemplados en las normas impugnadas son los mismos de aquéllos que fueron objeto de exhaustivo análisis por la Sala en los fallos mencionados, al no ajustarse al principio precautorio, el cual impone la necesidad de adoptar medidas preventivas, no solo 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. No obstante, la consecuencia de nulidad de la presente declaratoria, no implica la desaparición del requisito, ni la ineludible satisfacción de aquellos compromisos ambientales que sí es legítimo exigir al concesionario en la fase de exploración o explotación, como parte de las medidas de control y seguimiento que es de rigor aplicar en estos casos, toda vez que el artículo 3 del Código de Minería mantiene su vigencia y señala:

“No podrán hacerse exploraciones o concesión de explotación. Corresponderá al Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio, por medio de la Dirección de Geología, Minas e Hidrocarburos, otorgar permisos exclusivos de exploración y concesiones de explotación, previo análisis y aprobación del estudio que haga el correspondiente organismo gubernamental de control sobre el impacto ambiental de tales actividades…” En este caso, el resto del ordenamiento jurídico viene a suplir adecuadamente el vacío creado, mediante disposiciones que no permiten ignorar la necesidad de los estudios de impacto ambiental, los cuales si bien por discrecionalidad del legislador fue encomendada su realización al solicitante de la concesión o exploración, no están eximidos del control que el órgano técnico del Estado hace del mismo y de las responsabilidades tanto administrativas como penales que pueda imponerse a aquellos que participan en su elaboración y verificación de la información rendida. De manera que, queda absolutamente claro que el pronunciamiento que aquí se hace, no conduce en modo alguno, a la omisión de estos estudios, de previo al otorgamiento de los permisos o concesiones del caso. Los Magistrados Armijo, Cruz y Molina dan razones adicionales.

V.- Inconstitucionalidad por conexidad del artículo 24 inciso ch) y 105 párrafo primero del Código de Minería. Ahora bien, los artículos 24 y 105 párrafo primero del Código citado, relativo a los permisos de exploración minera ya las obligaciones del concesionario, contienen disposiciones que, a simple vista, participan del vicio de inconstitucionalidad detectado en los numerales 34 y 97 impugnados. En efecto, estas normas señalan:

“Artículo 24.- El titular de un permiso de exploración estará obligado a:

…ch) Elaborar un estudio preliminar del impacto ambiental, previo a la exploración, en el que se especifiquen los alcances de la actividad definidos en el artículo noventa y tres; y a cumplir con las normas que regulan la contaminación ambiental y la protección de los recursos naturales renovables.” “Artículo 105.- Para garantizar un aprovechamiento racional y sostenible de los recursos nacionales y proteger sus futuros usos, los concesionarios, en forma previa y pública, deberán efectuar estudios de impacto ambiental de sus actividades…” En la medida en que la elaboración del estudio de impacto ambiental es asignada como obligación al “titular de un permiso de exploración”, o “concesionario”, se incurre en la misma deficiencia anteriormente discutida, a pesar de que aquél deba efectuarse “previo a la exploración”, puesto que para entonces ya existiría el derecho otorgado en infracción de las normas y preceptos ya explicados. El artículo 89 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional dispone que la sentencia que declare la inconstitucionalidad de una norma de ley o disposición general, declarará también la de los demás preceptos de ella, o de cualquier otra ley o disposición cuya anulación resulte evidentemente necesaria por conexión o consecuencia. En ese tanto, cabe extender los efectos de la estimatoria de la acción igualmente a las normas citadas en el inciso y párrafo expuesto.

VI.Sobre el artículo 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal impugnado. Refiere la Defensoría de los Habitantes en su condición de accionante, que la aplicación del artículo 19.2 de la Ley Forestal es inconstitucional, por cuanto establece como excepción a la protección del bosque la “conveniencia nacional”. Reconoce que para aplicar tal excepción, los beneficios sociales deben ser mayores que los costos socio-ambientales, sin embargo refiriéndose al caso particular del Proyecto Minero Crucitas, indica que la interpretación y aplicación que se está dando es inconstitucional, ya que los costos socio-ambientales son mayores que los costos sociales. El artículo impugnado se ubica dentro de la Ley Forestal en el Título III “Propiedad Forestal Privada”, Capítulo I “Manejo de Bosques”, el cual dispone que en terrenos cubiertos de bosque, no se permitirá cambiar el uso del suelo, ni establecer plantaciones forestales. Sin embargo, la Administración Forestal del Estado puede otorgar permiso en esas áreas, con algunos fines determinados, entre los cuales está el inciso b, que lo autoriza para llevar a cabo proyectos de infraestructura, estatales o privados, de conveniencia nacional. Esta norma en particular fue objeto de pronunciamiento por parte de este Tribunal en la sentencia No. 2006-17126, en la cual luego del análisis de los principios rectores en materia ambiental, la Sala concluyó que tanto el artículo 19 inciso b) aquí impugnado como el artículo 34 de la Ley Forestal no son contrarios al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, siempre y cuando no sea una autorización para que las instituciones públicas lesionen "legítimamente" el ambiente, ni tampoco de un régimen de excepción. En aquella oportunidad se estableció claramente que la posibilidad del cambio del uso del suelo que se conoce, queda reservada únicamente para el patrimonio forestal privado, con lo cual, no se "afecta" el patrimonio natural del Estado (artículos 1, párrafo segundo y 18 de la Ley Forestal). Asimismo, sólo es con ocasión de una situación de emergencia o excepción en los términos previstos en el artículo 180 constitucional ("para satisfacer necesidades urgentes o imprevistas en casos de guerra, conmoción o calamidad pública") que puede excepcionarse la vinculatoriedad de la normativa ambiental –al igual que el resto del ordenamiento jurídico, como lo consideró este Tribunal en la citada sentencia número 1992-2340. En virtud de ello, la normativa ambiental (principios y normas) son de aplicación irrefutable para las instituciones públicas, en lo relativo al cumplimiento de los fines encomendados (gestión pública), en atención a lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 constitucional. Es cierto que las normas impugnadas sí prevén el caso en que se puede modificar el destino de los inmuebles particulares sobre los que pese una afectación al patrimonio forestal del Estado, para permitir la construcción de obras de infraestructura de conveniencia social, pero como quedó debidamente establecido, no es un régimen de excepción que autorice a las instituciones públicas a contaminar el ambiente, pues de igual modo, el caso al cual se pretenda aplicar, debe sujetarse a la normativa ambiental vigente. Lo establecido en esta disposición está referido a inmuebles a los que se les ha impuesto una limitación de evidente interés social, sustentada en la finalidad de la preservación y tutela del ambiente, de ahí que se contemplara como regla general la imposibilidad de su cambio de uso (párrafo primero del artículo 19 y frase primera del primer párrafo del artículo 34 de la Ley Forestal); sin embargo, ante la finalidad del interés general de la colectividad nacional se deben ponderar ambos derechos y equilibrar su utilización atendiendo a un principio de desarrollo humano sostenible, según el cual se reconoce la necesidad de una inter-relación equilibrada entre los elementos críticos del desarrollo económico (turismo, inversión, empleo, infraestructura, finanzas sanas y sistema tributario) de la política social (educación, salud, seguridad) y de la protección medioambiental. Este desarrollo ha sido definido por la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, como la ampliación de las opciones para todas las personas de una sociedad, el cual es un concepto compresivo porque incluye a los hombres y mujeres como centro del desarrollo, la protección de las oportunidades en la vida de las futuras generaciones y los sistemas naturales de los que depende la vida en su totalidad. El propósito fundamental es la creación de un ámbito posibilitante en que todos puedan disfrutar de vidas largas, saludables y creativas, ya que el crecimiento económico también es un medio para el desarrollo humano. De ahí que lo relevante es permitir un desarrollo industrial y tecnológico de los pueblos, pero tolerable al utilizar el entorno físico y social, con el fin de lograr un progreso económico y social. La responsabilidad consiste en equilibrar la protección del ambiente, el desarrollo económico y las actividades de los particulares, que justifique la intervención del Estado. Ahora bien, es precisamente por la vinculatoriedad del ordenamiento ambiental, que la decisión no puede ser arbitraria y por ello la discrecionalidad de la Administración está condicionada al respeto del bloque de legalidad, referidos a la naturaleza del bosque y del proyecto u obra, calificado como de "conveniencia nacional", el cual está definido en el artículo 2 del Reglamento de la Ley Forestal, número 25.721-MINAE, de la siguiente manera:

"Las actividades de conveniencia nacional son aquellas relacionadas con el estudio y ejecución de proyectos o actividades de interés público efectuadas por las dependencias centralizadas o instituciones autónomas o la empresa privada, que brindan beneficios a toda o gran parte de la sociedad tales como: captación, transporte y abastecimiento de agua; oleoductos, construcción de caminos, generación, transmisión y distribución de electricidad, transporte de actividades mineras, canales de riego y drenaje, recuperación de áreas de vocación forestal, conservación y manejo sostenible de los bosques, y otras de igual naturaleza que determine el MINAE según las necesidades del país." Así como también, al respeto de los principios y regulaciones ambientales, en virtud de los cuales se impone la realización de estudios técnicos (artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) para acreditar, la pertinencia del proyecto en la ubicación dispuesta, el impacto que tales obras tendrán sobre el ambiente a fin de determinar las medidas compensatorias necesarias para mitigar los efectos negativos, el sometimiento a los controles técnicos anteriores, durante y posteriores al levantamiento de las obras a cargo de las autoridades públicas correspondientes (en particular, el MINAE y SETENA); se requiere de un regente forestal y un plan de manejo (artículos 20 y 21 de la Ley Forestal) para su implementación, y por supuesto, cabe la posibilidad de la revocatoria del permiso si no se cumplen las exigencias que permitieron la autorización, esto es, si se daña al ambiente; y por supuesto, a la razonabilidad o proporcionalidad de la medida, como bien lo prevén las normas de referencia, de manera que "la corta del bosque será limitada, proporcional y razonable para los fines antes particulares que han sido afectados previamente para la preservación del recurso forestal, fue fundamentada precisamente en el concepto de desarrollo sostenible que debe ser incorporado al contenido de la debida tutela ambiental; con lo cual, como ya se indicó, no sólo es posible, sino necesario el fomento del desarrollo económico y social de la población –en cumplimiento del precepto contenido en el primer párrafo del artículo 50 constitucional, según el cual el Estado debe procurar el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país, organizando y estimulando la producción y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza; claro está, conforme al respeto de las normas ambientales, caso contrario se causaría una grave paralización en el desarrollo de nuestro país, no querido ni pretendido por los constituyentes, ni tampoco por los legisladores que tuvieron la responsabilidad de promulgar la Ley en cuestión. Así las cosas, este Tribunal mantiene el criterio vertido con anterioridad, señalando que lo dispuesto en la norma impugnada no resulta lesivo del derecho a un ambiente sano y equilibrado, pues al momento de concretarse un proyecto como de conveniencia nacional, se deben verificar previamente los impactos ambientales que con él se producen y realizar una comparación con los beneficios sociales que éste implique, lo cual no se puede verificar abstractamente en la norma, sino en el análisis de cada caso concreto, vía recurso de amparo y no de acción de inconstitucionalidad. Por otra parte, el problema planteado por la accionante, se fundamenta no en la inconstitucionalidad per se de la norma, sino de la interpretación y aplicación de este artículo por parte del Poder Ejecutivo en el Decreto N.34801-MINAET emitido para el caso concreto del Proyecto Minero Crucitas, razón por la cual en cuanto a estos alegatos, no se está ante los presupuestos de una acción de inconstitucionalidad, sino de un recurso de amparo, con fundamento lo dictado en el artículo 73 inciso b) de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional –el cual dispone que cabrá la acción de inconstitucionalidad contra los actos subjetivos si no fueren susceptibles de los recursos de habeas corpus o de amparo-. De manera que, no sólo estamos frente a una disposición frente a la cual ya la Sala determinó que no existe la inconstitucionalidad acusada, sino que además, lo alegado en este sentido debió haber sido objeto de un recurso de amparo, por tratarse de actuaciones administrativas susceptibles de ser conocidas en esa vía, según lo dispuesto en el artículo 29 párrafo último de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, pues es allí donde se puede o no comprobar violaciones al artículo 50 constitucional (ver sentencias números 1994-1160 de las 10:30 horas del 2 de marzo de 1994 y 1994-3454 de las diez horas treinta minutos del ocho de julio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro). En razón de lo expuesto, lo procedente es rechazar la acción por el fondo, en cuanto a esta norma se refiere. Los Magistrados Armijo y Molina declaran con lugar la acción contra esta norma con todas sus consecuencias.

VII.- Sobre el artículo 6 del Código de Minería. La Defensoría accionante solicita la inconstitucionalidad del párrafo primero de este artículo argumentando que la palabra “toda” reconoce a toda actividad minera como de utilidad pública, ignorando que hay tipos más contaminantes que otros de minería que violentan en forma directa lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 constitucional. Igualmente alega que “las alteraciones ambientales producidas por la minería de interior son menores, menos radicales, menos extensas y menos generales que las producidas por la minería de superficie”. Este Tribunal considera que no se puede afirmar en forma generalizada que toda actividad minera lesiona el ambiente, sin considerar la mitigación de sus impactos, y sin valorar los efectos sociales y económicos que se producen alrededor de esta industria en cada caso concreto. Como bien indica la Procuraduría General de la República esta actividad ejecutada de manera sostenible, tanto a nivel nacional como mundial, reviste una gran importancia desde el punto de vista de obtención de materiales (arena, la grava, los áridos, las arcillas para ladrillos, la caliza y los esquistos para la fabricación de cemento, así como algunos combustibles y otros minerales) y de materias primas indispensables para la elaboración final de productos o la realización de obras de infraestructura. Además, tampoco es preciso afirmar que toda minería a cielo abierto sea más dañina que la subterránea, pues esto dependerá de los procesos de aplicación a cada de una ellas. Si el Poder Ejecutivo estima que un proyecto minero puede o debe ser declarado de conveniencia nacional, deberá tener por acreditada la superioridad de los beneficios sobre los costos socio-ambientales mediante la aplicación de los procedimientos o instrumentos apropiados. De modo que, incentivar una actividad determinada, es una cuestión de oportunidad y conveniencia, como se ha hecho en otras áreas económicas del país. Actualmente por ejemplo, en la Ley No. 6990 “Ley de Incentivos de desarrollo Turístico”, en el artículo 1 se declara de utilidad pública la industria del turismo y en la “Ley sobre el régimen de productores, beneficiadores y exportadores de café”, Ley No. 2762, en el artículo 2 se declara de interés público lo relativo a producción, elaboración, mercadeo, calidad y prestigio del café de Costa Rica, para todos los efectos que señala la presente ley.” Por otro lado, se debe hacer una lectura integral del artículo 6 en cuestión, pues si bien inicia señalando que se declara de utilidad pública toda la actividad minera, tanto en los trabajos de exploración, como en los de explotación y que tendrán el mismo carácter la concentración, beneficio, transformación, transporte de sustancias minerales y los terrenos de propiedad particular o estatal necesarios para esos fines, la norma continúa señalando lo siguiente: “Excepto con autorización expresa de la Asamblea Legislativa, los permisos o concesiones podrán negarse o condicionarse, de acuerdo con el análisis de los estudios sobre el impacto social y ambiental que se hagan, en los cuales participarán las comunidades afectadas, cuando tales estudios tengan relación con la salud y la seguridad de los habitantes de comunidades ubicadas en las cercanías de las vías de transporte, acueductos, oleoductos, depósitos de combustible, explosivos, obras de defensa civil, poblaciones, cementerios, aeropuertos, plantas hidroeléctricas u obras de importancia pública. Los estudios sobre el impacto social y ambiental contemplarán un análisis del uso alternativo de la tierra en varias actividades económicas. El análisis del impacto ambiental comprenderá las distancias y las otras condiciones para cada permiso específico a que se refiere este artículo. Los permisos o concesiones podrán negarse o condicionarse en razón del interés nacional. En caso de rescisión, el interés nacional será declarado por la Asamblea Legislativa.” De modo que no estamos frente a una autorización irrestricta, pues esta normativa debe aplicarse de conformidad con la tutela ambiental que garantiza la Constitución Política en el artículo 50. Según la interpretación que esta Sala ha dado a esta disposición y a los convenios internacionales suscritos por nuestro país en materia ambiental, el ambiente debe ser entendido como un potencial de desarrollo para utilizarlo adecuadamente, debiendo actuarse de modo integrado en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicas y de orden político, ya que, en caso contrario, se degrada su productividad para el presente y el futuro y podría ponerse en riesgo el patrimonio de las generaciones venideras. Los orígenes de los problemas ambientales son complejos y corresponden a una articulación de procesos naturales y sociales en el marco del estilo de desarrollo socioeconómico que adopte el país. Por ejemplo, se producen problemas ambientales cuando las modalidades de explotación de los recursos naturales dan lugar a una degradación de los ecosistemas superior a su capacidad de regeneración, lo que conduce a que amplios sectores de la población resulten perjudicados y se genere un alto costo ambiental y social que redunda en un deterioro de la calidad de vida; pues precisamente el objetivo primordial del uso y protección del ambiente es obtener un desarrollo y evolución favorable al ser humano. La calidad ambiental es un parámetro fundamental de esa calidad de vida; otros parámetros no menos importantes son salud, alimentación, trabajo, vivienda, educación, etc., pero más importante que ello es entender que si bien el hombre tiene el derecho de hacer uso del ambiente para su propio desarrollo, también tiene el deber de protegerlo y preservarlo para el uso de las generaciones presentes y futuras, lo cual no es tan novedoso, porque no es más que la traducción a esta materia, del principio de la "lesión", ya consolidado en el derecho común, en virtud del cual el legítimo ejercicio de un derecho tiene dos límites esenciales: Por un lado, los iguales derechos de los demás y, por el otro, el ejercicio racional y el disfrute útil del derecho mismo. Nuestro país ha dependido y seguirá dependiendo, al igual que cualquier otra nación, de sus recursos naturales y su medio para llenar las necesidades básicas de sus habitantes y mantener operando el aparato productivo que sustenta la economía nacional. El suelo, el agua, el aire, los recursos marinos y costeros, los bosques, la diversidad biológica, los recursos minerales y el paisaje conforman el marco ambiental sin el cual las demandas básicas -como espacio vital, alimentación, energía, vivienda, sanidad y recreación- serían imposibles. De igual modo, nuestra economía también está íntimamente ligada al estado del ambiente y de los recursos naturales. Por otro lado, las metas del desarrollo sostenible tienen que ver con la supervivencia y el bienestar del ser humano y con el mantenimiento de los procesos ecológicos esenciales, es decir, de la calidad ambiental y de la sobrevivencia de las otras especies. Hablar de desarrollo sostenible en términos de satisfacción de las necesidades humanas presentes y futuras y del mejoramiento de la calidad de vida es hablar de la demanda de los recursos naturales a nivel individual y de los medios directos o de apoyo necesarios para que la economía funcione generando empleo y creando los bienes de capital, que a su vez hagan posible la transformación de los recursos en productos de consumo, de producción y de exportación. La declaración que se hizo en la Cumbre de la Tierra en 1992, se proclamó y reconoció la naturaleza integral e independiente del planeta, ello significa la aceptación de ciertos principios que informan la transición de los actuales estilos de desarrollo a la sostenibilidad. Los Estados signatarios, entre los que figura Costa Rica, se comprometieron, dentro de la preservación del desarrollo sostenible, a la protección sobre todo del ser humano. Se partió del principio de que toda persona tiene derecho a una vida saludable y productiva en armonía con la naturaleza; se incluyó el derecho de las generaciones presentes y futuras a que el desarrollo se realice de modo tal que satisfaga sus necesidades ambientales y de progreso; se mantuvo la potestad soberana de los Estados de explotar sus recursos, recalcando su responsabilidad de asegurar que las actividades que realicen dentro de su jurisdicción y control no causen daños ambientales a otros Estados o áreas más allá de los límites de su jurisdicción nacional. Establecieron el deber de los Estados de cooperar en la conservación, protección y restauración del ambiente y sus responsabilidades comunes en ese sentido; de ese modo la cooperación internacional en la promoción y apoyo del crecimiento económico y el desarrollo sostenible permitirá abordar mejor los problemas de la degradación ambiental. Asimismo, se impuso un deber especial a los países desarrollados fundado en su responsabilidad en la búsqueda del desarrollo sostenible, dada la evidente presión que ejercen en el ambiente global las tecnologías que desarrollan y los recursos financieros que poseen. Es por ello que las normas dirigidas a proteger al ambiente deben tener un sustento técnico, pues su aplicación tiene que partir de las condiciones en las cuáles debe sujetarse el uso y aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales. Esto es así porque al ser los daños y contaminación del medio evaluables, el impacto de estos elementos requiere de un análisis y tratamiento científico. Factores sociales, económicos y ambientales fueron aspectos valorados por los legisladores cuando reformaron el Código de Minería mediante Ley No. 6797 de 4 de octubre de 1982. De las actas del expediente legislativo respectivo, se desprende que su intención fue promulgar un nuevo Código de Minería que resultaba indispensable para modernizar la legislación vigente y proporcionar un marco legal adecuado a las necesidades de la nueva etapa del desarrollo del sector minero, pues la legislación existente en aquella oportunidad era muy deficiente y no existía una política nacional minera de fomento y desarrollo, como sucedía en otros sectores de la economía. En su discusión contaron con un diagnóstico del sector minero en Costa Rica emitido en diciembre de 1978, por parte de la OEA (folio 598 del tomo III), con el fin de identificar los problemas de la actividad minera en el país, así como se le pidió un estudio a la Universidad Nacional Facultad de Ciencias, Tierra y Mar, Escuela de Ciencias Ambientales, el cual fue emitido por el Ingeniero Carlos Torres Acosta en enero de 1980. Asimismo, se hicieron asesorar con la presencia de varios especialistas en geología, ambientalistas y otros, así como de la asesoría extranjera por parte del gobierno de Venezuela, donde incluso se llevó a cabo una inspección, y finalmente se modificó el texto legislativo, incluyéndose un capítulo en materia de protección ambiental. Así las cosas, quedó claro para el legislador, que si bien su intención era incentivar una actividad económica que estaba abandonada en nuestro país por una deficiente legislación, no se dejaba de lado la importancia de prevenir cualquier daño que se produjera al ambiente y por ello se exigió un estudio previo a cualquier exploración o explotación minera. Como se indicó anteriormente, la Sala reconoce la necesidad de una inter-relación equilibrada entre los elementos críticos del desarrollo económico (turismo, inversión, empleo, infraestructura, finanzas sanas y sistema tributario) de la política social (educación, salud, seguridad) y de la protección medioambiental. Sin embargo, la responsabilidad consiste en equilibrar la protección del ambiente, el desarrollo económico y las actividades de los particulares, que justifique la intervención del Estado. Lo anterior, por cuanto una protección excesiva del ambiente que anule toda actividad económica, puede hacer incurrir a los particulares en costos desproporcionados e innecesarios, tornando algunas actividades productivas en ruinosas y generando pobreza y desempleo, lo cual impactaría negativamente a la gente. Pero de igual modo, una actividad económica descontrolada e irresponsable puede producir un daño irreversible en el ecosistema, razón por la cual se impone la aplicación del principio “in dubio pro natura”, en el sentido de que si existe duda sobre si una actividad produce o no daños al ambiente, debe priorizarse en su protección y en consecuencia, limitarse o prohibirse dicha actividad. No obstante, la determinación de esa duda, no puede, ni debe, quedar al arbitrio de los grupos sea cual sea, sino de estudios técnicos, pues este aplicará cuando haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible en el ambiente. Precisamente el artículo 3 del Código de Minería, dispone que todo permiso de exploración o concesión de explotación requiere de previo el análisis y la aprobación del estudio o evaluación de impacto ambiental. Lo anterior, por cuanto sin duda alguna los efectos que produce un proyecto minero requieren de una evaluación de impacto ambiental por las consecuencias que se suelen producir en el desarrollo de la industria minera, y esta evaluación previa determinará si el proyecto es ambientalmente viable. En consecuencia de lo expuesto, la declaratoria de utilidad pública de una actividad como la minería, no resulta inconstitucional per se, siempre y cuando sea interpretada a la luz de lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de nuestra Constitución Política según los términos expuestos. Los Magistrados Armijo, Cruz y Molina salvan el voto y declaran inconstitucional el artículo 6 citado con todas sus consecuencias.

VIII.- Con relación a la inconstitucionalidad acusada del artículo 3 inciso m) de la Ley Forestal. Se alega por parte de la accionante que el concepto de “actividad de conveniencia nacional” que impacta el medio ambiente de la forma en que se desarrolla en la minería a cielo abierto, no es una actividad de conveniencia nacional, y que por ende, la interpretación y aplicación que se está dando en el Decreto 34801-MINAET resulta inconstitucional, por contrariar el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Sobre este aspecto debe señalarse que en primer término, el artículo 3 impugnado, constituye simplemente una norma de referencia dentro de la Ley Forestal, ya que en ella se establecen las definiciones de algunos conceptos importantes a fin de aplicar la legislación forestal. Nótese que el inciso m), lo único que hace es definir lo que debe ser entendido como un asunto de conveniencia nacional:

“…m) Actividades de conveniencia nacional: Actividades realizadas por las dependencias centralizadas del Estado, las instituciones autónomas o la empresa privada, cuyos beneficios sociales sean mayores que los costos socioambientales. El balance deberá hacerse mediante los instrumentos apropiados.” Lo dispuesto en ese sentido, no hace que la disposición sea inconstitucional, ya que como se indicó, constituye una mera referencia de lo que debe ser comprendido como un asunto de conveniencia nacional, en aquellas normas que la legislación así lo consigna. Cualquier inconstitucionalidad relacionada con el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política tendría que ser verificada en cada caso particular en el que se haya aplicado dicha definición y que afectara el derecho a un ambiente sano y equilibrado. Del mismo alegato de la accionante se desprende que en realidad su disconformidad no es con la norma en sí, sino con la valoración y aplicación que el Poder Ejecutivo hizo de ésta en el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35801-MINAET, lo cual no corresponde ser determinado vía acción de inconstitucionalidad, sino que constituye materia de amparo en ese sentido. Es por ello que, en lo que respecta a este estudio, procede declarar sin lugar la acción en cuanto a esta norma se refiere.

IX.- Sobre el decreto No. 34801-MINAET. Tal y como lo dispuso la mayoría de la Sala en las sentencias No. 2008-17292 y 2008-17293, el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET del 13 de octubre del 2008, que declara de interés público y conveniencia nacional el Proyecto Minero Crucitas, es una disposición concreta y particularizada, sin alcance general ni carácter normativo, que se limita a calificar el interés público y la conveniencia nacional de un proyecto claramente individualizado en cuanto a sujeto y contenido. Por lo que si la disposición cuestionada infringe el derecho fundamental consagrado en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, ello debe ser examinado en la vía de amparo y no en la (residual) de acción (en igual sentido Nº 1993-4422 de las 10:30 horas del 7 de setiembre de 1993). Por consiguiente, debe rechazarse de plano la acción en cuanto a estos extremos. Los Magistrados Armijo, Cruz y Molina salvan el voto y ordenan continuar con el curso de la acción.

X.- También se impugnan las resoluciones de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, número N° 3638-2005-SETENA de las 9:25 horas del 12 de diciembre del 2005, que aprueba el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y concede la Viabilidad Ambiental al Proyecto Minero Crucitas y N° 170-2008-SETENA de las 12:50 horas del 4 de febrero del 2008, que aprobó la Modificación del Proyecto Minero Crucitas, por contravenir el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Aprecia la Sala que tales resoluciones no tienen alcance general ni carácter normativo, sino que fueron dictadas para resolver casos particulares. En supuestos similares, la jurisprudencia de la Sala ha sido reiterada en el sentido de que la vía de impugnación de actos de esta naturaleza no es la de la acción de inconstitucionalidad sino la de amparo –ver sentencia Nº 2005-16773 de las 16:50 horas del 30 de noviembre del 2005-, por lo que lo procedente es rechazar de plano la acción también en cuanto a estos extremos, y disponer que se desglose el escrito de interposición de la misma y se certifique, a fin de que sea tramitado como recurso de amparo en lo que corresponde a la interpretación y aplicación de los artículos 3 inciso m) y 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal, así como la impugnación del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET y las resoluciones de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.

XI.- Conclusión. En razón de todo lo expuesto procede declarar con lugar la acción únicamente en cuanto a los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 inciso g) del Código de Minería, así como por conexidad, de los artículos 24 inciso ch) y 105 párrafo primero del mismo Código, por violentar el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Asimismo, rechazar por el fondo la acción contra el artículo 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal, con fundamento en los precedentes de este Tribunal, declarar sin lugar la acción respecto al artículo 3 inciso m) de la misma Ley por tratarse de una mera definición como marco de referencia de la legislación forestal y finalmente; rechazar de plano la acción en cuanto a la alegada interpretación y aplicación inconstitucional de los numerales 3 inciso m) y 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal en el Decreto Ejecutivo Número 34801-MINAET; la impugnación del propio Decreto Ejecutivo Número 34801-MINAET y de las resoluciones de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, números 3638-2005-SETENA de las 9:25 horas del 12 de diciembre del 2005 y 170-2008-SETENA de las 12:50 horas del 4 de febrero del 2008, por tratarse de materia revisable vía amparo, al estar frente a la aplicación de una disposición concreta y particularizada. Respecto al artículo 6 del Código de Minería, se procede a declarar sin lugar siempre y cuando sea interpretado de conformidad con el artículo 50 en los términos declaratoria de la inconstitucionalidad decretada de los artículos 34 inciso ch), 97 inciso g) y la normativa conexa del Código de Minería, se reitera que de conformidad con el artículo 3 vigente de ese mismo Código, permanece la obligación para los solicitantes de una concesión de exploración o de correspondientes, de forma previa a cualquier concesión otorgada para tales efectos.

Por tanto:

Se declara con lugar la acción en forma unánime, contra los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 inciso g) del Código de Minería y en consecuencia, se anulan por inconstitucionales y por conexidad los artículos 24 inciso ch) y 105 párrafo primero del Código de Minería. En cuanto al artículo 6 del Código de Minería, por mayoría se declara que éste no resulta inconstitucional, siempre que sea interpretado de conformidad con el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política en los términos de esta sentencia. Por unanimidad, se declara sin lugar la acción en relación al artículo 3 inciso m) de la Ley Forestal. Por mayoría se rechaza por el fondo respecto al artículo 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal. En relación a los artículos 1 y 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo Número 34801-MINAET del 13 de octubre de 2008, por mayoría se rechaza de plano la acción. En cuanto a las resoluciones de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, números 3638-2005-SETENA de las 9:25 horas del 12 de diciembre de 2005 y 170-2008-SETENA de las 12:50 horas del 4 de febrero de 2008, por unanimidad se rechaza de plano. Esta sentencia tiene efectos declarativos y retroactivos a la fecha de vigencia de las normas anuladas, sin perjuicio de los derechos adquiridos de buena fe y las relaciones o situaciones jurídicas que se hubieran consolidado por prescripción, caducidad o en virtud de sentencia pasada en autoridad de cosa juzgada material. En relación con la inconstitucionalidad declarada de los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 inciso g) del Código de Minería, los Magistrados Armijo, Cruz y Molina dan razones adicionales. Asimismo, salvan el voto y declaran inconstitucional el artículo 6 del Código de Minería con sus consecuencias; y en cuanto al Decreto No. 34801-MINAET salvan el voto y ordenan continuar con el curso conforme se estableció en el voto No. 2008-17292. Los Magistrados Armijo y Molina también declaran inconstitucional el artículo 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal con sus consecuencias. Comuníquese este pronunciamiento a los Poderes Legislativo, Ejecutivo y Judicial. 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. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. José Luis Molina Q.

Voto salvado de los Magistrados Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro y Molina Quesada, con redacción del primero:

I.- Los suscritos Magistrados discrepan del criterio sostenido por la mayoría de este Tribunal Constitucional en la sentencia No. 2009-17155 de las 14:55 hrs. de 5 de noviembre de 2009, en cuanto se ha negado, por un lado, a declarar la inconstitucionalidad del artículo 6° del Código de Minería y, por otro, a continuar con el trámite de la acción en lo que atañe a la impugnación del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET.

II.- Por el contrario se considera que el artículo 6° del Código de Minería es inconstitucional, en cuanto puede ser empleada esta disposición para soslayar los alcances del derecho protegido en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, así como en los Instrumentos Internacionales sobre Derechos Humanos relativos a la tutela del medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. No tiene otro fin esta disposición que desconocer todo el régimen de protección de la materia ambiental con motivo de la explotación minera, razón por la que su inconstitucionalidad es manifiesta. La declaratoria amplia e irrestricta de la minería como de utilidad pública, según lo prevé el primer párrafo del artículo sexto del código de minería, define una como prioridad para el desarrollo económico y social una actividad que contraviene el contenido y el alcance del artículo cincuenta de la constitución; la naturaleza y efectos nocivos al ambiente de la actividad minera en general y en particular la minería metálica a cielo abierto, no justifica la creación de un régimen jurídico privilegiado; por esta razón resulta contrario al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado que se declare, de interés público prioritario, toda la actividad minera. La propia Constitución define muy bien lo que es de utilidad nacional: el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. A partir de este valor y principio incuestionable, no es posible admitir que una actividad que incide tan negativamente en el ambiente como la minería, pueda considerarse de utilidad nacional. El contenido del párrafo segundo del artículo sexto del código de minería, no resuelve el vicio constitucional que contiene el primer párrafo de dicha norma; se trata de una disposición que mantiene inalterable una prioridad que por su contenido genérico e ilimitado, no es compatible con una previsión de tanta trascendencia como la que contiene el artículo cincuenta de la Constitución. Esta interpretación no implica la exclusión absoluta de la actividad minera, sin embargo, no es admisible que una norma declare, en abstracto y sin ningún matiz, que la minería es de utilidad pública.

III.- Finalmente, los Magistrados que suscriben este voto salvado no aprecian ninguna circunstancia que impida el conocimiento, en esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, de las disposiciones del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34801-MINAET, que declara de interés público y conveniencia nacional el Proyecto Minero Crucitas, razón por la se debe continuar el trámite de la acción en lo que atañe a la impugnación de esta norma.

IV.- Por lo expuesto, los suscritos Magistrados salvan su voto en los términos indicados.

Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

Voto salvado de los Magistrados Armijo Sancho y Molina Quesada:

I .- Los suscritos Magistrados salvan el voto y declaran contrario al Derecho de la Constitución lo dispuesto por el artículo 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal en cuanto establece como excepción a la protección del bosque la conveniencia nacional. Lo anterior es particularmente evidente en el caso del Proyecto Minero Crucitas, en el cual los costos socio-ambientales son mucho mayores que los costos sociales. Sobre el particular, en el Voto salvado del Magistrado Armijo Sancho en la sentencia No. 2006-17126, se indicó con respecto a la conformidad de los artículos 19 inciso b) y 34 de la Ley Forestal, lo siguiente: “Discrepo del criterio sostenido por la mayoría del Tribunal Constitucional en la sentencia N°2006-17126 de las 15:04 hrs. de 28 de noviembre de 2004, en cuanto declara sin lugar esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, considerándose que los artículos 19 inciso b) y 34 de la Ley Forestal no lesionan el Derecho de la Constitución. Por el contrario, el suscrito Magistrado salva el voto y declara con lugar este asunto, pues a todas luces resulta evidente que las normas impugnadas confieren una autorización a las instituciones públicas para vulnerar el derecho protegido en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, que desde ningún punto de vista debe ser soslayado por este Tribunal Constitucional. Lo anterior por cuanto, estas normas facultan a la Administración Forestal del Estado para realizar proyectos de infraestructura, estatales o privados, de conveniencia nacional, sobre proyectos que previamente han sido declarados áreas de protección, y sobre los cuales existe prohibición de corta o eliminación de árboles. Es evidente, entonces, el sin sentido de las normas impugnadas, las cuales configuran un régimen de excepción a la protección contemplada en la Ley Forestal. Por lo expuesto, salvo mi voto y declaro con lugar la acción, declarando inconstitucionales los artículos 19 inciso b) y 34 de la Ley Forestal, Ley N°7575”.

II.- Por lo expuesto, los suscritos Magistrados salvan el voto y declaran con lugar la acción, en cuanto se dirige contra el artículo 19 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal, en los términos indicados.

Gilbert Armijo S. José Luis Molina Q.

Nota separada de los Magistrados Armijo Sancho, Cruz Castro y Molina Quesada con redacción del primero:

En este punto, aunque inicialmente se pretendió consignar con una nota separada algunas razones adicionales para declarar contrario al Derecho de la Constitución lo dispuesto por los artículos 34 inciso ch) y 97 del Código de Minería, una vez leídos los argumentos expuestos por la mayoría del Tribunal Constitucional para sostener esta inconstitucionalidad, consideramos innecesario realizar dicha nota, sino únicamente reiterar que estas disposiciones son inconstitucionales, en la medida en que establecen que el requisito del estudio del impacto ambiental es posterior al otorgamiento de la concesión minera, lo que resulta contrario al artículo 50 constitucional, así como a diversos Instrumentos Internacionales que en materia de protección al medio ambiente son aplicables en el territorio nacional Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.

José Luis Molina Q.

2295-3712. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional