AyA condemned for omission in supplying drinking water to the Abrojo Montezuma indigenous territoryAyA condenado por omisión en suministro de agua potable al territorio indígena Abrojo Montezuma

**EXPEDIENTE:** **PROCESO:** CONOCIMIENTO **ACTOR/A:** ASOCIACION DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL ABROJO MONTEZUMA **DEMANDADO/A:** INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (AYA) N° 54-2023-I TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECTION ONE. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANNEX A. at fifteen hours and fifteen minutes on June thirtieth, two thousand twenty-three.

Ordinary proceeding filed by Sandra González Montezuma, of legal age, married, homemaker, identity card 603580853, resident of Abrojo Montezuma, Territorio indígena Guaymí, in her capacity as President of the ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL ABROJO MONTEZUMA, located in the Canton of Corredores, District of Corredor, Province of Puntarenas; against the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (hereinafter AyA), represented by Álvaro Arce Carballo in his capacity as general judicial proxy. Participating as legal director for the plaintiff is Dr. Roberto Montero García, in his capacity as public defender.

**RESULTANDO:** 1.- That the plaintiff appeared before this jurisdiction to request, as stated in the complaint filed on July 6, 2021, and according to the claims set forth in the preliminary hearing held on November 5, 2021, and what was added in the oral trial hearing held on June 9, 2023, the following: "1. This lawsuit be granted. 2. The obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados be declared to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct in our Territorio Indígena, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal and part of Cacoragua, located in the Canton of Corredores, District Corredor, Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of our fundamental right of access to drinking water in sufficient quantity. The aqueduct be ordered to be built to bring water to all the houses located in Abrojo Montezuma. According to the most viable possibility that the AYA determines. 3. The payment of costs generated as a result of this proceeding be ordered." (Images 36, 172-176 of the electronic file, Audio of the trial hearing in SIGAO).

2.- Having been served with the complaint, the representation of the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados answered the complaint in the negative and raised the defenses of res judicata, which was resolved interlocutorily and raised again in the trial stage, and lack of legal basis. (Image 41-49, 65-72 of the electronic file).

3.- The preliminary hearing was held on November 5, 2021. The claims and disputed facts were established, and the evidence was admitted. (Images 172-176 of the electronic file).

4.- The public oral trial was held on June 9, 2023, with the presence of all parties. The offered testimonial evidence was received and the respective closing arguments were made. The case file was also declared very complex in accordance with canon one hundred eleven of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

5.- In the proceedings, the prescriptions and terms of law have been observed, and no defects, deficiencies, or omissions capable of causing nullity of the proceedings or defenselessness to the parties are perceived. This judgment is issued within the legal term.

This resolution is issued unanimously and after deliberation. Drawn up by Judge Gómez Chacón with the affirmative vote of Judge Miranda Alvarado and Judge Mejías Rodríguez; and, **CONSIDERANDO:** **II. PROVEN FACTS:** The following are deemed as such, having the corresponding support: 1. The Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma represents the Territorio Indígena de Guaymí, of which the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma in Corredores de Puntarenas are part, a territory that encompasses, among other communities, Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal and part of Cacoraguas. (Uncontested fact); 2. The Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma has raised, before various bodies, the problem of access to drinking water suffered by the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma. (Images 37-40 of the judicial file); 3. On March 29, 2019, the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma filed an amparo appeal before the Sala Constitucional, which was processed in file 19-004972-0007-CO, invoking violations of fundamental rights due to the lack of water supply in the indicated localities. (Judicial file of the Amparo Appeal, docket on evidence disk); 4. By means of ruling 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, file 19-004972-0007-CO, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia orders AyA to provide, within twelve months after notification of said resolution, an effective solution to the problem of lack of drinking water for that community. (Judicial file of the Amparo Appeal, docket on evidence disk); 5. At a meeting held with AyA officials on June 30, 2021, the following points were agreed: 1. Logistics for transferring the cistern truck to Bagaces and taking the tanker wagon to the ORAC in Corredores. 2. Designate the driver currently operating the tanker wagon in Bagaces to Corredores to achieve supply. 3. Coordinate with BCIE and SAID to prioritize the pending pre-feasibility study so that it covers the communities cited in the pre-feasibility study prepared by the Sub. Delegados. 4. The ORAC of Corredores must determine the suitable points to place a couple of tanks in coordination with the ADII. 5. PE will coordinate with GG and human capital the hiring of occasional day laborers. (Images 128-130 of the judicial file); 6. By memorandum NO.GSD-UEN-AP-2021-00813 of July 7, 2021, an Alternatives Report for addressing the amparo appeal of the community of Abrojo Montezuma is rendered, stating that: "This UEN, in response to the Amparo Appeal Exp 19-004972-007 - CO, ruled in favor of several communities in the canton of Corredores, carried out a pre-feasibility study to supply the communities of Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua and Alto Rey, all within the indigenous territory of Abrojo Montezuma de Corredores. The attached report presents the assessed alternatives, concluding that the supply of drinking water in those communities of Abrojo is not viable through an independent system to be delegated to the community and justifies that the best alternative is to supply them from the Coto Brus System Improvements and Expansion project, which includes the communities of Villa Romo and Los Planes, which are also part of the aforementioned amparo appeal." (Images 125-128 of the judicial file); 7. By memorandum N° GG-CSA-2021-01582 of July 13, 2021, issued in response to the water distribution in Abrojo de Montezuma and surrounding communities, it is reported: "As discussed, I resume the report presented to Mr. Tomás Martínez on the water distribution in the community of Abrojo, Fila de Cal and others, as well as the initiative for the subsequent installation of tanks by the Subgerencia de Sistemas Delegados. 1. Water distribution by tanker wagon with two installed tanks: In accordance with the agreements reached at the meetings of Wednesday, June 30 and Friday, July 2, this Directorate, in order to guarantee the start of water distribution to the communities of Cacoragua, Fila de Cal de Abrojo, Abrojo Montezuma and Bella Vista, sent last Wednesday to collect the tanker wagon from Bagaces, which once received was prepared during Thursday, Friday and Saturday, providing general maintenance: lighting system, air conditioning, tire change, etc. The driver and an assistant were transferred on Sunday, July 10 to Ciudad Neily to begin distribution on Monday, July 11 first thing in the morning, as evidenced in the attached photographs; in fact, as added value, 70 containers left over from Hurricane Otto were brought to them, especially for homes where elderly adults live, but going forward, with the driver change in approximately 20 days, we will be bringing them more containers. Visit to the community for installation of tanks in important areas. Responsible for supply and installation: Subgerencias Sistemas Delegados and Subgerencia Sistemas Periféricos. On Tuesday, July 6, our collaborator Gerson Fernández Vargas carried out an inspection in the following indigenous areas: Cacoragua, Abrojo Montezuma, Filacal and Bella Vista, accompanied by two officials from the Cantonal of Ciudad Neily (José Gómez Aguilar and Gustavo Montezuma) who know the communities and official Javier Quesada Solís from the ORACH of the Región Brunca, with the purpose of identifying suitable locations for the installation of 2.5 m3 storage tanks. For the installation of the tanks, the required materials were assessed since they must be located on a platform approximately 1 meter high, so that users can fill the containers. In the photographs, you can see how the tanks would look once installed. The photograph of the tank is to exemplify how it could eventually look. For homes that are very far from these locations, distribution will be carried out house by house. Filacal de Abrojo. Installation of 2 tanks. In the case of the indigenous area of Filacal, only the tanks will be supplied; house-by-house distribution will not be carried out. Abrojo Montezuma: Installation of 6 tanks. In front of the first small grocery store. The Subgerencia Sistemas Delegados and Sistemas Periféricos are coordinating to obtain the tanks, the material for the platforms where they would be mounted, in order to attend on site to the instruction already generated by the Presidencia Ejecutiva for their transfer and installation." (Images 118-125 of the judicial file); 8. By means of an undated AyA report, the current state of Abrojo de Montezuma is presented, in which the following is stated: "1. Specific actions developed by this Institute, from the notification of Resolution N° 2019008710 to date, to address what was ordered by the Sala Constitucional. As part of addressing the amparo appeal, it is reported that, through the Dirección de Formulación de Proyectos of the UEN Administración de Proyectos of the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados, we proceeded to evaluate different project alternatives at the local level, considering the current and future water demand of the communities, and carrying out exhaustive research to identify water sources in the area that would allow solving the current problem. These local actions were carried out with the accompaniment at all times of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena (ADII) of said territory and members of the ASADA, considering first the option of supply from springs (nacientes), and obtaining as a result that no sources of this type with the required flow rate are found in the area, which steered the work toward analyzing the alternative using streams (quebradas), of which only one known as Q5 presented a flow rate and a favorable height to formulate a project for the communities of Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey and Cacoragua. For this, the development of a drinking water treatment plant (PTAP) is proposed using a slow filtration mechanism, in order to provide a technical solution that is easy to operate and maintain by the population to be served, compared to other technologies available nationally. Capacity measurements (aforos) were carried out during the dry season periods on the cited source to identify its hydrological potential, and likewise, water quality was evaluated, assessing microbiological and physicochemical aspects, to obtain all the parameters required for the planning and design of the PTAP (Drinking Water Treatment Plant). The proposed project involves the construction of the intake on stream Q5, as well as infrastructure to allow the conveyance of the water resource to the treatment plant with its respective filters and disinfection, as well as the construction of a storage tank, from which the system could operate by gravity, and with the construction of the distribution system, all sectors of the mentioned communities would be served by installing the respective individual household connections. In order to know the legal limitations for the use of these streams, a consultation was made to INDER at the regional office in Paso Canoas, given that the streams are within the border zone. The response reflects INDER's interest regarding the process required to grant the permits for the border zone under its administration, provided that the Patrimonio Natural del Estado is not affected, in such a way that, for the use of the streams, it is recommended to process the permit with MINAE, since those areas fall outside its administrative jurisdiction. Based on the project proposal mentioned, the project formulation process began, for which, as appropriate, a technical-social diagnosis of the current system was carried out. With these inputs, the formalization of the project continues, taking into consideration at all times the accompaniment of the aforementioned organizations. Currently, the source's yield is being monitored through summer capacity measurements by the Dirección de Estudios Básicos y Diseños of the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados. This project definition was chosen, although it requires a treatment facility, to preserve a gravity-fed system that minimizes operating costs, especially pumping systems that require electricity billing. The studies carried out include a population census to determine the number of existing houses and calculations of current and future demand to hydraulically model the proposal; this census process was also carried out with the collaboration of local organizations ADII and ASADA. Likewise, through the intermediation of ADII and ASADA, discussions were arranged with the possessors of parcels within the territory to obtain preliminary approvals for the location of aqueduct works within those lands, mainly pressure break tanks (quiebra gradientes) (tanks built for the purpose of breaking the pressure or hydraulic grade line of the pipeline, bringing the water to atmospheric pressure -zero pressure-, in order to adjust the pressure to the pipe's capacity or to the conveyance line requirements). In addition to the above actions, topographic surveys were also carried out with GPS to acquire the necessary inputs for project modeling, which involved locating proposed sites for the water intake, dam, grit chamber, treatment plant site, storage tank location, elevated crossing sites, and pressure break tanks. 2. Current situation of the aqueduct improvements and expansion project. All the above coordination actions resulted in the preparation of the Pre-feasibility Study for the Construction of Improvements and Expansion of the Abrojo de Montezuma Aqueduct System located in Corredores de Puntarenas; this study will be continued this year with the preparation of the feasibility and final design for subsequent search for financing and construction of works. This also implies that a consultative process has been carried out with territorial representatives, and, prior to the construction of the work, this process will be implemented for the expanded consultation with the inhabitants of the communities in which the system will have coverage. The definitive permits from the ADII and the approvals from the possessors of the lands within the indigenous territory must be obtained. In addition, the environmental feasibility of the project must be processed before SETENA, and the permit that INDER must grant to locate aqueduct works within the border zone under its administration, and likewise, the permit must be processed before MINAE for the use of the streams, pursuant to the Reglamento a la Ley No. 9590 of July 3, 2018, which authorizes the use of water for human consumption, construction, operation, maintenance, and related works on properties belonging to the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, under the principle of imperative population supply. 3. Palliative measures that have been implemented to address the lack of water supply in the indicated communities. Through the UEN Administración de Proyectos of the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados, palliative actions are not carried out; its mission is to develop the definitive solution. However, because the Oficina Cantonal del AyA in Corredores has a cistern truck that is operating full-time to supply other communities and does not have the necessary conditions to access the terrain's topography, the supply to these communities would be contemplated in a public bidding process to contract a cistern truck. This bidding process is currently being managed by AyA through the UEN Fortalecimiento de ASADAS of the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados. 4. Mechanisms for communication, information, and coordination with the Asociación de Desarrollo, other territorial organizations, and the general population of these communities. Regarding communication mechanisms, since addressing the need for water supply began, permanent contact has been maintained with the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena and the ASADA, and information about the project has been provided through in-person meetings in the community with the participation of said organizations. With the arrival of the health emergency due to Sars-Cov-2, presentations at the community level were suspended by mutual agreement with the organizations, but not the work. However, from AyA (Presidencia Ejecutiva and Dirección de Formulación de Proyectos) the status of the project has been discussed virtually with members of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI), the ADII, and the ASADA (meeting held on January 27, 2021). In this recent meeting, it was agreed by AyA to provide the local representatives with a report on the project's progress to date, what has been executed and what is to be executed, so that this same report will be provided to the mentioned bodies in writing and orally. Another request in this meeting was the temporary supply of drinking water by cistern truck, which was indicated before, and it is expected to have this service through bidding. The need and obligation on the part of AyA to implement due consultative processes within the framework of Convention 169 of the ILO and the Decreto Ejecutivo N°40932-MP-MJP were also addressed. Continuous communication is currently maintained with the ADII and ASADA." (Images 41-48 of the judicial file); 9. At the trial held on June 9, 2023, witness Benito Montezuma testified, stating that he lives in Bajo los Indios. He has lived his whole life in that Community and is a community leader. He points out that there is a drinking water problem generally throughout the entire territory. Among the main problems is the lack of drinking water in homes and at the educational center; they essentially consume rainwater. Currently, there is a small aqueduct for fifteen families, but the flow of that spring (naciente) is not in the hands of indigenous persons, so it is greatly affected in the summer season. The quality of that water is extremely poor, not suitable for consumption, because the spring is affected by a pasture. The communities have drinking water supply via cisterns; since 2021, it has been supplied by a cistern truck. In the communities of Fila Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Montezuma, the cistern truck does not reach each house, but rather leaves the water at the school or the community. The source in Corredores from which the water for the cistern trucks is taken, this goes up twice a day, supplies Montezuma center. They only have access for vital needs, not for other sanitary conditions. In the community of Cacoraguas, to date, it does not have those trucks, because the terrain's access is impassable; that community receives rainwater or travels to other sectors. He explains that this small aqueduct is managed by a small ASADA; he does not know if it receives any support from the AYA water supply. He states that there are 9 tanks in the indigenous territory, in Bella Vista, Montezuma and Fila Cal, part of Cacoraguas, and in Alto Rey, the service does not exist at all. (Audio, SIGAO system); 10. At the trial hearing, Elizabeth Darce Delgado testified, stating that she has always served as an educator in the Community and has lived there for three years. She explains that there is a small aqueduct that is insufficient because the community has grown a lot. There are tanks; the AYA had given them hope for an aqueduct, but the funds had been allocated to address another emergency, and the project is very expensive. She states that it is an urgent project because the children carry water on their backs; there are people who live far from where the tanks are located. The water from the tanks tastes strongly of chlorine. She believes the tanks were installed a little over a year ago. The school's tank had never been cleaned, and when she witnessed it being opened, she observed a dead animal. (Audio from the SIGAO System); 11. At the trial hearing, Mr. Fernando Vílchez Rojas testified, referring to memorandum GSD-UEN-AP-2021-00813, in his capacity as Project Administrator of the Strategic Business Unit, Director of the Strategic Business Unit, Project Administration of the Subgerencia de Sistemas Delegados. He has been in the position for 13 years. The Unit he directs is the one that prepared the report referred to in this case. He explains that he is in charge of developing projects that are decided to be managed by delegation. In delegation, aqueducts are built independently and delivered to the communities. In 2019, an amparo appeal was filed by the communities of the indigenous zone; a process was initiated to have it administered by the Territorio Indígena. They focused on a project: planning, pre-feasibility of the project, field research. That first stage is the result of that report that was made. Possible water sources were identified; three aspects were considered: flow rate, quality, and location, in addition to checking if the property is registered. Two streams (quebradas), a spring (naciente), water quality tests, and water measurement in summer and winter. The identification of the sources allowed them to establish, one spring without sufficient water and another spring used for other communities. A viability analysis was generated for each alternative. Here, the factor that most concerned them, out of all the alternatives, was sustainability, operational costs versus the population's ability to pay. The operational costs exceeded ten thousand colones per family. The operational cost arises because it is a community located in a mountainous area, requiring pumping with high electricity costs, and a treatment plant, generating a cost of two million colones per month; all scenarios resulted in more than ten thousand colones per month per family. The most advisable approach is to be under AYA administration, with negotiation with ICE. They decided on the option of improving the San Vito aqueduct and extending it to that community, which would solve the problem for other communities and reduce the operational cost due to gravity-fed conditions. The recommendation is that it should not be a delegated system but rather administered by the AYA. Work began after receiving the amparo appeal and was delivered in July 2021. The pandemic was circumstantial because it greatly disrupted the work. More than anything, it is the identification of the water resource, which is not easy or quick to identify due to the investment made. (Audio, SIGAO).

**II. UNPROVEN FACTS:** 1. That AyA has efficiently and effectively addressed the drinking water problem faced by the Territorio Indígena de Guaymí of the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma. (The case records).

**III. OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING:** By means of this proceeding, the plaintiff seeks to compel the defendant entity to carry out the construction of an Aqueduct in the Community of Abrojo de Montezuma. It indicates in the complaint the following facts and legal grounds. It states that there is currently an absolute absence of drinking water in the localities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and in the upper part of Abrojo Montezuma. They currently have an insufficient supply of poor-quality drinking water in the communities of Alto Rey, the lower part of Abrojo Montezuma, and part of Cacoraguas. For a long time, they sought help from AyA, without the problem of the lack of water in their community being solved to date. The indicated communities, according to the coordinates established in the Decreto Ejecutivo 29960 of October 2001, are located within the Territorio Indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma. On March 29, 2019, an amparo appeal was filed before the Sala Constitucional, which was processed in file 19-004972-0007-CO, invoking violations of fundamental rights due to the lack of water supply in the indicated localities. By means of resolution 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, file 19-004972-0007-CO, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia orders AyA that the person occupying the Presidencia Ejecutiva of said autonomous entity, within twelve months after notification of said resolution, provide an effective solution to the problem of lack of drinking water for their community. With AyA remaining unresponsive and the lack of access to drinking water persisting in their territory for the indicated communities, as well as insufficient and of poor sanitary quality in the others, on January 18, 2021, said institute was warned, through two notes, to comply with its obligation, its action remaining negligent to date. To this day, the problem of lack of drinking water in the indicated communities persists, as the "effective solution to the problem of lack of drinking water" ordered by the Sala Constitucional has not been provided. As established by Article 35 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, on January 18, 2021, we last demanded that AyA comply with its constitutional and legal obligation, as well as from Judgment 2019-008710 of the Sala Constitucional, to provide drinking water to the communities of their Territorio Indígena de Abrojo Montezuma that entirely lack that service, as well as to begin improvement works on the existing aqueduct in Abrojo Montezuma, which is insufficient to adequately and healthily supply the population of their territory, all with negative results, with the omission persisting. With the omission in the supply of drinking water to their community, AyA has violated the following regulations: Article 7 of the Constitución Política, due to non-observance of the regulations and jurisprudence of the Comisión and the Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos regarding the State's obligation to guarantee access to drinking water to the population. Article 11 of the Constitución Política, due to non-compliance with the legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to supply drinking water to the Costa Rican population, including indigenous populations. Article 21 of the Constitución Política, due to non-compliance with the legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to ensure health and life through the adequate supply of drinking water to the Costa Rican population, including indigenous populations. Article 33 of the Constitución Política, due to non-compliance with the legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to observe the principle of equality and supply drinking water to the indigenous population of their Territory.

Article 50 of the Political Constitution, for non-compliance with the legal and constitutional precepts regarding the obligation of AyA to procure the greatest well-being and the right to a healthy environment by managing to supply potable water to the indigenous population of our Territory. Within Constitutional Law lies the principle of direct applicability of the constitutional norm, which makes it possible for this norm to have a superior normative force, but normative after all, enabling judges to apply it directly in the controversies placed under their analysis. In this regard, Pozo Cabrera states: \"Procedural guarantees in the Constitution are the product of a State model, specifically the Social State of Law, which has influenced modern constitutionalism, which among other characteristics has that of having elevated procedural guarantees to a constitutional rank and establishing actions that guarantee the full exercise of fundamental rights, which implies special control over them in the exercise of the validity of the supremacy of the Constitution and its direct and immediate application by justice operators in particular and public servants and citizens in general\" (Pozo Cabrera, Enquire. Derecho Procesal Constitucional. Cuenca: Editorial Universitaria Católica (EDÚNICA), 2015, page 70.) Now, this obligation to directly apply the provisions of the supreme norm is directed at any public, administrative, and judicial servant under express constitutional mandates, whether acting on their own initiative or at the request of a party, because the rights enshrined in the Constitution and in international human rights instruments are considered to be of immediate fulfillment and application. The foregoing means that a lack of law or ignorance of the norms cannot be alleged to justify the violation of the rights and guarantees established in the Constitution, to deny the recognition of such rights, or to perform the necessary procedures that would render the right nugatory, as in the case at hand. Now, reinforcing the obligation to directly apply the constitution, Article 6 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes the Political Constitution as the supreme \"law\" in the hierarchy of sources of the administrative legal system, in first place, and immediately thereafter, in subsection b), are international treaties. Therefore, clearly, failing to apply the provisions of the Political Constitution, in addition to generating a flagrant violation of fundamental rights as in the case under analysis, violates the principle of legality established in Article 11 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration. In addition to the violation of the constitutional regulations indicated, there is a violation of Law 2726 of April 14, 1961, creating the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, especially the provisions of Articles 1, 2 subsections a) and h), Article 5 subsections c) and e), which empower AyA to carry out the necessary steps to offer potable water to the sector of the population that lacks it and thus make that fundamental right effective. Articles 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration, which in a similar sense to Article 11 of the Constitution, oblige the public administration to act in accordance with what the norm establishes. Currently, there is an absolute lack of potable water in the localities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and in the Upper Part of Abrojo Montezuma; furthermore, there is insufficient and poor-quality supply in the communities of Alto Rey, the lower part of Abrojo Montezuma, and part of Cacoraguas. The problem of no access to potable water for their Indigenous community in Abrojo de Montezuma has been increasing, causing great concern today, and for this reason, for years they have tried to coordinate with AyA the proper supply of this precious resource; however, all their efforts have been unsuccessful to date. The matter reached such an extreme that on March 29, 2019 (sic), they filed an amparo appeal against AyA for that omission and violation of their fundamental rights, an appeal that the Constitutional Chamber expediently resolved (expediente 19-004972-0007-CO), through Voto 2019-008710 at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, that is, less than 2 months after it was filed. In said ruling, AyA is ordered to have the problem of access to potable water resolved within a period of 12 months. In addition to the violation of the indicated constitutional regulations, there is a violation of Law 2726 of April 14, 1961, creating the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, especially the provisions of Articles 1, 2 subsections a) and h), Article 5 subsections c) and e), which empower AyA to carry out the necessary steps to offer potable water to the sector of the population that lacks it and thus make that fundamental right effective. Articles 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration, which in a similar sense to Article 11 of the Constitution, oblige the public administration to act in accordance with what the norm establishes. The issue of the right to water for people in general, and especially in the case of indigenous populations, has been developed by different inter-American human rights bodies. Thus, for example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter CESCR) is one of the bodies that has promoted the development of said concept and content of water as a human right. This Committee, acting as the monitoring body for the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter ICESCR), determined through General Comment number 15 that: \"Water is a limited natural resource and a fundamental public good for life and health. The human right to water is indispensable for living a life of dignity and is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights.\" Now, the CESCR develops the content of this human right based on Articles 11 and 12 of the ICESCR, related to the right to an adequate standard of living, insofar as water represents an essential condition for survival, and to the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as an indispensable category to guarantee it; additionally, it relates it to the rights to adequate housing and food, also contained in Article 15. The CESCR continues to indicate that: \"The right to water contains both freedoms and entitlements. The freedoms include the right to maintain access to a water supply necessary for exercising the right to water and the right to be free from interference, such as the right to be free from arbitrary disconnections or contamination of water resources. In contrast, the entitlements include the right to a system of water supply and management that provides equal opportunities for people to enjoy the right to water.\" For its part, the UN General Assembly in July 2010 recognized access to potable water as a human right, indicating that: \"the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights\" (UN, The human right to water and sanitation, UN A/RES/64/292, 2010, paragraph 1). In September of the same year (2010), the United Nations Human Rights Council strengthened the legal foundation upon which the right to water rests, affirming that it is inextricably linked to the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as well as to the right to life and human dignity. It then recognizes that there exist legally binding obligations on States related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation. (Human Rights Council, Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN A/HRC/15/L.14, 2010, paragraphs. 3 and 8). In addition to the above, there are the annual reports of the independent expert and now Special Rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque (Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN A/HRC/15/31, 2010, para. 29, and Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN A/HRC/18/33, 2011, paragraphs. 40-79). In these reports, regarding the legal protection that States must provide for the human right to water, her 2010 report indicates that, in evaluating the provision of drinking water services, one must determine whether it contributes or does not contribute to the realization of human rights, that is, whether it respects and guarantees the content of said right, namely its acceptability, availability, quality, and accessibility. What is adequate for the exercise of the right to water may vary according to different conditions, but it must be aimed at respecting human dignity, life, and health. Availability refers to the continuity and sufficiency that the resource must have for personal and domestic uses; quality refers to the salubrious condition that the water must have, that is, it must not contain substances or microorganisms that constitute a threat to people's health; accessibility refers to four overlapping conditions, namely, there must be physical access to water facilities and services for the entire population, there must be economic affordability so as not to compromise its enjoyment, it must be accessible to all in fact and in law without discrimination, and there must be the possibility of requesting, receiving, and disseminating information related to water. As can be seen with respect to their Indigenous Territory of Abrojo Montezuma, all these prerequisites for access to the right under analysis are clearly unfulfilled, due to omission on the part of AyA. Now, regarding indigenous communities, their particular ways of life and world views must also be respected, making an objective assessment and conciliation along with other existing interests and rights, this in addition to the generic right of access to potable water for indigenous and non-indigenous persons analyzed previously. This is reflected when the CESCR mentions that States must ensure that: \"indigenous peoples' access to water resources on their ancestral lands is protected from encroachment and unlawful pollution. States should provide resources for indigenous peoples to plan, exercise, and control their access to water.\" Now, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (hereinafter OHCHR) has mentioned in this regard that: \"Natural water sources traditionally used by indigenous peoples, such as lakes or rivers, may no longer be accessible owing to expropriation or gradual appropriation of lands by others. Access may also be threatened by illegal pollution or overextraction. Moreover, indigenous peoples' water sources may have been diverted to supply drinking water to urban areas. Thus, ensuring the right to water of indigenous peoples may in many cases require taking measures to secure their rights to ancestral lands, reinforce their traditional water management systems, and protect their natural resources.\" (OHCHR, Fact Sheet No. 35, The Right to Water, Geneva, 2011, p. 26). (bold and underlining supplied). It is thus that, in the case of access to water for indigenous peoples, special attention must be paid to the factual and legal conditions in which they find themselves, as they are a vulnerable group, with evident material and formal difficulties in exercising that right, associated also with cultural differences in relation to the majority or hegemonic (non-indigenous) populations, but above all, it must be taken into account that sources of potable water today in the hands of non-indigenous persons cannot harm the ancestral use of that resource to which they have had access since time immemorial. Likewise, the OHCHR analyzes as part of the effective protection of this Human Right for the case of indigenous peoples, the principles of equality and non-discrimination, which is why their need for access to potable water must be considered in safeguarding their rights to life, health, and dignity. (OHCHR, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments, UN A/HRC/6/3, 2007, para. 24). Not only has this issue of access to potable water as a human right been analyzed by the aforementioned international Human Rights bodies, but the Constitutional Chamber has also developed the topic. Thus, a Judgment of interest regarding the recognition of the right to water is number 4654-2003 at 3:44 p.m. on May 27, 2003, which established that: \"The Chamber recognizes, as part of Constitutional Law, a fundamental right to potable water, derived from the fundamental rights to health, life, a healthy environment, food, and decent housing, among others.\" As has been indicated and analyzed from different points of view, the Constitutional Chamber has granted the Right to Potable Water the status of a Fundamental Right. Regarding the praetorian activity of the Constitutional Chamber of a protectionist nature towards the environment and specifically regarding the right to water, in the report of the UN Human Rights Council (UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council. 2009 paragraph 56), reference is made to this national jurisprudential development tending to recognize access to potable water as an inalienable human right, which can be claimed in Costa Rican courts, as an enormous achievement in the country. In contrast to the above, we must also mention the large percentage of judgments of the Constitutional Chamber that still lack any type of follow-up regarding their effective compliance, a situation that clearly appears as a huge blemish on this protectionist avenue, as there is the possibility that the Constitutional Chamber issues orders that ultimately go unfulfilled, precisely as is the case at hand, where despite a mandate to the Administration, it simply chooses not to comply, and where it is considered that this is basically due to the fact that in the regulatory and organizational-institutional spheres there are no means or control mechanisms that allow the Constitutional Court to adequately follow up on the orders issued in its judgments, hence our decision to resort to this Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction. Despite the above, in the case of Costa Rica specifically, the criterion of understanding the right to water as a fundamental right is now settled, just as the Constitutional Court has resolved in judgments 2008-015420 at 9:05 a.m. on October 14, 2008; 2009-000494 at 11:23 a.m. on January 16, 2009; 2009-014840 at 3:50 p.m. on September 18, 2009; 2010-012556 at 12:30 p.m. on July 23, 2010; 2011-008084 at 3:56 p.m. on June 21, 2011, among others. In addition to the Judgment of the high Constitutional Court, according to the latest version of the Constitutive Law of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, it is an absolute obligation of AyA to carry out everything necessary to supply potable water to the citizens of Costa Rica, among which indigenous populations such as that of Abrojo de Montezuma must be taken into consideration. Among the functions for which said Institute is created, according to Article 1 of the aforementioned law, it indicates that it is created to resolve everything related to the supply of potable water. Now, in its Article 2, subsection h) point i), it indicates that AyA is responsible for expanding and reforming aqueduct systems in order to satisfy the national need. For its part, Article 5, subsection d) establishes the prerogative to acquire properties, and in subsection e), to process the required expropriations, and it even declares the supply of potable water to be of public interest. In this way, it is clear so far that AyA, as a public administration, is the entity called upon to supply citizens with potable water, through the construction or improvement of the respective aqueducts, and for this, it has the power to expropriate the goods it considers necessary. But there is still more, because water must be understood not as a private good but as a public domain asset (demanial), which gives AyA even greater access or possibilities for its better distribution. As is known, public domain assets are those that are beyond the possibility of being constituted as private property assets; they are therefore considered extra commercium. Basically, they are the set of assets owned by Public Administrations. It can be said that among these are those destined for public use or public service; however, the classification is not exhausted here, as this category of assets also includes those that the Legislator expressly considers as such. Now, within the context of public domain assets, the trend of including water as one of these so-called demanial assets is of recent date, specifically in the 20th century, when collective awareness began that both water and its appropriate use are matters of public interest. It is appropriate at this point in the analysis to pause briefly on what has been established jurisprudentially by our Constitutional Court regarding the public-domain nature (demanialidad) of water. Thus, in Judgment 2007-017304 of the Constitutional Chamber, at 3:05 p.m. on November 28, 2007, said Court alludes to the legal nature of groundwater as public domain assets. In this judgment, the Chamber mentions a previous one, referring to 2006-05159 at 1:04 p.m. on April 7, 2006. In said judgments, the Constitutional Chamber ruled that, as a result of the regulations subsequent to the Water Law, we have moved from a mixed system (public-private) to an entirely public one, thereby constituting the national water resource as a public domain asset. It is worth remembering here that, following the influence of the Spanish Water Law of 1879, the country adopted that mixed system of public and private waters, a concept or criterion that has now been left behind given the conceptualization of water as an asset belonging exclusively to the public domain. An important excerpt from Judgment 2006-05159 under analysis states, as relevant: \"V.- Nature and Legal Regime of Groundwater, Aquifers, and Recharge Areas: PUBLIC DOMAIN ASSETS. (...) groundwater is not appropriable by any private individual, and its classification as public domain assets constitutes sufficient title to subject it to a very strong and intense regime of administrative intervention in order to guarantee its integrity and quality and to separate it from the modes of acquisition and enjoyment proper to Private Law. (...) It would be two subsequent laws, enacted during the course of the last quarter of the last century, which reformed or tacitly modified the provisions of Articles 1, subsections IV, VIII and IX, and 4 of the Water Law. (...) Thus, the Mining Code, Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982, and its amendments, in its numeral 4, provided as follows: '... mineral sources and waters, and groundwater and surface water, are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by the State, by private parties in accordance with the law, or through a special concession granted for a limited time and subject to the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly...', in this way, a public appropriation and nationalization of all the country's groundwater occurred, including that which is drawn through a well located on a private property for domestic use or ordinary needs. Subsequently, the Organic Environmental Law, No. 7554 of October 13, 1995, and its amendments, in numeral 50 - whose heading is 'Public domain of water' - reinforced that declaration of public-domain nature and prescribes that 'Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest.' This legislative instrument implies an express designation of continental waters (surface water and groundwater - as it does not distinguish between them) to the public domain of the State and qualifies it as of social interest...\" Therefore, and according to the foregoing, AyA cannot maintain the claim of not having access to water on private lands, because we have clarity regarding its public-domain nature, as well as the powers of expropriation if required, to guarantee the supply of potable water to its communities. Evidently, having water established as a public domain asset more than amply empowers, and moreover obliges, the Public Administration to exercise all necessary control mechanisms in order to achieve adequate protection and distribution of this hydrological resource as a good of public interest. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze water as a public domain asset from the standpoint of different regulations in force in the country. All with the purpose of clearly demonstrating the current non-existence of waters belonging to the private domain and the broad power of AyA. According to the foregoing, it can be stated that the open system established in the Water Law of 1942 (mixed, as the Constitutional Chamber indicated, and generated by Articles 1, 3, and 6 that we have seen) is superseded and tacitly reformed by regulations enacted subsequently, among which are cited: the General Health Law, No. 5395 of October 30, 1973, which establishes in its Article 264 the following: \"Water constitutes a good of public utility and its use for human consumption shall take priority over any other use.\" For its part, the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Mining Code, Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982, makes clear reference to the public nature of groundwater and surface water, by indicating that: \"Deposits of coal, natural gas, petroleum, or any hydrocarbon substance; radioactive minerals, thermal springs, geothermal or oceanothermal energy sources, hydroelectric energy sources; mineral springs and waters, and groundwater and surface water, are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by the State, by private parties in accordance with the law, or through a special concession granted for a limited time and subject to the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly.\" In this way, it is clearly deduced from the two transcribed norms that water cannot be exploited without state authorization. Now, this new conception of water as a public domain asset finds its culmination in the Organic Environmental Law, Law 7554 of October 4, 1995. Specifically, in its Article 50, according to which there is no doubt about the nature of the \"water\" asset. This article states the following: \"Article 50.- Public domain of water. Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest.\" According to the analysis, not only from jurisprudential analysis but also legally, it is clear that water is constituted as a public domain asset and therefore susceptible to being regulated through the intervention of the Public Administration, and above all, as in the case under consideration, to provide access to it, because underlying the determination of the so-called natural public domain are, with priority, other constitutionally legitimate purposes, ultimately linked to the satisfaction of primary collective needs, such as the one set forth in the arguments of the complaint. By reason of all the foregoing, it is evident that the Public Administration is empowered by law to establish mechanisms that allow regulation and oversight to fulfill its obligation, among others, to supply the precious resource to the population. Regarding this state obligation of a protectionist nature toward the right to water, the Constitutional Chamber has held the thesis that for real protection to exist, there must be adequate control mechanisms, prior mechanisms of necessary studies, which have already been carried out in this case, since as AyA reported under oath before the Constitutional Chamber in expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, which is submitted as evidence, those studies are ready; indeed, they apparently already had two proposals to solve the problem of lack of supply. However, to date, the problem persists, violating the article of another norm of direct application, such as the Political Constitution in its Article 50, which obliges the State to guarantee the greatest well-being and the right to a healthy environment to the entire population, including the so forgotten Indigenous Population.

IV. REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF AyA

It states that, since before the admission of the present complaint, AyA has been supplying quality potable water to the plaintiffs' homes (early June 2021). This can be verified from the description of facts and evidence provided that appears in the response to the hearing that this Authority granted AyA on the occasion of the precautionary measure ordered. In the aforementioned writing, the response to this fact is developed at length and was strengthened with the evidence provided, which appears in the corresponding file. The areas described by the plaintiffs are supplied with water suitable for human consumption on a periodic basis. In response to this fact, I reiterate what was indicated supra. The supply to said communities is carried out as indicated in the response regarding the precautionary measure issued. The explanation was as follows: For the meeting held on July 30 of the current year, with the participation of the members of the Integral Development Association of Abrojo Montezuma, members of the ASADA, the Office of the Ombudsman of the Republic (Directorate of Equality and Non-Discrimination), AyA (Executive Presidency, Support Services Directorate (General Management), and Cantonal Office of Corredores (Sub-Management of Peripheral Systems Management)), they were informed that potable water was already being provided to the affected communities. In this regard, 4 tanks were installed by AyA with pallets and respective supplies distributed as follows: In Fila Cal, two are currently located, in Cacoragua one, and in Bella Vista one. The procurement of more tanks corresponds to the Sub-Management of Delegated and Peripheral Systems. In total, there will be 13 tanks once the pallets are built and they are acquired through the contracting process that is underway. The tanks placed to date were prioritized in educational centers. In the case of Abrojo Montezuma, they are periodically supplied with water using the tanker vehicle, while the tanks are acquired to place them in strategic locations such as those indicated in the photographs provided as evidence...\" Since learning of the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber No. 2019-008710 at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, that is, on May 21 of the same year, steps were initiated to determine alternative solutions for supplying the potable liquid to the aforementioned areas where the plaintiffs live. We are aware of the obligations established by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction regarding the mandatory nature of complying with the provisions of the supreme court's rulings, namely, Articles 53 and 56, which literally state: \"Article 53. Once the judgment declaring the amparo admissible is final, the body or official responsible for the grievance must comply with it without delay.\" \"Article 56. The execution of the judgments corresponds to the Constitutional Chamber, except with respect to the settlement and fulfillment of indemnities and pecuniary liabilities, or in other aspects that the Chamber itself considers appropriate, in which case it will be carried out in the administrative litigation venue through the judgment execution procedure provided for in the law regulating that jurisdiction.\" Therefore, from the notification of the ruling, AyA initiated the pre-feasibility studies of the project and then the meetings with community organizations. Note that even in the document presented as evidence by the plaintiffs, which is a study called \"Informe Estado Atención Abrojo Montezuma,\" it clearly indicates: \"With the arrival of the health emergency due to Sars-Cov-2 (March 2020), the presentations were suspended at the community level by mutual agreement with the organizations, but not the work. However, from AyA (Executive Presidency and Project Formulation Directorate), the status of the project has been discussed virtually with members of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs (CONAI), the ADI, and ASADA (meeting held on January 27, 2021). In this recent meeting, it was agreed that AyA would provide local representatives with a report on the project's progress to date, what has been executed, and what remains to be executed, so that this same report will be provided to the aforementioned entities in writing and orally.\" Another request in this meeting was the temporary supply of potable water via tanker truck, which was indicated before and it is expected to have this service via public tender. The need and obligation on the part of AyA to implement proper consultative processes within the framework of ILO Convention 169 and Executive Decree No. 40932-MP-MJP were also addressed. Continuous communication is currently maintained with the ADII and ASADA." Despite what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber regarding granting a 12-month period to AyA to provide "an effective solution to the problem of lack of potable water," it is obvious that the solution to the problem has not been able to be resolved for internal and external reasons, namely, the following: AyA has many public works projects scheduled annually nationwide, such that the budget for the following year is prepared one year in advance. When AyA is surprised with a court order to resolve the water problems of one community or several throughout the national territory, budgetary modifications must be made to include said projects in the national budget, or financing alternatives must be sought, either internally or via international agreements. Simultaneously, preliminary and pre-feasibility studies of the project(s) must be carried out to determine sources of supply in the area, financial costs, and land expropriations, as indicated in the document called "Analysis of alternatives for the supply of potable water for the Abrojo Montezuma indigenous territory" which is attached as evidence. The atypical situation of the Covid-19 Pandemic that has ravaged the world and from which our country is not exempt has also implied delays in the normal functioning of the Institution, therefore, in the development of projects. Many of the officials have been transferred to work from their homes through the teleworking modality, with the consequent and obvious delay in the activities scheduled in advance. It has also affected private companies who are part of the supply and materials chain, as imports of raw materials for the different AyA construction projects have suffered delays. Note that twelve months had not elapsed since the notification of the Amparo when Costa Rica was affected by this situation (March 2020). Thus, things being as they are and following Government instructions, very few administrative and technical personnel remained working at AyA's facilities, tours and exploratory studies were suspended, which again and after several months has been resumed. Of course, work has continued in order to comply with the constitutional mandate. To that situation, this other element must be added. These are indigenous communities; therefore, they must also be cautious in proposing, consulting, and requesting authorizations for the execution of works in such territories, the above in accordance with internal regulations and respecting the international agreements for indigenous peoples ratified by our country. They are aware of the Constitutional Chamber's sentence against AyA, the same having the character of res judicata by mandate of law, and is of mandatory compliance, under penalty of liability. For this reason, AyA is acting as ordered and even in coordination with the local organizations, where, incidentally, one of them is that of the plaintiffs. AyA has not been negligent in complying with what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber and the plaintiffs, since as indicated, they have acted so that they do not lack the supply of potable water, supplying them with it via tanker truck, placing storage tanks in some places, and are in the process of purchasing others to reinforce the first ones. The foregoing until the infrastructure that allows bringing potable water to their homes can be built. According to the evidence provided and the facts set forth herein, such negligent conduct by AyA does not exist. The institution cannot "by magic" manage in 12 months to carry out, have the piping laid, and other works that are required so that the plaintiffs have potable water in their homes. As indicated, this requires a series of studies, authorizations, and financing to carry them out, and especially due to the Covid-19 pandemic, to date such works have not materialized. The petition made by the defendants in this present process constitutes the same claim requested in the Amparo to which reference has been made and for which AyA was ordered to carry out the essential works so that the plaintiffs have potable water. With total respect for the Judge, I allow myself to recall that in accordance with Articles 53 and 56 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional), sentences unfavorable to one of the parties and where it orders to do or not to do, to give or not to give, are of mandatory compliance. To attempt that another Judge of the Republic again order AyA to provide the plaintiffs with what has already been ruled upon constitutes an infringement of the principle of Non Bis in Idem.

VI. REGARDING THE EXCEPTION OF MATERIAL RES JUDICATA

In relation to the exception raised of material res judicata (cosa juzgada material), the characteristics of said institution have been established by jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera): "The thing judged has a strictly procedural nature, because it is a consequence of the process and the will manifested in the procedural law. But its effects transcend the process indirectly, to fall upon the substantial legal relations. This, as a consequence of the immutability of the decision: its direct effect, with which legal certainty of those is guaranteed. Both elements, namely, the immutability of the decision and the finality of the declared right or its rejection or denial, constitute legal effects of res judicata. The first, direct and procedural; the second, indirect and substantial.... For that reason, res judicata has a negative function or efficacy by prohibiting judges from deciding again on what has already been resolved. But it also has a positive one, represented by the security conferred upon the substantial legal relations decided. The foundation of res judicata lies, then, in the jurisdictional power of the State, from which emanates sufficient power to ensure the efficacy and effects of the sentence. VI.- Res judicata is subject to two limits: the objective, by reason of the object upon which the process was based as well as the cause or title from which the claim was deduced; and the subjective, by reason of the persons who have been parties in the process. The object of the claim is referred to what is recognized or denied in the executory sentence.... Furthermore, res judicata, as far as the object refers, extends to those points that, without having been express matter of the jurisdictional decision, by necessary consequence or by depending indispensably on such decision, are resolved tacitly. ... The second aspect of the objective limit is the identity of the grounds of claim (causa petendi), that is, the foundation or reason alleged by the plaintiff to obtain the object of the claim contained in the suit. The grounds of claim must be sought exclusively within the framework of the suit, with a broad criterion which leads to its logical interpretation. Not referring to its simple literal tenor. ... The subjective limit or identity of parties refers to the subjects of the process, parties in a formal sense: plaintiffs, defendants, and intervening third parties; and it must be taken into account that the successors in interest of the parties, under universal or singular title, are bound by the sentence, as if it were about them. In this regard, what is important is the legal identity of the parties, not their physical identity. Consequently, someone who has not been a party in the process cannot be bound by the sentence issued; that is, the subjugations and obligations derived from it cannot be imposed upon them." (Sentence number 1015 of 10:00 hours on November 25, 2004. In the same sense and, among many others, resolutions 740 of 14:45 hours on December 1, 1999, 57 of 10:00 hours on February 5, 2003, and 875 of 10:00 hours on October 7, 2004, can be consulted). In accordance with the provisions in former Canon 162 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), final sentences vested with the authority and efficacy of material res judicata are those handed down in ordinary and abbreviated processes, or those to which the law confers that effect. Currently, numeral 64 of the CPC (Código Procesal Civil) indicates that: "For res judicata to occur, the identity of subjects, object, and cause is necessary, which can be declared ex officio. Its effects are limited to the operative part. Material res judicata is produced by final sentences handed down in ordinary processes and the resolutions expressly indicated by law, which makes indisputable, in another process, the existence or not of the legal relationship judged. Sentences handed down in the other processes shall have the effect of formal res judicata, and the filing of an ordinary process shall not impede its execution." On the subject of Res Judicata, the Administrative Appeals Court, Second Section (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Segunda), also citing a sentence from the former Court of Cassation (Sala de Casación) has stated: "... VI.- That it is necessary to emphasize that the existence and the scope of res judicata not only depend on the triple identity in the object, the cause, and the parties, but also on the nature of the pronouncement made, since res judicata is, above all, what those same words mean, that is, what was already judged in a final ruling; because otherwise, if the sentence does not decide the merits of the questions proposed and debated in the lawsuit, or in other words, if what is claimed in the second proceeding was not granted or denied in the first, there cannot be res judicata.- Article 733 of the Civil Code - notes this body, today 162 of the Civil Procedure Code - provides that the authority of res judicata is limited to the operative part of the sentence, but not to its grounds; however, it is often necessary to turn to the reasoning of the ruling to clarify what it was that the judges actually resolved, especially when the sentence, being a dismissal, limits itself to declaring in its operative part that the claim is denied.- The simple denial of the claim does not always suppose that the Judge has dismissed what was requested due to lack of proof of the alleged facts or because the plaintiff lacked right, or for other reasons that imply a decision on the merits or prevent reiterating the controversy in a new proceeding. Sometimes it is reasons of another type that give rise to the rejection of a claim; they may be of a procedural nature, such as the lack of some requirement that the law demands and that the plaintiff did not fulfill before exercising the action; or, merits-based reasons in special cases, as would occur if the defendant had tried to collect an obligation before its term or subordinated to a condition precedent, a hypothesis in which it would be absurd to oppose res judicata within the litigation that was later promoted, once the term or condition had been fulfilled. On the problem of the interpretation of res judicata, the Supreme Court of Spain made the following considerations in a ruling dated July 7, 1943: 'Modern procedural doctrine, delimiting the concepts of res judicata in a formal sense and res judicata in a substantial sense, has come to establish, with clear and secure criteria, that resolutions on procedural matters (prerequisites, exceptions, etc.) do not produce material res judicata, even when they put an end to the proceeding, they refer exclusively to the procedural relation for which they were issued'; and in a later ruling, dated July first, 1947, the same Court expressed: 'In declaring the lower court that the exception of res judicata was not applicable, far from infringing the precept of Article 1253 of the Civil Code (Spanish), it interprets and applies it correctly, since it is reiterated doctrine that for res judicata to occur and be estimable, it is precise that the first sentence has resolved the merits of the matter; and as it is declared in the appealed resolution that the first sentence, although it dismissed the claims of the defendants, was for purely procedural reasons, and therefore it did not deny their claimed rights nor, far from it, recognized them for the defendant, it is obvious that the ground under examination cannot be accepted...'". (Sentence number 101 of fourteen hours thirty minutes on September four, nineteen sixty-eight from the former Court of Cassation, cited in sentence number 528-2003 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on October thirty-one, two thousand three of the Administrative Appeals Court, Second Section. Second Judicial Circuit of San José (II Circuito Judicial de San José)). Taking into account what was indicated in the previous precedent and what is established in that regard by numeral 64 of the Civil Procedure Code, -applicable supplementarily to the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)-, in order to declare the existence of Material Res Judicata, it is necessary that there is an identity of parties, object, and cause with an analysis that respects what was set forth above.

VII. REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL RES JUDICATA

During the oral and public trial hearing, the representation of the sued Institute reiterated the exception of res judicata, arguing among the indicated aspects the appropriateness of said exception considering what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber regarding the order generated in sentence no. 8710-2019, in which that institute was ordered to resolve the water problem in the communities that make up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. In view of such arguments and this Court having to assess the appropriateness of such a position, it becomes necessary to revisit the procedural effects arising from constitutional res judicata (cosa juzgada constitucional) which has been taken up again by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice itself in reiterated rulings which are taken up again for their analysis. As of sentence number 2014-12825 of 15:05 hours on August 06, 2014, the Constitutional Chamber developed a new doctrine, referred to as "constitutional res judicata", as opposed to the institution of ordinary or legality res judicata, which is the one applicable for the rest of the Courts of the Republic. Indicating that it arises as a fundamental right to erga omnes respect of what was ruled by the Constitutional Court, even in the case of a concrete ruling, not only regarding jurisprudence as such: "…It is a different case regarding the fundamental right to constitutional res judicata, since it is about establishing the true and exact scope of a constitutional sentence with respect to what has been resolved in the field of ordinary legality. In this hypothesis, only the Constitutional Chamber has competence -exclusive and excluding- to determine the scope and content of its estimatory and dismissal sentences. It must be taken into consideration that constitutional res judicata has special relevance from the constitutional perspective, since the powers of constitutional oversight were exclusively attributed to the Constitutional Chamber and this Court in its sentences settles and resolves, definitively, without the possibility of a subsequent appeal, whether a fundamental, human right or a constitutional value, principle, or precept was violated. Constitutional res judicata has its own and special singularities that distinguish it from legality res judicata, which are the following: a) No appeal is possible, not even the extraordinary review against a constitutional sentence; b) constitutional res judicata extends to the operative part (Por tanto) as well as to the recital part or reasonings of fact and law set forth by the Constitutional Chamber; c) the efficacy of constitutional res judicata is not relative -relativity of legality res judicata- but absolute and general, it extends to any subject of law, both those who intervened as main or accessory parties and those who were not parties to the constitutional process. (…) The definition of constitutional res judicata as a fundamental right by the original constituent is not a minor or irrelevant matter; on the contrary, it holds the greatest importance from the perspective of constitutional hermeneutics and application, since it makes it possible for any person to allege its infringement in the venue of the amparo process and, consequently, this Constitutional Court has full and absolute competence to hear and resolve that point in the indicated procedural channel. In short, constitutional res judicata fulfills a double role of fundamental right and institutional guarantee of the principles and values noted (legal certainty and social peace), a condition it shares with other figures regulated in the dogmatic part of the Constitution…" (Emphasis is not from the original). This declaration of this created fundamental right brings with it the legal impossibility for any Court to ignore or contradict what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in cases of amparo or habeas corpus. The Chamber itself ordered in that sense: "V.- CONSTITUTIONAL RES JUDICATA IN THE AMPARO PROCESS. (…) No ordinary court or judge of legality has competence, under penalty of patently infringing the Constitution and the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, to define when or under what circumstances a sentence issued by the Constitutional Chamber has effects of material res judicata or binding efficacy before third parties; such points must be determined, exclusively, by the final and ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, international human rights law, and the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. Any court or judge of ordinary legality that attempts to define such scope violates Articles 9, 10, and 48 of the Constitution by arrogating and usurping, against the grain of the Constitution and the law, competencies that it does not have and seriously damaging the constitutional principle of the separation of functions that clearly distinguishes between constitutional jurisdiction and mere legality jurisdiction. In short, every court or judge of ordinary legality is expressly prohibited from defining in their own legality sentences the scope and effects of a sentence issued by the ultimate and final interpreter of the constitution who exclusively hears and resolves constitutional processes. The only body empowered by the Constitution and by law to define the efficacy of its constitutional sentences is the Constitutional Chamber itself, to the exclusion of any ordinary jurisdictional body…" (Emphasis is not from the original). From such ruling, it is also extracted in which scenarios "constitutional res judicata" proceeds or not, in the different rulings thus issued: "…Within the typology of amparo sentences issued by the Constitutional Chamber, a distinction must be made between those called dismissals from the instance, meaning they do not examine the merits of the matter and resolve the matter ad limine litis, such as summary rejections and rejections on the merits. In a summary rejection, the Constitutional Chamber makes no pronouncement regarding the merits, as it may consider that the matter is manifestly improper or of ordinary legality and therefore not within its constitutional competence; this type of sentence, as it does not pronounce on the merits of the matter, does not produce res judicata; it will be the ordinary administrative and jurisdictional instances who must hear and resolve the matter. In the case of rejection on the merits, there is likewise no pronouncement regarding the merits, as precedents are reiterated in which the matter has been rejected because it is not the competence of the Constitutional Chamber. It is reiterated again that the delimitation of the Constitutional Chamber's competence is an exclusive and excluding matter of this Constitutional Court, its precedents not binding it in the future, so that under a better weighing or a new integration, the Constitutional Chamber could very well assume the knowledge and resolution of certain types of matters that in the past it has rejected by considering that they have relevance for the uniform interpretation and application of the Constitution and the instruments of Public International Human Rights Law. Regarding sentences issued in the amparo process that examine the merits of the matter, a distinction must be made between a) estimatory and b) dismissal sentences. It must be taken into consideration that the estimation or dismissal of the claim deduced in the amparo can also be absolute or partial. Estimatory or partially estimatory sentences produce material constitutional res judicata and, furthermore, bind erga omnes. Dismissal sentences, in the majority of cases, also produce material constitutional res judicata, since the Constitutional Chamber, in hearing and resolving the claim, rules out the existence of an infringement of a fundamental or human right. Dismissal sentences do not produce material constitutional res judicata, solely and exclusively, in the exceptional cases where the Constitutional Chamber considers that what is sought is a matter of ordinary legality and so indicates it expressly; in such a case, it will be the administrative and jurisdictional bodies who must resolve the matter. They are exceptional cases, since, as a general rule, the Constitutional Chamber summarily rejects matters of ordinary legality; however, there may be cases where it has some level of doubt and then decides to give it course, it being that until the evidence is gathered, it becomes clear that it is a matter of ordinary legality. This also happens when the amparo plaintiff formulates a set of grievances and claims, combining some of legality with others of constitutionality, so that the Constitutional Chamber, the latter being present, decides to give it course, instruct the process, and resolve it, indicating in the sentence that there are a series of points of ordinary legality on which it will not pronounce because they are not within its competence…" (Emphasis is not from the original).- That is to say, this new doctrine proclaims that according to the effects of sentences issued in that constitutional venue, in line with the provisions of ordinal 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, number 7135, this Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction cannot disregard the content of those rulings, according to the so-called "constitutional res judicata", and that in such measure, it implies a duty (and right) of "erga omnes" respect of what was ruled by the Constitutional Court, even in the case of a concrete ruling, not only regarding the jurisprudence as such.

VI. REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF RES JUDICATA IN SENTENCE 8710-2019 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

Assessing what was set forth in the preceding recitals and analyzing the arguments given in the oral and public trial hearing regarding the exception of res judicata, it must be estimated that in the present process, the plaintiff party indicates, according to its factual narration, that the present lawsuit is aimed at declaring the obligation of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct in our Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, located in the Canton of Corredores, District Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right of access to potable water in sufficient quantity. And to order the aqueduct to be built to bring water to all the houses found in Abrojo Montezuma. According to the most viable possibility determined by AYA. It directs its theory of the case based on negligent conduct by the Institute, which has maintained over time an omission regarding its legal duties in relation to the supply of potable water that it must provide as an essential service to the communities of the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. For its part, ruling 8710-2019 of the Constitutional Chamber analyzed the following as the object of the appeal: "The appellant reports problems of water shortage and reports that for 3 years they sought help from the respondent to supply water to the community of Abrojo Montezuma, Guaymí indigenous reserve, and despite having had multiple meetings and despite having fulfilled everything requested by the technical personnel, there is no progress in the project". In its recital part, the Constitutional Chamber analyzed: "From the study of the evidence contained in the case file, an infringement of the fundamental rights of the protected community is accredited. From the report rendered under oath, it is extracted that the community of Abrojo Montezuma has a small aqueduct that supplies about 15 houses and it is pointed out that said system requires improvements and expansions to address the lack of potable water. Therefore, it is understood that for several years, the authorities of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers have been coordinating with the ASADA the viability process of a project, so that through the Directorate of Project Formulation of the UEN-Project Administration of the Deputy Management for Communal Aqueduct Management, flow measurements (aforos) have been carried out at different sources (fuentes) located inside and outside the indigenous territory, whose combined flows allow them to propose a project integrated by indigenous communities and communities outside the indigenous territory, without to date an effective solution having been provided for said problem. Added to this, from the report rendered by the representative of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts, it is also not possible to extract any technical reason, or of any other nature, that would justify that to date, the aqueduct project to be developed in the community in question had not been completed. By virtue of what was pointed out, the violation of the rights of the inhabitants of the mentioned area is accredited, since the enjoyment of a fundamental element to guarantee people's health, such as potable water, is at stake. In this sense, the respondent authorities are under the obligation to provide, in the shortest possible time, a solution for the problem under study; however, from the reports and evidence provided by them, it is denoted that this has not been done. Thus, the present appeal must be declared with merit, with the consequences that will be stated in the operative part." And in its operative part, it expressly ordered: "The appeal is declared WITH MERIT. Yamileth Astorga Espeleta, in her capacity as Executive President of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, or whoever occupies that position in her place, is ordered to take the actions that are within the scope of her competencies so that within a period of twelve months, counted from the notification of this sentence, an effective solution is provided to the problem of lack of potable water for the community of Abrojo Montezuma". From the analysis of what was addressed by the Constitutional Chamber, it is notorious that the defense of res judicata alleged by the sued party must be rejected, insofar as applying the principles of ordinary res judicata, for the defense to proceed there must be identity of object, cause, and subject, prerequisites that are not met in the present case. And it is that even from the approach taken by the Constitutional Chamber regarding constitutional res judicata, such an institution is not applicable either, for it should be noted that although we are in the presence of the same subjects or procedural parties, the fact of the matter is that in relation to the object and the cause, substantial differences are evident, taking into account in the first instance that in the constitutional process, what was sought was the cessation of a violation of fundamental rights such as access to water, as a fundamental right, and for that discussion, the need to improve an existing aqueduct to provide the service in some form was analyzed. Hence, the order issued by the Constitutional Chamber is aimed at providing an effective solution to the water problem, to address that fundamental right. Whereas in the present process, there is an evolution of the object of that appeal and of the same cause, insofar as what is sought is not a simple solution or the cessation of the affectation of that fundamental right, but rather the declaration of the legal duty of the sued institution to provide a public service such as the aqueduct service to equip the entire community with water supply in each dwelling is demanded; hence, the construction of a new aqueduct that provides that service to each family and dwelling house is claimed, basing the claim for that responsibility on negligent conduct of the sued Institute's obligations and legal competencies. That is to say, it is not only about establishing the analysis of an omission of duties regarding a violation of constitutional rights, but about addressing a legality analysis regarding the omission of legal competencies of that institution concerning the construction of an aqueduct that provides potable water in a dignified manner to an entire community.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot succeed when it bases its defense on the assertion that this is essentially enforcing in the ordinary jurisdiction what the Constitutional Chamber resolved at the time, when it is evident that the object of analysis and what is sought have evolved, as has been explained. Consequently, this Chamber understands that the aforementioned constitutional ruling, rather than constituting res judicata, is a precedent that reinforces the appearance of good right (apariencia de buen derecho) of the plaintiff, as will be analyzed later when a ruling on the merits of the matter is made. Thus, the defense raised must be rejected. Based on the reasoning set forth, what the party alleges as a violation of the non bis in idem principle is inadmissible, insofar as it bases said violation on the estimation that it has already been judged for the same facts in the constitutional venue, but as already developed, the object of analysis of this lawsuit differs from what was discussed in the constitutional venue.

VII.ON THE COMPETENCIES OF THE COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF AQUEDUCTS AND SEWERS IN MATTERS OF SANITARY SEWERAGE AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY: We must begin by stating that the matter of sanitary sewerage, due to its implications and purpose, is logically linked to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to human health, wherein, according to constitutional mandate, there is a generic responsibility of the State for the protection of this fundamental right, in which, of course, the various institutions regulating the matter, including the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, are involved. In this sense, the jurisprudence issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is abundant. In ruling 17365-2007, the Constitutional Court developed the following: "... Article 50 of the Political Constitution establishes that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The right to a healthy environment has a broad content that equates to the aspiration to improve the living environment of the human being, such that it goes beyond natural conservation criteria to be located within every sphere in which the person develops, be it family, work, or the environment in which they live. Hence, it is affirmed that it is a transversal right, that is, one that moves throughout the entire legal system, shaping and reinterpreting its institutes. The environment is defined by the Royal Spanish Academy of Language as the 'set of physical circumstances that surround living beings,' which further emphasizes the general nature of the right. In contrast, the right to an ecologically balanced environment is a more restricted concept referring to an important part of that environment in which the human being develops, to the balance that must exist between the advancement of society and the conservation of natural resources. Both rights are expressly recognized in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which outlines the Social State of Law. The location of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment within the constitutional regulations of the Social State of Law is the point from which it must be analyzed. The Social State of Law produces the phenomenon of incorporating into the fundamental text a series of political objectives of great social relevance and the introduction of an important number of social rights that ensure the common good and the satisfaction of people's basic needs. In this perspective, the Political Constitution emphasizes that the protection of natural resources is an adequate means to protect and improve the quality of life for all, which makes necessary the intervention of public authorities on factors that can alter the balance of natural resources and, more broadly, hinder a person's development and unfolding in a healthy environment. Just as the principle of the Social State of Law is of immediate application, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is also, manifesting itself in the dual aspect of a subjective right of individuals and configuration as a goal or end of the action of public authorities in general. The impact that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State, and congruently of the municipalities (bearing in mind constitutional Article 169), finds its first reason for being in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the State's own structure in its role as guarantor thereof and, secondly, because the State's activity is directed toward satisfying the interests of the community. The Political Constitution establishes that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Prima facie, to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or need, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and prevent any activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action directed at anticipatorily sheltering the right from possible dangers in order to make it last for future generations. The State must assume a double behavior of doing and not doing; on one hand, it must refrain from itself threatening the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must undertake the task of issuing the measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements. (...) (...)On the right to health and a healthy environment. Public health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are constitutionally recognized (Articles 21, 50, 73, and 89 of the Magna Carta), as well as through international regulations. In this sense, this Court in judgment No. 3705-93 of 3:00 p.m. on July 30, 1993, indicated the following: '... Environmental quality is a 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 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," 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...' Likewise, there is an obligation of the State to protect the environment that is expressly contemplated in the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which provides: ' ...Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are entitled to denounce acts that infringe that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused...' This provision is complemented by the provisions of numeral 11 of the 'Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.' Interpreting both norms harmoniously, the precautionary principle can be derived, according to which the State must provide everything necessary – within the scope permitted by law – in order to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. In relation to the foregoing, this Chamber, through judgment No. 180-98 of 4:24 p.m. on January 13, 1998, ordered: '... the State not only has the unavoidable responsibility to ensure that the health of each of the persons making up the national community does not suffer damage from third parties, in relation to these rights, but also must assume the responsibility of achieving the favorable social conditions so that each person can enjoy their health, understanding such right as a situation of physical, psychic (or mental), and social well-being.' In addition to what is established in the Political Constitution, the Organic Environmental Law develops a series of responsibilities in the matter and regulates the criteria for the use and disposal of water. Article 28 of said regulation states: 'It is the function of the State, the municipalities, and other public entities to define and execute national territorial planning policies, aimed at regulating and promoting human settlements and the economic and social activities of the population, as well as physical-spatial development, in order to achieve harmony between the greater well-being of the population, the use of natural resources, and environmental conservation.' Numeral 50 states: 'Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest.' Article 51: 'For the conservation and sustainable use of water, the following criteria must be applied, among others: […] c) Maintain the balance of the water system, protecting each of the components of the hydrographic basins (cuencas hidrográficas).' Article 52: 'The criteria mentioned in the previous article must be applied: […] d) In the operation and administration of drinking water systems, the collection, evacuation, and final disposal of residual or waste water, which serve population and industrial centers.' Article 59: 'Contamination is understood as any alteration or modification of the environment that may harm human health, threaten natural resources, or affect the general environment of the Nation. The load and emission of contaminants shall be obligatorily adjusted to the technical regulations that are issued. The State shall adopt the measures that are necessary to prevent or correct environmental contamination.' Article 60: 'To prevent and control environmental contamination, the State, the municipalities, and other public institutions shall give priority, among others, to the establishment and operation of adequate services in areas fundamental to environmental health such as: […] b) The sanitary disposal of excreta, sewage (aguas servidas), and rainwater (aguas pluviales).' Regarding human health and water disposal, the General Health Law establishes a series of pertinent regulations: Article 264: 'Water constitutes a good and its use for human consumption shall have priority over any other use.' Article 276.- Only with permission from the Ministry may natural or legal persons make drainages or proceed to discharge solid or liquid residues or waste or others that may contaminate surface, subterranean, or maritime water, strictly adhering to the regulatory safety standards and conditions and to the special procedures that the Ministry imposes in the particular case to render them innocuous.' Article 286.- 'Every natural or legal person is obligated to carry out the drainage works that the health authority orders in order to prevent the formation of unhealthy and infectious foci, or to sanitize those that may exist on their property. If the owner is reluctant in fulfilling such orders, the health authority may do them at the expense of the defaulter. In cases where the public interest, the nature and scale of the drainage works justifies it, every property owner is obligated to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority constructs such works, and the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement (servidumbre) is incompatible with its use. The maintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works.' Article 289.- 'Every sewerage system shall be under the technical control of the Ministry and the National Service of Aqueducts and Sewers and the private or public law persons who construct, administer, and operate them shall be subject to the standards that the Executive Branch, in consultation with the National Service of Aqueducts and Sewers, dictates to condition their construction, operation, and the final evacuation and treatment of the affluents.' Water, as has been indicated and provided by the legal system, is a right linked to health, being an essential resource for the development of the human being and their environment, hence its domain is of public order administered by the State and therefore it is the State's reserve to authorize the use of those resources, as well as their destination. In that order, the Water Law states: "Article 1.- The following are waters of the public domain: I.- Those of the territorial seas in the extension and terms established by international law; II.- Those of the lagoons and estuaries of the beaches that communicate permanently or intermittently with the sea; III.- Those of the interior lakes of natural formation that are directly linked to constant currents; IV.- Those of the rivers and their direct or indirect tributaries, streams, or springs (manantiales) from the point where the first permanent waters emerge until their mouth in the sea or lakes, lagoons, or estuaries; V.- Those of constant or intermittent currents whose channel, in all or part of its extension, serves as a boundary of the national territory, the domain of those currents being subject to what has been established in international treaties concluded with neighboring countries and, in the absence thereof, or regarding what is not provided for, to the provisions of this law; VI.- Those of any current that directly or indirectly flows into those listed in section V; VII.- Those extracted from mines, with the limitation indicated in Article 10; VIII.- Those of the springs (manantiales) that emerge on beaches, maritime zones, channels, riverbeds, or banks of national property and, in general, all those that originate on lands of the public domain; IX.- The subterranean waters whose surfacing is not done by means of wells; and X.- The rainwater (aguas pluviales) that runs through ravines or watercourses whose channels are of the public domain. Article 2.- The waters listed in the previous article are of national property and the domain over them is not lost nor has been lost when, due to the execution of artificial or prior-use works, the natural characteristics are altered or have been altered. Excepted are waters that are used by virtue of contracts granted by the State, which shall be subject to the conditions authorized in the respective concession." "Article 30.- The potable waters of rivers and springs (vertientes), in any part of the national territory where they are found, shall be affected to the piping service in the towns, as provided by the Executive Branch. Article 31.- The following are declared as domain reserve in favor of the Nation: a) The lands that surround the sites of collection or supply intakes of drinking water, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius." Specifically regarding the use of water with potability condition, the Law likewise provides for the use of that resource for the service of the population in conditions of potability, which is reserved to the State as an exclusive competence through its competent institutions, among which the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers stands out; in that sense, the Drinking Water Law grants public utility status to the use of water in potability condition for the populations of the Republic. Thus, Article 1 states: "Article 1. The planning, design, and execution of drinking water supply works in the populations of the Republic are declared of public utility. Article 2.- Are of the public domain all those lands that both the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers and the Ministry of Public Health consider indispensable to construct or to situate any part or parts of the drinking water supply systems, as well as to ensure the sanitary and physical protection, and necessary flow thereof. It is the responsibility of AyA to hear the requests formulated for construction, expansion, and modification of drinking water systems and to recommend to the Ministry of Public Works and Transport the construction, expansion, or modification of those of greatest need, upon prior study of mortality, parasitism, and other indices. Article 3.- It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Health and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers to select and locate the waters destined for the piping service, the type of treatment thereof, and the type of drinking water system to be constructed. It shall also have the responsibility for the recommendations that must be issued from the sanitary point of view encompassing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of drinking water systems. Article 4.- It is the responsibility of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, through the Department of Hydraulic Works, to construct the new drinking water systems, as well as to carry out the repairs and extensions that become necessary in the existing ones, whenever the respective Municipalities are not technically and administratively qualified to carry out such works themselves. AyA shall carry out these works abiding by the sanitary indications indicated by the Ministry of Public Health, according to Article 30." From the transcribed norms, it can be concluded that the potability of water is part of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, of course, of the right to health, where public administrations also have an acquired responsibility and must incorporate into their policies as public management the necessary resources to guarantee that right. Furthermore, the obligation of citizens and legal persons to attend to the necessary guidelines for the use and disposal of water in a way that does not generate any source of contamination is also extracted. Now, in addition to that general normative framework, the legal system confers specific competencies to the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, its constitutive law which states: "Article 1.- With the purpose of directing, setting policies, establishing and applying norms, carrying out and promoting the planning, financing, and development, and of resolving everything related to the supply of drinking water and the collection and evacuation of sewage (aguas negras) and liquid industrial waste, as well as the normative aspect of storm sewer systems (alcantarillado pluvial) in urban areas, for the entire national territory, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers is created, as an autonomous institution of the State. Numeral 2 establishes: "It is the responsibility of the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers: a) To direct and oversee everything concerning providing the inhabitants of the republic with a service of drinking water, collection and evacuation of sewage (aguas negras) and liquid industrial waste and of rainwater (aguas pluviales) in urban areas; b) To determine the priority, advisability, and feasibility of the different projects proposed to construct, reform, expand, modify aqueduct and sewerage works; which may not be executed without its approval; c) To promote the conservation of hydrographic basins (cuencas hidrográficas) and ecological protection, as well as the control of water contamination; d) To advise the other State bodies and coordinate public and private activities in all matters related to the establishment of aqueducts and sewers and control of water resource contamination, its consultation being obligatory in all cases, and compliance with its recommendations inexcusable; e) To prepare all the plans of public works related to the purposes of this law, as well as to approve all those of private works related to aqueduct and sewerage systems, as determined by the respective regulations; f) To use, utilize, govern, or oversee, as the case may be, all waters of the public domain indispensable for the due fulfillment of the provisions of this law, in exercise of the rights that the State has over them, in accordance with Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered the substitute organ of the powers attributed in that law to the State, ministries, and municipalities; g) To directly administer and operate the aqueduct and sewerage systems throughout the country, which shall be gradually assumed taking into account advisability and availability of resources. The systems currently administered and operated by municipal corporations may continue under their charge, as long as they provide efficient service. Under no circumstances may it delegate the administration of the aqueduct and sanitary sewer systems of the Metropolitan Area. Nor may it delegate the administration of systems over which financial responsibility exists and as long as it corresponds directly to the Institute. The institution is empowered to agree with local bodies on the administration of such services or to administer them through administrative boards (juntas administradoras) of mixed integration between the Institute and the respective communities, whenever it is thus advisable for the better provision of services and in accordance with the respective regulations. For the same reasons and with the same characteristics, regional administrative boards (juntas administradoras regionales) involving several municipalities may also be created; h) To enforce the General Drinking Water Law, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered the substitute body of the ministries and municipalities indicated in said law; i) To construct, expand, and reform the aqueduct and sewerage systems in those cases where it is necessary and so advised for the better satisfaction of national needs; and j) To control the adequate investment of all the resources that the State allocates for aqueduct and sanitary sewer works." Article 5.- For the better fulfillment of the purposes referred to in Article 2 of this law, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers shall have the following powers and prerogatives, in addition to those that general laws grant to establishments of its nature: b) To contract and formalize all types of documents, necessary or convenient, for the better achievement of its purposes; c) To acquire ownership of movable and immovable property; d) To contract loans in the country or abroad, which may be backed by the guarantee of the State, duly granted, upon prior authorization from the Legislative Assembly. Said loans shall not require legislative authorization if they do not exceed two hundred fifty thousand colones (¢ 250,000.00), nor a term of twelve months, and are contracted with national banks or other public institutions; in this case, the approval of the Comptroller General of the Republic shall suffice; (Thus reformed by Article 1 of Law Nº 3668 of March 16, 1966) e) To process the expropriations necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. (Thus reformed this first paragraph by Article 65, subsection a), of the Expropriations Law Nº 7495 of May 3, 1995). Those lands necessary for the conservation and protection of water resources, as well as for the constructions that become necessary in the collection, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of waters for the purpose of establishing populations, or related to the evacuation and treatment of wastewater (aguas residuales), are declared of public utility and social interest, and may be expropriated. f) To contract, give as guarantee, and pledge its own revenues, as well as the movable or immovable property it owns, in the loans referred to in subsection d) of this article. g) To accept donations of any kind; h) To prepare rates and fees, rents, and other charges, for the use of the services established by this law; i) Upon prior notification to the owners, possessors, users, administrators, or their representatives, to carry out the necessary studies and investigations within their properties and buildings, except domiciliary ones, for the achievement of the purposes proposed by the body regulated by this law; j) It shall issue its own regulations; and k) All others assigned to it by general laws insofar as they are applicable. Article 21.- Every project for the construction, expansion, or modification of drinking water supply and sewage (aguas servidas) and rainwater disposal systems, public or private, must be previously approved by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, which may carry out the inspection it deems convenient to verify that the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Said prior approval shall be obligatory in all cases of construction of subdivisions (fraccionamientos), urbanization developments (urbanizaciones) or lot divisions (lotificaciones) in any part of the country and no other state body shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute. The infraction of this mandate shall cause the nullity of any construction permit granted in contravention of this prohibition, the parceling or the project, as the case may be, being considered legally non-existent, with the consequences, regarding third parties, provided for in Article 35 of the Urban Planning Law, Nº 4240 of November 15, 1968". According to these regulations, the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers has specific competencies in the administration and operation of aqueduct and sewerage systems, whatever their nature, and supervision of those systems operated by third parties shall be its responsibility. And it should be highlighted that there is not only a legal duty regarding the administration and operation of those services, but also the obligation to provide the general population with drinking water service, the constitutive law itself endowing it with the legal and financial resources for the fulfillment of its purposes, such as the charging of fees (Drinking Water Law) and the material resources for attending to its competencies.

VIII.ON THE OMISSIVE CONDUCT OF AYA REGARDING THE SUPPLY OF DRINKING WATER TO THE COMMUNITIES OF THE ABROJO DE MONTEZUMA INDIGENOUS TERRITORY: In the present matter, the plaintiff claims an omission by the defendant entity regarding the fulfillment of legal duties and competencies in relation to the supply of drinking water to the Abrojo de Montezuma Indigenous Territory. They broadly indicate that, historically, there has only been a small aqueduct in the community that supplied only 15 houses, and that it is in very poor condition, especially considering that the source of that aqueduct is exposed to contamination because it is near an uncontrolled pasture (potrero). They indicate that the problem has existed for a long time, during which the defendant institute has ignored its legal duty to resolve the drinking water supply, despite community efforts and efforts with other institutions undertaken to resolve the problem; it is even noted that the Constitutional Chamber was appealed to, and despite having obtained a favorable amparo ruling, AyA maintains omissive conduct regarding the need to resolve the lack of an adequate aqueduct to provide drinking water to the communities that comprise the Abrojo de Montezuma Indigenous Territory, part of Guaymí. In its defense, the representation of AyA indicates that, as a result of what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber, that institution has been coordinating a series of actions internally in its management to address the operational aspects of offering the water supply service to those communities of Abrojo de Montezuma, actions that have been framed in a pre-feasibility stage of construction in which the technical viability and financial aspects of the works required to attend to the drinking water supply in those communities have been analyzed and addressed from a technical point of view. Furthermore, it indicates that among the actions carried out is the installation of nine water tanks at strategic points in the communities for access to water, which are supplied by tanker trucks. Criteria of the Court: Having analyzed the arguments of the parties and the evidence brought to the case file, this Chamber concludes that the defendant Institute has indeed incurred in omissive conduct regarding its duties and legal competencies regarding the supply of drinking water to the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma for the following reasons.

From the evidence provided, it has been established that the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma, in Corredores, Puntarenas, encompasses, among other communities, Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, and that these communities have historically experienced an impossibility of a potable water service that meets the minimum conditions for dignified human access and quality; in response to this problem, the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral representing that territory has undertaken various actions to address this lack of potable water service, among which the filing of an amparo action in 2019 before the Sala Constitucional stands out, processed under file number 19-004972-0007-CO, and which was resolved by ruling 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, in which it was ordered to provide an effective solution to the problem of lack of potable water in that community. Furthermore, a precautionary measure was ordered by this Court, by means of resolution 1263-2021 of September 17, 2021, ordering the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to provide the supply of potable water to the communities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Abrojo Montezuma, through a delivery system using tanker trucks or a wagon vehicle with potable water tanks; a supply that will be carried out once a day in each of the indicated communities, every day of the week. In response to those resolutions, the defendant Institute proceeded to work basically on two fronts: an approach in terms of conducting a pre-feasibility study to supply the communities of Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua, and Alto Rey, all within the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo Montezuma in Corredores, concluding that potable water supply in those communities of Abrojo is not viable through an independent system to be delegated to the community, and determining that the best alternative is to supply them from the Improvements and Expansion project of the Coto Brus system. They decided on the option of improving the San Vito aqueduct, extending it to that community and solving the problem of other communities, while reducing the operational cost due to gravity conditions. In the pre-feasibility stage, project alternatives were analyzed, considering the current and future water demand of the communities, and conducting exhaustive research to identify water sources in the area that could solve the current problem. These local actions were carried out with the accompaniment at all times of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena (ADII) of said territory and members of the ASADA, considering first the supply option from springs (nacientes), and obtaining as a result that there are no sources of this type with the required flow rate in the area, which oriented the work towards analyzing the alternative using streams (quebradas), of which only one presented a favorable flow rate and height to formulate a project for the communities of Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey, and Cacoragua. For this, the development of a potable water treatment plant (PTAP) using a slow filtration mechanism is proposed, in order to provide a technical solution that is easy to operate and maintain for the beneficiary population, compared to other technologies available nationally. And on a provisional and immediate basis, the A y A proceeded with water distribution using a wagon with two installed tanks. In the case of the indigenous zone of Fila Cal, only the tanks will be supplied, and distribution is done door-to-door. In Abrojo Montezuma, six tanks were installed in front of the first pulpería. In addition to the aforementioned actions, topographic surveys were also conducted with GPS to acquire the necessary inputs for modeling the project, which involved locating proposed sites for the water intake, dam, desanding chamber (desarenador), treatment plant site, storage tank location, elevated crossing sites, and pressure-breaking tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes). It is necessary to obtain the definitive permits from the ADII and the approvals from the persons occupying the lands within the Indigenous Territory. Furthermore, it is required to process the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the project before SETENA, the permit that INDER must grant to locate aqueduct works within the border zone under its administration, and likewise to process the permit before MINAE for the use of the streams (quebradas) pursuant to the Reglamento a la Ley No. 9590 of July 3, 2018, which authorizes the use of water for human consumption, construction, operation, maintenance, and related works on properties of the State Domain (Patrimonio), including capacity gaugings (aforos) (mediciones de caudal) during the dry season at the cited source in order to identify the water potential; likewise, water quality was evaluated, assessing microbiological and physicochemical aspects, to obtain all the parameters required for the planning and design of the PTAP (Planta de Tratamiento de Agua Potable). The proposed project involves the construction of the stream intake, as well as infrastructure to allow the conveyance of the water resource to the treatment plant with its respective filters and disinfection, as well as the construction of a storage tank, from which the system could operate by gravity, and with the construction of the distribution system, all sectors of the mentioned communities would be served by installing the respective household connections (previstas intradomiciliarias). Currently, the production of the source continues to be monitored through summer gaugings (aforos) by the Dirección de Estudios Básicos y Diseños of the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados. Likewise, through the intermediation of the ADII and ASADA, conversations were held with persons occupying parcels within the territory to obtain preliminary approvals for the location of aqueduct works within said lands, mainly pressure-breaking tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes) (tanks built for the purpose of breaking the pressure or gradient of the piping, bringing the water to atmospheric pressure—zero pressure—in order to adjust the pressure to the pipeline's capacity or the requirements of the transmission line). In this evidentiary scenario, it is conclusive for this Court that the communities comprising the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma have historically presented and continue to present a condition of lack of potable water supply, which has affected and continues to affect the quality of life of its inhabitants, as they lack a sufficient and adequate aqueduct and sewerage service to provide the water resource in a dignified manner to the families of those communities, which is fundamental for their full development and their right to health. From the testimonies received at the trial hearing, it is clear that although, as a result of the palliative measures undertaken by the defendant entity as a consequence of the judicial resolutions issued by the Sala Constitucional and this Court, such as the installation of tanks so that the inhabitants of those communities can access water, and tanker trucks that supply certain sectors, the truth of the matter is that these provisional measures cannot be considered sufficient and adequate to address a legal obligation of the defendant institution to provide the potable water supply to the inhabitants of those areas, in an adequate, sufficient manner that guarantees quality of life and equal conditions to a basic public service that is substantial for the development of persons in all their spheres. Although the effort of that institution to address the problem is credited, the truth of the matter is that these efforts are directed as a result of a judicial resolution and not to the fulfillment of its legal competencies as is its duty as an Administration, and such actions have also not progressed to a concrete execution stage that seeks or provides a viable and immediate solution to the problem that these communities historically face. And it must be noted that the actions taken were directed toward a pre-feasibility stage that determined a viable action to address the supply shortage condition in that area; however, it is not proven that the technical model deemed conclusive as the best to address the water supply condition of that community has advanced in any way in the years following the identification of that solution, and there is an absence of evidence regarding management actions of that institute after the year 2021, which demonstrates that an omissive conduct by the AyA persists over time regarding the obligations provided in article 4 of the Ley de Agua Potable, which establishes that it is the responsibility of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, through the Departamento de Obras Hidráulicas, to build new potable water systems, as well as to carry out the repairs and extensions that may be necessary in existing ones. In addition to the provisions of articles 1, 2, 5, and 21 of the Ley Constitutiva de la Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which clearly state that this entity is responsible for the planning, financing, and development of everything related to the supply of potable water and the collection and disposal of sewage (aguas negras) and liquid industrial waste. Highlighting the competence regarding the duty to direct and supervise everything concerning providing the inhabitants of the republic with a service of potable water, collection and disposal of sewage and liquid industrial waste, and stormwater drainage in urban areas; in addition to determining the priority, convenience, and viability of different projects proposed to build, reform, expand, or modify aqueduct and sewerage works, which cannot be executed without its approval; as well as directly managing and operating aqueduct and sewerage systems throughout the country, which will be gradually assumed taking into account convenience and availability of resources and the obligations that have been assumed internationally on indigenous issues. And it must be noted that besides the legal competencies and obligations imposed on that Administration being very clear regarding providing the populations of the national territory with potable water supply and sanitary sewerage, the legal system also provides it with a series of resources to achieve these obligations and purposes, among them, it empowers it to agree with local organizations on the administration of such services or to administer them, in addition to granting it powers to enforce the Ley General de Agua Potable, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered the substitute body for the ministries and municipalities indicated in said law; and it grants it the competence to build, expand, and reform aqueduct and sewerage systems in those cases where it is necessary and advisable for the better satisfaction of national needs and the fulfillment of international commitments in the area of indigenous population; in addition to controlling the adequate investment of all resources that the State allocates for aqueduct and sanitary sewerage works. Additionally, it is granted powers such as contracting and formalizing all types of documents, necessary or convenient, for the better achievement of its purposes; acquiring ownership of movable and immovable property; contracting loans in the country or abroad, which may be backed by the bond of the State, duly granted, with prior authorization from the Asamblea Legislativa. Processing the expropriations necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. Contracting, giving as collateral, and pledging its own revenues, as well as movable or immovable property of its own, in the loans specified by law. Accepting donations of any kind; Establishing tariffs and rates, revenues, and other charges for the use of the services established by this law. In addition to having the financial resources coming from the tariff system granted by the Ley de Aguas and De Suministro de Agua Potable. Given the regulatory framework, it is completely incomprehensible to this Court that the actions executed by the defendant entity have not progressed more efficiently and with a tendency to concretize actions and resources to execute the construction of an aqueduct or improvements to existing solutions to supply in an individualized, efficient, and adequate manner each of the inhabitants of the communities that make up the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma in Corredores, Puntarenas. Especially when it is known that the lack of supply of this very essential service is not new and that community has historically faced it, and that it is also a highly vulnerable community, which is protected by a conventional, constitutional, and legal legal framework that must make such population a priority for attention, in order to reduce any condition of discrimination, and which must be oriented towards facilitating the development of the quality of life of those communities under equal conditions. The palliative measures undertaken, as noted previously, also cannot be considered as evidence of a cessation of the accused omissive conduct, when by express legal provision, it is clear that regarding the granting of a public service, it must always attend to the fundamental principles of public service, to ensure its continuity, its efficiency, its adaptation to any change in the legal regime or in the social need it satisfies, and equality in the treatment of the recipients, users, or beneficiaries. Therefore, the omissions undertaken by the defendant entity openly imply a direct violation of the law that regulates them, and in the process of this neglect of their competencies, the supra- and infra-constitutional and legal rights of the inhabitants of the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma in Corredores, Puntarenas are infringed upon, as the Sala Constitucional pointed out in its time in ruling 8710 of 2019. For further reasoning, the Court is mindful that the logistics of the intended solution require a serious, deep, multifactorial, multidisciplinary analysis with the participation of multiple subjects outside of the AyA itself, requiring inter-institutional coordination and necessary public-private collaborations for achieving the goal. However, it is precisely because of these parameters, against the evidence in the case file, that it is considered that the actions of the defendant institute have been isolated, situational, and reactive to jurisdictional intervention, whether constitutional or by this Court. There is a lack of demonstration that a clear critical path exists regarding the state of the matter, the progress from the initial diagnosis, the identification of the project's magnitude, being limited to the pre-feasibility stage and the implementation of provisional-type solutions, such as water transportation to sites, for which there was not even provided to the case file a detail of the operability/efficiency of this solution over time. There does not appear to be a diagnosis of the current state of things with said provisional solutions (how many users benefit, the selection of the placement locations for the provisional tanks, maintenance of the tanks, etc.) as explained by the witness who testified at trial. The “meetings” that have been held do not seem to be linked into an activity schedule reflecting progress on a critical path, as it is not enough what was alleged in the response to the lawsuit, that the task of providing the service is being fulfilled for the indigenous communities, but rather, it is insisted, there must be sufficient inputs that prove, by way of accountability from the institute, that there indeed exists an active project, in execution, with oversight of provisional solutions, a critical path, and a tentative schedule of activities for the definitive solution, especially if technical pre-feasibility criteria already exist, as the witness from the AyA itself pointed out. It is therefore not a matter of simply claiming that there are financial limitations and that the project is complicated due to the reality of the site where the service is to be developed, but rather, it is precisely for these reasons that there must be serious follow-up, documentation, and oversight of progress in addressing the situation, which is found lacking in the record of this proceeding. Thus, the present lawsuit must be declared with merit in all its aspects. Consequently, the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared and ordered to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct of the Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, located in the Canton of Corredores, District Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right of access to potable water in sufficient quantity. It is ordered to build the aqueduct to bring water to all the houses located in Abrojo Montezuma, according to the most viable possibility determined by the AYA. The foregoing must be developed within a reasonable timeframe according to the technical and financial possibilities of that institution, a timeframe that must show efficient and adequate progress at each stage constituting the project to be developed, a timeframe that will be supervised in the execution phase.

IX.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED DEFENSES: The AyA's representation raises the defense of lack of active standing (falta de legitimación activa), which must be rejected considering that evidently the legal competencies of that entity place it in a legal relationship regarding what is claimed by the plaintiff. Regarding the lack of right alleged by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, the same must be declared without merit for the reasoning set forth in the preceding recitals.

X. COSTS

Regarding costs, in accordance with article one hundred ninety-three of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the very fact of being so. Dispensation from this condemnation is only viable when there is, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the species, the Court does not find any reason to exonerate from costs, therefore it proceeds to impose them on the defendant party, which will be liquidated in the sentence execution phase.

POR TANTO

Based on the factual and legal grounds set forth, the defenses of lack of active standing and lack of right are rejected. Consequently, the lawsuit filed by the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas against the Instituto Costarricense Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared WITH MERIT. Consequently, the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared and ordered to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct in the Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, located in the Canton of Corredores, District Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right of access to potable water in sufficient quantity. It is ordered to build the aqueduct to bring water to all the houses located in Abrojo de Montezuma. According to the most viable possibility determined by the AYA. The foregoing must be developed within a reasonable timeframe according to the technical and financial possibilities of that institution, a timeframe that must show efficient and adequate progress at each stage constituting the project to be developed, a timeframe that will be supervised in the execution phase. Costs are charged to the defendant party, which will be liquidated in the sentence execution phase. Notifíquese.

Laura Gómez Chacón Amy Miranda Alvarado Carlos José Mejías Rodríguez ???????????????

LAURA GOMEZ CHACON - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ???????????????

AMY MIRANDA ALVARADO - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ????????????????

CARLOS JOSE MEJIAS RODRIGUEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: [email protected] Roberto Montero García, in his capacity as public defender.

**WHEREAS:** **1.-** That the plaintiff appeared before this jurisdiction to request, as can be deduced from the complaint filed on July 6, 2021, and in accordance with the claims established at the preliminary hearing held on November 5, 2021, and what was added at the oral trial hearing held on June 9, 2023, the following: *"1. This complaint be granted. 2. The obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados be declared to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct in our Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, comprised of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal and part of Cacoragua, located in the Cantón de Corredores, Distrito Corredor of the Provincia de Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of our fundamental right of access to potable water in sufficient quantity. The aqueduct be ordered built to carry water to all the houses located in Abrojo Montezuma. According to the most viable possibility determined by the AyA. 3. The costs generated by reason of this proceeding be ordered paid"*. (Images 36, 172-176 of the electronic file, Trial hearing audio in SIGAO).

**2.-** Once the transfer was conferred, the representative of the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados answered the complaint in the negative and raised the defenses of res judicata (cosa juzgada), which was resolved in an interlocutory manner and raised again at the trial stage, and lack of right. (Image 41- 49, 65-72 of the electronic file).

**3.-** That the preliminary hearing was held on November 5, 2021, the claims and disputed facts were established, and the evidence was admitted. (Images 172-176 of the electronic file) **4.-** The public oral trial was held on June 9, 2023, with the presence of all parties. The offered testimonial evidence was submitted and the respective closing arguments were made. The case file was also declared highly complex in accordance with canon one hundred eleven of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

**5.-** In the proceedings, the prescriptions and terms of law have been observed, and no defects, errors, or omissions susceptible of producing nullity of the proceedings or defenselessness to the parties are perceived. This judgment is issued within the legal deadline.

This ruling is issued by unanimity and after prior deliberation. Drafted by Judge *Gómez Chacón* with the affirmative vote of Judge *Miranda Alvarado* and Judge *Mejías Rodríguez*; and **WHEREAS:** **II. PROVEN FACTS:** The following are deemed as such, having the corresponding support: **1.** The Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma represents the Guaymí Indigenous Territory, of which the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas are a part, a territory that encompasses, among other communities, Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal and part of Cacoraguas. (Undisputed fact); **2.** The Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma has raised before various bodies the problem of access to potable water suffered by the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma. (Images 37-40 of the judicial file); **3.** On March 29, 2019, the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma filed an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) before the Sala Constitucional, which was processed in case file 19-004972-0007-CO, invoking violations of fundamental rights due to the lack of water supply in the indicated localities. (Judicial file of amparo appeal, docket on evidence disk); **4.** By means of vote 2019-008710, of 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, case file 19-004972-0007-CO, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia ordered the AyA to, within a period of twelve months after being notified of said resolution, provide an effective solution to the problem of lack of potable water in that community. (Judicial file of amparo appeal, docket on evidence disk); **5.** In a meeting held with AyA officials on June 30, 2021, the following points were agreed upon: 1. Logistics for transferring the tanker truck to Bagaces and taking the wagon to the ORAC of Corredores. 2. Designate the driver who is currently driving the wagon in Bagaces to Corredores to achieve supply. 3. Coordinate with BCIE and SAID to prioritize the pending pre-feasibility study (estudio de prefactibilidad) to cover the communities mentioned in the pre-feasibility study prepared by the Sub. Delegates. 4. The ORAC of Corredores must determine which are the suitable points to place a couple of tanks in coordination with the ADII. 5. PE will coordinate with GG and human capital the hiring of occasional day laborers. (Images 128-130 of the judicial file); **6.** By means of memorandum NO.GSD-UEN-AP-2021 -00813 of July 7, 2021, a Report of alternatives for attending to the amparo appeal of the community of Abrojo Montezuma is rendered, which indicates that: *"This UEN, in response to the Amparo Appeal Exp 19-004972-007 - CO, ruled in favor of several communities in the cantón of Corredores, carried out a pre-feasibility study to supply the communities of Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua and Alto Rey, all from the indigenous territory of Abrojo Montezuma de Corredores. The attached report presents the alternatives evaluated, reaching the conclusion that the supply of potable water in these communities of Abrojo is not viable from an independent system to be given under delegation (delegación) to the community and justifies that the best alternative is to supply them from the project of Improvements and Expansion of the Coto Brus system, which includes the communities of Villa Romo and Los Planes, which are also part of the amparo appeal in question"*. (Images 125-128 of the judicial file); **7.** By means of memorandum N° GG-CSA-2021-01582 of July 13, 2021, issued in response to the water distribution in Abrojo de Montezuma and neighboring communities, it is reported: *"According to what was discussed, I take up the report presented to Don Tomás Martínez on the water distribution in the community of Abrojo, Fila de Cal and others, as well as the initiative on the subsequent installation of tanks by the Subgerencia de Sistemas Delegados. 1. Water distribution in a wagon with two installed tanks: In accordance with the agreements reached in the meetings of Wednesday, June 30 and Friday, July 2, this Directorate, in order to guarantee the start of water distribution to the communities of Cacoragua, Fila de Cal de Abrojo, Abrojo Montezuma and Bella Vista, sent last Wednesday to pick up the wagon from Bagaces, which once it arrived was prepared during Thursday, Friday and Saturday, providing general maintenance: light system, air conditioning, tire change, etc. The driver and an assistant were transferred on Sunday, July 10 to Ciudad Neily to start distribution on Monday the 11th first thing in the morning, as evidenced in attached photographs, in fact as an added value 70 containers that had been left over from Hurricane Otto were taken to them, especially for houses where there are older adults, but going forward with the driver change in approximately 20 days, we will be bringing them more containers. Visit to the community for installation of tanks in important areas.* Responsible for</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">supply and installation: Subgerencias Sistemas Delegados and Subgerencia Sistemas Periféricos.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">On Tuesday, July 6, our collaborator Gerson Fernández Vargas carried out an inspection in the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">following indigenous zones; Cacoragua, Abrojo Montezuma, Filacal, and Bella Vista, accompanied by</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">two officials from the Ciudad Neily Cantonal Office (José Gómez Aguilar and Gustavo Montezuma) who</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">know the communities and by official Javier Quesada Solís from the ORACH of the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Brunca Region, with the purpose of identifying suitable locations for the installation of</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">2.5 m3 storage tanks.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">For the installation of the tanks, the required materials were assessed since they must</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">be located on a platform with an approximate height of 1 meter, so that</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">users can fill their containers.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">In the photographs, one can see how the tanks would look once installed. The photograph of the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">tank is to exemplify how it could eventually look.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">For dwellings that are very far from these locations, distribution will be carried out</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">house to house.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Filacal de Abrojo. Installation of 2 tanks.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">In the case of the indigenous zone of Filacal, only the tanks will be supplied; no</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">house-to-house distribution will be carried out.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Abrojo Montezuma: Installation of 6 tanks.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">In front of the first small grocery store (pulpería).</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">The Subgerencia Sistemas Delegados and Sistemas Periféricos are coordinating to obtain the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">tanks, the material for the platforms where they would be mounted, in order to be able to attend on-site to the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">instruction already issued by the Executive Presidency for the transfer and installation of the same</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">".</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> (Images 118-125 of the judicial file);</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;"> 8. </span><span style="font-family: Verdana;">By means of an undated report from AyA, the current state of Abrojo de Montezuma is presented, which states the following: "</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">1. Specific actions developed by this Institute, since the notification of</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Resolution No. 2019008710 and to date, to address what was ordered by the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Sala Constitucional.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">As part of the attention to the amparo appeal, it is reported that, through the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Dirección de Formulación de Proyectos of the UEN Administración de Proyectos of</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados, we proceeded to evaluate at a</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">local level different project alternatives, considering the current and future</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">water demand of the communities, and carrying out exhaustive research for the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">identification of water sources in the area that would allow solving the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">current problem.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">These local-level actions were carried out with the accompaniment at all</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">times of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena (ADII) of said territory</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">and members of the ASADA, considering first the supply option</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">from springs (nacientes), and obtaining as a result that no</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">sources of this type with the required flow are found in the area, which guided the work towards analyzing the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">alternative using streams (quebradas), of which only one known as</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Q5 presented a flow and a height favorable for formulating a project for the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">communities of Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey, and Cacoragua.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">For this, </span><span style="font-family: Verdana;">t</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">he development of a drinking water treatment plant</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">(PTAP) is proposed using a slow filtration mechanism, in order to provide</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">a technical solution that is easy to operate and maintain for the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">population to benefit, compared to other technologies available nationally.</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Flow measurements (aforos) were carried out in the dry season at</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">the cited source in order to identify the water potential and thus, we proceeded</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">to evaluate the water quality, evaluating microbiological and physical-chemical aspects,</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">to obtain all the parameters required for the planning and design of the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">PTAP (Drinking Water Treatment Plant).</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">The proposed project involves the construction of the intake on the Q5 stream (quebrada), as well as</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">infrastructure to allow the conveyance of the water resource to the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">treatment plant with its respective filters and disinfection, as well as the construction</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">of a storage tank, from which the system could</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">operate by gravity and with the construction of the distribution system, all</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">sectors of the mentioned communities would be served by installing the respective residential</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">connection points (previstas intradomiciliarias).</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">In order to know the legal limitations for the use of said streams (quebradas), a</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">consultation was made to INDER at the Paso Canoas regional office given that the streams</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">are within the border zone. The response reflects INDER's interest</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">in the procedure that must be carried out for granting permits for</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">the border zone under its administration, as long as the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Natural State Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) is not affected, such that, for the use of the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">streams (quebradas), it recommends managing this before MINAE, since said zones fall outside of</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">its administrative competence</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">. </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">Based on the project approach mentioned, the process of</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">project formulation began, for which, as appropriate, a technical-social</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">diagnostic (diagnóstico técnico social) of the current system was carried out. With these inputs, we continue with the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">formalization of the project taking into consideration at all times the</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">accompaniment of the aforementioned organizations</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-style: italic;">.

Currently, the source's production continues to be monitored through summer capacity measurements (aforos de verano) by the Directorate of Basic Studies and Designs of the Sub-management of Delegated Systems Management. This project definition was chosen, although it requires a treatment works, to preserve a gravity-fed system that minimizes operating costs, especially pumping systems that require electricity billing. The studies carried out include a population census to determine the number of existing houses and the calculations of current and future demand to hydraulically model the proposal; this census process was also carried out with the collaboration of the local organizations ADII and ASADA. Likewise, through the intermediation of the ADII and ASADA, conversations were managed with the persons possessing parcels within the territory to obtain preliminary approvals (vistos buenos) for the location of aqueduct works within said lands, mainly pressure-breaking tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes) (tanks built for the purpose of breaking the pressure or gradient of the pipeline, bringing the water to atmospheric pressure—zero pressure—in order to adapt the pressure to the pipeline's capacity or the requirements of the transmission line (línea de conducción)). In addition to the previous actions, topographic surveys were also carried out with GPS to acquire the necessary inputs for modeling the project, which involved locating proposed sites for the water intake (toma de agua), dam (presa), desander (desarenador), treatment plant site, storage tank location, elevated crossing sites, and pressure-breaking tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes).

2. Current situation of the project for improvements and expansion of the aqueduct.

All the previous coordination actions resulted in the preparation of the Prefeasibility Study for the Construction of Improvements and Expansion of the Abrojo de Montezuma Aqueduct System located in Corredores de Puntarenas; this study will be continued this year with the preparation of the feasibility and final design for its subsequent search for financing and construction of works. This also implies that a consultative process has been carried out with territorial representatives, and, prior to the construction of the work, this process will be implemented for the expanded consultation of the persons inhabiting the communities in which the system will have coverage. The definitive permits from the ADII and the approvals (vistos buenos) of the persons possessing the lands within the indigenous territory must be obtained. In addition, environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) for the project must be processed before SETENA, and the permit that INDER must grant to locate aqueduct works within the border zone under its administration, and likewise, process the permit before MINAE for the use of the streams (quebradas) in accordance with the Regulation to Law No. 9590 of July 3, 2018, which authorizes the use of water for human consumption, construction, operation, maintenance, and related works on properties of the State's Natural Heritage, protected under imperative population supply (abastecimiento poblacional imperioso).

3. Palliative measures that have been implemented to address the water shortage in the indicated communities.

Through the UEN Project Administration of the Sub-management of Delegated Systems Management, palliative actions are not carried out; its mission is to develop the definitive solution. However, because the AyA Cantonal Office in Corredores has a tanker truck (camión cisterna) which is operating full-time to supply other communities, and also does not possess the necessary conditions to access the territory's topography, supply to these communities would be considered in a public tender (licitación pública) to contract a tanker truck. This tender process is currently being managed by AyA through the UEN Strengthening of ASADAS of the Sub-management of Delegated Systems Management.

4. Communication, information, and coordination mechanisms with the Development Association, other territorial organizations, and the general population of said communities.

Regarding the communication mechanisms, since attention to the water supply need began, permanent contact has been maintained with the Comprehensive Indigenous Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena) and the ASADA, and information about the project has been provided through meetings held in person in the community with the participation of said organizations. With the arrival of the health emergency due to Sars-Cov-2, community-level presentations were suspended by mutual agreement with the organizations, but not the work. However, from AyA (Executive Presidency and Directorate of Project Formulation), the status of the project has been discussed virtually with members of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs (CONAI), the ADII, and ASADA (meeting held on January 27, 2021). In this recent meeting, it was agreed that AyA would provide local representatives with a report on the project's progress to date, what has been executed and what is to be executed, so that this same report will be provided to the mentioned entities in writing and orally. Another request in this meeting was the temporary supply of potable water by tanker truck, which was indicated before and is expected to be available via tender. Additionally, the need and obligation on the part of AyA to implement due consultative processes within the framework of ILO Convention 169 and Executive Decree No. 40932-MP-MJP were addressed. Continuous communication is currently maintained with the ADII and ASADA." (Images 41-48 of the judicial file); **9.** At the trial held on June 9, 2023, witness Benito Montezuma testified, stating that he lives in Bajo los Indios. He has lived in that Community his entire life and is a community leader. He indicates that there is a potable water problem generally throughout the entire territory. Among its main problems is the lack of potable water in houses, in the educational center; there is no potable water; they consume basically rainwater. Currently, there is a small aqueduct for fifteen families, but the channel of that spring (naciente) is not in the hands of indigenous people, so it is very affected in summer times. The conditions of that water are extremely poor; it is not suitable for consumption because the spring is affected by a paddock (potrero). The communities have potable water supply by means of tanker trucks (cisternas); since the year 2021, a tanker truck has supplied them. In the communities of Fila Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Montezuma, the tanker truck does not reach each of the houses; instead, it stops at the school or the community. The source in Corredores where the water for the tanker trucks is taken from, it goes up twice a day and supplies Montezuma center. They only have access for vital needs, not for other sanitary conditions. In the community of Cacoraguas, so far it does not have those trucks because the terrain's access makes it impassable; that community receives rainwater or has to move to other sectors. He explains that this small aqueduct is administered by a small asada; he does not know if it receives any support from AyA water. He states that there are 9 tanks in the indigenous territory, in Bella Vista, Montezuma and Fila Cal, part of Cacoraguas, and in Alto Rey the service does not exist at all. (SIGAO system audio); **10.** At the trial hearing, Elizabeth Darce Delgado testified, stating that she has always served as an educator for the Community, and has lived in the place for three years. She explains that there is a small aqueduct that is insufficient because the community has grown a lot. There are tanks; AyA had raised their hopes for an aqueduct, but the funds had been allocated to attend another emergency, and the project is very expensive.

He states that it is an urgent project, because the children carry water on their backs, there are people who live far from where the tanks are. The water from the tanks tastes strongly of chlorine. He believes the tanks were installed a little over a year ago. The school tank had never been cleaned, and when he witnessed them opening it, he observed a dead animal. (Audio from the SIGAO System); **11.** At the trial hearing, Mr. Fernando Vílchez Rojas testified, referring to memorandum GSD-UEN-AP-2021-00813, in his capacity as Project Manager of the Strategic Business Unit, Director of the Strategic Business Unit, Project Management of the Delegated Systems Sub-management. He has been in the position for 13 years. The Unit he directs is the one that prepared the report referred to in this case. He explains that it is responsible for the development of projects it decides to manage by delegation. By delegation, aqueducts are built independently and delivered to the communities. In 2019, an amparo appeal was filed by the communities of the indigenous zone, initiating a process for it to be administered by the Indigenous Territory. They undertook a project planning, pre-feasibility of the project, field investigation. That first stage is the result of that report that was made. Possible water sources were identified; three aspects were examined: the flow rate, quality, where it is located, in addition to checking if the property is registered. Two streams, some spring (naciente), water quality tests, and water measurement in summer and winter. The identification of sources allows them to establish: one spring without sufficient water quantity and another spring used for other communities. For each alternative, a viability analysis was generated. Here, the factor that most concerned them, of all the alternatives, was sustainability: operational costs versus the population. The operational costs exceeded ten thousand colones per family. The operational cost arises because it is a community located in a mountainous area; the water must be pumped, with a high electricity cost, and a treatment plant, generating a cost of two million per month. All scenarios gave them more than ten thousand colones per month per family. The most advisable option must be under the administration of AyA, in negotiation with ICE. They decided on the option of improving the San Vito aqueduct and extending it to that community, which would solve the problem for other communities and reduce the operational cost due to the gravity-based condition. It is recommended that it be a system managed by AyA rather than by delegation. This began after receiving the amparo appeal and was delivered in July 2021. The pandemic was circumstantial, because it greatly disrupted the work. Above all, it is the identification of the water resource, which is not easy or quick to identify due to the investment that has been made. (Audio, SIGAO).

**II. UNPROVEN FACTS:** **1.** That AyA has efficiently and effectively addressed the drinking water problem facing the Guaymí Indigenous Territory of the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma. (The case file).

**III. SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING:** The plaintiff, through this proceeding, seeks to compel the defendant entity to execute the construction of an Aqueduct in the Community of Abrojo de Montezuma, stating in the complaint the following facts and grounds. It indicates that there is currently an absolute absence of drinking water in the localities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Abrojo Montezuma. They currently have an insufficient supply of poor-quality drinking water in the communities of Alto Rey, the lower part of Abrojo Montezuma, and part of Cacoraguas. For some time, they have sought help from AyA, without the problem of the lack of water in their community being solved to this day. The indicated communities, according to coordinates established in Executive Decree 29960 of October 2001, are located within the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. On March 29, 2019, an amparo appeal was filed before the Constitutional Chamber, which was processed under case file 19-004972-0007-CO, invoking violations of fundamental rights due to the lack of water supply in the indicated localities. Through resolution 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, case file 19-004972-0007-CO, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice orders AyA, that the person holding the Executive Presidency of said autonomous entity, within a period of twelve months after being notified of said resolution, provide an effective solution to the problem of the lack of drinking water for their community. Given AyA's continued disregard and the persistent lack of access to drinking water in their territory for the indicated communities, as well as insufficient and poor sanitary quality water in the others, on January 18, 2021, said institute was urged, through two notices, to fulfill its obligation, its action being negligent to date. To this day, the problem of the lack of drinking water in the indicated communities persists, as the "effective solution to the problem of the lack of drinking water" ordered by the Constitutional Chamber has not been provided. As established in Article 35 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, on January 18, 2021, we demanded for the last time that AyA fulfill its constitutional, legal, and also judicial obligation, stemming from Judgment 2019-008710 of the Constitutional Chamber, to provide drinking water to the communities of their Indigenous Territory of Abrojo Montezuma that completely lack this service, as well as to begin improvement works on the existing aqueduct in Abrojo Montezuma that is insufficient to supply the population of their territory adequately and safely, all with negative results, the omission persisting. AyA, through its omission in supplying drinking water to their community, has violated the following regulations: Article 7 of the Political Constitution, due to non-observance of regulations and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights regarding the State's obligation to guarantee access to drinking water for the population. Article 11 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to supply drinking water to the Costa Rican population, including indigenous populations. Article 21 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to ensure health and life through the adequate supply of drinking water to the Costa Rican population, including indigenous populations. Article 33 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to observe the principle of equality and supply drinking water to the indigenous population of their Territory. Article 50 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to ensure the greatest well-being and the right to a healthy environment, thereby supplying drinking water to the indigenous population of our Territory. Within Constitutional Law lies the principle of direct applicability of the constitutional norm; this makes it possible for it to have a higher normative force, but normative nonetheless, enabling judges to apply it directly in the disputes brought under their analysis. On this matter, Pozo Cabrera states: "Procedural guarantees in the Constitution are the product of a State model, specifically the Social State of Law, which has influenced modern constitutionalism, which, among other characteristics, has elevated procedural guarantees to constitutional rank and established actions that guarantee the full exercise of fundamental rights, implying special control over them in the exercise of the validity of the supremacy of the Constitution and its direct and immediate application by justice operators in particular and public servants and citizens in general" (Pozo Cabrera, Enquire. Derecho Procesal Constitucional.

Now, this obligation to directly apply what is established in the supreme norm is directed at any public servant, administrative and judicial, under express constitutional mandates, either ex officio or at the request of a party, since the rights enshrined in the Constitution and in international human rights instruments are considered to be of immediate fulfillment and application. The foregoing means that a lack of law or ignorance of the norms cannot be alleged to justify the violation of the rights and guarantees established in the Constitution, to deny the recognition of such rights, or to carry out actions that render the right nugatory, as in the case at hand.

Now, reinforcing the obligation to directly apply the constitution, Article 6 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes the Political Constitution as the supreme "law" in the hierarchy of sources of the administrative legal system, in the first place, and immediately thereafter, in subsection b), international treaties are found. Therefore, it is clear that not applying what is established in the Political Constitution, in addition to generating a flagrant violation of fundamental rights as in the case under analysis, violates the principle of legality established in Article 11 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

In addition to the violation of the indicated constitutional norms, there is a violation of Ley 2726 of April 14, 1961, which created the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, especially what is established in Articles 1, 2 subsections a) and h), and Article 5 subsections c) and e), which empower AyA to carry out the necessary actions to offer drinking water to the population sector that lacks it and thus make that fundamental right effective. Articles 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which in a similar sense to Article 11 of the Constitution, obligate the public administration to act in accordance with what the norm establishes.

Currently, there is an absolute absence of drinking water in the localities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and in the Upper Part of Abrojo Montezuma; furthermore, there is insufficient and poor-quality supply in the communities of Alto Rey, the lower part of Abrojo Montezuma, and part of Cacoraguas. The problem of lack of access to drinking water for their Indigenous community in Abrojo de Montezuma has been increasing, causing great concern today, and for this reason, for years they have tried to coordinate with AyA the proper supply of this precious resource; however, all their efforts have been unsuccessful to date. The matter reached such an extreme that on March 29, 2019 (sic), they filed an amparo appeal against AyA for that omission and violation of their fundamental rights, an appeal that the Sala Constitucional expeditiously resolved (expediente 19-004972-0007-CO), through Voto 2019-008710 at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, that is, less than 2 months after it was filed. In said ruling, AyA is ordered that within a term of 12 months it must have solved the problem of access to drinking water.

In addition to the violation of the indicated constitutional norms, there is a violation of Ley 2726 of April 14, 1961, which created the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, especially what is established in Articles 1, 2 subsections a) and h), and Article 5 subsections c) and e), which empower AyA to carry out the necessary actions to offer drinking water to the population sector that lacks it and thus make that fundamental right effective. Articles 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which in a similar sense to Article 11 of the Constitution, obligate the public administration to act in accordance with what the norm establishes.

The issue of the right to water for people in general, and especially in the case of indigenous populations, has been developed by various inter-American human rights bodies. Thus, for example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter CDESC) is one of the bodies that has promoted the development of said concept and content of water as a human right. This Committee, acting as the monitoring body for the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter PIDESC), determined through General Comment number 15 that: "Water is a limited natural resource and a fundamental public good for life and health. The human right to water is indispensable for living in dignity and is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights." Now, the CDESC develops the content of this human right based on Articles 11 and 12 of the PIDESC, related to the right to an adequate standard of living, insofar as water represents an essential condition for survival, and to the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as an indispensable category to guarantee it; additionally, it relates it to the rights to adequate housing and food, also contained in Article 15. The CDESC continues by indicating that: "The right to water entails both freedoms and entitlements. The freedoms are the right to maintain access to a water supply necessary to exercise the right to water and the right to be free from interference, such as, for example, not suffering arbitrary disconnections of supply or the non-contamination of water resources. In contrast, the entitlements comprise the right to a system of water supply and management that provides the population with equal opportunities to enjoy the right to water." For its part, the UN General Assembly in July 2010 recognized access to drinking water as a human right, indicating that: "the right to drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights" (UN, The human right to water and sanitation, UN AIRES/64/292, 2010, paragraph 1). In September of the same year (2010), the United Nations Human Rights Council strengthened the legal foundation on which the right to water rests, affirming that it is indissolubly associated with the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as well as the right to life and human dignity. Subsequently, it recognizes that there are legally binding obligations on States related to access to drinking water and sanitation. (Human Rights Council, Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN NHRC/1 5/L.14, 2010, paragraphs. 3 and 8).

In addition to what has been indicated, there are the annual reports of the independent expert and now Special Rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque (Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN NHRCl15/31, 2010, par. 29, and Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN A/HRC/1 8133, 2011, paragraphs. 40-79). In these reports, regarding the legal protection that States must provide for the human right to water, her 2010 report indicates that, in the evaluation of drinking water service provision, it must be determined whether it contributes to or not the realization of human rights, that is, whether it complies with the respect and guarantee of the content of said right, namely, its acceptability, availability, quality, and accessibility.

What is adequate for the exercise of the right to water may vary according to different conditions, but it must be aimed at respecting human dignity, life, and health. Availability refers to the continuity and sufficiency that the resource must have for personal and domestic uses, quality refers to the health condition that the water must have, that is, it must not contain substances or microorganisms that constitute a threat to people's health, accessibility refers to four overlapping conditions, namely, there must be physical reach to water installations and services for the entire population, there must be economic affordability so as not to compromise its enjoyment, it must be accessible to all in fact and in law without discrimination, and there must be the possibility of requesting, receiving, and disseminating information related to water.

As can be seen with regard to its Indigenous Territory of Abrojo Montezuma, all of these budgetary requirements for access to the right under analysis are clearly breached, due to omission on the part of AyA.

Now, regarding indigenous communities, their particular ways of life and worldviews must also be respected, by making an objective weighing and conciliation alongside the other existing interests and rights, this in addition to the generic right of access to potable water for indigenous and non-indigenous persons analyzed above. This is reflected when the CESCR mentions that States must ensure that: "the access of indigenous peoples to water resources on their ancestral lands is protected from any unlawful encroachment and pollution. States must provide resources for indigenous peoples to plan, exercise, and control their access to water." Now, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (hereinafter OACNUDH) has mentioned in this regard that: "Natural water sources traditionally used by indigenous peoples, such as lakes or rivers, may no longer be accessible due to expropriation or gradual land appropriation by others. Access can also be threatened by illegal pollution or overexploitation. Furthermore, the water sources of indigenous peoples may have been diverted to supply potable water to urban areas. Thus, to ensure the right to water of indigenous peoples, it may be necessary, in many cases, to adopt measures to ensure their rights to ancestral lands, reinforce their traditional systems of water use, and protect their natural resources." (OACNUDH, Fact Sheet No. 35, The Right to Water, Geneva, 2071, p. 26). (bold and underline supplied).

It is thus, then, that in the case of access to water for indigenous peoples, special attention must be paid to the actual and legal conditions in which they find themselves, as they are a vulnerable group, with evident material and formal difficulties in exercising that right, also associated with cultural differences in relation to the majority or hegemonic (non-indigenous) populations, but above all taking into account that potable water sources currently in the hands of non-indigenous persons cannot harm the ancestral use of that resource to which they have had access since time immemorial.

Likewise, the OACNUDH analyzes, as part of the effective protection of this Human Right in the case of indigenous peoples, the principles of equality and non-discrimination, which is why their need for access to potable water must be considered in safeguarding their rights to life, health, and dignity. (OACNUDH, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments, UN A/HRC/6/3, 2007, para. 24).

Not only has this issue of access to potable water as a human right been analyzed by the aforementioned international human rights bodies, but the Constitutional Chamber has also developed the topic. Thus, a Judgment of interest regarding the recognition of the right to water is number 4654-2003 of 15:44 hours on May 27, 2003, which established that: "The Chamber recognizes, as part of Constitutional Law, a fundamental right to potable water, derived from the fundamental rights to health, life, a healthy environment, food, and decent housing, among others." As has been indicated and analyzed from different points of view, the Constitutional Chamber has granted the Right to Potable Water the status of a Fundamental Right.

Regarding the praetorian activity of the Constitutional Chamber of a protectionist nature towards the environment and specifically regarding the right to water, the report of the U.N. Human Rights Council (U.N. General Assembly, Human Rights Council. 2009 paragraph 56), refers to this national jurisprudential development aimed at recognizing how access to potable water constitutes an inalienable human right, which can be claimed in Costa Rican courts, as an enormous achievement in the country. In contrast to the foregoing, we must also mention the large percentage of judgments of the Constitutional Chamber that still lack any type of follow-up regarding their effective compliance, a situation that clearly appears as an enormous blemish on this protectionist avenue, as there is a possibility that the Constitutional Chamber issues orders that ultimately go unfulfilled, precisely as is the case at hand, where, despite the mandate to the Administration, it simply chooses not to comply with it and where it is considered that this essentially stems from the fact that, in the normative and organizational-institutional spheres, there are no means or control mechanisms that allow the Constitutional Court to adequately follow up on the orders issued in its judgments, hence our decision to turn to this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction.

Despite what has been indicated, in the specific case of Costa Rica, the criterion of understanding the right to water as a fundamental right is now settled, as resolved by the Constitutional Court in Judgments 2008-015420 of 9:05 hours on October 14, 2008; 2009-000494 of 11:23 hours on January 16, 2009; 2009-014840 of 15:50 hours on September 18, 2009; 2010-012556 of 12:30 hours on July 23, 2010; 2011-008084 of 15:56 hours on June 21, 2011, among others.

Coupled with the Judgment of the high Constitutional Court, according to the latest version of the Constitutive Law of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), it is the absolute obligation of AyA to do everything concerning the supply of potable water to the citizens of Costa Rica, within which indigenous populations such as that of Abrojo de Montezuma must be taken into consideration.

Among the functions for which said Institute is created, according to Article 1 of the aforementioned law, it indicates that it is created to resolve everything related to the supply of potable water.

Now, in its Article 2, subsection h) point i), it is indicated that AyA is responsible for expanding and reforming aqueduct systems in pursuit of satisfying the national need.

For its part, Article 5, subsection d, establishes as a prerogative the power to acquire properties, and in subsection e), the processing of required expropriations, and it even declares the supply of potable water to be of public interest.

In this way, it is established thus far that AyA, as a public administration, is the entity called upon to supply the citizenry with potable water, through the construction or improvement of the respective aqueducts, and for this purpose, it has the power to expropriate the assets it considers necessary, but there is even more, for water must be understood not as a private asset but as a public domain asset (bien demanial), which gives AyA even greater access or possibilities for its better distribution.

As is known, public domain assets are those that are beyond the possibility of becoming private property assets; they are therefore considered extra commercium. They are basically the set of assets owned by Public Administrations. It can be said that within these are those destined for public use or for public service; however, the classification is not exhausted here, for this category of assets is also constituted by those that the Legislator expressly considers as such.

Now, within the context of public domain assets, the current of including water as one of these assets is of recent vintage, specifically in the 20th century, when collective awareness began regarding the fact that both water and its adequate use are aspects inherent to the public interest.

It is convenient at this point in the analysis to pause briefly on what has been established jurisprudentially by our Constitutional Court regarding the public domain status (demanialidad) of water. Thus, in Judgment 2007-017304 of the Constitutional Chamber, of 15:05 hours on November 28, 2007, said Court alludes to the legal nature of groundwater as public domain assets.

In this judgment, the Chamber refers to a previous one, specifically 2006-05159 from 13:04 hours on April 7, 2006. In these judgments, the Constitutional Chamber ruled that, because of regulations subsequent to the Water Law, we transitioned from a mixed system (public-private) to an entirely public one, thereby constituting the national hydric resource as a demanial (public domain) asset. It is worth recalling here that, following the influence of the Spanish water law of 1879, the country adopted that mixed system of public and private waters, a concept or criterion that is now obsolete in the face of the conceptualization of water as an asset exclusively of public domain. An important excerpt from Judgment 2006-05159 under analysis states, in the relevant parts:

"V.- NATURE AND LEGAL REGIME OF GROUNDWATER, AQUIFERS AND RECHARGE AREAS: GOODS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN. (...) underground water is not appropriable by any individual and its classification as a public domain good constitutes sufficient title to subject it to a very strong and intense administrative intervention regime in order to guarantee its integrity and quality and to set it apart from the modes of acquisition and enjoyment characteristic of Private Law. (...) Two subsequent laws, enacted during the last quarter of the last century, were the ones that tacitly reformed or modified what was established in articles 1°, sections IV, VIII and IX and 4°, of the Water Law. (...) Thus, the Mining Code, Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982, and its reforms, in its numeral 4° provided the following: ) mineral springs and waters and underground and surface waters are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by the State, by private parties in accordance with the law, or through a special concession granted for a limited time and subject to the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly (...)", in this way a publicization and nationalization of all the country's groundwater was produced, even that which is brought to light through a well located on a private property for domestic use or ordinary needs. Subsequently, the Organic Environmental Law, No. 7554 of October 13, 1995, and its reforms, in numeral 50 -whose heading is "Public Domain of Water"- reinforced that declaration of public ownership (demanialidad) and prescribes that "Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest", this legislative instrument implies an express affectation of continental waters (surface and underground waters -without distinguishing them-) to the public domain of the State and qualifies them of social interest..." Therefore, and according to the foregoing, AyA cannot maintain the claim of not having access to water on private lands, since the demanial (public domain) nature of water is clear to us, as are the powers of expropriation if required, to guarantee the supply of drinking water to its communities. Evidently, having water established as a public domain good, amply empowers, even more so, obligates the Public Administration to exercise all necessary control mechanisms to achieve adequate protection and distribution of this hydrological resource as a good of public interest.

For the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of water as a demanial (public domain) asset from the point of view of different regulations in force in the country. All with the purpose of clearly demonstrating the current non-existence of waters belonging to the private domain and the broad authority of AyA. According to the above, it can be indicated that the open system established in the Water Law of 1942 (mixed, as the Constitutional Chamber indicated and generated by articles 1, 3 and 6 that we saw), is overcome and tacitly reformed by regulations promulgated subsequently, among which the following are cited:

General Health Law, No. 5395 of October 30, 1973, which establishes in its article 264 the following: "Water constitutes a good of public utility and its utilization for human consumption shall have priority over any other use." For its part, article 4, first paragraph of the Mining Code, Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982, makes clear reference to the public nature of underground and surface waters, by indicating that: "Deposits of coal, natural gas, oil or any hydrocarbon substance; radioactive minerals, formal springs, geothermal or ocean thermal energy sources, hydroelectric energy sources; mineral springs and waters and underground and surface waters, are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by the State, by private parties in accordance with the law, or through a special concession offered for a limited time and subject to the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly". In this way, it follows from the two transcribed norms that water clearly cannot be exploited except through state authorization.

Now, this new conception of water as a public domain good finds its culmination in the Organic Environmental Law, Law 7554 of October 4, 1995. Specifically in its article 50, according to which there is no room for doubt about the nature of the good "water". This article states the following: "Article 50.- Public domain of water.

Water is of public domain (dominio público), its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest." According to what has been analyzed, not only from jurisprudential analysis, but also from a legal standpoint, water is constituted as a public domain asset and therefore susceptible to being regulated through the intervention of the Public Administration, and above all, as in the case under analysis, to provide access to it, since in the determination of the so-called natural public domain, other constitutionally legitimate purposes primarily underlie, ultimately linked to the satisfaction of primary collective needs, such as that set forth in the arguments of the complaint.

In view of all the foregoing, it is evident that the Public Administration is empowered by law to establish mechanisms that allow for regulation and oversight to fulfill its obligation, among others, to supply the precious resource to the population. Regarding this state obligation of a protectionist nature concerning the right to water, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has held the thesis that for real protection to exist, adequate control mechanisms must be in place, prior mechanisms of necessary studies that have already been carried out in your case, since, as AyA reported under oath before the Constitutional Chamber in expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, which is submitted as evidence, those studies are ready, and indeed they apparently already had two proposals to solve the problem of lack of supply; however, to date the problem persists, violating the article of another directly applicable norm, such as the Political Constitution in its article 50, which obliges the State to guarantee the greatest well-being and the right to a healthy environment for the entire population, including the so-forgotten Indigenous Population.

IV. REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF AYA

It states that, even before the admission of this complaint, AyA has been supplying potable quality water to the plaintiffs' homes (early June 2021). This can be verified from the description of facts and evidence provided that appears in the response to the hearing that this Authority granted to AyA on the occasion of the ordered precautionary measure (medida cautelar). In the aforementioned brief, the response to this fact is extensively developed and was strengthened with the evidence provided, which is contained in the corresponding file. The areas described by the plaintiffs are supplied with water suitable for human consumption on a periodic basis.

In response to this fact, I reiterate what was indicated supra. The supply to these communities is carried out as indicated in the response regarding the precautionary measure issued. The explanation was as follows: At the meeting held on July 30 of this year, with the participation of members of the Integral Development Association of Abrojo Montezuma, members of the ASADA, the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República) (Directorate of Equality and Non-Discrimination), AyA (Executive Presidency, Support Services Directorate (General Management) and the Cantonal Office of Corredores (Sub-management of Peripheral Systems Management)), they were informed that potable water was already being provided to the affected communities. In this regard, 4 tanks were installed by AyA with respective platforms and supplies, distributed as follows: In Fila Cal there are currently two, in Cacoragua one, and in Bella Vista one. The procurement of more tanks corresponds to the Sub-management of Delegated and Peripheral Systems. In total, there will be 13 tanks once the platforms are built and they are acquired through the procurement process (contratación) that is underway. The tanks placed to date were prioritized in educational centers. In the case of Abrojo Montezuma, they are periodically supplied with water via the wagon vehicle, while the tanks are being acquired to place them in strategic locations as indicated in the photographs submitted as evidence...".

From the moment the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber No. 2019-00871 0 of 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, became known, that is, on May 21 of the same year, efforts were initiated to determine alternative solutions for supplying the potable liquid to the aforementioned areas where the plaintiffs reside. We know the obligations established by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional) regarding the mandatory nature of complying with the provisions in the rulings of the highest court, namely, articles 53 and 56, which literally state: "Article 53. Once the judgment declaring the amparo admissible is final, the body or official responsible for the grievance must comply with it without delay". "Article 56. The execution of judgments corresponds to the Constitutional Chamber, except with respect to the liquidation and fulfillment of compensation and pecuniary responsibilities, or in other aspects that the Chamber itself deems appropriate, in which case it shall be carried out in the contentious-administrative venue through the judgment execution procedure provided for in the law regulating that jurisdiction".

Therefore, as of the communication of the ruling, AyA began the prefeasibility studies of the project and then the meetings with community organizations. It is even noted that in the document presented as evidence by the plaintiffs, which is a study called "Informe Estado Atención Abrojo Montezuma", it clearly indicates: "With the arrival of the Sars-Cov-2 health emergency (March 2020), at the community level, public presentations were suspended by mutual agreement with the organizations, but not the work. However, from AyA (Executive Presidency and Project Formulation Directorate) the status of the project has been discussed virtually with members of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs (Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, CONAI), the ADIÉ and ASADA (meeting held on January 27, 2021). At this recent meeting, it was agreed that AyA would provide the local representatives with a report on the project's progress to date, what has been executed and what is to be executed, so that this same report will be provided to the aforementioned entities in writing and orally. Another request at this meeting was the temporary supply of potable water by tanker truck, which was indicated before and it is expected to have this service via public bidding (licitación). The need and obligation on the part of AyA to implement due consultative processes within the framework of ILO Convention 169, and Executive Decree No. 40932-MP-MJP, was also addressed. Continuous communication is currently maintained with the ADII and ASADA".

Despite what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber regarding granting AyA a period of 12 months to provide "an effective solution to the problem of lack of potable water", it is obvious that the solution to the problem has not been resolved due to internal and external reasons, namely, the following: AyA has many public works projects scheduled annually nationwide, so the budget for the following year is prepared a year in advance. When AyA is surprised with a court order to resolve the liquid problems of one or several communities throughout the national territory, budgetary modifications must be made to include those projects in the national budget, or alternatively, financing alternatives, either internally or via international agreement. Simultaneously, preliminary and prefeasibility studies of the project or projects must be carried out in order to determine supply sources in the area, financial costs, land expropriation (expropiación), as indicated in the document called "Análisis de alternativas para el abastecimiento de agua potable para el territorio indígena Abrojo Montezuma", which is attached as evidence. The atypical situation of the Covid-19 Pandemic that has plagued the world, and our country is not exempt, has also caused delays in the normal functioning of the Institution, and therefore, in the development of the projects. Many of the officials have been transferred to work from their homes through the teleworking modality, with the consequent and obvious delay in the activities scheduled in advance. It has also affected the private company, which is part of the supply and materials chain, as imports of raw materials for the various AyA construction projects have suffered delays. It is noted that twelve months had not elapsed since the notification of the Amparo when this situation affected Costa Rica (March 2020). Thus, following Government instructions, very little administrative and technical personnel remained working in AyA's facilities; field trips and exploratory studies were suspended, which once again, and after several months, have been resumed. Of course, work has continued in order to comply with the constitutional mandate. To this situation must be added this other element.

These communities are indigenous, therefore caution must also be exercised in proposing, consulting, and requesting authorizations for carrying out works in such territories, in accordance with internal regulations and respecting the international conventions for indigenous peoples ratified by our country. They are aware of the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) against AyA, which has the force of res judicata (cosa juzgada) by mandate of law, is of mandatory compliance, under penalty of liability. For this reason, AyA is acting in accordance with what was ordered and even in coordination with local organizations, where, incidentally, one of them is that of the plaintiffs. AyA has not been negligent in complying with what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber and the plaintiffs, since, as indicated, they have acted so that they do not lack the supply of potable water, supplying them with it via tanker truck, placing storage tanks in some locations and in the process of purchasing others to reinforce the first ones. The foregoing, until the infrastructure can be built to bring potable water to their homes.

According to the evidence provided and the facts set forth herein, no such negligent conduct exists on the part of AyA. The institution cannot "by magic" manage, within 12 months, to carry out, to have laid the pipeline and other works required for the plaintiffs to have potable water in their homes. As indicated, this requires a series of studies, authorizations, and financing to carry them out, and especially due to the Covid-19 pandemic, to date said works have not materialized.

The petition formulated by the defendants in this proceeding constitutes the same claim requested in the Amparo action to which reference has been made and in which AyA was ordered to carry out the essential works so that the plaintiffs have potable water. With all due respect to the Judge, I permit myself to recall that in accordance with Articles 53 and 56 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional), judgments unfavorable to one of the parties and which order it to do or not to do, to give or not to give, are of mandatory observance. To seek that another Judge of the Republic again orders AyA to provide the plaintiffs with what has already been adjudicated constitutes an infringement of the principle of Non Bis In Idem.

**VI. REGARDING THE EXCEPTION OF SUBSTANTIVE RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA MATERIAL):** In relation to the raised exception of substantive res judicata, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) has established the characteristics of said legal institution: "Res judicata has a strictly procedural nature, because it is a consequence of the process and of the will expressed in the procedural law. But its effects indirectly transcend the process, to fall upon the substantive legal relationships. This, as a consequence of the immutability of the decision: its direct effect, thereby guaranteeing the legal certainty of those. Both elements, namely, the immutability of the decision and the definitiveness of the right declared or its rejection or denial, constitute the legal effects of res judicata. The first is direct and procedural; the second indirect and substantial.... For this reason, res judicata has a negative function or efficacy by prohibiting judges from deciding again on what has already been resolved. But it also has a positive one, represented by the security conferred upon the decided substantive legal relationships. The foundation of res judicata lies, then, in the jurisdictional power of the State, from which emanates sufficient power to ensure the efficacy and effects of the judgment. **VI.-** Res judicata is subject to two limits: the objective, based on the object upon which the process was centered, as well as the cause or title from which the claim was deduced; and the subjective, based on the persons who have been parties to the process. The object of the claim is referred to what was recognized or denied in the final judgment.... Furthermore, res judicata, as regards the object, extends to those points which, without having been the express subject matter of the jurisdictional decision, by necessary consequence or by depending indispensably on such decision, are tacitly resolved. ... The second aspect of the objective limit is the identity of the causa petendi, that is, the foundation or reason alleged by the plaintiff to obtain the object of the claim contained in the complaint. The causa petendi must be sought exclusively within the framework of the complaint, with a broad criterion which leads to its logical interpretation. Not merely referring to its simple literal tenor. ... The subjective limit or identity of parties refers to the subjects of the process, parties in a formal sense: plaintiffs, defendants, and intervening third parties; and it must be taken into account that the successors in interest of the parties, under universal or singular title, are bound by the judgment, as if it concerned them. In this regard, what is important is the legal identity of the parties, not their physical identity. Consequently, one who has not been a party to the process cannot be bound by the judgment handed down; that is, the constraints and obligations derived from it cannot be imposed upon them." (Judgment number 1015 of 10:00 a.m. on November 25, 2004. In the same sense and, among many others, resolutions 740 of 2:45 p.m. on December 1, 1999, 57 of 10:00 a.m. on February 5, 2003, and 875 of 10:00 a.m. on October 7, 2004 may be consulted). In accordance with the provisions set forth in the aforementioned canon 162 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), final judgments vested with the authority and efficacy of substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material) are those issued in ordinary and abbreviated proceedings, or those to which the law confers that effect. Currently, numeral 64 of the CPC indicates that: *"For res judicata to be produced, the identity of subjects, object, and cause is necessary, which can be declared ex officio. Its effects are limited to the operative part. Final judgments issued in ordinary proceedings and resolutions expressly indicated by law produce substantive res judicata, which makes indisputable, in another process, the existence or non-existence of the legal relationship adjudicated. Judgments issued in other proceedings will have the effect of formal res judicata (cosa juzgada formal), and the filing of an ordinary process will not impede their execution"*. On the subject of Res Judicata, the Second Section of the Superior Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Segunda), citing a judgment of the former Court of Cassation (Sala de Casación), has also stated: *"... VI.- That it is necessary to emphasize that the existence and scope of res judicata depend not only on the triple identity of object, cause, and parties, but also on the nature of the ruling made, for res judicata is, above all, what those same words mean, that is, what was already adjudicated in a final judgment; because otherwise, if the judgment does not decide the merits of the questions proposed and debated in the lawsuit, or in other words, if what is claimed in the second suit was not granted or denied in the first, there cannot be res judicata.- Article 733 of the Civil Code – this body notes, today 162 of the Civil Procedure Code – provides that the authority of res judicata is limited to the operative part of the judgment, but not to its grounds; however, it is often necessary to resort to the reasoning of the ruling to clarify what it was that the judges actually resolved, especially when the judgment, being dismissive, is limited to declaring in its operative part that the claim is denied.- The simple denial of the claim does not always mean that the Judge dismissed what was requested due to lack of proof of the alleged facts or because the plaintiff lacked a right, or for other reasons that imply a decision on the merits or prevent reiterating the controversy in a new suit. Sometimes, reasons of another type are what give rise to the rejection of a claim; they may be procedural, such as the lack of some requirement that the law demands and that the plaintiff did not fulfill before exercising the action; or, reasons on the merits in special cases, as would occur if the plaintiff had sought to collect an obligation before the term expired or one subject to a condition precedent, a hypothesis in which it would be absurd to oppose res judicata in the litigation promoted afterward, once the term or condition had been fulfilled."* On the problem of the interpretation of res judicata (cosa juzgada), the Spanish Supreme Court made the following considerations in a ruling dated July 7, 1943: "Modern procedural doctrine, delimiting the concepts of res judicata in a formal sense and res judicata in a substantive sense, has come to establish, with clear and secure criteria, that resolutions on procedural matters (requirements, exceptions, etc.), even when they put an end to the trial, do not produce material res judicata if they refer exclusively to the procedural relationship for which they were issued"; and in a subsequent ruling, dated July 1, 1947, the same Court expressed: "In declaring the lower court that the exception of res judicata was not applicable, far from infringing the precept of Article 1253 of the (Spanish) Civil Code, it interprets and applies it correctly, since it is reiterated doctrine that for res judicata to be produced and to be considered, it is necessary that the first judgment has resolved the merits of the case; and as in the contested resolution it is declared that the first judgment, although it dismissed the claims of the defendants, was for purely procedural reasons, and therefore it did not deny them their claimed rights, much less recognized them for the defendant, it is obvious that the ground under examination cannot be accepted...". (Judgment number 101 of fourteen hours thirty minutes of September four, nineteen sixty-eight of the former Court of Cassation (antigua Sala de Casación), cited in judgment number 528-2003 of fifteen hours twenty minutes of October thirty-one, two thousand three of the Superior Administrative Contentious Court (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo), Second Section (Sección Segunda). II Judicial Circuit of San José (II Circuito Judicial de San José)). Taking into account what was indicated in the foregoing precedent and what is established in that regard by numeral 64 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), -supplementarily applicable to the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)-, in order to be able to declare the existence of Material Res Judicata (Cosa Juzgada Material) it is necessary that there be an identity of parties, object, and cause with an analysis that respects what was stated above.

VII. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA CONSTITUCIONAL)

During the oral and public trial hearing, the representation of the defendant Institute reiterated the exception of res judicata, arguing among the indicated aspects the appropriateness of said exception considering what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) regarding the condemnation generated in judgment 8710-2019, in which that institute was ordered to resolve the water problem in the communities that make up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. In view of such arguments and this Court needing to assess the appropriateness of such a position, it is necessary to revisit the procedural effects arising from constitutional res judicata which has been revisited by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) itself in repeated rulings which are revisited for the purposes of analysis. Starting from judgment number 2014-12825 of 15:05 hours on August 6, 2014, the Constitutional Chamber develops a new doctrine, called "constitutional res judicata (cosa juzgada constitucional)", as opposed to the institution of ordinary or legality res judicata, which is the one applicable to the rest of the Courts of the Republic. Pointing out that it arises as a fundamental right to the erga omnes respect of what was decided by the Constitutional Court, even in the case of a specific ruling, not just the jurisprudence as such: "...It is different in the case of the fundamental right to constitutional res judicata, since it is about establishing the true and exact scope of a constitutional judgment regarding what has been resolved at the level of ordinary legality. In this hypothesis, only the Constitutional Chamber has competence -exclusive and excluding- to determine the scope and content of its upholding and dismissal judgments. It must be taken into consideration that constitutional res judicata has special relevance from the constitutional perspective, since the powers of constitutional oversight were exclusively attributed to the Constitutional Chamber and this Court in its judgments definitively settles and resolves, without the possibility of further appeal, whether a fundamental right, human right, or a constitutional value, principle, or precept was violated. Constitutional res judicata has its own and special singularities that distinguish it from legality res judicata, which are the following: a) No appeal is admissible, not even the extraordinary review appeal against a constitutional judgment; b) constitutional res judicata extends to the operative part (Therefore) as well as to the recitals part or the factual and legal reasoning set forth by the Constitutional Chamber; c) the effectiveness of constitutional res judicata is not relative -relativity of legality res judicata- but absolute and general, it extends to any legal subject, both those who intervened as main or accessory parties and those who were not parties in the constitutional process. (...) The definition of constitutional res judicata as a fundamental right by the original constituent legislator is not a minor or irrelevant matter; on the contrary, it is of the utmost transcendence from the perspective of constitutional hermeneutics and application, since it makes it possible for any person to allege its infringement in the venue of the amparo process and, consequently, this Constitutional Court has full and absolute competence to hear and resolve that extreme in the indicated procedural channel. Ultimately, constitutional res judicata fulfills a dual role as a fundamental right and as an institutional guarantee of the indicated principles and values (legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) and social peace), a condition it shares with other figures regulated in the dogmatic part of the Constitution..." (Highlighting is not from the original). This declaration of this created fundamental right brings with it the legal impossibility for any Court to ignore or contradict what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in amparo or habeas corpus cases. The same Chamber ruled in that sense: "V.- CONSTITUTIONAL RES JUDICATA IN THE AMPARO PROCESS. (...) No ordinary legality Court or judge has competence, under penalty of palpably infringing the Constitution and the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), to define when or under what circumstances a judgment issued by the Constitutional Chamber has material res judicata effects or binding efficacy before third parties; such extremes must be determined, exclusively, by the ultimate and definitive interpreter of the Constitution, international human rights law, and the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction. Any ordinary legality court or judge that attempts to define such scope violates Articles 9, 10, and 48 of the Constitution by arrogating and usurping, against the grain of the Constitution and the law, competences it does not have and severely injuring the constitutional principle of separation of functions that clearly distinguishes between constitutional jurisdiction and mere legality jurisdiction. In short, every ordinary legality court or judge has an express prohibition on defining in its own legality judgments the scope and effects of a judgment handed down by the ultimate and definitive interpreter of the constitution who exclusively hears and resolves constitutional processes. The only body empowered by the Constitution and by law to define the effectiveness of its constitutional judgments is the Constitutional Chamber itself, to the exclusion of any ordinary jurisdictional body..." (Highlighting is not from the original), from such vote it is also extracted in which scenarios "constitutional res judicata" proceeds or not, in the different rulings thus issued: "...Within the typology of the amparo judgments issued by the Constitutional Chamber, a distinction must be made between those called dismissals of the instance, that is, those that do not address the merits of the matter and that ad limine litis resolve the matter such as straightforward rejections and rejections on the merits. In the straightforward rejection, the Constitutional Chamber does not issue a pronouncement on the merits, since it may consider that the matter is manifestly inadmissible or of ordinary legality and therefore not within its constitutional competence; this type of judgment, as it does not rule on the merits of the matter, does not produce res judicata; it will be the ordinary administrative and jurisdictional instances that must hear and resolve the matter. In the case of rejection on the merits, there is also no pronouncement on the merits, since preceding judgments in which the matter was rejected for not being within the competence of the Constitutional Chamber are reiterated.

Once again, it is reiterated that the delimitation of the competence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) is an exclusive and excluding matter for this Constitutional Court, and its precedents do not bind it in the future; therefore, under better consideration or with a new composition, the Constitutional Chamber could well assume knowledge and resolution of certain types of matters that it had rejected in the past, upon deeming that they have relevance for the uniform interpretation and application of the Constitution and the instruments of Public International Law on Human Rights. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Regarding the judgments issued in the amparo proceeding that address the merits of the matter, a distinction must be made between those that are a) granted (estimatorias) and b) dismissed (desestimatorias).</span> It must be taken into consideration that the granting or dismissal of the claim deduced in the amparo can also be absolute or partial. Judgments that are fully or partially granting produce constitutional res judicata (cosa juzgada constitucional) of a material nature and, furthermore, bind erga omnes. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Judgments that are dismissed, in the majority of cases, also produce material constitutional res judicata, since, by hearing and resolving the claim, the Constitutional Chamber rules out the existence of an infringement of a fundamental or human right. Dismissed judgments do not produce material constitutional res judicata, solely and exclusively, in the exceptional cases where the Constitutional Chamber deems that the claim is a matter of ordinary legality (cuestión de legalidad ordinaria) and expressly so indicates; in such a case, it will be the administrative and judicial bodies that must resolve the matter.</span> These are exceptional cases, since, as a general rule, the Constitutional Chamber flatly rejects matters of ordinary legality; however, there may be cases in which it has some degree of doubt and then decides to admit the case, and it is only once the evidence is gathered that it becomes clear that it is a matter of ordinary legality. This also occurs when the amparo appellant formulates a set of grievances and claims, combining some of a legality nature with others of a constitutionality nature, and therefore the Constitutional Chamber, with the latter being present, decides to admit the case, order the proceeding, and resolve it, indicating in the judgment that there are a series of points of ordinary legality on which it will not rule as they are outside its competence..." (Highlighting is not from the original).- That is to say, this new doctrine proclaims that, in keeping with the effects of the judgments issued in that constitutional venue, in accordance with the provisions of article 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, number 7135, it means that this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) cannot disregard the content of those rulings, under the terms of the so-called "constitutional res judicata," and that to that extent, it implies a duty (and right) of "erga omnes" respect for what was decided by the Constitutional Court, even when dealing with a specific ruling, and not just regarding the case law as such.

**VI. ON THE EFFECTS OF RES JUDICATA IN RULING 8710-2019 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE:** Assessing what was stated in the preceding recitals and analyzing the arguments given in the oral and public trial hearing regarding the res judicata defense, it must be considered that in the present proceeding, the plaintiff indicates, according to its factual account, that this lawsuit is aimed at declaring the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct in our Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma, comprising Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de Cal, and part of Cacoraguas, are located, situated in the Corredores Canton, Corredor District, Puntarenas Province, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right to access sufficient drinking water. And that the aqueduct be ordered built to bring water to all the houses in Abrojo Montezuma, according to the most viable possibility determined by AyA. It directs its theory of the case based on an omission by the Institute, which has maintained over time an omission regarding its legal duties in relation to the drinking water supply it must provide as an essential service to the communities of the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. For its part, ruling 8710-2019 of the Constitutional Chamber analyzed the following as the object of the appeal: *"The appellant reports water shortage problems and complains that for 3 years they have sought help from the respondent to supply water to the community of Abrojo Montezuma, Guaymí indigenous reserve, and despite having had multiple meetings and despite having complied with everything requested by the technical staff, there is no progress on the project."* In its recitals, the Constitutional Chamber analyzed: *"From the study of the evidence in the case file, an infringement of the fundamental rights of the protected community is proven. From the report rendered under oath, it is inferred that the community of Abrojo Montezuma has a small aqueduct that supplies about 15 houses, and it is noted that this system requires improvements and expansions to address the lack of drinking water. Thus, it is evident that for several years, the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have been coordinating with the ASADA the viability process of a project, so that through the Project Formulation Directorate of the UEN-Project Administration of the Community Aqueduct Management Deputy Management, flow measurements have been taken at different sources located inside and outside the indigenous territory, whose combined flows allow them to propose a project integrating indigenous communities and communities outside the indigenous territory, without, to date, an effective solution having been provided for this problem. In addition to this, from the report rendered by the representative of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos, it is also not possible to extract any technical reason, or any other kind, that would justify that, to date, the aqueduct project to be developed in the community in question has not been completed. By virtue of the foregoing, the injury to the rights of the inhabitants of the mentioned area is proven, since the enjoyment of a fundamental element to guarantee people's health, which is drinking water, is at stake. In this regard, the respondent authorities are obligated to provide, within the shortest possible time, a solution to the problem under study; however, from the reports and evidence provided, it is noted that this has not been done. Thus, the present appeal must be declared with merit, with the consequences that will be stated in the operative part."* And in its operative part, it expressly ordered: *"The appeal is DECLARED WITH MERIT. Yamileth Astorga Espeleta, in her capacity as Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, or whoever holds that position in her place, is ordered to carry out the actions within the scope of her competencies so that, within the period of twelve months, counted from the notification of this judgment, an effective solution is provided to the problem of lack of drinking water for the community of Abrojo Montezuma."* From the analysis of what was addressed by the Constitutional Chamber, it is notable that the res judicata defense alleged by the defendant must be rejected, in that, applying the principles of ordinary res judicata, for the defense to proceed, there must be an identity of object, cause, and subject, requirements that are not met in the present case. Even from the approach taken by the Constitutional Chamber regarding constitutional res judicata, that concept is also not applicable, and it should be noted that while we are in the presence of the same subjects or procedural parties, the fact is that in relation to the object and the cause, substantial differences are evident. This takes into account, in the first instance, that in the constitutional proceeding, the aim was the cessation of a violation of fundamental rights, such as access to water as a fundamental right, and for that discussion, the need to improve an existing aqueduct to provide the service in some way was analyzed. Hence, the sentence issued by the Constitutional Chamber is aimed at providing an effective solution to the water problem to address that fundamental right. Whereas, in the present proceeding, there is an evolution of the object of that appeal and of the same cause, in that it is not a simple solution or the cessation of the infringement of that fundamental right that is sought; rather, a declaration is demanded of the legal duty of the defendant institution to provide a public service, such as the aqueduct service, to supply the entire community with water in every dwelling. Hence, the construction of a new aqueduct is claimed to provide that service to each family and dwelling house, basing the claim of that responsibility on an omission by the defendant Institute of its legal obligations and competencies. That is to say, it is not just about establishing the analysis of an omission of duties regarding a violation of constitutional rights, but rather approaching an analysis of legality regarding the omission of the legal competencies of that institution concerning the construction of an aqueduct that provides drinking water in a dignified manner to an entire community. Hence, the defendant's idea cannot prosper when it supports the defense by indicating that the matter is essentially executing in the ordinary jurisdiction what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber at the time, when it is evident that the object of analysis and what is sought has evolved, as has been stated. Consequently, this Chamber understands that the aforementioned constitutional ruling, rather than constituting res judicata, is a precedent that reinforces the appearance of good right of the plaintiff, as will be analyzed later when ruling on the merits of the matter. Thus, the alleged defense must be rejected. Based on the reasoning set forth, what was indicated by the party as a violation of the non bis in idem principle is inadmissible, as they base said violation on the belief that they have already been judged for the same facts in the constitutional venue; however, as already developed, the object of analysis of this lawsuit differs from what was discussed in the constitutional venue.

**VII.** REGARDING THE POWERS OF THE COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF AQUEDUCTS AND SEWERS IN MATTERS OF SANITARY SEWERAGE AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY: We must begin by stating that sanitary sewerage, due to its implications and purpose, is logically linked to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to human health, wherein, according to constitutional mandate, there is a generic responsibility of the State for the protection of this fundamental right, which of course includes the involvement of the different institutions that regulate the matter, among them the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. In that sense, the jurisprudence issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is abundant. In vote 17365-2007, the Constitutional Court developed the following: " ... Article 50 of the Political Constitution establishes that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The right to a healthy environment has a broad content that equates to the aspiration of improving the living environment of the human being, so that it goes beyond the criteria of natural conservation to place itself within every sphere in which the person develops, be it family, work, or the environment in which they live. Hence, it is affirmed that it is a transversal right, that is, it moves throughout the entire legal system, shaping and reinterpreting its institutes. The environment is defined by the Royal Spanish Academy of Language as the 'set of physical circumstances that surround living beings,' which further emphasizes the general character of the right. In contrast, the right to an ecologically balanced environment is a more restricted concept referring to an important part of that environment in which the human being develops, to the balance that must exist between the advancement of society and the conservation of natural resources. Both rights are expressly recognized in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which outlines the Social State of Law. The location of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment within the constitutional regulations of the Social State of Law is the point from which it must be analyzed. The Social State of Law produces the phenomenon of incorporation into the fundamental text of a series of political objectives of great social relevance and the introduction of an important number of social rights that ensure the common good and the satisfaction of people's basic needs. In this perspective, the Political Constitution emphasizes that the protection of natural resources is an adequate means to protect and improve the quality of life for all, which makes necessary the intervention of public powers over factors that can alter the balance of natural resources and, more broadly, hinder the person from developing and functioning in a healthy environment. Just as the principle of the Social State of Law is of immediate application, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is also, so that it manifests itself in the double aspect of subjective right of persons and configuration as a goal or end of the action of public powers in general. The incidence that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State, and congruently of the municipalities (bearing in mind Article 169 of the Constitution), finds its first reason for being in that by definition rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State in its role as guarantor thereof and, secondly, because the activity of the State is directed toward the satisfaction of the interests of the community. The Political Constitution establishes that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Prima facie, to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or need, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and impede all activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action directed at sheltering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a double behavior of doing and not doing; on the one hand, it must abstain from itself threatening the right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must assume the task of issuing the measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements. (...) (...)Regarding the right to health and a healthy environment. Public health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are constitutionally recognized (Articles 21, 50, 73, and 89 of the Magna Carta), as well as through international regulations. In this sense, this Tribunal in judgment No. 3705-93 of 3:00 p.m. on July 30, 1993, indicated the following: '... Environmental quality is a 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 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...' Likewise, there is an obligation of the State to protect the environment that is expressly contemplated in the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which provides: ' ...Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are legitimized to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused...' This provision is complemented by what is established in numeral 11 of the 'Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.' Harmoniously interpreting both norms, the precautionary principle can be derived, according to which, the State must arrange everything that is necessary – within the scope permitted by law – in order to prevent irreversible damages to the environment. In relation to the foregoing, this Chamber through judgment No. 180-98 of 4:24 p.m. on January 13, 1998, ordered: '... the State not only has the unavoidable responsibility of ensuring that the health of each one of the persons that make up the national community does not suffer damages from third parties, in relation to these rights, but also must assume the responsibility of achieving the propitious social conditions so that each person can enjoy their health, understanding such right as a situation of physical, psychic (or mental), and social well-being.'" In addition to what is established in the Political Constitution, the Organic Law of the Environment develops a series of responsibilities in the matter and regulates the criteria for the use and disposal of water. Article 28 of said regulation points out: " It is the function of the State, the municipalities, and the other public entities, to define and execute national territorial planning policies, tending to regulate and promote human settlements and the economic and social activities of the population, as well as physical-spatial development, in order to achieve harmony between the greater well-being of the population, the use of natural resources, and the conservation of the environment." Numeral 50 refers: "Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest." Article 51: "For the conservation and sustainable use of water, the following criteria, among others, must be applied: [...] c) Maintain the balance of the water system, protecting each of the components of the hydrographic basins." Article 52: "The criteria mentioned in the previous article must be applied: [...] d) In the operation and administration of drinking water systems, the collection, evacuation, and final disposal of residual or waste water, that serve population and industrial centers." **Article 59:** "Contamination (contaminación) is understood as any alteration or modification of the environment that may harm human health, threaten natural resources, or affect the general environment of the Nation. The load and emission of contaminants shall be mandatorily adjusted to the technical regulations that are issued. The State shall adopt the measures that are necessary to prevent or correct environmental contamination." **Article 60:** "To prevent and control environmental contamination, the State, municipalities, and other public institutions shall prioritize, among others, the establishment and operation of adequate services in fundamental areas for environmental health such as: […] b) The sanitary disposal of excreta, wastewater (aguas servidas), and stormwater (aguas pluviales)." Regarding human health and water disposal, the General Health Law establishes a series of relevant regulations: **Article 264:** "Water constitutes a good and its utilization for human consumption shall have priority over any other use." **Article 276.-** "Only with permission from the Ministry may natural or legal persons drain or proceed with the discharge of solid or liquid waste or other substances that may contaminate surface water or marine groundwater, strictly complying with the regulatory safety standards and conditions and the special procedures that the Ministry imposes in the particular case to render them innocuous." **Article 286.-** "Every natural or legal person is obligated to carry out the drainage works ordered by the health authority in order to prevent the formation of unsanitary foci and infection, or to sanitize those existing on their property. If the owner is reluctant to comply with such orders, the health authority may perform them at the cost of the person in default. In cases where the public interest, nature, and scale of the drainage works so justify, every property owner is obligated to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority may construct such works, and the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement is incompatible with its utilization. Maintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works." **Article 289.-** "Every sewerage system shall be under the technical control of the Ministry and the National Service of Aqueducts and Sewers (Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado), and the private or public law persons who build, administer, and operate them shall be subject to the norms that the Executive Branch, in consultation with the National Service of Aqueducts and Sewers, dictates to condition their construction, operation, and the final evacuation and treatment of the effluents." Water, as has been indicated and provided by the legal system, is a right linked to health, being an essential resource for the development of the human being and their environment, hence its domain is of a public nature administered by the State, and therefore the State reserves the authorization of the use of these resources, as well as their destination. In that order, the Water Law states: "**Article 1.**- The following are waters of the public domain: I.- Those of the territorial seas in the extension and terms set by international law; II.- Those of the lagoons and estuaries of the beaches that communicate permanently or intermittently with the sea; III.- Those of the interior lakes of natural formation that are directly linked to constant currents; IV.- Those of the rivers and their direct or indirect tributaries, streams, or springs (manantiales) from the point where the first permanent waters emerge until their mouth at the sea or lakes, lagoons, or estuaries; V.- Those of constant or intermittent currents whose channel, in its entirety or part of it, serves as a boundary for the national territory, the domain over these currents being subject to what has been established in international treaties concluded with bordering countries, and failing that, or regarding what is not provided for, to what is provided by this law; VI.- Those of any current that directly or indirectly flows into those listed in fraction V; VII.- Those extracted from mines, with the limitation indicated in article 10; VIII.- Those of springs that emerge on beaches, maritime zones, channels, basins, or banks of national property, and, in general, all those that originate on lands of the public domain; IX.- Subterranean waters whose discovery is not made by means of wells; and X.- Rainwater that flows through ravines or watercourses whose channels are of the public domain. **Article 2.**- The waters listed in the preceding article are of national property and the domain over them is not lost nor has been lost when, by the execution of prior artificial works or prior utilizations, the natural characteristics are altered or have been altered. Excepted are the waters that are utilized by virtue of contracts granted by the State, which shall be subject to the conditions authorized in the respective concession." "**Article 30.**- The drinking waters of the rivers and springs, in any part of the national territory where they are located, shall be designated for the pipeline service in the towns, as provided by the Executive Branch. **Article 31.**- The following are declared as a reserve of domain in favor of the Nation: a) The lands surrounding the catchment sites or water supply intakes for drinking water, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius." Specifically regarding the use of water with conditions of potability, the Law likewise foresees the use of this resource for the service of the population under potability conditions, which is reserved to the State as an exclusive competence through its competent institutions, among which the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) stands out. In that sense, the Drinking Water Law grants public utility status to the use of water under drinking conditions for the towns of the Republic. Thus, article 1 states: "**Article 1.** The planning, design, and execution of drinking water supply works in the towns of the Republic are declared of public utility. **Article 2.-** All lands that both the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers and the Ministry of Public Health consider indispensable for constructing or for situating any part or parts of the drinking water supply systems, as well as for ensuring the sanitary and physical protection and the necessary flow of the same, are of the public domain. It corresponds to the A y A (Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers) to process the applications formulated for the construction, expansion, and modification of drinking water systems and to recommend to the MOPT the construction, expansion, or modification of those of greatest necessity, after studying mortality rates, parasitism, and others. **Article 3.**- It corresponds to the Ministry of Public Health and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers to select and locate the waters destined for the pipeline service, the type of treatment for the same, and the type of drinking water system to be built." It shall also be responsible for the recommendations that must be issued from a sanitary perspective, encompassing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of potable water systems. Article 4.- The Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, through the Department of Hydraulic Works, is responsible for the construction of new potable water systems, as well as for carrying out the repairs and extensions that may be necessary in existing ones, provided that the respective Municipalities are not technically and administratively qualified to perform such works themselves. The A y A shall carry out these works abiding by the sanitary indications issued by the Ministry of Public Health, pursuant to Article 30.

From the transcribed norms, it can be concluded that the potability of water is part of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, of course, of the right to health, in which public administrations also have an acquired responsibility, and must incorporate into their public management policies the necessary resources to guarantee that right. Furthermore, the obligation of citizens and legal entities to observe the necessary guidelines for the use and disposal of water in a manner that does not generate any source of contamination is similarly inferred.

Now, in addition to that general regulation, the legal system confers specific competencies on the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, whose constitutive law states: "Article 1.- For the purpose of directing, setting policies, establishing and applying standards, carrying out and promoting the planning, financing, and development of, and resolving everything related to, the supply of potable water and the collection and evacuation of sewage and liquid industrial waste, as well as the regulatory aspect of stormwater drainage systems (sistemas de alcantarillado pluvial) in urban areas, for the entire national territory, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers is created as an autonomous institution of the State. Numeral 2 establishes: "It is the responsibility of the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados: a) To direct and supervise everything concerning the provision to the inhabitants of the Republic of a service of potable water, collection and evacuation of sewage and liquid industrial waste, and of stormwater in urban areas; b) To determine the priority, advisability, and viability of the different projects proposed to build, renovate, expand, or modify aqueduct and sewer works; which may not be executed without its approval; c) To promote the conservation of hydrographic basins and ecological protection, as well as the control of water contamination; d) To advise the other State agencies and coordinate public and private activities in all matters related to the establishment of aqueducts and sewers and the control of contamination of water resources, its consultation being mandatory in all cases, and compliance with its recommendations inexcusable; e) To prepare all plans for public works related to the purposes of this law, as well as to approve all those for private works related to aqueduct and sewer systems, as determined by the respective regulations; f) To exploit, use, govern, or supervise, as the case may be, all public-domain waters indispensable for the due fulfillment of the provisions of this law, in exercise of the rights that the State has over them, in accordance with Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered the substitute body for the powers attributed in that law to the State, ministries, and municipalities; g) To administer and operate directly the aqueduct and sewer systems throughout the country, which shall be assumed taking into account advisability and availability of resources. The systems that are currently administered and operated by municipal corporations may continue under their charge as long as they provide an efficient service. Under no concept may the administration of the aqueduct and sanitary sewer systems of the Metropolitan Area be delegated. Nor may the administration of systems over which financial responsibility exists be delegated while such responsibility corresponds directly to the Institute. The institution is empowered to agree with local bodies on the administration of such services or to administer them through administrative boards (juntas administradoras) of mixed composition between the Institute and the respective communities, provided this is convenient for the better provision of services and in accordance with the respective regulations. For the same reasons and with the same characteristics, regional administrative boards involving several municipalities may also be created; h) To enforce the Ley General de Agua Potable, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered the substitute body for the ministries and municipalities indicated in said law; i) To build, expand, and renovate aqueduct and sewer systems in those cases where it is necessary and so advised for the better satisfaction of national needs; and j) To control the appropriate investment of all resources that the State allocates for aqueduct and sanitary sewer works." Article 5.- For the better fulfillment of the purposes referred to in Article 2 of this law, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers shall have the following attributions and prerogatives, in addition to those that general laws grant to establishments of its nature: b) To contract and formalize all types of documents, necessary or convenient, for the better achievement of its purposes; c) To acquire movable and immovable property; d) To contract loans domestically or abroad, which may be backed by the guarantee of the State, duly granted, upon prior authorization from the Legislative Assembly. Such loans shall not require legislative authorization if they do not exceed two hundred fifty thousand colones (₡ 250,000.00), nor their term twelve months, and are contracted with banks or other national public institutions; in this case, the approval of the Comptroller General of the Republic shall suffice; (Thus amended by Article 1 of Law No. 3668 of March 16, 1966) e) To process the expropriations necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. (Thus amended this first paragraph by Article 65, subsection a), of the Ley de Expropiaciones No. 7495 of May 3, 1995).

Are hereby declared to be of public utility and social interest, and may be expropriated, the lands necessary for the conservation and protection of water resources, as well as for the constructions that become necessary in the collection, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the purpose of establishing populations, or related to the evacuation of residual waters and their treatment. f) To contract, pledge as collateral, and encumber its own revenues, as well as the movable or immovable property it owns, in the loans referred to in subsection d) of this article. g) To accept donations of any kind; h) To establish tariffs and fees, rents, and other charges for the use of the services set forth in this law; i) Upon prior notification to the owners, possessors, users, administrators, or their representatives, to carry out the necessary studies and investigations within their properties and buildings, except domiciliary ones, for the achievement of the purposes proposed by the entity this law regulates; j) It shall issue its own regulations; and k) All others assigned to it by general laws insofar as they are applicable.

**Article 21.-** Any project for the construction, expansion, or modification of potable water supply systems and disposal of sewage and stormwater, whether public or private, must be previously approved by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which may conduct the inspection it deems appropriate to verify that the works are being carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Said prior approval shall be mandatory in all cases of construction of subdivisions (fraccionamientos), developments (urbanizaciones), or lotifications in any part of the country, and no other state entity shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute. The violation of this mandate shall cause the nullity of any construction permit granted in contravention of this prohibition, with the parcelization or project, as the case may be, being considered legally nonexistent, with the consequences, regarding third parties, provided for in Article 35 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968.

In accordance with these regulations, the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados has specific powers in the administration and operation of aqueduct and sewer systems, whatever their nature may be, and the supervision of those systems operated by third parties shall be its responsibility. And it is noteworthy that there is not only a legal duty regarding the administration and operation of these services, but also an obligation to provide the general population with potable water service, with the law establishing the institute providing it with the legal and financial resources for the fulfillment of its purposes, such as the charging of tariffs (Ley de Agua Potable) and the material resources for attending to its powers.

**VIII. OF THE OMISSIVE CONDUCT OF THE AYA REGARDING THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER TO THE COMMUNITIES OF THE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY OF ABROJO DE MONTEZUMA:** In the present matter, the claimant alleges an omission by the defendant entity regarding the fulfillment of its legal duties and powers in relation to the supply of potable water to the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. It broadly indicates that in the community there has historically been only a small aqueduct that supplied only 15 houses, and that it is in very poor condition, especially considering that the source of that aqueduct is exposed to contamination because it is near a pasture that no one controls. It points out that the existence of this problem dates back a long time, during which the defendant institute has ignored its legal duty to resolve the potable water supply, despite community efforts and efforts undertaken with other institutions to resolve the problem; it is even indicated that recourse was made to the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and, despite having obtained a favorable amparo, the AyA maintains an omissive conduct regarding the need to resolve the lack of an adequate aqueduct to provide potable water to the communities that comprise the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma, part of Guaymí. In its defense, the representation of the AyA points out that, as a result of what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber, that institution has been coordinating a series of actions within its management to address the operational aspects of offering the water supply service to those communities of Abrojo de Montezuma, actions that have been framed within a pre-feasibility stage of the construction in which the technical and financial viability of the works required to address the potable water supply in those communities has been analyzed and addressed from a technical point of view. Additionally, it indicates that among the actions carried out is the installation of nine water tanks at strategic points in the communities for access to water, which are supplied by water tanker trucks.

**Court's Criterion:** Having analyzed the arguments of the parties and the evidence brought to the record, this Chamber concludes that the defendant Institute has indeed incurred in omissive conduct regarding its legal duties and powers with respect to the supply of potable water to the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma for the following reasons. From the evidence provided, it has been proven that the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma, in Corredores de Puntarenas, encompasses, among other communities, Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, and that these communities have historically presented an impossibility of having a potable water service that meets the minimum conditions of access to the service in a dignified manner for human beings and of quality. In response to this problem, the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral that represents that territory has undertaken various actions to address this lack of potable water service, among which the filing of an amparo action in the year 2019 before the Constitutional Chamber stands out, which was processed under case file 19-004972-0007-CO, and which was resolved by resolution 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, in which it was ordered to provide an effective solution to the problem of lack of potable water in that community. Additionally, as a precautionary measure of this Office, by resolution 1263-2021 of September 17, 2021, the order was issued to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to provide the supply of potable water to the communities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Abrojo Montezuma, by means of a delivery system using water tanker trucks, cistern trucks, or wagon-type vehicles with potable water tanks; a supply that shall be made once a day in each of the indicated communities, during each day of the week. In response to those resolutions, the defendant Institute proceeded to work basically on two fronts: an approach in terms of carrying out a pre-feasibility study to supply the communities of Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua, and Alto Rey, all from the indigenous territory of Abrojo Montezuma in Corredores, concluding that the supply of potable water in those communities of Abrojo is not viable from an independent system to be delegated to the community, and it was determined that the best alternative results from supplying them from the Improvements and Expansion project of the Coto Brus system. They decided on the option of improving the San Vito aqueduct, which would be extended to that community and would solve the problem for other communities and reduce the operating cost due to the gravity-fed condition. During the pre-feasibility stage, project alternatives were analyzed, considering the current and future water demand of the communities, and carrying out exhaustive research to identify water sources in the area that would allow solving the current problem. These actions at the local level were carried out with the accompaniment at all times of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena (ADII) of said territory and members of the ASADA, considering firstly the supply option from springs (nacientes), and obtaining as a result that sources of this type with the required flow are not found in the area, which directed the work toward analyzing the alternative using streams, only one of which presented a flow and a favorable height to formulate a project for the communities of Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey, and Cacoragua. For this, the development of a potable water treatment plant (planta de tratamiento de agua potable, PTAP) is proposed, using a slow filtration mechanism, in order to provide a technical solution that is easy to operate and maintain for the beneficiary population, compared to other technologies available nationally. And provisionally and immediately, the A y A proceeded with the distribution of water by wagon with two installed tanks.

In the case of the Fila Cal indigenous zone, only the tanks will be supplied, with distribution carried out house to house. In Abrojo Montezuma, six tanks were installed in front of the first pulpería. In addition to the previous actions, topographic surveys were also carried out using GPS to acquire the necessary inputs for the project modeling, which involved locating proposed sites for the water intake, dam, desander, treatment plant site, storage tank location, elevated crossing sites, and gradient-breaking tanks. The definitive permits from the ADII and the approvals of the persons possessing the lands within the indigenous territory must be obtained. Furthermore, the environmental feasibility of the project must be processed before SETENA, as well as the permit that INDER must grant to locate aqueduct works within the border zone under its administration, and likewise, the permit must be processed before MINAE for the use of streams in accordance with the Regulation to Law No. 9590 of July 3, 2018, which authorizes the use of water for human consumption, construction, operation, maintenance, and related works on Heritage properties flow measurements (aforos) in the dry season periods in the cited source in order to identify the water potential and likewise, the water quality was evaluated, assessing microbiological and physical-chemical aspects, to obtain all the required parameters for the approach and design of the PTAP (Potable Water Treatment Plant). The proposed project involves the construction of the stream intake, as well as infrastructure to allow the conveyance of the water resource to the treatment plant with its respective filters and disinfection, as well as the construction of a storage tank, from which the system could operate by gravity and, with the construction of the distribution system, all sectors of the mentioned communities would be served by installing the respective individual household connections. Currently, the production of the source continues to be monitored through summer flow measurements (afores de verano) by the Dirección de Estudios Básicos y Diseños of the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados. Likewise, conversations were managed, with the intermediation of the ADII and ASADA, with the persons possessing parcels within the territory, to obtain preliminary approvals for the location of aqueduct works within said lands, mainly gradient-breaking tanks (tanks built for the purpose of breaking the pressure or gradient of the pipe, bringing the water to atmospheric pressure —zero pressure—, with the purpose of adapting the pressure to the pipe's capacity or the requirements of the conveyance line).

In that evidentiary scenario, it is conclusive for this Court that the communities making up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma have historically presented and continue to present a condition of lack of potable water supply, which has affected and continues to affect the quality of life of its inhabitants, by not having a sufficient and adequate aqueduct and sewerage service to decently supply the families of those communities with the water resource, which is fundamental for their full development and for their right to health. From the testimonies received at the trial hearing, it is clear that although, as a result of the palliative efforts undertaken by the defendant entity following the judicial resolutions issued by the Sala Constitucional and this Office, such as the installation of tanks so that the inhabitants of those communities can access water, and tanker trucks that supply certain sectors, the truth of the matter is that these provisional measures cannot be considered sufficient and adequate to address a legal obligation of the defendant institution to provide the potable water supply to the inhabitants of those areas, in an adequate, sufficient manner and that guarantees quality of life and equality of conditions to a basic and substantial public service for the development of people in all their spheres. Although the effort of that institution to address the problem is accredited, the truth of the matter is that these efforts are directed as a result of a judicial resolution and not toward the fulfillment of its legal competences as is its duty as the Administration, and such actions furthermore were not surpassed to a concrete execution stage that seeks or provides a viable and immediate solution to the problem those communities historically face. And it must be noted that the efforts carried out were directed towards a pre-feasibility stage that determined a viable action to address the supply shortage condition of that area; however, it is not accredited that the conclusive technical model as the best one to address the water supply condition of that community has advanced in any way in the years following the identification of that solution, and the evidence of the management actions of that institute after the year 2021 is absent, which demonstrates that an omissive conduct on the part of AyA is maintained over time regarding the obligations set forth in article 4 of the Ley de Agua Potable, which establishes that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, through the Departamento de Obras Hidráulicas, is responsible for the construction of new potable water systems, as well as for carrying out the repairs and extensions that may be necessary in the already existing ones. Additionally, what is established in numerals 1, 2, 5 and 21 of the Ley Constitutiva of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which clearly indicate that this entity is responsible for the planning, financing, and development of everything related to the supply of potable water and the collection and evacuation of black water and liquid industrial waste. Highlighting the competence regarding the duty to direct and supervise everything concerning providing the inhabitants of the republic with a potable water service, collection and evacuation of black water and liquid industrial waste, and stormwater in urban areas; in addition to determining the priority, convenience, and viability of the different projects proposed to build, reform, expand, or modify aqueduct and sewerage works; which cannot be executed without its approval; as well as administering and directly operating the aqueduct and sewerage systems throughout the country, which will be progressively assumed taking into account the convenience and availability of resources and the obligations assumed at the international level regarding indigenous matters. And it must be noted that, in addition to the competences and legal obligations imposed on that Administration regarding providing the populations of the national territory with potable water supply and sanitary sewerage being very clear, furthermore, the legal system provides it with a series of resources to achieve those obligations and purposes, among them, it empowers it to agree with local organisms on the administration of such services or to administer them, in addition to granting it powers to enforce the Ley General de Agua Potable, for which purpose the Institute will be considered as the substitute organism of the ministries and municipalities indicated in said law; and grants it the competence to build, expand, and reform aqueduct and sewerage systems in those cases where it is necessary and advisable for the best satisfaction of national needs and the fulfillment of international commitments on the matter of indigenous population; in addition to controlling the adequate investment of all the resources that the State allocates for aqueduct and sanitary sewerage works. Additionally, it is granted attributions such as contracting and formalizing all types of documents, necessary or convenient, for the better achievement of its purposes; acquiring ownership of movable and immovable property; contracting loans within the country or abroad, which may be backed by State guarantee, duly granted, with prior authorization from the Asamblea Legislativa. Processing the expropriations necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. Contracting, giving as collateral, and committing its own revenues, as well as the movable or immovable property it owns, in the loans indicated by law. Accepting donations of any kind; Preparing tariffs and rates, rents, and other charges for the use of the services set forth by this law. In addition to having the financial resources coming from the tariff system granted by the Ley de Aguas and the Ley de Suministro de Agua Potable. In view of the framework that regulates it, it is utterly incomprehensible to this Court that the actions executed by the defendant entity have not advanced in a more efficient manner, aimed at realizing actions and resources to execute the construction of an aqueduct or improvements to the existing solutions to supply in an individualized, efficient, and adequate manner each of the inhabitants of the communities that make up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma in Corredores, Puntarenas. Especially when it is known that the shortage of this essential service is not new and that community has historically faced it, and that, furthermore, it concerns a highly vulnerable community, which is protected by a conventional, constitutional, and legal framework that must make such a population a priority for attention, in order to diminish any condition of discrimination and that must be oriented towards facilitating the development of the quality of life of those communities under equal conditions. The palliative measures undertaken, as noted previously, cannot either be considered as evidence of a cessation of the accused omissive conduct, when by express legal provision, it is clear that when it comes to the granting of a public service, it must always attend to the fundamental principles of public service, to ensure its continuity, its efficiency, its adaptation to any change in the legal regime or in the social need they satisfy, and equality in the treatment of the recipients, users, or beneficiaries.

Therefore, the omissions undertaken by the defendant entity openly imply a direct violation of the law that regulates them, and in the process of this neglect of their powers, the supra- and infra-constitutional and legal rights of the inhabitants of the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas are infringed, as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) pointed out in its ruling Voto 8710 of the year 2019. For further reasoning, the Court is mindful that the logistics of the intended solution require a serious, profound, multifactorial, multidisciplinary analysis with the participation of multiple subjects, beyond AyA itself, requiring necessary inter-institutional coordination and public-private collaborations to achieve the goal. However, it is precisely because of these parameters, in light of the evidence in the case file, that the actions of the sued institute are considered to have been isolated, circumstantial, and reactive to jurisdictional intervention, whether constitutional or by this Court. There is a lack of demonstration that a clear critical path exists regarding the state of the matter, the progress from the initial diagnosis, or the identification of the project's magnitude, having been limited to the pre-feasibility stage and the implementation of provisional solutions, such as water transport at sites, for which no detail of the operability/efficiency of this solution over time was even provided in the case file. There does not appear to be a diagnosis of the current state of affairs with said provisional solutions (how many users benefit, the choice of locations for placing the provisional tanks, maintenance of the tanks, etc.) as explained by the witness who testified at trial. The "meetings" that have been held do not seem to be linked in a schedule of activities reflecting the progress of a critical path, given that the allegation in the response to the claim that the task of supplying the service is being fulfilled for the indigenous communities is not sufficient, but rather, it is insisted, there must be sufficient inputs to accredit, by way of accountability from the institute, that there is effectively an active project, in execution, with oversight of provisional solutions, a critical path, and a tentative schedule of activities for the definitive solution, especially if there are already technical pre-feasibility criteria, as the witness from AyA itself indicated. It is not a matter, therefore, of merely asserting that there are financial limitations and that the project is complicated due to the reality of the site where the service is to be developed; rather, it is precisely for these reasons that there must be serious follow-up, documentation, and oversight of progress in addressing the situation, which is found lacking in the case file of this proceeding. Thus, the present claim must be declared with merit in all its parts. Consequently, the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared and ordered to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct (acueducto) of the Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, located in the Cantón of Corredores, Distrito Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right of access to drinking water in sufficient quantity. It is ordered to build the aqueduct (acueducto) to bring water to all the houses found in Abrojo Montezuma, according to the most viable possibility determined by AYA. The foregoing must be developed within a reasonable period according to the technical and financial possibilities of that institution, a period that must demonstrate efficient and adequate progress for each stage constituting the project to be developed, a period that will be supervised during the enforcement phase.

IX.- REGARDING THE DEFENSES ALLEGED: The representation of AyA raises the defense of lack of active standing (falta de legitimación activa), which must be rejected considering that the legal powers of that entity evidently place it in a legal relationship with respect to what is claimed by the plaintiff. Regarding the lack of right (falta de derecho) alleged by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, it must be declared without merit based on the reasoning set forth in the previous recitals (considerandos).

X. COSTS

Regarding costs, in accordance with Article one hundred ninety-three of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Exemption from this sanction is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient cause to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, the Court finds no reason to exonerate from costs, so it is appropriate to impose them on the defendant, which shall be settled during the sentence enforcement phase (fase de ejecución de sentencia).

POR TANTO

Based on the factual and legal grounds set forth, the defenses of lack of active standing (falta de legitimación activa) and lack of right (falta de derecho) are rejected. Consequently, the claim filed by the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas against the Instituto Costarricense Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared WITH MERIT. Consequently, the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared and ordered to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct (acueducto) in the Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, located in the Cantón of Corredores, Distrito Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right of access to drinking water in sufficient quantity. It is ordered to build the aqueduct (acueducto) to bring water to all the houses found in Abrojo de Montezuma. According to the most viable possibility determined by AYA. The foregoing must be developed within a reasonable period according to the technical and financial possibilities of that institution, a period that must demonstrate efficient and adequate progress for each stage constituting the project to be developed, a period that will be supervised during the enforcement phase. Costs are charged to the defendant, which shall be settled during the sentence enforcement phase (fase de ejecución de sentencia). Notify.

</p> <p style="margin-top: 12pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center; line-height: 150%; font-size: 11pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">Laura Gómez Chacón</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Amy Miranda Alvarado</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="width: 4.98pt; display: inline-block;">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Carlos José Mejías Rodríguez</span></p> <table style="width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-left: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: ignore;">&nbsp;</span></p> </td> <td style="padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-left: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><img style="-aw-left-pos: 0pt; -aw-rel-hpos: column; -aw-rel-vpos: paragraph; -aw-top-pos: 0pt; -aw-wrap-type: inline;" src="" alt="" width="200" height="65" /><br /><span style="font-family: 'WASP 39 L'; font-size: 12pt;">???????????????</span><br /><span style="font-size: 8pt;">PMO7AESNDDO61</span><br /><span style="font-size: 8pt;">LAURA GOMEZ CHACON - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p> </td> <td style="padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-left: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 8pt; -aw-import: ignore;">&nbsp;</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-left: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><img style="-aw-left-pos: 0pt; -aw-rel-hpos: column; -aw-rel-vpos: paragraph; -aw-top-pos: 0pt; -aw-wrap-type: inline;" src="" alt="" width="200" height="65" /><br /><span style="font-family: 'WASP 39 L'; font-size: 12pt;">???????????????</span><br /><span style="font-size: 8pt;">OFSEDTHNXJI61</span><br /><span style="font-size: 8pt;">AMY MIRANDA ALVARADO - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p> </td> <td style="padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-left: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 8pt; -aw-import: ignore;">&nbsp;</span></p> </td> <td style="padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-left: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><img style="-aw-left-pos: 0pt; -aw-rel-hpos: column; -aw-rel-vpos: paragraph; -aw-top-pos: 0pt; -aw-wrap-type: inline;" src="" alt="" width="200" height="65" /><br /><span style="font-family: 'WASP 39 L'; font-size: 12pt;">????????????????</span><br /><span style="font-size: 8pt;">E432VNKEVPUE61</span><br /><span style="font-size: 8pt;">CARLOS JOSE MEJIAS RODRIGUEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: ignore;">&nbsp;</span></p> <div style="-aw-headerfooter-type: footer-primary; clear: both;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 8pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">EXP: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">21-004117-1027-CA</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 1pt; text-align: center; border-bottom: 0.75pt solid #000000; font-size: 8pt; -aw-border-bottom: 0pt single;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006.</span></p> ...continued in next chunk...</p></span>... </html>" }, "num": 1 } ] } } REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL RES JUDICATA: [...] That is to say, this new doctrine proclaims that pursuant to the effects of judgments issued in that constitutional venue, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, number 7135, it means that this Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa cannot disregard the content of those rulings, by virtue of the so-called "constitutional res judicata" (cosa juzgada constitucional), and to that extent, it implies a duty (and right) of "erga omnes" respect for what has been decided by the Constitutional Court, even in the case of a specific ruling, not only for jurisprudence as such. [...]"

VIII.OF THE AYA’S OMISSIVE CONDUCT REGARDING THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER TO THE COMMUNITIES OF THE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY OF ABROJO DE MONTEZUMA: [...] In this evidentiary scenario, it is conclusive for this Court that the communities that make up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma have historically presented and continue to present a condition of lack of supply of potable water, which has affected and continues to affect the quality of life of its inhabitants, by not having a sufficient and adequate aqueduct and sewerage (alcantarillado) service to decently provide the families of those communities with the water resource (recurso hídrico), which is fundamental for their full development and for their right to health.[...]

</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 96.95pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">DEFENDANT</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 359.05pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (AYA)</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp;</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="-aw-import: ignore;">&nbsp;</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 7.05pt; text-align: center; line-height: 150%; font-size: 11pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">N</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">&deg;</span> <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">54</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">-20</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">2</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">3</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">-</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">I</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 7.05pt; margin-bottom: 7.05pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA.</span></p> FIRST SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANNEX A. at fifteen hours and fifteen minutes on June thirtieth, two thousand and twenty-three.

Ordinary proceeding filed by Sandra González Montezuma, of legal age, married, homemaker, identity card number 603580853, resident of Abrojo Montezuma, Guaymí Indigenous Territory, in her capacity as President of the ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL ABROJO MONTEZUMA, located in the Canton of Corredores, District Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas; against the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (hereinafter AyA), represented by Álvaro Arce Carballo in his capacity as general judicial attorney. Dr. Roberto Montero García participates as director of the proceeding for the plaintiff, in his capacity as public defender.

WHEREAS:

1.- That the plaintiff appeared before this jurisdiction to request, as set forth in the complaint filed on July 6, 2021, and according to the claims established in the preliminary hearing held on November 5, 2021, and what was added in the oral trial hearing held on June 9, 2023, the following: "1. This complaint be granted. 2.- The obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados be declared to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct in our Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, comprised of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal and part of Cacoragua, located in the Canton of Corredores, District Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to enable the exercise of our fundamental right of access to drinking water in sufficient quantity. The construction of the aqueduct be ordered to bring water to all the houses located in Abrojo Montezuma. According to the most viable possibility determined by AYA. 3.- The payment of costs generated by reason of this proceeding be ordered". (Images 36, 172-176 of the electronic file, Audio of the trial hearing in SIGAO).

2.- Upon being served with the complaint, the representation of the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados answered the complaint negatively and raised the defenses of res judicata, which was resolved in an interlocutory manner and raised again during the trial stage, and lack of right. (Image 41- 49, 65-72 of the electronic file).

3.- That the preliminary hearing was held on November 5, 2021, the claims and disputed facts were established, and the evidence was admitted. (Images 172-176 of the electronic file) 4.- The oral and public trial was held on June 9, 2023, with the presence of all parties. The testimonial evidence offered was received and the respective closing arguments were made. The case was also declared as highly complex in accordance with canon one hundred eleven of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

5.- In the proceedings, the prescriptions and terms of law have been observed, and no defects, flaws, or omissions capable of producing nullity of the actions or defenselessness to the parties are perceived. This judgment is issued within the legal term.

This resolution is issued unanimously and after prior deliberation. Drafted by Judge Gómez Chacón with the affirmative vote of Judge Miranda Alvarado and Judge Mejías Rodríguez; and,

WHEREAS:

II. PROVEN FACTS

The following are considered as such, having the corresponding support: 1. The Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma represents the Guaymí Indigenous Territory, of which the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas form part, a territory that encompasses, among other communities, Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal and part of Cacoraguas. (Undisputed fact); 2. The Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma has raised before various instances the problem of access to drinking water suffered by the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma. (Images 37-40 of the judicial file); 3. On March 29, 2019, the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma filed an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) before the Sala Constitucional, which was processed under file number 19-004972-0007-CO, invoking violations of fundamental rights due to the lack of water supply in the indicated localities. (Judicial file of Amparo Appeal, dossier on evidence disk); 4. By means of vote 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, file number 19-004972-0007-CO, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia orders AyA to, within a period of twelve months after notification of said resolution, provide an effective solution to the problem of lack of drinking water in that community. (Judicial file of Amparo Appeal, dossier on evidence disk); 5. In a meeting held with AyA officials on June 30, 2021, the following points were agreed upon: 1. Logistics for moving the tanker truck to Bagaces and taking the wagonette to the ORAC of Corredores. 2. Assign the driver who is currently operating the wagonette in Bagaces to Corredores to achieve supply. 3. Coordinate with BCIE and SAID to prioritize the pending pre-feasibility study so that it covers the communities cited in the pre-feasibility study prepared by Sub. Delegados. 4. The ORAC of Corredores must determine the suitable points to place a couple of tanks in coordination with the ADII. 5. PE will coordinate with GG and human capital the hiring of occasional day laborers. (Images 128-130 of the judicial file); 6. Through memorandum NO.GSD-UEN-AP-2021-00813 of July 7, 2021, a Report of alternatives for addressing the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) of the community of Abrojo Montezuma is rendered, in which it is indicated that: "This UEN, in response to the Amparo Appeal Exp 19-004972-007 - CO, ruled in favor of several communities of the canton of Corredores, carried out a pre-feasibility study to supply the communities of Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua and Alto Rey, all from the indigenous territory of Abrojo Montezuma in Corredores. In the attached report, the evaluated alternatives are presented, reaching the conclusion that the supply of drinking water in these communities of Abrojo is not viable from an independent system to be delegated to the community and it justifies that the best alternative results in supplying them from the Improvements and Expansion project of the Coto Brus system, which includes the communities of Villa Romo and Los Planes, which are also part of the aforementioned amparo appeal". (Images 125-128 of the judicial file); 7. Through memorandum N° GG-CSA-2021-01582 of July 13, 2021, issued in response to the water distribution in Abrojo de Montezuma and surrounding communities, it is reported: "According to what was discussed, I take up the report presented to Mr. Tomás Martínez about the water distribution in the community of Abrojo, Fila de Cal and others, as well as the initiative on the subsequent installation of tanks by the Subgerencia de Sistemas Delegados. 1.

Water distribution in a wagon with two installed tanks: In accordance with the agreements reached at the meetings on Wednesday, June 30 and Friday, July 02, this Directorate, in order to guarantee the start of water distribution to the communities of Cacoragua, Fila de Cal de Abrojo, Abrojo Montezuma, and Bella Vista, sent last Wednesday to pick up the wagon from Bagaces, which once it arrived was prepared during Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, providing general maintenance: lighting system, air conditioning, tire change, etc. The driver and an assistant traveled on Sunday, July 10 to Ciudad Neily to begin distribution on Monday the 11th first thing in the morning, as evidenced in attached photographs; in fact, as an added value, 70 containers that had remained from Hurricane Otto were taken to them, especially for homes where there are older adults, but going forward with the change of driver in approximately 20 days, we will be taking them more containers. Visit to the community for installation of tanks in important areas. Responsible for supply and installation: Subgerencias Sistemas Delegados and Subgerencia Sistemas Periféricos. On Tuesday, July 06, our collaborator Gerson Fernández Vargas conducted an inspection in the following indigenous areas; Cacoragua, Abrojo Montezuma, Filacal, and Bella Vista, accompanied by two officials from the Cantonal of Ciudad Neily (José Gómez Aguilar and Gustavo Montezuma) who know the communities, and official Javier Quesada Solís from the ORACH of the Brunca Region, with the purpose of identifying suitable locations for the installation of 2.5 m3 storage tanks. For the installation of the tanks, the materials required were assessed since they must be located on a platform with an approximate height of 1 meter, so that users can fill their containers. In the photographs, one can observe how the tanks would look once installed. The photograph of the tank is to exemplify how it could eventually look. For homes that are very far from these locations, distribution will be carried out house by house. Filacal de Abrojo. Installation of 2 tanks. In the case of the indigenous area of Filacal, only the tanks will be supplied; house-by-house distribution will not be carried out. Abrojo Montezuma: Installation of 6 tanks. In front of the first small grocery store (pulpería). The Subgerencia Sistemas Delegados and Sistemas Periféricos are coordinating to obtain the tanks, and the material for the platforms where they would be mounted, in order to be able to attend on-site to the instruction already generated by the Executive Presidency for the transfer and installation of the same". (Images 118-125 of the judicial file); 8. Through an undated AyA report, the current status of Abrojo de Montezuma is presented, stating the following: "1. Specific actions developed by this Institute, from the notification of resolution No. 2019008710 until today, to address what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). As part of addressing the amparo appeal, it is reported that, through the Directorate of Project Formulation (Dirección de Formulación de Proyectos) of the UEN Project Administration (UEN Administración de Proyectos) of the Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados, we proceeded to evaluate different project alternatives at the local level, considering the current and future water demand of the communities, and conducting exhaustive research for the identification of water sources (fuentes hídricas) in the area that would allow solving the current problem. These actions at the local level were carried out with the accompaniment at all times of the Integral Indigenous Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena, ADII) of said territory and members of the ASADA, considering firstly the option of supply from springs (nacientes), and obtaining as a result that sources of this type with the required flow are not found in the area, which guided the work to analyze the alternative using streams (quebradas), of which only one of them, known as Q5, presented a favorable flow and height to formulate a project for the communities of Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey, and Cacoragua. For this, the development of a drinking water treatment plant (PTAP) is proposed using a slow filtration mechanism, in order to provide a technical solution that is easy to operate and maintain by the population to benefit, compared to other technologies available nationally. Capacity measurements (aforos) were carried out in the dry season periods at the cited source in order to identify the water potential and likewise, we proceeded to evaluate the water quality, evaluating microbiological and physical-chemical aspects, to obtain all the parameters required for the planning and design of the PTAP (Drinking Water Treatment Plant). The proposed project involves the construction of the intake for stream Q5, as well as infrastructure to allow the conveyance (conducción) of the water resource to the treatment plant with its respective filters and disinfection, as well as the construction of a storage tank, from which the system could function by gravity, and with the construction of the distribution system, all sectors of the mentioned communities would be served by installing the respective in-house connections (previstas intradomiciliarias). In order to understand the legal limitations for the use of said streams, a consultation was made to INDER at the regional office in Paso Canoas since the streams are within the border zone. The response reflects INDER's interest regarding the management that must be carried out for the granting of permits for the border zone under its administration, as long as the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) is not affected, in such a way that, for the use of the streams, it recommends processing it before MINAE, since said zones fall outside its administrative competence. Based on the project proposal discussed, the project formulation process was initiated, for which, as appropriate, a social-technical diagnosis (diagnóstico técnico social) of the current system was carried out. With these inputs, the formalization of the project continues, taking into consideration at all times the accompaniment of the aforementioned organizations.

Currently, the source's production continues to be monitored through summer capacity measurements (aforos de verano) by the Directorate of Basic Studies and Designs of the Sub-management of Delegated Systems Management. This project definition was chosen, although it requires a treatment works, to preserve a gravity-fed system that minimizes operating costs, especially pumping systems that require electricity billing. The studies carried out include a population census to determine the number of existing houses and the calculations of current and future demand to hydraulically model the proposal; this census process was also carried out with the collaboration of the local organizations ADII and ASADA. Likewise, through the intermediation of the ADII and ASADA, conversations were managed with the persons possessing parcels within the territory to obtain preliminary approvals (vistos buenos) for the location of aqueduct works within said lands, mainly pressure-breaking tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes) (tanks built for the purpose of breaking the pressure or gradient of the pipeline, bringing the water to atmospheric pressure—zero pressure—in order to adapt the pressure to the pipeline's capacity or the requirements of the transmission line (línea de conducción)). In addition to the previous actions, topographic surveys were also carried out with GPS to acquire the necessary inputs for modeling the project, which involved locating proposed sites for the water intake (toma de agua), dam (presa), desander (desarenador), treatment plant site, storage tank location, elevated crossing sites, and pressure-breaking tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes).

2. Current situation of the project for improvements and expansion of the aqueduct.

All the previous coordination actions resulted in the preparation of the Prefeasibility Study for the Construction of Improvements and Expansion of the Abrojo de Montezuma Aqueduct System located in Corredores de Puntarenas; this study will be continued this year with the preparation of the feasibility and final design for its subsequent search for financing and construction of works. This also implies that a consultative process has been carried out with territorial representatives, and, prior to the construction of the work, this process will be implemented for the expanded consultation of the persons inhabiting the communities in which the system will have coverage. The definitive permits from the ADII and the approvals (vistos buenos) of the persons possessing the lands within the indigenous territory must be obtained. In addition, environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) for the project must be processed before SETENA, and the permit that INDER must grant to locate aqueduct works within the border zone under its administration, and likewise, process the permit before MINAE for the use of the streams (quebradas) in accordance with the Regulation to Law No. 9590 of July 3, 2018, which authorizes the use of water for human consumption, construction, operation, maintenance, and related works on properties of the State's Natural Heritage, protected under imperative population supply (abastecimiento poblacional imperioso).

3. Palliative measures that have been implemented to address the water shortage in the indicated communities.

Through the UEN Project Administration of the Sub-management of Delegated Systems Management, palliative actions are not carried out; its mission is to develop the definitive solution. However, because the AyA Cantonal Office in Corredores has a tanker truck (camión cisterna) which is operating full-time to supply other communities, and also does not possess the necessary conditions to access the territory's topography, supply to these communities would be considered in a public tender (licitación pública) to contract a tanker truck. This tender process is currently being managed by AyA through the UEN Strengthening of ASADAS of the Sub-management of Delegated Systems Management.

4. Communication, information, and coordination mechanisms with the Development Association, other territorial organizations, and the general population of said communities.

Regarding the communication mechanisms, since attention to the water supply need began, permanent contact has been maintained with the Comprehensive Indigenous Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena) and the ASADA, and information about the project has been provided through meetings held in person in the community with the participation of said organizations. With the arrival of the health emergency due to Sars-Cov-2, community-level presentations were suspended by mutual agreement with the organizations, but not the work. However, from AyA (Executive Presidency and Directorate of Project Formulation), the status of the project has been discussed virtually with members of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs (CONAI), the ADII, and ASADA (meeting held on January 27, 2021). In this recent meeting, it was agreed that AyA would provide local representatives with a report on the project's progress to date, what has been executed and what is to be executed, so that this same report will be provided to the mentioned entities in writing and orally. Another request in this meeting was the temporary supply of potable water by tanker truck, which was indicated before and is expected to be available via tender. Additionally, the need and obligation on the part of AyA to implement due consultative processes within the framework of ILO Convention 169 and Executive Decree No. 40932-MP-MJP were addressed. Continuous communication is currently maintained with the ADII and ASADA." (Images 41-48 of the judicial file); **9.** At the trial held on June 9, 2023, witness Benito Montezuma testified, stating that he lives in Bajo los Indios. He has lived in that Community his entire life and is a community leader. He indicates that there is a potable water problem generally throughout the entire territory. Among its main problems is the lack of potable water in houses, in the educational center; there is no potable water; they consume basically rainwater. Currently, there is a small aqueduct for fifteen families, but the channel of that spring (naciente) is not in the hands of indigenous people, so it is very affected in summer times. The conditions of that water are extremely poor; it is not suitable for consumption because the spring is affected by a paddock (potrero). The communities have potable water supply by means of tanker trucks (cisternas); since the year 2021, a tanker truck has supplied them. In the communities of Fila Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Montezuma, the tanker truck does not reach each of the houses; instead, it stops at the school or the community. The source in Corredores where the water for the tanker trucks is taken from, it goes up twice a day and supplies Montezuma center. They only have access for vital needs, not for other sanitary conditions. In the community of Cacoraguas, so far it does not have those trucks because the terrain's access makes it impassable; that community receives rainwater or has to move to other sectors. He explains that this small aqueduct is administered by a small asada; he does not know if it receives any support from AyA water. He states that there are 9 tanks in the indigenous territory, in Bella Vista, Montezuma and Fila Cal, part of Cacoraguas, and in Alto Rey the service does not exist at all. (SIGAO system audio); **10.** At the trial hearing, Elizabeth Darce Delgado testified, stating that she has always served as an educator for the Community, and has lived in the place for three years. She explains that there is a small aqueduct that is insufficient because the community has grown a lot. There are tanks; AyA had raised their hopes for an aqueduct, but the funds had been allocated to attend another emergency, and the project is very expensive.

He states that it is an urgent project, because the children carry water on their backs, there are people who live far from where the tanks are. The water from the tanks tastes strongly of chlorine. He believes the tanks were installed a little over a year ago. The school tank had never been cleaned, and when he witnessed them opening it, he observed a dead animal. (Audio from the SIGAO System); **11.** At the trial hearing, Mr. Fernando Vílchez Rojas testified, referring to memorandum GSD-UEN-AP-2021-00813, in his capacity as Project Manager of the Strategic Business Unit, Director of the Strategic Business Unit, Project Management of the Delegated Systems Sub-management. He has been in the position for 13 years. The Unit he directs is the one that prepared the report referred to in this case. He explains that it is responsible for the development of projects it decides to manage by delegation. By delegation, aqueducts are built independently and delivered to the communities. In 2019, an amparo appeal was filed by the communities of the indigenous zone, initiating a process for it to be administered by the Indigenous Territory. They undertook a project planning, pre-feasibility of the project, field investigation. That first stage is the result of that report that was made. Possible water sources were identified; three aspects were examined: the flow rate, quality, where it is located, in addition to checking if the property is registered. Two streams, some spring (naciente), water quality tests, and water measurement in summer and winter. The identification of sources allows them to establish: one spring without sufficient water quantity and another spring used for other communities. For each alternative, a viability analysis was generated. Here, the factor that most concerned them, of all the alternatives, was sustainability: operational costs versus the population. The operational costs exceeded ten thousand colones per family. The operational cost arises because it is a community located in a mountainous area; the water must be pumped, with a high electricity cost, and a treatment plant, generating a cost of two million per month. All scenarios gave them more than ten thousand colones per month per family. The most advisable option must be under the administration of AyA, in negotiation with ICE. They decided on the option of improving the San Vito aqueduct and extending it to that community, which would solve the problem for other communities and reduce the operational cost due to the gravity-based condition. It is recommended that it be a system managed by AyA rather than by delegation. This began after receiving the amparo appeal and was delivered in July 2021. The pandemic was circumstantial, because it greatly disrupted the work. Above all, it is the identification of the water resource, which is not easy or quick to identify due to the investment that has been made. (Audio, SIGAO).

**II. UNPROVEN FACTS:** **1.** That AyA has efficiently and effectively addressed the drinking water problem facing the Guaymí Indigenous Territory of the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma. (The case file).

**III. SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING:** The plaintiff, through this proceeding, seeks to compel the defendant entity to execute the construction of an Aqueduct in the Community of Abrojo de Montezuma, stating in the complaint the following facts and grounds. It indicates that there is currently an absolute absence of drinking water in the localities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Abrojo Montezuma. They currently have an insufficient supply of poor-quality drinking water in the communities of Alto Rey, the lower part of Abrojo Montezuma, and part of Cacoraguas. For some time, they have sought help from AyA, without the problem of the lack of water in their community being solved to this day. The indicated communities, according to coordinates established in Executive Decree 29960 of October 2001, are located within the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. On March 29, 2019, an amparo appeal was filed before the Constitutional Chamber, which was processed under case file 19-004972-0007-CO, invoking violations of fundamental rights due to the lack of water supply in the indicated localities. Through resolution 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, case file 19-004972-0007-CO, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice orders AyA, that the person holding the Executive Presidency of said autonomous entity, within a period of twelve months after being notified of said resolution, provide an effective solution to the problem of the lack of drinking water for their community. Given AyA's continued disregard and the persistent lack of access to drinking water in their territory for the indicated communities, as well as insufficient and poor sanitary quality water in the others, on January 18, 2021, said institute was urged, through two notices, to fulfill its obligation, its action being negligent to date. To this day, the problem of the lack of drinking water in the indicated communities persists, as the "effective solution to the problem of the lack of drinking water" ordered by the Constitutional Chamber has not been provided. As established in Article 35 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, on January 18, 2021, we demanded for the last time that AyA fulfill its constitutional, legal, and also judicial obligation, stemming from Judgment 2019-008710 of the Constitutional Chamber, to provide drinking water to the communities of their Indigenous Territory of Abrojo Montezuma that completely lack this service, as well as to begin improvement works on the existing aqueduct in Abrojo Montezuma that is insufficient to supply the population of their territory adequately and safely, all with negative results, the omission persisting. AyA, through its omission in supplying drinking water to their community, has violated the following regulations: Article 7 of the Political Constitution, due to non-observance of regulations and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights regarding the State's obligation to guarantee access to drinking water for the population. Article 11 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to supply drinking water to the Costa Rican population, including indigenous populations. Article 21 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to ensure health and life through the adequate supply of drinking water to the Costa Rican population, including indigenous populations. Article 33 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to observe the principle of equality and supply drinking water to the indigenous population of their Territory. Article 50 of the Political Constitution, due to non-compliance with legal and constitutional precepts regarding AyA's obligation to ensure the greatest well-being and the right to a healthy environment, thereby supplying drinking water to the indigenous population of our Territory. Within Constitutional Law lies the principle of direct applicability of the constitutional norm; this makes it possible for it to have a higher normative force, but normative nonetheless, enabling judges to apply it directly in the disputes brought under their analysis. On this matter, Pozo Cabrera states: "Procedural guarantees in the Constitution are the product of a State model, specifically the Social State of Law, which has influenced modern constitutionalism, which, among other characteristics, has elevated procedural guarantees to constitutional rank and established actions that guarantee the full exercise of fundamental rights, implying special control over them in the exercise of the validity of the supremacy of the Constitution and its direct and immediate application by justice operators in particular and public servants and citizens in general" (Pozo Cabrera, Enquire. Derecho Procesal Constitucional.

Now, this obligation to directly apply what is established in the supreme norm is directed at any public servant, administrative and judicial, under express constitutional mandates, either ex officio or at the request of a party, since the rights enshrined in the Constitution and in international human rights instruments are considered to be of immediate fulfillment and application. The foregoing means that a lack of law or ignorance of the norms cannot be alleged to justify the violation of the rights and guarantees established in the Constitution, to deny the recognition of such rights, or to carry out actions that render the right nugatory, as in the case at hand.

Now, reinforcing the obligation to directly apply the constitution, Article 6 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes the Political Constitution as the supreme "law" in the hierarchy of sources of the administrative legal system, in the first place, and immediately thereafter, in subsection b), international treaties are found. Therefore, it is clear that not applying what is established in the Political Constitution, in addition to generating a flagrant violation of fundamental rights as in the case under analysis, violates the principle of legality established in Article 11 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

In addition to the violation of the indicated constitutional norms, there is a violation of Ley 2726 of April 14, 1961, which created the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, especially what is established in Articles 1, 2 subsections a) and h), and Article 5 subsections c) and e), which empower AyA to carry out the necessary actions to offer drinking water to the population sector that lacks it and thus make that fundamental right effective. Articles 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which in a similar sense to Article 11 of the Constitution, obligate the public administration to act in accordance with what the norm establishes.

Currently, there is an absolute absence of drinking water in the localities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and in the Upper Part of Abrojo Montezuma; furthermore, there is insufficient and poor-quality supply in the communities of Alto Rey, the lower part of Abrojo Montezuma, and part of Cacoraguas. The problem of lack of access to drinking water for their Indigenous community in Abrojo de Montezuma has been increasing, causing great concern today, and for this reason, for years they have tried to coordinate with AyA the proper supply of this precious resource; however, all their efforts have been unsuccessful to date. The matter reached such an extreme that on March 29, 2019 (sic), they filed an amparo appeal against AyA for that omission and violation of their fundamental rights, an appeal that the Sala Constitucional expeditiously resolved (expediente 19-004972-0007-CO), through Voto 2019-008710 at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, that is, less than 2 months after it was filed. In said ruling, AyA is ordered that within a term of 12 months it must have solved the problem of access to drinking water.

In addition to the violation of the indicated constitutional norms, there is a violation of Ley 2726 of April 14, 1961, which created the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, especially what is established in Articles 1, 2 subsections a) and h), and Article 5 subsections c) and e), which empower AyA to carry out the necessary actions to offer drinking water to the population sector that lacks it and thus make that fundamental right effective. Articles 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which in a similar sense to Article 11 of the Constitution, obligate the public administration to act in accordance with what the norm establishes.

The issue of the right to water for people in general, and especially in the case of indigenous populations, has been developed by various inter-American human rights bodies. Thus, for example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter CDESC) is one of the bodies that has promoted the development of said concept and content of water as a human right. This Committee, acting as the monitoring body for the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter PIDESC), determined through General Comment number 15 that: "Water is a limited natural resource and a fundamental public good for life and health. The human right to water is indispensable for living in dignity and is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights." Now, the CDESC develops the content of this human right based on Articles 11 and 12 of the PIDESC, related to the right to an adequate standard of living, insofar as water represents an essential condition for survival, and to the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as an indispensable category to guarantee it; additionally, it relates it to the rights to adequate housing and food, also contained in Article 15. The CDESC continues by indicating that: "The right to water entails both freedoms and entitlements. The freedoms are the right to maintain access to a water supply necessary to exercise the right to water and the right to be free from interference, such as, for example, not suffering arbitrary disconnections of supply or the non-contamination of water resources. In contrast, the entitlements comprise the right to a system of water supply and management that provides the population with equal opportunities to enjoy the right to water." For its part, the UN General Assembly in July 2010 recognized access to drinking water as a human right, indicating that: "the right to drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights" (UN, The human right to water and sanitation, UN AIRES/64/292, 2010, paragraph 1). In September of the same year (2010), the United Nations Human Rights Council strengthened the legal foundation on which the right to water rests, affirming that it is indissolubly associated with the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as well as the right to life and human dignity. Subsequently, it recognizes that there are legally binding obligations on States related to access to drinking water and sanitation. (Human Rights Council, Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN NHRC/1 5/L.14, 2010, paragraphs. 3 and 8).

In addition to what has been indicated, there are the annual reports of the independent expert and now Special Rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque (Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN NHRCl15/31, 2010, par. 29, and Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, UN A/HRC/1 8133, 2011, paragraphs. 40-79). In these reports, regarding the legal protection that States must provide for the human right to water, her 2010 report indicates that, in the evaluation of drinking water service provision, it must be determined whether it contributes to or not the realization of human rights, that is, whether it complies with the respect and guarantee of the content of said right, namely, its acceptability, availability, quality, and accessibility.

What is adequate for the exercise of the right to water may vary according to different conditions, but it must be aimed at respecting human dignity, life, and health. Availability refers to the continuity and sufficiency that the resource must have for personal and domestic uses, quality refers to the health condition that the water must have, that is, it must not contain substances or microorganisms that constitute a threat to people's health, accessibility refers to four overlapping conditions, namely, there must be physical reach to water installations and services for the entire population, there must be economic affordability so as not to compromise its enjoyment, it must be accessible to all in fact and in law without discrimination, and there must be the possibility of requesting, receiving, and disseminating information related to water.

As can be seen with regard to its Indigenous Territory of Abrojo Montezuma, all of these budgetary requirements for access to the right under analysis are clearly breached, due to omission on the part of AyA.

Now, regarding indigenous communities, their particular ways of life and worldviews must also be respected, by making an objective weighing and conciliation alongside the other existing interests and rights, this in addition to the generic right of access to potable water for indigenous and non-indigenous persons analyzed above. This is reflected when the CESCR mentions that States must ensure that: "the access of indigenous peoples to water resources on their ancestral lands is protected from any unlawful encroachment and pollution. States must provide resources for indigenous peoples to plan, exercise, and control their access to water." Now, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (hereinafter OACNUDH) has mentioned in this regard that: "Natural water sources traditionally used by indigenous peoples, such as lakes or rivers, may no longer be accessible due to expropriation or gradual land appropriation by others. Access can also be threatened by illegal pollution or overexploitation. Furthermore, the water sources of indigenous peoples may have been diverted to supply potable water to urban areas. Thus, to ensure the right to water of indigenous peoples, it may be necessary, in many cases, to adopt measures to ensure their rights to ancestral lands, reinforce their traditional systems of water use, and protect their natural resources." (OACNUDH, Fact Sheet No. 35, The Right to Water, Geneva, 2071, p. 26). (bold and underline supplied).

It is thus, then, that in the case of access to water for indigenous peoples, special attention must be paid to the actual and legal conditions in which they find themselves, as they are a vulnerable group, with evident material and formal difficulties in exercising that right, also associated with cultural differences in relation to the majority or hegemonic (non-indigenous) populations, but above all taking into account that potable water sources currently in the hands of non-indigenous persons cannot harm the ancestral use of that resource to which they have had access since time immemorial.

Likewise, the OACNUDH analyzes, as part of the effective protection of this Human Right in the case of indigenous peoples, the principles of equality and non-discrimination, which is why their need for access to potable water must be considered in safeguarding their rights to life, health, and dignity. (OACNUDH, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments, UN A/HRC/6/3, 2007, para. 24).

Not only has this issue of access to potable water as a human right been analyzed by the aforementioned international human rights bodies, but the Constitutional Chamber has also developed the topic. Thus, a Judgment of interest regarding the recognition of the right to water is number 4654-2003 of 15:44 hours on May 27, 2003, which established that: "The Chamber recognizes, as part of Constitutional Law, a fundamental right to potable water, derived from the fundamental rights to health, life, a healthy environment, food, and decent housing, among others." As has been indicated and analyzed from different points of view, the Constitutional Chamber has granted the Right to Potable Water the status of a Fundamental Right.

Regarding the praetorian activity of the Constitutional Chamber of a protectionist nature towards the environment and specifically regarding the right to water, the report of the U.N. Human Rights Council (U.N. General Assembly, Human Rights Council. 2009 paragraph 56), refers to this national jurisprudential development aimed at recognizing how access to potable water constitutes an inalienable human right, which can be claimed in Costa Rican courts, as an enormous achievement in the country. In contrast to the foregoing, we must also mention the large percentage of judgments of the Constitutional Chamber that still lack any type of follow-up regarding their effective compliance, a situation that clearly appears as an enormous blemish on this protectionist avenue, as there is a possibility that the Constitutional Chamber issues orders that ultimately go unfulfilled, precisely as is the case at hand, where, despite the mandate to the Administration, it simply chooses not to comply with it and where it is considered that this essentially stems from the fact that, in the normative and organizational-institutional spheres, there are no means or control mechanisms that allow the Constitutional Court to adequately follow up on the orders issued in its judgments, hence our decision to turn to this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction.

Despite what has been indicated, in the specific case of Costa Rica, the criterion of understanding the right to water as a fundamental right is now settled, as resolved by the Constitutional Court in Judgments 2008-015420 of 9:05 hours on October 14, 2008; 2009-000494 of 11:23 hours on January 16, 2009; 2009-014840 of 15:50 hours on September 18, 2009; 2010-012556 of 12:30 hours on July 23, 2010; 2011-008084 of 15:56 hours on June 21, 2011, among others.

Coupled with the Judgment of the high Constitutional Court, according to the latest version of the Constitutive Law of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), it is the absolute obligation of AyA to do everything concerning the supply of potable water to the citizens of Costa Rica, within which indigenous populations such as that of Abrojo de Montezuma must be taken into consideration.

Among the functions for which said Institute is created, according to Article 1 of the aforementioned law, it indicates that it is created to resolve everything related to the supply of potable water.

Now, in its Article 2, subsection h) point i), it is indicated that AyA is responsible for expanding and reforming aqueduct systems in pursuit of satisfying the national need.

For its part, Article 5, subsection d, establishes as a prerogative the power to acquire properties, and in subsection e), the processing of required expropriations, and it even declares the supply of potable water to be of public interest.

In this way, it is established thus far that AyA, as a public administration, is the entity called upon to supply the citizenry with potable water, through the construction or improvement of the respective aqueducts, and for this purpose, it has the power to expropriate the assets it considers necessary, but there is even more, for water must be understood not as a private asset but as a public domain asset (bien demanial), which gives AyA even greater access or possibilities for its better distribution.

As is known, public domain assets are those that are beyond the possibility of becoming private property assets; they are therefore considered extra commercium. They are basically the set of assets owned by Public Administrations. It can be said that within these are those destined for public use or for public service; however, the classification is not exhausted here, for this category of assets is also constituted by those that the Legislator expressly considers as such.

Now, within the context of public domain assets, the current of including water as one of these assets is of recent vintage, specifically in the 20th century, when collective awareness began regarding the fact that both water and its adequate use are aspects inherent to the public interest.

It is convenient at this point in the analysis to pause briefly on what has been established jurisprudentially by our Constitutional Court regarding the public domain status (demanialidad) of water. Thus, in Judgment 2007-017304 of the Constitutional Chamber, of 15:05 hours on November 28, 2007, said Court alludes to the legal nature of groundwater as public domain assets.

In this judgment, the Chamber refers to a previous one, specifically 2006-05159 from 13:04 hours on April 7, 2006. In these judgments, the Constitutional Chamber ruled that, because of regulations subsequent to the Water Law, we transitioned from a mixed system (public-private) to an entirely public one, thereby constituting the national hydric resource as a demanial (public domain) asset. It is worth recalling here that, following the influence of the Spanish water law of 1879, the country adopted that mixed system of public and private waters, a concept or criterion that is now obsolete in the face of the conceptualization of water as an asset exclusively of public domain. An important excerpt from Judgment 2006-05159 under analysis states, in the relevant parts:

"V.- NATURE AND LEGAL REGIME OF GROUNDWATER, AQUIFERS AND RECHARGE AREAS: GOODS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN. (...) underground water is not appropriable by any individual and its classification as a public domain good constitutes sufficient title to subject it to a very strong and intense administrative intervention regime in order to guarantee its integrity and quality and to set it apart from the modes of acquisition and enjoyment characteristic of Private Law. (...) Two subsequent laws, enacted during the last quarter of the last century, were the ones that tacitly reformed or modified what was established in articles 1°, sections IV, VIII and IX and 4°, of the Water Law. (...) Thus, the Mining Code, Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982, and its reforms, in its numeral 4° provided the following: ) mineral springs and waters and underground and surface waters are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by the State, by private parties in accordance with the law, or through a special concession granted for a limited time and subject to the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly (...)", in this way a publicization and nationalization of all the country's groundwater was produced, even that which is brought to light through a well located on a private property for domestic use or ordinary needs. Subsequently, the Organic Environmental Law, No. 7554 of October 13, 1995, and its reforms, in numeral 50 -whose heading is "Public Domain of Water"- reinforced that declaration of public ownership (demanialidad) and prescribes that "Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest", this legislative instrument implies an express affectation of continental waters (surface and underground waters -without distinguishing them-) to the public domain of the State and qualifies them of social interest..." Therefore, and according to the foregoing, AyA cannot maintain the claim of not having access to water on private lands, since the demanial (public domain) nature of water is clear to us, as are the powers of expropriation if required, to guarantee the supply of drinking water to its communities. Evidently, having water established as a public domain good, amply empowers, even more so, obligates the Public Administration to exercise all necessary control mechanisms to achieve adequate protection and distribution of this hydrological resource as a good of public interest.

For the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of water as a demanial (public domain) asset from the point of view of different regulations in force in the country. All with the purpose of clearly demonstrating the current non-existence of waters belonging to the private domain and the broad authority of AyA. According to the above, it can be indicated that the open system established in the Water Law of 1942 (mixed, as the Constitutional Chamber indicated and generated by articles 1, 3 and 6 that we saw), is overcome and tacitly reformed by regulations promulgated subsequently, among which the following are cited:

General Health Law, No. 5395 of October 30, 1973, which establishes in its article 264 the following: "Water constitutes a good of public utility and its utilization for human consumption shall have priority over any other use." For its part, article 4, first paragraph of the Mining Code, Law No. 6797 of October 4, 1982, makes clear reference to the public nature of underground and surface waters, by indicating that: "Deposits of coal, natural gas, oil or any hydrocarbon substance; radioactive minerals, formal springs, geothermal or ocean thermal energy sources, hydroelectric energy sources; mineral springs and waters and underground and surface waters, are reserved for the State and may only be exploited by the State, by private parties in accordance with the law, or through a special concession offered for a limited time and subject to the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly". In this way, it follows from the two transcribed norms that water clearly cannot be exploited except through state authorization.

Now, this new conception of water as a public domain good finds its culmination in the Organic Environmental Law, Law 7554 of October 4, 1995. Specifically in its article 50, according to which there is no room for doubt about the nature of the good "water". This article states the following: "Article 50.- Public domain of water.

Water is of public domain (dominio público), its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest." According to what has been analyzed, not only from jurisprudential analysis, but also from a legal standpoint, water is constituted as a public domain asset and therefore susceptible to being regulated through the intervention of the Public Administration, and above all, as in the case under analysis, to provide access to it, since in the determination of the so-called natural public domain, other constitutionally legitimate purposes primarily underlie, ultimately linked to the satisfaction of primary collective needs, such as that set forth in the arguments of the complaint.

In view of all the foregoing, it is evident that the Public Administration is empowered by law to establish mechanisms that allow for regulation and oversight to fulfill its obligation, among others, to supply the precious resource to the population. Regarding this state obligation of a protectionist nature concerning the right to water, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has held the thesis that for real protection to exist, adequate control mechanisms must be in place, prior mechanisms of necessary studies that have already been carried out in your case, since, as AyA reported under oath before the Constitutional Chamber in expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, which is submitted as evidence, those studies are ready, and indeed they apparently already had two proposals to solve the problem of lack of supply; however, to date the problem persists, violating the article of another directly applicable norm, such as the Political Constitution in its article 50, which obliges the State to guarantee the greatest well-being and the right to a healthy environment for the entire population, including the so-forgotten Indigenous Population.

IV. REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF AYA

It states that, even before the admission of this complaint, AyA has been supplying potable quality water to the plaintiffs' homes (early June 2021). This can be verified from the description of facts and evidence provided that appears in the response to the hearing that this Authority granted to AyA on the occasion of the ordered precautionary measure (medida cautelar). In the aforementioned brief, the response to this fact is extensively developed and was strengthened with the evidence provided, which is contained in the corresponding file. The areas described by the plaintiffs are supplied with water suitable for human consumption on a periodic basis.

In response to this fact, I reiterate what was indicated supra. The supply to these communities is carried out as indicated in the response regarding the precautionary measure issued. The explanation was as follows: At the meeting held on July 30 of this year, with the participation of members of the Integral Development Association of Abrojo Montezuma, members of the ASADA, the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República) (Directorate of Equality and Non-Discrimination), AyA (Executive Presidency, Support Services Directorate (General Management) and the Cantonal Office of Corredores (Sub-management of Peripheral Systems Management)), they were informed that potable water was already being provided to the affected communities. In this regard, 4 tanks were installed by AyA with respective platforms and supplies, distributed as follows: In Fila Cal there are currently two, in Cacoragua one, and in Bella Vista one. The procurement of more tanks corresponds to the Sub-management of Delegated and Peripheral Systems. In total, there will be 13 tanks once the platforms are built and they are acquired through the procurement process (contratación) that is underway. The tanks placed to date were prioritized in educational centers. In the case of Abrojo Montezuma, they are periodically supplied with water via the wagon vehicle, while the tanks are being acquired to place them in strategic locations as indicated in the photographs submitted as evidence...".

From the moment the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber No. 2019-00871 0 of 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, became known, that is, on May 21 of the same year, efforts were initiated to determine alternative solutions for supplying the potable liquid to the aforementioned areas where the plaintiffs reside. We know the obligations established by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional) regarding the mandatory nature of complying with the provisions in the rulings of the highest court, namely, articles 53 and 56, which literally state: "Article 53. Once the judgment declaring the amparo admissible is final, the body or official responsible for the grievance must comply with it without delay". "Article 56. The execution of judgments corresponds to the Constitutional Chamber, except with respect to the liquidation and fulfillment of compensation and pecuniary responsibilities, or in other aspects that the Chamber itself deems appropriate, in which case it shall be carried out in the contentious-administrative venue through the judgment execution procedure provided for in the law regulating that jurisdiction".

Therefore, as of the communication of the ruling, AyA began the prefeasibility studies of the project and then the meetings with community organizations. It is even noted that in the document presented as evidence by the plaintiffs, which is a study called "Informe Estado Atención Abrojo Montezuma", it clearly indicates: "With the arrival of the Sars-Cov-2 health emergency (March 2020), at the community level, public presentations were suspended by mutual agreement with the organizations, but not the work. However, from AyA (Executive Presidency and Project Formulation Directorate) the status of the project has been discussed virtually with members of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs (Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, CONAI), the ADIÉ and ASADA (meeting held on January 27, 2021). At this recent meeting, it was agreed that AyA would provide the local representatives with a report on the project's progress to date, what has been executed and what is to be executed, so that this same report will be provided to the aforementioned entities in writing and orally. Another request at this meeting was the temporary supply of potable water by tanker truck, which was indicated before and it is expected to have this service via public bidding (licitación). The need and obligation on the part of AyA to implement due consultative processes within the framework of ILO Convention 169, and Executive Decree No. 40932-MP-MJP, was also addressed. Continuous communication is currently maintained with the ADII and ASADA".

Despite what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber regarding granting AyA a period of 12 months to provide "an effective solution to the problem of lack of potable water", it is obvious that the solution to the problem has not been resolved due to internal and external reasons, namely, the following: AyA has many public works projects scheduled annually nationwide, so the budget for the following year is prepared a year in advance. When AyA is surprised with a court order to resolve the liquid problems of one or several communities throughout the national territory, budgetary modifications must be made to include those projects in the national budget, or alternatively, financing alternatives, either internally or via international agreement. Simultaneously, preliminary and prefeasibility studies of the project or projects must be carried out in order to determine supply sources in the area, financial costs, land expropriation (expropiación), as indicated in the document called "Análisis de alternativas para el abastecimiento de agua potable para el territorio indígena Abrojo Montezuma", which is attached as evidence. The atypical situation of the Covid-19 Pandemic that has plagued the world, and our country is not exempt, has also caused delays in the normal functioning of the Institution, and therefore, in the development of the projects. Many of the officials have been transferred to work from their homes through the teleworking modality, with the consequent and obvious delay in the activities scheduled in advance. It has also affected the private company, which is part of the supply and materials chain, as imports of raw materials for the various AyA construction projects have suffered delays. It is noted that twelve months had not elapsed since the notification of the Amparo when this situation affected Costa Rica (March 2020). Thus, following Government instructions, very little administrative and technical personnel remained working in AyA's facilities; field trips and exploratory studies were suspended, which once again, and after several months, have been resumed. Of course, work has continued in order to comply with the constitutional mandate. To this situation must be added this other element.

These communities are indigenous, therefore caution must also be exercised in proposing, consulting, and requesting authorizations for carrying out works in such territories, in accordance with internal regulations and respecting the international conventions for indigenous peoples ratified by our country. They are aware of the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) against AyA, which has the force of res judicata (cosa juzgada) by mandate of law, is of mandatory compliance, under penalty of liability. For this reason, AyA is acting in accordance with what was ordered and even in coordination with local organizations, where, incidentally, one of them is that of the plaintiffs. AyA has not been negligent in complying with what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber and the plaintiffs, since, as indicated, they have acted so that they do not lack the supply of potable water, supplying them with it via tanker truck, placing storage tanks in some locations and in the process of purchasing others to reinforce the first ones. The foregoing, until the infrastructure can be built to bring potable water to their homes.

According to the evidence provided and the facts set forth herein, no such negligent conduct exists on the part of AyA. The institution cannot "by magic" manage, within 12 months, to carry out, to have laid the pipeline and other works required for the plaintiffs to have potable water in their homes. As indicated, this requires a series of studies, authorizations, and financing to carry them out, and especially due to the Covid-19 pandemic, to date said works have not materialized.

The petition formulated by the defendants in this proceeding constitutes the same claim requested in the Amparo action to which reference has been made and in which AyA was ordered to carry out the essential works so that the plaintiffs have potable water. With all due respect to the Judge, I permit myself to recall that in accordance with Articles 53 and 56 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional), judgments unfavorable to one of the parties and which order it to do or not to do, to give or not to give, are of mandatory observance. To seek that another Judge of the Republic again orders AyA to provide the plaintiffs with what has already been adjudicated constitutes an infringement of the principle of Non Bis In Idem.

**VI. REGARDING THE EXCEPTION OF SUBSTANTIVE RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA MATERIAL):** In relation to the raised exception of substantive res judicata, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) has established the characteristics of said legal institution: "Res judicata has a strictly procedural nature, because it is a consequence of the process and of the will expressed in the procedural law. But its effects indirectly transcend the process, to fall upon the substantive legal relationships. This, as a consequence of the immutability of the decision: its direct effect, thereby guaranteeing the legal certainty of those. Both elements, namely, the immutability of the decision and the definitiveness of the right declared or its rejection or denial, constitute the legal effects of res judicata. The first is direct and procedural; the second indirect and substantial.... For this reason, res judicata has a negative function or efficacy by prohibiting judges from deciding again on what has already been resolved. But it also has a positive one, represented by the security conferred upon the decided substantive legal relationships. The foundation of res judicata lies, then, in the jurisdictional power of the State, from which emanates sufficient power to ensure the efficacy and effects of the judgment. **VI.-** Res judicata is subject to two limits: the objective, based on the object upon which the process was centered, as well as the cause or title from which the claim was deduced; and the subjective, based on the persons who have been parties to the process. The object of the claim is referred to what was recognized or denied in the final judgment.... Furthermore, res judicata, as regards the object, extends to those points which, without having been the express subject matter of the jurisdictional decision, by necessary consequence or by depending indispensably on such decision, are tacitly resolved. ... The second aspect of the objective limit is the identity of the causa petendi, that is, the foundation or reason alleged by the plaintiff to obtain the object of the claim contained in the complaint. The causa petendi must be sought exclusively within the framework of the complaint, with a broad criterion which leads to its logical interpretation. Not merely referring to its simple literal tenor. ... The subjective limit or identity of parties refers to the subjects of the process, parties in a formal sense: plaintiffs, defendants, and intervening third parties; and it must be taken into account that the successors in interest of the parties, under universal or singular title, are bound by the judgment, as if it concerned them. In this regard, what is important is the legal identity of the parties, not their physical identity. Consequently, one who has not been a party to the process cannot be bound by the judgment handed down; that is, the constraints and obligations derived from it cannot be imposed upon them." (Judgment number 1015 of 10:00 a.m. on November 25, 2004. In the same sense and, among many others, resolutions 740 of 2:45 p.m. on December 1, 1999, 57 of 10:00 a.m. on February 5, 2003, and 875 of 10:00 a.m. on October 7, 2004 may be consulted). In accordance with the provisions set forth in the aforementioned canon 162 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), final judgments vested with the authority and efficacy of substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material) are those issued in ordinary and abbreviated proceedings, or those to which the law confers that effect. Currently, numeral 64 of the CPC indicates that: *"For res judicata to be produced, the identity of subjects, object, and cause is necessary, which can be declared ex officio. Its effects are limited to the operative part. Final judgments issued in ordinary proceedings and resolutions expressly indicated by law produce substantive res judicata, which makes indisputable, in another process, the existence or non-existence of the legal relationship adjudicated. Judgments issued in other proceedings will have the effect of formal res judicata (cosa juzgada formal), and the filing of an ordinary process will not impede their execution"*. On the subject of Res Judicata, the Second Section of the Superior Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Segunda), citing a judgment of the former Court of Cassation (Sala de Casación), has also stated: *"... VI.- That it is necessary to emphasize that the existence and scope of res judicata depend not only on the triple identity of object, cause, and parties, but also on the nature of the ruling made, for res judicata is, above all, what those same words mean, that is, what was already adjudicated in a final judgment; because otherwise, if the judgment does not decide the merits of the questions proposed and debated in the lawsuit, or in other words, if what is claimed in the second suit was not granted or denied in the first, there cannot be res judicata.- Article 733 of the Civil Code – this body notes, today 162 of the Civil Procedure Code – provides that the authority of res judicata is limited to the operative part of the judgment, but not to its grounds; however, it is often necessary to resort to the reasoning of the ruling to clarify what it was that the judges actually resolved, especially when the judgment, being dismissive, is limited to declaring in its operative part that the claim is denied.- The simple denial of the claim does not always mean that the Judge dismissed what was requested due to lack of proof of the alleged facts or because the plaintiff lacked a right, or for other reasons that imply a decision on the merits or prevent reiterating the controversy in a new suit. Sometimes, reasons of another type are what give rise to the rejection of a claim; they may be procedural, such as the lack of some requirement that the law demands and that the plaintiff did not fulfill before exercising the action; or, reasons on the merits in special cases, as would occur if the plaintiff had sought to collect an obligation before the term expired or one subject to a condition precedent, a hypothesis in which it would be absurd to oppose res judicata in the litigation promoted afterward, once the term or condition had been fulfilled."* On the problem of the interpretation of res judicata (cosa juzgada), the Spanish Supreme Court made the following considerations in a ruling dated July 7, 1943: "Modern procedural doctrine, delimiting the concepts of res judicata in a formal sense and res judicata in a substantive sense, has come to establish, with clear and secure criteria, that resolutions on procedural matters (requirements, exceptions, etc.), even when they put an end to the trial, do not produce material res judicata if they refer exclusively to the procedural relationship for which they were issued"; and in a subsequent ruling, dated July 1, 1947, the same Court expressed: "In declaring the lower court that the exception of res judicata was not applicable, far from infringing the precept of Article 1253 of the (Spanish) Civil Code, it interprets and applies it correctly, since it is reiterated doctrine that for res judicata to be produced and to be considered, it is necessary that the first judgment has resolved the merits of the case; and as in the contested resolution it is declared that the first judgment, although it dismissed the claims of the defendants, was for purely procedural reasons, and therefore it did not deny them their claimed rights, much less recognized them for the defendant, it is obvious that the ground under examination cannot be accepted...". (Judgment number 101 of fourteen hours thirty minutes of September four, nineteen sixty-eight of the former Court of Cassation (antigua Sala de Casación), cited in judgment number 528-2003 of fifteen hours twenty minutes of October thirty-one, two thousand three of the Superior Administrative Contentious Court (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo), Second Section (Sección Segunda). II Judicial Circuit of San José (II Circuito Judicial de San José)). Taking into account what was indicated in the foregoing precedent and what is established in that regard by numeral 64 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), -supplementarily applicable to the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)-, in order to be able to declare the existence of Material Res Judicata (Cosa Juzgada Material) it is necessary that there be an identity of parties, object, and cause with an analysis that respects what was stated above.

VII. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RES JUDICATA (COSA JUZGADA CONSTITUCIONAL)

During the oral and public trial hearing, the representation of the defendant Institute reiterated the exception of res judicata, arguing among the indicated aspects the appropriateness of said exception considering what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) regarding the condemnation generated in judgment 8710-2019, in which that institute was ordered to resolve the water problem in the communities that make up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. In view of such arguments and this Court needing to assess the appropriateness of such a position, it is necessary to revisit the procedural effects arising from constitutional res judicata which has been revisited by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) itself in repeated rulings which are revisited for the purposes of analysis. Starting from judgment number 2014-12825 of 15:05 hours on August 6, 2014, the Constitutional Chamber develops a new doctrine, called "constitutional res judicata (cosa juzgada constitucional)", as opposed to the institution of ordinary or legality res judicata, which is the one applicable to the rest of the Courts of the Republic. Pointing out that it arises as a fundamental right to the erga omnes respect of what was decided by the Constitutional Court, even in the case of a specific ruling, not just the jurisprudence as such: "...It is different in the case of the fundamental right to constitutional res judicata, since it is about establishing the true and exact scope of a constitutional judgment regarding what has been resolved at the level of ordinary legality. In this hypothesis, only the Constitutional Chamber has competence -exclusive and excluding- to determine the scope and content of its upholding and dismissal judgments. It must be taken into consideration that constitutional res judicata has special relevance from the constitutional perspective, since the powers of constitutional oversight were exclusively attributed to the Constitutional Chamber and this Court in its judgments definitively settles and resolves, without the possibility of further appeal, whether a fundamental right, human right, or a constitutional value, principle, or precept was violated. Constitutional res judicata has its own and special singularities that distinguish it from legality res judicata, which are the following: a) No appeal is admissible, not even the extraordinary review appeal against a constitutional judgment; b) constitutional res judicata extends to the operative part (Therefore) as well as to the recitals part or the factual and legal reasoning set forth by the Constitutional Chamber; c) the effectiveness of constitutional res judicata is not relative -relativity of legality res judicata- but absolute and general, it extends to any legal subject, both those who intervened as main or accessory parties and those who were not parties in the constitutional process. (...) The definition of constitutional res judicata as a fundamental right by the original constituent legislator is not a minor or irrelevant matter; on the contrary, it is of the utmost transcendence from the perspective of constitutional hermeneutics and application, since it makes it possible for any person to allege its infringement in the venue of the amparo process and, consequently, this Constitutional Court has full and absolute competence to hear and resolve that extreme in the indicated procedural channel. Ultimately, constitutional res judicata fulfills a dual role as a fundamental right and as an institutional guarantee of the indicated principles and values (legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) and social peace), a condition it shares with other figures regulated in the dogmatic part of the Constitution..." (Highlighting is not from the original). This declaration of this created fundamental right brings with it the legal impossibility for any Court to ignore or contradict what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in amparo or habeas corpus cases. The same Chamber ruled in that sense: "V.- CONSTITUTIONAL RES JUDICATA IN THE AMPARO PROCESS. (...) No ordinary legality Court or judge has competence, under penalty of palpably infringing the Constitution and the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), to define when or under what circumstances a judgment issued by the Constitutional Chamber has material res judicata effects or binding efficacy before third parties; such extremes must be determined, exclusively, by the ultimate and definitive interpreter of the Constitution, international human rights law, and the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction. Any ordinary legality court or judge that attempts to define such scope violates Articles 9, 10, and 48 of the Constitution by arrogating and usurping, against the grain of the Constitution and the law, competences it does not have and severely injuring the constitutional principle of separation of functions that clearly distinguishes between constitutional jurisdiction and mere legality jurisdiction. In short, every ordinary legality court or judge has an express prohibition on defining in its own legality judgments the scope and effects of a judgment handed down by the ultimate and definitive interpreter of the constitution who exclusively hears and resolves constitutional processes. The only body empowered by the Constitution and by law to define the effectiveness of its constitutional judgments is the Constitutional Chamber itself, to the exclusion of any ordinary jurisdictional body..." (Highlighting is not from the original), from such vote it is also extracted in which scenarios "constitutional res judicata" proceeds or not, in the different rulings thus issued: "...Within the typology of the amparo judgments issued by the Constitutional Chamber, a distinction must be made between those called dismissals of the instance, that is, those that do not address the merits of the matter and that ad limine litis resolve the matter such as straightforward rejections and rejections on the merits. In the straightforward rejection, the Constitutional Chamber does not issue a pronouncement on the merits, since it may consider that the matter is manifestly inadmissible or of ordinary legality and therefore not within its constitutional competence; this type of judgment, as it does not rule on the merits of the matter, does not produce res judicata; it will be the ordinary administrative and jurisdictional instances that must hear and resolve the matter. In the case of rejection on the merits, there is also no pronouncement on the merits, since preceding judgments in which the matter was rejected for not being within the competence of the Constitutional Chamber are reiterated.

Once again, it is reiterated that the delimitation of the competence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) is an exclusive and excluding matter for this Constitutional Court, and its precedents do not bind it in the future; therefore, under better consideration or with a new composition, the Constitutional Chamber could well assume knowledge and resolution of certain types of matters that it had rejected in the past, upon deeming that they have relevance for the uniform interpretation and application of the Constitution and the instruments of Public International Law on Human Rights. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Regarding the judgments issued in the amparo proceeding that address the merits of the matter, a distinction must be made between those that are a) granted (estimatorias) and b) dismissed (desestimatorias).</span> It must be taken into consideration that the granting or dismissal of the claim deduced in the amparo can also be absolute or partial. Judgments that are fully or partially granting produce constitutional res judicata (cosa juzgada constitucional) of a material nature and, furthermore, bind erga omnes. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Judgments that are dismissed, in the majority of cases, also produce material constitutional res judicata, since, by hearing and resolving the claim, the Constitutional Chamber rules out the existence of an infringement of a fundamental or human right. Dismissed judgments do not produce material constitutional res judicata, solely and exclusively, in the exceptional cases where the Constitutional Chamber deems that the claim is a matter of ordinary legality (cuestión de legalidad ordinaria) and expressly so indicates; in such a case, it will be the administrative and judicial bodies that must resolve the matter.</span> These are exceptional cases, since, as a general rule, the Constitutional Chamber flatly rejects matters of ordinary legality; however, there may be cases in which it has some degree of doubt and then decides to admit the case, and it is only once the evidence is gathered that it becomes clear that it is a matter of ordinary legality. This also occurs when the amparo appellant formulates a set of grievances and claims, combining some of a legality nature with others of a constitutionality nature, and therefore the Constitutional Chamber, with the latter being present, decides to admit the case, order the proceeding, and resolve it, indicating in the judgment that there are a series of points of ordinary legality on which it will not rule as they are outside its competence..." (Highlighting is not from the original).- That is to say, this new doctrine proclaims that, in keeping with the effects of the judgments issued in that constitutional venue, in accordance with the provisions of article 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, number 7135, it means that this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) cannot disregard the content of those rulings, under the terms of the so-called "constitutional res judicata," and that to that extent, it implies a duty (and right) of "erga omnes" respect for what was decided by the Constitutional Court, even when dealing with a specific ruling, and not just regarding the case law as such.

**VI. ON THE EFFECTS OF RES JUDICATA IN RULING 8710-2019 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE:** Assessing what was stated in the preceding recitals and analyzing the arguments given in the oral and public trial hearing regarding the res judicata defense, it must be considered that in the present proceeding, the plaintiff indicates, according to its factual account, that this lawsuit is aimed at declaring the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct in our Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma, comprising Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de Cal, and part of Cacoraguas, are located, situated in the Corredores Canton, Corredor District, Puntarenas Province, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right to access sufficient drinking water. And that the aqueduct be ordered built to bring water to all the houses in Abrojo Montezuma, according to the most viable possibility determined by AyA. It directs its theory of the case based on an omission by the Institute, which has maintained over time an omission regarding its legal duties in relation to the drinking water supply it must provide as an essential service to the communities of the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. For its part, ruling 8710-2019 of the Constitutional Chamber analyzed the following as the object of the appeal: *"The appellant reports water shortage problems and complains that for 3 years they have sought help from the respondent to supply water to the community of Abrojo Montezuma, Guaymí indigenous reserve, and despite having had multiple meetings and despite having complied with everything requested by the technical staff, there is no progress on the project."* In its recitals, the Constitutional Chamber analyzed: *"From the study of the evidence in the case file, an infringement of the fundamental rights of the protected community is proven. From the report rendered under oath, it is inferred that the community of Abrojo Montezuma has a small aqueduct that supplies about 15 houses, and it is noted that this system requires improvements and expansions to address the lack of drinking water. Thus, it is evident that for several years, the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have been coordinating with the ASADA the viability process of a project, so that through the Project Formulation Directorate of the UEN-Project Administration of the Community Aqueduct Management Deputy Management, flow measurements have been taken at different sources located inside and outside the indigenous territory, whose combined flows allow them to propose a project integrating indigenous communities and communities outside the indigenous territory, without, to date, an effective solution having been provided for this problem. In addition to this, from the report rendered by the representative of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos, it is also not possible to extract any technical reason, or any other kind, that would justify that, to date, the aqueduct project to be developed in the community in question has not been completed. By virtue of the foregoing, the injury to the rights of the inhabitants of the mentioned area is proven, since the enjoyment of a fundamental element to guarantee people's health, which is drinking water, is at stake. In this regard, the respondent authorities are obligated to provide, within the shortest possible time, a solution to the problem under study; however, from the reports and evidence provided, it is noted that this has not been done. Thus, the present appeal must be declared with merit, with the consequences that will be stated in the operative part."* And in its operative part, it expressly ordered: *"The appeal is DECLARED WITH MERIT. Yamileth Astorga Espeleta, in her capacity as Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, or whoever holds that position in her place, is ordered to carry out the actions within the scope of her competencies so that, within the period of twelve months, counted from the notification of this judgment, an effective solution is provided to the problem of lack of drinking water for the community of Abrojo Montezuma."* From the analysis of what was addressed by the Constitutional Chamber, it is notable that the res judicata defense alleged by the defendant must be rejected, in that, applying the principles of ordinary res judicata, for the defense to proceed, there must be an identity of object, cause, and subject, requirements that are not met in the present case. Even from the approach taken by the Constitutional Chamber regarding constitutional res judicata, that concept is also not applicable, and it should be noted that while we are in the presence of the same subjects or procedural parties, the fact is that in relation to the object and the cause, substantial differences are evident. This takes into account, in the first instance, that in the constitutional proceeding, the aim was the cessation of a violation of fundamental rights, such as access to water as a fundamental right, and for that discussion, the need to improve an existing aqueduct to provide the service in some way was analyzed. Hence, the sentence issued by the Constitutional Chamber is aimed at providing an effective solution to the water problem to address that fundamental right. Whereas, in the present proceeding, there is an evolution of the object of that appeal and of the same cause, in that it is not a simple solution or the cessation of the infringement of that fundamental right that is sought; rather, a declaration is demanded of the legal duty of the defendant institution to provide a public service, such as the aqueduct service, to supply the entire community with water in every dwelling. Hence, the construction of a new aqueduct is claimed to provide that service to each family and dwelling house, basing the claim of that responsibility on an omission by the defendant Institute of its legal obligations and competencies. That is to say, it is not just about establishing the analysis of an omission of duties regarding a violation of constitutional rights, but rather approaching an analysis of legality regarding the omission of the legal competencies of that institution concerning the construction of an aqueduct that provides drinking water in a dignified manner to an entire community. Hence, the defendant's idea cannot prosper when it supports the defense by indicating that the matter is essentially executing in the ordinary jurisdiction what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber at the time, when it is evident that the object of analysis and what is sought has evolved, as has been stated. Consequently, this Chamber understands that the aforementioned constitutional ruling, rather than constituting res judicata, is a precedent that reinforces the appearance of good right of the plaintiff, as will be analyzed later when ruling on the merits of the matter. Thus, the alleged defense must be rejected. Based on the reasoning set forth, what was indicated by the party as a violation of the non bis in idem principle is inadmissible, as they base said violation on the belief that they have already been judged for the same facts in the constitutional venue; however, as already developed, the object of analysis of this lawsuit differs from what was discussed in the constitutional venue.

**VII.** REGARDING THE COMPETENCIES OF THE COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF AQUEDUCTS AND SEWERS IN MATTERS OF SANITARY SEWERAGE AND POTABLE WATER SUPPLY: We must begin by indicating that the matter of sanitary sewerage, due to its implications and purpose, is logically linked to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to human health, wherein according to what is established by constitutional mandate, there is a generic responsibility of the State for the protection of this fundamental right, which of course includes the involvement of the different institutions that regulate the matter, among them the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. In that sense, the jurisprudence issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is abundant. In Voto 17365-2007, the Constitutional Court developed the following: "... Article 50 of the Political Constitution establishes that every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The right to a healthy environment has a broad content that equates to the aspiration of improving the living environment of the human being, such that it overflows the criteria of natural conservation to locate itself within every sphere in which the person develops, be it family, work, or the environment in which they live. Hence, it is affirmed that it is a transversal right, that is, one that moves throughout the entire legal system, molding and reinterpreting its institutes. The environment is defined by the Real Academia Española de la Lengua as the 'set of physical circumstances that surround living beings,' which further emphasizes the general character of the right. In contrast, the right to an ecologically balanced environment is a more restricted concept referring to an important part of that environment in which the human being develops, to the balance that must exist between the advancement of society and the conservation of natural resources. Both rights are expressly recognized in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which outlines the Social State of Law. The location of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment within the constitutional regulations of the Social State of Law is the point from which it must be analyzed. The Social State of Law produces the phenomenon of incorporating into the fundamental text a series of political objectives of great social relevance and the introduction of an important number of social rights that ensure the common good and the satisfaction of the elementary needs of people. In this perspective, the Political Constitution emphasizes that the protection of natural resources is an adequate means to safeguard and improve the quality of life for all, which makes necessary the intervention of public powers over factors that can alter the balance of natural resources and, more broadly, hinder the person from developing and functioning in a healthy environment. In the same way that the principle of the Social State of Law is of immediate application, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is also, manifesting itself in the dual aspect of a subjective right of individuals and configuration as a goal or end of the action of public powers in general. The incidence that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State, and congruently of the municipalities (bearing in mind Article 169 constitutional), finds its first reason for being in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State in its role as guarantor of the same and, in second term, because the activity of the State is directed towards the satisfaction of the interests of the community. The Political Constitution establishes that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Prima facie, to guarantee is to secure and protect the right against some risk or necessity, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and impede all activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action directed at sheltering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a double behavior of doing and not doing; on one hand, it must abstain from itself threatening the right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must assume the task of dictating the measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements. (...) (...) Regarding the right to health and a healthy environment. Public health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are constitutionally recognized (Articles 21, 50, 73, and 89 of the Magna Carta), as well as through international regulations. In this sense, this Tribunal in ruling No. 3705-93 of 15 hrs. of July 30, 1993, indicated the following: '... Environmental quality is a 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 it 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 "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...' Likewise, there is an obligation of the State to protect the environment that is expressly contemplated in the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which states: '... Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are legitimized to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused...' This provision is complemented by what is established in numeral 11 of the 'Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.' Interpreting both norms harmoniously, the precautionary principle can be derived, according to which, the State must arrange everything necessary – within the scope permitted by law – to prevent irreversible damages to the environment. In relation to the foregoing, this Chamber, through ruling No. 180-98 of 16:24 hrs. of January 13, 1998, provided: '... the State not only has the inescapable responsibility to ensure that the health of each of the persons that make up the national community does not suffer damages from third parties, in relation to these rights, but also must assume the responsibility to achieve the propitious social conditions so that each person can enjoy their health, understanding such right as a situation of physical, psychic (or mental), and social well-being.'" In addition to what is established in the Political Constitution, the Organic Law of the Environment develops a series of responsibilities in the matter and regulates the criteria for the use and disposal of water. Article 28 of said regulation points out: "It is the function of the State, the municipalities, and the other public entities, to define and execute national territorial planning policies, aimed at regulating and promoting human settlements and the economic and social activities of the population, as well as physical-spatial development, in order to achieve harmony between the greater well-being of the population, the utilization of natural resources, and the conservation of the environment." Numeral 50 refers: "Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest." Article 51: "For the conservation and sustainable use of water, the following criteria, among others, must be applied: […] c) Maintain the balance of the water system, protecting each of the components of the hydrographic basins." Article 52: "The criteria mentioned in the previous article must be applied: […] d) In the operation and administration of potable water systems, the collection, evacuation, and final disposal of residual or waste water that serve population and industrial centers." **Article 59:** "Contamination (contaminación) is understood as any alteration or modification of the environment that may harm human health, threaten natural resources, or affect the general environment of the Nation. The load and emission of pollutants shall be mandatorily adjusted to the technical regulations that are issued. The State shall adopt the measures necessary to prevent or correct environmental contamination." **Article 60:** "To prevent and control environmental contamination, the State, the municipalities, and other public institutions shall give priority, among others, to the establishment and operation of adequate services in areas fundamental for environmental health, such as: [...] b) The sanitary disposal of excreta, wastewater (aguas servidas), and stormwater (aguas pluviales)." Regarding human health and water disposal, the Ley General de Salud establishes a series of relevant regulations: **Article 264:** "Water constitutes a public good (bien) and its use for human consumption shall have priority over any other use." **Article 276:** "Only with permission from the Ministry may natural or legal persons drain or proceed to discharge solid or liquid waste or other substances that may contaminate surface, underground, or marine water, strictly adhering to the regulatory safety standards and conditions and to the special procedures that the Ministry imposes in the particular case to render them harmless." **Article 286:** "Every natural or legal person is obligated to carry out the drainage works that the health authority orders in order to prevent the formation of unsanitary and infectious foci, or to sanitize those that may exist on properties they own. If the owner is reluctant to comply with such orders, the health authority may carry them out at the expense of the person in default. In cases where the public interest, nature, and scale of the drainage works so justify, every property owner is obligated to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority may construct such works, and the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement is incompatible with its use. The maintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works." **Article 289:** "Every sewerage system shall be under the technical control of the Ministry and the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado, and private or public law persons that construct, administer, and operate them shall be subject to the rules that the Executive Branch, in consultation with the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado, issues to condition their construction, operation, and the final disposal and treatment of effluents." Water, as indicated and mandated by the legal system, is a right linked to health, being an essential resource for the development of the human being and their environment, hence its ownership is of a public nature (dominio de orden público) administered by the State, and therefore the authorization for the use of these resources, as well as their destination, is reserved to the State. In that regard, the Ley de Aguas indicates: "**Article 1.** The following are waters of the public domain (dominio público): I.- Those of the territorial seas, in the extent and terms established by international law; II.- Those of the coastal lagoons and estuaries (lagunas y esteros de las playas) that are permanently or intermittently connected to the sea; III.- Those of naturally formed inland lakes that are directly linked to constant currents; IV.- Those of rivers and their direct or indirect tributaries, streams (arroyos) or springs (manantiales) from the point where the first permanent waters emerge to their mouth at the sea or lakes, lagoons, or estuaries; V.- Those of constant or intermittent currents whose channel, in all or part of its length, serves as a limit to the national territory, with the ownership of those currents being subject to what has been established in international treaties entered into with neighboring countries and, in the absence thereof, or regarding matters not provided for, to the provisions of this law; VI.- Those of any current that directly or indirectly flows into those listed in section V; VII.- Those extracted from mines, with the limitation indicated in Article 10; VIII.- Those of springs that emerge on beaches, maritime zones, channels, basins, or banks of national property and, in general, all those that originate on public domain lands; IX.- Underground waters whose extraction (alumbramiento) is not done by means of wells; and X.- Rainwater (aguas pluviales) flowing through ravines or watercourses (barrancos o ramblas) whose channels are of the public domain. **Article 2.** The waters listed in the preceding article are national property (propiedad nacional) and ownership over them is not lost nor has been lost when, due to the execution of prior artificial or utilization works, the natural characteristics are or have been altered. Excepted are waters utilized under contracts granted by the State, which shall be subject to the conditions authorized in the respective concession (concesión)." "**Article 30.** The potable waters of rivers and springs (vertientes), in any part of the national territory where they are found, shall be allocated to the water supply service (servicio de cañería) in the towns, as ordered by the Executive Branch. **Article 31.** The following are declared as a reserve of ownership (reserva de dominio) in favor of the Nation: a) The lands surrounding the catchment sites or potable water supply intakes, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius." Specifically regarding the use of water under potable conditions, the Law likewise provides for the use of that resource for the service of the population under potable conditions, which is reserved to the State as an exclusive competence through its competent institutions, notably the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados; in that sense, the Ley de Agua Potable grants public utility status to the use of water under potable conditions for the populations of the Republic. Thus, Article 1 states: "**Article 1.** The planning, design, and execution of potable water supply works in the populations of the Republic are declared of public utility. **Article 2.** All those lands that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, as well as the Ministerio de Salubridad Pública, consider indispensable for constructing or locating any part or parts of potable water supply systems, as well as for ensuring the sanitary and physical protection and necessary flow thereof, are of the public domain. It is the responsibility of the A y A to hear applications made for the construction, expansion, and modification of potable water systems and to recommend to the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes the construction, expansion, or modification of those of greatest need, following a study of mortality, parasitism, and other indices. **Article 3.** It is the responsibility of the Ministerio de Salubridad Pública and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to select and locate the waters intended for the water supply service (servicio de cañería), the type of treatment thereof, and the type of potable water system to be constructed." It shall also have the responsibility for the recommendations that must be issued from a sanitary standpoint encompassing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of drinking water systems. **Article 4.-** The Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, through the Department of Hydraulic Works, is responsible for the construction of new drinking water systems, as well as for carrying out the repairs and extensions that may be necessary in existing ones, provided that the respective Municipalities are not technically and administratively capable of performing such works themselves. The AyA will carry out these works in compliance with the sanitary indications issued by the Ministry of Public Health, pursuant to article 3".

From the transcribed norms, it can be concluded that water potability is part of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, of course, the right to health, where public administrations also have an acquired responsibility, and must incorporate into their public management policies the necessary resources to guarantee that right. Furthermore, the obligation of citizens and legal entities to follow the necessary guidelines for the use and disposal of water so as not to generate any source of contamination is likewise extracted.

However, in addition to these general regulations, the legal system confers specific powers to the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers; its founding law states: "**Article 1.-** For the purpose of directing, setting policies, establishing and applying standards, carrying out and promoting planning, financing, and development, and resolving everything related to the supply of drinking water and the collection and evacuation of sewage and liquid industrial waste, as well as the normative aspect of storm sewer systems in urban areas, for the entire national territory, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers is created as an autonomous institution of the State. **Numeral 2** establishes: "It is the responsibility of the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers: **a) To direct and supervise everything concerning providing the inhabitants of the republic with a service of drinking water, collection and evacuation of sewage and liquid industrial waste and stormwater in urban areas; b) To determine the priority, convenience, and feasibility of the different projects proposed to construct, reform, expand, or modify aqueduct and sewer works; which may not be executed without its approval; c) To promote the conservation of hydrographic basins and ecological protection, as well as the control of water contamination; d) To advise the other State bodies and coordinate public and private activities in all matters relating to the establishment of aqueducts and sewers and the control of contamination of water resources, its consultation being mandatory in all cases, and compliance with its recommendations inexcusable; e) To prepare all the plans for public works related to the purposes of this law, as well as to approve all those for private works that relate to aqueduct and sewer systems, as determined by the respective regulations; f) To exploit, use, govern, or supervise, as the case may be, all public domain waters indispensable for the due fulfillment of the provisions of this law, in exercise of the rights that the State has over them, in accordance with Law number 276 of August 27, 1942, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered the substitute body for the powers attributed in that law to the State, ministries, and municipalities; g) To administer and directly operate the aqueduct and sewer systems throughout the country, which shall be assumed taking into account convenience and availability of resources.** The systems that are currently administered and operated by municipal corporations may continue to be in charge of them, as long as they provide an efficient service. Under no concept may it delegate the administration of the aqueduct and sanitary sewer systems of the Metropolitan Area. Nor may it delegate the administration of systems over which there exists financial responsibility and while this corresponds directly to the Institute. The institution is empowered to agree with local bodies on the administration of such services or to administer them through administrative boards of mixed integration between the Institute and the respective communities, provided this is convenient for the better provision of services and in accordance with the respective regulations. For the same reasons and with the same characteristics, regional administrative boards involving several municipalities may also be created; **h) To enforce the General Drinking Water Law, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered the substitute body for the ministries and municipalities indicated in said law; i) To build, expand, and reform aqueduct and sewer systems in those cases where it is necessary and the better satisfaction of national needs so advises; and j) To control the adequate investment of all resources that the State allocates for aqueduct and sanitary sewer works"**. **Article 5.-** For the better fulfillment of the purposes referred to in article 2 of this law, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers shall have the following powers and prerogatives, in addition to those that general laws grant to establishments of its nature: b) To contract and formalize all types of documents, necessary or convenient, for the better achievement of its purposes; c) To acquire ownership of movable and immovable property; d) To contract loans within the country or abroad, which may be backed by the guarantee of the State, duly granted, with prior authorization from the Legislative Assembly. Said loans shall not require legislative authorization if they do not exceed two hundred fifty thousand colones (₡ 250,000.00), nor their term twelve months, and are contracted with banks or other national public institutions; in this case, the approval of the Comptroller General of the Republic shall suffice; (Thus reformed by article 1 of Law N° 3668 of March 16, 1966) e) To process the expropriations necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. (Thus reformed this first paragraph by article 65, subsection a), of the Expropriation Law N° 7495 of May 3, 1995).

They are declared to be of public utility and social interest, and may be expropriated, the lands necessary for the conservation and protection of water resources, as well as for the constructions that become necessary in the collection, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the purpose of establishing populations, or related to the evacuation of wastewater and its treatment. f) To contract, pledge as collateral, and encumber its own revenues, as well as the personal or real property it owns, in the loans referred to in subsection d) of this article. g) To accept donations of any nature; h) To establish rates and fees, revenues, and other charges, for the use of the services set forth in this law; i) Upon prior notification to the owners, possessors, users, administrators, or their representatives, to carry out the necessary studies and investigations within their properties and buildings, except domiciliary ones, for the achievement of the purposes proposed by the body that this law regulates; j) It shall issue its own regulations; and k) All others assigned to it by general laws insofar as they are applicable. **Article 21.-** Every public or private project for the construction, expansion, or modification of potable water supply systems and wastewater and stormwater disposal must be previously approved by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, which may carry out the inspection it deems appropriate to verify that the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Said prior approval shall be mandatory in all cases involving the construction of subdivisions (fraccionamientos), developments, or lotifications in any part of the country, and no other state body shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute. The violation of this mandate shall cause the nullity of any construction permit granted in contravention of this prohibition, with the parceling or project, as applicable, being considered legally non-existent, with the consequences, regarding third parties, provided for in Article 35 of the Urban Planning Law, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968." In accordance with these regulations, the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers has specific powers in the administration and operation of aqueduct and sewer systems, whatever their nature may be, and it shall be its responsibility to supervise those systems operated by third parties. And it must be emphasized that there is not only a legal duty regarding the administration and operation of these services, but also the obligation to provide the general population with potable water service, with its own constituent law providing the legal and financial resources for the fulfillment of its purposes, such as the charging of rates (Potable Water Law) and the material resources for attending to its competencies.

**VIII. REGARDING THE OMISSIVE CONDUCT OF AYA CONCERNING THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER TO THE COMMUNITIES OF THE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY OF ABROJO DE MONTEZUMA:** In the present matter, the plaintiff claims an omission by the defendant entity regarding compliance with its legal duties and competencies in relation to the potable water supply for the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma. It broadly indicates that historically, only a small aqueduct existed in the community, which supplied only 15 houses, and that it is in very poor condition, especially considering that the source of that aqueduct is exposed to contamination due to being near a pasture that no one controls. It points out that the existence of this problem has persisted for a long time, during which the defendant institute has ignored its legal duty to resolve the potable water supply, despite communal efforts and actions undertaken with other institutions to resolve the problem; it even indicates that recourse was sought from the Constitutional Chamber and, despite having obtained a favorable amparo remedy, the AyA maintains an omissive conduct regarding the need to resolve the lack of an adequate aqueduct to provide potable water to the communities comprising the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma, part of Guaymí. In its defense, the AyA's representation indicates that, as a result of what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber, that institution has been coordinating a series of actions within its management to address the operational aspect of providing the water supply service to those communities of Abrojo de Montezuma, actions that have been framed within a pre-feasibility stage of construction in which the viability of the required works for addressing the potable water supply in those communities has been analyzed and addressed from a technical and financial standpoint. Furthermore, it indicates that among the actions carried out is the installation of nine water tanks at strategic points in the communities for access to water, which are supplied through tanker trucks. **Opinion of the Court:** Having analyzed the arguments of the parties and the evidence brought to the case file, this Chamber concludes that the defendant Institute has indeed engaged in omissive conduct regarding its legal duties and competencies concerning the potable water supply to the communities of Abrojo de Montezuma for the following reasons. From the evidence provided, it has been proven that the Indigenous Territory of Abrojo de Montezuma, in Corredores, Puntarenas, encompasses, among other communities, Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de Cal, and part of Cacoraguas, and that these communities have historically faced an impossibility of having a potable water service that meets the minimum conditions of access to the service in a manner dignified for the human being and of quality. In response to this problem, the Integral Development Association representing that territory has managed various actions to address this lack of potable water service, among which stands out the filing of an amparo remedy in the year 2019 before the Constitutional Chamber, which was processed in expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, and was resolved by means of resolution 2019-008710, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2019, in which it was ordered to provide an effective solution to the problem of lack of potable water in that community. In addition, it was ordered as a precautionary measure by this Court, through resolution 1263-2021 of September 17, 2021, to order the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers to provide the provisioning of potable water to the communities of Fila de Cal, Bella Vista, and the upper part of Abrojo Montezuma, by means of a delivery system using tanker trucks or a wagon vehicle with potable water tanks; supply to be made once a day in each of the indicated communities, during each day of the week. In response to these resolutions, the defendant Institute proceeded to work basically on two fronts: an approach in terms of carrying out a pre-feasibility study to supply the communities of Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua, and Alto Rey, all from the indigenous territory of Abrojo Montezuma in Corredores, concluding that the supply of potable water in those communities of Abrojo is not viable through an independent system to be delegated to the community, and it is determined that the best alternative is to supply them from the project for Improvements and Expansion of the Coto Brus system. They decided on the option of improving the San Vito aqueduct, and extending it to that community, which would resolve the problem for other communities and reduce the operational cost due to the gravity condition. In the pre-feasibility stage, project alternatives were analyzed, considering the current and future water demand of the communities, and conducting exhaustive research for the identification of water sources in the area that could solve the current problem. These actions at the local level were carried out with the accompaniment at all times of the Indigenous Integral Development Association (ADII) of said territory and members of the ASADA, considering primarily the supply option from springs (nacientes), and obtaining as a result that sources of this type with the required flow are not found in the area, which directed the work toward analyzing the alternative using streams, of which only one presented a flow and elevation favorable for formulating a project for the communities of Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey, and Cacoragua. For this, the development of a potable water treatment plant (PTAP) is proposed using a slow filtration mechanism, in order to provide a technical solution that is easy for the beneficiary population to operate and maintain, compared to other technologies available nationally. And on a provisional and immediate basis, the AyA proceeded with the distribution of water by wagon with two installed tanks.

In the case of the Fila Cal indigenous zone, only the tanks will be supplied, and distribution will be carried out house to house. In Abrojo Montezuma, six tanks were installed in front of the first general store. In addition to the above actions, GPS topographic surveys were also carried out to acquire the necessary inputs for modeling the project, which involved locating proposed sites for water intake, dam, desanding basin (desarenador), treatment plant site, location of the storage tank, elevated crossing sites, and pressure-break tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes). The final permits of the ADII and the approvals of the persons possessing the lands within the indigenous territory must be obtained. Furthermore, the environmental feasibility of the project must be processed before SETENA, and the permit that INDER must grant to locate aqueduct works within the border zone under its administration, and likewise process the permit before MINAE for the use of the streams in accordance with the Regulations to Law No. 9590 of July 3, 2018, which authorizes the use of water for human consumption, construction, operation, maintenance, and related works on properties of the Patrimonial flow measurements (aforos) in the dry season periods at the cited source in order to identify the water potential and likewise, the water quality was evaluated, assessing microbiological and physicochemical aspects, to obtain all the parameters required for the planning and design of the DWTP (Drinking Water Treatment Plant, PTAP). The proposed project involves the construction of the stream intake, as well as infrastructure to allow the conveyance of the water resource to the treatment plant with its respective filters and disinfection, as well as the construction of a storage tank, from which the system could operate by gravity and with the construction of the distribution system all sectors of the mentioned communities would be served by installing the respective intradomiciliary connections. Currently, the production of the source continues to be monitored through summer flow measurements (afores) by the Department of Basic Studies and Designs of the Delegated Systems Management Sub-Management. Likewise, through the intermediation of the ADII and ASADA, conversations were held with the possessors of parcels within the territory to obtain preliminary approvals for the location of aqueduct works within said lands, mainly pressure-break tanks (tanques quiebra gradientes) (tanks constructed with the purpose of breaking the pressure or gradient of the pipe, bringing the water to atmospheric pressure —zero pressure—, with the purpose of adjusting the pressure to the capacity of the pipe or to the requirements of the conveyance line).

In that evidentiary scenario, it is conclusive for this Court that the communities that make up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma have historically presented and continue to present a condition of lack of drinking water supply, which has affected and continues to affect the quality of life of its inhabitants, as they do not have an aqueduct and sewerage service sufficient and adequate to supply the families of those communities with the water resource in a dignified manner, which is fundamental for their full development and for their right to health. From the testimony received at the trial hearing, it is clear that although as a result of the palliative actions undertaken by the defendant entity as a consequence of the judicial resolutions issued by the Constitutional Chamber and this Office, such as the installation of tanks so that the inhabitants of those communities can access water, and cistern trucks that supply certain sectors, the truth of the matter is that these provisional measures cannot be considered sufficient and adequate to address a legal obligation of the defendant institution to provide the supply of drinking water to the inhabitants of those areas, in an adequate and sufficient manner that guarantees the quality of life and equal conditions to a basic and substantial public service for the development of people in all their areas. Although the effort of that institution in addressing the problem is accredited, the truth of the matter is that those efforts are directed based on a judicial resolution and not on the fulfillment of its legal competencies as is its duty as an Administration, and such actions were also not surpassed to a concrete execution stage that seeks or provides a viable and immediate solution to the problem that those communities have historically faced. And it should be noted that the actions carried out were directed towards a pre-feasibility stage that determined a viable action to address the shortage condition of that zone; however, it is not proven that the conclusive technical model, identified as the best to address the water supply condition of that community, has advanced in any way in the years following the identification of that solution, and there is a lack of evidence of the management actions of that institute after the year 2021, which shows that an omissive conduct by AyA persists over time regarding the obligations provided in ordinal 4 of the Potable Water Law, which establishes that it corresponds to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, through the Department of Hydraulic Works, to build new drinking water systems, as well as to carry out the repairs and extensions that may be necessary in the existing ones. In addition to what is established in numerals 1, 2, 5, and 21 of the Constitutive Law of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which clearly state that this entity is responsible for the planning, financing, and development of everything related to the supply of drinking water and the collection and evacuation of black water and liquid industrial waste. Highlighting the competence over the duty to direct and supervise everything concerning providing the inhabitants of the republic with a drinking water service, collection and evacuation of black water and liquid industrial waste and stormwater in urban areas; furthermore, to determine the priority, convenience, and viability of the different projects proposed to construct, reform, expand, or modify aqueduct and sewerage works; which may not be executed without its approval; as well as to administer and directly operate the aqueduct and sewerage systems throughout the country, which will be assumed taking into account the convenience and availability of resources and the obligations that have been assumed internationally in indigenous matters. And it should be noted that in addition to the competencies and legal obligations imposed on that Administration regarding providing the populations of the national territory with the supply of drinking water and sanitary sewerage being very clear, the legal system also provides it with a series of resources to achieve those obligations and purposes, among them it empowers it to agree with local organisms on the administration of such services or to administer them, in addition to granting it powers to enforce the General Potable Water Law, for which purpose the Institute shall be considered as the substitute organism of the ministries and municipalities indicated in said law; and it grants it the competence to construct, expand, and reform aqueduct and sewerage systems in those cases where it is necessary and so advised by the best satisfaction of national needs and the fulfillment of international commitments in the matter of the indigenous population; in addition to controlling the adequate investment of all the resources that the State allocates for aqueduct and sanitary sewerage works. Additionally, it is granted attributions such as contracting and formalizing all types of documents, necessary or convenient, for the better achievement of its purposes; acquiring ownership of movable and immovable property; contracting loans in the country or abroad, which may be backed by the guarantee of the State, duly granted, with prior authorization from the Legislative Assembly. Processing the expropriations necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. Contracting, guaranteeing, and pledging its own income, as well as the movable or immovable property it owns, in the loans indicated by law. Accepting donations of any kind; Elaborating tariffs and fees, incomes, and other charges for the use of the services established by this law. In addition to having the financial resources coming from the tariff system granted to it by the Water Law and the Potable Water Supply Law. In view of the framework that regulates it, it is in all respects incomprehensible to this Court that the actions executed by the defendant entity have not advanced more efficiently and aimed at realizing actions and resources to execute the construction of an aqueduct or improvements to existing solutions to supply in an individualized, efficient, and adequate manner each of the inhabitants of the communities that make up the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma in Corredores, Puntarenas. Especially considering that it is known that the shortage of this very essential service is not new and that community has historically faced it, and that it is also a highly vulnerable community, which is protected by a conventional, constitutional, and legal juridical framework that must make such population a priority of attention, in order to reduce any condition of discrimination and that must be oriented to facilitate the development of the quality of life of those communities in equal conditions. The palliative measures undertaken, as noted previously, also cannot be considered as evidence of a cessation of the accused omissive conduct, when by express legal provision, it is clear that when it comes to the granting of a public service, this must always attend to the fundamental principles of public service, to ensure its continuity, its efficiency, its adaptation to any change in the legal regime or in the social need they satisfy, and equality in the treatment of the recipients, users, or beneficiaries.

Therefore, the omissions undertaken by the defendant entity openly imply a direct violation of the law that regulates them, and in the process of this neglect of their powers, the supra- and infra-constitutional and legal rights of the inhabitants of the indigenous territory of Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas are infringed, as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) pointed out in its ruling Voto 8710 of the year 2019. For further reasoning, the Court is mindful that the logistics of the intended solution require a serious, profound, multifactorial, multidisciplinary analysis with the participation of multiple subjects, beyond AyA itself, requiring necessary inter-institutional coordination and public-private collaborations to achieve the goal. However, it is precisely because of these parameters, in light of the evidence in the case file, that the actions of the sued institute are considered to have been isolated, circumstantial, and reactive to jurisdictional intervention, whether constitutional or by this Court. There is a lack of demonstration that a clear critical path exists regarding the state of the matter, the progress from the initial diagnosis, or the identification of the project's magnitude, having been limited to the pre-feasibility stage and the implementation of provisional solutions, such as water transport at sites, for which no detail of the operability/efficiency of this solution over time was even provided in the case file. There does not appear to be a diagnosis of the current state of affairs with said provisional solutions (how many users benefit, the choice of locations for placing the provisional tanks, maintenance of the tanks, etc.) as explained by the witness who testified at trial. The "meetings" that have been held do not seem to be linked in a schedule of activities reflecting the progress of a critical path, given that the allegation in the response to the claim that the task of supplying the service is being fulfilled for the indigenous communities is not sufficient, but rather, it is insisted, there must be sufficient inputs to accredit, by way of accountability from the institute, that there is effectively an active project, in execution, with oversight of provisional solutions, a critical path, and a tentative schedule of activities for the definitive solution, especially if there are already technical pre-feasibility criteria, as the witness from AyA itself indicated. It is not a matter, therefore, of merely asserting that there are financial limitations and that the project is complicated due to the reality of the site where the service is to be developed; rather, it is precisely for these reasons that there must be serious follow-up, documentation, and oversight of progress in addressing the situation, which is found lacking in the case file of this proceeding. Thus, the present claim must be declared with merit in all its parts. Consequently, the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared and ordered to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct (acueducto) of the Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, located in the Cantón of Corredores, Distrito Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right of access to drinking water in sufficient quantity. It is ordered to build the aqueduct (acueducto) to bring water to all the houses found in Abrojo Montezuma, according to the most viable possibility determined by AYA. The foregoing must be developed within a reasonable period according to the technical and financial possibilities of that institution, a period that must demonstrate efficient and adequate progress for each stage constituting the project to be developed, a period that will be supervised during the enforcement phase.

IX.- REGARDING THE DEFENSES ALLEGED: The representation of AyA raises the defense of lack of active standing (falta de legitimación activa), which must be rejected considering that the legal powers of that entity evidently place it in a legal relationship with respect to what is claimed by the plaintiff. Regarding the lack of right (falta de derecho) alleged by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, it must be declared without merit based on the reasoning set forth in the previous recitals (considerandos).

X. COSTS

Regarding costs, in accordance with Article one hundred ninety-three of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Exemption from this sanction is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient cause to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, the Court finds no reason to exonerate from costs, so it is appropriate to impose them on the defendant, which shall be settled during the sentence enforcement phase (fase de ejecución de sentencia).

POR TANTO

Based on the factual and legal grounds set forth, the defenses of lack of active standing (falta de legitimación activa) and lack of right (falta de derecho) are rejected. Consequently, the claim filed by the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas against the Instituto Costarricense Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared WITH MERIT. Consequently, the obligation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared and ordered to carry out the construction and/or improvements of the aqueduct (acueducto) in the Indigenous Territory, where the indigenous communities of Abrojo Montezuma are located, composed of Alto and Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, as well as Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal, and part of Cacoraguas, located in the Cantón of Corredores, Distrito Corredor of the Province of Puntarenas, to make possible the exercise of their fundamental right of access to drinking water in sufficient quantity. It is ordered to build the aqueduct (acueducto) to bring water to all the houses found in Abrojo de Montezuma. According to the most viable possibility determined by AYA. The foregoing must be developed within a reasonable period according to the technical and financial possibilities of that institution, a period that must demonstrate efficient and adequate progress for each stage constituting the project to be developed, a period that will be supervised during the enforcement phase. Costs are charged to the defendant, which shall be settled during the sentence enforcement phase (fase de ejecución de sentencia). Notify.

</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 12pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center; line-height: 150%; font-size: 11pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold;">Laura Gómez Chacón</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Amy Miranda Alvarado</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="width: 4.98pt; display: inline-block;">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Carlos José Mejías Rodríguez</span></p>

<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: ignore;">&nbsp;</span></p> <div style="-aw-headerfooter-type: footer-primary; clear: both;"> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 8pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">EXP: </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">21-004117-1027-CA</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 1pt; text-align: center; border-bottom: 0.75pt solid #000000; font-size: 8pt; -aw-border-bottom: 0pt single;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: [email protected]</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 1pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="-aw-import: ignore;">&nbsp;</span></p> </div> </div>

EV Generación de Machote: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj ????????????????

CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:

ASOCIACION DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL ABROJO MONTEZUMA DEMANDADO/A:

INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (AYA) N° 54-2023-I TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN PRIMERA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. a las quince horas con quince minutos del treinta de junio del dos mil veintitres.

Proceso de conocimiento interpuesto por Sandra González Montezuma, mayor, casada, administradora del hogar, cédula de identidad 603580853, vecina de Abrojo Montezuma, Territorio indígena Guaymí, en su condición de Presidenta de la ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL ABROJO MONTEZUMA, ubicada en el Cantón de Corredores, Distrito Corredor de la Provincia de Puntarenas; contra el INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (en adelante AyA), representado por Álvaro Arce Carballo en condición de apoderado general judicial. Participa como director del proceso de la parte actora, el Dr. Roberto Montero García, en su condición de defensor público.

RESULTANDO:

1.- Que la parte actora compareció ante esta jurisdicción a solicitar según se desprende del escrito de demanda interpuesta el 06 de julio del 2021 y de acuerdo con las pretensiones fijadas en audiencia preliminar celebrada el 5 de noviembre del 2021 y lo añadido en la audiencia de juicio oral celebrada el 9 de junio del 2023, lo siguiente: "1. Se declare con lugar esta demanda. 2.- Se declare la obligación de Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a realizar la construcción y/o mejoras del acueducto en nuestro Territorio Indígena, donde se encuentran las comunidades indígenas de Abrojo Montezuma, compuesta por Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, así como Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal y parte de Cacoragua, ubicada en el Cantón de Corredores, Distrito Corredor de la Provincia de Puntarenas, para hacer posible el ejercicio de nuestro derecho fundamental de acceso al agua potable en cantidad suficiente. Se ordene realizar el acueducto para llevar agua a todas las casas que se encuentran en Abrojo Montezuma. De acuerdo a la posibilidad más viable que determine el AYA. 3.- Se condene al pago de las costas generadas motivo de este proceso". (Imágenes 36, 172-176 del expediente electrónico, Audio de la audiencia de juicio en SIGAO).

2.- Conferido el traslado, la representación del Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados contestó de forma negativa la demanda y opuso las defensas de cosa juzgada, la cual fue resuelta de forma interlocutoria y alegada nuevamente en la etapa de juicio y falta de derecho. (Imagen 41- 49, 65-72 del expediente electrónico).

3.- Que la audiencia preliminar se realizó el 5 de noviembre del 2021, se fijaron las pretensiones, los hechos controvertidos y se admitió la prueba. (Imágenes 172-176 del expediente electrónico) 4.- El juicio oral y público se realizó el día 9 de junio del 2023, con la presencia de todas las partes. Se evacuó la prueba testimonial ofrecida y se realizaron las conclusiones respectivas. También se declaró el expediente como muy complejo de conformidad con el canon ciento once del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

5.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones y términos de ley, y no se perciben vicios, defectos u omisiones susceptibles de producir nulidad de lo actuado o indefensión a las partes. Se dicta esta sentencia dentro del plazo legal.

Se dicta la presente resolución por unanimidad y previa deliberación. Redacta la jueza Gómez Chacón con el voto afirmativo de la jueza Miranda Alvarado y el juez Mejías Rodríguez; y

CONSIDERANDO:

II. HECHOS PROBADOS

Se tienen como tales, por tener el correspondiente sustento, los siguientes: 1. La Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma representa al Territorio Indígena de Guaymí, del cual forma parte las comunidades de Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas, territorio que abarca, entre otras comunidades, el Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, así como Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal y parte de Cacoraguas. (Hecho no controvertido); 2. La Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma, ha planteado ante diversas instancias la problemática de acceso a agua potable que sufre las comunidades de Abrojo de Montezuma. (Imágenes 37-40 del expediente judicial); 3. El 29 de marzo de 2019, la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma presentó recurso de amparo ante la Sala Constitucional, el cual se tramitó en el expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, invocando violaciones a derechos fundamentales por la falta de abastecimiento de agua en las localidades indicadas. (Expediente judicial de Recurso de amparo, legajo en disco de prueba); 4. Mediante voto 2019-008710, de las 9:30 horas del 17 de mayo de 2019, expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ordena al AyA, que en el plazo de doce meses luego de notificada dicha resolución, brinde una solución efectiva al problema de falta de agua potable de esa comunidad. (Expediente judicial de Recurso de amparo, legajo en disco de prueba); 5. En reunión celebrada con funcionarios del AyA el 30 de junio del 2021, se acordaron los siguientes puntos: 1. Logística para traslado del camión cisterna a Bagaces y llevar la vagoneta a la ORAC de Corredores. 2. Designar al chofer que está manejando actualmente la vagoneta en Bagaces, a Corredores para lograr el abastecimiento. 3. Coordinar con BCIE y SAID para priorizar el estudio de prefactibilidad pendiente para que cubra las comunidades citadas en el estudio de prefactibilidad elaborado por la Sub. Delegados. 4. La ORAC de Corredores debe determinar cuáles son los puntos idóneos para poner un par de tanques en coordinación con la ADII. 5. PE coordinará con GG y capital humano la contratación de los jornaleros ocasionales. (Imágenes 128-130 del expediente judicial); 6. Mediante memorando NO.GSD-UEN-AP-2021 -00813 del 7 de julio del 2021, se rinde Informe de alternativas para atención de recurso de amparo de la comunidad de Abrojo Montezuma, en el que se indica que: "Esta UEN, en atención al Recurso de Amparo Exp 19-004972-007 - CO, fallado a favor de varias comunidades del cantón de Corredores, llevó a cabo un estudio de prefactibilidad para abastecer a las comunidades de Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua y Alto Rey, todas del territorio indígena de Abrojo Montezuma de Corredores. En el informe adjunto se presentan las alternativas valoradas, llegando a la conclusión de que el abastecimiento de agua potable en esas comunidades de Abrojo no resulta viable a partir de un sistema independiente a dar en delegación a la comunidad y justifica, que la mejor alternativa resulta en abastecerlas desde el proyecto de Mejoras y Ampliación del sistema de Coto Brus, el cual incluye a las comunidades de Villa Romo y Los Planes, que forman parte también del recurso de amparo en mención". (Imágenes 125-128 del expediente judicial); 7. Mediante memorando N° GG-CSA-2021-01582 del 13 de julio del 2021, emitido en atención al reparto de agua en Abrojo de Montezuma y comunidades aledañas se informa: "De acuerdo a lo conversado, me permito retomar informe presentado a Don Tomás Martínez sobre el reparto de agua en la comunidad de Abrojo, Fila de Cal y demás, así como la iniciativa sobre la posterior instalación de tanques por parte de la Subgerencia de Sistemas Delegados. 1. Reparto de agua en vagoneta con dos tanques instalados: De conformidad con los acuerdos tomados en las reuniones del miércoles 30 de junio y viernes 02 de julio, esta Dirección a efecto de garantizar inicio del reparto de agua a las comunidades de Cacoragua, Fila de Cal de Abrojo, Abrojo Montezuma y Bella Vista, envió el miércoles pasado fue a recoger la vagoneta de Bagaces, la cual una vez que ingresó se preparó durante jueves, viernes y sábado, brindándole mantenimiento general: sistema de luces, aire acondicionado, cambio de llantas, etc. Se trasladaron el chofer y un ayudante el domingo 10 de julio hacia Ciudad Neily para iniciar el lunes 11 con el reparto a primera hora, tal y como se evidencia en fotografías adjuntas, de hecho como valor agregado se les llevaron 70 recipientes que habían quedado del huracán Otto, sobre todo para las viviendas donde existen adultos mayores, pero en adelante con el cambio de conductor en 20 días aproximadamente, les estaremos llevando más recipientes. Visita a la comunidad para instalación de tanques en zonas importantes. Responsable de suministro e instalación: Subgerencias Sistemas Delegados y Subgerencia Sistemas Periféricos. El martes 06 de julio, nuestro colaborador Gerson Fernández Vargas realizó inspección en las siguientes zonas indígenas; Cacoragua, Abrojo Montezuma, Filacal y Bella Vista, en compañía de dos funcionarios de la Cantonal de Ciudad Neily (José Gómez Aguilar y Gustavo Montezuma) que conocen las comunidades y del funcionario Javier Quesada Solís de la ORACH de la Región Brunca, con el propósito de identificar los lugares propicios para la instalación de tanques de almacenamiento de 2.5 m3. Para la instalación de los tanques se valoraron los materiales que se requieren ya que deben estar ubicados en una plataforma con una altura aproximada de 1 metro, a efecto de que los usuarios puedan llenar los recipientes. En las fotografías se puede observar cómo quedarían ya los tanques instalados. La fotografía del tanque es para ejemplificar como eventualmente podría quedar. Para las viviendas que se encuentre muy alejadas de estas ubicaciones, se realizará el reparto casa por casa. Filacal de Abrojo. Instalación de 2 tanques. En el caso de la zona indígena de Filacal solamente se abastecerán los tanques, no se realizará el reparto casa por casa. Abrojo Montezuma: Instalación de 6 tanques. Frente a la primera pulpería. La Subgerencia Sistemas Delegados y Sistemas Periféricos, están coordinando para conseguir los tanques, el material para las plataformas donde irían montados, a efecto de poder en sitio atender la instrucción ya generada por la Presidencia Ejecutiva para el traslado y la instalación de los mismos". (Imágenes 118-125 del expediente judicial); 8. Mediante informe del AyA sin fecha se presenta el estado actual de Abrojo de Montezuma, en el que se expone lo siguiente: "1. Acciones puntuales desarrolladas por ese Instituto, desde la notificación de la resolución N° 2019008710 y hasta la fecha, para atender lo ordenado por la Sala Constitucional. Como parte de la atención del recurso de amparo, se informa que, a través de la Dirección de Formulación de Proyectos de la UEN Administración de Proyectos de la Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados, se procedió a evaluar a nivel local diferentes alternativas de proyecto, considerando la demanda hídrica actual y futura de las comunidades, y realizando una investigación exhaustiva para la identificación de fuentes hídricas en la zona que permitieran solucionar la problemática actual. Dichas acciones a nivel local se realizaron con el acompañamiento en todo momento de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena (ADII) de dicho territorio y miembros de la ASADA, considerando primeramente la opción de abastecimiento a partir de nacientes, y obteniendo como resultado que en la zona no se encuentran fuentes de este tipo con el caudal requerido, lo cual orientó el trabajo a analizar la alternativa con uso de quebradas, de las cuales sólo una de ellas conocida como Q5 presentó un caudal y una altura favorable para formular un proyecto para las comunidades de Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey y Cacoragua. Para esto, se propone el desarrollo de una planta de tratamiento de agua potable (PTAP) con la utilización de un mecanismo de filtración lenta, con el fin de brindar una solución técnica que sea de fácil operación y mantenimiento por parte de la población a beneficiar, en comparación con otras tecnologías disponibles a nivel nacional. Se realizaron aforos (mediciones de caudal) en las épocas de temporada seca en la fuente citada con el fin de identificar el potencial hídrico y así mismo, se procedió a evaluar la calidad del agua, evaluando aspectos microbiológicos y físico químicos, para obtener todos los parámetros requeridos para el planteamiento y diseño de la PTAP (Planta de Tratamiento de Agua Potable). El proyecto planteado implica la construcción de la toma de la quebrada Q5, así como infraestructura para permitir la conducción del recurso hídrico hacia la planta de tratamiento con sus respectivos filtros y desinfección, así como la construcción de un tanque de almacenamiento, a partir del cual, el sistema podría funcionar por gravedad y con la construcción del sistema de distribución se atenderían todos los sectores de las comunidades mencionadas instalando las respectivas previstas intradomiciliarias. Con el fin de conocer las limitaciones legales para el uso de dichas quebradas, se hizo consulta al INDER en oficina regional de Paso Canoas dado que las quebradas están dentro de la zona fronteriza. En la respuesta se plasma el interés del INDER en torno a la gestión que se debe realizar para el otorgamiento de los permisos de la zona fronteriza bajo su administración, siempre y cuando no se vea afectado el Patrimonio Natural del Estado, de tal manera que, para el aprovechamiento de las quebradas recomienda gestionarlo ante el MINAE, ya que dichas zonas se salen de su competencia administrativa. A partir del planteamiento del proyecto comentado, se inició el proceso de formulación del proyecto, para lo cual como corresponde se realizó un diagnóstico técnico social del sistema actual. Con dichos insumos se continúa con la formalización del proyecto tomando en consideración en todo momento el acompañamiento de las organizaciones antes citadas. Actualmente, se continúa monitoreando la producción de la fuente mediante afores de verano por parte de la Dirección de Estudios Básicos y Diseños de la Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados. Se escogió esta definición del proyecto, aunque requiere de una obra de tratamiento, para conservar un sistema por gravedad que minimice costos de operación, sobre todo sistemas por bombeo que demanden facturación eléctrica. Los estudios realizados llevan un censo poblacional para determinar la cantidad de casas existentes, los cálculos de la demanda actual y futura para modelar hidráulicamente la propuesta, dicho proceso censal fue realizado también con la colaboración de las organizaciones locales ADII y ASADA. Asimismo, se gestionaron, con la intermediación de la ADII y ASADA, conversaciones con las personas poseedoras de parcelas dentro del territorio, para obtener vistos buenos preliminares para la ubicación de obras de acueducto dentro de dichos terrenos, principalmente tanques quiebra gradientes (tanques construidos con el propósito de quebrar la presión o gradiente de la tubería, llevando el agua a la presión atmosférica -presión cero-, con el propósito de adecuar la presión a la capacidad de la tubería o a los requerimientos de la línea de conducción). Adicional a las acciones anteriores, también se realizaron los levantamientos topográficos con GPS, para adquirir los insumos necesarios para la modelación del proyecto, lo que implicó ubicar sitios propuestos para la toma de agua, presa, desarenador, sitio de planta de tratamiento, ubicación de tanque almacenamiento, sitios de pasos elevados y tanques quiebra gradientes. 2. Situación actual del proyecto de mejoras y ampliación del acueducto. Todas las acciones anteriores de coordinación dieron como resultado la elaboración del Estudio de Prefactibilidad de Construcción de Mejoras y Ampliación del Sistema de Acueducto de Abrojo de Montezuma ubicado en Corredores de Puntarenas, este estudio se estará continuando en este año con la preparación de la factibilidad y diseño final para su posterior búsqueda de financiamiento y construcción de obras. Lo que implica también que se ha realizado un proceso consultivo con los representantes territoriales, y, previo a la construcción de la obra se implementará este proceso para la consulta ampliada a las personas habitantes de las comunidades en las cuales tendrá cobertura el sistema. Se debe contar con los permisos definitivos de la ADII y los vistos buenos de las personas poseedoras de los terrenos dentro del territorio indígena. Además, gestionar la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto ante la SETENA, y el permiso que deberá otorgar el INDER para ubicar obras de acueducto dentro de la zona fronteriza bajo su administración, y así mismo gestionar el permiso ante el MINAE para el aprovechamiento de las quebradas en función del Reglamento a la Ley No. 9590 del 03 de julio de 2018, que autoriza el aprovechamiento de agua para consumo humano, construcción, operación, mantenimiento y obras conexas en inmuebles del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, amparados en el abastecimiento poblacional imperioso. 3. Medidas paliativas que se han implementado para atender el desabastecimiento de agua en las comunidades indicadas. Mediante la UEN Administración de Proyectos de la Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados, no se llevan a cabo acciones paliativas, su misión es desarrollar la solución definitiva. Ahora bien, debido a que la Oficina Cantonal del AyA en Corredores cuenta con un camión cisterna el cual está operando a tiempo completo para abastecer a otras comunidades, y además no posee las condiciones necesarias para acceder a la topografía del territorio, el abastecimiento a estas comunidades se contemplaría en una licitación pública para contratar un camión cisterna. Este proceso de licitación se esta gestionando actualmente por parte de AyA mediante la UEN Fortalecimiento de ASADAS de la Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados. 4. Mecanismos de comunicación, información y coordinación con la Asociación de Desarrollo, otras organizaciones territoriales y la población en general de dichas comunidades. Con relación a los mecanismos de comunicación, desde que se inició la atención de la necesidad de abastecimiento de agua, se ha mantenido contacto permanente con la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena y la ASADA, y se ha brindado información sobre el proyecto mediante reuniones de manera presencial en la comunidad con la participación de dichas organizaciones. Con la llegada de la emergencia sanitaria por el Sars-Cov-2, a nivel comunal se suspendieron las presentaciones en común acuerdo con las organizaciones, no así el trabajo. Sin embargo, desde AyA (Presidencia Ejecutiva y Dirección de Formulación de Proyectos) se ha conversado sobre el estado del proyecto de manera virtual con miembros de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI), la ADII y ASADA (reunión sostenida el 27 de enero del 2021). En esta reciente reunión se acordó brindar por parte de AyA a los representes locales un informe sobre el avance del proyecto a la fecha, lo ejecutado y por ejecutarse, de manera que este mismo informe se brindará a las instancias mencionadas por escrito y oral. Otra solicitud en esta reunión fue el abastecimiento temporal de agua potable mediante camión cisterna, lo cual fue indicado antes y se espera contar con este servicio vía licitación. Se abordó, además, la necesidad y obligatoriedad por parte de AyA de implementar debidos procesos consultivos en el marco del Convenio 169 de la OIT, y el Decreto Ejecutivo N°40932- MP-MJP. Se mantiene actualmente comunicación continua con la ADII y ASADA". (Imágenes 41-48 del expediente judicial); 9. En el juicio celebrado el 9 de junio del 2023, declaró el testigo Benito Montezuma, quien indicó que vive en Bajo los Indios. Toda su vida ha vivido en esa Comunidad y es líder comunal. Señala que hay problema de agua potable en general de todo el territorio. Entre sus principales problemas se encuentra la falta de agua potable en las casas, en el centro educativo, no hay agua potable, se consume básicamente de aguas de lluvia. Actualmente hay un acueducto pequeño para quince familias, pero el cauce de esa naciente no está en manos de personas indígenas, entonces se ve muy afectado en tiempos de verano. Las condiciones de esa agua son malísimas, no es apta para consumo, porque es afectada la naciente por un potrero. Las comunidades tienen abastecimiento de agua potable por medio de cisternas, desde el año 2021 abastece con un camión cisterna. Las comunidades de Fila Cal, Bella Vista, y la parte alta de Montezuma no llega a cada una de las casas, el camión cisterna, sino que se deja en la escuela o la comunidad. La fuente de corredores donde se toma el agua de los camiones cisterna, este sube dos veces por día, abastece Montezuma centro. Solo se tienen acceso para lo vital, no para otras condiciones sanitarias. En la comunidad de Cacoraguas, hasta el momento no tiene esos camiones, porque por el acceso del terreno no se puede transitar, esa comunidad recibe agua de lluvia o trasladarse a otros sectores. Explica que ese acueducto pequeño lo administra una asada pequeña, desconoce que reciba algún respaldo del agua del AYA. Expone que hay 9 tanques en el territorio indígena, en Bella Vista, Montezuma y Fila Cal, parte de Cacoraguas, y en Alto Rey no existe del todo el servicio. (Audio sistema SIGAO); 10. En la audiencia de juicio declaró Elizabeth Darce Delgado, quien señala que siempre ha servido como educadora de la Comunidad, vive hace tres años en el lugar. Explica que hay un pequeño acueducto que no da abasto porque la comunidad ha crecido mucho. Hay tanques, el AYA los había ilusionado para un acueducto, pero los fondos se habían dispuesto para atender otra emergencia, y es muy caro el proyecto. Expone que es un proyecto urgente, porque los niños jalan agua a la espalda, hay personas que viven lejos de donde están los tanques. El agua de los tanques sabe mucho a cloro. Cree que hace un poco más de un año se pusieron los tanques. El tanque de la escuela no se había limpiado nunca, y cuando presenció que lo abrieron observó un animal muerto. (Audio del Sistema SIGAO); 11. En la audiencia de juicio declaró el señor Fernando Vílchez Rojas quien se refiere al memorando GSD-UEN-AP-2021-00813, en su condición de Administrador de Proyectos de la Unidad Estratégica de Negocios, Director de la Unidad Estratégica de Negocios, Administración de Proyectos de la Subgerencia de Sistemas Delegados. Tiene 13 años en el puesto. La Unidad que dirige fue quien laboró el informe al que se refiere este caso. Expone que le corresponde al desarrollo de los proyectos que decide manejar por delegación. La delegación se construyen acueductos de forma independiente y se entregan a las comunidades. En el 2019 ingresa un recurso de amparo de las comunidades de la zona indígena, se inicia un proceso para que sea administrado por el Territorio Indígena. Se avocaron a un proyecto planificación, prefactibilidad del proyecto, investigación en campo. Esa primera etapa es el resultado de ese informe que se hizo. Se identificó posibles fuentes de agua, se vieron tres aspectos, el caudal, calidad, donde se ubica, además de ver si la propiedad está registrada. Dos quebradas, alguna naciente, pruebas de calidad de agua y medición de agua en verano e invierno. La identificación de las fuentes les permite establecer, una naciente sin la cantidad de agua y otra naciente que se utiliza para otras comunidades. Cada alternativa se generó un análisis de la viabilidad. Aquí el factor que más les preocupó, de todas las alternativas, fue la sostenibilidad, costos operativos versus de la población. Los costos operativos superaban los diez mil colones por cada familia. El costo operativo se da porque es una comunidad que está en una zona montañosa, debe ser bombeada y con alto costo de electricidad, y una planta de tratamiento, generando un costo de dos millones por mes, todos los escenarios les daba más de diez mil colones por mes por familia. Lo más aconsejable debe estar en administración del AYA negociación con el ICE. Se decidieron por la opción de mejora el acueducto de San Vito, y se extendiera a esa comunidad y resolvería el problema de otras comunidades y reduciría el costo operativo por la condición de gravedad. Se recomienda que sea un sistema por delegación sino administrado por el AYA. Se empezó posterior a recibir el recurso de amparo y se entregó en julio del 2021. La pandemia fue circunstancial, porque perturbó mucho el trabajo. Mas que todo es que la identificación del recurso hídrico, que no es fácil y rápido identificar por la inversión que se ha hecho. (Audio, SIGAO).

II. HECHOS NO PROBADOS

1. Que el AyA haya atendido de forma eficiente y efectiva la problemática de agua potable que enfrenta el territorio Indígena de Guaymí de las comunidades de Abrojo de Montezuma. (Los autos).

III. DEL OBJETO DEL PROCESO

La parte actora con el presente proceso pretende se obligue al ente demandado a ejecutar la construcción de un Acueducto en la Comunidad de Abrojo de Montezuma, señala en la demanda los siguientes hechos y fundamentos. Indica que actualmente tienen ausencia absoluta de agua potable en las localidades de Fila de Cal, Bella Vista y en la parte alta de Abrojo Montezuma. Actualmente cuentan con abastecimiento insuficiente y de mala calidad de agua potable en las comunidades de Alto Rey, parte baja de Abrojo Montezuma, parte de Cacoraguas. Desde hace tiempo buscaron ayuda con el AyA, sin que se solucionara el problema de falta de agua de su comunidad al día de hoy. Las comunidades indicadas, según coordenadas establecidas en el Decreto Ejecutivo 29960 de octubre de 2001, se encuentran dentro de Territorio Indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma. El 29 de marzo de 2019, se presentó recurso de amparo ante la Sala Constitucional, el que se tramitó en expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, invocando violaciones a derechos fundamentales por la falta de abastecimiento de agua en las localidades indicadas. Mediante resolución 2019-008710, de las 9:30 horas del 17 de mayo de 2019, expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ordena al AyA, a que la persona que ocupe la Presidencia Ejecutiva de dicho ente autónomo, en el plazo de doce meses luego de notificada dicha resolución, brinde una solución efectiva al problema de falta de agua potable a su comunidad. Al mantener caso omiso el AyA y persistir el no acceso al agua potable en su territorio a las comunidades indicadas, así como insuficiente y de mala calidad sanitaria en las otras, el 18 de enero de 2021 se conminó a dicho instituto, mediante dos notas para que cumpliera su obligación, siendo hasta la fecha omisa su acción. Al día de hoy, el problema de falta de agua potable en las comunidades indicadas persiste, pues no se ha dado la "solución efectiva al problema de falta de agua potable" que ordenó la Sala Constitucional. Tal y como lo establece el artículo 35 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el 18 de enero de 2021, requerimos por última vez al AyA para que cumpliera con su obligación constitucional, legal y también proveniente de la Sentencia 2019-008710 de la Sala Constitucional, de dotar de agua potable a las comunidades de su Territorio Indígena de Abrojo Montezuma que del todo no cuentan con ese servicio, así como para que iniciara con los trabajos de mejoras en el acueducto existente en Abrojo Montezuma que resulta insuficiente para suplir de manera adecuada y salubre a la población de su territorio, todo con resultados negativos, persistiendo la omisión. El AyA con la omisión en el suministro de agua potable a su comunidad ha infringido la siguiente normativa: Artículo 7 de la Constitución Política, por inobservancia de normativa y jurisprudencia de la Comisión y la Corte interamericana de Derechos Humanos respecto de la obligatoriedad del Estado en garantizar acceso al agua potable a la población. Artículo 11 de la Constitución Politice, por incumplimiento de los preceptos legales y constitucionales respecto de la obligatoriedad del AyA de abastecer de agua potable a la población costarricense, incluidas las poblaciones indígenas. Artículo 21 de la Constitución Política, por incumplimiento de los preceptos legales y constitucionales respecto de la obligatoriedad del AyA de procurar la salud y la vida mediante el adecuado abastecimiento de agua potable a la población costarricense, incluidas las poblaciones indígenas. Artículo 33 de la Constitución Política, por incumplimiento de los preceptos legales y constitucionales respecto de la obligatoriedad del AyA de observar el principio de igualdad y abastecer de agua potable a la población indígena de su Territorio. Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, por incumplimiento de los preceptos legales y constitucionales respecto de la obligatoriedad del AyA de procurar el mayor bienestar y derecho a un ambiente sano logrando abastecer de agua potable a la población indígena de nuestro Territorio. Dentro del Derecho de la Constitución se encuentra el principio de aplicabilidad directa de la norma constitucional, este viene a posibilitar el que ésta tenga una fuerza normativa superior, pero normativa a fin de cuentas, posibilitando a las juezas y jueces a aplicarla de manera directa en las controversias puestas bajo su análisis. Al respecto dice Pozo Cabrera: "Las garantías procesales en la Constitución son el producto de un modelo de Estado, concretamente del Estado Social de Derecho, que ha influenciado en el constitucionalismo moderno, que entre otras características tiene la de haber elevado a rango constitucional las garantías procesales y, establecer acciones que garantizan el ejercicio pleno de los derechos fundamentales, lo cual implica un control especial de ellas en el ejercicio de la vigencia de la supremacía de la Constitución y su aplicación directa e inmediata por parte de los operadores de justicia en particular y los servidores públicos y ciudadanos en general" (Pozo Cabrera, Enquire. Derecho Procesal Constitucional. Cuenca: Editorial Universitaria Católica (EDÚNICA), 2015, página 70.) Ahora esta obligatoriedad de aplicar de manera directa lo establecido en la norma suprema, está dirigida a cualquier servidor público, administrativo y judicial bajo mandatos constitucionales expresos de oficio o a petición de parte, pues los derechos consagrados en la Constitución y en los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos se consideran de inmediato cumplimiento y aplicación. Lo anterior significa que, no podrá alegarse falta de ley o desconocimiento de las normas para justificar la vulneración de los derechos y garantías establecidos en la Constitución, para negar el reconocimiento de tales derechos o realizar las gestiones propias para no hacer nugatorio el derecho como en el caso que se ocupa. Ahora, reforzando la obligatoriedad de aplicar de manera directa la constitución, se tiene que el artículo 6 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, establece como "ley" suprema en la jerarquía de las fuentes del ordenamiento jurídico administrativo, en primer lugar, justamente a la Constitución Política, e inmediatamente después, en el inciso b) se encuentran los tratados internacionales. Por lo anterior, claramente el no aplicar lo establecido en la Constitución Política, además de generar una violación flagrante a derechos fundamentales como en el caso en análisis, vulnera el principio de legalidad establecido en el artículo 11 de la Constitución, así como 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Además de la violación a la normativa constitucional indicada, violación a la Ley 2726 14 abril 1961 de Creación del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, en especial lo establecido en los artículos 1, 2 incisos a) y h), artículo 5 incisos c) y e), que facultan al AyA a realizar las gestiones que se requieran para ofrecer agua potable al sector de población que carezca de esta y así hacer efectivo ese derecho fundamental. Artículos 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que en similar sentido que el artículo 11 constitucional, obligan a la administración pública a actuar apegado a lo que la norma estable. Actualmente se presenta una ausencia absoluta de agua potable en las localidades de Fila de Cal, Bella Vista y en la Parte Alta de Abrojo Montezuma, además tiene abastecimiento insuficiente y de mala calidad en las comunidades de Alto Rey, parte baja de Abrojo Montezuma y parte de Cacoraguas. El problema de no acceso al agua potable para su comunidad Indígena en Abrojo de Montezuma, ha venido en aumento, causando hoy una gran preocupación y por ello desde años atrás se ha tratado de coordinar con AyA el debido abastecimiento de este preciado recurso, sin embargo todos sus esfuerzos han sido infructuosos hasta la fecha. El asunto llegó a tal extremo, que el 29 de marzo de 2019(sic) presentaron un recurso de amparo en contra del AYA por esa omisión y violación de sus derechos fundamentales, recurso que la Sala Constitucional de manera expedita resolvió (expediente 19-004972-0007-CO), mediante Voto 2019-008710 de las 9:30 horas del 17 de mayo de 2019, sea menos de 2 meses después de interpuesto. En dicha sentencia se le ordena al AyA que en el término de 12 meses debe tener solucionado el problema de acceso al agua potable. Además de la violación a la normativa constitucional indicada, se tiene la violación a la Ley 2726 14 abril 1961 de Creación del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, en especial lo establecido en los artículos 1, 2 incisos a) y h), artículo 5 incisos c) y e), que facultan al AyA a realizar las gestiones que se requieran para ofrecer agua potable al sector de población que carezca de esta y así hacer efectivo ese derecho fundamental. Artículos 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que en similar sentido que el artÍculo 11 constitucional, obligan a la administración pública a actuar apegado a lo que la norma establece. El tema del derecho al agua de las personas en general y en especial en el caso de poblaciones indígenas, ha sido desarrollado por diferentes órganos interamericanos de derechos humanos. Así, por ejemplo, el Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (en adelante CDESC) es uno de los órganos que ha impulsado el desarrollo de dicho concepto y contenido del agua como derecho humano. Este Comité, actuando como órgano de vigilancia del Pacto internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales de Naciones Unidas (en adelante PIDESC), determinó mediante Observación General número 15 que: "El agua es un recurso natural limitado y un bien público fundamental para la vida y la salud. El derecho humano al agua es indispensable para vivir dignamente y es condición previa para la realización de otros derechos humanos. Ahora, el CDESC desarrolla el contenido de este derecho humano a partir de los artículos 11 y 12 del PIDESC, relacionados al derecho a un nivel de vida adecuado, en tanto el agua representa una condición esencial para la supervivencia, y al derecho al más alto nivel posible de salud, como categoría indispensable para garantizarlo, adicionalmente, lo relaciona a los derechos a una vivienda y alimentación adecuadas, también contenidos en el artÍculo 15. Continúa indicando el CDESC que: "El derecho al agua entraña tanto libertades como derechos. Las libertades son el derecho a mantener el acceso a un suministro de agua necesario para ejercer el derecho al agua y el derecho a no ser objeto de injerencias, como por ejemplo, a no sufrir cortes arbitrarios del suministro o a la no contaminación de los recursos hídricos. En cambio, los derechos comprenden el derecho a un sistema de abastecimiento y gestión del agua que ofrezca a la población iguales oportunidades de disfrutar del derecho al agua. "Por su parte, la Asamblea General de la ONU en julio de 2010 reconoció como derecho humano el acceso al agua potable, indicando que: "el derecho al agua potable y el saneamiento es un derecho humano esencial para el pleno disfrute de la vida y de todos los derechos humanos" (ONU, El derecho humano al agua y el saneamiento, ONU AIRES/64/292, 2010, párrafo 1). En septiembre del mismo año (2010), el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas fortalece el fundamento jurídico sobre el que se asienta el derecho al agua, afirmando que está indisolublemente asociado al derecho al más alto nivel posible de salud física y mental, así como al derecho a la vida y la dignidad humana. Seguidamente, reconoce que existen obligaciones jurídicamente vinculantes a los Estados relacionadas con el acceso al agua potable y saneamiento. (Consejo de Derechos Humanos, Los derechos humanos y el acceso al agua potable y el saneamiento, ONU NHRC/1 5/L.14, 2010, párrafos. 3 y 8). Aunado a lo indicado, se cuenta con los informes anuales de la experta independiente y ahora Relatora Especial para el Derecho Humano al Agua y el Saneamiento, Catarina de Albuquerque (Informe de la Experta independiente sobre la cuestión de las obligaciones de derechos humanos relacionadas con el acceso al agua potable y el saneamiento, ONU NHRCl15/31, 2010, par. 29, e Informe de la Relatora Especial sobre el derecho humano al agua potable y el saneamiento, ONU A/HRC/1 8133, 2011, párrafos. 40-79). En dichos informes, con relación a la protección jurídica que deben brindar los Estados al derecho humano al agua, en su informe de 2010 se indica que, en la evaluación de la prestación de servicios de agua potable, se debe determinar si esta contribuye o no la realización de los derechos humanos, es decir, si se cumple con el respeto y garantía del contenido de dicho derecho a saber, su aceptabilidad, disponibilidad, calidad y accesibilidad. Lo adecuado para el ejercicio del derecho al agua puede variar según las diferentes condiciones, pero deberá estar destinado al respeto de la dignidad, vida y salud humanas. La disponibilidad se refiere a la continuidad y suficiencia que debe tener el recurso para los usos personales y domésticos, la calidad se refiere a la condición de salubridad que debe tener el agua, es decir, que no debe contener sustancias o microorganismos que constituyan una amenaza para la salud de las personas, accesibilidad se refiere a cuatro condiciones superpuestas, a saber, debe existir alcance físico a las instalaciones y servicios de agua en toda la población, debe existir asequibilidad económica para no comprometer su disfrute, debe ser accesible a todos de hecho y de derecho sin discriminación y debe existir la posibilidad de solicitar, recibir y difundir información relacionas al agua. Como se puede ver en lo que respecta a su Territorio Indígena de Abrojo Montezuma, claramente se incumple con todos estos presupuestos de acceso al derecho bajo análisis, esto por omisión por parte del AyA. Ahora respecto de las comunidades indígenas, se deben además respetar sus particulares modos de vida y concepciones del mundo, haciendo una ponderación y conciliación objetiva junto a los demás intereses y derechos existentes, esto además del derecho genérico de acceso al agua potable de personas indígenas y no indígenas antes analizado. Esto se refleja cuando el CDESC menciona que los Estados deben velar por que: "el acceso de los pueblos indígenas a los recursos de agua en sus tierras ancestrales sea protegido de toda transgresión y contaminación ilícitas. Los Estados deben facilitar recursos para que los pueblos indígenas planifiquen, ejerzan y controlen su acceso al agua". Ahora, la Oficina de la Alta Comisionada para los Derechos Humanos (en adelante OACNUDH) ha mencionado al respecto que: "Las fuentes naturales de agua utilizadas tradicionalmente por los pueblos indígenas, como los lagos o ríos, pueden no ser ya accesibles debido a la expropiación o la apropiación gradual de las tierras por otros. El acceso puede verse amenazado también por la contaminación ilegal o la sobreexplotación. Además, las fuentes de agua de los pueblos indígenas pueden haber sido desviadas para abastecer de agua potable a las zonas urbanas. Así pues, para asegurar el derecho al agua de los pueblos indígenas puede ser necesario, en muchos casos, adoptar medidas para asegurar sus derechos a las tierras ancestrales, reforzar sus sistemas tradicionales de aprovechamiento del agua y proteger sus recursos naturales". (OACNUDH, Folleto informativo No. 35, El derecho al agua, Ginebra, 2071, pág. 26). (negrita y subrayado suplidos). Es así entonces, que en el caso del acceso al agua para pueblos indígenas, se debe prestar especial atención a las condiciones tácticas y legales en las que se encuentran, pues son un grupo vulnerable, con evidentes dificultades materiales y formales para ejercer ese derecho, asociado además a las diferencias culturales con relación a las poblaciones mayoritarias o hegemónicas (no indígenas), pero sobre todo tener en cuenta que fuentes de agua potable hoy en manos de personas no indígenas, no puede perjudicar el uso ancestral de ese recurso al que han tenido acceso desde tiempos inmemorables. Asimismo, la OACNUDH analiza como parte de la tutela efectiva a este Derecho Humano para el caso de los pueblos indígenas, los principios de igualdad y no discriminación, razón por la que se debe tener su necesidad de acceso al agua potable en resguardo de sus derechos a la vida, salud y dignidad. (OACNUDH, Informe del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos sobre el alcance y el contenido de las obligaciones pertinentes en materia de derechos humanos relacionadas con el acceso equitativo al agua potable y el saneamiento que imponen los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos, ONU A/HRC/6l3, 2007, par. 24). No solamente este tema de acceso al agua potable como derecho humano ha sido analizado por parte de los anteriores organismos internacionales de Derechos Humanos, sino que la Sala Constitucional ha desarrollado el tema. Así una Sentencia de interés en cuanto al reconocimiento del derecho al agua lo es la número 4654-2003 de las 15:44 horas del 27 de mayo de 2003, estableció que: "La Sala reconoce, como parte del Derecho de la Constitución, un derecho fundamental al agua potable, derivado de los derechos fundamentales a la salud, la vida, el medio ambiente sano a la alimentación y la vivienda diga, entre otros". Según se ha venido indicando y analizando desde diferentes puntos de vista, la Sala Constitucional ha otorgado el grado de Derecho Fundamental el Derecho al Agua Potable. Respecto de la actividad pretoriana de la Sala Constitucional de carácter proteccionista al medio ambiente y concretamente en cuanto al derecho al agua, en el ¡informe del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la O.N.U. (O.N.U. Asamblea General, Consejo de Derechos Humanos. 2009 párrafo 56), se hace referencia a este desarrollo jurisprudencial nacional tendiente a reconocer como el acceso al agua potable constituye un derecho humano inalienable, que puede ser reivindicado en los tribunales costarricenses, como un logro enorme en el país. A lo anterior, contrastantemente también debemos hacer mención respecto del gran porcentaje de sentencias de la Sala Constitucional que aún no presentan algún tipo de seguimiento respecto de su efectivo cumplimiento, situación que claramente se presenta como un enorme lunar frente a esta vía proteccionista, pues existe la posibilidad de que la Sala Constitucional gire ordenes que a la postre resulten sin cumplimiento, justamente como es el caso que nos ocupa, donde existiendo el mandato a la Administración, sencillamente opta por no cumplirlo y donde se considera que básicamente ello obedece, a que en los ámbitos normativo y organizativo-institucional no existen medios o mecanismos de control que le permitan al Tribunal Constitucional dar el adecuado seguimiento a las órdenes dictadas en sus sentencias, de ahí nuestra decisión de acudir a esta Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa. Pese a lo indicado, en el caso de Costa Rica concretamente, hoy resulte pacífico el criterio de entender el derecho al agua como un derecho fundamental tal y como lo ha resuelto el Tribunal Constitucional en sentencias 2008-015420 de las 9:05 horas del 14 de octubre de 2008, 2009-000494 de las 11:23 horas del 16 de enero de 2009; 2009-014840 de las 15:50 horas del 18 de setiembre de 2009, 2010-012556 de las 12:30 horas del 23 de julio de 2010; 2011-008084 de las 15:56 horas del 21 de junio de 2011, entre otras. Aunado a la Sentencia del alto Tribunal Constitucional, de acuerdo con la última versión de la Ley Constitutiva Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, es obligación absoluta de AyA realizar todo lo concerniente para suplir de agua potable a los ciudadanos de Costa Rica, dentro de los cuales deben tomarse en consideración a las poblaciones indígenas como la de Abrojo de Montezuma. Dentro de las funciones para las que se crea dicho Instituto, según el artículo 1 de la mencionada ley, indica que se crea para resolver todo lo relacionado con el suministro de agua potable. Ahora, en su artículo 2, inciso h) punto i) se indica que el AyA es el responsable de ampliar y reformar los sistemas de acueductos en procura de satisfacer la necesidad nacional. Por su parte en el artículo 5, inciso d se establece como prerrogativa la de adquirir propiedades y en el e) el tramitar las expropiaciones requeridas, incluso declara de interés público el abastecimiento de agua potable. De esa manera, se tiene hasta aquí que el AyA como administración pública, es el llamado a abastecer a la ciudadanía de agua potable, ello mediante la construcción o mejoras de los respectivos acueductos y para ello, tiene la potestad de expropiar los bienes que considere necesario, pero aún hay más, pues debe entenderse el agua como un bien no privado sino demanial, lo que da aun mayor acceso o posibilidades de su mejor distribución al AyA. Como se sabe, los bienes de dominio público son aquellos que están fuera de la posibilidad de constituirse en bienes de propiedad privada, se consideran entonces extracommercium. Básicamente son el conjunto de bienes de titularidad de las Administraciones Públicas. Se puede decir que dentro de estos están los que se destinan a uso público o al servicio público, sin embargo, aquí no se agota la clasificación, pues también constituyen esta categoría de bienes los que así el Legislador expresamente considere como tales. Ahora dentro del contexto de los bienes de dominio público, la corriente de incluir el agua como uno de estos bienes deambulase es de reciente data, concretamente en el siglo XX, cuando da inicio la conciencia colectiva en cuanto a que tanto el agua, como su adecuado aprovechamiento resultan ser aspectos propios del interés público. Resulta conveniente en este punto del análisis, detenerse un poco en lo establecido de manera jurisprudencial por nuestro Tribunal Constitucional sobre la demanialidad del agua. Así en Sentencia 2007-017304 de la Sala Constitucional, de las 15:05 horas del 28 de noviembre de 2007, dicho Tribunal, hace alusión a la naturaleza jurídica de las aguas subterráneas como bienes demaniales. En esta sentencia hace mención la Sala a una anterior, se refiere a la 2006-05159 de las 13:04 horas del 7 de abril de 2006. En dichas sentencias, la Sala Constitucional dispuso que, a raíz de la normativa posterior a la Ley de Aguas, pasamos de un sistema mixto (público-privado) a uno enteramente público, constituyéndose de esa manera el recurso hídrico nacional como un bien demanial. Cabe recordar aquí que, atendiendo la influencia de la ley de aguas española de 1879, en el país se adoptó ese sistema mixto de aguas públicas y privadas, concepto o criterio que ya hoy ha quedado atrás frente a la conceptualización del agua como un bien exclusivamente de dominio público. Dice un importante extracto de la Sentencia 2006-05159 bajo análisis y en lo conducente: "V.- Naturaleza y Régimen Jurídico de las Aguas Subterráneas, Mantos Acuíferos y Áreas de Recarga: BIENES DE DOMINIO PÚBLICO. (...) las aguas subterráneas no son apropiables por ningún particular y su calificación como bienes de dominio público constituye título suficiente para someterlas a un régimen de intervención administrativa muy fuerte e intenso en aras de garantizar su integridad y calidad y de apartarlas de los modos de adquisición y disfrute propios del Derecho Privado. (...) Serán dos leyes posteriores, dictadas durante el curso del último cuarto del siglo pasado, las que reformaron o modificaron, tácitamente lo establecido en los artículos 1°, incisos IV, VIII y IX y 4°, de la Ley de Aguas. (...) Así, el Código de Minería, Ley No. 6797 del 4 de octubre de 1982 y sus reformas, en su numeral 4° dispuso lo siguiente:) las fuentes y aguas minerales y las aguas subterráneas y superficiales, se resecan para el Estado y sólo podrán ser explotados por éste, por particulares de acuerdo con la ley, o mediante una concesión especial otorgada por tiempo limitado y con arreglo a las condiciones y estipulaciones que establezca la Asamblea Legislativa (...)", de esta forma se produjo una publicación y nacionalización de todas las aguas subterráneas del país, incluso las que son alumbradas mediante un pozo ubicado en un predio particular para uso domésticos o necesidades ordinarias. Ulteriormente, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554 del 13 de octubre de 1995 y sus reformas, en el numeral 50 -cuyo epígrafe es "Dominio público del agua"- reforzó esa declaratoria de demanialidad y preceptúa que "El agua es de dominio público, su conservación y uso sostenible son de interés social", este instrumento legislativo supone una afectación expresa, de las aguas continentales (aguas superficiales y subterráneas -al no dístinguirlas-) al demanio público del Estado y califica de interés social.. ". Entonces y según lo expuesto, el AyA no puede mantener el alegato de no tener acceso al agua en terrenos privados, pues tenemos clara la demanialidad de ésta, así como las potestades de expropiación si ello se requiere, para garantizar el abastecimiento de agua potable a sus comunidades. Evidentemente el tener establecida el agua como un bien de dominio público, viene sobradamente a facultar, más aún, a obligar a la Administración Pública a ejercer todos los mecanismos de control necesarios en los de lograr una adecuada protección y distribución de este recurso hidrológico como bien de interés público. Por lo expuesto, es menester hacer un análisis del agua como bien demanial desde el punto de vista de diferentes normativas vigentes en el país. Todo con la finalidad de dejar claramente demostrada la inexistencia actual de aguas pertenecientes al dominio privado y la potestad amplia del AyA. Según lo anterior, se indicar que el sistema abierto establecido en la Ley de Aguas de 1942 (mixto como lo indicó la Sala Constitucional y generado por los artículos 1, 3 y 6 que vimos), es superado y reformado tácitamente por normativa promulgada con posterioridad, dentro de la que se cita: Ley General de Salud, N° 5395 del 30 de octubre de 1973, que establece en su artículo 264 lo siguiente: "El agua constituye un bien de utilidad pública y su utilización para el consumo humano tendrá prioridad sobre cualquier otro uso." Por su parte el artículo 4, primer párrafo del Código de Minería, Ley N° 6797 del 4 de octubre de 1982, hace clara referencia a la naturaleza pública de las aguas subterráneas y superficiales, al indicar que: "Los yacimientos de carbón, gas natural, petróleo o de cualquier sustancia hidro carburada; los minerales radioactivos, fuentes formales, fuentes de energía geotérmica u oceanotérmica, fuentes de energía hidroeléctrica; las fuentes y aguas minerales y las aguas subterráneas y superficiales, se reservan para el Estado y sólo podrán ser explotados por éste, por particulares de acuerdo con la ley, o mediante una concesión especial ofertada por tiempo limitado y con arreglo a las condiciones y estipulaciones que establezca la Asamblea Legislativa". De esa forma, de las dos normas transcritas se desprende como claramente el agua no puede ser explotada sino media una autorización estatal. Ahora, esta nueva concepción del agua como un bien de dominio público, encuentra su culminación en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley 7554 del 4 de octubre de 1995. Concretamente en su artículo 50, según el cual no queda lugar a dudas de la naturaleza del bien "agua". Indica este artículo lo siguiente: "Artículo 50.- Dominio público del agua. El agua es de dominio público, su conservación y uso sostenible son de interés social." Según lo analizado, no solamente del análisis jurisprudencial, sino legal se tiene que el agua se constituye como un bien de dominio público y por tanto susceptible de ser regulado mediante la intervención de la Administración Pública y sobre todo como en el caso en análisis ocupa, para brindar acceso a ella pues en la determinación del llamado dominio público natural, subyacen prioritariamente otros fines constitucionalmente legítimos, vinculados en última instancia a la satisfacción de necesidades colectivas primarias como es la expuesta en los argumentos de la demanda. En razón de todo lo expuesto, es evidente que la Administración Pública resulta facultada por ley, para establecer mecanismos que permitan la regulación y fiscalización para cumplir con su obligación, entre otras, de suministrar el preciado recurso a la población. En cuanto a esta obligación estatal de carácter proteccionista al derecho al agua, la Sala Constitucional ha sido de la tesis de que para que exista una real protección, deben darse adecuados mecanismos de control, mecanismos previos de estudios necesarios que ya se han llevado a cabo en su caso, pues tal y como informó bajo fe de juramento el AyA ante la Sala Constitucional en el expediente 19-004972-0007-CO que se aporta como prueba, esos estudios están listos, incluso ya tenían aparentemente dos propuestas para solucionar el problema de falta de abastecimiento, sin embargo a la fecha el problema subsiste, violentando el artículo de otra norma de aplicación directa, como lo es la Constitución Política en su artículo 50, que obliga al Estado a garantizar el mayor bienestar y derecho a un ambiente sano a toda la población, incluida la Población Indígena tan olvidada.

IV. SOBRE LOS ARGUMENTOS DEL AYA

Manifiesta que, desde antes de la admisión de la presente demanda, el AyA les está suministrando agua de calidad potable a las viviendas de los actores (inicios junio del 2021). Esto se puede comprobar de la descripción de hechos y prueba aportada que consta en la respuesta a la audiencia que esa Autoridad le concedió al AyA con ocasión de la medida cautelar ordenada. En el mencionado escrito se desarrolla con amplitud la respuesta a este hecho y se fortaleció con la prueba aportada y la cual consta en el legajo correspondiente. A las zonas descritas por los actores se les abastece de agua apta para consumo humano y de forma periódica. Como respuesta a este hecho reitero lo indicado supra. El abastecimiento a dichas comunidades se efectúa tal y como lo indicaron en la respuesta sobre la medida cautelar dictada. La explicación fue la siguiente: Para la reunión que se llevó a cabo el 30 de julio del año en curso, con la participación de los miembros de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo Montezuma, miembros de la ASADA, de la Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República (Dirección de Igualdad y No Discriminación), AyA (Presidencia Ejecutiva, Dirección Servicios de Apoyo (Gerencia General) y Oficina Cantonal de Corredores (Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Periféricos se les informó que ya se estaba brindado agua potable a las comunidades afectadas. En este orden, se instalaron 4 tanques por parte de AyA con tarimas e insumos respectivos distribuidos así: En Fila Cal actualmente se ubican dos, en Cacoragua uno y Bella Vista uno. La consecución de más tanques corresponde a la Subgerencia de Sistemas Delegados y Periféricos. En total serán 13 tanques una vez construidas las tarimas y se adquieran en la contratación que está en curso. Los tanques colocados a la fecha se priorizaron en los centros educativos. En el caso de Abrojo Montezuma se les abastece periódicamente de agua mediante el vehículo vagoneta, mientras se adquieren los tanques para ubicarlos en lugares estratégicos como los indicados en las fotografías que se aportan como prueba...". Desde que se tuvo conocimiento del fallo de la Sala Constitucional No. 2019-00871 0 de las 9:30 horas del 17 de mayo del 2019, esto es el 21 de mayo del mismo año se iniciaron las gestiones para determinar alternativas de solución de abastecimiento del líquido potable a las mencionadas zonas donde habitan los actores. Conocemos las obligaciones que establece la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional sobre la obligatoriedad en acatar lo dispuesto en los fallos del máximo tribunal, a saber, los artículos 53 y 56 que a la letra señalan: "Artículo 53. Firme la sentencia que declare procedente el amparo, el órgano o servidor responsable del agravio deberá cumplirla sin demora". "Artículo 56. La ejecución de las sentencias corresponde a la Sala Constitucional, salvo en lo relativo a la liquidación y cumplimiento de indemnizaciones y responsabilidades pecuniarias, o en otros aspectos que la propia Sala considere del caso, en que se hará en la vía contencioso administrativa por el procedimiento de ejecución de sentencia previsto en la ley reguladora de esa jurisdicción". Por lo anterior, a partir de la comunicación del fallo, el AyA inició los estudios de prefactibilidad del proyecto y luego las reuniones con las organizaciones comunales. Nótese incluso que en el documento presentado como prueba por los actores, el cual es un estudio denominado "Informe Estado Atención Abrojo Montezuma" claramente indica: "Con la llegada de la emergencia sanitaria por el Sars-Cov-2 (marzo 2020), a nivel comunal se suspendieron las presentaciones en común acuerdo con las organizaciones, no así el trabajo. Sin embargo, desde AyA Presidencia Ejecutiva y Dirección de Formulación de Proyectos) se ha conversado sobre el estado del proyecto de manera virtual con miembros de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI), la ADIÉ y ASADA (reunión sostenida el 27 de enero del 2021). En esta reciente reunión se acordó brindar por parte de AyA a los representes locales un informe sobre el avance del proyecto a la fecha, lo ejecutado y por ejecutarse, de manera que este mismo informe se brindará a las instancias mencionadas por escrito y oral. Otra solicitud en esta reunión fue el abastecimiento temporal de agua potable mediante camión cisterna, lo cual fue indicado antes y se espera contar con este servicio vía licitación. Se abordó, además, la necesidad y obligatoriedad por parte de AyA de implementar debidos procesos consultivos en el marco del Convenio 169 de la OIT, y el Decreto Ejecutivo N°40932- MP-MJP. Se mantiene actualmente comunicación continua con la ADII y ASADA". A pesar de lo dispuesto por la Sala Constitucional en cuanto a otorgar un plazo de 12 meses al AyA para brindar "una solución efectiva al problema de falta de agua potable", es obvio que la solución al problema no ha podido resolverse por razones internas y externas, a saber, las siguientes: El AyA tiene programado muchos proyectos de obra pública anualmente a nivel país, de manera que un año antes se elabora el presupuesto del año siguiente. Cuando al AyA se le sorprende con una orden judicial para resolver los problemas de líquido de una comunidad o de varias en todo el territorio nacional, debe realizarse modificaciones presupuestarias para incluir dichos proyectos en el presupuesto nacional o bien alternativas de financiamiento ya sea a lo interno o vía convenio internacional. Simultáneamente deben realizarse estudios preliminares y de prefactibilidad del o los proyectos a fin de determinar fuentes de abastecimiento en la zona, costos financieros, expropiación de terrenos, tal y como se indica en el documento denominado "Análisis de alternativas para el abastecimiento de agua potable para el territorio indígena Abrojo Montezuma" el cual se adjunta como prueba. La situación atípica de la Pandemia por Covid 19 que ha azotado al mundo y nuestro país no está exento, también ha implicado atrasos en el funcionamiento normal de la Institución, por ende, en el desarrollo de los proyectos. Muchos de los funcionarios han sido trasladados a laborar a sus viviendas por la modalidad de teletrabajo, con el consecuente y obvio atraso en las actividades programadas con anticipación. También ha afectado a la empresa privada quien es parte de la cadena de suministros y materiales, pues las importaciones de materia prima para los diferentes proyectos constructivos del AyA han sufrido atrasos. Nótese que no había transcurrido doce meses desde la notificación del Amparo cuando a Costa Rica la afectó esta situación (marzo del 2020). Así las cosas y siguiendo instrucciones del Gobierno muy poco personal administrativo y técnico se quedó laborando en las instalaciones del AyA, se suspendieron giras y estudios exploratorios, lo cual nuevamente y después de varios meses se ha retomado. Por supuesto se ha continuado trabajando en aras de cumplir el mandato constitucional. A dicha situación se le debe agregar este otro elemento. Estas comunidades son indígenas, por esto también deben ser cautos en proponer, consultar y solicitar autorizaciones para la realización de obras en tales territorios, lo anterior de conformidad con la normativa interna y respetando los convenios internacionales para pueblos indígenas ratificados por nuestro país. Conocen de la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional en contra de AyA, misma que tiene carácter de cosa juzgada por mandato de ley, es de cumplimiento obligatorio, so pena de responsabilidad. Por esta razón el AyA está actuando conforme lo ordenado e incluso en coordinación con las organizaciones del lugar, donde de paso, una de ellas es la de los actores. El AyA no ha sido omisa en el cumplimiento de lo ordenado por la Sala Constitucional y los actores, pues como se indicó han actuado para que a ellos no les falte el suministro de agua potable, abasteciéndolos de éste mediante camión cisterna, colocando tanques de almacenamiento en algunos lugares y en proceso de compra otros para reforzar a los primero. Lo anterior hasta que se logre construir la infraestructura que permita llevarles agua potable hasta sus viviendas. Conforme la prueba aportada y los hechos aquí expuestos, no existe tal conducta omisiva del AyA. La institución no puede "por arte de magia" disponer en 12 meses de efectuar, tener colocada la tubería y demás obras que se requieren para que los actores cuenten en sus casas con agua potable. Como se indicó, esto requiere una serie de estudios, autorizaciones y financiamiento para realizarlas y máxime por la pandemia de Covid 19, a la fecha dichas obras no se han materializado. La petitoria formulada por los demandados en el presente proceso constituye la misma pretensión solicitada en el Amparo al que se ha hecho referencia y del cual AyA fue condenado a realizar las obras indispensables para que los actores cuenten con agua potable. Con total respeto al señor Juzgador, me permito recordar que de conformidad con los artículos 53 y 56 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional las sentencias desfavorables a una de las partes y donde lo condene a hacer o no hacer, de dar o no dar son de acatamiento obligatorio. Pretender que nuevamente otro Juez de la República disponga condenar al AyA para dotar a los actores de lo ya fallado constituye una infracción al principio Non Bis in ídem.

VI. SOBRE LA EXCEPCIÓN DE COSA JUZGADA MATERIAL

En relación a la excepción planteada de cosa juzgada material, se ha establecido por jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera las características de dicho instituto: “Tiene la cosa juzgada naturaleza estrictamente procesal, porque es una consecuencia del proceso y de la voluntad manifestada en la ley de rito. Pero sus efectos trascienden indirectamente el proceso, para recaer sobre las relaciones jurídicas sustanciales. Ello, como consecuencia de la inmutabilidad de la decisión: su efecto directo, con lo cual se garantiza la certeza jurídica de aquéllas. Ambos elementos, a saber, la inmutabilidad de la decisión y la definitividad del derecho declarado o de su rechazo o denegación, constituyen efectos jurídicos de la cosa juzgada. El primero directo y procesal; el segundo indirecto y sustancial.... Por esa razón, la cosa juzgada tiene una función o eficacia negativa al prohibir a los jueces decidir de nuevo sobre lo ya resuelto. Pero también, tiene otra positiva, representada por la seguridad conferida a las relaciones jurídicas sustanciales decididas. El fundamento de la cosa juzgada está, entonces, en la potestad jurisdiccional del Estado, de la cual emana el poder suficiente para asegurar la eficacia y los efectos de la sentencia. VI.- La cosa juzgada está sujeta a dos límites: el objetivo, en razón del objeto sobre el cual versó el proceso al igual que la causa o título del cual se dedujo la pretensión; y el subjetivo, en razón de las personas que han sido partes en el proceso. El objeto de la pretensión está referido a lo reconocido o negado en la sentencia ejecutoria.... Además, la cosa juzgada en cuanto al objeto se refiere, se extiende a aquellos puntos que sin haber sido materia expresa de la decisión jurisdiccional, por consecuencia necesaria o por depender indispensablemente de tal decisión, resultan resueltos tácitamente. ... El segundo aspecto del límite objetivo es la identidad de la causa petendi, sea, el fundamento o razón alegada por el demandante para obtener el objeto de la pretensión contenida en la demanda. La causa petendi debe ser buscada exclusivamente dentro del marco de la demanda, con un criterio amplio el cual conduzca a su interpretación lógica. No remitiéndose a su simple tenor literal. ... El límite subjetivo o identidad de partes se refiere a los sujetos del proceso, partes en sentido formal: demandantes, demandados y terceros intervinientes; y debe tenerse en cuenta que los causahabientes de las partes a título universal o singular están obligados por la sentencia, como si se tratara de ellas. Al respecto, lo importante es la identidad jurídica de las partes, no su identidad física. En consecuencia, a quien no ha sido parte en el proceso no se le puede vincular con la sentencia dictada; es decir, no se le pueden imponer las sujeciones y obligaciones derivadas de ella”. (Sentencia número 1015 de las 10 horas del 25 de noviembre del 2004. En igual sentido y, entre muchas otras, pueden consultarse las resoluciones 740 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 1 de diciembre de 1999, 57 de las 10 horas del 5 de febrero del 2003 y 875 de las 10 horas del 7 de octubre del 2004). De conformidad con lo preceptuado en el anterior canon 162 del Código Procesal Civil, las sentencias firmes revestidas con la autoridad y eficacia de la cosa juzgada material, son aquellas dictadas en procesos ordinarios y abreviados, o bien, a las que la ley les confiera ese efecto. Actualmente el numeral 64 del CPC indica que: "Para que se produzca cosa juzgada es necesaria la identidad de sujetos, objeto y causa, la cual puede ser declarada de oficio. Sus efectos se limitan a lo dispositivo. Producen cosa juzgada material las sentencias firmes dictadas en procesos ordinarios y las resoluciones expresamente indicadas por ley, lo cual hace indiscutible, en otro proceso, la existencia o no de la relación jurídica juzgada. Las sentencias dictadas en los demás procesos tendrán efecto de cosa juzgada formal y la presentación de un proceso ordinario no impedirá su ejecución". Sobre el tema de la Cosa Juzgada, también el Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Segunda, trayendo a colación una sentencia de la antigua Sala de Casación ha señalado: “... VI.- Que es necesario hacer hincapié en que la existencia y los alcances de la cosa juzgada no sólo dependen de la triple identidad en el objeto, la causa y las partes, sino también de la índole del pronunciamiento recaído, pues la cosa juzgada es, sobre todo, lo que esas mismas palabras significan, es decir, lo que ya se juzgó en un fallo firme; porque de lo contrario, si la sentencia no decide el fondo de las cuestiones propuestas y debatidas en el pleito, o en otras palabras, si lo que se reclama en el segundo juicio no fue concedido o denegado en el primero, no podrá haber cosa juzgada.- El artículo 733 del Código Civil - acota este órgano, hoy 162 del Código Procesal Civil -, dispone que la autoridad de la cosa juzgada se circunscribe a lo resolutivo de la sentencia, mas no a sus fundamentos; sin embargo, con frecuencia hay que acudir a la motivación del fallo para esclarecer qué es lo que en realidad resolvieron los jueces, máxime cuando la sentencia, por ser desestimatoria, se limita a declarar en su parte dispositiva que la demanda queda denegada.- La simple denegación de la demanda no siempre supone que el Juez haya desechado lo pedido por falta de prueba sobre los hechos alegados o por carecer de derecho el actor, o por otros motivos que impliquen decisión de fondo o impidan reiterar la controversia en un nuevo juicio. Algunas veces son razones de otro género las que dan lugar al rechazo de una demanda; pueden ser de orden procesal, como la falta de algún requisito que la ley exige y que el actor no cumplió antes de ejercitar la acción; o bien, motivos de fondo en casos especiales como ocurriría si el demandado hubiera pretendido cobrar una obligación antes de término o subordinada a una condición suspensiva, hipótesis en que sería absurdo oponer la cosa juzgada dentro del litigio que se promoviera después, ya cumplido el plazo o la condición. Sobre el problema de la interpretación de la cosa juzgada, el Tribunal Supremo Español hizo las siguientes consideraciones en un fallo fechado el 7 de julio de 1943: “La doctrina procesal moderna, delimitando los conceptos de cosa juzgada en sentido formal y cosa juzgada en sentido sustancial, ha venido a establecer, con criterio claro y seguro, que no producen cosa juzgada material las resoluciones sobre materias procesales (presupuestos, excepciones, etc,), que aún cuando pongan término al juicio hagan referencia exclusivamente a la relación procesal para que han sido dictadas”; y en un fallo posterior, de fecha primero de julio de 1947, el mismo Tribunal expresó: “Al declarar el Tribunal a quo no haber lugar a la excepción de cosa juzgada, lejos de infringir el precepto del artículo 1253 del Código Civil (español), lo interpreta y aplica ajustada, ya que es doctrina reiterada que para que se produzca cosa juzgada y pueda estimarse, es preciso que la sentencia primera haya resuelto sobre el fondo del negocio; y como en la resolución recurrida se declara que la primera sentencia, si bien desestimó las pretensiones de las demandadas, fue por motivos puramente procesales, y por ello no les negó sus pretendidos derechos ni mucho menos se los reconoció al demandado, es obvio que no cabe acoger el motivo objeto de examen ...”. (Sentencia número 101 de las catorce horas treinta minutos del cuatro de setiembre de mil novecientos sesenta y ocho de la antigua Sala de Casación, citada en sentencia número 528-2003 de las quince horas veinte minutos del treinta y uno de octubre de dos mil tres del Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Segunda. II Circuito Judicial de San José). Tomando en cuenta lo señalado en el anterior precedente y lo que al respecto establece el numeral 64 del Código Procesal Civil, -aplicable supletoriamente al Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo-, para poder declarar la existencia de la Cosa Juzgada Material es necesario que exista identidad de partes, objeto y causa con un análisis que respete lo expuesto anteriormente.

VII. SOBRE LA COSA JUZGADA CONSTITUCIONAL

Durante la audiencia de juicio oral y público la representación del Instituto demandado reiteró la excepción de cosa juzgada argumentado entre los aspectos indicados la procedencia de dicha excepción considerando lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional respecto a la condenatoria generada en la sentencia 8710-2019, en la cual se ordenó a aquel instituto resolver el problema de agua en las comunidades que componen el territorio indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma. En atención a tales argumentos y debiendo este Tribunal valorar la procedencia de tal posición resulta necesario retomar los efectos de orden procesal que surgen de la cosa juzgada constitucional la cual ha sido retomada por la misma Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en reiterados fallos los cuales se retoman a efectos de su análisis. A partir de la sentencia número 2014-12825 de las 15:05 horas del 06 de agosto de 2014, la Sala Constitucional desarrolla una nueva doctrina, denominada como “cosa juzgada constitucional”, por oposición al instituto de la cosa juzgada ordinaria o de legalidad, que es la aplicable para el resto de los Tribunales de la República. Señalando que la misma surge como un derecho fundamental al respeto erga omnes de lo fallado por el Tribunal Constitucional aun tratándose de un fallo concreto, no sólo la jurisprudencia como tal: “…Distinto sucede tratándose del derecho fundamental a la cosa juzgada constitucional, por cuanto, se trata de establecer los verdaderos y exactos alcances de una sentencia constitucional respecto de lo que ha sido resuelto en la sede de la legalidad ordinaria. En esta hipótesis sólo la Sala Constitucional tiene competencia -exclusiva y excluyente- para determinar los alcances y contenido de sus sentencias estimatorias y desestimatorias. Debe tomarse en consideración que la cosa juzgada constitucional tiene una especial relevancia desde la perspectiva constitucional, por cuanto, las competencias de fiscalización constitucional le fueron exclusivamente atribuidas a la Sala Constitucional y este Tribunal en sus sentencias zanja y dirime, definitivamente, sin posibilidad de ulterior recurso, si fue quebrantado o no un derecho fundamental, humano o bien un valor, principio o precepto constitucional. La cosa juzgada constitucional tiene singularidades propias y especiales que la distinguen de la cosa juzgada de legalidad, que son las siguientes: a) No cabe ningún recurso, ni siquiera el extraordinario de revisión contra una sentencia constitucional; b) la cosa juzgada constitucional se extiende a la parte dispositiva (por tanto) como a la parte considerativa o razonamientos de hecho y de derecho expuestos por la Sala Constitucional; c) la eficacia de la cosa juzgada constitucional no es relativa -relatividad de la cosa juzgada de legalidad- sino absoluta y general, se extiende a cualquier sujeto de derecho, tanto los que intervinieron como partes principales o accesorias como a los que no fueron parte en el proceso constitucional. (…) La definición de la cosa juzgada constitucional como un derecho fundamental por el constituyente originario, no es una cuestión menor o irrelevante, por el contrario reviste la mayor trascendencia desde la óptica de la hermenéutica y aplicación constitucional, por cuanto, hace posible que cualquier persona puede aducir su infracción en la sede del proceso de amparo y, por consiguiente, este Tribunal Constitucional tiene plena y absoluta competencia para conocer y resolver ese extremo en el cauce procesal indicado. En definitiva, la cosa juzgada constitucional cumple un doble rol de derecho fundamental y de garantía institucional de los principios y valores apuntados (seguridad jurídica y paz social), condición que comparte con otras figuras reguladas en la parte dogmática de la Constitución…” (Resaltado no es del original). Esta declaración de este derecho fundamental creado trae consigo la imposibilidad legal para cualquier Tribunal de ignorar o contradecir lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional en casos de amparo o hábeas corpus. La misma Sala dispuso en ese sentido: “V.- COSA JUZGADA CONSTITUCIONAL EN EL PROCESO DE AMPARO. (…) Ningún Tribunal o juez ordinario de legalidad tiene competencia, so pena de infringir palmariamente la Constitución y la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional de definir cuándo o bajo que circunstancias una sentencia vertida por la Sala Constitucional tiene efectos de cosa juzgada material o eficacia vinculante ante terceros, tales extremos deben ser determinados, exclusivamente, por el intérprete último y definitivo de la Constitución, el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Cualquier tribunal o juez de legalidad ordinaria que pretenda definir tales alcances quebranta los artículos 9, 10 y 48 constitucionales al arrogarse y usurpar, a contrapelo de la Constitución y la ley, competencias que no tiene y lesionando, gravemente, el principio constitucional de la separación de funciones que distingue, nítidamente, entre la jurisdicción constitucional y la jurisdicción de mera legalidad. En definitiva, todo tribunal o juez de legalidad ordinaria tiene prohibición expresa de definir en sus propias sentencias de legalidad los alcances y efectos de una sentencia vertida por el intérprete último y definitivo de la constitución que conoce y resuelve, excluyentemente, los procesos constitucionales. El único órgano habilitado por la Constitución y por la ley para definir la eficacia de sus sentencias constitucionales es la propia Sala Constitucional, con exclusión de cualquier órgano jurisdiccional ordinario…” (Resaltado no es del original), de tal voto igualmente se extrae en qué escenarios procede o no la “cosa juzgada constitucional”, en los distintos fallos así emitidos: “…Dentro de la tipología de las sentencias de amparo dictadas por la Sala Constitucional, debe distinguirse entre las denominadas absolutorias de la instancia, sea que no entran a conocer el mérito del asunto y que ad limine litis resuelven el asunto como lo son los rechazos de plano y por el fondo. En el rechazo de plano, la Sala Constitucional no vierte pronunciamiento en cuanto al fondo, por cuanto, puede estimar que el asunto es manifiestamente improcedente o de legalidad ordinaria por lo que no es de su competencia constitucional, este tipo de sentencia como no se pronuncia sobre el mérito del asunto no produce cosa juzgada, serán las instancias administrativas y jurisdiccionales ordinarias quienes deberán conocer y resolver el asunto. Tratándose del rechazo por el fondo, tampoco hay pronunciamiento en cuanto al fondo, por cuanto, se reiteran sentencias precedentes en las que se ha rechazado el asunto por no ser competencia de la Sala Constitucional. Nuevamente se reitera que la delimitación de la competencia de la Sala Constitucional es una cuestión exclusiva y excluyente de este Tribunal Constitucional, siendo que sus precedentes no la vinculan a futuro, por lo que bajo una mejor ponderación o una nueva integración bien podría la Sala Constitucional asumir el conocimiento y resolución de cierto tipo de asuntos que en el pasado haya rechazado al estimar que tiene relevancia para la interpretación y aplicación uniforme de la Constitución y los instrumentos del Derecho internacional público de los derechos humanos. En lo relativo a las sentencias vertidas en el proceso de amparo que entran a conocer el fondo del asunto, se debe distinguir entre las a) estimatorias y b) desestimatorias. Debe tomarse en consideración que la estimación o desestimación de la pretensión deducida en el amparo, también, puede ser absoluta o parcial. Las sentencias estimatorias o parcialmente estimatorias producen cosa juzgada constitucional de carácter material y, además, vinculan erga omnes. Las sentencias desestimatorias, en la mayoría de los supuestos, también producen cosa juzgada constitucional material, por cuanto, la Sala Constitucional al conocer y resolver la pretensión descarta que exista una infracción de un derecho fundamental o humano. Las sentencias desestimatorias no producen cosa juzgada constitucional material, única y exclusivamente, en los supuestos excepcionales en que la Sala Constitucional estima que lo pretendido es una cuestión de legalidad ordinaria y así lo indica expresamente, en tal supuesto serán los órganos administrativos y jurisdiccionales quienes deberán resolver el asunto. Son supuestos excepcionales, por cuanto, por regla general, la Sala Constitucional rechaza de plano las cuestiones de legalidad ordinaria, empero pueden haber casos en los que tiene algún nivel de duda y entonces decide darle curso, siendo que hasta que es recabada la prueba queda patente que se trata de una cuestión de legalidad ordinaria. También sucede esto cuando el recurrente en amparo formula un conjunto de agravios y pretensiones, siendo que combina unas de legalidad con otras de constitucionalidad, por lo que la Sala Constitucional, al estar presentes las últimas decide darle curso, instruir el proceso y resolver, indicando en la sentencia que hay una serie de extremos de legalidad ordinaria sobre los que no se pronunciará por no ser de su competencia…” (Resaltado no es del original).- Es decir esta nueva doctrina pregona que al tenor de los efectos de las sentencias dictadas en esa sede constitucional, a tono con lo preceptuado por el ordinal 13 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, número 7135, supone que esta Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa no pueda desconocer el contenido de esos fallos, al tenor de la denominada "cosa juzgada constitucional", y que en tal medida, supone un deber (y derecho) de respeto "erga omnes" de lo fallado por el Tribunal Constitucional aun tratándose de un fallo concreto, no sólo a la jurisprudencia como tal.

VI. SOBRE LOS EFECTOS DE LA COSA JUZGADA EN LA SENTENCIA 8710-2019 DE LA SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA

Valorando lo expuesto en los considerandos anteriores y analizando los argumentos dados en la audiencia de juicio oral y público sobre la excepción de cosa juzgada debe estimarse que en el presente proceso, la parte actora indica según su narración fáctica que la presente demanda está dirigida a que se declare la obligación del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a realizar la construcción y/o mejoras del acueducto en nuestro Territorio Indígena, donde se encuentran las comunidades indígenas de Abrojo Montezuma, compuesta por Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, así como Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal y parte de Cacoraguas, ubicada en el Cantón de Corredores, Distrito Corredor de la Provincia de Puntarenas, para hacer posible el ejercicio de su derecho fundamental de acceso al agua potable en cantidad suficiente. Y se ordene realizar el acueducto para llevar agua a todas las casas que se encuentran en Abrojo Montezuma. De acuerdo con la posibilidad más viable que determine el AYA. Dirige su teoría del caso sobre la base de una conducta omisiva del Instituto quien ha mantenido en el tiempo una omisión respecto a sus deberes legales en relación con el suministro del agua potable que debe prestar como servicio esencial a las comunidades del Territorio Indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma. Por su parte, el voto 8710-2019 de la Sala Constitucional analizó como objeto del recurso lo siguiente: "El recurrente acusa problemas de desabastecimiento de agua y acusa que desde hace 3 años buscaron ayuda con la recurrida, para abastecer de agua a la comunidad de Abrojo Montezuma, reserva indígena Guaymí y pese a que han tenido múltiples reuniones y pese haber cumplido con todo lo solicitado por el personal técnico, no hay avances en el proyecto". En su parte considerativa analizó la Sala Constitucional: "Del estudio de la prueba que consta en autos, se acredita una infracción de los derechos fundamentales de la comunidad amparada. Del informe rendido bajo juramento se extrae que la comunidad de Abrojo Montezuma cuenta con un acueducto pequeño que abastece a unas 15 casas y se señala que dicho sistema requiere de mejores y ampliaciones para atender la carencia de agua potable. Por ello, se tiene que desde hace varios años, las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados han venido coordinando con la ASADA el proceso de viabilidad de un proyecto, por lo que a través de la Dirección de Formulación del Proyectos de la UEN-Administración de Proyectos de la Subgerencia Gestión de Acueductos Comunales, se han realizado aforos a diferentes fuentes localizadas dentro y fuera del territorio indígena, cuyos caudales sumados les permiten plantear un proyecto integrado por comunidades indígenas y comunidades fuera del territorio indígena, sin que a la fecha, se haya brindado una solución efectiva para dicha problemática. Aunado a ello, del informe rendido por la representante del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos, tampoco se logra extraer ninguna razón de orden técnico, ni de otra índole que justificara que a la fecha, el proyecto de acueducto a desarrollar en la comunidad en cuestión no se hubiera culminado. En virtud de lo señalado, se tiene acreditada la lesión a los derechos de los habitantes de la zona mencionada, toda vez que se encuentra de por medio el disfrute de un elemento fundamental para garantizar la salud de las personas, como es el agua potable. En ese sentido, las autoridades recurridas se encuentran en la obligación de brindar en el menor plazo posible una solución para el problema en estudio, no obstante, de los informes y la prueba aportada por se denota que esto no se ha hecho. Así las cosas, el presente recurso debe ser declarado con lugar, con las consecuencias que se dirán en la parte dispositiva. Y en su parte dispositiva dispuso expresamente: "Se declara CON LUGAR el recurso. Se ordena a Yamileth Astorga Espeleta, en su condición de Presidenta Ejecutiva del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, o a quien en su lugar ocupe ese cargo, realizar las acciones que estén dentro del ámbito de sus competencias para que dentro del plazo de doce meses, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se brinde una solución efectiva al problema de falta de agua potable para la comunidad de Abrojo Montezuma". A partir del análisis de lo abordado por la Sala Constitucional, es notorio, que la defensa de cosa juzgada alegada por la parte demandada debe ser rechazada, en el tanto aplicando los principios de la cosa juzgada ordinaria, para que proceda la defensa debe existir identidad de objeto, causa y sujeto, presupuestos que no se cumplen en el presente caso. Y es que incluso desde el abordaje realizado por la Sala Constitucional respecto a la cosa juzgada constitucional tampoco resulta aplicable tal instituto y es que nótese, que si bien se está en presencia de los mismos sujetos o partes procesales, lo cierto del caso es que en relación al objeto y la causa si se evidencia diferencias sustanciales, tomando en cuenta en primera instancia que en el proceso constitucional se pretendía el cese de una violación a derechos fundamentales como es el acceso al agua, como derecho fundamental y para aquella discusión se analizaba la necesidad de mejorar un acueducto existente para proveer el servicio de alguna forma. De ahí que la condenatoria emitida por la Sala Constitucional está dirigida a brindar una solución efectiva al problema del agua, para atender aquel derecho fundamental. Mientras que en el presente proceso existe una evolución del objeto de aquel recurso y de la misma causa, en el tanto no se pretende una simple solución o el cese de afectación de ese derecho fundamental, sino que se exige la declaratoria del deber legal de la institución demandada a prestar un servicio público como es el servicio de acueductos para dotar a toda la comunidad del suministro de agua en cada vivienda, de ahí que se reclama la construcción de un acueducto nuevo que dote de ese servicio a cada familia y casa de habitación, sustentando el reclamo de esa responsabilidad, en una conducta omisiva de sus obligaciones y competencias legales al Instituto demandado. Es decir, no solo se trata de establecer el análisis de una omisión de deberes en torno a una violación de derechos constitucionales, sino al abordaje de un análisis de legalidad respecto a la omisión de competencias legales de aquella institución en torno a la construcción de un acueducto que dote de agua potable de forma digna a una comunidad entera. De ahí que no pueda prosperar la idea del demandado cuando sustenta la defensa indicando que en el fondo es ejecutar en la vía ordinaria lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional en su momento, cuando es evidente que el objeto de análisis y de lo pretendido ha evolucionado, como se ha expuesto. Consecuentemente, entiende esta Cámara que el señalado fallo constitucional más que constituirse en una cosa juzgada, es un antecedente que refuerza la apariencia de buen derecho de la parte accionante, tal y como se analizará más adelante, cuando se haga pronunciamiento del fondo del asunto. Así las cosas, la defensa alegada debe ser rechazada. Con base en el razonamiento expuesto resulta inadmisible lo señalado por la parte como una violación al principio non bis in ídem, en el tanto fundamenta dicha violación al estimar que ya fue juzgado por los mismos hechos en la sede constitucional, pero como ya se desarrolló el objeto de análisis de esta demanda difiere de lo discutido en la sede constitucional.

VII.SOBRE LAS COMPETENCIAS DEL INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS EN MATERIA DE ALCANTARILLADO SANITARIO Y SUMINISTRO DE AGUA POTABLE: Debemos empezar indicando que la materia de alcantarillado sanitario por sus implicaciones y finalidad está vinculado lógicamente con el derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y a la salud humana, en donde de acuerdo a lo establecido por mandato constitucional existe una responsabilidad genérica del Estado sobre la tutela de este derecho fundamental, en la que claro está la vinculación de las diferentes instituciones que regulan la materia, entre ellas el Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. En ese sentido, es abundante la jurisprudencia emitida por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. En el voto 17365-2007, el Tribunal Constitucional desarrolló lo siguiente: "... El artículo 50 de la Constitución Política establece que toda persona tiene derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El derecho a un ambiente sano tiene un contenido amplio que equivale a la aspiración de mejorar el entorno de vida del ser humano, de manera que desborda los criterios de conservación natural para ubicarse dentro de toda esfera en la que se desarrolle la persona, sea la familiar, la laboral o la del medio en el cual habita. De ahí que se afirme que se trata de un derecho transversal, es decir, que se desplaza a todo lo largo del ordenamiento jurídico, modelando y reinterpretando sus institutos. El ambiente es definido por la Real Academia Española de la Lengua como el "conjunto de circunstancias físicas que rodean a los seres vivos", lo que recalca aún más el carácter general del derecho. En cambio el derecho a un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado es un concepto más restringido referido a una parte importante de ese entorno en el que se desarrolla el ser humano, al equilibrio que debe existir entre el avance de la sociedad y la conservación de los recursos naturales. Ambos derechos se encuentran reconocidos expresamente en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, que perfila el Estado Social de Derecho. La ubicación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado dentro de las regulaciones constitucionales del Estado Social de Derecho es el punto a partir del cual debe éste ser analizado. El Estado Social de Derecho produce el fenómeno de incorporación al texto fundamental de una serie de objetivos políticos de gran relevancia social y de la introducción de un importante número de derechos sociales que aseguran el bien común y la satisfacción de las necesidades elementales de las personas. En esta perspectiva, la Constitución Política enfatiza que la protección de los recursos naturales es un medio adecuado para tutelar y mejorar la calidad de vida de todos, lo que hace necesaria la intervención de los poderes públicos sobre los factores que pueden alterar el equilibrio de los recursos naturales y, más ampliamente, obstaculizar que la persona se desarrolle y desenvuelva en un ambiente sano. De igual forma que el principio del Estado Social de Derecho es de aplicación inmediata, el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado también lo es, de manera que se manifiesta en la doble vertiente de derecho subjetivo de las personas y configuración como meta o fin de la acción de los poderes públicos en general. La incidencia que tiene el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado dentro de la actividad del Estado, y congruentemente de las municipalidades (téngase presente el artículo 169 constitucional), encuentra su primera razón de ser en que por definición los derechos no se limitan a la esfera privada de los individuos sino que tienen asimismo trascendencia en la propia estructura del Estado en su papel de garante de los mismos y, en segundo término, porque la actividad del Estado se dirige hacia la satisfacción de los intereses de la colectividad. La Constitución Política establece que el Estado debe garantizar, defender y preservar ese derecho. Prima facie garantizar es asegurar y proteger el derecho contra algún riesgo o necesidad, defender es vedar, prohibir e impedir toda actividad que atente contra el derecho, y preservar es una acción dirigida a poner a cubierto anticipadamente el derecho de posibles peligros a efectos de hacerlo perdurar para futuras generaciones. El Estado debe asumir un doble comportamiento de hacer y de no hacer; por un lado, debe abstenerse de atentar él mismo contra el derecho a contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y por otro lado, debe asumir la tarea de dictar las medidas que permitan cumplir con los requerimientos constitucionales. (...) (...)Sobre el derecho a la salud y a un ambiente sano. La salud pública y el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado se encuentran reconocidos constitucionalmente (artículos 21, 50, 73 y 89 de la Carta Magna), así como a través de la normativa internacional. En este sentido este Tribunal en sentencia No. 3705-93 de las 15 hrs. del 30 de julio de 1993 indicó lo siguiente: "... La calidad ambiental es un parámetro 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 en deber de protegerlo y preservarlo para el uso de las generaciones presentes y futuras, lo cuál 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 cuál 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..."Asimismo, existe una obligación del Estado de proteger el ambiente que se encuentra contemplada expresamente en el segundo párrafo del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, que dispone: " ...Toda persona tiene derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Por ello está legitimada para denunciar los actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño causado..."Esta disposición se complementa por lo establecido en el numeral 11 del "Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales". Interpretando armónicamente ambas normas, se puede derivar el principio precautorio, según el cual, el Estado tiene que disponer todo lo que sea necesario – dentro del ámbito permitido por la ley – a efecto de impedir que se produzcan daños irreversibles en el medio ambiente. En relación con lo expuesto, esta Sala mediante la sentencia No.180-98 de 16:24 hrs. del 13 de enero de 1998 dispuso: "... el Estado no solo tiene la responsabilidad ineludible de velar para que la salud de cada una de las personas que componen la comunidad nacional, no sufra daños por parte de terceros, en relación a estos derechos, sino que, además, debe asumir la responsabilidad de lograr las condiciones sociales propicias a fin de que cada persona pueda disfrutar de su salud, entendido tal derecho, como una situación de bienestar físico, psíquico (o mental) y social". Además de lo establecido en la Constitución Política, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente desarrolla una serie de responsabilidades en la materia y regula los criterios del uso y disposición del agua. El Artículo 28 de dicha normativa señala:" Es función del Estado, las municipalidades y los demás entes públicos, definir y ejecutar políticas nacionales de ordenamiento territorial, tendientes a regular y promover los asentamientos humanos y las actividades económicas y sociales de la población, así como el desarrollo físico- espacial, con el fin de lograr armonía entre el mayor bienestar de la población, el aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales y la conservación del ambiente". El numeral 50 refiere: "El agua es de dominio público, su conservación y uso sostenible son de interés social". Artículo 51: "Para la conservación y el uso sostenible del agua, deben aplicarse, entre otros los siguientes criterios: […] c) Mantener el equilibrio del sistema de agua, protegiendo cada uno de los componentes de las cuencas hidrográficas". Artículo 52: "Los criterios mencionados en el artículo anterior, deben aplicarse: […] d) En la operación y administración de los sistemas de agua potable, la recolección, la evacuación y la disposición final de aguas residuales o de desecho, que sirvan a centros de población e industriales". Artículo 59: "Se entiende por contaminación toda alteración o modificación del ambiente que pueda perjudicar la salud humana, atentar contra los recursos naturales o afectar el ambiente general de la Nación. La carga y emisión de contaminantes, se ajustará obligatoriamente, a las regulaciones técnicas que se emitan. El Estado adoptará las medidas que sean necesarias para prevenir o corregir la contaminación ambiental". Artículo 60: "Para prevenir y controlar la contaminación del ambiente, el Estado, las municipalidades y las demás instituciones públicas, darán prioridad, entre otros, al establecimiento y operación de los servicios adecuados en áreas fundamentales para la salud ambiental tales como: […] b) La disposición sanitaria de excretas, aguas servidas y aguas pluviales". En cuanto a la salud humana y la disposición del agua, la Ley General de Salud establece una serie regulaciones atinentes: Artículo 264: "El agua constituye un bien y su utilización para consumo humano tendrá prioridad sobre cualquier otro uso". Artículo 276.- Solo con permiso del Ministerio podrán las personas naturales o jurídicas hacer drenajes o proceder a la descarga de residuos o desechos sólidos o líquidos u otros que puedan contaminar el agua superficial, subterránea, o marítima, ciñéndose estrictamente a las normas y condiciones de seguridad reglamentarias y a los procedimientos especiales que el Ministerio imponga en el caso particular para hacerlos inocuos". Artículo 286.-" Toda persona natural o jurídica está obligada a realizar las obras de drenaje que la autoridad de salud ordene a fin de precaver la formación de focos insalubres y de infección, o de sanear los que hubiere en predios de su propiedad. Si el propietario fuere renuente en el cumplimiento de tales órdenes, la autoridad de salud podrá hacerlos a costa del omiso. En los casos en que el interés público, la naturaleza y envergadura de las obras de drenaje lo justificare, todo propietario de inmueble está obligado a constituir servidumbre en favor del Estado para que la autoridad de salud construya, tales obras pudiendo decretarse la expropiación del terreno cuando la servidumbre fuere incompatible con su utilización. El mantenimiento y operación, si procedieren, estará a cargo de los beneficiarios de tales obras". Artículo 289.- "Todo sistema de alcantarillado quedará bajo el control técnico del Ministerio y del Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado y las personas de derecho privado o público que los construyan, administren y operen se sujetarán a las normas que el Poder Ejecutivo, en consulta con el Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado, dicte para condicionar su construcción, funcionamiento y la evacuación y tratamiento final de los afluentes". El agua como se ha indicado y dispuesto por el ordenamiento jurídico es un derecho vinculado a la salud, al ser un recurso esencial para el desarrollo del ser humano y su entorno, de ahí que su dominio de orden público administrado por el Estado y por ende es reserva del Estado la autorización del uso de esos recursos, así como el destino de los mismos. En ese orden, la Ley de Aguas indica: “Artículo 1.- Son aguas del dominio público: I.- Las de los mares territoriales en la extensión y términos que fija el derecho internacional; II.- Las de las lagunas y esteros de las playas que se comuniquen permanente o intermitentemente con el mar; III.- Las de los lagos interiores de formación natural que estén ligados directamente a corrientes constantes; IV.- Las de los ríos y sus afluentes directos o indirectos, arroyos o manantiales desde el punto en que broten las primeras aguas permanentes hasta su desembocadura en el mar o lagos, lagunas o esteros; V.- Las de las corrientes constantes o intermitentes cuyo cauce, en toda su extensión o parte de ella, sirva de límite al territorio nacional, debiendo sujetarse el dominio de esas corrientes a lo que se haya establecido en tratados internacionales celebrados con los países limítrofes y, a falta de ellos, o en cuanto a lo no previsto, a lo dispuesto por esta ley; VI.- Las de toda corriente que directa o indirectamente afluyan a las enumeradas en la fracción V; VII.- Las que se extraigan de las minas, con la limitación señalada en el artículo 10; VIII.- Las de los manantiales que broten en las playas, zonas marítimas, cauces, vasos o riberas de propiedad nacional y, en general, todas las que nazcan en terrenos de dominio público; IX.- Las subterráneas cuyo alumbramiento no se haga por medio de pozos; y X.- Las aguas pluviales que discurran por barrancos o ramblas cuyos cauces sean de dominio público. Artículo 2.- Las aguas enumeradas en el artículo anterior son de propiedad nacional y el dominio sobre ellas no se pierde ni se ha perdido cuando por ejecución de obras artificiales o de aprovechamiento anteriores se alteren o hayan alterado las características naturales. Exceptúanse las aguas que se aprovechan en virtud de contratos otorgados por el Estado, las cuales se sujetarán a las condiciones autorizadas en la respectiva concesión”. “Artículo 30.- Las aguas potables de los ríos y vertientes, en cualquier parte del territorio nacional donde se encuentren, estarán afectas al servicio de cañería en las poblaciones, según lo disponga el Poder Ejecutivo. Artículo 31.- Se declaran como reserva de dominio a favor de la Nación: a) Las tierras que circunden los sitios de captación o tomas surtidoras de agua potable, en un perímetro no menor de doscientos metros de radio". Específicamente en lo relativo al uso del agua con condición de potabilidad, igualmente la Ley prevé el uso de ese recurso para el servicio de la población en condiciones de potabilidad, lo cual queda reservado al Estado como competencia exclusiva a través de sus instituciones competentes, entre las que se destaca el Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, en ese sentido la Ley de Agua Potable le otorga la condición de utilidad pública el uso del agua en condición de potabilidad para las poblaciones de la República. Es así como el artículo 1 señala: "Artículo 1. Se declaran de utilidad pública el planeamiento, proyección y ejecución de las obras de abastecimiento de agua potable en las poblaciones de la República. Artículo 2.- Son del dominio público todas aquellas tierras que tanto el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados como el Ministerio de Salubridad Pública, considere indispensables para construir o para situar cualquiera parte o partes de los sistemas de abastecimiento de aguas potables, así como para asegurar la protección sanitaria y física, y caudal necesario de las mismas. Corresponde al A y A conocer de las solicitudes formuladas para construcción, ampliación y modificación de los sistemas de agua potable y recomendar al Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes la construcción, ampliación o modificación de aquellas de mayor necesidad, previo estudio de índices de mortalidad, parasitismo y otros. Artículo 3.- Corresponde al Ministerio de Salubridad Pública y al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados seleccionar y localizar las aguas destinadas al servicio de cañería, tipo de tratamiento de las mismas y tipo de sistema de agua potable a construir. Tendrá además la responsabilidad por las recomendaciones que se deban impartir desde el punto de vista sanitario comprendiendo el diseño, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de los sistemas de agua potable. Artículo 4.- Corresponde al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, por medio del Departamento de Obras Hidráulicas, la construcción de los nuevos sistemas de agua potables, así como realizar las reparaciones y extensiones que fuere necesario hacer en las ya existentes, siempre y cuando las respectivas Municipalidades no estén técnica y administrativamente capacitadas para efectuar tales trabajos por sí mismas. El A y A llevará a cabo estos trabajos acatando las indicaciones de carácter sanitario que indique el Ministerio de Salubridad Pública, según el artículo 30”. De las normas transcritas, se puede concluir que la potabilidad del agua es parte del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y por supuesto del derecho a la salud, en donde las administraciones públicas también tienen una responsabilidad adquirida, y deben incorporar en sus políticas como gestión pública los recursos necesarios para garantizar ese derecho. Además, se extrae igualmente la obligación de los ciudadanos y personas jurídicas de atender los lineamientos necesarios para el uso y disposición del agua de forma que no genere fuente alguna de contaminación. Ahora bien, además de esa normativa de carácter general, el ordenamiento jurídico confiere competencias especificas al Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, su ley constitutiva en la cual señala: "Artículo 1º.- Con el objeto de dirigir, fijar políticas, establecer y aplicar normas, realizar y promover el planeamiento, financiamiento y desarrollo y de resolver todo lo relacionado con el suministro de agua potable y recolección y evacuación de aguas negras y residuos industriales líquidos, lo mismo que el aspecto normativo de los sistemas de alcantarillado pluvial en áreas urbanas, para todo el territorio nacional se crea el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, como institución autónoma del Estado. Numeral 2 establece: "Corresponde al Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados: a) Dirigir y vigilar todo lo concerniente para proveer a los habitantes de la república de un servicio de agua potable, recolección y evacuación de aguas negras y residuos industriales líquidos y de aguas pluviales en las áreas urbanas; b) Determinar la prioridad, conveniencia y viabilidad de los diferentes proyectos que se propongan para construir, reformar, ampliar, modificar obras de acueductos y alcantarillados; las cuales no se podrán ejecutar sin su aprobación; c) Promover la conservación de las cuencas hidrográficas y la protección ecológica, así como el control de la contaminación de las aguas; d) Asesorar a los demás organismos del Estado y coordinar las actividades públicas y privadas en todos los asuntos relativos al establecimiento de acueductos y alcantarillados y control de la contaminación de los recursos de agua, siendo obligatoria, en todo caso, su consulta, e inexcusable el cumplimiento de sus recomendaciones; e) Elaborar todos los planos de las obras públicas relacionadas con los fines de esta ley, así como aprobar todos los de las obras privadas que se relacionen con los sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillados, según lo determinen los reglamentos respectivos; f) Aprovechar, utilizar, gobernar o vigilar, según sea el caso, todas las aguas de dominio público indispensables para el debido cumplimiento de las disposiciones de esta ley, en ejercicio de los derechos que el Estado tiene sobre ellas, conforme a la ley número 276 de 27 de agosto de 1942, a cuyo efecto el Instituto se considerará el órgano sustitutivo de las potestades atribuidas en esa ley al Estado, ministerios y municipalidades; g) Administrar y operar directamente los sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillados en todo el país, los cuales se irán asumiendo tomando en cuenta la conveniencia y disponibilidad de recursos. Los sistemas que actualmente están administrados y operados por las corporaciones municipales podrán seguir a cargo de éstas, mientras suministren un servicio eficiente. Bajo ningún concepto podrá delegar la administración de los sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillado sanitario del Área Metropolitana. Tampoco podrá delegar la administración de los sistemas sobre los cuales exista responsabilidad financiera y mientras ésta corresponda directamente al Instituto. Queda facultada la institución para convenir con organismos locales, la administración de tales servicios o administrarlos a través de juntas administradoras de integración mixta entre el Instituto y las respectivas comunidades, siempre que así conviniere para la mejor prestación de los servicios y de acuerdo con los reglamentos respectivos. Por las mismas razones y con las mismas características, también podrán crearse juntas administradoras regionales que involucren a varias municipalidades; h) Hacer cumplir la Ley General de Agua Potable, para cuyo efecto el Instituto se considerará como el organismo sustituto de los ministerios y municipalidades indicados en dicha ley; i) Construir, ampliar y reformar los sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillados en aquellos casos en que sea necesario y así lo aconseje la mejor satisfacción de las necesidades nacionales; y j) Controlar la adecuada inversión de todos los recursos que el Estado asigne para obras de acueductos y alcantarillado sanitario". Artículo 5º.- Para el mejor cumplimiento de los fines a que se refiere el artículo 2º de la presente ley, el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados tendrá las siguientes atribuciones y prerrogativas, además de aquellas que las leyes generales otorgan a los establecimientos de su naturaleza: b) Contratar y formalizar todo tipo de documentos, necesarios o convenientes, para el mejor logro de sus fines; c) Adquirir en propiedad bienes muebles e inmuebles; d) Contratar empréstitos en el país o en el extranjero, los cuales podrán ser respaldados con la fianza del Estado, debidamente otorgada, previa autorización de la Asamblea Legislativa. Dichos empréstitos no requerirán autorización legislativa, si no exceden de doscientos cincuenta mil colones (¢ 250,000.00), ni su plazo de doce meses, y son contratados con los bancos u otras instituciones públicas nacionales; en este caso bastará la aprobación de la Contraloría General de la República; (Así reformado por el artículo 1º de la Ley Nº 3668 de 16 de marzo de 1966) e) Tramitar las expropiaciones necesarias para el cumplimiento de sus fines. (Así reformado este párrafo primero por el artículo 65, inciso a), de la Ley de Expropiaciones Nº 7495 de 3 de mayo de 1995). Se declaran de utilidad pública y de interés social, y podrán ser expropiados, los terrenos necesarios para la conservación y protección de los recursos de agua, así como para las construcciones que se hagan necesarias en la captación, conducción, tratamiento y distribución de aguas con el fin de establecer poblaciones, o relacionadas con la evacuación de las aguas residuales y su tratamiento. f) Contratar, dar en garantía y comprometer sus rentas propias, así como los muebles o inmuebles de su propiedad, en los empréstitos a que se refiere el inciso d) de este artículo. g) Aceptar donaciones de cualquier índole; h) Elaborar tarifas y tasa, rentas y otros cargos, por el uso de los servicios que fije esta ley; i) Previa notificación a los dueños, poseedores, usuarios, administradores o sus representantes, realizar los estudios e investigaciones necesarios dentro de sus predios y edificaciones, excepto las domiciliarias, para el logro de los fines que se propone el organismo que esta ley regula; j) Se dará sus propios reglamentos; y k) Todas las demás que le señalen las leyes generales en cuanto les sean aplicables. Artículo 21.- Todo proyecto de construcción, ampliación o modificación de sistemas de abastecimiento de agua potable y disposición de aguas servidas y pluviales, público o privado, deberá ser aprobado previamente por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, el que podrá realizar la inspección que estime conveniente para comprobar que las obras se realizan de acuerdo con los planes aprobados. Dicha aprobación previa será obligatoria en todos los casos de construcción de fraccionamientos, urbanizaciones o lotificaciones en cualquier parte del país y ningún otro organismo estatal otorgará permisos o aprobaciones de construcción sin tal aprobación por parte del Instituto. La infracción de este mandato ocasionará la nulidad de cualquier permiso de construcción otorgado en contravención de esta prohibición teniéndose por legalmente inexistente la parcelación o el proyecto en su caso, con las consecuencias, en cuanto a terceros, que prevé el artículo 35 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, Nº 4240 de 15 de noviembre de 1968 ". De acuerdo con estas regulaciones, el Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados tiene competencias específicas en la administración y operación de los sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillados, cualquier que sea su naturaleza, y será su responsabilidad la supervisión de aquellos sistemas operados por terceros. Y es de resaltar que no solo existe un deber legal en cuanto a la administración y operación de esos servicios, sino a la obligación de proporcionar a la población en general el servicio de agua potable, dotando la propia ley constitutiva de los recursos legales y financieros para el cumplimiento de sus fines, como el cobro de tarifas (Ley de Agua Potable) y de los recursos materiales para la atención de sus competencias.

VIII.DE LA CONDUCTA OMISIVA DEL AYA RESPECTO AL SUMINISTRO DE AGUA POTABLE A LAS COMUNIDADES DEL TERRITORIO INDÍGENA DE ABROJO DE MONTEZUMA: En el presente asunto la parte accionante reclama una omisión de la entidad demandada en cuanto al cumplimiento de los deberes legales y competencias en relación con el suministro de agua potable del Territorio Indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma. Señala a grandes rasgos que en la comunidad históricamente solo ha existido un pequeño acueducto que abastecía solo 15 casas, y que se encuentra en muy malas condiciones sobre todo considerando que la fuente de ese acueducto se ve expuesta a contaminación por estar cerca de un potrero que nadie controla. Señala que la existencia de la problemática existe desde hace mucho tiempo en el cual, el instituto demandado ha obviado su deber legal de resolver el suministro de agua potable, a pesar de gestiones comunales y con otras instituciones emprendidas para que se resuelva el problema, incluso se señala que se acudió a la Sala Constitucional y a pesar de haber obtenido una amparo estimatorio, el AyA mantiene una conducta omisiva respecto a la necesidad de resolver la falta de un acueducto adecuado que dote de agua potable a la comunidades que comprenden el territorio Indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma parte de Guaymí. En su defensa la representación del AyA, señala que a raíz de lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional, esa institución ha venido coordinando una serie de acciones a lo interno de su gestión para atender la operatividad del ofrecer el servicio de suministro de agua a esas comunidades de Abrojo de Montezuma, acciones que se han enmarcado en una etapa de prefactibilidad de la construcción en la que se ha analizado y abordado desde el punto de vista técnico para la viabilidad técnica y financiera de las obras requeridas para atender el suministro de agua potable en esas comunidades. Además, señala que entre las gestiones realizadas se encuentra la instalación de nueve de tanques de agua en puntos estratégicos de las comunidades para el acceso al agua, los cuales son abastecidos a través de camiones cisternas. Criterio del Tribunal: Analizados los argumentos de las partes y de la prueba traída a los autos, concluye esta Cámara que efectivamente el Instituto demandado ha incurrido en una conducta omisiva respecto a sus deberes y competencias legales respecto al suministro de agua potable a las comunidades de Abrojo de Montezuma por las siguientes razones. De la prueba aportada se ha acreditado que el Territorio indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma, de Corredores de Puntarenas, abarca entre otras comunidades Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, así como Bella Vista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal y parte de Cacoraguas, y que esas comunidades han presentado históricamente una imposibilidad de un servicio de agua potable que reúna las condiciones mínimas de acceso al servicio de forma digna para el ser humano y de calidad, en atención a esa problemática la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral que representa aquel territorio ha gestionado diversas acciones para abordar esa carencia del servicio de agua potable, entre ellas se destaca la interposición de un recurso de amparo en el año 2019 ante la Sala Constitucional, el cual se tramitó en el expediente 19-004972-0007-CO, y que fuera resuelto mediante resolución 2019-008710, de las 9:30 horas del 17 de mayo de 2019, en el que se dispuso brindar una solución efectiva al problema de falta de agua potable de esa comunidad. Además se dispuso como medida cautelar de este Despacho, mediante resolución 1263-2021 del 17 de setiembre del 2021, la orden al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, otorgar el aprovisionamiento de agua potable a las comunidades de Fila de Cal, Bella Vista y en la parte alta de Abrojo Montezuma, por medio de un sistema de entrega por camiones cisterna o vehículo vagoneta con tanques de agua potable; suministro que se realizará una vez al día en cada comunidad de las indicadas, durante cada día de la semana. En atención a esas resoluciones el Instituto demandado procedió a trabajar básicamente en dos frentes, un abordaje en términos de realizar un estudio de prefactibilidad para abastecer a las comunidades de Bella Vista, Filacai, Abrojo, Cacoragua y Alto Rey, todas del territorio indígena de Abrojo Montezuma de Corredores, concluyendo que el abastecimiento de agua potable en esas comunidades de Abrojo no resulta viable a partir de un sistema independiente a dar en delegación a la comunidad y se determina que la mejor alternativa resulta en abastecerlas desde el proyecto de Mejoras y Ampliación del sistema de Coto Brus. Se decidieron por la opción de mejora del acueducto de San Vito, y se extendiera a esa comunidad y resolvía el problema de otras comunidades y reducía el costo operativo por la condición de gravedad. En la etapa de prefactibilidad se analizaron las alternativas de proyecto, considerando la demanda hídrica actual y futura de las comunidades, y realizando una investigación exhaustiva para la identificación de fuentes hídricas en la zona que permitieran solucionar la problemática actual. Dichas acciones a nivel local se realizaron con el acompañamiento en todo momento de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena (ADII) de dicho territorio y miembros de la ASADA, considerando primeramente la opción de abastecimiento a partir de nacientes, y obteniendo como resultado que en la zona no se encuentran fuentes de este tipo con el caudal requerido, lo cual orientó el trabajo a analizar la alternativa con uso de quebradas, de las cuales sólo una de ellas presentó un caudal y una altura favorable para formular un proyecto para las comunidades de Bella Vista, Fila de Cal, Altos de Abrojo, Alto Rey y Cacoragua. Para esto, se propone el desarrollo de una planta de tratamiento de agua potable (PTAP) con la utilización de un mecanismo de filtración lenta, con el fin de brindar una solución técnica que sea de fácil operación y mantenimiento por parte de la población beneficiar, en comparación con otras tecnologías disponibles a nivel nacional. Y de forma provisional e inmediata el A y A procedió con el reparto de agua en vagoneta con dos tanques instalados. En el caso de la zona indígena de Fila Cal solamente se abastecerán los tanques, se realiza el reparto casa por casa. En Abrojo Montezuma se dio la instalación de seis tanques frente a la primera pulpería. Adicional a las acciones anteriores, también se realizaron los levantamientos topográficos con GPS, para adquirir los insumos necesarios para la modelación del proyecto, lo que implicó ubicar sitios propuestos para la toma de agua, presa, desarenador, sitio de planta de tratamiento, ubicación de tanque almacenamiento, sitios de pasos elevados y tanques quiebra gradientes. Se debe contar con los permisos definitivos de la ADII y los vistos buenos de las personas poseedoras de los terrenos dentro del territorio indígena. Además, gestionar la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto ante la SETENA, y el permiso que deberá otorgar el INDER para ubicar obras de acueducto dentro de la zona fronteriza bajo su administración, y así mismo gestionar el permiso ante el MINAE para el aprovechamiento de las quebradas en función del Reglamento a la Ley No. 9590 del 03 de julio de 2018, que autoriza el aprovechamiento de agua para consumo humano, construcción, operación, mantenimiento y obras conexas en inmuebles del Patrimonio aforos (mediciones de caudal) en las épocas de temporada seca en la fuente citada con el fin de identificar el potencial hídrico y así mismo, se procedió a evaluar la calidad del agua, evaluando aspectos microbiológicos y físico químicos, para obtener todos los parámetros requeridos para el planteamiento y diseño de la PTAP (Planta de Tratamiento de Agua Potable). El proyecto planteado implica la construcción de la toma de la quebrada, así como infraestructura para permitir la conducción del recurso hídrico hacia la planta de tratamiento con sus respectivos filtros y desinfección, así como la construcción de un tanque de almacenamiento, a partir del cual, el sistema podría funcionar por gravedad y con la construcción del sistema de distribución se atenderían todos los sectores de las comunidades mencionadas instalando las respectivas previstas intradomiciliarias. Actualmente, se continúa monitoreando la producción de la fuente mediante afores de verano por parte de la Dirección de Estudios Básicos y Diseños de la Subgerencia de Gestión de Sistemas Delegados. Asimismo, se gestionaron, con la intermediación de la ADII y ASADA, conversaciones con las personas poseedoras de parcelas dentro del territorio, para obtener vistos buenos preliminares para la ubicación de obras de acueducto dentro de dichos terrenos, principalmente tanques quiebra gradientes (tanques construidos con el propósito de quebrar la presión o gradiente de la tubería, llevando el agua a la presión atmosférica -presión cero-, con el propósito de adecuar la presión a la capacidad de la tubería o a los requerimientos de la línea de conducción). En ese escenario de prueba, es concluyente para este Tribunal que las comunidades que conforman el territorio indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma han presentado históricamente y continúan presentado una condición de falta de suministro de agua potable, lo cual ha afectado y continua afectando la calidad de vida de sus pobladores, al no contar con un servicio de acueductos y alcantarillado suficiente y adecuado para abastecer de forma digna a las familias de esas comunidades del recurso hídrico, el cual es fundamental para su pleno desarrollo y para su derecho a la salud. De los testimonios recibidos en la audiencia de juicio, queda claro que si bien a partir de las gestiones paliativas emprendidas por el ente demandado a consecuencia de las resoluciones judiciales emitidas por la Sala Constitucional y este Despacho, como lo son la instalación de tanques para que las personas habitantes de aquellas comunidades puedan accesar al agua, y camiones cisternas que abastecen ciertos sectores, lo cierto del caso, es que esas medidas provisionales no pueden ser consideradas suficientes y adecuadas para atender una obligación legal de la institución demandada de proporcionar el suministro de agua potable a los pobladores de esas zonas, de forma adecuada, suficiente y que garantice la calidad de vida e igualdad de condiciones a un servicio público básico y sustancial para el desarrollo de las personas en todos sus ámbitos. Si bien se acredita el esfuerzo de aquella institución en torno a atender la problemática, lo cierto del caso, es que esos esfuerzos son dirigidos a partir de una resolución judicial y no al cumplimiento de sus competencias legales tal cual es su deber como Administración, y tales acciones además no fueron superadas a una etapa de ejecución concreta que busque o proporcione una solución viable e inmediata a la problemática que enfrentan esas comunidades históricamente. Y es que nótese, que las gestiones realizadas se encaminaron hacia una etapa de prefactibilidad que determinó una acción viable para atender la condición de desabastecimiento de esa zona, sin embargo, no se acredita que el modelo técnico concluyente como el mejor para atender la condición de suministro de agua, de aquella comunidad haya avanzado de modo alguno en los años posteriores a la identificación de esa solución, y es que es ayuno de prueba las acciones de gestión de aquel instituto después del año 2021, lo que evidencia que se mantiene en el tiempo una conducta omisiva del AyA respecto a las obligaciones previstas en el ordinal 4 de la Ley de Agua Potable, el cual establece que corresponde al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, por medio del Departamento de Obras Hidráulicas, la construcción de los nuevos sistemas de agua potables, así como realizar las reparaciones y extensiones que fuere necesario hacer en las ya existentes. Además de lo establecido en los numerales 1, 2, 5 y 21 de la Ley Constitutiva de la Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, en los cuales claramente se señala que a ese ente le corresponde el planeamiento, financiamiento y desarrollo de todo lo relacionado con el suministro de agua potable y recolección y evacuación de aguas negras y residuos industriales líquidos. Destacando la competencia sobre el deber de dirigir y vigilar todo lo concerniente para proveer a los habitantes de la república de un servicio de agua potable, recolección y evacuación de aguas negras y residuos industriales líquidos y de aguas pluviales en las áreas urbanas; además de determinar la prioridad, conveniencia y viabilidad de los diferentes proyectos que se propongan para construir, reformar, ampliar, modificar obras de acueductos y alcantarillados; las cuales no se podrán ejecutar sin su aprobación; así como el administrar y operar directamente los sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillados en todo el país, los cuales se irán asumiendo tomando en cuenta la conveniencia y disponibilidad de recursos y las obligaciones que a nivel internacional se han asumido en cuestiones indígenas. Y es que nótese que además de estar muy clara las competencias y obligaciones legales impuestas a esa Administración en torno a proveer a las poblaciones del territorio nacional del suministro de agua potable y alcantarillado sanitario, además el ordenamiento jurídico le dota de una serie de recursos para el alcance de esas obligaciones y fines, entre ellas les faculta para convenir con organismos locales, la administración de tales servicios o administrarlos, además de otorgarle potestades para hacer cumplir la Ley General de Agua Potable, para cuyo efecto el Instituto se considerará como el organismo sustituto de los ministerios y municipalidades indicados en dicha ley; y le otorga la competencia para construir, ampliar y reformar los sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillados en aquellos casos en que sea necesario y así lo aconseje la mejor satisfacción de las necesidades nacionales y el cumplimiento de compromisos internacionales en la materia de población indígena; además de controlar la adecuada inversión de todos los recursos que el Estado asigne para obras de acueductos y alcantarillado sanitario. Adicionalmente se le otorgan atribuciones como contratar y formalizar todo tipo de documentos, necesarios o convenientes, para el mejor logro de sus fines; adquirir en propiedad bienes muebles e inmuebles; contratar empréstitos en el país o en el extranjero, los cuales podrán ser respaldados con la fianza del Estado, debidamente otorgada, previa autorización de la Asamblea Legislativa. Tramitar las expropiaciones necesarias para el cumplimiento de sus fines. Contratar, dar en garantía y comprometer sus rentas propias, así como los muebles o inmuebles de su propiedad, en los empréstitos que señala la ley. Aceptar donaciones de cualquier índole; Elaborar tarifas y tasas, rentas y otros cargos, por el uso de los servicios que fije esta ley. Además de contar con los recursos financieros provenientes del sistema de tarifas que le otorga la Ley de Aguas y de Suministro de Agua Potable. En atención al marco que le regula resulta a todas luces incompresible para este Tribunal, que las acciones ejecutadas por el ente demandado no haya avanzado de forma más eficiente y tendiente a concretar acciones y recursos para ejecutar la construcción de un acueducto o mejoras de las soluciones existentes para abastecer de forma individualizada, eficiente y adecuada a cada uno de los pobladores de las comunidades que integran el territorio indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores, Puntarenas. Máxime cuando es conocido que el desabastecimiento de ese servicio tan esencial no es novedoso y lo ha enfrentado aquella comunidad históricamente, y que además se trata de una comunidad altamente vulnerable, la cual esta resguardada por un marco jurídico convencional, constitucional y legal que debe convertir a tal población en una prioridad de atención, en aras de mermar cualquier condición de discriminación y que debe estar orientado a facilitar el desarrollo de la calidad de vida de esas comunidades en igualdad de condiciones. Las medidas paliativas emprendidas como se anotó anteriormente, tampoco, puede atenderse como evidencia de un cese de la conducta omisiva acusada, cuando por disposición legal expresa, es claro que tratándose del otorgamiento de un servicio público, este debe atender siempre los principios fundamentales del servicio público, para asegurar su continuidad, su eficiencia, su adaptación a todo cambio en el régimen legal o en la necesidad social que satisfacen y la igualdad en el trato de los destinatarios, usuarios o beneficiarios. Por ende las omisiones emprendidas por el ente demandado implica abiertamente una violación directa a la ley que les regula y en el proceso de esa desatención de sus competencias se infringen los derechos supra e infra constituciones y legales de los habitantes del territorio indígena de Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas, tal como lo señaló en su momento la Sala Constitucional en el voto 8710 del año 2019. A mayor ahondamiento de razones, el Tribunal tiene presente que la logística de la solución pretendida requiere de un análisis serio, profundo, multifactorial, multidisciplinario y con participación de múltiples sujetos, fuera del propio AyA, que requiere de una coordinación interinstitucional y colaboraciones público-privadas necesarias para la obtención del fin. No obstante, es justamente por estos parámetros, frente a la prueba obrante en autos, que se considera que las actuaciones del instituto accionado han sido aislados, coyunturales y reactivos ante la intervención jurisdiccional, ya sea constitucional o de este Tribunal. Existe una carencia de demostración que exista una ruta crítica clara del estado de la cuestión, los avances desde el diagnóstico inicial, la identificación de la magnitud del proyecto, llegándose a limitar a la etapa de prefactibilidad y la implementación de soluciones de tipo provisional, como el transporte de agua en sitios, de los cuales ni tan siquiera fueron aportados a los autos un detalle de la operatividad / eficiencia de esta solución en el tiempo. No parece que exista un diagnóstico del estado actual de las cosas con dichas soluciones provisionales (cuántos usuarios se benefician, la escogencia de los lugares de colocación de los tanques provisionales, mantenimiento de los tanques, etc.) como lo explica la testigo que declaró en juicio. Las “reuniones” que se han tenido no parecen concatenarse en un cronograma de actividades que refleje el avance de una ruta crítica, siendo que no basta con lo alegado en la contestación de la demanda de que la tarea de suplir el servicio se está cumpliendo a las comunidades indígenas, sino que, se insiste, se tiene que contar con insumos suficientes que acrediten, a manera de rendición de cuentas del instituto, que efectivamente existe un proyecto activo, en ejecución, con fiscalización de soluciones provisionales, ruta crítica y cronograma tentativo de actividades para la solución definitiva, sobre todo si ya se cuenta con criterios técnicos de prefactibilidad como lo señaló el testigo del propio AyA. No se trata, por ende, de limitarse a afirmar que existen limitaciones financieras y que el proyecto resulta complicado por la realidad del sitio a desarrollarse el servicio, sino que, es justamente por estos motivos, que debe existir un serio seguimiento, documentación y fiscalización de avance en la atención de la situación, que se hecha de menos en los autos de este proceso. Así las cosas, la presente demanda debe ser declarada con lugar en todos sus extremos. Consecuentemente, se declara y se ordena la obligación de Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a realizar la construcción y/o mejoras del acueducto del Territorio Indígena, donde se encuentran las comunidades indígenas de Abrojo Montezuma, compuesta por Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, así como Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal y parte de Cacoraguas, ubicada en el Cantón de Corredores, Distrito Corredor de la Provincia de Puntarenas, para hacer posible el ejercicio de su derecho fundamental de acceso al agua potable en cantidad suficiente. Se ordene realizar el acueducto para llevar agua a todas las casas que se encuentran en Abrojo Montezuma, de acuerdo a la posibilidad mas viable que determine el AYA. Lo anterior deberá ser desarrollado en un plazo razonable a las posibilidades técnicas y financieras de esa institución, plazo que deberá evidenciar un avance eficiente y adecuado a cada etapa que constituya el proyecto a desarrollar, plazo que será supervisado en la fase de ejecución.

IX.- SOBRE LAS DEFENSAS ALEGADAS: La representación del AyA interpone la defensa de falta de legitimación activa, la cual debe ser rechazada considerando que evidentemente las competencias legales de aquel ente le posicionan en una relación jurídica frente a lo reclamado por la parte actora. Sobre la falta de derecho alegada por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados la misma debe ser declarada sin lugar por los razonamientos expuestos en los considerandos previos.

X. LAS COSTAS

Respecto a las costas, de conformidad con el numeral ciento noventa y tres del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena sólo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, el Tribunal no ubica algún motivo para exonerar en costas, por lo que procede imponerlas a cargo de la parte demandada, las cuales serán liquidadas en la fase de ejecución de sentencia.

POR TANTO

Con base en los fundamentos de hecho y derecho expuestos se rechazan las defensas de falta de legitimación activa y la de falta de derecho. En consecuencia, se declara CON LUGAR la demanda planteada por la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Abrojo de Montezuma de Corredores de Puntarenas contra el Instituto Costarricense Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Consecuentemente, se declara y ordena la obligación de Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a realizar la construcción y/o mejoras del acueducto en el Territorio Indígena, donde se encuentran las comunidades indígenas de Abrojo Montezuma, compuesta por Alto y Bajo Abrojo Montezuma, así como Bellavista, Alto Rey, Fila de cal y parte de Cacoraguas, ubicada en el Cantón de Corredores, Distrito Corredor de la Provincia de Puntarenas, para hacer posible el ejercicio de su derecho fundamental de acceso al agua potable en cantidad suficiente. Se ordena realizar el acueducto para llevar agua a todas las casas que se encuentran en Abrojo de Montezuma. De acuerdo a la posibilidad más viable que determine el AYA. Lo anterior deberá ser desarrollado en un plazo razonable a las posibilidades técnicas y financieras de esa institución, plazo que deberá evidenciar un avance eficiente y adecuado a cada etapa que constituya el proyecto a desarrollar, plazo que será supervisado en la fase de ejecución. Son las costas a cargo de la parte demandada, las cuales serán liquidadas en la fase de ejecución de sentencia. Notifíquese.

Laura Gómez Chacón Amy Miranda Alvarado Carlos José Mejías Rodríguez ???????????????

LAURA GOMEZ CHACON - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ???????????????

AMY MIRANDA ALVARADO - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ????????????????

CARLOS JOSE MEJIAS RODRIGUEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: [email protected]