Para acceder a una versión en español de este artículo, siga el siguiente

Para acceder a una versión en español de este artículo, siga el siguiente link

Court rules partially in favor of action against mine in Costa Rica

May 13, 2005

http://costarica.capitalfinanciero.com

The constitutional Court of Costa Rica has ruled partially in favor in a legal challenge against gold mining at the Bellavista mine, located in Miramar de Puntarenas. The legal order, filed by a group of regional residents, claims that the mining company, a subsidiary of Canadian Glencairn Gold, has been operating illegally in the face of possible environmental damages, under a questionable concessions process. They also questioned the permits issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Secretaria Tecnica Nacional Ambiental and the Costa Rica Institute of Aqueducts and Waterworks (AYA).

However, so far the judges have only ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in respect to one aspect of the case: that the company had ignored boundaries protecting groundwaters and aquifers set by the Ministry of Environment, the National Groundwater and Irrigation and the AYA.

"We introduced this motion on March 22, 2004, and it was finally ruled upon this May 13 -- or 14 months later. The court made no reference to the fact that this company has beeen illegally mining since December 12, 2002 without permission from local authorities, the INVU, or the Ministry of Health. We are totally unsatisfied with this, it really puts in doubt the analytic ability of the Court to defend fundamental rights that have been violated in the illegal mining at Bellavista," said Sonia Torres, spokesperson from environmental group Ceus del Golfo, one of the litigants in legal action against the mine. "This ruling doesn´t clear up the question of the mining concessions themselves. But in the next few proceedings, the court will review our motions challenging the constitutionality of the mining concessions."

"We will only be satisfied when the Court rules on the entirety of our claim, for implicitly the Court needs to question the Setena Environmental Impact process, and to order that basic studies be carried out, such as the delimitation of protected zones for aquifers, surface and underground water supplies, for a project already been granted environmental approval by the Setena. How is it possible that the Supreme Court hasn't questioned legitimacy of a project which was approved without any of these types of analysis? As to our main argument, the Court has said that we are right, and next step then is to order the studies that were never done," argues Sonia Torres.