p) The record was returned on several occasions to the Drafting Committee, for it to rule on the substantive motions presented by some deputies. In session number 86 of October 24, 2000, discussion continued and the bill, record number 13.928, \"Aprobación del Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\" was approved in the first debate. The bill received the vote of 39 deputies out of 43 present, (folios 428 and 432, volume II).
q) On October 25, 2000, record number 13.928 was received by the Permanent Special Drafting Commission. That Commission approved the final wording of the report for the cited record on the following day, (folios 454 and 455).
r) The text of the approval of the Treaty in question appears at folio 457.
III.- The procedure in the specific case.- Having concluded the study of legislative record number 13.928, the Chamber (Sala) does not find any constitutional defects in the procedure for the approval of the Tratado de Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia. However, due to the importance of the matter and the diversity of opinions it has generated within the Legislative Assembly, as seen from the record itself, it is deemed pertinent to make some considerations regarding three aspects intimately linked to the constitutionality of the procedure carried out. These are: 1° Whether the \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\", signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, and the \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de las Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica\" signed on March 17, 1977, in San José, Costa Rica, are independent, and therefore can be approved separately. 2° What happens with the cooperation in maritime affairs agreed upon in Article II of the \"Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\" signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, in relation to what was agreed in this regard in the Treaty signed between the same parties in San José on March 17, 1977? 3° With the \"Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\" now before us, is the territorial integrity of our country affected or not?, in which case its approval would require a vote of no less than three-quarters of the total membership of the Legislative Assembly and two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly, convened for this purpose, pursuant to Article 7, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution.
IV.- The \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\", being processed under legislative record number 13.928, is not legally an additional to the \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de las Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica\" signed on March 17, 1977: A careful study of the text of both Treaties allows the Chamber to conclude that, even though the title of the one now being processed in the Legislative Assembly under record number 13.928 expressly indicates that it is an additional to the one signed in San José on March 17, 1977, the truth is that regarding their object and purpose, they are two different legal instruments that regulate factual and legal situations that are independent of each other, that were negotiated on absolutely different dates and under absolutely different circumstances, and that therefore have no link whatsoever that would compel their joint legislative approval, or have as a consequence that by approving one, the Costa Rican State unfailingly approves or implicitly binds itself to what was agreed in the other, in violation of the procedures that the Legal System (Ordenamiento Jurídico) provides for this purpose, as if one were a Protocol to the other. In this regard, for the Chamber the designation \"additional\" used by the parties is nothing more than an incorrect drafting technique, without it – as stated – in any way affecting the constitutionality of the procedure carried out for its separate legislative approval, considering – moreover – that, as recorded in the legislative file, there exists an exchange of notes signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries, agreeing that the entry into force of the \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica\", signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, \"will be at the moment of the exchange of instruments of ratification, a formality that will be carried out in the manner and on the date that our Governments consider convenient.\" This, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, subsection 1), and Article 31, subsection 3, both of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which state verbatim:
Article 21, subsection 1.: \"Entry into force: A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree.\"
Article 31, subsection 3: \"There shall be taken into account, together with the context: a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions…\"
The Chamber does not find any constitutional friction in the procedure for the legislative approval of the exchange of those notes, as was effectively done in the first debate, firstly, because that act does not in any way alter the object and purpose of the Treaty; secondly, because it is a formal exchange carried out by the same subjects who could legitimately sign the same Convention, and, finally, because the act was carried out in accordance with principles and norms of International Law, as was evidenced previously in relation to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and to that extent also in accordance with our Political Constitution (Articles 7 and 121, subsection 4).
V.- Regarding maritime cooperation between the Republics of Costa Rica and Colombia: In close connection with the previous point, the question arises of how to execute the maritime cooperation referred to in Article II of the Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\", signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, as it was drafted by referring to what was agreed in the Treaty signed in San José on March 17, 1977. On this matter, it is the Chamber's opinion that with this referral, the Costa Rican State would not be approving the entire text of the latter Treaty, for the reasons set forth in the preceding Considerando, and therefore, the object of the Treaty in this regard does not suffer any impact from the separate approval of both legal instruments. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of good faith that is the rule in the interpretation of treaties, it is recorded in legislative record number 13.928 that the parties – through the subjects authorized for that purpose –, by means of respective notes, agreed that in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the details of the maritime cooperation established in Article III of the \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia, signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984\" will be developed through special agreements to be concluded from the entry into force of said Instrument, as agreed in notes N° 396 UAT-PE of May 29 of the current year and DM-1081 of the same date\", (certifications at folios 381 and 383, volume II). Consequently, regarding this point as well, the Chamber does not find any possible constitutional friction, as it is evidenced that neither the object nor the purpose of the Treaty will be frustrated or modified by the Legislative Assembly with its approval under these conditions, in accordance with what is established for this purpose in Article 121, subsection 4, of the Political Constitution.
VI.- With the \"Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\" the territorial integrity of Costa Rica is not affected:
In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, public treaties and international conventions referring to the territorial integrity or political organization of the country shall require approval by the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of no less than three-quarters of its total membership, and by two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly convened for this purpose. However, in the present case, this enhanced voting requirement was not necessary, and therefore regarding this point, no unconstitutionality is observed in the procedure for the legislative approval of the \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia\", signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it does not refer to the territorial integrity of our country. This is because the object of the Treaty is the delimitation of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the \"exclusive economic zone\" between the Republic of Colombia and that of Costa Rica, and over which our country cannot exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty, but a special one for the purpose of \"protecting, preserving, and exclusively exploiting all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the seabed, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles [referring to principles of International Law]\", (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
VII.- In effect, it follows from the literal wording of Article I of the Convention under analysis that its object is the delimitation of the maritime and submarine areas between the States Parties, referring to the Pacific Ocean, and specifically to the exclusive economic zone, given that the matter concerning the maximum breadth of the territorial sea, as well as the contiguous zone, was defined by agreement among the States that –like ours– signed the \"Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar\" (Ley número 7291 published in Alcance número 10 to La Gaceta of Wednesday, July 15, 1992), specifically in Articles 3 and 33, namely:
\"Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea.
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.\" – The highlighting is not from the original-
\"Article 33: Contiguous zone.
1.- In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:
Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;
a) Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.
2.- The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.\" – The highlighting is not from the original-
In this regard, when the Chamber ruled on the mandatory judicial review (consulta preceptiva) conducted on the occasion of the approval of this latter Convention, among its conclusions it noted that our Constitution was expressly amended for the purpose of incorporating the concepts of international maritime law universally accepted and embodied in the Convention, referring –among others– to Articles 3 and 33 cited above, and, in conclusion, the Chamber stated:
\"…we can say that Costa Rica is one of the States most benefited by the new Convention.\" (Judgment number 10-92 of 4:30 p.m. on January 7, 1992). – The highlighting is not from the original-
It was precisely because of the impossibility of reaching an agreement among the States Parties regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone, that it was finally defined that the method for doing so would be on a case-by-case basis, such that between States with opposite or adjacent coasts, the delimitation shall be effected by agreement between them on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an \"equitable solution\". And Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adds:
\"If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.\".
This norm is of great importance for reaching the conclusion that this Treaty does not concern the territorial integrity of our country, considering that it can be inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over the exclusive economic zone that corresponds to it are not actually valid under International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries. In the case of Costa Rica and referring to the Pacific coast, this recognition refers to countries such as Panama and Colombia: in the case of the former, as stated in the explanatory statement (exposición de motivos) of the bill that is the subject of this Mandatory Judicial Review, the delimitation of the maritime and submarine borders with Colombia had as its necessary starting point the end of the line of demarcation established in Article one, second paragraph in fine of the \"Tratado de Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Cooperación Marítima entre Costa Rica y Panamá\", Ley numero 6705 of December 28, 1981, which entered into force as of December 14, 1982, without the status of an island –with its consequences regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone– that has been internationally granted to Isla Malpelo –under the absolute sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia– being questioned in that act.
\n\nIn this line of reasoning, the Chamber considers that the delimitation of marine and submarine borders that is the subject of the Treaty under review not only does not affect the territory of Costa Rica, since the breadth of our exclusive economic zone was not even internationally recognized before the signing of this Treaty –at least in relation to the Republic of Colombia–; but also, it was carried out with respect for the provisions of Article 6 of our Political Constitution, insofar as it clearly determines that the special jurisdiction over what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the exclusive economic zone (zona económica exclusiva) is exercised by the Costa Rican State in accordance with the principles of International Law. Now then, it is this regulation which –as previously stated– defines that the delimitation of that zone between States with adjacent or opposite coasts must be effected by agreement between them, in order to reach an equitable solution. In the specific case, based on the international recognition of the sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over Isla Malpelo and of the Republic of Costa Rica over Isla del Coco. The Chamber thus understands that the determination of the status of the former as an island and therefore its implications regarding the exclusive economic zone, was weighed by the negotiators who acted on behalf of the Costa Rican State, and in that sense it is inferred that it is an equitable agreement, since it was the one reached by both parties, considering furthermore the antecedents in that direction that are valid at the international level (case of Panama and Ecuador).\n\n**VIII.- Observations regarding the substance of the bill.** The importance that the approval of this Treaty holds for the Costa Rican State is unquestionable, as is well indicated in the statement of motives of the bill, it \"constitutes the first international recognition of the marine and submarine areas that Costa Rica declares in its Political Constitution as belonging to it in the Pacific, taking into account Isla del Coco, and which grants it –now with international recognition and particularly from its main maritime neighbor– a special jurisdiction in the Pacific of 'nearly half a million square kilometers'\". It is, moreover, an International Agreement signed in accordance with our Political Constitution, as well as with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in whose legislative approval the Chamber does not find any constitutional defect on the merits either, without prejudice to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe consultation made is answered in the sense that, with respect to the bill for the approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, which is being processed in legislative file number 13.928, this Chamber does not find any constitutional defects. Notifíquese.\n\nR. E. Piza E.\nPresidente\n\nLuis Fernando Solano C. Eduardo Sancho G.\n\nAdrián Vargas B. José Luis Molina Q.\n\nSusana Castro A. Gilbert Armijo S.\nSPA/oc/2céd.-\n\nFor the foregoing purposes and due to the importance of the matter at hand, a chronological summary of the bill will be provided in the following recital.\n\n**II.- The processing of file number 13.928 in the Legislative Assembly.-** The bill for the “Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia,” processed under legislative file number 13.928, has followed the chronological order below:\n\na) The bill, which is an initiative of the Executive Branch, was presented to the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly at eleven thirty hours on the twenty-fifth of April of the year two thousand (folios 1 and following of the legislative file);\n\nb) That same day, the President of the Legislative Directorate ordered the file to be referred for study to the Special Permanent Committee on International Relations (folio 1);\n\nc) By official communication number ST.274-05-2000 of the fifteenth of May – received the following day – the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly presented the respective report to the Permanent Committee on International Affairs regarding the bill *“Aprobación del Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia,”* processed under legislative file number 13.928 (folios 12 to 32).\n\nd) On the twenty-sixth of May of the year two thousand, the Committee on International Relations of the Legislative Assembly received from the Archives Department the bill *“Aprobación del Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República Colombiana,”* file number 13.928, for a term of thirty days (folios 10 and 11).\n\ne) By official communications of June 2 and 6, 2000, the Committee on International Relations requested the President of the Colegio de Biólogos de Costa Rica and the Director of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional – Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes – to submit their opinion on the bill “Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia,” processed under legislative file number 13.928 (folios 42 and 43).\n\nf) In Official Communication Ref.461-2000 UAT-PE of June 16, 2000, the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs sent to Licenciado Alvaro Trejos Fonseca, President of the Committee on International Relations of the Legislative Assembly, for inclusion in the legislative file, the certifications of the Exchange of Notes, number 396-UAT-PE of Costa Rica and number DM-M 14081 of Colombia, which took place on May 29, on the occasion of the official visit to our country by the President of Colombia, Andrés Pastrana (certified copies at folios 58, 60 to 63).\n\ng) In an unnumbered official communication dated June 13, 2000, the Colegio de Biólogos issued the opinion requested by the Committee on International Relations regarding the bill *“Aprobación del Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República Colombiana,”* in which it indicates that in the judgment of the Board of Directors and the Inspector General’s Office of that College, the bill is a serious threat to national sovereignty and to the protection of our natural resources (folio 84).\n\nh) In session number 7 held on July 18 of the year two thousand, the Committee on International Relations approved by majority the bill “Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, signed in Bogotá, D.E., on April 6, 1984,” file number 13.928. Deputy Torres Guerrero was commissioned to prepare the corresponding report (folio 175). The affirmative majority report appears at folio 195, and the minority report at folio 202.\n\ni) By Decreto Ejecutivo number 28826-MP of August 1, 2000, the Executive Branch extended the call for Extraordinary Sessions made by Decreto number 28811-MP of July 31 of the same year (folio 320).\n\nj) On August 16, 2000, the Special Permanent Committee on International Relations delivered to the Executive Directorate the Affirmative Majority and Negative Minority reports corresponding to the bill: *“Tratado sobre delimitación de áreas marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia, firmado en Bogotá, D.F. el 6 de abril de 1984,”* file number 13.928 (folio 324).\n\nk) On August 17, 2000, the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Permanent Committee on International Relations received the affirmative majority and negative minority reports on the bill in file number 13928 (folio 326).\n\nl) In session number 66 of September 18, 2000, the following motion by several Deputies was heard and approved in the Plenary to alter the Order of the Day and to hear, in the first place of the Chapter of First Debates, several bills, among which was file number 13.928 “Approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia,” signed in Bogotá, D.E., on April 6, 1984 (folio 327).\n\nm) In official communication DVM-419-00 of September 28, 2000, the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica indicated to Mrs. Rina Contreras, President of the Legislative Assembly, that she was sending a certified copy of notes DVM 415-00 and EM.1081, regarding the understanding between the Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica and Colombia to develop maritime cooperation between the two countries, in connection with the legislative processing of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984. She also requested that said notes be attached to legislative file number 13.928 (folio 379, volume II).\n\nn) By note DVM 415-00 of September 27, 2000, the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica stated to the Ambassador of the Republic of Colombia in Costa Rica the following: *“It is the opinion of the Government of Costa Rica that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the details of the maritime cooperation established in Article III of the aforementioned Treaty shall be developed through special agreements to be agreed upon after the entry into force of said Instrument, as agreed in notes No. 396 UAT-PE of May 29 of the current year and DM-1081 of the same date”* (certification at folio 381, volume II of the legislative file).\n\no) In note EM.1081 of September 27, 2000, the Ambassador of Colombia, Julio Anibal Riaño, responded to the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs to note DVM415-00, expressing the concurrence of the Republic of Colombia with it (folio 383 of volume II).\n\np) The file was returned on several occasions to the reporting committee so that it could rule on the substantive motions presented by some deputies. In session number 86 of October 24, 2000, discussion continued and the bill in file number 13.928 *“Aprobación del Tratado sobre delimitación de área marinas y submarinas y cooperación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia”* was approved in first debate. The bill received the vote of 39 deputies, out of 43 present (folios 428 and 432, volume II).\n\nq) On October 25, 2000, file number 13.928 was received by the Special Permanent Committee on Drafting. That Committee approved the final wording of the report on the aforementioned file the following day (folios 454 and 455).\n\nr) The text of the approval of the Treaty at hand appears at folio 457.\n\n**III.- The procedure in the specific case.-** Having concluded the study of legislative file number 13.928, the Chamber finds no constitutional defects in the procedure for the approval of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia. However, due to the significance of the matter and the diversity of opinions it has generated within the Legislative Assembly, as seen in the file itself, it is deemed pertinent to make some considerations regarding three aspects closely linked to the constitutionality of the procedure carried out. They are: **1°** Whether the *“Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia,”* signed in Bogotá, D.E., on April 6, 1984, and the *“Tratado sobre Delimitación de las Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica”* signed on March 17, 1977, in San José, Costa Rica, are independent, and therefore can be approved separately.\n\n2° What happens to the cooperation in maritime matters that was agreed upon in Article II of the \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia\" signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, in relation to what was agreed in this regard in the Treaty signed between the same parties in San José on March 17, 1977?\n\n3° With the \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia\" that now concerns us, is the territorial integrity of our country affected or not?, in which case its approval would require a vote of no less than three-quarters of the total members of the Legislative Assembly and two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly, convened for that purpose, in accordance with Article 7, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution.\n\n**IV.- The \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia,\" which is being processed in legislative file number 13.928, is not legally an additional protocol to the \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica\" signed on March 17, 1977:** A careful study of the text of both Treaties allows the Chamber to conclude that, despite the fact that the title of the one now being processed in the Legislative Assembly under file number 13.928 expressly indicates that it is an additional protocol to the one signed in San José on March 17, 1977, the truth is that in terms of their object and purpose, they are two different legal instruments, regulating factual and legal situations independent of each other, which were negotiated on absolutely different dates and circumstances, and therefore have no nexus whatsoever that compels their joint legislative approval, or that results in the approval of one inevitably leading the Costa Rican State to approve or tacitly bind itself to what was agreed in the other, in violation of the procedures that the Legal System provides for that purpose, as if one were a Protocol to the other. In this sense, for the Chamber, the designation \"additional\" used by the parties is nothing more than an incorrect drafting technique, without it—as has been stated—affecting in any way the constitutionality of the procedure carried out for its separate legislative approval, considering—furthermore—that according to the legislative file, there is an exchange of notes signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries, agreeing that the entry into force of the \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica,\" signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984, \"will be at the moment of the exchange of the instruments of ratification, a formality that will be carried out in the manner and on the date that our Governments deem convenient.\" This, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1) and Article 31, paragraph 3, both of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which read literally:\n\nArticle 21, paragraph 1.: \"Entry into force: A treaty shall enter into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree.\"\n\nArticle 31, paragraph 3: \"There shall be taken into account, together with the context: a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions…\"\n\nThe Chamber finds no friction whatsoever with constitutionality in the legislative approval procedure for the exchange of these notes, as was indeed done in the first debate, first, because that act does not alter in any way the object and purpose of the Treaty; second, because it is a formal exchange carried out by the same subjects who could legitimately sign the same Agreement; and, finally, because the act was carried out in accordance with principles and norms of International Law, as was evidenced previously in relation to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and to that extent also in accordance with our Political Constitution (Articles 7 and 121, paragraph 4).\n\n**V.- Regarding maritime cooperation between the Republics of Costa Rica and Colombia:** In close connection with the previous point, the question arises as to how to execute the maritime cooperation referred to in Article II of the Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it was drafted by referring to what was agreed in the Treaty signed in San José on March 17, 1977. On this matter, it is the Chamber's opinion that with this referral, the Costa Rican State would not be approving the entire text of the latter Treaty, for the reasons set forth in the preceding Whereas Clause, and therefore, the object of the Treaty in this regard is not affected in any way by the separate approval of both legal instruments. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of good faith that is the rule in the interpretation of treaties, legislative file number 13.928 records that the parties—through the subjects authorized for that purpose—agreed via respective notes that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the details of the maritime cooperation established in Article III of the \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia, signed in Bogotá on April 6, 1984,\" will be developed through special agreements to be agreed upon after the entry into force of said Instrument, according to what was agreed in notes No. 396 UAT-PE of May 29 of the current year and DM-1081 of the same date,\" (certifications at folios 381 and 383, Volume II). Consequently, the Chamber also finds no possible friction with constitutionality in this matter, as it is evident that neither the object nor the purpose of the Treaty will be frustrated or modified by the Legislative Assembly upon its approval under these conditions, in accordance with Article 121, paragraph 4 of the Political Constitution.\n\n**VI.- The \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia\" does not affect the territorial integrity of Costa Rica:**\n\nIn accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, public treaties and international agreements referring to the territorial integrity or the political organization of the country shall require approval of the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than three-quarters of its total members, and that of two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly convened for that purpose. However, in the present case, that reinforced vote was not necessary, and therefore, in this matter, no unconstitutionality is observed whatsoever in the procedure for the legislative approval of the \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia,\" signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it does not refer to the territorial integrity of our country. This is because the object of the Treaty is the delimitation of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the \"exclusive economic zone\" between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, and over which our country cannot exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty, but rather a special one for the \"purpose of protecting, conserving, and exploiting with exclusivity all the natural resources and riches existing in the waters, the seabed, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles [referring to principles of International Law],\" (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).\n\n**VII.-** Indeed, it is evident from the literal wording of Article I of the Agreement under analysis that its object is the delimitation of the marine and submarine areas between the States Parties, referring to the Pacific Ocean, and specifically to the exclusive economic zone, given that matters concerning the maximum breadth of the territorial sea, as well as the contiguous zone, were defined by agreement among the States that—like ours—signed the \"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea\" (Law number 7291 published in Supplement number 10 to La Gaceta of Wednesday, July 15, 1992), specifically in Articles 3 and 33, namely:\n\n\"Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea.\n\nEvery State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.\" –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\n\"Article 33: Contiguous zone.\n\n1.- In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:\n\nPrevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;\n\na) Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.\n\n2.- The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIn this regard, when the Chamber issued its ruling in the mandatory consultation conducted on the occasion of the approval of this latter Convention, among its conclusions, it noted that our Constitution was expressly reformed with the object of incorporating universally accepted international maritime law concepts embodied in the Convention, referring—among others—to Articles 3 and 33 cited above, and, in conclusion, the Chamber stated:\n\n\"…we can say that Costa Rica is one of the States most benefited by the new Convention.\" (Judgment number 10-92 of 4:30 p.m. on January 7, 1992). –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIt was precisely due to the impossibility of reaching an agreement among the States Parties regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone that it was finally decided that the method for doing so would be casuistic, such that in the case of States with adjacent or opposite coasts, the delimitation would have to be effected by agreement between them on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to arrive at an **\"equitable solution.\"** And Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adds:\n\n\"If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.\"\n\nThis norm is of great importance for arriving at the conclusion that this Treaty does not concern the territorial integrity of our country, considering that it can be inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over its corresponding exclusive economic zone have no real validity within International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries. In the case of Costa Rica and referring to the Pacific coast, this recognition refers to countries such as Panama and Colombia: in the case of the former, as stated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill that is the object of this Mandatory Consultation, the delimitation of the maritime and submarine boundaries with Colombia had its necessary starting point at the end of the demarcation line established in the first article, second paragraph in fine of the \"Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between Costa Rica and Panama,\" Law number 6705 of December 28, 1981, which entered into force as of December 14, 1982, without that act questioning the status of island—with its consequences regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone—that has been internationally granted to Malpelo Island—under the absolute sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia—. In this line of argument, the Chamber considers that the delimitation of marine and submarine boundaries, which is the object of the Treaty under study, not only does not affect the territory of Costa Rica, since the breadth of our exclusive economic zone was not even internationally recognized before the signing of this Treaty—at least in relation to the Republic of Colombia—; but also, it was carried out in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 of our Political Constitution, insofar as it clearly determines that the Costa Rican State exercises special jurisdiction over what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the \"exclusive economic zone\" in accordance with the principles of International Law. Now, it is this regulation that—as stated previously—defines that the delimitation of that zone between States with adjacent or opposite coasts must be effected by agreement between them in order to arrive at an equitable solution. In the specific case, starting from the international recognition of the sovereignty of the Republic of Colombia over Malpelo Island and of the Republic of Costa Rica over Cocos Island. The Chamber thus understands that the determination of the status of the former as an island, and therefore its implications regarding the exclusive economic zone, was weighed by the negotiators acting on behalf of the Costa Rican State, and in that sense, it is inferred that it is an equitable agreement, since it was the one reached by both parties, considering also the precedents in that direction that are internationally valid (case of Panama and Ecuador).\n\n**VIII.- Observations regarding the substance of the project.** The importance for the Costa Rican State of the approval of this Treaty is unquestionable, which, as is well indicated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, \"constitutes the first international recognition of the marine and submarine areas that Costa Rica declares in its Political Constitution to belong to it in the Pacific, taking into account Cocos Island, and which grants it—now with international recognition and particularly from its main maritime neighbor—a special jurisdiction in the Pacific 'close to half a million square kilometers'.\" It is furthermore an International Agreement signed in compliance with our Political Constitution, as well as with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in whose legislative approval the Chamber does not notice any defect of constitutionality, likewise on the substance, without prejudice to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 101 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nSe evacua la consulta formulada en el sentido de que en relación con el proyecto de aprobación del Tratado de Delimitación de Areas Marinas y Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de Colombia, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo numero 13.928, esta Sala no advierte vicios de constitucionalidad. Notifíquese.\n\nPiza E.\n\nPresident\n\nLuis Fernando Solano C. Eduardo Sancho G.\n\nAdrián Vargas B. José Luis Molina Q.\n\nSusana Castro A. Gilbert Armijo S.\nSPA/oc/2céd.-" }