VII.- Costa Rica's commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gases.- As mentioned in the aforementioned judgment No. 2012-009206, Costa Rica has specific commitments in the reduction of greenhouse gases under the regime of the United Nations Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. It is important to mention that through Law No. 8219 of 8 March 2002, published in La Gaceta No. 127 of 3 July 2002, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was approved and was ratified by means of Executive Decree No. 30602-RE of 5 July 2002. With this Protocol the parties committed to reducing their total greenhouse gas emissions to a level at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period between the year 2008 and 2012. In order to achieve this objective, Costa Rica initiated in 2012 one of the most ambitious projects in the country's environmental history, which consisted of becoming one of the first carbon-neutral countries in the world by 2021, which was mentioned in the cited judgment No. 2012-009206 in the following terms:
“… four actions, four commitments that, at the domestic level, our country will undertake from this moment forward: carbon neutrality by the year 2021, led by the Executive Branch from now on; a mandatory environmental management plan for State institutions; the increase in forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and protected areas; and the promotion, in our school and high school curriculum, of learning about sustainable development and environmental education. These are commitments additional to the international obligations we have already contracted. We undertake them because we believe that if Costa Rica can do it, with its tiny economy and its underdevelopment in tow, there is no justification for other nations not to do so.
First. From this moment on, Costa Rica commits to being carbon neutral, or “C-Neutral”, by the year 2021. This is an ambitious goal, which for its realization will require the help of all citizens and of the next governments. We are going to offset the carbon emissions we release with equivalent doses of oxygen so that, come 2021, Costa Rica will not contribute in any way to global warming and the deterioration of the air we breathe. Truly I tell you: abolishing net carbon emissions will be, for us, the equivalent of the abolition of the army that don Pepe carried out” (the bold emphasis is not from the original) http://www.rree.go.cr/?sec=politica%20exterior&cat=ejes%20accion%20pnd%202006-2010 ).
The referenced judgment also indicated:
“In tune with the previous declaration, Costa Rica proclaimed before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia its commitment to be “carbon neutral” by 2021. The declaration becomes a political instrument at the national level, besides having its legal consequences within the framework of the United Nations Climate Change commitments. In this sense, our country has issued a unilateral and valid legal act, within the powers that International Law recognizes to international legal persons, which par excellence a State can make before its peers to set a national as well as foreign policy. The foregoing clearly generates rights and obligations with respect to other States, which would allow our country to demand, as well as be demanded, in accordance with the principle Pacta Sunt Servanda. (This Chamber for logical reasons does not refer to extraordinary assumptions that a State may claim when they arise from a state of defense and the violation of the principle of good faith by other powers). In this way, in accordance with the institutional communication of the Dirección de Comunicación Institucional (Climate Change Bali-1113) of Tuesday (sic) 11 December 2007, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, on the electronic portal of www.rree.go.cr it is highlighted that:
“Costa Rica announced today its voluntary commitment to be the first developing country “carbon neutral” by 2021, and warned that the Kyoto Protocol did not foresee any incentive mechanism for developing countries to conserve their primary forest cover.
The worldwide announcement was made during the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Bali, and the goal of offsetting carbon emissions until their effect is neutral (“carbon neutral”), will be achieved by the Bicentennial of the Republic of Costa Rica, in the year 2021.
…
During the Climate Change Conference, Costa Rica has insisted that the Kyoto Protocol must be completed, to amend a clear injustice, given that the mitigation of greenhouse gases resulting from avoided deforestation is not recognized,” explained Chancellor Bruno Stagno, who traveled today to Guatemala to attend the Summit of Heads of State and Government of Central America.
He recalled that the Kyoto Protocol “only rewards those who reforest, and excludes those who conserve the primary forest or make sustainable use of it respecting the ecosystems and the environmental services (servicios ambientales) they provide.”
\n\n\"We must overcome this contradiction, which we deem unacceptable,\" he said.\n\nIn this regard, during the Bali Conference, Costa Rica has advocated that the omission of the Kyoto Protocol must be corrected, since tropical forests benefit all of humanity by fixing the carbon dioxide produced by industry, and in this way make a formidable contribution to mitigating climate change.\n\n…\n\nCosta Rica's position, developed jointly by the Ministry of Environment and the Foreign Ministry, points out that although developing countries generate a small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, they are the most vulnerable to global climate change.\n\n…\n\nCosta Rica has likewise insisted that solutions to Climate Change must contemplate \"common but differentiated responsibilities,\" since nations have different contributions, both to environmental pollution and to sustainable development, and consequently, must involve both developed countries (identified among the largest polluters) and developing countries.\n\n…\n\nIn this regard, Costa Rica \"has started at home,\" and has voluntarily undertaken an Environmental Management Action Plan that involves Climate Change, the National System of Protected Wild Areas (sic), water resources (recurso hídrico), reduction and management of waste and refuse, education, tourism, marine resources, territorial planning and land-use planning (planificación y ordenamiento territorial), and toxic and hazardous materials, among others.\"\n\nIt is clear then that Costa Rica voluntarily assumed a specific and exemplary international obligation, such that:\n\n\"any effort to reduce the environmental footprint is part of a national priority, because from the humblest existence of a human being to the most complex congregation, an effort will be required to mitigate, with science and technology, those actions that contribute to GHG emissions, in some cases larger than others, but which imply assuming commitments and responsibilities in our behaviors toward the environment due to our way of life. Therefore, it is necessary to establish normative guidelines that further link activities that impact the environment and those created for its protection; in this sense, it is necessary to confirm sanctions when these commitments and responsibilities are infringed\" (see judgment No. 2012-009206 of 16:06 hours on July 4, 2012, https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551522-).\n\nFrom the foregoing it emerges, then, that Costa Rica has formulated projects, proposals, and strategies for the sake of achieving carbon neutrality, which implies a commitment on the part of public authorities but also of society to develop internal actions to reduce and remove carbon emissions over a determined period in the country's operation, which implies adopting measures to compensate for the carbon emissions that are released with equivalent doses of oxygen, all so that the country does not contribute to global warming and to ensure that the carbon footprint is the same as that of 2005, which was the base year chosen for the carbon neutrality plan in Costa Rica. The first \"Programa País de Carbono Neutralidad 1.0\" was launched in 2012 with a national strategy and an action plan, and although the goal was not achieved, the fact is that thanks to this initiative, the country has taken actions and has also made important strides to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. In that sense, there is evidence that many private companies—of their own volition—adopted practices to reduce their emissions and offset their footprint, so the results in the private sector have been very positive since, according to data from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, between 2012 and 2017 a total of 96 private companies from different productive sectors of the country adopted practices and transformed their operations to be more efficient and reduce their carbon emissions to the point that they managed to reduce 100,000 tons of carbon in the last five years, and 92 of those 96 companies have already managed to certify themselves as carbon neutral, while the other four are in the inventory process to obtain recognition. Now, it must be remembered that the bulk of carbon dioxide emissions and other polluting gases come from the vehicle fleet, energy consumption, and the use of fertilizers in agriculture, which are areas where efforts to attack the problem have been less, so the country must rethink its actions to achieve carbon neutrality in light of the Paris Agreement, where the goal was set for 2100. It is necessary to mention that there are no direct high-impact practices to attack emissions from vehicles that run on petroleum-based fuels, and an example of this is that in 2015, for the first time in history, the transport sector imported more vehicles (cars, trucks, and motorcycles) into Costa Rica ($1,324 million dollars) compared to the petroleum that entered the country ($1,285 million dollars) (see https://www.elfinancierocr.com/economia-y-politica/la-utopia-de-una-costa-rica-carbono-neutral-en/IYM5MH2PNZCP7BOHSZ5NV7CAQM/story/); for its part, according to RECOPE, in 2016, 19 million barrels produced abroad were consumed, and it is estimated that by 2035 consumption could increase to 33.5 million barrels. In view of the fact that, as stated, the goal set for 2021 was not achieved, the \"Programa País de Carbono Neutralidad 2.0\" has been launched, through which what was developed in the 2012 version is corrected and refined, and which establishes a new carbon neutrality goal practically by 2085 and formally by 2100 (https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PLAN-NACIONAL-DESCARBONIZACION.pdf).\n\nIn that “Costa Rica Decarbonization Plan” one can observe that under “Axis 6 Transformation of the industrial sector through processes and technologies that use energy from renewable or other efficient and sustainable low- and zero-emission sources,” among the 2019-2022 change actions to drive the low-emission technological transformation process of the industrial sector, one of the objectives was precisely\n\n“to avoid the use of technologies that deepen dependence on fossil fuels in the industry”\n\n(https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PLAN-NACIONAL-DESCARBONIZACION.pdf).\n\nPrecisely, the executive decree being challenged can be framed within those objectives, since it is a regulation that seeks to authorize the use of liquefied natural gas as a clean fuel that can replace those petroleum derivatives that produce greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.” (Judgment no. 2024014801 of 1:00 p.m. on May 29, 2024).\n\nChapter 5 refers to environmental labeling. Its objective is “…to inform the development and implementation of high-quality and high-integrity voluntary environmental labeling programs in order to promote more transparent and sustainable trade” (5.1).\n\nEnvironmental labeling seeks, among other things, “…to provide truthful, non-misleading, reliable, comparable, substantiated, and verifiable information on the environmental aspects of goods and services” (5.4).\n\nThe Chamber observes that this initiative is in harmony with several principles safeguarded by our Constitution. Indeed, it contains clear elements of environmental protection, access to information, and consumer protection. Thus, this Court finds no objection whatsoever.\n\nChapter 6 establishes institutional provisions. The ACCTS provides for a Joint Commission, composed of governmental representatives from each Party, which shall have tasks associated with supervising the agreement regarding its implementation, general functioning, general reviews, and promotion (6.2).\n\nIt is relevant to point out that the Commission does not have the power to amend the ACCTS by itself, but only to propose modifications to the Parties, whether partial amendments (6.2.2.c) or a general review (6.7).\n\nThe chapter contemplates the operating rules of the Commission (6.3: meetings and rules of procedure; 6.4: decision-making; 6.5: functioning of subsidiary bodies), as well as the obligation of the Parties to cooperate for the implementation of the agreement (6.6), which is an expression of the principle pacta sunt servanda.\n\nChapter 7 regulates dispute resolution, in relation to the interpretation or application of the agreement. Its first mechanism is the submission of good offices, conciliation, and mediation (7.5); it also contemplates a consultation process (7.6) and, if necessary, the establishment of an arbitration panel (7.7 et seq.).\n\nFinally, the ACCTS establishes the final provisions usual in treaty law (8.2 on annexes; 8.3 entry into force; 8.5 amendments; 8.6 accession; 8.7 withdrawal; 8.8 depositary; etc.) without creating any kind of friction with the Constitution.\n\nV.- Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, this Court finds no essential constitutional defects in the legislative procedure of the consulted bill; nor does it observe substantive defects in its content.\n\nVI.- Documentation provided to the file. The parties are warned that, if they have provided any document on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. It is warned that all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the \"Regulation on the Electronic File before the Judicial Branch,\" approved by the Full Court in article XXVI of session no. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, published in Judicial Bulletin no. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement of the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch, approved in article LXXXI of session no. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThis mandatory legislative consultation on constitutionality is hereby resolved, in the sense that in the processing of the bill entitled “LAW FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ‘AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY’ ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR,” legislative file no. 25.060, no substantial procedural or substantive defect has occurred.\n\nBe it communicated.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\nPresidente\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\n**Paul Rueda L.**\n\nLuis Fdo.\n\nSalazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G.\n\nAnamari Garro V.\n\nEXPEDIENTE No. 26-012342-0007-CO\n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n\n-- Verification Code --\n\n\n\n122RYQYRGDS61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-012342-0007-CO\n\nTelephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).\n\n**PROJECT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND OTHER STATES**\nFile: 26-012342-0007-CO\nJudgment: 015310-26 of April 29, 2026\nType of matter: Mandatory Legislative Consultation\nChallenged norm: Law approving the ‘Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability’ entered into between Costa Rica, Iceland, New Zealand and Switzerland, on 11-15-2024. Legislative File No. 25.060\nOperative part: This mandatory legislative consultation on constitutionality is discharged, in the sense that in the processing of the bill called “LAW FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ‘AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY’ ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR”, legislative file no. 25.060, no substantial defect of form or substance has occurred. Let it be communicated.\n\nCO05/26\n\nFax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Perpetuo Socorro church).\n\nExp: 26-012342-0007-CO\nRes. No. 2026015310\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes of the twenty-ninth of April of two thousand twenty-six.\n\nMandatory legislative consultation on constitutionality formulated by the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly, regarding the bill processed in legislative file no. 25.060, denominated *“LAW FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ‘AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY’ ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR”*.\n\n**Whereas:**\n\n**1.-** By official communication received in the Secretariat of the Chamber on April 10, 2026, the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly forwarded this consultation based on Article 96 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law along with a certified copy of the corresponding legislative file.\n\n**2.-** By resolution at 11:55 hours on April 10, 2026, the consultation was deemed filed and was transferred, according to the corresponding turn, to the drafting magistrate.\n\n**3.-** The prescriptions of law have been observed in this process. This resolution is issued within the respective legal deadline, which expires on May 10, 2026.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate **Rueda Leal**; and,\n\n**Considering:**\n\n**I.-** **Object and admissibility of the consultation.** This mandatory consultation on constitutionality was formulated by the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly in compliance with the provisions of numerals 10 subsection b) of the Political Constitution and 96 subsection a) of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law; it refers to the bill denominated *“LAW FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ‘AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY’ ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR”*, processed in legislative file no. 25.060.\n\nThe bill was submitted to a vote and approved in the first debate in Ordinary Plenary Session no. 84 of March 24, 2026, thus satisfying what is established in paragraph 1 of ordinal 98 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.\n\nFor the purpose of discharging this consultation, the legislative steps followed in the *sub lite* are first verified, in accordance with precepts 98 and 101 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, which provide that the consultation must be made after the bill is approved in the first debate and before final approval, and that, when discharging it, the Chamber shall rule on any aspects or grounds it deems relevant from a constitutional standpoint, but only that which relates to procedural steps shall have binding effect. For the foregoing purposes, in the following consideranda a summary of the bill and a chronological summary of its legislative processing will be presented.\n\n**II.- The processing of file no. 25.060 in the Legislative Assembly.** The legislative *iter* of the bill denominated *“LAW FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ‘AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY’ ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR”*, legislative file no. 25.060, has been as follows:\n\n1) By official communication no. MP-DMP-OF-0503-2025 of June 20, 2025, the a.i. minister\n\nof the Presidency referred to the Legislative Assembly the bill entitled “APPROVAL OF THE ‘AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY’ ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR”, for it to be given the proper proceeding. In the statement of motives it was indicated: “Finally, on November 15, 2024, the ministers of Costa Rica, Iceland, New Zealand and Switzerland signed the final text”. Such communication was received in the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly on June 23, 2025. (see folio 1 of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n2) By means of executive decree no. 45042-MP of June 24, 2025, the Executive Branch expanded the call for extraordinary sessions of the Legislative Assembly, with the purpose of considering file no. 25.060, among others (see folios 484 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n3) On June 26, 2025, it was ordered that the bill of file no. 25.060 be assigned to the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade; it was also transferred to the Department of Document Management and Archive for its publication and processing (see folio 487 of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n4) On June 30, 2025, the Department of Document Management and Archive referred file no. 25.060 to the National Press for its publication in the official gazette La Gaceta. (see folio 489 of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n5) On June 30, 2025, a faithful copy was delivered to the Department of Studies, Reference and Technical Services (see folio 490 of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n6) On July 2, 2025, the bill of file no. 25.060 was published in Supplement no. 81 to La Gaceta no. 121 (See https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/Gaceta/ViewAlcance.aspx?url=/pub/2025/07/02/ALCA81_02_07_2025.html).\n\n7) On July 3, 2025, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade received the bill of file no. 25.060 (see folio 976 of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n8) In ordinary session no. 6 of September 17, 2025, of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the bill of legislative file no. 25.060 was assigned to a subcommission for a period of thirty business days. Furthermore, motions nos. 06-06, 08-06 and 09-06 were approved to call for a hearing with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Climate Change Directorate, the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center, the Climate Route, the Ministry of Foreign Trade, Incopesca, among others. (see folios 982 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n9) In ordinary session no. 7 of September 24, 2025, of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, representatives from the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center, and the Climate Route were received (see folios 1042 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n10) By communication no. AL-DEST-IJU-373-2025 of October 28, 2025, the Department of Studies, References and Technical Services referred to the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade the legal report for file no. 25.060 (see folios 1083 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n11) By means of executive decree no. 45281-MP of October 31, 2025, the Executive Branch made the call for extraordinary sessions of the Legislative Assembly, in order to consider file no. 25.060, among others (see folios 1103 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n12) In ordinary session no. 8 of November 5, 2025, of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the vice-minister of the Ministry of Foreign Trade was received (see folios 1154 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n13) In ordinary session no. 9 of November 12, 2025, of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the minister and the vice-minister of Strategic Management, both from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, were received (see folios 1113 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n14) In extraordinary session no. 10 of November 26, 2025, of the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, it discussed the bill on the merits and approved it. Likewise, Deputy Morales was assigned the drafting of the respective report (see folios 1178 and following of legislative file no. 25.060).\n\n15) On December 8, 2025, the Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade referred the affirmative report for bill no. 25.060 to the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly (see folios 1693 and following of legislative file no.\n\n16) By means of Executive Decree No. 45457-MP of January 20, 2026, the Executive Branch withdrew legislative file No. 25.060, among others, from the call for extraordinary sessions of the Legislative Assembly (see folio 1695 and following of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n17) By means of Executive Decree No. 45461-MP of January 22, 2026, the Executive Branch expanded the call for extraordinary sessions of the Legislative Assembly, with the purpose of having legislative file No. 25.060 heard, among others (see folio 1700 and following of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n18) In extraordinary session No. 71 of February 12, 2026, the Plenary began the process in the first debate. Substantive motions were presented via Art. 137, for which reason the bill was referred to the reporting committee (see folio 1706 and following of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n19) On February 23, 2026, the Secretariat of the Legislative Directorate referred the aforementioned motions to the respective committee (see folio 1746 of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n20) In ordinary session No. 16 of March 4, 2026, of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, the substantive motions via Art. 137 were heard and were rejected (see folio 1729 and following of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n21) On March 5, 2026, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered to the Secretariat of the Directorate the report on motions via Art. 137 (see folio 1714 and following of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n22) In extraordinary session No. 84 of March 24, 2026, the Plenary approved in the first debate bill No. 25.060 with the vote of 40 deputies (see folio 1751 and following of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n23) In ordinary session No. 44 of April 6, 2026, the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting approved the final wording of file No. 25.060 (see folio 1766 and following of legislative file No. 25.060).\n\n**III.- Regarding the legislative procedure in the specific case.** In accordance with canon 101 of the law governing this jurisdiction, this Court reviewed the legislative procedure for the processing of the bill entitled *\"LAW FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE 'AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRADE AND SUSTAINABILITY' ENTERED INTO BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR\"*. The breakdown of the process followed by said bill allows this Chamber to conclude that the constitutional procedure established for such purposes has been respected.\n\nRegarding the possibility of entering into international treaties, Article 140(10) of the Constitution contains as an attribution of the president and the relevant minister:\n\n\"10) To enter into agreements, public treaties and concordats, to promulgate and execute them once approved by the Legislative Assembly or by a Constituent Assembly, when such approval is required by this Constitution.\"\n\nIn this case, the statement of purpose clearly indicated: *\"Finally, on November 15, 2024, the ministers of Costa Rica, Iceland, New Zealand and Switzerland signed the final text\"*.\n\nFurthermore, this Chamber has deemed that there is no contravention of constitutional precepts when a unequivocal will of the Executive Branch to procure the approval of an international instrument is verified in the legislative file:\n\n\"…the joint action of the Presidency of the Republic and the Minister of Foreign Trade to initiate the legislative process for the bill under consultation, coupled with the respective executive decrees issued during the period of extraordinary sessions, where the Executive Branch assumes a preponderant role in the legislative initiative by placing this bill into the legislative process, allows one to conclude that said Branch of the Republic has not only concurred with its will in the various procedural legislative stages, but also has a clear intention to sanction and ratify that instrument through its legislative approval and, therefore, possesses full substantive knowledge of the international Treaty in question. In other words, if the Executive Branch, for the purpose of processing and receiving legislative approval of agreements signed by officials—who are not accredited as representatives in the legislative file—submits the respective bill for discussion before the Legislative Assembly, that practice is compatible with the provisions of Article 7.1(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which, for the purpose of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, a person shall be considered as representing a State if '…it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with the presentation of full powers'. Due to this, the Minister (sic) of Foreign Trade, by signing the Treaty under consultation, acted with due constitutional legitimacy.\n\nConsequently, no defect is observed regarding the signing of the aforementioned Treaty.\" (Resolution No. 2019-003131 of 9:45 a.m. on February 22, 2019).\n\nThe situation is analogous in the *sub examine* case, given that there is clarity regarding the will of the Executive Branch, as it submitted the bill to the Legislative Assembly with the signatures of the President of the Republic and the Minister of Foreign Trade (folio 483 of the legislative file); additionally, it has repeatedly included it in decrees convening extraordinary sessions. Ergo, no problems of constitutionality are evident on this point.\n\nFollowing this, as part of the legislative procedure, the bill was referred to the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y de Comercio Exterior and published in Alcance No. 81 to La Gaceta No. 121 of July 2, 2025. Immediately thereafter, the bill was submitted for consultation to various bodies (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, the Dirección de Cambio Climático, the Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, the Ruta del Clima, the Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Incopesca, among others). Likewise, it included study No. AL-DEST-IJU-373-2025 of October 28, 2025, from the Departamento de Estudios, Referencia y Servicios Técnicos, which indicated that approval by an absolute majority was required.\n\nContinuing with the legislative procedure, on November 26, 2025, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior voted in favor of bill No. 25.060. Subsequently, on December 8, 2025, that Commission delivered the affirmative majority opinion to the Directorio of the Legislative Assembly. Later, the legislative Plenary considered and approved the bill in the first debate during extraordinary session No. 84 of March 24, 2026, with 40 votes in favor.\n\nFinally, in ordinary session No. 44 of April 6, 2026, the Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción approved the final wording of file No. 25.060.\n\nBased on the foregoing, at this point in the procedure, the Chamber does not observe any substantial defect in the legislative procedure of bill No. 25.060, \"LAW FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ‘ACUERDO SOBRE CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO, COMERCIO Y SOSTENIBILIDAD’ SIGNED BETWEEN COSTA RICA, ICELAND, NEW ZEALAND, AND SWITZERLAND, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR.\"\n\nIV.- Observations regarding the substance of the bill. As is evident from the bill's statement of motives, the Acuerdo sobre Cambio Climático, Comercio y Sostenibilidad (abbreviated ACCTS, from its English acronym) constitutes an innovative instrument linking trade policy with environmental goals, proposing a novel approach to address challenges in climate change and other environmental issues, such as the loss of biological diversity and pollution. Its main objective is to promote international trade in environmental goods and expand access to environmental services, thereby contributing to the transition toward a more sustainable economic model. Furthermore, the ACCTS encourages collaboration among its members to implement voluntary and effective eco-labeling systems, supported by best international practices. Finally, it represents a significant advance by becoming the first international agreement to set rules disciplining harmful subsidies for fossil fuels, harmonizing trade policy with global commitments on climate action. These objectives are undoubtedly aligned with Article 50 of the Constitution, insofar as it seeks not only that economic growth is in harmony with the environment, but that it becomes an instrument to combat ecological problems.\n\nThe agreement is comprised of eight chapters. The first details the initial and general provisions. It clearly sets out the aforementioned objective, the geographic scope of the agreement (1.2), reconciliation with other international norms (1.4, 1.5), transparency (1.6), cooperation in international forums (1.7), and other general aspects.\n\nFor the purposes of the constitutional analysis, this Court observes that numeral 1.6 seeks transparency through access to information, including judicial decisions, which could lead to the disclosure of personal or sensitive information about persons. However, point 4 of that same article establishes an interpretive clause:\n\n\"4. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require any Party to disclose information if the Party considers that such disclosure could:\n\n(a) be contrary to the public interest;\n\n(b) be contrary to its domestic law;\n\n(c) impede law enforcement; or\n\n(d) prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of any economic operator.\"\n\nThat is, the disclosure of information must be carried out in a manner compatible with the provisions of domestic law, which means that the constitutional and legal parameters of our country must be respected.\n\nSubsequently, ordinal 1.10 establishes tax definitions and interpretive rules, but without containing substantive regulation on this matter.\n\nChapter 2 is devoted to trade in environmental goods.\n\nIts objective is \"…to promote the liberalization of trade in environmental goods as a means to contribute to the transition to a low-emissions, climate-resilient, circular, and sustainable economy, and to increase the adoption of and investment in relevant technologies and products that address urgent environmental needs\" (2.1).\n\nThe scope of application is limited to the environmental goods listed in Annex II (2.2), which contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation (adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático), pollution prevention and control, the transition to a circular economy, among other purposes (2.3) that are in harmony with Article 50 of the Constitution. For such purposes, the agreement establishes a commitment by the parties to eliminate customs tariffs and export taxes, in relation to the listed environmental goods (2.5 and 2.6). Exceptions and temporary mechanisms for the postponement of tariff elimination are included (2.7 and 2.8). Additionally, a subcommittee is established for the review of compliance with this chapter and the list of environmental goods (2.9 and 2.10).\n\nHand in hand with the foregoing, the agreement regulates in its Chapter 3 matters concerning environmental services. The objective of that chapter is \"…the liberalization of trade in environmental services and services related to the environment that support climate change mitigation (mitigación del cambio climático), climate change adaptation (adaptación al cambio climático), the transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, or the sustainable use, protection, or restoration of biodiversity, ecosystems, and natural resources, including water and marine resources\" (3.1).\n\nSubsequently, the scope of application is regulated (for which a list of environmental services exists) and the services that will be included are defined (3.2). The chapter provides for the mode of market access (3.5), the national treatment that environmental services shall receive (3.6), as well as regulations regarding the movement of persons (3.8), transparency (3.9), and international payments and transfers (3.11), among others.\n\nFrom a constitutional perspective, these types of commercial norms find no objection and have been endorsed by this Court on other occasions:\n\n\"This Court has examined similar economic opening agreements and, on the matter, it has been ruled out that they harm our Constitution. For example, in the recent advisory opinion No. 2024-014137, this Chamber recounted trade agreements of a similar nature and made the following considerations:\n\n\"From the foregoing summary, it is clearly concluded that the Treaty intended for approval is similar in many aspects to the group of international instruments of this type that have been signed, studied, and approved by our country for the purpose of promoting Costa Rica's insertion into world trade. Some of the following resolutions of this Chamber can be seen where legislative consultations on other free trade treaties have been resolved:\n\n-Bill \"Approval of the Free Trade Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the Republics of Central America.\" Resolution No. 2019-003131 of 09:45 hours on February 22, 2019. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-904580\n\n-Bill of \"Approval of the Free Trade Treaty between the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica and the Government of the Republic of Colombia.\" Resolution No. 2014-004192 of 14:30 hours on March 26, 2014. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-603193\n\n-Bill of \"Law of Approval of the Free Trade Treaty between the EFTA States and the Central American States.\" Resolution No. 2014-003920 of 14:05 hours on March 19, 2014. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-598688\n\n-Bill of \"Approval of the Free Trade Treaty between the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica and the Government of the Republic of Peru.\" Resolution No. 2013-005013 of 14:30 hours on April 16, 2013. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1003841\n\nIn particular, it is observed that the instrument now under study does not contain the creation of obligations different from those related to trade facilitation between Ecuador and Costa Rica, and from that perspective, it can be said that the bill presents no problems of unconstitutionality, as it includes provisions, measures, and instruments that are essentially topics already addressed in other instruments that have already been incorporated into the Costa Rican legal system.\" (Emphasis not in the original).\n\nIn the same vein, once the text of the bilateral agreement with the United Arab Emirates was reviewed, it is not found to contain obligations beyond those common to this type of trade agreement.\" (Resolution No. 2024033833 of 9:30 hours on November 13, 2024).\n\nChapter 4 refers to fossil fuel subsidies.\n\n…”discipline and eliminate harmful fossil fuel subsidies in order to mitigate their adverse impact on the environment and contribute to global efforts to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production and consumption of fossil fuels” (4.1).\n\nAfter establishing the scope of application (4.2) and the definitions (4.3), the Parties to the agreement commit not to introduce or maintain fossil fuel subsidies listed in Annex IX (4.5). However, it also establishes specific exceptions (4.6), when fossil fuel subsidies allow for meeting priority or sensitive public policy objectives (for example, attention to natural disasters, emergencies or crises, including serious economic hardship or instability; the provision of essential public services in education and health, or humanitarian and emergency services; etc.).\n\nThis proposal, aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, is in harmony with the right to the environment and the commitments undertaken by Costa Rica to promote such reduction:\n\n\"VI.- The international obligation to stabilize emissions known as Greenhouse Gases (GHGs).- Given the substantive issue under analysis in this constitutional challenge, it is important to refer to the international treatment that has been given to greenhouse gas emissions, known by their acronym as GHGs—which was mentioned by this Court in judgment No. 2012-009206 of 4:06 p.m. on July 4, 2012, https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551522- , among which are mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), tropospheric ozone (O3) and nitrous oxide (N2O); gases that allow solar radiation to enter the earth's atmosphere but, at the same time, retain heat and prevent its exit into space. In this regard, in the aforementioned judgment 2012-009206, https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551522-, it was indicated that the lack of homogeneity in the position of certain countries has not allowed for the establishment, at the international level, of a general obligation to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, but rather there has been a problem of little uniformity that has been worsening with the global economic crisis that jeopardizes efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; however, it is worth mentioning that, at the international level, some countries established certain bases in the '1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,' as well as in the 'Kyoto Protocol' and in the '2009 Copenhagen Accord.' In this sense, the first convention establishes in its Articles 3 and that:\n\n\"Article 3\n\nPrinciples\n\nThe Parties, in the measures they take to achieve the objective of the Convention and apply its provisions, shall be guided, inter alia, by the following:\n\n(…)\n\n3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to foresee, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.\n\n…\".\n\n\"Article 4\n\nCommitments\n\n1. All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and the specific nature of their national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall:\n\n(…)\nc.- Promote and support with their cooperation the development, application and diffusion, including the transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including energy, transportation, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management.\n(…)\"\n\nIn the cited judgment 2012-009206, https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551522- it was considered important to highlight the data that has been sustained in many international scientific forums on climate change, which consists of the need to keep greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human economic activity controlled, as this is a factor that contributes to the increase in global temperature, making it necessary to take the required measures so that it remains at a point of less than 2 degrees Celsius since, if exceeded, it would be at a point of no return that could be catastrophic for the sustenance of life on the planet; scientific data that is reaffirmed in the Copenhagen Accord (cited for illustrative purposes) insofar as it indicates that:\n\n\"1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We stress our strong political will to combat it urgently, respecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.\n\nTo achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, and taking into account the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should remain below 2°C, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, we will strengthen our long-term cooperation to combat climate change. We are aware of the serious consequences of climate change and the potential repercussions of response measures in countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects (…) (principle 1).\n\n\"2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required, in light of science and the information contained in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, with a view to achieving a reduction in such emissions that allows holding global temperature increase below 2°C, and we intend to take measures to meet this objective in accordance with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate to ensure that global and national emissions peak as soon as possible, (…)\" (Principle 2).\n\nIn light of the foregoing, this Court stated in the cited judgment No. 2012-009206, https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551522-, that,\n\n\"Although the aforementioned agreement is not a legally binding form, it is important to highlight the scientific data and the importance of achieving more towards the important common goal of reducing emissions of gases that produce climate change, that is, achieving a balance point in anthropogenic emissions. Another important aspect worth highlighting is the identification of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions, among several of them the combustion of fossil fuels or petroleum derivatives, the decomposition of organic matter in landfills, agriculture, etc. The variation in ambient temperature has serious consequences, for example, the World Health Organization publishes (sic), among its many studies, the repercussions that climate change has on people's health. It points out the historical consequences of extreme heat, natural disasters and rainfall variation, and the spread of infections. For example, it states that:\n\n\"Extreme air temperatures contribute directly to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, particularly among elderly people. In the heat wave that hit Europe in the summer of 2003, for example, an excess mortality was recorded, estimated at 70,000 deaths [2].\n\nHigh temperatures also cause an increase in ozone levels and other air pollutants that aggravate cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Urban air pollution causes approximately 1.2 million deaths each year.\n\nPollen levels and other allergens are also higher in cases of extreme heat. They can trigger asthma, a condition that affects approximately 300 million people. The increase in temperatures that is occurring is expected to increase that burden.\"\n\n\"The increase in temperatures and rainfall variability will likely reduce the production of staple foods in many of the poorest regions, by up to 50% by 2020 in some African countries.\"\n\n\"Malaria is highly dependent on climate. Transmitted by mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus, malaria kills nearly one million people each year, primarily African children under five years of age. Mosquitoes of the Aedes genus, the vector for dengue, are also very sensitive to climatic conditions. Studies in this regard suggest that climate change could expose an additional 2 billion people to dengue transmission in the coming decade of the eighties\" (Document titled Climate Change and Health. Fact Sheet No. 266 January 2010).\n\nIt is clear to this Chamber that, based on the foregoing and under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 as well as the Kyoto Protocol, it is necessary to adopt measures to mitigate the effects produced by greenhouse gas emissions, which is a shared responsibility among States -not deferred in the case of the most committed countries-, with the objective of preventing a global temperature increase above 2 degrees Celsius, given that, according to a large majority of the scientific community, the global temperature must be stabilized below those 2°C, which should be a collective obligation of result.\n\nIn that regard, this Court indicated:\n\n\"(…) Thus, with the support of scientific data and the most important global organizations, it has been identified—for a long time—that the use of fossil-fuel-based engines releases carbon dioxide, among other gases, into the environment, which are the main causes of climate change. Even though there are other natural sources of greenhouse gas production, as stated in the specialized literature, such as agriculture, the truth is that it is imperative to establish better controls on anthropogenic emissions that add greater quantities of GHGs to the atmospheric equation. In this sense, efforts to control them must be incentivized by public authorities, by private and individual initiative at each of the sources. The problem of climate change is not solved from an individualistic point of view; rather, collective measures must be taken to reduce the environmental footprint left by anthropogenic GHG emissions, as well as policies appropriately adopted by public authorities to provide a comprehensive solution, to ensure effective models exist that can reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. In this case, it is the way to reduce the emission of gases resulting from the burning of fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, bunker, etc.), through emission control mechanisms or systems that reduce environmental pollution.\n\nBut despite the fact that many of the international obligations undertaken by countries at the international level are not yet binding, it is clear that there is a collective awareness that there must be control efforts in GHG emission. Costa Rica has specific commitments in the reduction of greenhouse gases, under the regime of the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol\" (see judgment No. 2012-009206 of 4:06 p.m. on July 4, 2012, https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551522-).\n\nVII.- Costa Rica's Commitment to the Reduction of Greenhouse Gases.- As mentioned in the repeatedly cited judgment No. 2012-009206, Costa Rica has specific commitments in the reduction of greenhouse gases under the regime of the United Nations Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. It is important to mention that through Law No. 8219 of March 8, 2002, published in La Gaceta No. 127 of July 3, 2002, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was approved and was ratified through Executive Decree No. 30602-RE of July 5, 2002. With this Protocol, the parties committed to reducing their total greenhouse gas emissions to a level no less than 5% below 1990 levels during the commitment period between 2008 and 2012. In pursuit of that objective, Costa Rica began in 2012 one of the most ambitious projects in the country's environmental history, which consisted of becoming one of the first carbon-neutral countries in the world by 2021, as mentioned in the cited judgment No. 2012-009206 in the following terms:\n\n\"… four actions, four commitments that, domestically, our country will assume from this moment forward: carbon neutrality by the year 2021, led by the Executive Branch starting now; a mandatory environmental management plan for State institutions; the increase in forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and protected areas; and the promotion, in our primary and secondary school curriculum, of learning about sustainable development and environmental education. These are additional commitments to the international obligations we have already undertaken. We assume them because we believe that if Costa Rica can do it, with its tiny economy and its burden of underdevelopment, there is no justification for other nations not to do so.\n\nFirst. From this moment on, Costa Rica commits to being carbon neutral, or 'C-Neutral,' by the year 2021. This is an ambitious goal, which will require the help of all citizens and future governments to achieve. We are going to offset the carbon emissions we release with equivalent doses of oxygen so that, by 2021, Costa Rica will contribute nothing to global warming and the deterioration of the air we breathe. Truly I tell you: abolishing net carbon emissions will be, for us, the equivalent of the abolition of the army that Don Pepe accomplished\" (the bold highlighting is not in the original) http://www.rree.go.cr/?sec=politica%20exterior&cat=ejes%20accion%20pnd%202006-2010 ).\n\nIn the aforementioned judgment, it was also indicated:\n\n\"In line with the prior declaration, Costa Rica proclaimed before the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Bali, Indonesia its commitment to be 'carbon neutral' by 2021. The declaration becomes a political instrument at the national level, in addition to having its legal consequences within the framework of the United Nations commitments on Climate Change. In this sense, our country has issued a unilateral and valid legal act, within the powers that International Law recognizes for international legal persons, which a State can par excellence make before its counterparts to set both a domestic and foreign policy. The foregoing clearly generates rights and obligations with respect to other States, which would allow our country to demand, as well as be demanded of, in accordance with the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda. (This Chamber, for logical reasons, does not refer to extraordinary situations that a State may claim when they arise from a state of defense and the violation of the principle of good faith by other powers).\"\n\nThus, in accordance with the institutional communication from the Dirección de Comunicación Institucional (Climate Change Bali-1113) of Tuesday (sic) December 11, 2007, of the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, on the electronic portal www.rree.go.cr, it is highlighted that:\n\n“Costa Rica announced today its voluntary commitment to be the first developing country to become ‘carbon neutral’ (carbono neutral) by 2021, and warned that the Kyoto Protocol did not provide any incentive mechanism for developing countries to conserve their primary forest cover (cobertura boscosa primaria).\n\nThe global announcement was made during the United Nations Conference on Climate Change taking place in Bali, and the goal of offsetting carbon emissions until their effect is neutral (‘carbon neutral’), will be met by the Bicentennial of the Republic of Costa Rica, in the year 2021.\n\n…\n\nDuring the Conference on Climate Change, Costa Rica has insisted that the Kyoto Protocol must be completed, to amend a clear injustice, given that it does not recognize the mitigation of greenhouse gases resulting from avoided deforestation (deforestación evitada),” explained Chancellor Bruno Stagno, who traveled today to Guatemala to attend the Summit of Heads of State and Government of Central America.\n\nHe recalled that the Kyoto Protocol “only rewards those who reforest, and excludes those who conserve the primary forest or make sustainable use of it while respecting the ecosystems and the environmental services (servicios ambientales) they provide. We must overcome this contradiction that we deem unacceptable,” he said.\n\nIn this regard, during the Bali Conference, Costa Rica has promoted that the omission of the Kyoto Protocol must be rectified, since tropical forests benefit all of humanity by fixing the carbon dioxide produced by industry, and in this way make a formidable contribution to mitigating climate change.\n\n…\n\nCosta Rica's position, jointly developed by the Ministerio de Ambiente and the Cancillería, points out that although developing countries generate a small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, they are the most vulnerable to global climate changes.\n\n…\n\nCosta Rica has also insisted that solutions to Climate Change must contemplate “common but differentiated responsibilities,” since nations have different contributions, both to environmental pollution and to sustainable development, and consequently, must involve both developed countries (identified among the greatest polluters) and developing countries.\n\n…\n\nIn this sense, Costa Rica “has started at home,” and has voluntarily undertaken an Environmental Management Plan of Action that involves Climate Change, National System of Protected Wild Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas (sic) Silvestres protegidas), water resources (recurso hídrico), reduction and management of waste and residues, education, tourism, marine resources, territorial planning and land-use planning (planificación y ordenamiento territorial), and toxic and hazardous materials, among others.”\n\nIt is clear then that Costa Rica, voluntarily, contracted a specific and exemplary international obligation, such that:\n\n“any effort to reduce the environmental footprint is part of a national priority, because from the most humble existence of a human being, to the most complex congregation, an effort will be required to mitigate, with science and technology, those actions that contribute to GHG emissions, in some cases greater than others, but which imply assuming commitments and responsibilities in our behaviors with the environment due to our way of life. For this reason, it is necessary to establish normative guidelines that more strongly link activities that impact the environment and those created for its protection; in this sense, it is necessary to confirm sanctions when these commitments and responsibilities are infringed” (see judgment No. 2012-009206 of 16:06 hours on July 4, 2012, https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551522-).\n\nFrom the foregoing, it follows then that Costa Rica has formulated projects, proposals, and strategies in order to achieve carbon neutrality, which implies a commitment on the part of public authorities but also of society to develop internal actions to reduce and remove carbon emissions in a determined period of the country's operation, which implies adopting measures to compensate the carbon emissions released with equivalent doses of oxygen, so that the country does not contribute to global warming and to ensure that the carbon footprint is the same as that of 2005, which was the base year chosen for the carbon neutrality plan in Costa Rica. The first “Programa País de Carbono Neutralidad 1.0” was launched in 2012 with a national strategy and an action plan, and although the goal was not achieved, the fact of the matter is that thanks to that initiative, the country has taken actions as well as made important steps to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.\n\nIn that regard, there is evidence that many private companies—of their own accord—adopted practices to reduce their emissions and offset their footprint, and thus the results in the private sector have been very positive, given that, according to data from the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE), between 2012 and 2017 a total of 96 private companies from different productive sectors of the country adopted practices and transformed their operations to be more efficient and reduce their carbon emissions to the point that they managed to reduce 100,000 tons of carbon in the last five years, and 92 of those 96 companies have already been certified as carbon neutral, while the other four are in the inventory process to obtain recognition. That said, it must be remembered that the bulk of carbon dioxide and other polluting gas emissions come from the vehicle fleet, energy consumption, and the use of fertilizers in agriculture, which are areas where efforts to tackle the problem have been lesser, meaning the country must rethink its actions to achieve carbon neutrality in light of the Paris Agreement, where the target was set for 2100. It is necessary to mention that there are no direct, high-impact practices to attack emissions from vehicles that run on petroleum-based fuels, and one example of this is that in 2015, for the first time in history, the transportation sector imported more vehicles (cars, trucks, and motorcycles) into Costa Rica ($1.324 billion) compared to the petroleum that entered the country ($1.285 billion) (see https://www.elfinancierocr.com/economia-y-politica/la-utopia-de-una-costa-rica-carbono-neutral-en/IYM5MH2PNZCP7BOHSZ5NV7CAQM/story/); furthermore, according to RECOPE, in 2016, 19 million barrels produced abroad were consumed, and it is estimated that by 2035 consumption could increase to 33.5 million barrels. In view of the fact that, as stated, the target set for 2021 was not achieved, the \"Programa País de Carbono Neutralidad 2.0\" has been launched, which corrects and refines what was developed in the 2012 version and establishes a new carbon neutrality goal, in practice for 2085 and formally for 2100 (https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PLAN-NACIONAL-DESCARBONIZACION.pdf). In that \"Plan de Descarbonización de Costa Rica,\" it can be observed that, within \"Eje 6 Transformación del sector industrial mediante procesos y tecnologías que utilicen energía de fuentes renovables u otras eficientes y sostenibles de baja y cero emisiones,\" among the change actions for 2019-2022 to drive the process of low-emission technological transformation of the industrial sector, one of the objectives was precisely\n\n\"avoiding the use of technologies that deepen dependence on fossil fuels in the industry\"\n\n(https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PLAN-NACIONAL-DESCARBONIZACION.pdf).\n\nPrecisely, within those objectives, the executive decree under challenge can be framed, since it is a regulation that seeks to authorize the use of liquefied natural gas as a clean fuel that can replace those petroleum derivatives that produce greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.” (Judgment No. 2024014801 of 1:00 p.m. on May 29, 2024).\n\nChapter 5 refers to environmental labeling. Its objective is “…to inform the development and implementation of high-quality, high-integrity voluntary environmental labeling programs in order to promote more transparent and sustainable trade” (5.1).\n\nEnvironmental labeling aims, among other things, to “…provide truthful, non-deceptive, reliable, comparable, justified, and verifiable information regarding the environmental aspects of goods and services” (5.4).\n\nThe Chamber observes that this initiative is in harmony with several principles that are safeguarded by our Constitution. Indeed, it contains clear elements of environmental protection, access to information, and consumer protection. Thus, this Court finds no objection.\n\nChapter 6 establishes institutional provisions. The ACCTS provides for a Joint Commission, composed of governmental representatives from each Party, which shall have duties associated with the supervision of the agreement regarding its implementation, general operation, general reviews, and promotion (6.2).\n\nIt is relevant to note that the Commission does not have the authority to amend the ACCTS by itself, but only to propose modifications to the Parties, whether they be partial amendments (6.2.2.c) or a general review (6.7).\n\nThe chapter contemplates the operating rules of the Commission (6.3: meetings and procedural rules; 6.4: decision-making; 6.5: operation of subsidiary bodies), as well as the obligation of the Parties to cooperate for the implementation of the agreement (6.6), which is an expression of the principle of *pacta sunt servanda*.\n\nChapter 7 regulates dispute resolution, regarding the interpretation or application of the agreement. Its first mechanism is the use of good offices, conciliation, and mediation (7.5); it also contemplates a consultation process (7.6) and, if necessary, the establishment of an arbitration panel (7.7 et seq.).\n\nFinally, the ACCTS establishes the final provisions usual in the law of treaties (8.2 on annexes; 8.3 entry into force; 8.5 amendments; 8.6 accession; 8.7 withdrawal; 8.8 depositary; etc.) without creating any type of friction with the Constitution.\n\n**V.- Conclusion.**\n\nBased on the foregoing, this Tribunal finds no essential constitutional defects in the legislative process of the bill under review; nor does it observe substantive defects in its content.\n\n**VI.- Documentation provided to the case file.** The parties are warned that, if they have provided any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. It is advised that any material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,\" approved by the Corte Plena in article XXVI of session no. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, published in Boletín Judicial no. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement of the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, approved in article LXXXI of session no. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThis mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality is resolved in the sense that in the processing of the bill titled *“LEY DE APROBACIÓN DEL ‘ACUERDO SOBRE CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO, COMERCIO Y SOSTENIBILIDAD’ SUSCRITO ENTRE COSTA RICA, ISLANDIA, NUEVA ZELANDA Y SUIZA, EL DÍA QUINCE DEL MES DE NOVIEMBRE DEL AÑO DOS MIL VEINTICUATRO”*, legislative file no. 25.060, no substantial procedural or substantive defect has occurred.\n\nBe it communicated.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\nPresidente\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\n**Paul Rueda L.**\n\nLuis Fdo.\n\nSalazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G.\n\nAnamari Garro V.\n\nEXPEDIENTE No. 26-012342-0007-CO\n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n\n-- Verification Code --\n\n\n\n122RYQYRGDS61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-012342-0007-CO\n\nTelephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).\n\nFax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Email: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Perpetuo Socorro church)." }