Thus, the spring (naciente) of water identified at coordinates 110.208 / 620.896, Cabagra cartographic sheet, a tributary of the Río Térraba, whose concession (concesión) is being processed under Expediente N 27127-A, is effectively located within the collective land of the Brörán People, within the Térraba Indigenous Territory. Around nine indigenous families belonging to the Community of Crun Shurín obtain water from this water source (fuente hídrica).
SECOND. Regarding the identification of the beneficiary of the concession (concesión).
Mrs. [Nombre 010], holder of identity card [Valor 002], resident of Paso Real, Potrero Grande, Buenos Aires, Puntarenas, has submitted before the MINAE Water Directorate three successive applications for surface water concession (concesión superficial) of the described spring: filing 202504112 (not admitted on 07/08/2025), filing 20250562 (archived on 02/10/2025), and filing 202505744 (admitted on 16/10/2025), the latter under Expediente N 27127-A.
Mrs. [Nombre 010] is NOT a member of the Brörán People, is not recognized as Brörán by the Elders of the Community, and therefore does not appear in the Brörán People Database held by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). This is stated in the Certification issued by the TSE, which is attached as documentary evidence to this appeal (recurso).
THIRD. Regarding the procedure for the water concession (concesión de agua) and the absence of a free, prior, and informed consultation process. On July 7, 2025, the Board of Directors of ADIT signed a \"Visto Bueno para tramite de concesión de agua\" in favor of Mrs. [Nombre 010], without any consultation process having taken place with the Crun Shurín Community or with any other community of the Térraba Indigenous Territory.
On October 16, 2025, the Water Directorate admitted the third application (Filing 202505744, Expediente 27127-A). The corresponding edict was published in La Gaceta N° 199 on October 23, 2025. The Crun Shurín Community and the Brörán People were NOT notified of this proceeding, and furthermore, no participation mechanism was activated in accordance with the prior consultation standards of ILO Convention 169.
On July 9, 2025, the official [Nombre 012], from the Térraba-South Pacific Hydrological Unit of the Water Directorate, carried out the technical inspection at the site (Report DA-UHTPSOZ-1569-2025). In his report, issued on November 7, 2025, he recommended granting a concession (concesión) of 0.04 liters per second. Nowhere in the technical report is reference made to the obligation of prior consultation with the Brörán People or to the indigenous nature of the territory where the source is located.
On November 11, 2025, the Térraba-South Pacific Hydrological Unit forwarded the case file (expediente) to the MINAE Legal Directorate via official communication DAUHTPSOZ-1600-2025, for the preparation of the final resolution of the concession (concesión). On January 23, 2026, the Legal Advisory office of the Water Directorate conducted the Legal Review prior to the final resolution. In said review, it was expressly verified that the property is indigenous territory held in the name of ADIT. However, no prior consultation process with the Brörán People was activated at this stage either. The case file \"entered the legal queue\" for a final resolution to be issued, which is imminent as of the date of filing this appeal (recurso).
On September 19, 2025, the same official [Nombre 012] notified Mrs. [Nombre 010] that she had to cease the water use (aprovechamiento del agua) she was carrying out in the indigenous territory. This fact demonstrates that the Water Directorate had full knowledge that the water intake is located within the Térraba Indigenous Territory, and despite this, it continued processing the concession (concesión) without activating the prior consultation process.
\n\n… At no time during the processing of Expediente N° 27127-A — neither in the admission phase, nor in the publication of the edict, nor in the technical inspection, nor in the legal review — did the Water Directorate or the ADIT carry out any process of prior, free, and informed consultation with the Brörán People, as required by ILO Convention 169 and the jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber.\n\n(…)\n\nVIII. PETITION. Based on all of the foregoing, the Constitutional Chamber is respectfully requested:\n\n1. To grant this Amparo appeal.\n\n2. To order the Water Directorate of MINAE to archive Expediente N° 27127-A and, should any concession regarding natural resources located in the Indigenous Territory of Térraba be intended for processing in the future, to do so solely through a process of prior, free, and informed consultation with the Brörán People, in accordance with the standards of ILO Convention 169 and the jurisprudence of this Chamber.\n\n3. To order the Integral Development Association of the Indigenous Territory of Térraba (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral del Territorio Indígena Térraba, ADIT) to refrain from granting authorizations, approvals, or any act of disposition over natural resources of the collective territory of the Brörán People without having conducted a community consultation process that guarantees the effective participation of all the territory's communities, including Crun Shurín.\n\n4. To order the respondent authorities to pay all procedural and personal costs of the proceeding, in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.”\n\n2.- By resolution at 09:46 hours on April 13, 2026, the Presidency of the Chamber gave course to this constitutional process and granted a hearing to Jenaro Gutiérrez Reyes, in his capacity as president of the ADI of the Indigenous Reserve of Térraba. Likewise, a report was requested from the director of the Water Directorate of MINAE regarding the facts alleged by the appellant.\n\n3.- By a document filed in the digital court file at 16:42 hours on April 17, 2026, José Miguel Zeledón Calderón, in his capacity as Water Director of MINAE, reports under oath as follows:\n\nRegarding the facts alleged in relation to the powers of the Water Directorate, the following is reported:\n\nThe current status of expediente N° 27127 is GRANTED, by Resolution R-0222-2026-AGUAS-MINAE of fourteen hours, fifteen minutes on January twenty-three, two thousand twenty-six, in the name of Mrs. [Name 010], identity card [Value 002], to take a flow of 0.04 liters per second from an unnamed spring (naciente), for Human Consumption (domestic) and Tourism use, on the property with real folio 145313-000 located in the Potrero Grande district, Buenos Aires canton, Puntarenas province, with the intake occurring at Costa Rica Lambert North coordinates Latitude 110.208 Longitude 620.896, map sheet Cabagra number 3543-II, the intake being on the property of the Integral Development Association of the Indigenous Reserve of Térraba of Buenos Aires.\n\nIn the concession application procedure, the Water Directorate verified the location of the spring (naciente) and knows that the intake is in Indigenous Territory, which is clear in the recommendation report DA-UHTPSOZ-1569-2025 and in the water concession Resolution R-0222-2026-AGUAS-MINAE. The process of verification and confirmation of compliance with the requirements for granting water concessions in indigenous territories was fully complied with, as recorded in administrative expediente N° 27127, as detailed below.\n\nThe administrative file contains the document referred to by the appellants, \"Approval for water concession procedure (Visto Bueno para trámite de concesión de agua)\" dated July 7, 2025, signed by Mr. Genaro Gutiérrez Reyes, President of the Integral Indigenous Development Association of Térraba, legal ID 3-002-078496, “in his capacity as legal representative of the indigenous territory of Térraba as local government according to Executive Decree 13588-cg, administrator of this territory by the autonomy guaranteed in ILO Convention 169 and other related laws.”\n\nThe document is addressed to the applicant for the concession, [Nombre 010], and through it informs her that the \"Board of Directors has agreed to give its APPROVAL (VISTO BUENO) for you to carry out all necessary steps of interest in order to obtain a water concession within our territory in the community known as Paso Resal de Térraba de Buenos Aires. Said APPROVAL includes the right of entry for personnel from the responsible institutions to the properties where the water source from which the concession water is intended to be drawn is located.\"\n\nThe Dirección de Agua recognizes the use and management of water in indigenous territories by the communities themselves, but the resource does not lose its status as a public domain asset belonging to the State, and a water concession must be requested from MINAE. Applications for its use in those territories must be made by the Comprehensive Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral, ADI) as the legal authority within the territories, which function as \"local government\" and are the registered owners of the lands on behalf of the community.\n\nIn the case of the water concession granted in expediente No. 27127, MINAE granted it as required by law, with the local approval granted by the board of directors of the ADI, noting in the operative part of the concession resolution that it was granted on the property of the ADI.\n\nResultando Primero (First Recital) of the water concession establishes the following:\n\n\"PRIMERO: That on October 16, 2025, the ASOCIACION DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE RESERVA INDIGENA DE TERRABA DE BUENOS AIRES, legal identification number 3-002-078496, represented by Mr. Genaro Gutiérrez Reyes, authorized Mrs. [Nombre 010], identity card [Valor 002], to request a concession for the use of surface waters from an Unnamed Spring (Naciente sin Nombre), to take a flow rate of 0.04 liters per second, for use on the farm with registered folio 6-145313-000, located in the Potrero Grande district, Buenos Aires canton, Puntarenas province, for Human Consumption (domestic) and Tourism use, with the water intake taking place on the property of the Asociación De Desarrollo Integral de Reserva indígena de Térraba.\"\n\nThe appellants state that the prior consultation with the community, as established by ILO Convention 169 and Costa Rican jurisprudence, was not carried out for projects affecting natural resources in indigenous territories.\n\nConvention 169 is developed through Decreto Ejecutivo No. 40932-MP-MJP of March 6, 2018, \"Reglamento del Mecanismo de Consulta a Pueblos Indígenas\", for water concessions that affect collective rights.\n\nThe reason for the recurso de amparo is that, according to the appellants, Mrs. \"[Nombre 010] does not appear in the database of the Brörán People held by the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones.\" Furthermore, that 9 families are supplied from the unnamed spring source.\n\nIn this case, the Technical Recommendation Report of the Térraba Pacífico Sur Hydrological Unit, official letter DA-UHTPSOZ-1569-2025, in point 4, reports a gauging (aforo) of 1.1 liters per second and recommended 0.4 liters per second, considering the environmental flow (caudal ambiental) calculation and availability; it does not report other granted concessions, meaning that this is a water use concession that does not affect collective rights within the Térraba indigenous reserve, as would be the case for aqueducts for drinking water, nor is this the object of the amparo. Nor does it leave the 9 families without availability, as they can be supplied from that source through a concession.\n\nTherefore, as far as the Dirección de Agua is concerned, the corresponding procedure for monitoring water use concessions requested in indigenous territory was observed, as well as the other legal and regulatory provisions regarding the process for granting the concession.\n\n“The other issues raised by the appellants, regarding whether Mrs. [Name 010] does not appear in the database of the Brörán People or the challenge to the authorization issued by Mr. Genaro Gutiérrez Reyes, President of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena de Térraba, are not within the competence of this Directorate.
4.- By means of a writ incorporated into the digital case file at 16:12 on April 20, 2026, Jenaro Gutiérrez Reyes, in his capacity as president of the ADI of the Térraba Indigenous Reserve, responded to the granted hearing in the following terms:
“FIRST: REGARDING THE INDIGENOUS TERRITORY OF TÉRRABA AND THE BRÖRÁN PEOPLE: In DE N° 13573-G-C; published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta N° 94 of May 17, 1982, the following of interest to us reads as follows:
“Article 1°—It is recognized that each indigenous ethnic group (grupo étnico indígena) of Costa Rica is characterized by its own cultural, linguistic, social, and historical traits, different from the cultural traits of other indigenous communities, such that each ethnic group has its own distinct personality, different from that of the other indigenous groups. Article 2°—For the purposes of Article 1° of Law N 6172 of November 29, 1977, the State recognizes the official existence of eight indigenous ethnic groups (ethnicities) in Costa Rica, namely:
a) Bribrí.
b) Cabécar.
c) Guaymí.
d) Brunka.
e) Térraba.
f) Huetar (Pacacua).
g) Maleku (Guatuso).
h) Chorotega (Nicoya)
For legal purposes, every indigenous person of Costa Rica belongs to one of these eight official ethnic groups.”
“Article 3°—Each of the eight recognized ethnic groups shall be governed both by the general provisions of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena) and related decrees, but also by their own customs and rules.
To this end, each of the eight ethnic groups shall submit to the National Commission for Indigenous Affairs (Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas, CONAI) and other competent bodies, a document expressing the different customs and rules of their own social organization.
This internal regulation of the community may be different for each of the eight ethnicities recognized in Article 2° of this decree.
The different indigenous reserves (reservas indígenas) belonging to the same ethnic group shall have a single common regulation, valid for all representatives of the ethnic group.
\n\nThe internal regulations of social uses and customs shall be binding within each ethnic group.\n\nOfficial State institutions must take into account and adapt their actions to the socio-cultural particularities of each ethnic group for the management of matters of public interest.\n\nArticle 4—The State shall not provide an exact or single definition of the \"Indigenous Person\"; rather, this definition shall be presented separately by each of the eight indigenous ethnic groups.\n\nArticle 5—Regarding the administration of the Reserves, each Indigenous Reserve constitutes a single indigenous community, administered by its Integral Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral), which is the representative body of each community and acts as the local government of each Indigenous Reserve…”\n\nAlthough it was not transcribed, we add that Article 6 of this Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) lists the indigenous peoples and territories recognized in Costa Rica; and among those peoples, it is highlighted that the Térraba Indigenous Territory is formed by the single ethnic group TÉRRABA.\n\nIt is not omitted to note that by means of DE N° 16569-G, published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial La Gaceta) N° 191 of October 8, 1985, and subsequently by means of DE N° 20645-G, published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial La Gaceta) N° 168 of September 5, 1991, ARTICLE 6 of the original decree partially transcribed above was modified, in that the first decree started from 08 ethnic groups and peoples, ultimately consolidating the EIGHT ETHNIC GROUPS, but now under 22 Territories inhabited by them; and we add that there are currently 24 Indigenous Territories throughout the length and breadth of the country.\n\nIt is noted that in the three cited decrees, from the first to the last, it is always indicated that the Térraba ethnicity has only one Territory; and for this reason we reiterate Article 5 of the original decree, which remains in force and is part of the block of legality; in which it is clearly established that:\n\n“Article 5—Regarding the administration of the Reserves, each Indigenous Reserve constitutes a single indigenous community, administered by its Integral Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral), which is the representative body of each community and acts as the local government of each Indigenous Reserve” (highlighting and underlining has been supplied).\n\nOn this matter, we must also express that (due to preceding ideological issues, it has been intended, and to some extent, by violating the block of legality, they have achieved it), at all costs there has been an attempt to impose the idea that in the Térraba Indigenous Territory there exist two ethnic groups, namely THE TÉRRABA AND THE BRÖRÁN; and therefore, as the ADII of Térraba, and let this be on record in the income records of this Honorable Chamber, we have had to face dozens of appeals, for one reason or another; with the veiled purpose of establishing that they, the self-styled Brörán, are the legitimate representatives of the Térraba Indigenous Territory. We will return to this topic later.\n\nHonorable Justices: we do not hide from you that we are reaching the edge of desperation, and if this Chamber does not take legitimate measures, we do not know where this attempt to diminish our authority will end: the indicated decrees and extensive jurisprudence of this Chamber have indicated that the ADII is the entity with governance within the respective Indigenous Territory, and the cited decrees express, with crystal clarity, that in the Térraba Indigenous Territory ONLY THE TÉRRABA ETHNICITY EXISTS.\n\nEven more so, Honorable Justices: if one reads the cited decrees, one observes how, even if an ethnicity has several territories, instructions are given so that they have a single ethnicity regulation, valid for all; and all with the clear purpose of maintaining THE UNITY OF THE ETHNICITY.\n\nAnd that is precisely the great harm we are suffering in Térraba; that by giving relevance to these indigenous persons, who by nature are Térraba, but who, out of a desire to obtain power, define themselves as Brörán, they have succeeded in dividing the Territory into two groups (clearly with a majority of 90 to 10).\n\nThus, with their actions contrary to law, they have forcefully invaded more than 3 thousand hectares of our Territory, and on them they are cultivating and using the abuse that a few of the signatories are possessors of dozens of hectares, and since they do not produce them themselves, they are renting them for cattle grazing, cattle that are the property of non-indigenous persons; and they use the judicial institutions to remain in force and \"strutting\" (“sacando pecho”) in our Territory and intimidating a great number of indigenous people; and all this is due to the authorization, both tacit and express, to recognize them as an independent ethnicity.\n\nWith what has been stated, we are not saying that this group of people does not exist, but what has been repeatedly expressed to them is that they must integrate into the ADII and from there wage their struggles; but the response obtained is that they are the authentic ones and we, the vast majority, are not; and for this reason they have excluded themselves and invented the name Brörán to legitimize themselves; but what they have achieved is to divide us as a people, and hence these senseless struggles.\n\nSECOND: REGARDING THE WATER CONCESSION (CONCESIÓN DE AGUAS): As part of the dogmatism that characterizes them, the appellants, from their self-styled Brörán group, which, as stated, seized a large part of the Territory by de facto means and under violence, have the irreverence to claim that they are the ones who can decide who is or is not a Térraba indigenous person; and for this reason, they deny that condition to Mrs. [Name 010].\n\nThe issue of water is one that belongs to the sovereignty of the Costa Rican State; thus, Art.\n\n6 of our Political Constitution; and the use thereof is regulated by the Water Law, No. 276 of August 25, 1942.\n\nThus, the only thing our Board of Directors has done is to grant approval so that a person who is a member of our community and who inhabits our Territory, in an area where the public potable water service DOES NOT EXIST, may have access to that resource which, furthermore, is a human and fundamental right; and this Honorable Chamber has repeatedly declared so regarding that right and, we add, without water there is no life.\n\nContrary to what the appellants state, regarding criminal complaints against our ADII, the Criminal Court of this jurisdiction has admitted complaints for water usurpation (usurpación de aguas) and against some members of our population, who have been accused by the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) itself; because water is taken from various places without having obtained the respective concession (concesión); and this ADII understands that we are subject to national legality and that by the fact of being indigenous we do not have privileges that differentiate us from the rest of the national population; on the contrary, all the effort of Convention No. 169 is so that we are not negatively discriminated against; but it is equally true that we should not do so ourselves.\n\nIn the appeal they state that “... They allege that from that water source (fuente hídrica) around nine indigenous families belonging to the Community of Crun Shurin obtain water...”, which is a factual confession that they are violating legality, since the fact of being indigenous does not exempt us from the obligation to process a concession (concesión) to have a right to the use of water; because the waters, the highways or roads, the forests, etc., belong to the Costa Rican State, as administrator for the benefit of the common good.\n\nWith the foregoing, we are not saying that this group of people does not exist, but what has been repeatedly expressed to them is that they should integrate into the ADII and from there wage their struggles; but the response obtained is that they are the authentic ones and we, the vast majority, are not; and for this reason they have self-excluded and invented the name Brörán to legitimize themselves; but what they have achieved is to divide us as a people and hence these senseless struggles.\n\nSECOND: REGARDING THE WATER CONCESSION (CONCESIÓN DE AGUAS): As part of the dogmatism that characterizes them; the appellants, from their self-styled Brörán group, which, as stated, seized a large part of the Territory through de facto means and under violence; have the irreverence to affirm that they are the ones who can decide who is or is not Térraba indigenous; and therefore they deny that condition to Mrs. [Name 010].\n\nThe issue of water is one that belongs to the sovereignty of the Costa Rican State; thus art. 6 of our Political Constitution; and the use thereof is regulated by the Water Law, No. 276 of August 25, 1942.\n\nThus, the only thing our Board of Directors has done is to grant approval so that a person who is a member of our community and who inhabits our Territory, in an area where the public potable water service DOES NOT EXIST, may have access to that resource which, furthermore, is a human and fundamental right; and this Honorable Chamber has repeatedly declared so regarding that right and, we add, without water there is no life.\n\nContrary to what the appellants state, regarding criminal complaints against our ADII, the Criminal Court of this jurisdiction has admitted complaints for water usurpation (usurpación de aguas) and against some members of our population, who have been accused by the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) itself; because water is taken from various places without having obtained the respective concession (concesión); and this ADII understands that we are subject to national legality and that by the fact of being indigenous we do not have privileges that differentiate us from the rest of the national population; on the contrary, all the effort of Convention No. 169 is so that we are not negatively discriminated against; but it is equally true that we should not do so ourselves.\n\nIn the appeal they state that “... They allege that from that water source (fuente hídrica) around nine indigenous families belonging to the Community of Crun Shurin obtain water...”, which is a factual confession that they are violating legality, since the fact of being indigenous does not exempt us from the obligation to process a concession (concesión) to have a right to the use of water; because the waters, the highways or roads, the forests, etc., belong to the Costa Rican State, as administrator for the benefit of the common good.\n\nAnother matter, which is not our concern, is the processing before the Water Office: they have their own governing norms and we are certain that they know how to apply them in accordance with the principle of legality.\n\nTHIRD: THE CASE OF [Name 010] AND THE DATABASE: The appellants make an erroneous reading of the decree called DATABASE: this exists to legitimize which indigenous persons have the right to receive benefits from the Costa Rican State, understood in a broad sense; but it cannot, nor should it, limit us as an indigenous people in our internal governance. Of course, the Brörán want to place us within the straitjacket of that decree; but it is very clear about its scope.\n\nOur Térraba elders have extended recognition to Mrs. [Name 010] as an indigenous Térraba person and we, as the ADII, respect it and act accordingly.\n\nIt is another thing that they, the self-styled Brörán, believe they are the ones who have the right to determine it and, in this regard, it is appropriate to cite the content of DE No. 21475-G, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 23 of February 3, 1993; which in what interests us states:\n\n“Article 1- Establish the ‘Indigenous Ethnic Councils’ (Consejos Étnicos Indígenas), as consultative and coordinating sociocultural bodies among the different Indigenous Reserves belonging to the same indigenous ethnic group.\n\nArticle 2- The Ethnic Councils shall be established in the event that there exists a minimum of two distinct Indigenous Reserves of the same ethnicity, in accordance with decree No. 20645-G of August 5, 1991; whereby 5 Ethnic Councils shall be created, corresponding to the Bribrí, Cabécar, Guaymí, Huetar, and Brunka Ethnicities.\n\nIn the case where an ethnicity occupies a single Reserve (Térraba, Matambú, Guatuso), no Ethnic Council shall be created; the Integral Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral) of said Reserves shall simultaneously assume the cultural functions and activities aimed at maintaining the identity of these indigenous groups.\n\nArticle 3- The Ethnic Councils may not invade the competencies or attributions of the local governments of the Reserves (Integral Development Association); they are cultural, consultative, and coordinating bodies and shall fundamentally concern themselves with maintaining the cohesion of their respective ethnic group, through cultural activities.\n\nAny eventual action by the Ethnic Councils (Consejos Étnicos) in the Reserves shall be carried out through the local Comprehensive Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral), respecting their autonomy...\" (emphasis added).\n\nTo put it as we say around here: \"it doesn't get any clearer than that.\"\n\nBut the opposite is what we are experiencing in our Territory: self-identifying as Brörán, and thereby receiving support from some sectors of the Government of the Republic, in multiple institutions; they, the Brörán, have invaded the competences belonging to this ADII; forgetting that the Indigenous Ethnic Councils (Consejos Étnicos Indígenas) have been inspired by the principle of UNITY/COHESION; and the opposite is what we live in Térraba.\n\nFOURTH: REGARDING THE APPROVAL TO OBTAIN A WATER CONCESSION (CONCESIÓN DE AGUA): It is true that my represented party granted the approval for obtaining a water concession right, in favor of Mrs. [Name 010] and this was not an unmeditated act; on the contrary, we weighed that the property now in the hands of Mrs. [Name 010] has been possessed for more than 50 years by the family nucleus from which Mrs. Angy comes and that upon its transfer to her, in practical reality, the Territory recovered, by peaceful legal means, such portion of land and thus our authority was extended.\n\nIn addition to the above, water is a right without which humanity would not exist, and the Costa Rican State has not supplied potable water in the hamlet of Paso Real, the place where the benefited property is located, and therefore, the interested parties must resort to the possibilities offered by the legal framework (bloque de legalidad), in order to satisfy a fundamental right.\n\nFIFTH: REGARDING THE ALLEGED CONSULTATION OF THE CRUN SHURIN PEOPLE: If our local government had to be consulting every time it gives an approval to obtain rights such as potable water service, whether via concession (concesión) or public service; or electricity, internet, education, farm development investment, etc., etc.; then we would be an anarchy and not a democratic government; without failing to state that the matter in question does not impact the community in general; while again mentioning that the water belongs to the Costa Rican State.\n\nDespite what has been claimed and the response provided above, it is relevant to have in view Article 6.1 of ILO Convention No. 169:\n\n\"ARTICLE 6.- 1.- In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall: a) Consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to ... administrative measures which may affect them directly;...\" (emphasis added).\n\nAnd what the legislation on the matter provides, in compliance with the principle of legality, is that, prior to processing a water concession (concesión de agua) within an Indigenous Territory, the ADII must give its approval; and as the local government, knowing the reality of the case and the circumstances in which the respective petition is immersed, the Board of Directors I preside over made the decision to grant the respective approval; that is, the consultation was fulfilled through the representation exercised by the ADII I preside over.\n\nBASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE FILED APPEAL BE DECLARED WITHOUT MERIT AND RESPONSE TO WHICH WE HAVE PROVIDED BY MEANS OF THIS BRIEF; BUT A SPECIAL PETITION IS MADE TO CLARIFY TO THE APPELLANTS EVERYTHING THAT THE INVOKED LEGAL FRAMEWORK (BLOQUE DE LEGALIDAD) IMPLIES\".\n\n5.- In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Purpose of the appeal. The appellant party points out that the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) of MINAE is processing a water use concession (concesión de aprovechamiento de agua) located within the Indigenous Territory of Térraba, specifically at a spring (naciente) that is part of the collective land of the Brörán People and upon which several families of the community of Crun Shurín depend. It indicates that the person requesting said concession (concesión) does not belong to that indigenous people, despite which various applications have been processed until one under file no. 27127-A was admitted. It argues that the administrative process has been carried out without a process of prior, free, and informed consultation with the Brörán People having been conducted, even though the authority was aware that the water source is located in indigenous territory. It maintains that said omission persisted at all stages of the procedure, including the admission of the application, the publication of the edict, the technical inspection, and the legal review, which has allowed the file to advance toward a final resolution without guaranteeing the participation of the affected communities. It states that the absence of said consultation process violates the collective rights of the indigenous people over their natural resources, by allowing the eventual disposal of a water source within their territory without their consent.\n\nII.- Regarding the admissibility of amparo appeals against subjects of private law. Due to its exceptional nature, the processing of amparo appeals against subjects of private law requires examining beforehand whether, in the specific case, it falls under one of the assumptions that make it admissible according to the precepts of Article 57 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), in order to subsequently, if so, determine whether it is estimable. Thus, the aforementioned numeral establishes that the amparo appeal shall proceed against actions or omissions of subjects of private law, when these act or must act in the exercise of public functions or powers, or are, de jure or de facto, in a position of power against which the common jurisdictional remedies are clearly insufficient or untimely to guarantee the fundamental rights or freedoms referred to in Article 2, subsection a) of the same Law. In the present case, if the claims of the protected party are true, the ADI of the Indigenous Reserve of Térraba could be in a position of power against which the common jurisdictional remedies could prove insufficient to guarantee effective protection of the claimed fundamental rights. Consequently, this appeal is admissible for analysis by this Court.\n\nIII. Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated, either because they have been so accredited or because the respondent party has omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:\n\na) Mrs. [Name 010] filed before the Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua) of MINAE several concession (concesión) applications for the use of surface water from an unnamed spring (naciente) located on the property registered under real folio 145313-000, in the Potrero Grande district of the canton of Buenos Aires, province of Puntarenas, within the Indigenous Territory of Térraba under file no. 27127-A (see the evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nb) On July 7, 2025, the Board of Directors of the ADI of the Reserva Indígena de Térraba de Buenos Aires granted \"Approval for water concession (concesión de agua) processing\" in favor of [Nombre 010], to carry out the necessary procedures to obtain a water concession (concesión de agua) within the Territorio Indígena de Térraba, in the community of Paso Real de Buenos Aires (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nc) On July 9, 2025, [Nombre 012], an official of the Térraba-Pacífico Sur Hydrological Unit of the MINAE Water Directorate, conducted a technical inspection at the spring (naciente) that is the subject of administrative file no. 27127-A (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nd) On August 7, 2025, administrative procedure no. 202504112, initiated by [Nombre 010] to obtain a surface water concession (concesión de agua superficial), was not admitted (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\ne) On September 19, 2025, the Térraba-Pacífico Sur Hydrological Unit of the MINAE Water Directorate notified [Nombre 010] that they must cease the water use carried out in the Territorio Indígena de Térraba (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nf) On October 2, 2025, administrative procedure no. 20250562, filed by [Nombre 010] to obtain a surface water concession (concesión de agua superficial), was archived (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\ng) On an unspecified date, [Nombre 010] again filed an application for a concession (concesión) for the use of surface water from the Nameless Spring (Naciente sin Nombre) before the MINAE Water Directorate, which was processed under no. 202505744 (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nh) On October 16, 2025, the ADI of the Reserva Indígena de Térraba de Buenos Aires authorized [Nombre 010] to request the concession (concesión) for the use of surface water from the Nameless Spring (Naciente sin Nombre), for the purpose of taking a flow rate of 0.04 liters per second, to be used on the property recorded under folio real 6-145313-000, located in the Potrero Grande district, canton of Buenos Aires, Province of Puntarenas, for domestic and tourism consumption, with the water intake (captación) being carried out on property belonging to the respondent ADI (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\ni) The MINAE Water Directorate admitted administrative procedure no. 202505744, processed under administrative file no. 27127-A, initiated by [Nombre 010] to obtain a concession (concesión) for the use of surface water from a nameless spring (naciente sin nombre) located in the Territorio Indígena de Térraba (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nj) On October 23, 2025, the edict corresponding to administrative file no. 27127-A was published in La Gaceta no. 199 (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nk) On November 7, 2025, by means of technical report no. DA-UHTPSOZ-1569-2025, the Térraba-Pacífico Sur Hydrological Unit recommended granting a concession (concesión) of 0.04 liters per second from a nameless spring (naciente sin nombre) located on the property recorded under folio real 145313-000, in the Potrero Grande district of Buenos Aires, Puntarenas (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nl) On November 11, 2025, the Térraba-Pacífico Sur Hydrological Unit referred administrative file no. 27127-A to the MINAE Legal Directorate via official letter no. DA-UHTPSOZ-1600-2025, for the preparation of the final concession (concesión) resolution (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nm) On January 23, 2026, by means of resolution no. R-0222-2026-AGUAS-MINAE, the MINAE Water Directorate granted [Nombre 010] a concession (concesión) to use a flow rate of 0.04 liters per second from a nameless spring (naciente sin nombre), for domestic and tourism use, on the property recorded under folio real 145313-000, located in Potrero Grande de Buenos Aires, Puntarenas, with the water intake (captación) being carried out on property belonging to the ADI of the Reserva Indígena de Térraba de Buenos Aires (see evidence provided in the digital file).\n\nIV.- On the specific case. The appellant claims that the MINAE Water Directorate processed and granted a surface water use concession (concesión de aprovechamiento de agua superficial) within the Territorio Indígena de Térraba without having conducted a process of prior, free, and informed consultation with the Brörán People. They maintain that, despite the administrative authority knowing that the spring (naciente) is located within indigenous territory, the procedure advanced to the issuance of the final resolution without guaranteeing the participation of the affected communities. Likewise, they question that the ADI of the Reserva Indígena de Térraba de Buenos Aires granted the corresponding approval in favor of [Nombre 010].\n\nFirst, it is appropriate to cite what this Chamber resolved in ruling no. 2005-06856, issued at 10:02 a.m. on June 1, 2005, within a constitutional complaint (acción de inconstitucionalidad) related to the judicial representation of indigenous communities and the role of the Integral Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral, ADI) as representative bodies of said territories. On that occasion, this Court developed the legal scope of the ADIs within the framework provided in the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena), its regulations, and ILO Convention 169, and pointed out, as it is relevant, the following:\n\n\"IV.- The Integral Development Associations of the Indigenous Reserves as representative bodies of the indigenous people.\n\nThere is thus an obligation derived from Constitutional Law to respect indigenous institutions. Now then, Indigenous Law number 6172 of November 29, nineteen ninety-seven, states, regarding the merits of the matter, the following:\n\n\"Article 2.- Indigenous communities have full legal capacity to acquire rights and contract obligations of all kinds.\n\nThey are not state entities.The reserves mentioned in Article 1 of this law are declared the property of the indigenous communities.
The Procuraduría General de la República shall register these reserves in the Public Registry in the name of the respective indigenous communities.
The reserves shall be registered free of all encumbrances. The transfers from the State to the indigenous communities shall be gratuitous, shall not pay Registry fees, and shall be exempt from all other types of tax burdens in accordance with the terms established in the Law of CONAI.
Article 3°- The indigenous reserves are inalienable and imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them. Non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or farms included within these reserves. Indigenous persons may only negotiate their lands with other indigenous persons. Any transfer or negotiation of lands or improvements thereon in the indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null, with the legal consequences of the case. The lands and their improvements and the products of the indigenous reserves shall be exempt from all kinds of national or municipal taxes, present or future.”
Regarding the establishment of a community structure, the same legal body states:
“Article 4°.- The reserves shall be governed by the indigenous people in their traditional community structures or by the laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advice of CONAI.
The population of each of the reserves constitutes a single community administered by a Board of Directors representing the entire population; auxiliary committees shall depend on the main board if the geographical extent warrants it”
Regarding indigenous property, Articles 8° and 9° provide:
“Article 8°.-ITCO, in coordination with CONAI, shall be the entity responsible for carrying out the territorial demarcation (demarcación territorial) of the indigenous reserves, in accordance with the legally established limits”.
Article 9°.- The lands belonging to ITCO included in the demarcation of the indigenous reserves, and the Reserves of Boruca-Térraba, Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra, must be ceded by that institution to the indigenous communities”
For their part, Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Decreto Ejecutivo No. 848-G of April twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred seventy-eight, Regulation to the Indigenous Law, state:
\"Article 3.- For the exercise of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations referred to in Article 2 of the Indigenous Law, the Indigenous Communities shall adopt the form of organization provided for in Law No. 3859 of the Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad and its Regulation
Article 4.- The Presidents of the respective Indigenous Development Associations, legally registered, and with the powers of general agents thereof, shall appear before the Procuraduría General de la República for the granting of the deed and registration in the Public Registry of the Reserves in the name of the respective Indigenous Communities.
Article 5.- The traditional community structures referred to in Article 4 of the Law shall operate within the respective Communities; and the Development Associations, once legally registered, shall represent said Communities judicially and extrajudicially.”
Furthermore, the Decreto Ejecutivo No. 13568-C-G of April thirtieth, nineteen hundred eighty-two, “Legal representation of indigenous communities by development associations and as local government”, states that the Integral Development Associations have the legal representation of the Indigenous Communities and act as their local government.
The Law on Community Development No. 3859, in Chapter III “Of the Community Development Associations”, Articles 14 and 16 provides:
“Article 14.- The constitution and functioning of Associations for Community Development are declared of public interest, as a means of encouraging populations to organize themselves to fight alongside State bodies for the economic and social development of the country“
Article 15 (...)
Article 16.- To constitute Integral Development Associations, it shall be necessary for at least one hundred persons, and no more than one thousand five hundred, over fifteen years of age, interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and social and cultural progress of a determined area of the country, to assemble.
\n\nThe jurisdictional area of a Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo) shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural foundation of community grouping.\n\nIn exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of Development Associations composed of a number lower or higher than that indicated above.\n\nIn no case may Associations be created with a number of persons fewer than twenty-five.”\n\nArticle 28 states:\n\n“Article 28.- Registration in the Registry authorizes the association to operate and grants it full legal personality (personería jurídica). Such legal personality may be accredited before administrative and judicial bodies by means of the resolution that approved the bylaws and ordered the registration, published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial), or by means of a certification of said registration issued by the aforementioned Registry.”\n\nIn judgment number 2002-02623 at fourteen hours forty-one minutes on March thirteenth, two thousand two, this Court indicated that it is not unconstitutional to establish that indigenous communities must adopt the organizational form of Community Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal) for the exercise of the rights contained in the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena), since what is done is to specify the type of community organization referred to by the Law, which is the legal form of organization closest to traditional indigenous structures and, furthermore, it is optional for the members of those communities to join or not join that type of organization:\n\n“...from a simple reading of the provisions of the Indigenous Law that have been transcribed, it is extracted that it is the Law –not the regulation– that establishes community property and organization. The second paragraph of numeral 2 regulates that community property by stating: ‘...Declare the reserves mentioned in Article 1 of this law to be the property of the indigenous communities...’. Regarding organization, the same normative body establishes that ‘...the reserves shall be governed by the indigenous peoples in their traditional community structures or by the Laws of the Republic that govern them, under the coordination and advisory of CONAI’ (the highlighting is not from the original). Now then, it is the Law on Community Development (Ley Sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad) (No. 3859) that regulates Community Development Associations and Article 3 of the Regulation to the Indigenous Law being challenged has done no more than specify the type of organization that responds to the bases established by the legislator in the Indigenous Law that serves as its framework, which also conforms to Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization, insofar as it materializes the State's obligation to ensure that indigenous communities adopt a legal organization in accordance with their traditions, which allows them to exercise the rights and obligations that the law recognizes. It should not be lost sight of that the Community Development Association –more than any other legal figure– is the one that most closely resembles the community nature of the traditional indigenous organization; additionally, this type of legal structure allows this sector of the population to enjoy special benefits (Article 19 of Law 3859) that they would not enjoy with another type of legal structuring –for instance, receiving services, donations, grants, and annual transfers of money, both from the State and from its institutions–, which entails, of course, the ordinary control of those public resources.”\n\nIn judgment 1997-03886 at eleven hours thirty-three minutes on July fourth, nineteen ninety-seven, it had already been indicated that based on Convention 169 of the ILO approved by Law number 7316 of November third, nineteen ninety-two, governments shall consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever legislative or administrative measures likely to directly affect the peoples concerned are contemplated. Specifically, it was pointed out that in that case (agreement of the Board of Directors of the Agrarian Development Institute that decided to eliminate forest guard positions) a consultation should have been conducted “...through the corresponding Comprehensive Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral), since in accordance with the provisions of Executive Decree No. 8487-G of April 26, 1978 (whose Article 3 is currently questioned on grounds of unconstitutionality), these entities are responsible for representing indigenous communities judicially and extrajudicially, so that, in the current state of the legal system, they qualify as ‘representative institutions’ of the inhabitants of the reserves.” More recently, in judgment number 2004-02074 at ten hours fifty-four minutes on February twenty-seventh, two thousand four, it is stated that “...although the organization of indigenous communities through comprehensive development associations does not entirely satisfy the ideal of self-government of these groups through their own forms of organization (judgment 3003-92 at 11:30 hours on October 7, 1992), it is the legal form that has been used so far as an instrument to try to achieve that objective.” It can be deduced from the foregoing, therefore, that this Court has found it appropriate under Constitutional Law for the legislation to contemplate comprehensive development associations as the representative entities of indigenous communities.”\n\n2025037513 at 09:20 hours on November 14, 2025, issued in a matter related to membership in the database of the Térraba/Brörán ethnic group and the limits of this jurisdiction's intervention in internal conflicts of indigenous organization and self-determination, this Chamber resolved the following:\n\n***“VI. Analysis on the merits.*** *The appellant argues that her exclusion from the database of the Térraba indigenous ethnic group violates her fundamental rights, as she claims to have been recognized by the Consejo de Mayores Térraba and that the subsequent objection by the Consejo de Mayores Brörán lacks legitimate basis. She contends that this decision prevents her from accessing benefits and guarantees related to her indigenous identity and requests that this jurisdiction order her reinstatement and restore the effects associated with said registration.*\n\n*To address this argument, it is necessary to begin with the normative and organizational framework governing the determination of membership in the Térraba/Brörán indigenous people. It is duly proven that the reference database is the result of a process driven by community authorities with institutional technical accompaniment, within which a specific mechanism for incorporations or exclusions was established: the joint decision of two traditional bodies, identified as the Consejo de Mayores Térraba and the Consejo de Mayores Brörán. That rule, arising from a participatory process documented in the case file, serves the purpose of maintaining the internal legitimacy of the registry and preventing the definition of who belongs to the indigenous people from being unilaterally transferred to external or exclusively administrative bodies.*\n\n*In that procedural context, the request for incorporation of the protected party was initially supported by the Consejo de Mayores Térraba and, based on that, a provisional certification was issued. However, the Consejo de Mayores Brörán subsequently expressed its formal and express opposition to said incorporation. According to the current community mechanism – which requires consensus between both traditional bodies – that dissent prevented the consolidation of the registration. Consequently, the administrative authority proceeded to annul the initial certification. From this sequence, it follows that the State action did not stem from an autonomous criterion of identity assessment, but rather from the technical application of the indigenous procedure previously agreed upon and institutionally recognized.*\n\n*Based on the foregoing, the constitutional review cannot be directed at determining who is right in the internal community sphere, nor at defining which council should prevail. On the contrary, it must focus on verifying whether the State acted with respect for the community rules and without arbitrariness. In this specific case, the State action was limited to executing the agreed indigenous procedure, without substituting or contradicting the cultural authorities called to decide. Therefore, no abusive exercise of public power is observed, but rather compliance with the customary decision-making scheme in force in the territory.*\n\n*Furthermore, this Court has been clear in defining the scope of its intervention in these situations. In judgment No. 2010-010224, it was reaffirmed that, in accordance with the traditions of the Térraba people, the determination of indigenous belonging historically falls to the elders of the community, as custodians of collective memory and genealogical knowledge. Likewise, in resolution No. 2018-003488, it was specified that it is not for this constitutional jurisdiction to review the internal processes preceding the determination of who makes up the community structures, as this is a manifestation of indigenous organizational autonomy, linked to customary law (derecho propio) and the principle of self-determination.*\n\n*Similarly, in resolution No. 2020-003061 – promoted, precisely, by the same claimant – this Court held that the indigenous database is governed by the rule of consensus between the councils of elders and that the amparo remedy does not constitute the means to order direct inclusion when that requirement has not been met. This precedent is fully applicable to the sub lite case, as it confirms that the constitutional review is limited to verifying that the State respects the indigenous procedure, without substituting the judgment of the traditional authorities or imposing an alternative decision on ethnic identity.*\n\n*Thus, constitutional jurisprudence has reiterated that the role of this Chamber does not consist of deciding who is indigenous or of substituting the people's own forms of internal decision-making. On the contrary, its function is to verify that the State respects those procedures and that their execution does not result in arbitrariness. In this specific case, that standard is met: the contested exclusion does not arise from an isolated State action, but from the lack of consensus among the traditional authorities called to decide according to the prevailing customary rules.*\n\n*In this framework, the cultural expert opinion rendered in the proceedings, while providing relevant inputs to understand the organizational evolution of the territory and the existing internal tensions, cannot become the parameter for defining indigenous belonging. If that function were accepted, the power to validate the composition of the group would be transferred to the State, a situation incompatible with the constitutional and conventional recognition of the self-determination of indigenous peoples and their right to maintain their own representative institutions. The judicial function, consequently, cannot extend to substituting customary identity decisions by means of external technical instruments, however rigorous they may be.*\n\n*Certainly, this Court does not overlook the fact that membership in the indigenous database generates relevant effects on access to collective rights and public programs. However, the protection of those guarantees cannot be achieved through the judicial alteration of the community procedure or the substitution of customary law (derecho propio). The constitutional avenue cannot become a mechanism for resolving internal controversies between traditional bodies either, as that would entail displacing the decision-making capacity of the members of the indigenous people and eroding their self-government structure.*\n\n*In these circumstances, the claimant retains the possibility of managing, in the corresponding community sphere, the reconsideration of her situation or of resorting to ordinary channels to air specific claims that may eventually be linked to access to public benefits.*\n\nNevertheless, in this process, no constitutional injury attributable to the respondents is verified, given that their actions were limited to executing the agreed-upon indigenous procedure, without deviation, arbitrariness, or substitution of customary authority.\n\nConsequently, no infringement of the fundamental rights alleged is observed, and the appropriate course is to declare the amparo action without merit, as is hereby ordered.”\n\nSimilarly, in judgment no. 2026005199 of 09:34 hours on February 13, 2026, issued on the occasion of a claim related to the granting of commercial patents within the Indigenous Territory of Térraba with the endorsement of the respective ADI, this Court reiterated that controversies regarding the legitimacy of such endorsements, as well as indigenous belonging and community representation, exceed the summary nature of the amparo proceeding. On that occasion, the following was stated:\n\n“III.- Regarding the specific case. The petitioner argues that the Municipality of Buenos Aires de Puntarenas, with the improper endorsement of the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena de Térraba, granted a commercial patent to a non-indigenous person to operate a bar–restaurant within the Indigenous Territory of Térraba, arrogating authority and disregarding the legal restrictions in force. They assert that said action violates the regulations protecting the autonomy and exclusive use of the indigenous territory, as well as their rights as members of the community and their ancestral authority, and therefore request the corresponding constitutional protection.\n\nOn this matter, it is appropriate to note that this Constitutional Court has ruled on similar claims. By way of example, in judgment no. 2025-041952 of 09:30 hours on December 19, 2025, the following was resolved:\n\n“I.- OBJECT OF THE ACTION. The petitioner states that he is a member of the Bröran Council of Elders. He alleges that the president of the respondent ADI has granted land-use permits to persons who are not in the database of the Térraba Bröran ethnic group, so that the Municipality of Buenos Aires would issue them commercial establishment patents within the territory. He states that the permits granted are the following: 'At Dirección5646 the man, Nombre88604 cd Telf6673, in San Antonio de Térraba Nombre88605 cd 1-0787-0826 and Nombre88606 cd Telf6672 and also Nombre88606 cd 6-0417-0788 has another pulpería business at Dirección5647 this Nombre88607 cd Telf6675, there is also the Súper Calderón de Muñoz Zeledón Katerina Melissa cd 7-0222-0669 in Ceibón de Térraba Roger Vargas Cascante cd 1-1104-0542 and in Vijagual de Térraba this Nombre88608 cd Telf6676'. He reiterates that these persons are not registered in the aforementioned database, and therefore should not have this type of permits. He requests that the respondents be ordered to cancel the patents and permits granted.\n\nII. PROVEN FACTS. Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been so accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them, as provided in the initial order:\n\nSingle: On unspecified dates, the Patents Department of the Municipality of Buenos Aires granted the individuals indicated by the petitioner commercial patents; however, in all cases, the prior endorsement of the respondent ADI was obtained. (Report of the respondent municipality).\n\nIII.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE. In the sub lite, the petitioner states that he is a member of the Bröran Council of Elders. He alleges that the president of the respondent ADI has granted land-use permits to persons who are not in the database of the Térraba Bröran ethnic group, so that the Municipality of Buenos Aires would issue them commercial establishment patents within the territory. He states that the permits granted are the following: 'At Dirección5646 the man, Nombre88604 cd Telf6673, in San Antonio de Térraba Nombre88605 cd 1-0787-0826 and Nombre88606 cd Telf6672 and also Nombre88606 cd 6-0417-0788 has another pulpería business at Dirección5647 this Nombre88607 cd Telf6675, there is also the Súper Calderón de Muñoz Zeledón Katerina Melissa cd 7-0222-0669 in Ceibón de Térraba Roger Vargas Cascante cd 1-1104-0542 and in Vijagual de Térraba this Nombre88608 cd Telf6676'. He reiterates that these persons are not registered in the aforementioned database, and therefore should not have this type of permits. He requests that the respondents be ordered to cancel the patents and permits granted.\n\nFrom the study of the case file, it is proven that, on unspecified dates, the Patents Department of the Municipality of Buenos Aires granted the individuals indicated by the petitioner commercial patents; however, in all cases, the prior endorsement of the respondent ADI was obtained.\n\nOn this matter, it is appropriate to note that, as a matter of principle, it is not for this Chamber to determine whether a particular person meets or does not meet certain conditions for the granting of a commercial permit or patent. To that extent, it exceeds the summary nature of this amparo process to establish specifically whether the persons referred to by the petitioner may or may not engage in commercial activity in the indigenous territory in question, such that this Court is not competent to review the municipal patents and the endorsements granted by the ADI in each specific case.\n\nIn addition to this, it is important to emphasize that what is observed at its core is a conflict regarding the belonging of certain persons to the database of the Térraba Bröran ethnic group and the activities they may or may not carry out in that particular indigenous territory.\n\nIn that sense, although the claimant considers that persons not listed in said database cannot engage in the commercial activities in question, it is no less true that it was the ADI itself that granted the endorsement so that the respondent municipality could issue the respective permits and licenses; furthermore, the respondent argues that \"there is no recognition whatsoever in this territory of the Bröran ethnic designation; here we are Térraba or Teribe indigenous people.\"\n\nNow, regarding membership or non-membership in the database referred to by the appellant and the condition of being an indigenous person, this Chamber has stated:\n\n\"...it is necessary to bring up what was resolved by the Chamber in a similar matter concerning the database of persons of the Térraba Broran ethnic group; thus, in judgment no. 26087-2022 of 9:45 a.m. on November 4, 2022, in which it was indicated that it is not for the Chamber to 'determine whether a person is or is not indigenous, since, as stated in the precedent cited above, in respect for the self-determination of indigenous communities, particular value must be recognized to the criterion of the community's elders, who identify who are indigenous persons according to their customs and culture. Hence, the registry of the Térraba Ethnic Group Database is carried out by the Council of Elders of the community in conjunction with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and other public institutions. In addition to the foregoing, the appellant's claim exceeds the summary nature of the amparo, so any disagreement with this matter must be aired before the competent channels for such purposes (...)' (Judgment no. 2023000535 of 9:15 a.m. on January 13, 2023).\"\n\nThus, it is highlighted once again that the particular conditions of the persons indicated by the petitioner (whether or not they are indigenous, whether they must belong to the database in question, and whether they can engage in commercial activities) are aspects that exceed the nature of this proceeding and must therefore be discussed before the competent ordinary instances, through the breadth that characterizes the common judicial path.\n\nErgo, the appeal is dismissed...\"\n\nIn the sub lite, this Chamber finds no reason to vary the criterion set forth in the cited precedent, given that the complaint raised by the appellant substantially reproduces a disagreement aimed at having this Tribunal analyze the regularity of the endorsement issued by the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Indígena de Térraba and, correlatively, the validity of the administrative act by which the Municipality of Buenos Aires granted a business license for the operation of the questioned restaurant within the indigenous territory. Indeed, from the accredited factual framework, it is clear that the granting of said license had a prior authorization from the respective ADI and that the municipal action was carried out based on that endorsement, so that the claimants' petition necessarily leads to this constitutional jurisdiction examining whether the beneficiary person did or did not meet the conditions required to carry out the commercial activity in question and whether the ADI acted in accordance with the legal system when extending said authorization.\n\nHowever, as established in the transcribed precedent, it is not for this Chamber, through the summary proceeding of the amparo remedy, to determine whether a specific person meets or does not meet the requirements needed for the granting of a permit or business license, much less to review, on a case-by-case basis, the legality of the endorsements issued by an ADI and of the municipal administrative acts issued based on them, since that examination entails a detailed analysis of requirements, personal and community conditions, as well as legal assessments that exceed the cognitive scope inherent to this exceptional judicial path. Added to this is the fact that, in the present matter, the appellant's argument is closely linked to controversies regarding the recognition of indigenous status, membership or non-membership in certain community databases, and the legitimacy of the internal authorities that grant endorsements, aspects which, due to their factual and normative complexity, need to be resolved in the competent ordinary instances, which are equipped with the necessary evidentiary breadth for such purposes.\n\nUnder these circumstances, as in the invoked precedent, what underlies at the heart of the claim is not a direct and immediate injury to a fundamental right susceptible to protection in this venue, but rather a discrepancy with administrative actions whose eventual invalidity or impropriety must be discussed through the ordinary legal channels provided for that purpose. Consequently, as no constitutional violation is observed that would justify this Tribunal's intervention in the terms sought, and it being clear that the analysis requested exceeds the summary nature of the amparo, the proper course is to dismiss the appeal, upholding the criterion already sustained by this Chamber in similar cases.\"\n\nIn the sub examine, it is accredited that, prior to the granting of the questioned concession, the Water Directorate of MINAE verified that the ADI of the Reserva Indígena de Térraba de Buenos Aires had issued the corresponding approval within the administrative procedure followed for this purpose. Thus, although the appellant maintains that there was no prior, free, and informed consultation with the Brörán People, the fact is that the administrative procedure did include the prior intervention of the respondent ADI, a body which, according to the current regulatory framework, exercises the representation of the respective indigenous territory. Precisely, as this Chamber recognized in judgment no. 2005-06856 of 10:02 a.m. on June 1, 2005, the Comprehensive Development Associations constitute, in the current state of the legal system, the \"representative institutions\" of the indigenous communities and exercise their judicial and extrajudicial representation within the respective indigenous territories.\n\nUnder these circumstances, the disagreement raised is not properly directed against an absolute omission of participation within the concession procedure, but against the sufficiency and legitimacy of the endorsement granted by the respondent ADI and, particularly, against the representation that it exercises within the indigenous territory. However, as is clear from the cited precedents, it is not for this Chamber, through the summary proceeding of the amparo remedy, to resolve complex controversies related to the internal governance of the indigenous territory, the legitimacy of community authorities, or to determine whether the approval issued by the respondent ADI satisfies or not the expectations of certain groups or sectors of the community.\n\nLikewise, it exceeds the scope of this jurisdiction's knowledge to define which community structure holds the legitimate representation of the territory or whether a different group from the one that granted the required endorsement should have intervened within the corresponding administrative procedure.\n\nConsequently, since no direct and immediate injury to fundamental rights susceptible to protection in this forum has been demonstrated, but rather a disagreement regarding the scope and legitimacy of the participation exercised by the appellant ADI within the administrative procedure followed for the granting of the water concession (concesión de aguas), the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal.\n\n**V.- Documentation provided to the case file (expediente).** The parties are warned that, if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic nature or produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of thirty business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, 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 Session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe appeal is dismissed.\n\n
| Fernando Castillo V. Presidente |
| ||
Fernando Cruz C. |
|
| Jorge Araya G. | |
| ||||
| \n Address: San José, Avenidas 6 y 8, Calle 21 \nCourt of Appeals Building, I Circuit, First Floor \nPostal Code: 55-63-1000 / P.O. Box: 63-1000 \nE-mail: tramitecivil@costarica.cr \n | \n \n | \n Ingrid Hess H. \n | \n
\n
\n
Digitally Signed Document
\n-- Verification Code --
\n
\nWSGMZAYLLQA61
\nFILE NUMBER 26-010590-0007-CO
\n\n
Phones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).
\n| \n Address: San José, Avenidas 6 y 8, Calle 21 \nCourt of Appeals Building, I Circuit, First Floor \nPostal Code: 55-63-1000 / P.O. Box: 63-1000 \nE-mail: tramitecivil@costarica.cr \n | \n \n | \n Ingrid Hess H. \n | \n
\n
\n
Digitally Signed Document
\n-- Verification Code --
\n
\nWSGMZAYLLQA61
\nFILE NUMBER 26-010590-0007-CO
\n\n
Phones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).
\n