Acting President
Luis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.
Gilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.
Horacio González Q. Jorge Araya G.
\n\nanswers the hearing granted on page 41, stating that the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (Wildlife Conservation Law) number 7317 aims to regulate and rationally manage the use of wildlife, without detriment to it, in accordance with the challenged legal regulations, and that article 34 of the Ley de Conservación a la Vida Silvestre (Wildlife Conservation Law) gives the Executive Branch the power to establish closed seasons and types of weapons that may be used in the hunting and fishing regulated by law. Likewise, that article 16 of the Reglamento a la Ley de la Conservación a la Vida Silvestre (Regulation to the Wildlife Conservation Law) establishes that an annual Decreto Ejecutivo (Executive Decree) must be issued with the respective regulations, prohibiting the hunting or fishing of species not included in the lists of minor and major game species. It is precisely in accordance with that regulation that Decreto Ejecutivo 31737 MINAE is supported, which grants the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre (General Directorate of Wildlife) the power to plan, develop, and control continental or insular, aquatic, and terrestrial wildlife throughout the national territory, establishing procedures and requirements for its conservation, and also prohibiting the hunting, fishing, and extraction of continental or insular flora and fauna of endangered species, with the exception of sustainably conducted reproduction. It explains that the species included in Decreto Ejecutivo 31737-MINAE respond to a cultural pattern that has been maintained through time, and that despite the practice of hunting, populations are maintained in forest areas, being subject to hunting due to their reproductive potential. It states that although direct population censuses have not been conducted for most of these species, MINAE technicians have been able to determine the good condition of the populations through indirect methods such as sightings and hunter reports, whose sustainable use is permitted; nor is an exact count needed to conclude that some species, such as piches, collajera pigeons, purple pigeons, and some migratory species like the blue-winged teal (cerceta aliazul), white-winged dove (paloma ala blanca), and rice pigeon (paloma arrocera), constitute large populations, sometimes damaging crops like blackberry, sorghum, corn, and rice, precisely due to their high biotic potential (potencial biótico) that allows them to reproduce very quickly, producing multiple litters per year. It explains that controlled hunting when population peaks occur avoids much more harmful practices such as mass poisonings, which in turn often cause irreversible damage to other species, such as foxes, weasels, and birds of prey that die by the thousands from eating the poisoned meat. It is considered that the available habitat for the species authorized for hunting is assured, in a good proportion, by the National System of Conservation Areas declared by MINAE, as they occupy more than twenty-five percent of the national territory. To carry out a correct study, the only thing that can be obtained are population indices to assist in decision-making for wild species management, as not even developed countries have absolute population studies. Currently, two hundred thirty-nine species of mammals have been described in the country, of which twelve species are subject to controlled hunting, representing five percent of the total, which does not endanger the environment and ecological balance. Regarding birds, eight hundred forty species have been described, of which seventeen are subject to hunting, representing two percent of the total species in the country. One of the greatest threats and causes of greatest damage to wildlife species is illegal and furtive hunting by inhabitants surrounding these protected areas, as the number of authorized pieces and reproduction seasons are not respected, they hunt all types of animals, male or female, and use unauthorized methods. The species whose harvest has been permitted over the last thirty-five years or more through Closed Season Tables (Cuadros de Veda), which are adjusted when deemed necessary according to reproduction periods, have maintained their populations in relation to the available habitat, as occurs with pigeons, local and migratory ducks that have increased exponentially due to changes in agriculture, from the sowing of products such as sorghum, corn, rice, beans, etc. It emphasizes that in drafting the decrees, research conducted by experts at a private level and with national and foreign institutions was used. Likewise, the experience of officials in the biology field was used. It considers that a possible declaration of unconstitutionality of the mentioned articles would cause an excessive increase in illegal hunting, which would have a negative effect on wildlife species populations. In some countries, total bans have been declared, an action that has caused havoc in the natural populations of wild animals. It concludes by indicating that the implications of a declaration of unconstitutionality of articles 28 to 34 of the Law and 16 to 18 of the Reglamento de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (Regulation to the Wildlife Conservation Law) would bring inconvenient consequences, placing the country at the forefront of their conservation and management, as has unfortunately occurred in countries like India, Kenya, and Venezuela, which, with similar regulations, managed to tie the hands of Wildlife biologists, who could not stop the drastic decline of their wild animal populations. Therefore, if these articles are eliminated from the legal system, there would be a lack of adequate control over the practice of hunting and a census of those who practice it, as well as the obtaining of results of scientific interest. Another important point to consider is the existence of people who, due to their difficult economic situation, generally residents of areas far from the urban core of our country, use wild animal hunting as a means of obtaining cheap protein, and through these regulations, they have been able to be detected and appropriately regulated. Regarding article 11 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad (Biodiversity Law), there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the practice of sport hunting has caused damage to the wildlife species populations subject to this activity. It affirms that resolution 9.24 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora does not harm the pro natura principle, given that the animals whose controlled hunting is permitted do not threaten the conservation and survival of the species, especially since said regulation is only applicable to species that are subject to international trade. The Sala Constitucional (Constitutional Chamber) has understood the environment as a potential for development to be used appropriately, requiring integrated action in its natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relations; otherwise, its productivity would degrade for the present and the future and would put the heritage of future generations at risk. It requests that the filed action of unconstitutionality be declared without merit.\n\n**5.-** The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in Judicial Bulletins 219, 220, and 221 of November ninth, tenth, and eleventh, two thousand four, respectively (page 40).\n\n**6.-** Ruth Solano Vásquez, identity card CED11, Presidenta of the Asociación de Justicia para la Naturaleza, Luis Diego Marín Schumacher, Presidente of APREFLOFAS, Asociación Preservacionista de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, Ignacio Escorriola Giovannini, Fiscal of Vida, Asociación de Voluntariado, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental, Randall Arauz Vargas, Presidente of Pretoma, Asociación Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas, María Elena Founier, Presidenta of the Asociación Conservacionista Yisky, Noemí Canet Moya, Presidenta of the Colegio de Biólogos request to be considered as co-adjuvants to the appellants based on the provisions of article 34 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. They allege that, as organizations dedicated to promoting the protection and preservation of the environment, they have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the action. They state that the action of unconstitutionality promoted by the Defensoría de los Habitantes and the Fundación Restauración de la Naturaleza, regarding articles 28 to 34 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre # 7317 and articles 16 to 18 of the Regulation to this law, Decreto 26435-MINAE, as well as decree number 31737-MINAE, omit a series of legal, technical, and scientific procedures and requirements that violate the right of Costa Ricans to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. They argue that technical justification for authorizing sport hunting and establishing hunting quotas, the sustainability of the practice of sport hunting, and the impact of this activity on the involved species, other wild species, and the ecosystem, knowledge of the population status of the species permitted to be hunted, the number of individuals of each species that can be captured per hunting season, the permitted hunting zones, the permitted hunting methods, and the logistical and operational capacity of MINAE to supervise sport hunters have been set aside. They establish that MINAE does not require any type of sanitary control over the hunting dogs used for hunting, nor does it require any type of sanitary control over the birds used to hunt other birds. MINAE allows sport hunters to introduce domestic animals and wild animals into the free-living populations without requiring any type of sanitary control. They maintain that the practice of sport hunting harms the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, article 50 of the Constitución Política (Political Constitution), the protection of natural beauties, article 89 of the Constitución Política, as well as the Convention for the Protection of Flora, Fauna, and Natural Scenic Beauties of the Countries of America, ratified by Ley 3763; the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wild Areas in Central America, ratified in Ley # 7433; and the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Ley # 7416.\n\n**7.-** Luis Diego Acuña Delcore states that he proceeds to raise some additional considerations to what was stated by the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía that could be useful for the rejection of the action. He indicates that the plaintiffs do not provide solid evidentiary elements in support of their assertions that would legally allow for the application of the precautionary principle or of \"in dubio pro natura\" that would justify the declaration of unconstitutionality. It is not true that studies are not conducted when setting the regulatory policies for sport hunting. Despite the lack of resources that affects almost the entire Costa Rican Public Sector, and as a member thereof, the Environmental Administrative Authority, when including in the lists of species with threatened populations certain animals that are part of the national wild fauna, resident or migratory, and establishing the closed season tables, that Authority uses various perfectly valid tools utilized even at the international level, such as sightings and the experience of biologists, the experiences of park ranger officials. None of the few game animal species whose hunting is permitted by national legislation are included within the lists of species with reduced, seriously threatened, or endangered populations. Sport hunters constitute important and effective ad hoc guardians of wildlife, as they must ensure that suitable conditions for the survival of the animal species to be hunted are maintained.\n\n**8.-** Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, reports (page 157) that the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía is responsible for the sustained and sustainable management of natural resources in the country. The appellants intend for direct censuses to be conducted on the different species of ducks, pigeons, and fish that migrate to the country by the hundreds of thousands prior to their use, when the truth is that most of the time, the amount that actually reaches our coasts depends on climatic factors, the relative abundance of food on their migratory routes, and wind direction. He explains that the problem at the national level, both in the conservation of fauna and in the conservation of forests, is furtive hunting and uncontrolled logging, which would be aggravated by the intended declaration of unconstitutionality. He indicates that the discussion regarding the advisability of a total prohibition of hunting activity has been widely discussed in the country, and the Colegio de Biólogos of Costa Rica recommended that the activity should be maintained in a sustained manner. On the other hand, he affirms that hunting licenses cost between four thousand and twenty thousand colones depending on whether they are minor or major game licenses, money that is used for conservation and to help support the entire structure and management of wild animal populations. He argues that wildlife consists of vertebrate and invertebrate animals that live in natural conditions in the national territory; hence, it would be extended to continental fishing, and consequently, fishing would have to be prohibited throughout the national territory, since specific counts of fish in the rivers, lagoons, and estuaries existing in the country have not been made. He explains that Costa Rica is one of the most advanced countries in Latin America in the management of the conservation of its natural resources, due to the implementation of conservation programs. He says that preventive and precautionary criteria, as defined in article 11 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad, must be applied when biodiversity is threatened, not postponing the adoption of effective protection measures due to a lack of legal certainty. He requests that the action presented be rejected in its entirety.\n\n**9.-** On page 180, a brief appears filed by Nombre02, in which he reiterates that in Costa Rica, there are no scientific technical studies for the species whose capture is permitted under sport hunting.\n\n**10.-** By resolution of thirteen thirty-five hours on March second, two thousand five, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía in the resolution of thirteen forty hours on October twenty-ninth, two thousand four, are deemed answered. As untimely, the co-adjuvancy filed on page 87 by Ruth Solano Vásquez and Others is rejected. The statements by Mr. Luis Diego Acuña Delcore are deemed to have been made (pages 136 to 140).\n\n**11.-** On page 205, a brief is filed by Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, in which he states the difficulty of conducting an exact count of birds, for which he provides two photographs taken on the farm of Mr. Nombre03, who reports the problem caused by blue-winged teals and piches in rice and sorghum crops.\n\n**12.-** By brief filed on April sixth, two thousand five, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Echandi, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía (page 208), adds that the challenged regulations establish and regulate hunting and fishing for rational and sustainable use so as to guarantee the survival of the species. He comments that the \"Cuadro de Vedas\" (Closed Season Table) does not violate the precautionary and preventive principles established in the Constitución Política and International Treaties for having been issued without exact population censuses of the various species that live permanently or temporarily in the national territory. He affirms that there is no danger or threat to any elements of Costa Rican biodiversity, as the hunting authorization represents neither five percent of mammal species nor two percent of bird species in the country. He adds (page 225) that a total prohibition of sport hunting would result in enormous harm to the species intended to be protected and would violate the treaties and conventions signed by Costa Rica. He maintains that the Ley de la Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and the Ley de la Biodiversidad, international conventions, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, like the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the Convention on Biodiversity, agree on the sustainable use of natural resources, even allowing the export and import of endangered animals, provided they are Hunting Trophies for personal use, because of the incentive for Conservation that giving them value implies. Thus, despite the fact that the African White Rhinoceros population was less than two thousand specimens and was in CITES Appendix I when its hunting was permitted, it now numbers around fifteen thousand specimens, precisely because its conservation to harvest them as hunting trophies, which can be exported without problems to the country of origin of the hunter, is profitable. Thus, and regardless of the relative abundance or scarcity of the animal species whose hunting is permitted in the country—none of which, he repeats, have reduced populations, much less are in danger of extinction—and regardless of whether or not exact population censuses have been conducted to determine their number—a thing he reiterates is impossible to do neither here nor anywhere—what can be done to destroy the entire Costa Rican Conservation Area System is to prohibit the sustainable use of biodiversity.\n\n**13.-** On page 235, a brief appears filed by Nombre02, in which he provides a copy of the letter sent by several groups of volunteer inspectors from COVIRENA to the Ministro de Ambiente y Energía.\n\n**14.-** By resolution of thirteen thirty-five hours on March second, two thousand five, this action was assigned by the Presidency of the Chamber to Magistrate Luis Paulino Mora Mora.\n\n**15.-** The oral and public hearing is dispensed with as there are sufficient elements of judgment in the file to render a judgment (article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).\n\n**16.-** In the proceedings, the prescriptions of law have been fulfilled.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate **Mora Mora**; and,\n\n**Considering:**\n\n**I.- On admissibility:** The Defensoría de los Habitantes is directly legitimized to file this action of unconstitutionality by express provision of the third paragraph of article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. For its part, the standing of the plaintiff Nombre02 is active and direct, insofar as the State's duty to protect the environment safeguards a collective interest whose defense exempts the plaintiff from the prior matter required by the first paragraph of article 75 of the cited law, in accordance with the second paragraph of the same, as this Sala Constitucional has interpreted in abundant jurisprudence when analyzing article 50 of our Constitución Política.\n\n**II.- Object of the challenge.** This action aims to determine whether articles 28 to 35 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and 16 to 18 of its regulation, decree number 26435-MINAE, as well as decree number 31737-MINAE, are unconstitutional for being contrary to the provisions of articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution, and what is established by international treaties on the matter, signed, approved, and ratified by the Costa Rican state.\n\nThe arguments of the plaintiffs revolve around two aspects:\n\na) that hunting and fishing regulated in the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre and the regulations that develop it violate the constitutional principle that establishes the State's duty to protect and preserve life in all its forms, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the duty to protect natural beauties (articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution).\n\nLikewise, that this violates the provisions of the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America, Law No. 7433, and the principle contained in Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law (LB) No. 7788 of April 30, 1998.\n\nb) that the annual closed season decree, in this case Decree No. 31737-MINAE, was issued without the technical-environmental studies that guarantee its environmental viability, which constitutes a breach of the preventive and precautionary principles (principio preventivo y precautorio), established in Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law, as well as in the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).\n\nIt is clear from the filing brief of the action that both arguments refer, mainly, to sport hunting (cacería deportiva), although the regulations against which it was filed regulate, in addition to the latter, the exercise of scientific hunting (cacería científica) and subsistence hunting (cacería de subsistencia); in that sense, the action is deemed filed as to sport hunting only. Likewise, it should be clarified that of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre), only the articles regulating matters related to hunting were challenged, not those related to continental and insular fishing, whose regulation is contained in Articles 61 to 69 of the cited law.\n\nIII.- On the merits. The challenged articles of the Wildlife Conservation Law regulate matters related to the exercise of hunting, sport, scientific, and subsistence. They textually establish:\n\n\"ARTICLE 28.- With the objective of regulating the exercise of hunting, this is classified into:\n\na) Sport: when carried out for purposes of amusement, recreation, or leisure.\n\nb) Scientific: when carried out for scientific study purposes.\n\nc) Subsistence: when carried out to meet the food needs of persons of scarce economic resources, verified through the rules dictated by the Regulations to this Law.\"\n\nAs the Attorney General's Office rightly points out, the remaining articles establish the legal framework for the executive branch and the public environmental administration to regulate and exercise oversight and control powers in relation to the exercise of hunting in its three modalities. It is worth noting that the control and oversight of the hunting activity occurs through the granting of hunting licenses; in view of the foregoing, Article 29 of the Wildlife Conservation Law establishes the principle that hunting may only be practiced with the corresponding license, the issuance of which is the responsibility of the General Directorate of Wildlife (Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, DGVS) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), as established in Article 30 ibidem. It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to establish the closed seasons (vedas) and the type of weapons to be used in hunting, just as numeral 34 of the cited Law provides. Precisely, Decree 31737-MINAE, challenged in this action, is the decree through which the executive branch established the closed seasons for the year 2004.\n\nFor their part, numerals 16 to 18 of the regulations to the Wildlife Conservation Law, Decree No. 26435-MINAE, indicate the basic guidelines that the executive branch must follow in establishing the closed seasons that it annually establishes by decree. In this sense, it regulates matters related to authorized hunting methods and, specifically, matters related to the type of weapons that may be used. These provisions come to be complemented each year by what the respective closed season decree establishes. In this manner, the regulatory framework that regulates matters related to the exercise of big game (caza mayor) and small game (caza menor) hunting is constituted by what the Wildlife Conservation Law establishes, Articles 28 to 35, the regulations to the law in its Articles 16 to 18, which in addition to hunting, regulates matters related to continental and insular fishing, and the corresponding closed season decree. These last two norms, the regulations and the annual closed season decree, come to be the development that, in exercise of its normative power, the executive branch makes of what the Wildlife Conservation Law provides on the exercise of hunting and, as applicable, continental and insular fishing.\n\nIV.- On the constitutionality of sport hunting. Costa Rican legislation uses a concept of conservation of our natural resources based on their rational use, given their renewable nature. From this point of view, the State's obligation is to ensure the adoption of legislation and actions aimed at ensuring the protection and conservation of fauna and flora with a concept of balance. Precisely, the Wildlife Conservation Law and its regulations aim to regulate and maintain the use of wildlife in a rational manner without causing detriment to it. Within this context, the Executive Branch has the obligation to establish the closed seasons and types of weapons that may be used in the hunting and fishing regulated by the law (Article 34), and its Regulations establish the obligation to issue an annual decree with the respective regulations (Article 16), prohibiting the hunting or fishing of endangered species with the exception of sustainably conducted reproduction. In that sense, the challenged Executive Decree 31737-MINAE has its legal basis in Articles 6, 12, 14, and 18 of the Wildlife Conservation Law.\n\nV.- The argument that sport hunting of wild species in itself endangers the environment and the ecological balance protected in Article 50 of the Constitution is not shared by this Chamber, in view that the entire normative scheme is based on the use and utilization (aprovechamiento) that human beings can make of wildlife, viewed as a natural resource, in such a way that it cannot endanger the survival of species through its rational use and exploitation. This is a perspective founded on the principle of sustainable development that has constitutional support and backing in the international regulations signed by our country. Likewise, the concept of sustainable development has been developed by constitutional jurisprudence since ruling 3705-93. In this way, sport hunting constitutes a legal form of utilization of wild fauna, subject to State regulation, control, and oversight, independently of its ethical compatibility. In addition to the Wildlife Conservation Law, the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (CITES) establishes the legal framework so that the activity of hunting, including sport hunting, is exercised in a sustainable manner. Attempting to claim that the defense of Article 50 of our Constitution includes respect for life in all its forms, without exception, would imply the disapplication of the principle of sustainable development, with consequences such that animal husbandry activities for human consumption and scientific and subsistence hunting and fishing could not be carried out, not just sport hunting, so that as the Attorney General's Office rightly points out in its response, Article 9.1 of the Biodiversity Law must be understood in relation to the goals of conservation and sustainable use of national resources, which in the specific case implies the State's duty to protect all existing species of flora and fauna from irrational use, understood as that which could endanger the existence of the different species. In that sense, as long as the concept that the Law regulates conforms to the principle of rational use of natural resources, that is, of a sustainable development that allows their renewal, the legislation satisfies the requirements of Article 50 of the Constitution and the international treaties signed by our country.\n\nVI.- Now then, the fact that the existence of sport hunting by itself is not unconstitutional does not mean that its specific regulation is not; that is, that Decree 31737-MINAE, issued in accordance with the Wildlife Conservation Law, which regulates in detail hunting and continental and insular fishing for the year 2004, is respectful of the indicated principles, which brings us to the second point of challenge in this action. Here we encounter a problem of verifying the effects that the challenged decree may be producing on flora and fauna, given that its generic nature prevents determining the effects it produces on each species. This is precisely the central point of the plaintiffs' argument, who indicate that in the absence of specific scientific studies for each species, the authorization of sport hunting in itself results in a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), and that therefore, until such technical studies exist, the authorization contained in the decree to issue sport hunting licenses must be prohibited. In support of that thesis, they cite the precedent of this Chamber issued in the case of the closed season on green turtle hunting, indicating that for the decree to be constitutional, it must indicate which species may be hunted or fished, and with what weapons and methods, only based on solid technical-scientific backing for each species that guarantees respect for the environment. The Attorney General's Office indicates that the questioned decree must withstand the constitutional test, in this case respect for the precautionary principle, and that although there exists a strictly technical-scientific scope that the constitutional judge cannot enter to evaluate, it is indeed his or her responsibility to verify whether the requirement, as such, is met, and whether it reasonably satisfies what in technical matters are called \"technical and scientific rules of unambiguous meaning and exact application\" protected in Article 158.4 of the General Law of Public Administration. What this implies is that although the Chamber does not have the technical-scientific elements to determine if environmental protection is fulfilled for each species, in general the decree has some technical-scientific backing that gives it a constitutional nuance, even if its particular effects cannot be deduced *grosso modo* from it given that it affects an indeterminate number of species. Undoubtedly, the topic is complicated because even if the decree withstands that analysis, it is not known for certain whether it actually produces harmful effects on one or several specific species which, as is known, due to the chain of its effects would always result in an impact on the environment in general, with which we return to the first argument raised regarding whether it is at all possible to hunt animals without affecting the environment. As can be seen, the heart of the matter is in understanding that the balance that both our Constitution and our legislation seek is not and cannot be perfect, but only reasonable, that is, a rational utilization of natural resources that permits their renewable use. There will always be, as a product of human intervention, an unbalancing effect on nature, the effects of which must not be such that they endanger its sustainability. Thus, the matter stands; it is enough that the challenged decree has a technical-scientific basis that deserves faith from this Chamber to overcome the constitutionality test. It does not have to be the best scientific study, only one that respects the \"technical and scientific rules of unambiguous meaning and exact application,\" which from a scientific point of view may be a heresy, but not from the legal point of view which has other rules of the game. This being so does not cease to be a concern for this Chamber; however, it would be virtually impossible to determine \"in the abstract\" the effects that the application of the decree may have on each species affected by it, for which reason the legal system has another solution for this type of case, which is the concrete analysis of its effects, through the recurso de amparo, which is precisely for measuring the concrete application that the general regulation may have in a specific situation that results in an impact on a fundamental right. That does not mean, as the Attorney General's Office rightly warns, that the decree is not obligated to have technical-scientific backing, and it is here where a contrast occurs between what the MINAE considers technical-scientific backing and what the appellants consider as such. The center of the matter is that the MINAE bases the elaboration of the decree on the experience of its biologists with more than twenty years of experience, on particular investigations or those of national and foreign institutions, the historical behavior of the involved species, among others (as indicated in official letter DM-1780-2003 of September 5, 2003 on folio 120), and the petitioners consider that said technical-scientific study, to be valid, must be a specific study of each species. Thus, the matter before the Chamber is to choose between two systems used, both scientific, to determine, not which is better, which is not within the scope of the action, which is limited, as the Attorney General's Office recognizes, to determining if respect for the precautionary principle is complied with, that is, if it has some scientifically reasonable basis that guarantees environmental protection, since we already know that nothing perfect can be intended in this matter, which is based rather on the concept of sustainable development and not on any impact upon it. Within that context, for this Chamber, the challenged decree is not unconstitutional *per se*, since it has technical-scientific backing that, although it probably can and should be better, its impact on one or several specific species cannot be established in the abstract, effects that can indeed be achieved through the concrete analysis of each supposedly affected species, should the case arise, by means of the recurso de amparo. It could be said that the impossibility of knowing in the abstract whether the environmental balance is guaranteed is in itself proof of the violation of the precautionary principle, and that would be true, as resulted in the precedent of the case of the marine turtles 1250-03, were it not because the State has also provided evidence that the *per se* prohibition of sport hunting in general and of certain species in particular regulated in the questioned decree can, in turn, bring adverse effects on the environment if not controlled, as mentioned by the Minister of Environment and Energy in his briefs on folios 157 and 205. Even evidence has been provided of the overpopulation of various species that produce harmful effects on crops or on other species, which need to be controlled through sport hunting and other methods to avoid the use of techniques that indiscriminately affect the environment, such as mass poisonings that would affect other species, including those outside the decree, in such a way that the very annulment of the challenged regulation could signify, in turn, a violation of the State's duty to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, things stand; inevitably, the concrete effects of the challenged decree must be assessed against each specific case and with an analysis of the technical-scientific studies that are submitted as evidence, and not in the abstract as is intended in this action.\n\nVII.- Finally, this Chamber considers that future decrees of this kind must establish specific limits on the number of maximum licenses to be granted per zone, per species, and the number of pieces allowed, as well as establish centralized control and monitoring of the same, to avoid excesses that could result in a violation of Article 50 of our Constitution.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe action is declared without merit. The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) must comply with the obligation indicated in the last considerando of this judgment. Let it be notified.\n\nPresidenta a.i\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.\n\nGilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.\n\nHoracio González Q. Jorge Araya G." }