{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-645072", "citation": "Res. 10264-2015 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Constitucionalidad del Convenio de delimitación marítima Costa Rica-Ecuador", "title_en": "Constitutionality of the Costa Rica-Ecuador Maritime Delimitation Agreement", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional evacuó la consulta legislativa preceptiva sobre el proyecto de ley para aprobar el Convenio sobre Delimitación Marítima entre Costa Rica y Ecuador. La Sala revisó el procedimiento legislativo y el fondo del convenio. Determinó que el proceso legislativo no presentó vicios: la firma del Canciller tenía plenos poderes, se publicó dos veces para subsanar una omisión del mapa, y se concedieron audiencias. En cuanto al fondo, el convenio delimita las zonas económicas exclusivas mediante líneas equidistantes basadas en puntos geodésicos, superando un tratado previo de 1985 que no se aprobó. La Sala encontró que el convenio no versa sobre la integridad territorial del país, sino sobre una zona de jurisdicción especial, por lo que no requiere votación calificada. Concluyó que no hay objeciones constitucionales de forma ni de fondo al proyecto de ley.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber issued its mandatory legislative consultation opinion on the bill to approve the Maritime Delimitation Agreement between Costa Rica and Ecuador. The Chamber reviewed the legislative procedure and the substance of the agreement, finding no procedural defects. The agreement delimits the exclusive economic zones using equidistant lines based on geodetic points, improving upon a 1985 treaty that failed to be approved. The Chamber held that the agreement does not affect territorial integrity but concerns a special jurisdiction zone, meaning it does not require a supermajority vote. It found no constitutional objections of form or substance to the bill.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "08/07/2015", "year": "2015", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "consulta legislativa preceptiva", "zona económica exclusiva", "plataforma continental", "líneas geodésicas", "puntos equidistantes", "Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar", "jurisdicción especial", "integridad territorial" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Convenio sobre Delimitación Marítima con la República del Ecuador", "article": "all", "doc_id": "norm-80321", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Tratados Internacionales 9320", "article": "all", "doc_id": "norm-80321", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "consulta legislativa preceptiva", "delimitación marítima", "zona económica exclusiva", "Convenio Costa Rica-Ecuador", "control de constitucionalidad", "Derecho del Mar", "Isla del Coco", "Galápagos" ], "keywords_en": [ "mandatory legislative consultation", "maritime delimitation", "exclusive economic zone", "Costa Rica-Ecuador Agreement", "constitutionality control", "Law of the Sea", "Cocos Island", "Galapagos" ], "excerpt_es": "Se evacua esta consulta legislativa preceptiva de constitucionalidad, en el sentido de que con motivo del trámite del proyecto de ley denominado “APROBACIÓN DEL CONVENIO SOBRE DELIMITACIÓN MARÍTIMA ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y LA REPÚBLICA DE ECUADOR”, expediente legislativo Nº 19.340, no se ha producido ningún vicio sustancial de forma ni de fondo.", "excerpt_en": "This mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality is answered in the sense that, regarding the processing of the bill entitled 'APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR,' legislative file No. 19,340, no substantial defect of form or substance has occurred.", "outcome": { "label_en": "No constitutional defect", "label_es": "Sin vicio de constitucionalidad", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber determined that the bill to approve the Maritime Delimitation Agreement between Costa Rica and Ecuador has no substantial formal or substantive defects.", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional determinó que el proyecto de ley para aprobar el Convenio de Delimitación Marítima entre Costa Rica y Ecuador no presenta vicios sustanciales de forma ni de fondo." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "Thus, it was duly signed, as indicated.", "quote_es": "De manera que fue debidamente suscrito, según lo indicado." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "In this case, it is not an Agreement concerning the territorial integrity of our country, but only an area over which it exercises a special jurisdiction, therefore, according to precedents of this Chamber, it does not require such a supermajority vote...", "quote_es": "En este caso, no se trata de un Convenio respecto de la integridad territorial de nuestro país, sino únicamente de un área sobre la cual ejerce una jurisdicción especial, por lo que, según precedentes de esta Sala, no requiere de dicha votación reforzada..." }, { "context": "Considerando III (citando sentencia 2000-10473)", "quote_en": "This norm is of great importance to reach the conclusion that this Treaty does not concern the territorial integrity of our country, considering that it can be inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over its exclusive economic zone are actually not valid under International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries.", "quote_es": "Esta norma reviste gran importancia para arribar a la conclusión de que este Tratado no versa sobre la integridad territorial de nuestro país, habida cuenta que de ella se puede colegir que las pretensiones unilaterales de un país sobre la zona económica exclusiva que le corresponde, en realidad no tiene validez dentro del Derecho Internacional, a menos que se cuente con el reconocimiento de la comunidad internacional, y particularmente de los países vecinos." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "under the stated terms, the Chamber finds no constitutional objections, of substance or form, to the bill processed in legislative file 19,340.", "quote_es": "bajo los términos señalados, la Sala no encuentra objeciones de índole constitucional, de fondo o forma, al proyecto de ley tramitado en el expediente legislativo 19.340." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-36457", "citation": "Ley 7291", "title_en": "Law 7291 — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", "title_es": "Ley 7291 — Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar", "doc_type": "law", "date": "23/03/1992", "year": "1992" } ], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-36457", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7291 Art. 3" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-645072", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "*150090210007CO*\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nExp: 15-009021-0007-CO \n\r\n\r\n\nRes. Nº 2015010264\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE\r\nLA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas quince minutos del\r\nocho de julio de dos mil quince .\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \r\n Consulta\r\nlegislativa preceptiva de constitucionalidad formulada por el Directorio de la\r\nAsamblea Legislativa, sobre el proyecto de ley tramitado en el expediente\r\nlegislativo Nº 19.340, denominado “APROBACIÓN DEL CONVENIO SOBRE\r\nDELIMITACIÓN MARÍTIMA ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y LA REPÚBLICA DE\r\nECUADOR”.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nResultando:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n 1.- Por oficio recibido en la Secretaría\r\nde la Sala a las 16:28 horas del 23 de junio de 2015, la Secretaría del\r\nDirectorio de la Asamblea Legislativa remitió esta consulta en cumplimiento de\r\nlo establecido en el inciso a) del artículo 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción\r\nConstitucional, junto con una copia certificada del expediente legislativo.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n2.- Por resolución de las 10:00 horas del\r\n24 de junio de 2015, se tuvo por recibido el expediente legislativo y se\r\ntrasladó esta consulta, conforme con el turno correspondiente, al Magistrado\r\nredactor.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n 3.- En el proceso se han\r\nobservado las prescripciones de ley y esta resolución se dicta dentro del plazo\r\nlegal respectivo, que vence el 23 de julio de 2015.\n\r\n\r\n\n Redacta\r\nel Magistrado Rueda Leal; y,\n\r\n\r\n\nConsiderando:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n I.- Objeto y admisibilidad de la\r\nconsulta. Esta\r\nconsulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad fue formulada por el Directorio de la\r\nAsamblea Legislativa en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en los artículos 10,\r\ninciso b), de la Constitución Política y 96, inciso a), de la Ley de la\r\nJurisdicción Constitucional. Está referida al proyecto de ley denominado “APROBACIÓN\r\nDEL CONVENIO SOBRE DELIMITACIÓN MARÍTIMA ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y LA\r\nREPÚBLICA DE ECUADOR”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo Nº\r\n19.340. El proyecto fue sometido a votación en primer debate en la Sesión\r\nPlenaria Nº 24 del 15 de junio de 2015 (ver folios 182 a 183 del expediente\r\nlegislativo Nº 19.340), por lo que cumple lo dispuesto en el párrafo 1 del artículo 98 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional .\r\nLo primero que procede, a efectos de evacuar la presente consulta, es verificar\r\nlos trámites legislativos seguidos en el sub\r\nlite , en concordancia con lo que señalan\r\nlos artículos 98 y 101 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, al disponer\r\nque la consulta deberá hacerse después de aprobado el proyecto en primer debate\r\ny antes de la aprobación definitiva y que, al evacuarla, la Sala dictaminará\r\nsobre cualesquiera aspectos o motivos que estime relevantes desde el punto de\r\nvista constitucional, pero en forma vinculante solo en lo que se refiere a los\r\ntrámites procedimentales. Para los efectos\r\nanteriores, en los siguientes considerandos se hará\r\nuna síntesis del proyecto y un resumen cronológico del trámite legislativo del\r\nproyecto de ley consultado.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nII.- La tramitación del expediente Nº\r\n19.340 en la Asamblea Legislativa. El proyecto de ley denominado “APROBACIÓN\r\nDEL CONVENIO SOBRE DELIMITACIÓN MARÍTIMA ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y LA\r\nREPÚBLICA DE ECUADOR”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo Nº 19.340, ha seguido el\r\nsiguiente iter:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n1. \r\nEl 21 de enero de 2014, el Ministro de\r\nRelaciones Exteriores y Movilidad Humana de Ecuador y el Ministro de Relaciones\r\nExteriores y Culto, Enrique Castillo Barrantes, suscribieron el Convenio sobre\r\ndelimitación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la República de\r\nEcuador (ver folio 8). \n\r\n\r\n\n2. \r\n Por oficio LYD\r\n576/09/14-C del 3 de setiembre de 2014, el Ministro\r\nde la Presidencia, Melvin Jiménez Marín, remitió a la\r\nAsamblea Legislativa el proyecto de Ley denominado “APROBACIÓN DEL\r\nCONVENIO SOBRE DELIMITACIÓN MARÍTIMA ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y LA\r\nREPÚBLICA DE ECUADOR” , para que se le diera el trámite de\r\nrigor. Dicho oficio fue recibido en la Secretaría del Directorio de la Asamblea\r\nLegislativa el 29 de setiembre de 2014 (folio 1).\n\r\n\r\n\n3. \r\nEl 29 de setiembre de\r\n2014, el proyecto de ley en cuestión fue remitido a la Comisión Permanente\r\nEspecial de Relaciones Internacionales y de Comercio Exterior (folio 14). \n\r\n\r\n\n4. \r\nEl 7 de octubre de 2014, el Director del\r\nDepartamento de Archivo, Investigación y Trámite de la Asamblea Legislativa\r\nremitió a la Imprenta Nacional el expediente Nº 19.340 para su respectiva\r\npublicación (ver folio 16).\n\r\n\r\n\n5. \r\n El 23 de octubre de 2014, la Comisión\r\nPermanente Especial de Relaciones Internacionales y de Comercio Exterior\r\nrecibió este expediente legislativo para estudio (folio 17).\n\r\n\r\n\n6. \r\n El 20 de octubre de 2014 fue publicado el\r\nproyecto de ley del expediente Nº 19.340 en el Alcance Nº 57 de La Gaceta Nº 201\r\n(folio 17).\n\r\n\r\n\n7. \r\n En la sesión ordinaria No. 23 del 12 de noviembre de\r\n2014, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Exteriores y Comercio\r\nExterior aprobó la moción de consultar sobre dicho proyecto al MINAE, a la Dirección de Guardacostas del Ministerio de\r\nSeguridad Pública, a la Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica y al Instituto\r\nGeográfico Nacional (folios 18 al 24).\n\r\n\r\n\n8. \r\nPor oficios CRI-175-2014, CRI-177-2014,\r\nCRI-178-2014, todos del 10 de noviembre de 2014, y el oficio CRI-176-2014 del\r\n11 de noviembre de 2014, la Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio\r\nExterior solicitó el criterio al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, al Director\r\nGeneral de la Dirección de Guardacostas del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, a\r\nla Rectora de la Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica y al Director General del\r\nInstituto Geográfico Nacional respecto de este expediente (folios 26 al 33). \n\r\n\r\n\n9. \r\n Mediante oficio 721-2014-DG del 13 de noviembre de 2014, el Director General de la\r\nDirección de Guardacostas del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública contestó la\r\naudiencia conferida por la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones\r\nExteriores y Comercio Exterior, según oficio CRI-176-2014, indicando que,\r\nrespecto del numeral 2, en su criterio, el ancho de esta zona especial es\r\nsumamente amplia, actualmente la tecnología de los aparatos utilizados para el\r\nposicionamiento global de las embarcaciones son muy precisos, por lo que no se\r\njustificaba un área tan ancha. Asimismo, manifestó con relación al compromiso\r\nde no aplicar la legislación dentro de las 10 millas náuticas, que\r\nen la práctica eso se podría convertir en una zona de tolerancia para aquellos\r\npescadores de cada una de las partes que transgredan\r\nel límite marítimo establecido en el tratado, a sabiendas de que no se les\r\npodrá sancionar (folio 34).\n\r\n\r\n\n10. \r\n Mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 38734-MP del 27 de noviembre de 2014, el Poder Ejecutivo convocó\r\na sesiones extraordinarias a la Asamblea Legislativa, a fin de que se conociera\r\nel expediente Nº 19.340, entre otros. Dicho decreto fue puesto en conocimiento\r\nde la Secretaría del Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa el mismo 27 de\r\nnoviembre (folios 43 al 56).\n\r\n\r\n\n11. \r\n En sesión No. 26 del 18\r\nde diciembre de 2014, la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Exteriores\r\ny Comercio Exterior aprobó la moción de publicar nuevamente el proyecto de ley\r\nen cuestión, toda vez que en la primera se omitió publicar la Carta de Límite\r\nMarítimo (folios 63 a\r\n69). \n\r\n\r\n\n12. \r\n El 21 de enero de 2015, la Presidenta de la\r\nComisión Especial Permanente de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior\r\nsolicitó una prórroga de hasta 90 días al Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa\r\npara rendir el informe del expediente Nº 19.340. Dicha solicitud cuenta con el\r\nvisto bueno del Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa (folio 78).\n\r\n\r\n\n13. \r\n En sesión No. 29 del 12 de febrero de 2015, la Comisión\r\nPermanente Especial de Relaciones Exteriores y Comercio Exterior aprobó la\r\nmoción de dar audiencia a Carlos Murillo y Freddy Pacheco para que se\r\nrefirieran al proyecto de ley en cuestión (folios 79 al 85). \n\r\n\r\n\n14. \r\n Por oficios\r\nCEP-201-2015 y CEP-202-2015, ambos del 17 de febrero de 2015, la Comisión\r\nPermanente Especial de Relaciones Exteriores y Comercio Exterior convocó a una\r\naudiencia a Freddy Pacheco León y a Carlos Murillo para el 19 de febrero de\r\n2015 (folios 87 a\r\n90).\n\r\n\r\n\n15. \r\n En sesión No. 30 del 19\r\nde febrero de 2015 de la Comisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Exteriores\r\ny Comercio Exterior, se apersonó Carlos Murillo, experto de la Universidad\r\nNacional en Derecho Marítimo (folios 91 a 102). \n\r\n\r\n\n16. \r\n Por oficio ST-025-2015\r\nI, el 24 de febrero de 2015, la Dirección de Servicios Técnicos remitió a la\r\nComisión Permanente Especial de Relaciones Exteriores y Comercio Exterior el\r\ninforme jurídico de este expediente (folios 107 al 129).\n\r\n\r\n\n17. \r\n En el Diario la Gaceta\r\nNo. 43 del 3 de marzo de 2015, se publicó nuevamente el proyecto de ley en\r\ncuestión junto con el Mapa respectivo (ver publicación digital\r\nhttps://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2015/03/03/COMP_03_03_2015.pdf) \n\r\n\r\n\n18. \r\n La Comisión Especial Permanente de\r\nRelaciones Internacionales y Comercio Exterior, en sesión ordinaria No. 33 del\r\n12 de marzo de 2015, aprobó en forma unánime el proyecto en cuestión (folio\r\n148).\n\r\n\r\n\n19. \r\n El 20 de abril de 2015,\r\nla Comisión Especial Permanente de Relaciones Internacionales y Comercio\r\nExterior entregó el dictamen unánime afirmativo de este proyecto a la\r\nSecretaría del Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa (folio 161).\n\r\n\r\n\n20. \r\n Mediante oficio SCU-810-2015 del 9 de junio de 2015, remitido a la Asamblea\r\nel 11 de junio de 2015, el Consejo Universitario de la Universidad Nacional\r\nmanifestó que sus expertos avalaban la propuesta de límites en cuestión, por lo\r\nque recomendaban a la Asamblea Legislativa ratificar el Convenio objeto de\r\nestudio, así como incluir un diagrama que muestre la ubicación de los puntos y\r\nlas relaciones de equidistancia (folios 164 a 167). \n\r\n\r\n\n21. \r\n Por Sesión Plenaria No.\r\n24 del 15 de junio de 2015, el Pleno conformado por 45 diputados, aprobó por\r\nunanimidad en primer debate el proyecto de ley sometido a estudio (folio\r\n183). \n\r\n\r\n\n22. \r\n El 16 de junio de 2015, la Comisión\r\nPermanente Especial de Redacción recibió el expediente Nº 19.430 de la\r\nSecretaría del Directorio (folio 185).\n\r\n\r\n\n23. \r\n El 29 de abril de 2015, el Departamento de\r\nServicios Técnicos rindió informe a la Comisión Permanente Especial de\r\nRedacción sobre el expediente Nº 18.138 (folio 210).\n\r\n\r\n\n24. \r\nEn Sesión Ordinaria Nº 03 de 17 de junio de 2015,\r\nla Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción aprobó la redacción final del\r\nproyecto de ley del expediente 19.430 (folios 196 al 207).\n\r\n\r\n\n25. \r\n El 17 de junio de 2015, la Comisión\r\nPermanente Especial de Redacción entregó a la Secretaría del Directorio la\r\nredacción final del expediente Nº 19.340 (folio 221).\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nIII.- Sobre el procedimiento legislativo\r\nen el caso concreto. De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 101 de la\r\nley que rige esta Jurisdicción, este Tribunal revisó el procedimiento\r\nlegislativo para la tramitación del proyecto denominado “Aprobación del\r\nConvenio sobre delimitación marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la\r\nRepública de Ecuador” . Sobre el particular, este\r\nTribunal no determinó que se hubiera producido durante su trámite, vicio alguno\r\nen el procedimiento. El Convenio fue suscrito por los Ministros de Relaciones\r\nExteriores de ambos Estados, quien en nuestro caso, tiene plenos poderes para\r\nsuscribir convenios en que se obligue al Estado costarricense, de conformidad\r\ncon lo reiterado por este Tribunal en la sentencia No. 2001-855:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“En primer lugar, debe decirse que se ha apreciado que el\r\nTratado fue rubricado por el entonces Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y\r\nCulto, Fernando Naranjo V. (folio 134 del expediente legislativo), quien \"per se\" cuenta por plenos poderes para suscribir\r\nconvenios en que se obligue el Estado costarricense. Sobre el tema, esta Sala\r\nse ha pronunciado en la sentencia No.1999-006725 de las quince horas nueve\r\nminutos del primero de setiembre de mil novecientos\r\nnoventa y nueve, en la que expresamente se indicó:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\"De la lectura del artículo 140 inciso 10) se desprende que la\r\nfirma de los tratados internacionales es una atribución del Poder Ejecutivo,\r\nentendido como el órgano colegiado compuesto por el Presidente y el Ministro\r\ndel Ramo. No obstante, esta Sala ha reconocido la posibilidad de que el Ministro\r\nde Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, en su calidad de colaborador del Presidente\r\nen materia de relaciones internacionales, pueda suscribir tratados\r\ninternacionales aún sin contar con una carta que expresamente le otorgue plenos\r\npoderes para ello. En sentencia número 6224-94, de las nueve horas del once de\r\nnoviembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, esta Sala consideró que el hecho\r\nde que el Presidente de la República participe con su voluntad de etapas procedimentales posteriores: sanción y depósito del\r\ntratado, permite subsanar cualquier vicio que existiese en la efectiva\r\nrepresentación que haya ostentado el Canciller. A lo anterior podemos\r\nagregar que el Presidente tiene otras dos oportunidades más para invocar su\r\neventual disconformidad con el proyecto: en el momento de su presentación a la\r\nAsamblea Legislativa y en la convocatoria a sesiones extraordinarias, momentos\r\nen los cuáles podría hacer valer sus atribuciones constitucionales. Si en la\r\nespecie fue el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto quien suscribió el\r\nconvenio cuya aprobación se discute, ello no implica la inconstitucionalidad\r\ndel procedimiento legislativo seguido hasta ahora.\"\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n De\r\nmanera que fue debidamente suscrito, según lo indicado. Asimismo, el proyecto\r\nfue publicado en dos ocasiones, toda vez que en la primer\r\npublicación se omitió adjuntar el mapa del anexo respectivo. De manera que la primer publicación se realizó en el Alcance No. 57 de La\r\nGaceta Nº 201 del 20 de octubre de 2014; y la segunda que subsanó tal omisión\r\nse efectuó en La Gaceta No. 43 del 3 de marzo de 2015. Se concedieron las\r\naudiencias facultativas que la Comisión estimó pertinentes. Por otro lado, este\r\nTribunal constata que la Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales de la Asamblea\r\nLegislativa recibió el expediente en cuestión el 23 de octubre de 2014 e inició\r\nsu discusión en la sesión ordinaria del 12 de noviembre de 2014. El 12 de\r\nfebrero de 2015, el Presidente de dicha Comisión solicitó a la Presidencia de\r\nla Asamblea Legislativa, una prórroga de 90 días para la presentación del\r\ninforme de esa Comisión sobre el proyecto en estudio, la cual fue aprobada,\r\nsegún se consigna a folio 78 del expediente el visto bueno dado por parte del\r\nPresidente de la Asamblea. La aprobación unánime del proyecto en cuestión se\r\nprodujo en la sesión ordinaria No. 33 del 12 de marzo de 2015 de la Comisión de\r\nRelaciones Internacionales de la Asamblea Legislativa. Finalmente, el proyecto\r\nfue aprobado en forma unánime por 45 diputados en primer debate, en sesión\r\nordinaria No. 24 del 15 de junio de 2015. De conformidad con el artículo 7\r\nconstitucional, los tratados públicos y los convenios internacionales\r\nreferentes a la integridad territorial o la organización política del país\r\nrequerirán aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa, por votación no menor de las\r\ntres cuartas partes de la totalidad de sus miembros, y la de los dos tercios de\r\nlos miembros de una Asamblea Constituyente, convocada al efecto. En este caso,\r\nno se trata de un Convenio respecto de la integridad territorial de nuestro\r\npaís, sino únicamente de un área sobre la cual ejerce una jurisdicción\r\nespecial, por lo que, según precedentes de esta Sala, no requiere de dicha\r\nvotación reforzada, ya que las pretensiones unilaterales de un país sobre\r\nla zona económica exclusiva, en realidad no tienen validez dentro del Derecho\r\nInternacional, a menos que cuenten con el reconocimiento de la comunidad\r\ninternacional, y particularmente de los países vecinos:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“No obstante, en el presente caso esa votación reforzada no era\r\nnecesaria, y por lo tanto en cuanto a este extremo tampoco se aprecia\r\ninconstitucionalidad alguna en el procedimiento para la aprobación legislativa\r\ndel \"Tratado sobre Delimitación de Areas Marinas\r\ny Submarinas y Cooperación Marítima entre la República de Costa Rica y la\r\nRepública de Colombia\", firmado en Bogotá, D.E.\r\nel 6 de abril de 1984, puesto que no se refiere a la integridad territorial de\r\nnuestro país. Esto porque el objeto del Tratado es la delimitación de lo\r\nque la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar denomina\r\n\"zona económica exclusiva\" entre la República de Colombia y la de\r\nCosta Rica, y sobre la cual nuestro país no puede ejercer una soberanía\r\ncompleta y exclusiva, sino una especial a \"fin de proteger, conservar y\r\nexplotar con exclusividad todos los recursos y riquezas naturales existentes en\r\nlas aguas, el suelo y el subsuelo de esas zonas, de conformidad con aquellos\r\nprincipios [se refiere a principios de Derecho Internacional]\", (artículo\r\n6 en concordancia con el 56 de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el\r\nDerecho del Mar).” \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n…Esta norma reviste gran importancia para arribar a la\r\nconclusión de que este Tratado no versa sobre la integridad territorial de\r\nnuestro país, habida cuenta que de ella se puede colegir que las pretensiones unilaterales\r\nde un país sobre la zona económica exclusiva que le corresponde, en realidad no\r\ntiene validez dentro del Derecho Internacional, a menos que se cuente con el\r\nreconocimiento de la comunidad internacional, y particularmente de los países\r\nvecinos. (ver sentencia No. 2000-10473) \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nAsí las cosas, dado que en la\r\ntramitación del proyecto de ley de aprobación del Convenio consultado, no\r\nexisten infracciones a las normas y principios constitucionales, corresponde de seguido entrar a conocer sobre el fondo de la\r\niniciativa.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- Sobre el Proyecto de ley sometido a\r\nconsulta. Según\r\nla exposición de motivos del expediente legislativo en estudio, este proyecto\r\nde ley tiene como fin delimitar las áreas de confluencia y fijar un límite\r\nmarítimo entre Costa Rica y Ecuador. Lo anterior, por cuanto a partir de la\r\nIsla del Coco, se extiende nuestro mar territorial y la zona económica\r\nexclusiva, la cual se sobrepone con la zona que se genera a partir del Archipiélado de Las Galápagos que pertenecen\r\na Ecuador. Esta temática merece ser abordada desde dos puntos de vista, en\r\nrelación con la existencia de una demarcación previa, y, la situación actual\r\nque plantea este proyecto de ley. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\na.- Antecedentes del Convenio en cuestión. La delimitación de los límites marítimos entre ambos\r\npaíses, ya había sido objeto de negociación previamente. En efecto, en 1985,\r\nCosta Rica y Ecuador habían acordado un Tratado de Límites Marítimos, el cual\r\nno llegó a ser aprobado en nuestro país en la corriente legislativa, por\r\nacaecer el plazo cuatrienal. En todo caso, aquel primer acuerdo contrariaba la\r\nConvención de Naciones Unidas sobre Derecho del Mar de 1982, la cual Costa Rica\r\nhabía suscrito para entonces, pero ninguno de estos países la había ratificado,\r\nya que nuestro país lo hizo hasta el 23 de marzo de 1992 y Ecuador se adhirió\r\nhasta el 24 de setiembre de 2012. Particularmente, la\r\ndiscrepancia que se dio en aquella oportunidad, fue que se hacía referencia a\r\nlas áreas marinas de “200\r\n millas del mar territorial del Ecuador correspondientes a\r\nsu territorio insular del Archipiélago de Colón”. De manera que, le reconocía a\r\nEcuador dicha área como mar territorial y a Costa Rica, 200 millas como zona\r\njurisdiccional según el Preámbulo de aquel Acuerdo, creando no solo una\r\ndisparidad, sino que resultaba contrario al derecho internacional, pues la\r\nConvención de Naciones Unidas de Derecho del Mar, reconoce en el numeral 3, un\r\nderecho internacional a la anchura del mar territorial de cada Estado ribereño\r\nen un máximo de 12 millas\r\ny la anchura de la zona económica exclusiva en un máximo de 200 millas (ver artículo\r\n57). Esto es relevante si se toma en consideración el haz de facultades que\r\nposee un Estado respecto de una zona, dependiendo de su condición. De manera\r\nque en el mar territorial el Estado ejerce de modo pleno su soberanía. Sin\r\nembargo, en el mar patrimonial, sobre la zona económica exclusiva y su\r\nplataforma continental, de conformidad con el numeral 6 de la Constitución\r\nPolítica, lo que se reconoce al Estado, es el ejercicio de derechos y jurisdicción,\r\nconforme al Derecho Internacional y a su legislación interna, prácticamente\r\npara exploración, explotación, conservación y administración de los recursos\r\nnaturales, en los términos dispuestos en el numeral 57 del Convenio de las\r\nNaciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar. Por otro lado, el convenio anterior\r\ncon Ecuador, planteaba un gran problema de indeterminación, pues establecía una\r\ndisposición transitoria, mediante la cual el trabajo cartográfico se postergaba\r\na futuros resultados que se anexarían al Convenio. Dichas situaciones fueron\r\nsuperadas en la propuesta en estudio. En el 2012, por iniciativa de Ecuador, se\r\nretomó el tema de la delimitación marítima, partiendo de que Ecuador estaba en\r\nproceso de formar parte del Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho\r\ndel Mar, el cual culminó el 24 de setiembre de 2012. El\r\n3 de febrero de 2012 se acordó una nueva Reunión Binacional sobre límites\r\nmarítimos en San José, que se celebró el 1° de marzo de 2013, en la cual la\r\nDelegación del Ecuador planteó el conocimiento y discusión del nuevo proyecto\r\nsobre la base del Convenio de 1985, pero actualizado con la terminología del\r\nConvenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar. Se acordó la remisión\r\nde una Comisión Técnica de ambos países durante el primer semestre de 2013 al\r\nArchipiélago de Galápagos y a la Isla del Coco, para que obtuvieran los datos\r\ngeodésicos y la elaboración de los respectivos trabajos de gabinete para la\r\nactualización de las coordenadas de los puntos de base obtenidos en los trabajos\r\ntécnicos binacionales de 1986 al sistema geodésico WGS-84.\r\nPara tales propósitos se realizó la visita de campo del 18 al 23 de junio de\r\n2013, y la reunión de la Comisión Mixta de Carácter Técnico Ecuador-Costa\r\nRica del 24 al 26 de junio de 2013. Luego de varias negociaciones, ajustes y\r\nprecisiones, el 21 de abril de 2014, se firmó por parte de ambos país el\r\nConvenio sometido a estudio.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nb.- El Proyecto de ley consultado. El acuerdo internacional para\r\ndelimitar las áreas de confluencia y fijar el límite marítimo entre Ecuador y\r\nCosta Rica consta de 4 artículos: En el artículo primero se define el método\r\nutilizado y los límites acordados:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“La zona económica\r\nexclusiva y la plataforma continental del Ecuador del Archipiélago de Galápagos\r\ny la zona económica exclusiva y la plataforma continental de Costa Rica de la\r\nIsla del Coco delimitan en el Océano Pacífico, en el sector donde se\r\nsuperponen, por las líneas geodésicas que pasan por puntos equidistantes entre\r\nlos dos países, que se definen de acuerdo con los literales A), B) y C)\r\nsiguientes:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nA. Puntos de Base\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEn Costa Rica:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nCR-1, en el Suroeste\r\nde la isla DOS AMIGOS.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nCR-2, en el Suroeste\r\ndel cabo DAMPIER, en la Isla del COCO\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEn Ecuador:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEC-1, en el Noreste\r\nde la isla DARWIN\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEC-2, en el Noreste\r\nde la isla GENOVESA\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nB. Sobre la base de\r\nlo establecido anteriormente, se determinan los siguientes puntos para el\r\ntrazado de las líneas geodésicas, a partir de las cuales se define el límite\r\nmarítimo:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPunto B-1 Punto\r\nequidistante, determinado por la intersección de los arcos de círculo trazados\r\ncon un radio de 200\r\n millas náuticas, desde los puntos de base EC-1, en el\r\nNoreste de la isla DARWIN y CR-1, en el Suroeste de la isla DOS AMIGOS.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPunto\r\nB-2 Punto equidistante, determinado por la intersección de\r\nlos arcos de círculo trazados con un radio de 200 millas náuticas,\r\ndesde los puntos de base EC-2, en el Noreste de la isla GENOVESA y CR-2, en el\r\nSuroeste del cabo DAMPIER.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPunto\r\nC-1 Determinado como el punto medio de la línea geodésica de\r\nbase (EC-1) (CR-1).\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPunto C-2 \r\nDeterminado como el punto medio de la línea geodésica de base (EC-2) (CR-2).\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n Punto\r\nB-3 Determinado por la intersección de las proyecciones de\r\nlas dos líneas geodésicas intermedias.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nLa primera línea geodésica intermedia pasará por los puntos B-1 y C-1.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nLa segunda línea geodésica intermedia pasará por los puntos B-2 y C-2\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nC. Las líneas\r\ngeodésicas que pasan por los puntos B-1, B-3 y B-2 definen el límite marítimo\r\nentre Ecuador y Costa Rica. Las coordenadas geográficas correspondientes a\r\nestos puntos, presentadas en el orden anteriormente indicado, son las\r\nsiguientes:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \r\n \nPunto\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \nLatitud Norte\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \nLongitud oeste\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \nB-1\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n04°33`55.741\"\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n090°18'24.485\"\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \nB-3\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n03°26'37.922\"\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n089°26'1 1 .383\"\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \nB-2\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n02°09`02.238\"\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n087°08'42.443\"\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nLas coordenadas\r\ngeográficas de todos los puntos objeto de este Convenio están determinadas en\r\nel Sistema Geodésico Mundial 1984 (W GS-84).\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nLa Carta del Límite\r\nMarítimo entre Ecuador y Costa Rica se incorpora como anexo al presente\r\nconvenio.”\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nBásicamente definen puntos de origen\r\nde cada país en los que se sobreponen las 200 millas, trazando\r\nlíneas equidistantes entre ambos países, que según los expertos en la materia,\r\nes de donde se obtienen los diferentes puntos que constituirán el límite en\r\ncuestión. Esto quedó plasmado así, en la Carta Marítima adjunta como anexo al\r\nConvenio. Según las manifestaciones hechas por diversos expertos de la\r\nUniversidad Nacional, tanto en la Comisión de Asuntos Internacionales, como por\r\nescrito, las coordenadas en cuestión son correctas, bien establecidas y\r\nactualizadas. Los procedimientos para la determinación de equidistancia y\r\nubicación de los puntos B-1, B-3 y B-2 son los correctos y obedecen a los\r\nlineamientos planteados por la Convención de la ONU. Asimismo, en este Tratado,\r\nCosta Rica obtiene cientos de kilómetros de más de territorio adicional, en\r\ncomparación con el anterior (ver folios 96, 99 y 166 de este proyecto\r\nlegislativo). \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEl artículo segundo, por su parte,\r\ndispone una zona de tolerancia:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n “Se establece una zona especial de 10 millas náuticas de\r\nancho situada a cada lado del límite marítimo señalado en el literal C) del\r\nartículo anterior, en la cual la presencia accidental de embarcaciones\r\npesqueras de uno u otro país no será considerada como una violación a las normas\r\npertinentes del respectivo Estado. Ello no significa reconocimiento de derecho\r\nalguno para ejecutar faenas de pesca o caza en dicha zona especial.”\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEsta disposición, a nivel\r\nlegislativo, suscitó entre los diputados de la Comisión la duda de si ello\r\nautorizaría una zona impune para aquellos que infringieran zonas especiales de\r\nexplotación de los recursos naturales. De la propia norma resulta claro, que\r\ntal disposición no implica una autorización para ejecutar faenas de pesca o\r\ncaza en dicha zona especial, sino que, mundialmente es común que embarcaciones\r\npequeñas que utilizan sistemas de posicionamiento global no tan exactos, no se\r\npercaten de que cruzaron el límite. En esos casos, se dispone de una zona\r\nbuffer o zona de tolerancia , en la que, una vez detectada la\r\nsituación, inmediatamente se le llama la atención y se conmina a la persona a\r\nsalir de esa área. Fuera de dicha zona, tanto Costa Rica como Ecuador tendría\r\nderecho a detenerla. Es considerada también una zona de cooperación entre ambos\r\npaíses (ver folio 102), \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEl artículo tercero plantea la\r\ncooperación entre las Partes en temas marítimos, sin perjuicio de los derechos\r\nde soberanía ya delimitados:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“Sobre la base de la definición del límite marítimo establecida\r\nmediante el presente Convenio, las Partes propiciarán la más amplia cooperación\r\nen temas marítimos de mutuo interés, sin perjuicio de los derechos de soberanía\r\ny de jurisdicción que ambos Estados ejerzan en sus respectivos espacios\r\nmarítimos.”\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEn tales términos, esta disposición\r\nno requiere mayor comentario que el hecho de que tal cooperación debe\r\nentenderse dentro del marco normativo establecido internacionalmente. Finalmente,\r\nel artículo cuarto somete este Convenio a la aprobación en ambos países, y fija\r\nsu vigencia con el intercambio de la segunda nota diplomática, mediante la cual\r\nse informe el cumplimiento de los respectivos procedimientos, lo cual tampoco\r\nimplica objeción jurídica alguna.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n V.- Como ya se indicó supra, el numeral 6 constitucional dispone:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“El Estado ejerce la soberanía\r\ncompleta y exclusiva en el espacio aéreo de su territorio, en sus aguas\r\nterritoriales en una distancia de doce millas a partir de la línea de baja mar\r\na lo largo de sus costas, en su plataforma continental y en su zócalo insular de\r\nacuerdo con los principios del Derecho Internacional.\n\r\n\r\n\nEjerce además, una\r\njurisdicción especial sobre los mares adyacentes a su territorio en una\r\nextensión de doscientas millas a partir de la misma línea, a fin de proteger,\r\nconservar y explotar con exclusividad todos los recursos y riquezas naturales\r\nexistentes en las aguas, el suelo y el subsuelo de esas zonas, de conformidad\r\ncon aquellos principios.”\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEsto implica, como ya ha indicado\r\neste Tribunal, que la delimitación de la zona marítima donde Costa Rica ejerce\r\ndicha jurisdicción especial, deba ajustarse a los acuerdos establecidos en el\r\nDerecho Internacional:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“VII.- En efecto, se\r\ndesprende de la literalidad del artículo I del Convenio que se analiza, que su\r\nobjeto es la delimitación de las áreas marinas y submarinas entre los\r\nEstados Partes, referidas al Océano Pacífico, y específicamente a la zona\r\neconómica exclusiva, dado que lo atinente a la máxima anchura del mar\r\nterritorial, así como de la zona adyacente quedó definido por acuerdo entre los\r\nEstados que –como el nuestro- suscribieron el \"Convenio de las Naciones\r\nUnidas sobre el Derecho del Mar\" (Ley número 7291 publicada en el Alcance\r\nnúmero 10 a\r\nLa Gaceta del miércoles 15 de julio de 1992), específicamente en los artículos\r\n3 y 33, a\r\nsaber:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo 3. Anchura del mar territorial . \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nTodo Estado tiene derecho a establecer la anchura de su mar\r\nterritorial hasta un límite que no exceda de 12 millas marinas medidas a partir de líneas de base\r\ndeterminadas de conformidad con esta Convención\". –El resaltado no es del\r\noriginal-\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo 33: Zona contigua. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n1.- En una zona contigua a su mar territorial, designada\r\ncon el nombre de zona contigua, el Estado ribereño podrá tomar las medidas de\r\nfiscalización necesarias para:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPrevenir las infracciones de sus leyes y reglamentos aduaneros,\r\nfiscales, de inmigración o sanitarios que se cometan en su territorio o en su\r\nmar territorial;\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\na. \r\nSancionar\r\nlas infracciones de esas leyes y reglamentos cometidas en su territorio o en su\r\nmar territorial.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n2.- La zona contigua no podrá extenderse más allá de 24 millas marinas contadas\r\ndesde las líneas de base a partir de las cuales se mide la anchura del mar\r\nterritorial\". –El resaltado no es del original-\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nAl respecto, cuando la Sala se pronunció en la consulta\r\npreceptiva realizada con ocasión de la aprobación de este último Convenio,\r\nentre sus conclusiones se refirió a que nuestra Constitución fue reformada\r\nexpresamente, con el objeto de incorporar los conceptos de derecho\r\ninternacional marítimo aceptados universalmente y recogidos en la\r\nConvención, refiriéndose –entre otros- a los artículos 3 y 33 anteriormente\r\ncitados, y, en conclusión dijo la Sala:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\"…podemos decir que Costa Rica es uno de los Estados más\r\nbeneficiados con la nueva Convención\". (Sentencia número 10-92 de las 16:30\r\nhoras del 7 de enero de 1992). –El resaltado no es del original-\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nFue precisamente por la imposibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo\r\nentre los Estados Partes acerca de la delimitación de la zona económica\r\nexclusiva, que finalmente se definió que el método para hacerlo sería\r\ncasuístico, de forma tal que entratándose de Estados\r\ncon costas adyacentes o situadas frente a frente, la delimitación se tendría\r\nque efectuar por acuerdo entre ellos sobre la base del derecho internacional, a\r\nque se hace referencia en el artículo 38 del Estatuto de la Corte\r\nInternacional de Justicia, a fin de llegar a una \"solución\r\nequitativa\". Y añade el artículo 74 del Convenio de las Naciones\r\nUnidas sobre el Derecho del Mar:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Si no se llegare a un acuerdo dentro de un plazo\r\nrazonable, los Estados interesados recurrirán a los procedimientos previstos en\r\nla Parte XV.\".\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEsta norma reviste gran importancia para arribar a la conclusión de que\r\neste Tratado no versa sobre la integridad territorial de nuestro país, habida\r\ncuenta que de ella se puede colegir que las pretensiones unilaterales de un\r\npaís sobre la zona económica exclusiva que le corresponde, en realidad no tiene\r\nvalidez dentro del Derecho Internacional, a menos que se cuente con el\r\nreconocimiento de la comunidad internacional, y particularmente de los países\r\nvecinos.” (sentencia No. 2000-10473) \r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nSin lugar a dudas, el establecimiento\r\nde límites de tal naturaleza y la definición de jurisdicciones, constituyen un\r\nmarco normativo más claro y seguro, a fin de ejercer la protección, conservación\r\ny fiscalización de la explotación de los recursos naturales marítimos, a la que\r\nestá compelido el Estado, según ha precisado esta Sala: \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“Diversas razones obligan al Estado a hacer uso de sus mejores\r\nesfuerzos con el objeto de tutelar en forma adecuada sus inmensos espacios de\r\nmar territorial, de zona económica exclusiva, así como sus aguas internas. Por\r\nun lado, tiene un deber ineludible de velar por la preservación del medio\r\nambiente, y ello por supuesto incluye la adopción de aquellas medidas necesarias\r\npara evitar daños en los ecosistemas marítimos y acuáticos en general, proteger\r\nlas especies de seres vivos que habiten dichos medios, prevenir la\r\ncontaminación de los mares y aguas internas, así como reaccionar con energía\r\nante las actuaciones que atenten contra la integridad del medio ambiente\r\nacuático. Asimismo, el Estado está igualmente compelido por la Constitución\r\nPolítica a garantizar medios de subsistencia dignos y suficientes para todos\r\nsus habitantes, procurando un adecuado reparto de la riqueza generada. En ese\r\ncontexto, debe la Administración propiciar un uso sustentable de los recursos\r\nnaturales, logrando con ello que el país pueda desarrollarse económicamente,\r\nsin comprometer la integridad del medio ambiente.” (sentencia\r\nNo. 2004-1048, citada en la 2014-13206) \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEste fue uno de los fundamentos más\r\nimportantes que motivó a los legisladores para la aprobación de este proyecto. Expuesto\r\nlo anterior y que este Convenio se llevó a cabo en concordancia con principios\r\ny normas del Derecho Internacional que respetan nuestro ordenamiento jurídico;\r\nbajo los términos señalados, la Sala no encuentra objeciones de índole\r\nconstitucional, de fondo o forma, al proyecto de ley tramitado en el expediente\r\nlegislativo 19.340. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPor tanto:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n Se evacua esta consulta legislativa preceptiva de\r\nconstitucionalidad, en el sentido de que con motivo del trámite del proyecto de\r\nley denominado “APROBACIÓN DEL CONVENIO SOBRE DELIMITACIÓN MARÍTIMA ENTRE LA\r\nREPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y LA REPÚBLICA DE ECUADOR”, expediente legislativo\r\nNº 19.340, no se ha producido ningún vicio sustancial de forma ni de fondo. Comuníquese.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \nGilbert Armijo S.\n\r\n \nPresidente\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \nErnesto Jinesta\r\n L.\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \nFernando Cruz C.\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \nPaul Rueda L.\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \nAracelly Pacheco S.\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \nEnrique Ulate\r\n C.\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \nRicardo Madrigal J.", "body_en_text": "*150090210007CO*\n\n\n\n\n\n\nExp: 15-009021-0007-CO\nRes. No. 2015010264\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours fifteen minutes on the eighth of July, two thousand fifteen.\n\nMandatory legislative consultation on constitutionality submitted by the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly, regarding the bill processed in legislative file No. 19.340, entitled \"APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR.\"\n\nResulting:\n\n1.- By official letter received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 16:28 hours on June 23, 2015, the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly forwarded this consultation in compliance with the provisions of subparagraph a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, along with a certified copy of the legislative file.\n\n2.- By resolution of 10:00 hours on June 24, 2015, the legislative file was deemed received and this consultation was transferred, in accordance with the corresponding turn, to the Reporting Magistrate.\n\n3.- The prescriptions of law have been observed in the process and this resolution is issued within the respective legal period, which expires on July 23, 2015.\n\nReporting Magistrate Rueda Leal writes; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Purpose and admissibility of the consultation. This mandatory consultation on constitutionality was submitted by the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in compliance with the provisions of Articles 10, subparagraph b), of the Political Constitution and 96, subparagraph a), of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. It refers to the bill entitled \"APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR\", which is being processed in legislative file No. 19.340. The bill was submitted to a vote in the first debate in Plenary Session No. 24 of June 15, 2015 (see pages 182 to 183 of legislative file No. 19.340), thus complying with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. The first step, for the purpose of evacuating this consultation, is to verify the legislative procedures followed in the sub lite, in accordance with what Articles 98 and 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction indicate, by providing that the consultation must be made after the bill is approved in the first debate and before definitive approval and that, when evacuating it, the Chamber will rule on any aspects or grounds it deems relevant from the constitutional point of view, but in a binding manner only with respect to procedural steps. For the above purposes, the following considerandos will provide a synthesis of the bill and a chronological summary of the legislative processing of the consulted bill.\n\nII.- The processing of file No. 19.340 in the Legislative Assembly. The bill entitled \"APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR\", which is being processed in legislative file No. 19.340, has followed this iter:\n\n1. On January 21, 2014, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Enrique Castillo Barrantes, signed the Agreement on maritime delimitation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Ecuador (see page 8).\n\n2. By official letter LYD 576/09/14-C of September 3, 2014, the Minister of the Presidency, Melvin Jiménez Marín, forwarded to the Legislative Assembly the bill entitled \"APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR\", for its due processing. Said official letter was received in the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly on September 29, 2014 (page 1).\n\n3. On September 29, 2014, the bill in question was forwarded to the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade (page 14).\n\n4. On October 7, 2014, the Director of the Department of Archives, Research and Processing of the Legislative Assembly forwarded file No. 19.340 to the National Printing Office for its respective publication (see page 16).\n\n5. On October 23, 2014, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade received this legislative file for study (page 17).\n\n6. On October 20, 2014, the bill from file No. 19.340 was published in Supplement No. 57 of La Gaceta No. 201 (page 17).\n\n7. In ordinary session No. 23 of November 12, 2014, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to consult on said bill with MINAE, the Coast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security, the National University of Costa Rica, and the National Geographic Institute (pages 18 to 24).\n\n8. By official letters CRI-175-2014, CRI-177-2014, CRI-178-2014, all dated November 10, 2014, and official letter CRI-176-2014 of November 11, 2014, the Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade requested the opinion of the Minister of Environment and Energy, the Director General of the Coast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security, the Rector of the National University of Costa Rica, and the Director General of the National Geographic Institute regarding this file (pages 26 to 33).\n\n9. By official letter 721-2014-DG of November 13, 2014, the Director General of the Coast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security responded to the hearing granted by the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, per official letter CRI-176-2014, indicating that, regarding numeral 2, in his opinion, the width of this special zone is extremely large; currently, the technology of the devices used for global positioning of vessels is very precise, so such a wide area was not justified. Likewise, he stated regarding the commitment not to apply legislation within the 10 nautical miles, that in practice this could become a zone of tolerance for those fishermen of each of the parties who transgress the maritime limit established in the treaty, knowing that they cannot be sanctioned (page 34).\n\n10. By Executive Decree 38734-MP of November 27, 2014, the Executive Branch convened the Legislative Assembly to extraordinary sessions, so that file No. 19.340, among others, could be considered. Said decree was made known to the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that same November 27 (pages 43 to 56).\n\n11. In session No. 26 of December 18, 2014, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to publish the bill in question again, given that the publication of the Maritime Limit Chart was omitted in the first publication (pages 63 to 69).\n\n12. On January 21, 2015, the President of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade requested a 90-day extension from the President of the Legislative Assembly to render the report on file No. 19.340. Said request bears the approval of the President of the Legislative Assembly (page 78).\n\n13. In session No. 29 of February 12, 2015, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to grant a hearing to Carlos Murillo and Freddy Pacheco so that they could refer to the bill in question (pages 79 to 85).\n\n14. By official letters CEP-201-2015 and CEP-202-2015, both dated February 17, 2015, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade summoned Freddy Pacheco León and Carlos Murillo to a hearing on February 19, 2015 (pages 87 to 90).\n\n15. In session No. 30 of February 19, 2015, of the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, Carlos Murillo, an expert from the National University in Maritime Law, appeared (pages 91 to 102).\n\n16. By official letter ST-025-2015 I, on February 24, 2015, the Department of Technical Services forwarded the legal report on this file to the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade (pages 107 to 129).\n\n17. In the newspaper La Gaceta No. 43 of March 3, 2015, the bill in question was published again along with the respective Map (see digital publication https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2015/03/03/COMP_03_03_2015.pdf)\n\n18. The Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade, in ordinary session No. 33 of March 12, 2015, unanimously approved the bill in question (page 148).\n\n19. On April 20, 2015, the Permanent Special Committee on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the unanimous affirmative opinion on this bill to the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly (page 161).\n\n20. By official letter SCU-810-2015 of June 9, 2015, forwarded to the Assembly on June 11, 2015, the University Council of the National University stated that its experts endorsed the proposed limits in question, and therefore recommended that the Legislative Assembly ratify the Agreement under study, as well as include a diagram showing the location of the points and the equidistance relationships (pages 164 to 167).\n\n21. In Plenary Session No. 24 of June 15, 2015, the Plenary composed of 45 deputies unanimously approved, in the first debate, the bill submitted for study (page 183).\n\n22. On June 16, 2015, the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting received file No. 19.430 from the Secretariat of the Directorate (page 185).\n\n23. On April 29, 2015, the Department of Technical Services rendered a report to the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting regarding file No. 18.138 (page 210).\n\n24. In Ordinary Session No. 03 of June 17, 2015, the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting approved the final wording of the bill from file 19.430 (pages 196 to 207).\n\n25. On June 17, 2015, the Permanent Special Committee on Drafting delivered the final wording of file No. 19.340 to the Secretariat of the Directorate (page 221).\n\nIII.- On the legislative procedure in the specific case. In accordance with the provisions of Article 101 of the law governing this Jurisdiction, this Court reviewed the legislative procedure for the processing of the bill entitled \"Approval of the Agreement on maritime delimitation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Ecuador\". On this matter, this Court did not determine that any procedural defect had occurred during its processing. The Agreement was signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both States, who, in our case, have full powers to sign agreements binding the Costa Rican State, in accordance with what this Court reiterated in judgment No. 2001-855:\n\n\"Firstly, it must be said that it has been observed that the Treaty was initialed by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Fernando Naranjo V. (page 134 of the legislative file), who 'per se' has full powers to sign agreements binding the Costa Rican State. On the subject, this Chamber has ruled in judgment No. 1999-006725 at fifteen hours nine minutes on the first of September, nineteen ninety-nine, in which it was expressly indicated:\n\n\"From the reading of Article 140, subsection 10), it follows that the signing of international treaties is an attribution of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the Minister of the relevant branch. However, this Chamber has recognized the possibility that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, in his capacity as collaborator of the President in matters of international relations, may sign international treaties even without a letter expressly granting him full powers to do so. In judgment number 6224-94, at nine hours on the eleventh of November, nineteen ninety-four, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participates with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction and deposit of the treaty, makes it possible to remedy any defect that existed in the effective representation held by the Chancellor. To the above we can add that the President has two other opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the bill: at the time of its presentation to the Legislative Assembly and in the convening of extraordinary sessions, moments in which he could assert his constitutional attributions. If in the present case it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship who signed the agreement whose approval is being discussed, this does not imply the unconstitutionality of the legislative procedure followed up to now.\"\n\nTherefore, it was duly signed, as indicated. Likewise, the bill was published on two occasions, given that in the first publication the attachment of the map from the respective annex was omitted. So the first publication was made in Supplement No. 57 of La Gaceta No. 201 of October 20, 2014; and the second, which corrected such omission, was made in La Gaceta No. 43 of March 3, 2015. The optional hearings that the Committee deemed pertinent were granted. On the other hand, this Court verifies that the Committee on International Relations of the Legislative Assembly received the file in question on October 23, 2014, and began its discussion in the ordinary session of November 12, 2014. On February 12, 2015, the President of said Committee requested from the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly a 90-day extension for the presentation of that Committee's report on the bill under study, which was approved, as recorded on page 78 of the file, the approval given by the President of the Assembly. The unanimous approval of the bill in question occurred in ordinary session No. 33 of March 12, 2015, of the Committee on International Relations of the Legislative Assembly. Finally, the bill was unanimously approved by 45 deputies in the first debate, in ordinary session No. 24 of June 15, 2015. In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, public treaties and international agreements referring to the territorial integrity or political organization of the country require approval by the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of no less than three-quarters of the total number of its members, and by two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly, convened for that purpose. In this case, this is not an Agreement regarding the territorial integrity of our country, but only regarding an area over which it exercises a special jurisdiction, and therefore, according to precedents of this Chamber, it does not require said qualified vote, since the unilateral claims of a country over the exclusive economic zone actually have no validity within International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries:\n\n\"However, in the present case that qualified vote was not necessary, and therefore regarding this point, no unconstitutionality is observed in the procedure for the legislative approval of the 'Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia', signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it does not refer to the territorial integrity of our country. This is because the purpose of the Treaty is the delimitation of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the 'exclusive economic zone' between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, over which our country cannot exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty, but rather a special one 'for the purpose of protecting, conserving, and exclusively exploiting all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the soil, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles [referring to principles of International Law]', (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).\"\n\n...This rule is of great importance in reaching the conclusion that this Treaty does not deal with the territorial integrity of our country, given that it can be inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over the exclusive economic zone that corresponds to it actually have no validity within International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries. (see judgment No. 2000-10473)\n\nThus, given that in the processing of the bill for the approval of the consulted Agreement, there are no violations of constitutional norms and principles, it is appropriate to proceed to examine the substance of the initiative.\n\nIV.- On the bill submitted for consultation. According to the explanatory memorandum of the legislative file under study, this bill aims to delimit the areas of confluence and establish a maritime limit between Costa Rica and Ecuador. The foregoing, because from Cocos Island extends our territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, which overlaps with the zone generated from the Galapagos Archipelago belonging to Ecuador. This issue deserves to be addressed from two points of view, in relation to the existence of a prior demarcation, and the current situation proposed by this bill.\n\na.- Background of the Agreement in question. The delimitation of the maritime limits between the two countries had already been the subject of prior negotiation. Indeed, in 1985, Costa Rica and Ecuador had agreed on a Treaty on Maritime Limits, which did not come to be approved in our country during the legislative process, because the four-year term expired. In any case, that first agreement was contrary to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Costa Rica had signed by then, but neither of these countries had ratified it, since our country did so only on March 23, 1992, and Ecuador adhered only on September 24, 2012. Particularly, the discrepancy that arose at that time was that reference was made to the marine areas of \"200 miles of the territorial sea of Ecuador corresponding to its insular territory of the Colon Archipelago.\" Thus, it recognized Ecuador that area as territorial sea and Costa Rica, 200 miles as a jurisdictional zone according to the Preamble of that Agreement, creating not only a disparity but also being contrary to international law, because the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea recognizes in numeral 3, an international right to the breadth of the territorial sea of each coastal State at a maximum of 12 miles and the breadth of the exclusive economic zone at a maximum of 200 miles (see Article 57). This is relevant if one considers the bundle of powers that a State possesses over a zone, depending on its condition. Thus, in the territorial sea, the State fully exercises its sovereignty. However, in the patrimonial sea, over the exclusive economic zone and its continental shelf, in accordance with numeral 6 of the Political Constitution, what is recognized to the State is the exercise of rights and jurisdiction, in accordance with International Law and its domestic legislation, practically for the exploration, exploitation, conservation, and administration of natural resources, under the terms set forth in numeral 57 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. On the other hand, the previous agreement with Ecuador posed a major problem of indeterminacy, as it established a transitional provision, whereby the cartographic work was deferred to future results that would be annexed to the Agreement. These situations were overcome in the proposal under study. In 2012, on Ecuador's initiative, the issue of maritime delimitation was resumed, based on the fact that Ecuador was in the process of becoming a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which culminated on September 24, 2012. On February 3, 2012, a new Binational Meeting on maritime limits was agreed upon in San José, which was held on March 1, 2013, in which the Delegation of Ecuador proposed the knowledge and discussion of the new project based on the 1985 Convention, but updated with the terminology of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was agreed to send a Technical Commission from both countries during the first semester of 2013 to the Galapagos Archipelago and Cocos Island, so that they could obtain the geodetic data and the elaboration of the respective office work for the update of the coordinates of the base points obtained in the 1986 binational technical works to the WGS-84 geodetic system. For such purposes, a field visit was carried out from June 18 to 23, 2013, and the meeting of the Joint Technical Commission Ecuador-Costa Rica was held from June 24 to 26, 2013. After several negotiations, adjustments, and refinements, on April 21, 2014, the Agreement submitted for study was signed by both countries.\n\nb.- The consulted bill. The international agreement to delimit the areas of confluence and establish the maritime limit between Ecuador and Costa Rica consists of 4 articles: The first article defines the method used and the agreed limits:\n\n\"The exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Ecuador of the Galapagos Archipelago and the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Costa Rica of Cocos Island are delimited in the Pacific Ocean, in the sector where they overlap, by the geodetic lines passing through equidistant points between the two countries, which are defined in accordance with the following literals A), B), and C):\n\nA. Base Points\n\nIn Costa Rica:\n\nCR-1, in the Southwest of DOS AMIGOS Island.\n\nCR-2, in the Southwest of DAMPIER Cape, on COCO Island\n\nIn Ecuador:\n\nEC-1, in the Northeast of DARWIN Island\n\nEC-2, in the Northeast of GENOVESA Island\n\nB. Based on the above, the following points are determined for the tracing of the geodetic lines, from which the maritime limit is defined:\n\nPoint B-1 Equidistant point, determined by the intersection of the circle arcs traced with a radius of 200 nautical miles, from the base points EC-1, in the Northeast of DARWIN Island, and CR-1, in the Southwest of DOS AMIGOS Island.\n\nPoint B-2 Equidistant point, determined by the intersection of the circle arcs traced with a radius of 200 nautical miles, from the base points EC-2, in the Northeast of GENOVESA Island, and CR-2, in the Southwest of DAMPIER Cape.\n\nPoint C-1 Determined as the midpoint of the base geodetic line (EC-1) (CR-1).\n\nPoint C-2 Determined as the midpoint of the base geodetic line (EC-2) (CR-2).\n\nPoint B-3 Determined by the intersection of the projections of the two intermediate geodetic lines.\n\nThe first intermediate geodetic line will pass through points B-1 and C-1.\n\nThe second intermediate geodetic line will pass through points B-2 and C-2\n\nC. The geodetic lines passing through points B-1, B-3, and B-2 define the maritime limit between Ecuador and Costa Rica. The geographic coordinates corresponding to these points, presented in the order indicated above, are the following:\n\n| Point | North Latitude | West Longitude |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| B-1 | 04°33`55.741\" | 090°18'24.485\" |\n| B-3 | 03°26'37.922\" | 089°26'1 1 .383\" |\n| B-2 | 02°09`02.238\" | 087°08'42.443\" |\n\nThe geographic coordinates of all the points covered by this Agreement are determined in the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84).\n\nThe Chart of the Maritime Limit between Ecuador and Costa Rica is incorporated as an annex to this agreement.\"\n\nBasically, they define origin points from each country where the 200 miles overlap, drawing equidistant lines between the two countries, which, according to experts in the matter, is how the different points that will constitute the limit in question are obtained. This was thus reflected in the Maritime Chart attached as an annex to the Agreement. According to the statements made by various experts from the National University, both in the Committee on International Affairs and in writing, the coordinates in question are correct, well established, and updated. The procedures for determining equidistance and the location of points B-1, B-3, and B-2 are correct and follow the guidelines set forth by the UN Convention. Likewise, in this Treaty, Costa Rica gains hundreds of kilometers more of additional territory, compared to the previous one (see pages 96, 99, and 166 of this legislative project).\n\nThe second article, for its part, provides for a tolerance zone:\n\n\"A special zone of 10 nautical miles wide is established, situated on each side of the maritime limit indicated in literal C) of the previous article, in which the accidental presence of fishing vessels from one or the other country shall not be considered a violation of the pertinent norms of the respective State. This does not imply recognition of any right to carry out fishing or hunting activities in said special zone.\"\n\nThis provision, at the legislative level, raised doubt among the deputies of the Committee as to whether it would authorize an unpunishable zone for those who infringe upon special zones for the exploitation of natural resources.\n\nFrom the norm itself it is clear that\nsuch provision does not imply an authorization to carry out fishing or\nhunting tasks in said special zone, but rather, it is globally common that small\nvessels using not-so-accurate global positioning systems, do not\nrealize that they crossed the limit. In those cases, a\nbuffer zone or tolerance zone is available, in which, once the\nsituation is detected, attention is immediately called and the person is ordered to\nleave that area. Outside of said zone, both Costa Rica and Ecuador would have\nthe right to detain them. It is also considered a zone of cooperation between both\ncountries (see folio 102),\n\nArticle three proposes\ncooperation between the Parties on maritime matters, without prejudice to the\nsovereignty rights already delimited:\n\n“Based on the definition of the maritime limit established\nby this Agreement, the Parties shall foster the broadest cooperation\non maritime matters of mutual interest, without prejudice to the sovereign\nand jurisdictional rights that both States exercise in their respective\nmaritime spaces.”\n\nIn such terms, this provision\nrequires no further comment than the fact that such cooperation must\nbe understood within the internationally established regulatory framework. Finally,\narticle four submits this Agreement to approval in both countries, and fixes\nits entry into force with the exchange of the second diplomatic note, by which\ncompliance with the respective procedures is reported, which also does not\nimply any legal objection.\n\nV.- As already indicated supra, constitutional numeral 6 provides:\n\n“The State exercises complete and exclusive sovereignty\nover the airspace of its territory, over its territorial waters\nat a distance of twelve miles from the low-water mark\nalong its coasts, over its continental shelf and over its insular base in\naccordance with the principles of International Law.\n\nIt also exercises a\nspecial jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to its territory to an\nextent of two hundred miles from the same line, in order to protect,\nconserve and exploit exclusively all the natural resources and wealth\nexisting in the waters, the soil and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance\nwith those principles.”\n\nThis implies, as this Tribunal has already indicated, that the delimitation of the maritime zone where Costa Rica exercises\nsaid special jurisdiction, must conform to the agreements established in\nInternational Law:\n\n“VII.- Indeed, it\nfollows from the literal text of article I of the Agreement under analysis, that its\npurpose is the delimitation of the marine and submarine areas between the\nStates Parties, referring to the Pacific Ocean, and specifically to the exclusive economic zone,\ngiven that matters pertaining to the maximum breadth of the territorial sea,\nas well as of the adjacent zone were defined by agreement between the\nStates that –like ours– subscribed to the \"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea\" (Law number 7291 published in Supplement\nnumber 10 to\nLa Gaceta of Wednesday, July 15, 1992), specifically in articles\n3 and 33,\nnamely:\n\n\"Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea.\n\nEvery State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention\". –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\n\"Article 33: Contiguous zone.\n\n1.- In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, designated\nunder the name of the contiguous zone, the coastal State may take the\nnecessary control measures to:\n\nPrevent infringements of its customs, fiscal,\nimmigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or its\nterritorial sea;\n\na.\nPunish\ninfringements of those laws and regulations committed within its territory or its\nterritorial sea.\n\n2.- The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles\nfrom the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is\nmeasured\". –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIn this regard, when the Chamber ruled on the mandatory consultation\ncarried out on the occasion of the approval of this latter Convention,\namong its conclusions it stated that our Constitution was\nexpressly reformed, with the purpose of incorporating the concepts of\ninternational maritime law universally accepted and contained in the\nConvention, referring –among others– to articles 3 and 33\ncited above, and, in conclusion, the Chamber stated:\n\n\"…we can say that Costa Rica is one of the States most\nbenefited by the new Convention\". (Opinion number 10-92 of 4:30\np.m. on January 7, 1992). –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIt was precisely due to the impossibility of reaching an agreement\nbetween the States Parties regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic\nzone, that it was finally defined that the method for doing so would\nbe casuistic, such that in the case of States\nwith adjacent or opposite coasts, the delimitation would have\nto be effected by agreement between them on the basis of international law,\nreferred to in article 38 of the Statute of the International\nCourt of Justice, in order to arrive at an \"equitable\nsolution\". And article 74 of the United Nations Convention\non the Law of the Sea adds:\n\n\"If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable\nperiod of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for\nin Part XV.\".\n\nThis norm is of great importance for reaching the conclusion that\nthis Treaty does not deal with the territorial integrity of our country, bearing\nin mind that from it one can infer that the unilateral claims of a\ncountry over its corresponding exclusive economic zone, in reality have no\nvalidity within International Law, unless it has the\nrecognition of the international community, and particularly of the\nneighboring countries.” (Opinion No. 2000-10473)\n\nWithout a doubt, the establishment\nof limits of such nature and the definition of jurisdictions, constitute a\nclearer and more secure regulatory framework, in order to exercise the protection, conservation\nand supervision of the exploitation of maritime natural resources, to which\nthe State is compelled, as this Chamber has specified:\n\n“Various reasons compel the State to use its best\nefforts with the object of properly safeguarding its immense\nspaces of territorial sea, of exclusive economic zone, as well as its internal waters. On\none hand, it has an unavoidable duty to ensure the preservation of the environment,\nand this of course includes the adoption of those measures necessary\nto avoid damage to maritime and aquatic ecosystems in general, protect\nthe species of living beings that inhabit said environments, prevent\nthe contamination of the seas and internal waters, as well as react energetically\nto actions that threaten the integrity of the aquatic\nenvironment. Likewise, the State is equally compelled by the Political\nConstitution to guarantee dignified and sufficient means of subsistence for all\nits inhabitants, procuring an adequate distribution of the wealth generated. In that\ncontext, the Administration must promote a sustainable use of natural\nresources, thereby ensuring that the country can develop economically,\nwithout compromising the integrity of the environment.” (Opinion\nNo. 2004-1048, cited in 2014-13206)\n\nThis was one of the most important\nfoundations that motivated the legislators for the approval of this bill. Having stated\nthe foregoing and that this Agreement was carried out in accordance with principles\nand norms of International Law that respect our legal system;\nunder the terms indicated, the Chamber finds no constitutional objections,\nof substance or form, to the bill of law processed in legislative file\n19.340.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThis mandatory legislative consultation of\nconstitutionality is resolved, in the sense that during the processing of the bill\nof law called \"APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE\nREPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR\", legislative file\nNo. 19.340, no substantial defect of form or substance has occurred. Let this be communicated.\n\nGilbert Armijo S.\nPresidente\n\nErnesto Jinesta L.\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nPaul Rueda L.\n\nAracelly Pacheco S.\n\nEnrique Ulate C.\n\nRicardo Madrigal J.\n\n23 of November 12,\n2014, the Permanent Special Commission on Foreign Relations and Foreign Trade\napproved the motion to consult on said project with MINAE, the Coast Guard\nDirectorate of the Ministry of Public Security, the National University of Costa\nRica, and the National Geographic Institute (folios 18 to 24).\n\n8. By official letters CRI-175-2014, CRI-177-2014,\nCRI-178-2014, all dated November 10, 2014, and official letter CRI-176-2014 dated\nNovember 11, 2014, the Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade\nrequested the opinion of the Minister of Environment and Energy, the Director\nGeneral of the Coast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security, the\nRector of the National University of Costa Rica, and the Director General of the\nNational Geographic Institute regarding this expediente (folios 26 to 33).\n\n9. By official letter 721-2014-DG dated November 13, 2014, the Director General of the\nCoast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security responded to the\nhearing granted by the Permanent Special Commission on Foreign Relations and\nForeign Trade, pursuant to official letter CRI-176-2014, indicating that,\nregarding paragraph 2, in his opinion, the width of this special zone is\nextremely broad, and currently the technology of the devices used for global\npositioning of vessels is very precise, so such a wide area was not justified.\nLikewise, he stated, in relation to the commitment not to apply legislation\nwithin the 10 nautical miles, that in practice this could become a zone of\ntolerance for those fishermen from each party who violate the maritime boundary\nestablished in the treaty, knowing that they cannot be sanctioned (folio 34).\n\n10. By Decreto Ejecutivo 38734-MP dated November 27, 2014, the Executive Branch convened\nthe Legislative Assembly to extraordinary sessions, so that expediente No.\n19.340, among others, could be heard. Said decree was made known to the\nSecretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly on that same\nNovember 27 (folios 43 to 56).\n\n11. In session No. 26 of December 18, 2014, the Permanent Special Commission on\nForeign Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to publish the bill in\nquestion again, since the Maritime Boundary Chart had been omitted from the\nfirst publication (folios 63 a 69).\n\n12. On January 21, 2015, the President of the Permanent Special Commission on\nInternational Relations and Foreign Trade requested an extension of up to 90\ndays from the President of the Legislative Assembly to render the report for\nexpediente No. 19.340. Said request bears the approval of the President of the\nLegislative Assembly (folio 78).\n\n13. In session No. 29 of February 12, 2015, the Permanent Special Commission on\nForeign Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to grant a hearing to\nCarlos Murillo and Freddy Pacheco so that they could address the bill in\nquestion (folios 79 to 85).\n\n14. By official letters CEP-201-2015 and CEP-202-2015, both dated February 17,\n2015, the Permanent Special Commission on Foreign Relations and Foreign Trade\nsummoned Freddy Pacheco León and Carlos Murillo to a hearing on February 19,\n2015 (folios 87 a 90).\n\n15. In session No. 30 of February 19, 2015, of the Permanent Special Commission on\nForeign Relations and Foreign Trade, Carlos Murillo, an expert in Maritime Law\nfrom the National University, appeared (folios 91 a 102).\n\n16. By official letter ST-025-2015 I, on February 24, 2015, the Department of\nTechnical Services remitted the legal report for this expediente to the\nPermanent Special Commission on Foreign Relations and Foreign Trade (folios 107\nto 129).\n\n17. In La Gaceta No. 43 of March 3, 2015, the bill in question was published\nagain, together with the respective Map (see digital publication\nhttps://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2015/03/03/COMP_03_03_2015.pdf)\n\n18. The Permanent Special Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade,\nin ordinary session No. 33 of March 12, 2015, unanimously approved the project\nin question (folio 148).\n\n19. On April 20, 2015, the Permanent Special Commission on International\nRelations and Foreign Trade delivered the unanimous affirmative committee report\n(dictamen) for this project to the Secretariat of the Directorate of the\nLegislative Assembly (folio 161).\n\n20. By official letter SCU-810-2015 dated June 9, 2015, remitted to the Assembly\non June 11, 2015, the University Council of the National University stated that\nits experts endorsed the boundary proposal in question and therefore\nrecommended that the Legislative Assembly ratify the Agreement under study, as\nwell as include a diagram showing the location of the points and the\nequidistance relationships (folios 164 a 167).\n\n21. In Plenary Session No. 24 of June 15, 2015, the Plenary composed of 45\ndeputies unanimously approved in the first debate the bill submitted for study\n(folio 183).\n\n22. On June 16, 2015, the Permanent Special Commission on Drafting received\nexpediente No. 19.430 from the Secretariat of the Directorate (folio 185).\n\n23. On April 29, 2015, the Department of Technical Services rendered a report to\nthe Permanent Special Commission on Drafting regarding expediente No. 18.138\n(folio 210).\n\n24. In Ordinary Session No. 03 of June 17, 2015, the Permanent Special\nCommission on Drafting approved the final wording of the bill in expediente\n19.430 (folios 196 to 207).\n\n25. On June 17, 2015, the Permanent Special Commission on Drafting delivered to\nthe Secretariat of the Directorate the final wording of expediente No. 19.340\n(folio 221).\n\nIII.- On the legislative procedure in the specific case.\nIn accordance with the provisions of Article 101 of the law governing this\nJurisdiction, this Court reviewed the legislative procedure for the processing\nof the project entitled \"Approval of the Agreement on Maritime Delimitation\nbetween the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Ecuador.\" In this\nregard, this Court did not determine that any procedural defect whatsoever\noccurred during its processing. The Agreement was signed by the Ministers of\nForeign Affairs of both States, who in our case, has full powers to sign\nagreements binding the Costa Rican State, in accordance with what has been\nreiterated by this Court in judgment No. 2001-855:\n\n\"First of all, it must be stated that it has been observed that the\nTreaty was initialed by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship,\nFernando Naranjo V. (folio 134 of the legislative expediente), who 'per se'\nhas full powers to sign agreements binding the Costa Rican State. On this\nmatter, this Chamber has ruled in judgment No. 1999-006725 of fifteen hours\nnine minutes of September first, nineteen ninety-nine, in which it was\nexpressly indicated:\n\n'From a reading of Article 140, subsection 10), it follows that the signing of\ninternational treaties is an attribution of the Executive Branch, understood as\nthe collegiate body composed of the President and the Minister of the relevant\nsector. However, this Chamber has recognized the possibility that the\nMinister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, in his capacity as collaborator of\nthe President in matters of international relations, may sign international\ntreaties even without a letter expressly granting him full powers to do so.\nIn judgment number 6224-94, of nine o'clock on November eleventh, nineteen\nninety-four, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the\nRepublic participates with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction\n(approval) and deposit of the treaty, allows any defect that may have existed\nin the effective representation held by the Foreign Minister to be remedied.\nTo the foregoing we can add that the President has two additional\nopportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the project: at the\nmoment of its presentation to the Legislative Assembly and in the call for\nextraordinary sessions, at which times he could assert his constitutional\nattributes. If in the specific case it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and\nWorship who signed the agreement whose approval is under discussion, this does\nnot imply the unconstitutionality of the legislative procedure followed thus\nfar.'\n\nThus, it was duly signed, as indicated. Likewise, the project was published on\ntwo occasions, since the first publication omitted to attach the map of the\nrespective annex. Therefore, the first publication was made in Alcance No. 57\nto La Gaceta No. 201 of October 20, 2014; and the second, which remedied such\nomission, was published in La Gaceta No. 43 of March 3, 2015. The optional\nhearings that the Commission deemed pertinent were granted. On the other hand,\nthis Court verifies that the Commission on International Relations of the\nLegislative Assembly received the expediente in question on October 23, 2014,\nand began its discussion in the ordinary session of November 12, 2014. On\nFebruary 12, 2015, the President of said Commission requested from the\nPresidency of the Legislative Assembly a 90-day extension for the presentation\nof that Commission's report on the project under study, which was approved, as\nrecorded on folio 78 of the expediente with the approval given by the\nPresident of the Assembly. The unanimous approval of the project in question\noccurred in ordinary session No. 33 of March 12, 2015, of the Commission on\nInternational Relations of the Legislative Assembly. Finally, the project was\nunanimously approved by 45 deputies in the first debate, in ordinary session\nNo. 24 of June 15, 2015. In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution,\npublic treaties and international agreements concerning the territorial\nintegrity or political organization of the country shall require approval by\nthe Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than three-quarters of its total\nmembership, and that of two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly\nconvened for that purpose. In this case, it is not an Agreement regarding the\nterritorial integrity of our country, but only an area over which it exercises\na special jurisdiction, so that, according to precedents of this Chamber, it\ndoes not require such a reinforced vote, since the unilateral claims of a\ncountry over the exclusive economic zone (zona económica exclusiva) actually\nhave no validity within International Law, unless they have the recognition of\nthe international community, and particularly of neighboring countries:\n\n\"However, in the present case, that reinforced vote was not necessary,\nand therefore, regarding this point, no unconstitutionality whatsoever is\nobserved in the procedure for the legislative approval of the 'Treaty on the\nDelimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the\nRepublic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia', signed in Bogotá, D.E.\non April 6, 1984, since it does not refer to the territorial integrity of our\ncountry. This is because the object of the Treaty is the delimitation of what\nthe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the 'exclusive\neconomic zone' between the Republic of Colombia and that of Costa Rica, over\nwhich our country cannot exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty, but a\nspecial one 'in order to protect, conserve and exclusively exploit all the\nnatural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the seabed and the subsoil\nof those zones, in accordance with those principles [referring to principles\nof International Law]', (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 56 of the\nUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).\"\n\n...This norm is of great importance in reaching the conclusion that this Treaty\ndoes not deal with the territorial integrity of our country, given that it can\nbe inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over the exclusive\neconomic zone that corresponds to it actually have no validity within\nInternational Law, unless it has the recognition of the international\ncommunity, and particularly of neighboring countries. (see judgment No.\n2000-10473)\n\nThis being the case, given that in the processing of the bill approving the\nconsulted Agreement, there are no violations of constitutional norms and\nprinciples, it is appropriate to proceed to hear the merits of the initiative.\n\nIV.- On the Bill submitted for consultation.\nAccording to the explanatory statement (exposición de motivos) of the\nlegislative expediente under study, this bill aims to delimit the areas of\nconfluence and fix a maritime boundary between Costa Rica and Ecuador. The\nforegoing, because our territorial sea and exclusive economic zone extends from\nIsla del Coco, which overlaps with the zone generated from the Galapagos\nArchipelago that belongs to Ecuador. This issue deserves to be addressed from\ntwo points of view: in relation to the existence of a prior demarcation, and\nthe current situation proposed by this bill.\n\na.- Background of the Agreement in question.\nThe delimitation of maritime boundaries between the two countries had already\nbeen the subject of prior negotiation. Indeed, in 1985, Costa Rica and Ecuador\nhad agreed on a Maritime Limits Treaty, which did not come to be approved in\nour country in the legislative process, due to the expiration of the four-year\nterm. In any case, that first agreement contravened the 1982 United Nations\nConvention on the Law of the Sea, which Costa Rica had signed by then, but\nneither of these countries had ratified it, as our country did so only on\nMarch 23, 1992, and Ecuador acceded only on September 24, 2012.\n\nParticularly, the discrepancy that arose on that occasion was that reference was made to the marine areas of \"200 miles of the territorial sea of Ecuador corresponding to its insular territory of the Archipiélago de Colón.\" Thus, it recognized said area as territorial sea for Ecuador and, for Costa Rica, 200 miles as a jurisdictional zone according to the Preamble of that Agreement, creating not only a disparity but also running contrary to international law, since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea recognizes in paragraph 3 an international right to the breadth of the territorial sea of each coastal State at a maximum of 12 miles and the breadth of the exclusive economic zone at a maximum of 200 miles (see Article 57). This is relevant if one considers the bundle of powers a State possesses over a zone, depending on its status. Thus, in the territorial sea, the State fully exercises its sovereignty. However, in the patrimonial sea, over the exclusive economic zone and its continental shelf, in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Political Constitution, what is recognized to the State is the exercise of rights and jurisdiction, in accordance with International Law and its domestic legislation, practically for the exploration, exploitation, conservation, and administration of natural resources, under the terms set forth in paragraph 57 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. On the other hand, the previous agreement with Ecuador posed a major problem of indeterminacy, as it established a transitory provision through which the cartographic work was postponed for future results to be annexed to the Agreement. These situations were overcome in the proposal under study. In 2012, at Ecuador’s initiative, the issue of maritime delimitation was resumed, based on the fact that Ecuador was in the process of becoming a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a process that concluded on September 24, 2012. On February 3, 2012, a new Binational Meeting on maritime limits was agreed upon in San José, held on March 1, 2013, at which the Delegation of Ecuador proposed the knowledge and discussion of the new project based on the 1985 Agreement, but updated with the terminology of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The referral of a Technical Commission from both countries during the first half of 2013 to the Archipiélago de Galápagos and Isla del Coco was agreed upon, so that they could obtain the geodetic data and prepare the respective desk work to update the coordinates of the base points obtained in the 1986 binational technical work to the WGS-84 geodetic system. For these purposes, a field visit took place from June 18 to 23, 2013, and the meeting of the Ecuador-Costa Rica Joint Technical Commission was held from June 24 to 26, 2013. After several negotiations, adjustments, and refinements, on April 21, 2014, the Agreement under study was signed by both countries.\n\nb.- The consulted Bill. The international agreement to delimit the areas of confluence and fix the maritime boundary between Ecuador and Costa Rica consists of 4 articles: In the first article, the method used and the agreed limits are defined:\n\n\"The exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Ecuador of the Archipiélago de Galápagos and the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Costa Rica of the Isla del Coco are delimited in the Pacific Ocean, in the sector where they overlap, by the geodetic lines passing through equidistant points between the two countries, which are defined in accordance with the following subparagraphs A), B) and C):\n\nA. Base Points\n\nIn Costa Rica:\n\nCR-1, in the Southwest of the isla DOS AMIGOS.\n\nCR-2, in the Southwest of the cabo DAMPIER, on the Isla del COCO\n\nIn Ecuador:\n\nEC-1, in the Northeast of the isla DARWIN\n\nEC-2, in the Northeast of the isla GENOVESA\n\nB. Based on the foregoing, the following points are determined for the tracing of the geodetic lines, from which the maritime boundary is defined:\n\nPoint B-1 Equidistant point, determined by the intersection of the arcs of a circle drawn with a radius of 200 nautical miles, from the base points EC-1, in the Northeast of the isla DARWIN and CR-1, in the Southwest of the isla DOS AMIGOS.\n\nPoint B-2 Equidistant point, determined by the intersection of the arcs of a circle drawn with a radius of 200 nautical miles, from the base points EC-2, in the Northeast of the isla GENOVESA and CR-2, in the Southwest of the cabo DAMPIER.\n\nPoint C-1 Determined as the midpoint of the base geodetic line (EC-1) (CR-1).\n\nPoint C-2 Determined as the midpoint of the base geodetic line (EC-2) (CR-2).\n\n Point B-3 Determined by the intersection of the projections of the two intermediate geodetic lines.\n\n The first intermediate geodetic line will pass through points B-1 and C-1.\n\n The second intermediate geodetic line will pass through points B-2 and C-2\n\nC. The geodetic lines passing through points B-1, B-3, and B-2 define the maritime boundary between Ecuador and Costa Rica. The geographical coordinates corresponding to these points, presented in the order indicated above, are as follows:\n\n| Punto | Latitud Norte | Longitud oeste |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| B-1 | 04°33`55.741\" | 090°18'24.485\" |\n| B-3 | 03°26'37.922\" | 089°26'1 1 .383\" |\n| B-2 | 02°09`02.238\" | 087°08'42.443\" |\n\nThe geographical coordinates of all the points covered by this Agreement are determined in the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84).\n\nThe Chart of the Maritime Boundary between Ecuador and Costa Rica is incorporated as an annex to this agreement.\"\n\nBasically, they define starting points for each country where the 200 miles overlap, tracing equidistant lines between both countries, from which, according to experts in the field, the different points that will constitute the boundary in question are obtained. This was thus reflected in the Maritime Chart attached as an annex to the Agreement. According to statements made by various experts from the Universidad Nacional, both in the International Affairs Committee and in writing, the coordinates in question are correct, well established, and updated. The procedures for determining equidistance and the location of points B-1, B-3, and B-2 are correct and comply with the guidelines set out by the UN Convention. Likewise, in this Treaty, Costa Rica gains hundreds of kilometers of additional territory compared to the previous one (see folios 96, 99, and 166 of this legislative bill). \n\nArticle two, for its part, provides for a tolerance zone:\n\n \"A special zone of 10 nautical miles in width is established on each side of the maritime boundary indicated in subparagraph C) of the preceding article, in which the accidental presence of fishing vessels of either country shall not be considered a violation of the pertinent regulations of the respective State. This does not imply recognition of any right to conduct fishing or hunting activities in said special zone.\"\n\nThis provision, at the legislative level, raised the doubt among the deputies of the Committee as to whether it would authorize an unpunishable zone for those who infringe special zones for the exploitation of natural resources. From the rule itself, it is clear that such provision does not imply an authorization to conduct fishing or hunting activities in said special zone, but rather that, worldwide, it is common for small vessels using less accurate global positioning systems not to realize that they have crossed the boundary. In such cases, a buffer zone or tolerance zone is established, in which, once the situation is detected, the person is immediately called to attention and ordered to leave that area. Outside of said zone, both Costa Rica and Ecuador would have the right to detain it. It is also considered a cooperation zone between both countries (see folio 102). \n\nArticle three proposes cooperation between the Parties on maritime issues, without prejudice to the sovereignty rights already delimited:\n\n\"Based on the definition of the maritime boundary established by this Agreement, the Parties shall foster the broadest cooperation on maritime issues of mutual interest, without prejudice to the rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction that both States exercise in their respective maritime spaces.\"\n\nIn such terms, this provision requires no further comment beyond the fact that such cooperation must be understood within the normative framework established internationally. Finally, article four submits this Agreement to approval in both countries, and establishes its entry into force upon the exchange of the second diplomatic note reporting the completion of the respective procedures, which also implies no legal objection whatsoever.\n\nV.- As already indicated above, paragraph 6 of the Constitution provides:\n\n\"The State exercises complete and exclusive sovereignty in the airspace over its territory, in its territorial waters over a distance of twelve miles from the low-water mark along its coasts, on its continental shelf and on its insular base in accordance with the principles of International Law.\n\nIt also exercises a special jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to its territory over an extension of two hundred miles from the same line, in order to protect, conserve, and exclusively exploit all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the seabed, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles.\"\n\nThis implies, as this Tribunal has already indicated, that the delimitation of the maritime zone where Costa Rica exercises said special jurisdiction must conform to the agreements established in International Law:\n\n\"VII.- Indeed, it is clear from the literal wording of Article I of the Agreement under analysis, that its object is the delimitation of marine and submarine areas between the States Parties, referring to the Pacific Ocean, and specifically to the exclusive economic zone, given that matters concerning the maximum breadth of the territorial sea, as well as the contiguous zone, were defined by agreement among the States that –like ours– signed the 'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea' (Law number 7291 published in Supplement number 10 to La Gaceta of Wednesday, July 15, 1992), specifically in Articles 3 and 33, namely:\n\n\"Artículo 3. Anchura del mar territorial.\n\nTodo Estado tiene derecho a establecer la anchura de su mar territorial hasta un límite que no exceda de 12 millas marinas medidas a partir de líneas de base determinadas de conformidad con esta Convención\". –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\n\"Artículo 33: Zona contigua.\n\n1.- En una zona contigua a su mar territorial, designada con el nombre de zona contigua, el Estado ribereño podrá tomar las medidas de fiscalización necesarias para:\n\nPrevenir las infracciones de sus leyes y reglamentos aduaneros, fiscales, de inmigración o sanitarios que se cometan en su territorio o en su mar territorial;\n\na. Sancionar las infracciones de esas leyes y reglamentos cometidas en su territorio o en su mar territorial.\n\n2.- La zona contigua no podrá extenderse más allá de 24 millas marinas contadas desde las líneas de base a partir de las cuales se mide la anchura del mar territorial\". –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIn this regard, when the Chamber ruled on the mandatory consultation carried out on the occasion of the approval of this latter Convention, among its conclusions it pointed out that our Constitution was expressly amended in order to incorporate the universally accepted concepts of international maritime law and included in the Convention, referring –among others– to Articles 3 and 33 cited above, and, in conclusion, the Chamber stated:\n\n\"…podemos decir que Costa Rica es uno de los Estados más beneficiados con la nueva Convención\". (Judgment number 10-92 of 4:30 p.m. on January 7, 1992). –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIt was precisely because of the impossibility of reaching an agreement among the States Parties on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone, that it was finally defined that the method for doing so would be on a case-by-case basis, such that in the case of States with adjacent or opposite coasts, the delimitation would have to be effected by agreement between them on the basis of international law, referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to reach an \"equitable solution\". And Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adds:\n\n\"Si no se llegare a un acuerdo dentro de un plazo razonable, los Estados interesados recurrirán a los procedimientos previstos en la Parte XV.\".\n\nThis rule is of great importance for reaching the conclusion that this Treaty does not deal with the territorial integrity of our country, given that from it one can infer that the unilateral claims of a country over the exclusive economic zone that corresponds to it, actually have no validity under International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries.\" (sentencia No.\n\n2000-10473)  \\r\\n

\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n

Without a doubt, the establishment\\r\\nof limits of such a nature and the definition of jurisdictions constitute a\\r\\nclearer and more secure normative framework for exercising the protection, conservation,\\r\\nand oversight of the exploitation of maritime natural resources, to which the\\r\\nState is compelled, as this Chamber has specified: 

\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n

“Various reasons oblige the State to make its best efforts to adequately\\r\\nsafeguard its immense spaces of territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, as well\\r\\nas its internal waters. On one hand, it has an unavoidable duty to ensure the\\r\\npreservation of the environment, and this of course includes the adoption of\\r\\nthose measures necessary to avoid damage to maritime and aquatic ecosystems in\\r\\ngeneral, protect the species of living beings that inhabit those environments,\\r\\nprevent the contamination of the seas and internal waters, as well as react\\r\\nforcefully against actions that threaten the integrity of the aquatic\\r\\nenvironment. Likewise, the State is equally compelled by the Political\\r\\nConstitution to guarantee dignified and sufficient means of subsistence for all\\r\\nits inhabitants, seeking an adequate distribution of the generated wealth. In\\r\\nthat context, the Administration must promote a sustainable use of natural\\r\\nresources, thereby achieving that the country can develop economically,\\r\\nwithout compromising the integrity of the environment.” (judgment\\r\\nNo. 2004-1048, cited in 2014-13206)

\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n

This was one of the most important\\r\\nfoundations that motivated the legislators for the approval of this bill. Having\\r\\nstated the foregoing and that this Agreement was carried out in accordance with principles\\r\\nand norms of International Law that respect our legal system;\\r\\nunder the terms indicated, the Chamber finds no constitutional objections, of\\r\\nsubstance or form, to the bill processed in legislative file 19.340.

\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n

Por tanto:

\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n

                 This mandatory legislative consultation of\\r\\nconstitutionality is hereby resolved, in the sense that, regarding the\\r\\nprocessing of the bill entitled “APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT ON MARITIME\\r\\nDELIMITATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR”, legislative file\\r\\nNo. 19.340, no substantial defect of form or substance has occurred. Comuníquese.

\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n \\r\\n
\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n

Gilbert Armijo S.

\\r\\n

Presidente

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n
\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n

Ernesto Jinesta\\r\\n L.

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n

Fernando Cruz C.

\\r\\n
\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n

Paul Rueda L.

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n

Aracelly Pacheco S.

\\r\\n
\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n

Enrique Ulate\\r\\n C.

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n 		\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n

Ricardo Madrigal J.

\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n
\\r\\n\\r\\n

 

\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\n\nThat official communication was received in the Secretariat of the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly on September 29, 2014 (folio 1).\n\n3. On September 29, 2014, the bill in question was referred to the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade (folio 14).\n\n4. On October 7, 2014, the Director of the Department of Archives, Research, and Processing of the Legislative Assembly sent file No. 19,340 to the National Printing Office for its respective publication (see folio 16).\n\n5. On October 23, 2014, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade received this legislative file for study (folio 17).\n\n6. On October 20, 2014, the bill from file No. 19,340 was published in Supplement No. 57 to La Gaceta No. 201 (folio 17).\n\n7. In ordinary session No. 23 of November 12, 2014, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to consult on said bill with MINAE, the Coast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security, the National University of Costa Rica, and the National Geographic Institute (folios 18 to 24).\n\n8. By official communications CRI-175-2014, CRI-177-2014, CRI-178-2014, all dated November 10, 2014, and official communication CRI-176-2014 of November 11, 2014, the Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade requested the opinion of the Minister of Environment and Energy, the Director General of the Coast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security, the Rector of the National University of Costa Rica, and the Director General of the National Geographic Institute regarding this file (folios 26 to 33).\n\n9. By official communication 721-2014-DG of November 13, 2014, the Director General of the Coast Guard Directorate of the Ministry of Public Security responded to the hearing granted by the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, pursuant to official communication CRI-176-2014, indicating that, regarding numeral 2, in his opinion, the width of this special zone is extremely broad, currently the technology of the devices used for global positioning of vessels is very precise, such that such a wide area was not justified. Likewise, he stated regarding the commitment not to apply legislation within the 10 nautical miles, that in practice this could become a tolerance zone for those fishermen from each party who transgress the maritime boundary established in the treaty, knowing that they cannot be sanctioned (folio 34).\n\n10. By Executive Decree 38734-MP of November 27, 2014, the Executive Branch convened the Legislative Assembly to extraordinary sessions, so that file No. 19,340, among others, could be considered. Said decree was brought to the attention of the Secretariat of the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly on that same November 27 (folios 43 to 56).\n\n11. In session No. 26 of December 18, 2014, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to publish the bill in question again, given that the publication of the Maritime Boundary Chart was omitted in the first one (folios 63 to 69).\n\n12. On January 21, 2015, the President of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade requested an extension of up to 90 days from the President of the Legislative Assembly to render the report on file No. 19,340. Said request bears the approval of the President of the Legislative Assembly (folio 78).\n\n13. In session No. 29 of February 12, 2015, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade approved the motion to grant a hearing to Carlos Murillo and Freddy Pacheco so they could address the bill in question (folios 79 to 85).\n\n14. By official communications CEP-201-2015 and CEP-202-2015, both dated February 17, 2015, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade summoned Freddy Pacheco León and Carlos Murillo to a hearing for February 19, 2015 (folios 87 to 90).\n\n15. In session No. 30 of February 19, 2015, of the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, Carlos Murillo, an expert in Maritime Law from the National University, appeared (folios 91 to 102).\n\n16. By official communication ST-025-2015 I, on February 24, 2015, the Directorate of Technical Services sent the legal report on this file to the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade (folios 107 to 129).\n\n17. In the newspaper La Gaceta No. 43 of March 3, 2015, the bill in question was published again along with the respective Map (see digital publication https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2015/03/03/COMP_03_03_2015.pdf)\n\n18. The Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade, in ordinary session No. 33 of March 12, 2015, unanimously approved the bill in question (folio 148).\n\n19. On April 20, 2015, the Special Permanent Commission on International Relations and Foreign Trade delivered the unanimous affirmative opinion on this bill to the Secretariat of the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly (folio 161).\n\n20. By official communication SCU-810-2015 of June 9, 2015, sent to the Assembly on June 11, 2015, the University Council of the National University stated that its experts endorsed the boundary proposal in question, and therefore recommended that the Legislative Assembly ratify the Agreement under study, as well as include a diagram showing the location of the points and the equidistance relationships (folios 164 to 167).\n\n21. By Plenary Session No. 24 of June 15, 2015, the Plenary composed of 45 deputies unanimously approved on first debate the bill submitted for study (folio 183).\n\n22. On June 16, 2015, the Special Permanent Commission on Drafting received file No. 19,430 from the Secretariat of the Board of Directors (folio 185).\n\n23. On April 29, 2015, the Department of Technical Services rendered a report to the Special Permanent Commission on Drafting regarding file No. 18,138 (folio 210).\n\n24. In Ordinary Session No. 03 of June 17, 2015, the Special Permanent Commission on Drafting approved the final text of the bill from file 19,430 (folios 196 to 207).\n\n25. On June 17, 2015, the Special Permanent Commission on Drafting delivered the final text of file No. 19,340 to the Secretariat of the Board of Directors (folio 221).\n\nIII.- On the legislative procedure in the specific case. In accordance with the provisions of Article 101 of the law governing this Jurisdiction, this Court reviewed the legislative procedure for the processing of the bill entitled “Approval of the Agreement on Maritime Delimitation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Ecuador.” On this matter, this Court did not determine that any defect in the procedure had occurred during its processing. The Agreement was signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both States, who in our case, has full powers to sign agreements binding the Costa Rican State, in accordance with what this Court reiterated in judgment No. 2001-855:\n\n“First, it must be said that it has been observed that the Treaty was signed by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Fernando Naranjo V. (folio 134 of the legislative file), who ‘per se’ has full powers to sign agreements binding the Costa Rican State. On this subject, this Chamber has ruled in judgment No. 1999-006725 of fifteen hours nine minutes of September first, nineteen ninety-nine, in which it was expressly indicated:\n\n“From the reading of Article 140 subsection 10) it follows that the signing of international treaties is an attribution of the Executive Branch, understood as the collegiate body composed of the President and the Minister of the relevant Branch. However, this Chamber has recognized the possibility that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, in his capacity as collaborator of the President in matters of international relations, may sign international treaties even without a letter expressly granting him full powers to do so. In judgment number 6224-94, of nine hours of November eleven, nineteen ninety-four, this Chamber considered that the fact that the President of the Republic participates with his will in subsequent procedural stages: sanction and deposit of the treaty, allows any defect that might have existed in the effective representation held by the Chancellor to be cured. To the above we can add that the President has two other opportunities to invoke his eventual disagreement with the bill: at the time of its presentation to the Legislative Assembly and in the calling of extraordinary sessions, moments at which he could assert his constitutional attributions. If in this case it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship who signed the agreement whose approval is being discussed, this does not imply the unconstitutionality of the legislative procedure followed up to now.”\n\nTherefore, it was duly signed, as indicated. Likewise, the bill was published on two occasions, given that the attachment of the map of the respective annex was omitted in the first publication. Consequently, the first publication was made in Supplement No. 57 to La Gaceta No. 201 of October 20, 2014; and the second, which corrected such omission, was made in La Gaceta No. 43 of March 3, 2015. The optional hearings that the Commission deemed pertinent were granted. On the other hand, this Court verifies that the International Relations Commission of the Legislative Assembly received the file in question on October 23, 2014, and began its discussion in the ordinary session of November 12, 2014. On February 12, 2015, the President of said Commission requested from the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly a 90-day extension for the presentation of that Commission’s report on the bill under study, which was approved, as recorded on folio 78 of the file by the approval given by the President of the Assembly. The unanimous approval of the bill in question occurred in ordinary session No. 33 of March 12, 2015, of the International Relations Commission of the Legislative Assembly. Finally, the bill was unanimously approved by 45 deputies in the first debate, in ordinary session No. 24 of June 15, 2015. In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution, public treaties and international agreements referring to the territorial integrity or the political organization of the country shall require approval of the Legislative Assembly, by a vote of no less than three-quarters of the total of its members, and that of two-thirds of the members of a Constituent Assembly, convened for that purpose.\n\nIn this case, it does not involve a Treaty regarding the territorial integrity of our country, but rather solely an area over which it exercises a special jurisdiction, and therefore, according to precedents of this Chamber, it does not require said reinforced vote, since the unilateral claims of a country over the exclusive economic zone (zona económica exclusiva) are not actually valid under International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries:\n\n“However, in the present case that reinforced vote was not necessary, and therefore regarding this point no unconstitutionality is observed in the procedure for the legislative approval of the ‘Treaty on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Colombia’, signed in Bogotá, D.E. on April 6, 1984, since it does not refer to the territorial integrity of our country. This is because the object of the Treaty is the delimitation of what the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls the ‘exclusive economic zone’ between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, and over which our country cannot exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty, but rather a special one ‘in order to protect, conserve and exclusively exploit all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the soil and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles [it refers to principles of International Law]’, (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).”\n\n…This norm is of great importance in reaching the conclusion that this Treaty does not deal with the territorial integrity of our country, given that it can be inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over its corresponding exclusive economic zone are not actually valid under International Law, unless they have the recognition of the international community, and particularly of neighboring countries. (see ruling No. 2000-10473)\n\nThus, given that in the processing of the legislative bill approving the consulted Convention, there were no infractions of constitutional norms and principles, it is now appropriate to proceed to examine the substance of the initiative.\n\nIV.- On the Legislative Bill submitted for consultation. According to the explanatory statement of the legislative file under study, this bill aims to delimit the areas of confluence and establish a maritime boundary between Costa Rica and Ecuador. The foregoing is because, starting from Isla del Coco, our territorial sea and exclusive economic zone extend outward, and this zone overlaps with the zone generated from the Archipiélago de Las Galápagos, which belongs to Ecuador. This topic must be addressed from two points of view: regarding the existence of a prior demarcation, and the current situation proposed by this bill.\n\na.- Background of the Treaty in question. The delimitation of the maritime boundaries between both countries had already been the subject of prior negotiation. Indeed, in 1985, Costa Rica and Ecuador had agreed upon a Treaty of Maritime Limits, which was not approved in our country through the legislative process, due to the expiration of the four-year term. In any case, that first agreement contravened the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Costa Rica had signed by then, but neither of these countries had ratified it, since our country did so only on March 23, 1992, and Ecuador did not accede until September 24, 2012. Particularly, the discrepancy that arose on that occasion was that it referred to the marine areas of “200 miles of Ecuador’s territorial sea corresponding to its insular territory of the Archipiélago de Colón”. Thus, it recognized that area for Ecuador as territorial sea and, for Costa Rica, 200 miles as a jurisdictional zone according to the Preamble of that Agreement, creating not only a disparity, but also running contrary to international law, since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea recognizes in numeral 3, an international right to the breadth of the territorial sea of each coastal State at a maximum of 12 miles, and the breadth of the exclusive economic zone at a maximum of 200 miles (see Article 57). This is relevant if one considers the set of powers that a State possesses over a zone, depending on its status. Thus, in the territorial sea, the State fully exercises its sovereignty. However, in the patrimonial sea, regarding the exclusive economic zone and its continental shelf, in accordance with numeral 6 of the Political Constitution, what is recognized to the State is the exercise of rights and jurisdiction, in accordance with International Law and its domestic legislation, practically for the exploration, exploitation, conservation, and administration of natural resources, under the terms set forth in numeral 57 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. On the other hand, the previous agreement with Ecuador posed a significant problem of indeterminacy, as it established a transitional provision by which the cartographic work was postponed to future results that would be annexed to the Convention. These situations were overcome in the proposal under study. In 2012, at the initiative of Ecuador, the topic of maritime delimitation was taken up again, based on the fact that Ecuador was in the process of becoming a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a process which culminated on September 24, 2012. On February 3, 2012, a new Binational Meeting on maritime limits was agreed upon in San José, which was held on March 1, 2013, in which the Ecuadorian Delegation proposed the knowledge and discussion of the new project based on the 1985 Convention, but updated with the terminology of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was agreed to send a Technical Commission from both countries during the first semester of 2013 to the Archipiélago de Galápagos and Isla del Coco, so that they could obtain the geodetic data and carry out the corresponding office work to update the coordinates of the base points obtained in the 1986 binational technical work to the WGS-84 geodetic system. For these purposes, a field visit was carried out from June 18 to 23, 2013, and the meeting of the Ecuador-Costa Rica Mixed Technical Commission was held from June 24 to 26, 2013. After several negotiations, adjustments, and fine-tuning, on April 21, 2014, the Convention submitted for study was signed by both countries.\n\nb.- The Legislative Bill consulted. The international agreement to delimit the areas of confluence and establish the maritime boundary between Ecuador and Costa Rica consists of 4 articles: The first article defines the method used and the agreed limits:\n\n“The exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Ecuador from the Archipiélago de Galápagos and the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Costa Rica from Isla del Coco are delimited in the Pacific Ocean, in the sector where they overlap, by the geodetic lines that pass through equidistant points between the two countries, which are defined according to the following subparagraphs A), B) and C):\n\nA. Base Points\n\nIn Costa Rica:\n\nCR-1, in the Southwest of the isla DOS AMIGOS.\n\nCR-2, in the Southwest of the cabo DAMPIER, on the Isla del COCO\n\nIn Ecuador:\n\nEC-1, in the Northeast of the isla DARWIN\n\nEC-2, in the Northeast of the isla GENOVESA\n\nB. Based on the foregoing, the following points are determined for the tracing of the geodetic lines, from which the maritime boundary is defined:\n\nPoint B-1 Equidistant point, determined by the intersection of the circle arcs drawn with a radius of 200 nautical miles, from the base points EC-1, in the Northeast of isla DARWIN and CR-1, in the Southwest of isla DOS AMIGOS.\n\nPoint B-2 Equidistant point, determined by the intersection of the circle arcs drawn with a radius of 200 nautical miles, from the base points EC-2, in the Northeast of isla GENOVESA and CR-2, in the Southwest of cabo DAMPIER.\n\nPoint C-1 Determined as the midpoint of the base geodetic line (EC-1) (CR-1).\n\nPoint C-2 Determined as the midpoint of the base geodetic line (EC-2) (CR-2).\n\n Point B-3 Determined by the intersection of the projections of the two intermediate geodetic lines.\n\n The first intermediate geodetic line will pass through points B-1 and C-1.\n\n The second intermediate geodetic line will pass through points B-2 and C-2\n\nC. The geodetic lines that pass through points B-1, B-3 and B-2 define the maritime boundary between Ecuador and Costa Rica. The geographical coordinates corresponding to these points, presented in the order previously indicated, are the following:\n\n| Punto | Latitud Norte | Longitud oeste |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| B-1 | 04°33`55.741\" | 090°18'24.485\" |\n| B-3 | 03°26'37.922\" | 089°26'1 1 .383\" |\n| B-2 | 02°09`02.238\" | 087°08'42.443\" |\n\nThe geographical coordinates of all the points covered by this Convention are determined in the 1984 World Geodetic System (WGS-84).\n\nThe Chart of the Maritime Boundary between Ecuador and Costa Rica is incorporated as an annex to this convention.”\n\nBasically, points of origin are defined for each country where the 200 miles overlap, drawing equidistant lines between both countries, from which, according to experts in the field, the different points that will constitute the boundary in question are obtained. This was thus reflected in the Maritime Chart attached as an annex to the Convention. According to statements made by various experts from the Universidad Nacional, both in the International Affairs Committee and in writing, the coordinates in question are correct, well established, and updated. The procedures for determining equidistance and locating points B-1, B-3, and B-2 are correct and follow the guidelines set forth by the UN Convention. Likewise, in this Treaty, Costa Rica gains hundreds of additional kilometers of territory, compared to the previous one (see folios 96, 99 and 166 of this legislative bill).\n\nThe second article, for its part, provides for a tolerance zone:\n\n“A special zone of 10 nautical miles wide located on each side of the maritime boundary indicated in subparagraph C) of the preceding article is established, in which the accidental presence of fishing vessels of one or the other country shall not be considered a violation of the pertinent norms of the respective State. This does not signify recognition of any right to carry out fishing or hunting operations in said special zone.”\n\nThis provision, at the legislative level, raised doubt among the deputies of the Committee as to whether this would authorize an unpunishable zone for those who infringe upon special zones for the exploitation of natural resources. From the norm itself, it is clear that such a provision does not imply an authorization to carry out fishing or hunting operations in said special zone, but rather that, it is common worldwide that small vessels using not-so-accurate global positioning systems may not realize they have crossed the boundary. In such cases, a buffer zone or tolerance zone (zona de tolerancia) is established, in which, once the situation is detected, the person is immediately warned and compelled to leave that area. Outside said zone, both Costa Rica and Ecuador would have the right to detain it. It is also considered a zone of cooperation between both countries (see folio 102).\n\nThe third article establishes cooperation between the Parties on maritime issues, without prejudice to the already delimited sovereignty rights:\n\n“Based on the definition of the maritime boundary established through this Convention, the Parties shall promote the broadest cooperation on maritime issues of mutual interest, without prejudice to the sovereignty and jurisdiction rights that both States exercise in their respective maritime spaces.”\n\nIn such terms, this provision does not require further comment other than the fact that such cooperation must be understood within the internationally established normative framework. Finally, the fourth article subjects this Convention to approval in both countries, and sets its entry into force upon the exchange of the second diplomatic note, through which compliance with the respective procedures is communicated, which also does not imply any legal objection.\n\nV.- As already indicated above, constitutional numeral 6 provides:\n\n“The State exercises complete and exclusive sovereignty in the airspace of its territory, in its territorial waters within a distance of twelve miles from the low-water line along its coasts, on its continental shelf and on its insular base in accordance with the principles of International Law.\n\nIt also exercises a special jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to its territory within an extension of two hundred miles from the same line, in order to protect, conserve and exclusively exploit all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the soil and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles.”\n\nThis implies, as this Court has already indicated, that the delimitation of the maritime zone where Costa Rica exercises said special jurisdiction must conform to the agreements established in International Law:\n\n“VII.- Indeed, it follows from the literal wording of article I of the Convention being analyzed that its object is the delimitation of the marine and submarine areas between the States Parties, referring to the Pacific Ocean, and specifically to the exclusive economic zone, given that matters concerning the maximum breadth of the territorial sea, as well as the adjacent zone, were defined by agreement among the States that –like ours– signed the ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (Law number 7291 published in Supplement number 10 a to La Gaceta of Wednesday, July 15, 1992), specifically in articles 3 and 33, namely:\n\n\"Article 3. Breadth of the territorial sea . \n\nEvery State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 marine miles measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention\".\n\n–The highlighting is not from the original-\n\n\"Article 33: Contiguous zone. \n\n1.- In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, designated as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:\n\nPrevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;\n\na. Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.\"\n\n2.- The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured\". –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIn this regard, when the Chamber ruled on the mandatory consultation conducted on the occasion of the approval of this latter Convention, among its conclusions it referred to the fact that our Constitution was expressly amended for the purpose of incorporating universally accepted concepts of international maritime law and set forth in the Convention, referring –among others– to Articles 3 and 33 cited above, and, in conclusion, the Chamber stated:\n\n\"…we can say that Costa Rica is one of the States most benefited by the new Convention\". (Judgment number 10-92 of 4:30 p.m. on January 7, 1992). –The highlighting is not from the original-\n\nIt was precisely because of the impossibility of reaching an agreement among the States Parties regarding the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone that it was finally defined that the method for doing so would be on a case-by-case basis, such that, in the case of States with adjacent or opposite coasts, the delimitation would have to be effected by agreement between them on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to arrive at an \"equitable solution\". And Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adds:\n\n\"If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.\".\n\nThis norm is of great importance for arriving at the conclusion that this Treaty does not concern the territorial integrity of our country, given that it can be inferred from it that the unilateral claims of a country over the exclusive economic zone corresponding to it, in reality have no validity within International Law, unless there is recognition by the international community, and particularly by neighboring countries.” (judgment No. 2000-10473) \n\nWithout a doubt, the establishment of limits of such a nature and the definition of jurisdictions constitute a clearer and more secure normative framework for exercising the protection, conservation, and control of the exploitation of maritime natural resources, to which the State is compelled, as this Chamber has specified: \n\n“Various reasons compel the State to make its best efforts to adequately protect its immense spaces of territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and its internal waters. On the one hand, it has an unavoidable duty to ensure the preservation of the environment, and this of course includes adopting those measures necessary to prevent damage to maritime and aquatic ecosystems in general, protect the species of living beings that inhabit said environments, prevent the pollution of the seas and internal waters, as well as to react vigorously against actions that threaten the integrity of the aquatic environment. Likewise, the State is equally compelled by the Political Constitution to guarantee dignified and sufficient means of subsistence for all its inhabitants, seeking an adequate distribution of the wealth generated. In this context, the Administration must promote a sustainable use of natural resources, thereby enabling the country to develop economically without compromising the integrity of the environment.” (judgment No. 2004-1048, cited in 2014-13206) \n\nThis was one of the most important foundations that motivated the legislators for the approval of this bill. Having stated the foregoing and that this Convention was carried out in accordance with principles and norms of International Law that respect our legal system; under the terms indicated, the Chamber finds no constitutional objections, of substance or form, to the bill processed in legislative file 19.340. \n\nPor tanto:\n\nThis mandatory legislative consultation of constitutionality is hereby resolved, in the sense that, on the occasion of the processing of the bill entitled “APPROVAL OF THE CONVENTION ON MARITIME DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR”, legislative file No. 19.340, no substantial defect of form or substance has occurred. Notify.\n\n\n\n| | Gilbert Armijo S. Presidente | |\n|---|---|---|\n| Ernesto Jinesta L. | | Fernando Cruz C. |\n| Paul Rueda L. | | Aracelly Pacheco S. |\n| Enrique Ulate C. | | Ricardo Madrigal J. |" }