INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN
COSTA RICA ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
NICARINTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA IN THE BORDER
AREA (COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
CERTAINES ACTIVITÉS MENÉES PAR LE NICARAGUA DANS LA RÉGION
FRONTALIÈRE (COSTA RICA c. NICARAGUA
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF COSTA RICA OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES
DEMANDE EN INDICATION DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES
VOLUME III
VOLUME I
JUDGES’ FOLDER FOR COSTA RICA’S PRESENTATION
ANNE14 OCTOBER 2013
DOSSIER DE PLAIDOIRIES DU COSTA RICA
14 OCTOBRE 2013
19 DECEMBER 2013 LIST OF ANNEXES
VOLUME III
TREATIES
No. DOCUMENT pag
11 Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits (Cañas-Jerez),English 1
Translation: Costa Rican version submitted to Cleveland
Source: P.Pérez Zeledón, Argument on the question of
the Validity of Limits between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
(Washington D.C., Gibson Bros Printers and Book
binders 1887). Document No 1. pp 185-190,San José,
15 April 1858
PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAPS
12 Photographs of transport of passengers and other Nicaraguan 11
navigation on the San Juan River
13 United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric 17
Administration, Map of Historical Hurricane Tracks, available
at http://csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
14 Press Release, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship Costa 21
Rica stating its official position about the Central American
Court of Justice Jurisdiction, 5 May 2009
English Translation and Spanish Original
iii 15 Costa Rica, Minute of the National Security Council Ordinary 29
Session No. 3 of 24 November 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
16 Nicaragua, ‘Inaugural Lesson of the Academic Year 2011, 33
6 April 2011’, transcript of public speech delivered by
President Ortega, available at http://www.presidencia.gob.
ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358:l
eccion-inaugural-del-ano-academico-2011&catid=84:abril-
2011&Itemid=54&showall=1
English Translation and Spanish Original
17 Costa Rica, Statement given under oath by Mr. José María 39
Tijerino, Minister of Public Security of Costa Rica, before
the Permanent Special Commission for the Control of Public
Revenue and Expenses, Minutes of Extraordinary Session
N° 50, (Extract) 29 January 2013
English Translation
18 Nicaragua, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources 43
(MARENA), San Juan River Territorial Delegation, Technical
Waterway Patrol on the San Juan River on October, 27 2013,
annexed to the Letter to the Registrar of the Court from His
Excellency CarlosArgüello Gomez,Agent of the Republic of
Nicaragua, Reference HOL-EMB-220, 31 October 2013
English translation
NATIONAL LEGISLATIONAND JURISPRUDENCE
19 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 1992-3410, 51
(Extract) 10 November 1992
English Translation
iv20 Costa Rica, Permanent Commission on Legal Matters, Majority 55
Negative Vote, Bill for Approval of the Statute of the Central
American Court of Justice signed in Panama City, Panama on 1
December 1992, File Number 11.854, 5 December 1998
English Translation
21 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2003-6322, 61
(Extract) 3 July 2003
English Translation
22 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2005-8675, 65
(Extract) 1 July 2005
English Translation
23 Costa Rica, National Law of Emergencies and Risk Prevention, 69
Law No. 8488, (Extract) 11 January 2006,Article 4
English Translation
24 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2006-6336, 73
(Extract) 10 May 2006
English Translation
25 Nicaragua, Decree No 76-2006, ‘Environmental Evaluation 77
System’(Extract) approved on 19 December 2006, published in
La Gaceta No 248 of 22 December 2006,Article 12, available at
http://www.ine.gob.ni/DCA/leyes/decreto/Decreto_76-2006_
SistemaEvaluacionAmbiental.pdf
English Translation
26 Nicaragua, Executive Decree No 79-2009 of 24 September 2009, 81
‘Creation of the Inter-institutional Commission to Develop and
Implement the Regulations Regarding Navigation on the San
Juan River, specifically where the International Court of Justice
Grants Limited Navigation Rights to the Republic of Costa
Rica’, (Extract) published in the Gazette of 1 October 2009
English Translation
v 27 Costa Rica, Ministerial Resolution 02572 of 2009, Technical 101
Guide for an Environmental Diagnostic – EDA, 2 November
2009 (Extract)
English Translation and Spanish Original
28 Costa Rica, Emergency Decree No. 36440-MP,published in the 107
Official Gazette number 46 of March 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
29 Nicaragua, Presidential Decrees Number 88-2009 of 2 April 117
2009 and Number 01-2012 of 10 January 2012 (Extracts),
Appointment of Dr. Jaime Incer Barquero as Presidential
Advisor for Enviromental Issues and Natural Resources with
the Rank of Minister
English Translations
30 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2012-8420, 121
(Extract) 22 June 2012
English Translation
31 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2012-3266, 125
(Extract) 7 March 2012
English Translation
32 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2013-008257, 129
(Extract) 21 June 2013
English Translation
CORRESPONDENCE
33 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 133
Rica to the CentralAmerican Court of Justice, Reference DM-
AM-306-09, 30April 2009
English Translation and Spanish Original
vi34 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 137
Rica to the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua, Reference
DM-AM-816-09, 20 November 2009
English Translation and Spanish Original
35 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua, to the 163
Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa Rica , Costa
Rica, Reference MRE/AJST/297/3/2010, 25 March 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
36 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 167
Rica to the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua, Reference
DM-AM-327-10, 22April 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
Letter from the Minister of Public Security of Costa Rica to
37 171
the Minister of Public Works and Transportation of Costa Rica,
Reference 2278-2010, 1 December 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
38 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 175
Rica to the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua, Reference
DM-059-11, 2 February 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
39 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 179
Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Ref DM-
601-11, 29 November 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
40 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 183
Rica to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ref: DM-
AM-663-11, 14 December 2011.
English Translation and Spanish Original
vii 41 Note from the Viceminister of ForeignAffairs of Costa Rica to 189
the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua, Reference DVM-
AM-286-11, 20 December, 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
42 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 195
Rica to the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua, Reference
DM-AM-045-12, 26 January 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
43 Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of 199
Costa Rica to the Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention,
Reference DM-110-12, 28 February 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
Note from the Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention to
44 205
the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
6 June 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
45 Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the 209
International Court of Justice , Reference 02-19-12-2012,
19 December 2012
46 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 213
Rica to the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua, Ref. DM-
AM-063-13, 6 February 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
47 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of 219
the International Court of Justice, Reference ECRPB-005-13,
7 February 2013.
48 Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua to the 227
Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa Rica, Costa
Rica, Reference MRE/DM-AJ/129/03/13, 5 March 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
viii49 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the 233
International Court of Justice,Reference ECRPB-013-2013,
7 March 2013
50 Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice 239
to theAgent of Costa Rica, Reference 141641, 11 March 2013
51 Note from the President of the Environmental Administrative 243
Tribunal of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica, Reference 200-13-TAA, 9April 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
52 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of 255
the International Court of Justice,Reference ECRPB-26-13,
24 May 2013
53 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of 259
the International Court of Justice,Reference ECRPB-31-13,
13 June 2013
54 Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the 265
International Court of Justice , Reference HOL-EMB-108,
14 June 2013
55 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of 273
the International Court of Justice, Reference ECRPB-036-13,
24 June 2013
56 Letter from the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa 283
Rica to the Director General National Laboratory of Materials
and Structures of the University of Costa Rica ,Reference DM-
AM-389, 15 July 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
57 Note of the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the Permanent 287
and Observer Mission to the United Nations, 5 August 2013,
attaching Official Statement to the Press by the Government
of Nicaragua, 1August 2013, Reference MINIC-MIS-114-13,
5 August 2013
ix 58 Note from the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the United 299
Nations to the Permanent and Observer Missions to the
United Nations, attaching Position of Costa Rica in relation
to a Press Release dated 1 August 2013 circulated by the
Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to all permanent and Observer
Missions to the United Nations on 5 August 2013, Reference
MCRONU-458-13, 7August 2013
59 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of 305
the International Court of Justice, Reference ECRPB-052-13,
7 August 2013
60 Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice 309
to theAgent of Costa Rica, Reference 142331, 8August 2013
Letter from the Director General of the National Laboratory
61 313
of Materials and Structures of the University of Costa Rica
to the Minister of ForeignAffairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
Reference LM-IC-D-0914-2013, 14August 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
62 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of 323
the International Court of Justice, Reference ECRPB-055-13,
26 August 2013
63 Letter from the President of theAssociation of Engineers and 327
Architects of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
and Worship of Costa Rica, Reference 034-2012-2013-PRES,
28 August 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
64 Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the 359
International Court of Justice, Reference HOL-EMB-167,
30 August 2013
65 Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the 367
International Court of Justice, Reference ECRPB-63-2013,
27 September 2013
x66 Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice 371
to the Agent of Costa Rica, Reference 142549, 27 September
2013
67 Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the 375
International Court of Justice, Reference HOL-EMB-196,
11 October 2013
68 Letter from the General Director of the Costa Rican National 383
Meteorological Institute to H.E. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez,
7 November 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
MEDIAREPORTS
69 La Nación (Costa Rica), ‘Nicaraguan immigration denies 389
entry to journalists through San Juan River’, 22 October 2010,
available at http://wfnode01.nacion.com/2010-10-22/ElPais/
UltimaHora/ElPais2564695.aspx?Page=3
English Translation and Spanish Original
70 La Nación (Costa Rica), ‘Nicaragua Reinforces Troops at the 393
Border’, 24 October 2010, available athttp://www.nacion.com/
sucesos/Nicaragua-refuerza-tropas-frontera_0_1154884554.
html
English Translation and Spanish Original
71 El 19 (Nicaragua), ‘Nicaragua will request before the ICJ 399
Navigation through Río Colorado’, 13 November 2010, available
at http://www.el19digital.com/index.php?option=com_co
ntent&view=article&id=18149:nicaragua-pedira-ante-cij-
navegacion-por-rio-colorado&catid=23:nacionales&Item
id=12
English Translation and Spanish Original
xi 72 La Prensa (Nicaragua), ‘Nicas want Peace and Dialogue 405
with Costa Rica’, 14 De cember 2010, available at
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/12/14/nacionales/46366
English Translation and Spanish Original
73 CACJ (Managua), transcript of interview with CACJ judges 413
Acevedo Peralta a nd Dario Lobo, ‘The challenge is having
Panama and Costa Rica join’, available at http://portal.ccj.org.
ni/ccj2/Publicar/tabid/88/EntryId/3/-El-reto-es-que-Panama-y-
Costa-Rica-se-integren.aspx
English Translation and Spanish Original
74 El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), ‘Stop the Road’, 30 November 421
2011, available athttp://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/
234697-paren-carretera
English Translation and Spanish Original
75 La Gente, Radio la Primerísima (Nicaragua), ‘CentralAmerican 429
Court admits lawsuit against Costa Rica’, 19 December 2011,
available at http://www.rlp.com.ni/noticias/111936/corte-ca-
admite-demanda-contra-costa-rica
English Translation and Spanish Original
76 El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), ‘CACJ opens trial to evidence’, 433
24 January 2012, available at http://www.elnuevodiario.com.
ni/politica/239562
English Translation and Spanish Original
77 El 19 Digital (Nicaragua), ‘Nicaragua advances in collecting 441
evidence for case against Costa Rica at the Hague’, 10 February
2012, available at http://www.canal15.com.ni/noticia/34739 or
http://www.lavozdelsandinismo.com/nicaragua/2012-02-10/
nicaragua-trabaja-en-recopilacion-de-pruebas-sobre-danos-de-
costa-rica-al-rio-san-juan/
English Translation and Spanish Original
xii78 La Prensa (Nicaragua), ‘CACJ Judgment will go to case at The 447
Hague’, available at http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2012/07/03/
ambito/107181-fallo-ccj-a-al
English Translation and Spanish Original
79 LaPrensa(Nicaragua),‘Damagestotheriverwillbequantified’, 453
3 November 2013, available at http://www.laprensa.com.
ni/2013/11/03/poderes/168532-cuantificaran-danos-al-rio
English Translation and Spanish Original
80 El 19 (Nicaragua), ‘33rd Anniversary of the Naval Force’, 459
14August 2013, available at http://www.el19digital.com/index.
php/discurso/ver/12213/33-aniversario-de-la-fuerza-naval-
English Translation and Spanish Original
ACADEMIC ARTICLES
81 G.M. Kondolf, ‘Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel 481
mining on river channels’ 21(4) (1997) Environmental
Management 533
xiii ANNEX 11
Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits (Cañas-Jerez)
English Translation: Costa Rican version submitted to Cleveland
Source: P.Pérez Zeledón, Argument on the question of the Validity of Limits
between Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Washington D.C., Gibson Bros Printers
and Book binders 1887). Document No 1. pp 185-190
San José
15 April 1858
12Annex 11
3Annex 11
4Annex 11
5Annex 11
6Annex 11
7Annex 11
8Annex 11
910 ANNEX 12
Photographs of transport of passengers and other Nicaraguan navigation on
the San Juan River
2012 - 2013
1112 Annex 12
San Juan River, 12 January 2012
13Annex 12
San Juan River, 22 February 2013
14 Annex 12
San Juan River, 13 November 2013
1516 ANNEX 13
United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Map of Historical Hurricane Tracks
available at
http://csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes
1718 Annex 13
H iainalOclaniundiAmnoepTrc Aksinistration http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes
1920 ANNEX 14
Press Release
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship Costa Rica stating its official position
about the Central American Court of Justice Jurisdiction
5 May 2009
English Translation and Spanish Original
2122 Annex 14
Translation into English
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Institutional Communications Department
Phone number: (00 506) 22 56 65 61 Fax number: 22 56 67 37
Website: www.rree.go.cr email: [email protected]
Costa Rica categorically ratifies that it is not part of and it does not
recognize any jurisdiction or legitimacy of the Central American Court
of Justice
The Government of Costa Rica ratified today, categorically, that it is not
part of and does not recognize any jurisdiction or legitimacy of the
Central American Court of Justice.
This is what the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Stagno, e xpressed
during a Press Conference held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
between 11.00 a.m. and 12.15 p.m.
The Ministry published the following communication:
Through the judicial notice delivered at the Attorney General’s Office of
the Republic of Costa Rica on 23 March 2009, the Secretary General of
the Central American Court of Justice addressed a communication to
the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic o f Costa Rica, intending to
communicate the resolution of the Central American Court of Just ice
issued at five thirty p.m. on 24 October 2008, which admits a claim
filed by the Costa Rican Association of Customs Agents ( Asociación de
Agentes de Aduana de Costa Rica) against the Republic of Costa Rica.
The Government of the Republic of Costa Ric a considers irregular and
void the referred communication of the Court, given that the Attorney
General of the Republic of Costa Rica is not the legal representative of
the Costa Rican State for international matters. Specifically, Costa
Rican law does not grant it the authority to receive notification of
international procedures arising from international institutions, as
discussed below. In addition, international law indicates the manner in
which States shall be represented, aspects that are ignored in t he
aforementioned communication.
The Government of the Republic of Costa Rica is not part of the Statute
Agreement of the Central American Court of Justice. The legislative
process for approval of this Agreement in 1995 resulted in a majority
negative ruling of the Commission on Legal Matters, supported by the
negative opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice (full court), among
other, which deemed inconvenient for the country to become a party to
1
23Annex 14
Translation into English
said Agreement as it violated aspects established in the Political
Constitution of Costa Rica.
The fact that Costa Rica is not part of the Statute Agreement of the
Central American Court of Justice is widely recognized by the other
Central American States, the System for Central American Integration
(SICA) an d the Central American Court of Justice itself, which has
recognized in several documents that Costa Rica is not part of it.
Nevertheless, although Costa Rica is not part of the Court, and it has
never recognized its jurisdiction or consented to the appl ication of the
procedure established in its Statute, this institution, openly
contravening international law, has endowed itself with the jurisdiction
to hear cases against the Republic of Costa Rica.
In an attemp t to assume more power and interfere in s overeign
institutions of the States, the Central American Court of Justice is
trying to become the Supreme Body of Central American Integration, a
function that is reserved solely to the Presidents Meeting , thus forcing
States to organize themselves instit utionally based on a vision that this
Court has of Central American integration. The effect of this policy of
said Court would be disastrous for Costa Rica, given that the three
branches of the Republic, meaning the Legislative, Executive and
Judicial Branches, would be subject to a single institution that would
dictate the plans and future of the Republic of Costa Rica. These
faculties include interfering in the conflicts between State branches,
and resolving constitutional matters, subordinating the autho rity of the
Constitutional Chamber.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State of Costa Rica, in general,
categorically reject this attempt. For that purpose, a document was sent
to said institution yesterday, reaffirming the legal status of the Re public
of Costa Rica before this Court, based on practice and international law.
The country expects the Central American Court of Justice to have
sufficient wisdom so as to recognize its mistake and forgo this
dangerous attempt to attribute powers to itse lf which have not been
granted to it. If this rectification does not occur, the Court endangers
and would be solely responsible for the negative effects that it decision
would have in relation to the System for Central American Integration.
Note: The full text (33 pages and appendixes) whereby Costa Rica rejects the competence and jurisdiction
of the Central American Court of Justice is available at the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(www.rree.go.cr).
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Stagno, along with the Deputy Minister, Edgar Ugalde, delivered the
text today to the President of the Legislative Assembly, Dr. Francisco Antonio Pacheco.
Institutional Communication
1360 CCJ
Tuesday, 5 May 2009.
2
24 Annex 14
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto
Dirección de Comunicación Institucional
TELEFONO (00 506) 22 56 65 61 FAX 22 56 67 37
Portal electrónico:www.rree.go.cr Correo Electrónico: [email protected]
Costa Rica ratifica de manera categórica que no es parte, y no
reconoce jurisdicción ni legitimidad de la Corte Centroamericana de
Justicia.
El Gobierno de Costa Rica ratificó hoy, de manera categórica, que no es
parte y no reconoce ni la jurisdicción ni la legitimidad de la Corte
Centroamericana de Justicia.
Así lo expresó el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Bruno Stagn o,
durante una Conferencia de Prensa ofrecida en la sede de la Cancillería
entre las 11.00 y las 12.15 horas.
El Ministerio hace público el siguiente comunicado:
Mediante cédula judicial entregada en la ventanilla única de la
Procuraduría General de la República de Costa Rica el día 23 de marzo
de 2009, el Secretario General de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia
dirigió una comunicación a la Procuradora General de la República de
Costa Rica, por la cual se pretende comunicar la resolución de la Corte
Centroamericana de Justicia dictada a las cinco y treinta minutos de la
tarde del día veinticuatro de octubre de 2008, en la que se da trámite a
una acción interpuesta por la Asociación de Agentes de Aduana de
Costa Rica contra la República de Costa Rica.
El Gobierno de la República de Costa Rica considera irregular y nula la
referida comunicación de la Corte, dado que la señora Procuradora
General de la República de Costa Rica no es la representante legal del
Estado Costarricense para asuntos de carácter internacional. En
particular, la ley costarricense no le otorga ese carácter para que se le
notifiquen procedimientos de carácter internacional o que emanen de
instituciones de carácter internacional, como se verá a continuación.
Adicionalmente, el derecho internacional prescribe la forma y por medio
de quienes los Estados se hacen representar, aspectos ignorados en la
referida comunicación.
El Gobierno de la República de Costa Rica no es parte del Convenio de
Estatuto de la Corte Centroamericana de Just icia. El proceso de
1
25Annex 14
aprobación legislativa de dicho Convenio , en 1995, culminó con el
dictamen negativo de mayoría de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos,
apoyado, entre otros, de la opinión negativa por parte de la Corte
Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica (Corte Plena) , que determinó
inconveniente para el país suscribir dicho Convenio dado que éste
violentaba aspectos establecidos en la Constitución Política
costarricense.
El hecho que Costa Rica no es parte del Convenio de Estatuto de la
Corte Centroamericana de Justicia es ampliamente reconocido por los
otros Estados Centroamericanos, por el Sistema de la Integración
Centroamericana (SICA) y por la propia Corte Centroamericana de
Justicia, que en diversos documentos ha reconocido que Costa Rica no
forma parte de ella.
No obstante, a pesar que Costa Rica no es parte de la Corte, ni ha
aceptado nunca su jurisdicción, ni ha consentido que se le aplique el
procedimiento establecido en su Estatuto; ésta institución, en abierta
contravención a l derecho i nternacional, se ha arrogado a s í misma
jurisdicción para escuchar casos contra la República de Costa Rica
.
En un intento para atribuirse cada vez mayores poderes e interferir en
las instituciones soberanas de los Estados, la Corte Centroamericana de
Justicia está tratando de convertirse en el Órgano Supremo de la
Integración Centroamericana, función reservada únicamente a la
Reunión de Presidentes; y en consecuencia, forzar a los Estados a
organizarse institucionalmente a partir de la visión que dicha Corte
tiene de la integración centroamericana. El efecto de ésta política de
esa Corte para Costa Rica sería nefasto, pues los tres poderes de la
República, es decir, el Poder Legislativo, el Poder Ejecutivo y el Poder
Judicial, estarían sujetos a una sola institució n que dictar ía los
designios y futuro de la República de Costa Rica. Estas facultades
incluirían interferir en los conflictos entre los poderes del Estado,
y
resolver asuntos de carácter constitucional, subordinando los poderes
de la Sala Constitucional.
El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, y el Estado costarricense
en general, rechazan categóricamente ese intento. A ese fin, el día de
ayer se ha remitido un documento a dicha instituci ón en el que se
reafirma la condición jurídica de la República de Costa Rica frente a esa
Corte, con base en la práctica y el derecho internacional. El país espera
que la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia tenga la sabiduría suficient
e
para reconocer su error y retractarse de éste peligroso intento de
atribuirse poderes que no se le han concedido. Si esta rectificación no
ocurre, la Corte pone en peligro, y sería la única responsable, de los
efectos negativos que su decisión tenga en relación con el Sistema
de la
Integración Centroamericana.
2
26 Annex 14
Nota: El texto complet o (33 páginas y sus anexos)mediante el cual Costa Rica rechaza la
competencia y jurisdicción de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, está disponible en el portal
electrónico del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (www.rree.go.cr).
El Canciller Bruno Stagno, en compañía del señor Viceministro, Edgar Ugalde, hizo entrega hoy
dicho texto al señor Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa, Dr. Francisco Antonio Pacheco.
Comunicación Institucional
1360 CCJ
Martes 5 de mayo de 2009.
3
2728 ANNEX 15
Costa Rica, Minute of the National Security Council
Ordinary Session No. 3
24 November 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
2930 Annex 15
(Costa Rican seal)
Presidency of the Republic
Office of the President of the Republic
LAURA CHINCHILLA MIRANDA
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
CERTIFIES:
That in the Minutes of ordinary session number Three of the National Council on Public Security,
held on November twenty-four, two thousand ten, article two reads exactly as follows: “ARTICLE
TWO: The Conflict for the Invasion of Nicaragua into Isla Calero. / A report was received from
employees of the Ministry of Public Security, and the National Security Intelligence Direction, in
which they indicate that on October 9 an invasion by the Nicaraguan army into Costa Rican
territory was denounced, information that was verified by the authorities of the Ministry of Public
Security. The following were also confirmed: an invasion by armed persons, the entrance of a
dredger into Costa Rican land, and the beginning of construction of a channel parallel to the San
Juan River, taking a northeast direction and starting to enter into Isla Portillos, where there are
traces of tree felling and of works that have been performed recently. / The National Council on
Public Security agrees: / To maintain a very firm but fully diplomatic position regarding the
management of this situation. / To ask the ministers to take the actions necessary to ensure
accessibility to the area.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
This certification was issued on the
twenty-first of October two thousand
thirteen.
(Signed - Laura Chinchilla)
(Stamped - The President of the Republic, San José Costa Rica)
31Annex 15
32 ANNEX 16
Nicaragua, ‘Inaugural Lesson of the Academic Year 2011, 6 April 2011’
Transcript of public speech delivered by President Ortega
available at
http://www.presidencia.gob.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article…
d=358:leccion-inaugural-del-ano-academico-2011&catid=84:abril-
2011&Itemid=54&showall=1
English Translation and Spanish Original
3334 Annex 16
http://www.presidencia.gob.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article…-
inaugural-del-ano-academico-2011&catid=84:abril-2011&Itemid=54&showall=1
Wednesday April 6, 2011 00:00
Inaugural Lesson of Academic Year 2011
President-Commander Daniel gives the Inaugural Lesson of Academic Year 2011, Universidad
NacionalAutónomade Nicaragua, UNAN-León
Master of Ceremony
We welcome our Guest of Honor, the Commander of the Revolution Daniel Ortega Saavedra,
President ofthe Government ofReconciliation and National Unity
…
Words of President Daniel Ortega
Dear brothers,comradesof thishistorical city ofLeón Santiago de losCaballeros, which saw
the birth ofthe first University ofour country,which willcelebrate 200years next year; the
bicentennialwill be on January 10.Dear students, teachers, deans, employees ofUNAN,
Rector ofthe University Róger Gurdián; dear GeneralJulioCésar Avilés, Commander in Chief
of the Army ofNicaragua;dear sister, comrade, First Commissioner Aminta Granera, National
Chief ofPolice of Nicaragua; dear brother,Commander of the Revolution,Tomás Borge
Martínez;dear Ambassadors here present, from Cuba, Mexico,Venezuela,Peruand our sister
RepublicofEl Salvador.
…
35Annex 16
We are speaking of 1856,the National War in full swing; and we are speaking of May,
specifically Thursday May 21, 1856. We all know the risk that the CentralAmericans
ran by joining Nicaraguain the fight against the Yankee invader, because they knew
that if the Yankee dominated Nicaragua he would then dominate Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. So they did it for survival, and many of these
countries I would say, even the fighters, the soldiers of Costa Rica, acting in good
faith.
The exception to all of this were the leaders of the capital and the Government of
Costa Rica, because at that time they saw the opportunity to seize Guanacaste, which
belongs to Nicaragua, even if it appears in Costa Rica it belongs to Nicaragua. All of
the people there are Nicaraguans, even if they have a Costa Rican ID they are
Nicaraguans. One day we could say:we’re going to claim Guanacaste, which belongs
to Nicaragua. We could perfectly decide it and launch an international initiative before
the International Bodies that deal with International Law.
…
36 Annex 16
http://www.presidencia.gob.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article…-
inaugural-del-ano-academico-2011&catid=84:abril-2011&Itemid=54&showall=1
Miércoles, 06 de Abril de 2011 00:00
Lección Inaugural del Año Académico 2011
Presidente-Comandante Daniel imparte Lección Inaugural del Año Académico 2011,
UniversidadNacional Autónoma de Nicaragua, UNAN-León
Maestro de Ceremonia
Le damos la bienvenida al Invitado de Honor, el Comandante de la Revolución Daniel Ortega
Saavedra, Presidente del Gobierno de Reconciliación yUnidad Nacional.
…
Palabras del Presidente Daniel Ortega
Queridos hermanos, compañer@s de esta histórica ciudad de León Santiago de los
Caballeros, que vio nacer la primera Universidad de nuestro país, que ya el próximo año se
estarán cumpliendo 200 años, será elBicentenario, el10 de Enero; queridos estudiantes,
maestros, Decanos, traba-jadores de la UNAN; querido Rector Róger Gurdián; querido
General JulioCésar Avilés, Comandante en Jefe del Ejército de Nicaragua; querida hermana,
compañera, Primer Comisionada Aminta Granera, Jefa Nacional de la Policía de Nicaragua;
querido hermano, Comandante de la Revolución, Tomás Borge Martínez; queridos
Embajadores aquí presentes, de Cuba, México, República Bolivariana de Venezuela, del Perú,
y de la hermana República de El Salvador.
37Annex 16
…
Fíjense bien, aquí estamos hablando del año 1856,¡en plena Guerra Nacional! Y
estamos hablando del mes de Mayo, exactamente el jueves 21 de Mayo del año 1856.
Todos sabemos que corrieron los centro-americanos a unirse a Nicaragua frente al
invasor yanqui, porque sabían que si el yanqui dominaba Nicaragua, después iba a
dominar Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. Entonces lo hicieron por una
razón de sobrevivencia,y muchos de estos países, diría, incluso los combatientes, los
soldados de Costa Rica,actuando de buena Fé.
La excepción en todo esto,fueron los dirigentes del capital y del Gobierno de Costa Rica,
porque vieron la oportunidad de arrebatarnos elGuana-caste, que es de Nicaragua; aunque
aparece en Costa Rica, es de Nicaragua. Todos los que están ahí son nicaragüenses,aunque
tengan cédula tica, son nicaragüenses. Podríamos, un día de tantos, decir nosotros: vamos a
reclamar el Guanacaste, que pertenece a Nicaragua. Perfectamente podría-mosdecidirlo y
lanzar una iniciativa en el campo internacional, en losOrganismos Internacionalesque tienen
que ver con elDerecho Internacional.
…
38 ANNEX 17
Costa Rica, Statement given under oath by Mr. José María Tijerino, Minister of
Public Security of Costa Rica, before the Permanent Special Commission for
the Control of Public Revenue and Expenses
Minutes of Extraordinary Session N° 50 (Extract)
29 January 2013
English Translation
3940 Annex 17
Statement given under oath by Mr. José María Tijerino, Minister of Public Security of
Costa Rica, before the Permanent Special Commission for the Control of Public
Revenue and Expenses
Minutes of Extraordinary Session N° 50 (Extract)
29 January 2013
English Translation
“….To begin with the topic in question , we need to understand these events in light of their
surrounding circumstances. There were five factors that supported the measures in favor of
the country's security: One, the military invasion Calero Island. Two, the disregard to the lack
of the right of free navigation of Costa Ricans on the San Juan River. Three, Ortega’s threats to
demand free navigation on the Colorado River, and the Annexation of Guanacaste by
Nicaragua. All these openly displayed in the media. The Nicaraguan military deployment along
the border and increasing military power of the Army of Nicaragua in the wake of these
events. To these we should add a sixth factor, which is not less important: The deft
maneuvering of the Government of Nicaragua to obtain the unanimous support of the various
political forces and much of the population around the figure of the president.
To all of you, gentlemen, it is well known that our northern border is one of the less developed
regions of the country. Terrestrial communications in the Northern Zone for decades had been
a pending matter of all governments. Probably the right of free navigation on the San Juan
River, which assists Costa Rica u nder international treaties, had made the need for roa d
development in the region less pressing.
From the moment when Nicaragua started to ignore the right of free navigation, and to submit
our fellow nationals who reside in the area to all sorts of indignities, reaching the extreme of
preventing by force of arms any Costa Rican from navigating the waters of the river, it became
urgent to build a road along the entire border, which would enable not only the exercise of
sovereignty by the presence of the security forces in this area of the country threatened by a
regime determined to ignore the existing borders for more than half a century, but also the
everyday life, in all its aspects, of the Costa Rican inhabitants of the San Juan River.
The military invasion of a portion of the cou ntry and the threat that it could extend along the
northern border, made imperative the government's decision to first, rehabilitate the existing
roads to allow the reinforcement and supply our police posts; t he expeditious evacuation of
the residents, if necessary, due to an escalation of the conflict; medical assistance to those
eventually wounded; and an orderlyretreat against the onslaught of the invader.
Those are the circumstances under which my office issued note 2278-2012-DM on 1 December
2010, in which I ask the Minister of Public Works and Transport responsible at the time,
Francisco Jiménez Reyes, his good offices for the repair of the roads leading to Delta Costa Rica
and Boca del Rio Sarapiqui in the canton of Sarapiqui, to Puerto Lindo in Pococí, and the
population of La Trocha in the canton of Los Chiles…
41Annex 17
Later, in light of the persistence of the Nicaraguan military and political threat, no longer
limited to the invaded zone or to the Colorado River and the south bank of the San Juan River,
but that extended to the whole province of Guanacaste, claimed by the Commander Ortega
during the opening of a university course in early 2011, there was clearly a need to unite
repaired roads and construct a route from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea parallel to
the border with Nicaragua, to allow movement of the security forces and the evacuation of the
inhabitants.”
42 ANNEX 18
Nicaragua, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA),
San Juan River Territorial Delegation,
Technical Waterway Patrol on the San Juan River on October, 27 2013,
Annexed to the Letter to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice from
His Excellency Carlos Argüello Gomez, Agent of the Republic of Nicaragua,
Reference HOL-EMB-220,
31 October 2013,
English translation
4344Annex 18
45Annex 18
46Annex 18
47Annex 18
48Annex 18
4950 ANNEX 19
Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 1992-3410 (Extract)
10 November 1992
English Translation
5152 Annex 19
Constitutional Court Judgment Nº 1992-3410 of 10 November 1992 (extract)
English Translation
“Therefore, it must be born in mind that… there is no other room for legal interpretation as
not to qualify ‘internal disturbance’, ‘riots’, ‘external aggression’, ‘epidemic’, ‘hunger’ and
‘other public calamities’, as manifestations of what in Public Law doctrine is known as
‘state necessity and urgency’ under the principle salus populi est suprema lex, meaning that
the weaker legal interest (the preservation of the normal order of legislative competencies)
must yield to the stronger legal interest (the preservation of the legal and social order,
which sometimes cannot wait for a law to be approved); and in Criminal Law, as a ‘state of
necessity’, i.e. ‘a situation which endangers a legal interest, which can only be saved by the
violation of another legal interest’. And this is the same sense of the text of Article 180 of
the Constitution.”
5354 ANNEX 20
Costa Rica, Legislative Assembly Permanent Commission on Legal Matters
Majority Negative Vote
Bill for Approval of the Statute of the Central American Court of Justice signed
in Panama City, Panama on 1 December 1992
File Number 11.854
5 December 1998
English Translation
5556 Annex 20
PERMANENT COMMISSION ON LEGAL MATTERS
MAJORITY NEGATIVE VOTE
BILL FOR APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE,
SIGNED IN PANAMA CITY, PANAMA, ON 1 DECEMBER 1992
FILE No. 11.854
SAN JOSÉ, 5 DECEMBER 1995
57Annex 20
PERMANENT COMMISSION ON LEGAL MATTERS
MAJORITY NEGATIVE VOTE
APPROVAL OF THE STATUTE OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE SIGNED IN PANAMA
CITY, PANAMA ON 1 DECEMBER 1992
FILE NUMBER 11.854
Stamped: Legislative Assembly, San José, Costa Rica
Commission on Legal Matters
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY:
The undersigned representatives, members of the Permanent Commission on Legal Matters, issue
a MAJORITY NEGATIVE VOTE regarding the bill: “APPROVAL OF THE STATU TE OF THE CENTRAL
AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE, SIGNED IN PANAMA CITY, PANAMA , ON 1 DECEMBER 1992,” File
Number 11.854, published in the Official Gazette, number 10 of 9 June 1994.
On 13 December 1991 the Presidents of the Central American countries signed the “ Tegucigalpa
Protocol,” which contains amendments to the Charter of the Organización de Estados
Centroamericanos (Organization of the Central American States), known as Sistema de la
Integración Centroamericana (System for Central American Integration). The framework of this
system contemplates the creation of a “Central American Court of Justice,” whose functioning
shall be regulated by a separate statute.
The bill regarding which we have issued a MAJORITY NEGATIVE VOTE has the fundamental
purpose of approving the STATUTE OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE, in compliance
with the agreement included in the amendments to ODECA indicated above.
The bill under consideration confers several powers to the Central American Court of Justice,
including:
-Hearing the conflicts between States, except for that referring to border, territorial and maritime
conflicts
-Hearing appeals for annulment and non-compliance of agreements of the bodies of the System
for Central American Integration
-Hearing the lawsuits between individuals who reside in the area and the governments or bodies
of the System for Central American Integration
-Hear and resolve, at the request of the victim, conflicts that may arise between the branches or
fundamental bodies of the States, when judicial decisions are not respected
58 Annex 20
The last power granted to the Court is one of the main considerations why this bill has been
rejected.
From a quick reading of the Minutes it can be concluded that subsection f) of Article 22 of this Bill
is unconstitutional, as it would delegate authority that has been consti tutionally assigned to the
Constitutional Chamber. Article 10 of the Political Constitution confers the authority of resolving
conflicts that may arise between the branches of the State, including the Tribunal Supremo de
Elecciones and other entities and b odies indicated by the law, to a specialized chamber of the
Supreme Court of Justice (Sala IV).
The Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes some important legal instruments to make
effective the P rinciple of Constitutional Supremacy prevailing in our body of law, expressly
contemplated in Article 10 of the Constitution and reiterated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Law on
Constitutional Jurisdiction.
Similarly, Article 3 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction expressly indicates that: “The Political
Constitution shall be deemed infringed when there is a conflict between the text of the norm or
action in question, its effects or its interpretation or application by the public authorities, and the
constitutional standards and principles.” (highlighting not in the original) In the foregoing case,
there is a conflict between the authority granted to the Constitutional Chamber through Article 10
of the Constitution and that established in Article 22 subsection f) of the Statute of the Central
American Court of Justice.
The constitutional article according to which Costa Rica is a Democratic Republic, free,
independent and Sovereign, establishes a limitation to foreign policy in general. It is worth nothing
that, in a legal regime such as the Costa Rican one , Articles 1 and 2 of the constitution, which
enshrine the freedom, independence and sovereignty, impose obligations on the Executive
Branch, given that in the context of management of international relations both stipulations must
be complied with, otherwise, the other branches, the Legislative and Judicial, must take part of
this activity to control or punish the breach of the mandate, as applicable. It is through the
management of international relations that the Executive Branch must work t o achieve the
national interests, through compliance with the foreign policy goals, without infringing the Political
Constitution in those important aspects.
Article six of the Political Constitution establishes that the State exercises full and exclusive
sovereignty over the airspace of its territory. Thus, it derives that the constitutional standards that
enshrine the jurisdiction (power that derives from the sovereignty of the State) and legal ones that
prescribe authority (within each State), cannot be modified by the Court, or by any other
procedural party, given that the jurisdiction of the courts may not be extended. Consequently,
from the point of view of the inability of waiving public powers and authorities, it is not possible to
accept as valid that indicated in subsection f) of Article 22 of the Bill under consideration. If this
Bill were approved as drafted it would represent a violation. The problem that we representatives,
members of the Commission on Legal Matters who are issuing this Ruling , have found, is that the
Statute establishes a restriction, given that pursuant to Article 48 it does not accept any
59Annex 20
reservation; thus we must vote negatively, and we opt to respect the principle of constitutional
supremacy.
Based on the foregoing, we submit for consideration of the Legislative Plenary, this MAJORITY
NEGATIVE VOTE, for acceptance by the representatives.
Performed at the Sessions Chamber of the Permanent Commission on Legal Matters, on 5
December 1998.
Signed:
Gerardo Trejos Salas
Alvaro Azofeifa Astúa
Anabella Díez Marín
Teddy Cole Scarlett
Bienvenido Venegas Porras
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Commission on Legal Matters
60 ANNEX 21
Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2003-6322 (Extract)
3 July 2003
English Translation
6162 Annex 21
Constitutional Court Judgment Nº 2003-6322 of 3 July 2003 (extract)
English Translation
“6.-only the declaration of a state of necessity exempts the enforcement of
environmental laws. The state of emergency is a source of Law that entails, in some cases,
a displacement, and in other cases an increase in public authority, specifically to be able to
address the exceptional situation that arises (“urgent or unexpected needs in cases of war,
internal turmoil or public disaster”); thus the Executive Branch is v ested with the authority
not to follow its normal procedures for its activities or formalities, as more expeditious and
simplified exceptional procedures are contemplated for such cases. By definition, this
encompasses transitory situations that are urgent and where it is necessary to preserve the
continuity of public services, so that the Administration has a provisional basis of authority
to serve the general interests that cannot be sacrificed by following a purely legalistic
approach. Thus, the exceptional law – comprised of the practices carried out at the time of
the emergency –, becomes unconstitutional in normal circumstances, hence it is essentially
a temporary law, meaning that it is solely and exclusively in place to resolve the specific
emergency at hand...”
6364 ANNEX 22
Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2005-8675 (Extract)
1 July 2005
English Translation
6566 Annex 22
Constitutional Court Judgment Nº 2005-8675 of 1 July 2005 (extract)
English Translation
“III.- States of emergency and the exercise of exceptional powers . The constitutional
system is intended to regulate societies in situations of institutional normalcy, when the
rights and interests of individuals in general are not threatened by extraordinary and
uncontrollable events. The purpose of the State and the rules for the enjoyment of
fundamental rights are premised on social progress taking place in normal conditions.
Nevertheless, every constitutional system must have special rules to respond to emergency
situations which present a serious risk to public and private legal interests, so as to enable
action be taken with the swiftness and responsiveness required, and thereby eliminate or
minimise the existing danger s, without undermining the rule of law. In a democratic
society, confronted with a situation of disaster or calamity, the State reacts within the limits
set by its own system. No emergency justifies the suspension of the constitutional order; at
most it allows for extraordinary laws to take effect on a temporary basis, which, although it
may imply an increase in official powers and the consequent restriction on the exercise of
certain public freedoms, shall never represent a rupture in the order established by the
Constituent Assembly. Regarding Costa Rica, the Constitution regulates stat es of
emergency in articles 121 item 7) and 140 item 4) for the suspension of fundamental rights,
rules that are also complemented by article 27 of the American Convention on Human
Rights, a set of rules that was in turn extensively elaborated in advisory opinion number
OC-8/87 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Constitution also regulates, in
paragraph 180, emergency situations where, while it might be unnecessary to apply the
exceptional competencies of constitutional articles 121 item 7) and 140 item 4), the
Executive Branch is nevertheless allowed to change the object of budgetary items or
authorise additional credits, in cases of war, internal turmoil or public disaster. Based on
this rule, it is understood that there is an implicit authori sation for the Executive Branch to
dictate emergency decrees that allow s the rules in force to be adjusted in exceptional
conditions, as a measure to combat the effects of the emergency. This last matter is the
object of this inquiry. In any case, any restriction that arises as a result of the exercise of
these powers must be absolutely necessary in order to address the dangers caused by the
exceptional situation, and must endure only for the time that is strictly necessary for this
purpose. Regarding the issue of states of emergency, the Constitutional Chamber has ruled
on several occasions, recognizing the exceptional nature of the emergency meas ures, as
well as the formal and material limits for the exercise of said competence. (Cf. Judgments
of the Constitutional Court 03410 -92, 02448 -95, 02661 -95 and 05966 -99, amongst
others)…”.
6768 ANNEX 23
Costa Rica, National Law of Emergencies and Risk Prevention,
Law No. 8488 (Extract)
11 January 2006
Article 4
English Translation
6970 Annex 23
National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention, Law N° 8488 of 11 January 2006
(extract)
English Translation
“Article 4: Definitions: For the purposes of clarity and interpretation of the present Law, the
following concepts are defined:…
State of Emergency: Statement made by the Executive Branch, by executive decree, based on a
state of necessity and urgency, caused by circumstances of war, internal unrest and public calamity.
This declaration allows for the management, by way of exception, of the actions and the allocation
of resources necessary to address the emergency, in accordance with Article 180 of the
Constitution.”
7172 ANNEX 24
Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2006-6336 (Extract)
10 May 2006
English Translation
7374 Annex 24
Constitutional Court Judgment Nº 2006-6336 of 10 May 2006 (extract)
English Translation
“IX.- Regarding the Emergency Situation.-
…It is therefore not contrary to the Law of the Constitution that the public institutions in
question are exempted immediately at the relevant moment from the steps and procedures
of the ordinary functioning of the Administration, which in this case refer s to exemption
from environmental regulations, such as, for example, the carrying out of an environmental
impact assessment or providing technical reports by competent institutions due to the state
of necessity and emergency, which made it impossible to wait for the conclusions of these
reports.”
7576 ANNEX 25
Nicaragua, Decree No 76-2006, ‘Environmental Evaluation System’ (Extract)
Approved on 19 December 2006,
Published in La Gaceta No 248 of 22 December 2006, Article 12,
available at
http://www.ine.gob.ni/DCA/leyes/decreto/Decreto_76-
2006_SistemaEvaluacionAmbiental.pdf
English Translation
7778 Annex 25
Nicaragua, Decree No. 76-2006, approved on 19 December 2006
published in La Gaceta No. 248 of 22 December 2006
available at http://www.ine.gob.ni/DCA/leyes/decreto/Decreto_76-
2006_SistemaEvaluacionAmbiental.pdf (extract)
“Article 12. Activities, Projects and Works of National Emergency. For reasons of
force majeure, such as projects designed to mitigate disasters or projects o f national
interest or national security that respond to situations of national emergency and are
classified in any of the environmental categories, the Ministry of Environment and
Regional Councils may pass a resolution of exception from environmental imp act
study and may proceed with urgency projects or activities that require an
environmental impact assessment or an environmental evaluation, by making a
request to the National Centre for Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, through its
executive secretary or the Ministry of Defense, as may be the case.”
7980 ANNEX 26
Nicaragua, Executive Decree No 79-2009 of 24 September 2009
‘Creation of the Inter-institutional Commission to Develop and Implement the
Regulations Regarding Navigation on the San Juan River, specifically where the
International Court of Justice Grants Limited Navigation Rights to the Republic
of Costa Rica’ (Extract)
Published in the Gazette of 1 October 2009
English Translation
8182 Annex 26
DECREE N°79-2009
---
DECREE:
CREATION OF THE INTER -INSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT THE REGULATIONS REGARDING NAVIGATION ON SAN JUAN
RIVER, SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
GRANTS LIMITED NAVIGATION RIGHTS TO THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA
Article 1. Create the Inter-Institutional Commission to coordinate, develop and implement
the regulations regarding navigati on on San Juan River , in conformity with the Political
Constitution, the laws on this matter, their rules, other provisions, the Treaty of Limits of
15 April 1858 between the Republic of Nicaragua and Costa Rica and the Judgment of the
International Court of Justice of 13 July 2009.
Article 2. The Inter-Institutional Commission shall be comprised of representatives of the
following institutions:
a) Ministry of Foreign Affairs
b) Ministry of Health
c) Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
d) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
e) Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
f) Attorney General
g) Nicaraguan Army
h) National Police
i) Nicaraguan Institute of Territorial Studies
j) Nicaraguan Institute of Tourism
k) Ministry of the Interior, Department of Immigration
1) Customs Authority
m) National Port Authority
Article 3. The Commission shal l be coordinated by the Commander in Chief of the
Nicaraguan Army, and it will be permanent. Its purpose will be to ensure compliance with
the regulatory framework for navigation on San Juan River, mainly on the portion where
Costa Rica has navigation rights for commercial purposes, and in conformity with the
competencies of each institution , they must ensure compliance with the following
provisions:
a) Ministry of Foreign Affairs , shall communicate to the Costa Rican Government the
regulatory provisions contained in this decree and those that regulate navigation on San
Juan River, and process official communications from the Costa Rican Government
regarding navigation on the river.
83Annex 26
b) Nicaraguan Army, through the Harbour Master’s Offices, it shall enforce national and
international laws regarding navigation, security, control and registration of vessels arriving
and departing from the Checkpoints established on San Juan River.
Issue clearings, whic h shall be free of charge for Costa Rican vessels navigating for
commercial purposes, based on the aforementioned treaty and judgment.
Require and control the use of the National Flag.
Guarantee that navigation on the portion of San Juan River authorized by the Treaty is
performed only by Costa Rican vessels that have commercial purposes or by those included
in the limited use granted to the population of the riverbanks, approximately 450 persons,
as clearly established in the judgment.
Forbid the navigation of other Costa Rican vessels, particularly those that carry out police
functions or transport security personnel and equipment on the river, with or without arms,
provisions or munitions. Also forbid the navigation o f official Costa Rican vessels that do
not have the corresponding authorization from Nicaraguan authorities.
c) Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources , in conformity with the
environmental laws in effect , enforce th at established to guarantee the protection and
conservation of the environment and natural resources of San Juan River and its
surrounding areas. Monitor the watercourses to prevent contamination of the river.
Regulate subsistence fishing conducted by Costa Rican inhabitants of the riverbanks.
d) Ministry of Health, ensure the health conditions of the people and vessels travelling on
San Juan River, apply the laws, regulations, standards, protocols, technical and
administrative provisions, as well as the International Health Regulations.
e) Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, protect and preserve the agricultural heritage of
San Juan River, and prevent, handle, control and eradicate animal and plant plagues and
diseases, and their products or sub -products that affect production on the river; ensure the
regulation and control of pesticides and hazardous toxic substances and other similar
substances, to protect human health and natural resources.
f) Nicaraguan Institute of Tourism , promote, develop and increase tourism on the San
Juan River route, respecting legal, moral, cultural values and locations declared of National
and Historical Heritage; promote national and foreign investment and the expansion and
modernization of touristic locations in those areas as required and allowed by
environmental conditions, contributing to the improvement of the living conditions of our
fellow citizens in the area.
In conformity with the provisions of the judgment, waive the tourism card fee for people
entering on Costa Rican vessels.
84 Annex 26
g) National Police, guarantee, in conjunction with the Nicaraguan Army, domestic order,
the citizens’ safety, and the prevention and prosecution of crime.
h) Ministry of the Interior, Department of Immigration , through clearance and
immigration control inspectors, it shall guarantee that foreigners, upon entering and leaving
through Checkpoints, comply with the laws of Nicaragua and properly identify themselves
by presenting their passports, and for Costa Ricans, their national identity card or passport.
i) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, ensure navigation safety and the
prevention of water contamination from vessels; enforce compliance with regulations
regarding the use of signs and the National Flag by the vessels.
j) Customs Authority , control and facilitat e foreign trade and the management of
government taxes over the international traffic of merchandise and derived legal relations.
k) Attorney General, in conformity with its powers and competencies, ensure measures
against actions that diminish the State’s heritage.
l) National Port Authority, guarantee port facilities and services related to navigation on
San Juan River.
m) Nicaraguan Institute of Territorial Studies, in conformity with its powers, conduct an
investigation, inventory and assessment of San Juan River’s physical resources.
Article 4. In the exercise of Nicaragua’s sovereign functions to regulate navigation on San
Juan River, which were confirmed by the judgment of 13 July 2009, a specific prohibition
is placed on the navigation of Costa Rican vessels if they have the following purposes:
a. Vessels that carry out police functions or of other entities of the same nature, which
intend to transport security personnel and equipment on the river, with or without arms,
provisions and munitions. Also, the navigation of official Costa Rican vessels that do not
have the corresponding authorization issued by Nicaraguan authorities.
b. Fishing with traps, nets, gillnets, explosives or othe r means, except for subsistence
fishing permitted to residents of the riverbanks.
c. Fishing for sports or commercial purposes.
d. Fishing by tourists or passengers while on vessels travelling on the river.
e. The docking of vessels with passengers or tourists or their entry into national territory ,
without proper authorization.
f. The transit of any type of cargo or merchandise for which it cannot be demonstrated,
through the established documentation, that it is for commercial purposes.
85Annex 26
g. The transportation of persons or tourists on the river which have not been authorized at
the corresponding checkpoints and who do not carry valid identification documents.
h. The navigation of vessels, passengers and cargo that have not been reported or have not
stopped at the corresponding checkpoints.
i. The navigation of vessels whose physical structure does not comply with the provisions
of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Water
Transportation and that harm the environ ment and ecosystem of the river and its
surroundings.
j. The navigation of casino boats, hotel boats or vessels for radio and television
transmission, and other similar vessels that travel on the river or just float on it.
k. The navigation of vessels carrying passengers, cargo or goods that do not comply with
health regulations and that are hazardous to people’s health.
These prohibitions do not exclude, in any way, others established by the domestic laws and
international rules approved by the State of Nicaragua.
Article 5. The Checkpoints at San Carlos, Boca de Sábalos, El Castillo, Bartola, Boca de
San Carlos, Sarapiquí, El Delta, San Juan de Nicaragua and others established are in charge
of complying with and enforcing the provisions of this decree and those derived therefrom.
Article 6. The provisions of this decree shall be applied in conformity with the laws and
regulations in effect by the Inter -Institutional Commission for Navigation on San Juan
River, in coordination with local governments.
The navigation schedule is fro m 05:00 to 17:00 , and it may be changed for reasonable
causes that affect navigational security, the environment, or for reasons of emergency or
national security.
Article 7. Repeal Decree No. 65-2005, published in the Official Gazette No. 188, of
September 29, two thousand and five.
Article 8. This Decree, along with the R egulations Regarding Navigation on San Juan
River, specifically where the International Court of Justice grants limited navigation rights
to the Republic of Costa Rica, sha ll enter into effect on the date of its publication in a ny
means of communication, without detriment to its publication in the Official Gazette.
Article 9. This Decree shall enter into effect on the date of its publication in the Official
Gazette.
Issued in the City of Managua, Presidential House, on September twenty -four of two
thousand and nine. Daniel Ortega Saavedra, President of the Republic of Nicaragua. Paul
Oquist Kelley, Private Secretary of National Policies.
86 Annex 26
REGULATIONS REGARDING NAVIGATION ON SAN JUAN RIVER
SECTION I
PURPOSE
SOLE CHAPTER
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1.- Purpose
The purpose of these regulations is to regulate navigation on San Juan River in conformity
with the Political Constitution, national laws, international treaties and agreements to which
Nicaragua is a State Party, the Judgment of the International Court Justice of 13 July
2009, the present decree and other technical and administrative provisions.
Article 2.- Enforcement Authorities
The Maritime Authority, through the Harbour Master’s Offices , and in coordination with
the other corresponding entities of the Public Administration of the Republic of Nicaragua,
will be in charge of enforcing the navigation activities referred to herein, in conformity
with the national laws, applicable international agreements, and other legal provisions,
particularly the rights granted to Costa Rica to navigate for commercial purposes including
passengers and tourists.
Article 3.- Nicaraguan Army
The Nicaraguan Army, through the Harbour Master’s Offices and the Vessel Checkpoint, is
in charge of enforcing the following:
87Annex 26
a) National and international laws regarding navigation, security, control and registration of
vessels arriving and departing from the Checkpoints established on San Juan River.
b) Issuing clearings, which shall be free of charge for the navigation of Costa Rican vessels,
based on the aforementioned treaty and judgment.
c) Requiring and controlling the use of the National Flag.
d) Guaranteeing that navigation on San Juan River is performed only by Costa Rican
vessels that have commercial purposes or by those included in the limited use granted to the
population of the riverbanks, approximately 450 persons, as clearly established in the
judgment.
e) Forbidding the navigation of other vessels, particularly those that carry out police
functions or whose purpose is to transport security personnel and equipment on the river,
with or without arms, supplies and munitions.
SECTION II
RECEPTION, CONTROL AND DISPATCH OF VESSELS
Chapter I
General Provisions
Article 4.- Beginning of the Reception and Dispatch of Vessels.
The formal reception will take place at the first Checkpoint of entry or arrival of the vessel,
and the dispatch at the last Checkpoint of departure of the vessel, with the participation of
the authorities that intervene in the controls that must be conducted in conformity with
these regulations.
The arrival and departure checkpoints are: Boca de San Carlos, Sarapiquí and El Delta.
Article 5.- Coordinating Authorities
The Nicaraguan Army, through the Harbour Master’s Offices and Checkpoints, will be in
charge of coordinating the reviews and controls to which vessels must be subjected upon
arrival or departure.
Article 6.- General Declaration
l. The General Declaration is the document that must be submitted by the captain or skipper
of the vessel at the time that the vessel is received or dispatched.
2. This general declaration shall contain, based on whether it is a reception or dispatch, the
following data:
a) Name and type of vessel
b) Nationality of the vessel
c) Port or Checkpoint of arrival or departure
d) Date and time of arrival or departure
88 Annex 26
e) Port or Checkpoint of origin or destination
f) Name of the shipowner and captain or skipper of the vessel
g) Port and registration number of the vessel
h) Gross and net register tonnage of the vessel
i) Brief description of the cargo aboard the vessel, including dangerous goods (red flag),
and their value based on the commercial invoice to determine which are for commercial
purposes
j) List of the crewmembers, including the captain or skipper
k) Passenger list
l) Main dimensions of the vessel
3. The general declaration must be signed by the captain or skipper. The a uthorities that
intervened in the reception or dispatch of the vessel must leave evidence of their
observations, if any, in the Book of Reception and Dispatch of Vessels of the Harbour
Master’s Offices or Checkpoint.
---
Article 9.- Obligation to Raise Flags
1. All national vessels shall have the national flag raised, and the flag must be rectangular
with proportional dimensions of three (3) feet wide by five (5) feet long, and they should be
in good, clean condition at all times.
2. During navigation, the vessel’s national flag shall be raised to the peak or at the halyard
of the mast, except when the design lacks a mast or peak, in which case it will be raised at
the mast located at the stern of the vessel.
3. All Costa Rican vessels or vessels of other nationalities entering a Checkpoint to
navigate San Juan River must raise the Nicaraguan flag while on national territory. The
Nicaraguan flag must be raised atop the highest mast.
4. The national flag will be lowered to half mast to signal mourning, when indicated by the
Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch.
5. When the vessel does not have a superstructure, the vessel’s national flag shall be visibly
painted on both sides of the bow.
Article 10.- Documentation
The Harbour Master’s Offices or Vessel Checkpoint will require, upon reception of all
national and foreign vessels, submission of the following documents:
1. The ship’s clearance from the port of origin
2. General declaration
3. Cargo manifest and declaration of dangerous goods
4. List of crewmembers and their licenses
5. Passenger list
6. Logbook
7. Insurance policy certificate set forth in these regulations
89Annex 26
8. Certificate of registration and navigation permit of the vessel
9. Ship security certificate
10. Documents proving the lawfulness and commercial purposes of the merchandise
transported
Chapter III
Dispatch of Vessels
Article 11.- Departure
In order to be able to depart from a Checkpoint, all vessels require prior authorization for
departure, which shall be granted by the corresponding Harbour Master’s Offices or
Checkpoint. Said authorization is called a “ clearance” and it is granted upon co mpliance
with the requirements and formalities set forth in these regulations.
Article 12.- General requirements
For the dispatch, in addition to presenting the documentation indicated in the previous
article, the captain or skipper must ensure that the vessel has all of its documents in order
and that the security conditions necessary for navigation and protection of the environment
comply with national regulations in effect.
Article 13.- Documentation
The Harbour Master’s Offices or Checkpoints shal l demand the following documents to
dispatch vessels:
1. General declaration (set forth in article 6 of this decree)
2. Ship clearance issued by the competent authority
3. Cargo manifest and declaration of dangerous goods
4. List of crew members
5. List of passengers
6. Logbook
7. Insurance policy certificate set forth in these regulations
8. Certificate of registration and navigation permit of the vessel
9. Licenses of the crew members included in the crew member list
10. Ship security certificate.
11. Documents demonstrating the lawfulness of the merchandise transported
Article 14.- Denial of clearance
The Harbour Master’s Offices or Checkpoints will not issue a ship clearance in the
following cases:
1. Incomplete presentation of documents;
2. Justified existence of an imminent risk in terms of security in navigation and human life,
as well as the prevention of contamination;
3. Knowledge of any accident, incident or situation of risk that happened to the vessel,
involving danger for its navigation
4. When the vessel’s crew is incomplete or unsatisfactory based on the security
requirements for navigation due to incompetence
5. When the vessel exceeds its maximum amount of cargo or passengers
90 Annex 26
6. When there is official communication by a competent judicial authority
7. When there is an order from competent administrative authorities
8. When the vessel does not raise the national flag
9. When the vessel does not have signs
10. When the vessel does not carry security and salvage equipment
11. When the vessel does not carry the means to prevent contamination
12. When it is outside of the established navigation schedule
13. When cargo and passenger documents demonstrating that the vessel is a commercial
vessel are not presented
---
Article 16.- Mandatory insurance
1. Every ship owner that provides cargo and/or passenger transportation services must have
the following insurance policies:
a) Personal accident for the passengers and crew
b) Death
c) Permanent disability
d) Temporary disability
e) Medical attention, hospital, surgical and pharmaceutical service expenses
f) Burial costs
2. Third party liability covering personal or material damage, contamination and salvage
costs.
3. The Maritime Authority will establish, through a resolution, the minimum compensation
amounts for the abovementioned insurance policies.
Article 17.- Conditions of the vessels
l. The passenger transportation service shall be provided by vessels that have adequate
compartments, under security and comfort conditions, complying with the minimum
security guidelines established in these regulations, as well as in other provisions issued by
the Maritime Authority.
2. The cargo transportation service shall be performed with vessels that meet the technical
characteristics adequate for the requirements of the type of cargo.
3. The passenger and cargo transportation service shall be provided by vessels that comply
with the conditions established for the transportation of both cargo and passengers.
4. Vessels shall have at least two exits or emergency escapes, one located on the bow and
the other on the stern of the passenger area. These exits will be at least 0.5 meters wide and
have a height of at least 0.75 meters, and should be able to open from the inside and
outside. They shall be adequately marked and free from any obstacles to reach or access
them.
5. Vessels fitted to transport over 50 passengers shall have at least one toilet and drinking
water service.
6. Vessels fitted to transport up to 50 passengers and that perform trips of 30 minutes or
less, shall have one toilet as a minimum.
91Annex 26
7. The passenger area must be properly ventilated by a natural or mechanic ventilation
system sufficient to maintain fresh air and keep the passengers comfortable.
Article 18.- Rendering of services
1. The cargo and/or passenger transportation service will be provided by national
shipowners, in the environment, traffic and modality indicated in the concession, after
complying with the requirements and procedures established in the relevant laws, as well as
in other provisions issued by the Maritime Authority.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the previous paragraph, vessels that raise the C osta
Rican flag may provide cargo and/or passenger transportation services under the terms
indicated in the Treaty of Limits of April 15, 1858 between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, the
Cleveland Award of 1888, and the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 13 July
2009, in compliance these regulations and other applicable provisions.
2. In the exercise of the right stated in the above paragraph, Costa Rican vessels authorized
to navigate on San Juan River are forbidden from performing transfers of passengers or
goods to another vessel during navigation and approaching or unauthorized running
aground on any of the riverbanks when it is not a Checkpoint.
Article 19.- Navigation Schedule
The schedule established for navi gation on San Juan River is from 5:00 to 17:00 hours.
However, in the event of a clear need , the Harbour Master’s Offices or Checkpoint may
authorize navigation outside of this schedule, except for the limit ations contained in article
14.
Article 20.- Duty of communication.
The captain or skipper of any Costa Rican vessel navigating on San Juan River shall
maintain continuous contact with the radio station at the Harbour Master’s Offices or
Checkpoint, in order to report all events related to the trip, an d to receive or request
instructions when necessary.
---
Article 22.- Navigation of official vessels of the Republic of Costa Rica.
Official Costa Rican vessels that need to conduct work related to their riverside inhabitants
must request , through the e stablished diplomatic channels, permission for arrival and
navigation, reporting the following information:
1. Type of vessel and characteristics
2. List of the crew and their identification
3. Work to be conducted
4. Date and time of entry
5. Length of stay
6. Radio type and frequency
7. Point of arrival and departure
8. Amount of fuel
92 Annex 26
9. In case of an emergency, the Nicaraguan Army’s checkpoints shall receive the
information contained in numbers 1 to 8 of this article from Costa Rican authorities for
their knowledge and control
---
Article 24.- Inspection of the vessel
Upon arrival of a vessel to a Checkpoint, the Maritime Authority shall perform an
inspection, which shall be limited to verifying that, in conformity with the following
standards:
1. The registration and navigation documents are valid, as well as the ship security
certificate.
2. The equipment and security means are on board, in a good state and in operation.
3. The navigation lights are in a good and functioning condition.
4. It has solid and liquid waste reception facilities.
5. It has a valid insurance policy or certificate, held on board.
Article 25- Measures to be taken by the Maritime Authority
In the event that the inspector from the Maritime Authority declares an inconsistency
between that expressed in the documents or security certificates on board and the reality
that he sees, he shall perform a more detailed inspection of all of the elements, equipment
and means of the vessel, in order to guarantee compliance with the regulations in effect
regarding security and prevention of contamination to the environment.
If as a result of the inspection or detailed review deficiencies are detected which put at risk
the safety of the vessel, the persons or cargo, the inspector from the Maritime Authority
shall deny navigation until the deficiencies found are corrected. If not possible, the vessel
must return to the country of origin.
The measures taken shall be reported to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
---
Article 27.- Measure to be taken by the Military Authorities
The Harbour Master’s Offices, Checkpoints, surface units and Marine Infantry Units, which
find arms, general undeclared goods, unauthorized fishing products, narcotics or
psychotropic and other controlled substances, shall arrest and seize, as follows:
1. If the arrest is on the river, the vessel, persons and cargo will be led to the nearest control
post and the corresponding national authority shall be informed.
2. Once all of the information regarding the arrest and seizure is obtained, if the vessel and
persons are foreign the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be notified through the
Commander-in-chief of the Navy.
3. In all cases, the vessels will remain in custody of the Harbour Master’s Office or
Checkpoint until the competent authority issues the corresponding decision.
4. If restricted arms, means of communication, munitions or explosives are found these
shall be seized and will remain in custody of the Nicaraguan Army, and the bearers shall be
handed over to the competent authorities duly registered.
5. Restricted arms, military provisions and naval artefacts found in unlawful activities shall
remain in custody of the Nicaraguan Army.
93Annex 26
6. Upon finding general goods, money in amounts higher than that established in the
standards in effect and undeclared personal objects these shall be seized and delivered duly
registered to the Customs Authority.
7. If drugs are found these shall be seized and handed over, as well as the bearers thereof,
duly registered to the competent authorities.
8. If unauthorized fishing products are found, these shall be seized and delivered to the
competent authority.
---
Article 29.- Immigration controls by Nicaraguan Checkpoints on the entry and departure of
foreigners in transit, coming from Costa Rica, in the area of common navigation
Foreigners that enter San Juan River, coming from Costa Rica, through the checkpoints at
Boca de San Carlos, Sarapiquí, El Delta, must comply with the following:
1. Present a Passport with validity over six months, in good condition, without large stains
or corrections.
2. Present embarking and disembarking cards
3. Costa Ricans over 16 years old may present the citizen ID, and minors under 16 years of
age must present a valid Passport as ID.
Article 30.- Reasons for Denial of Entry
The Department of Immigration may deny entry to foreigners in the following cases:
1. For reasons of national security, public order and the environment;
2. Due to health regulations;
3. Due to immigration impediments of entry contained in the law on this matter.
CHAPTER III
Public Health and Sanitation Control
Article 31.- Sanitation Documents
In conformity with the International Health Regulations, the following documents are
required for the entry of persons or products:
1. International certificate of vaccinations (immunizations record), as applicable;
2. Maritime declaration of health for vessels;
3. Manifest or general declaration of the vessel;
4. Ship sanitation certificate;
5. International control sheet for deceased persons (see appendix).
Article 32.- Medical Inspection
A medical-sanitation inspection of the ships shall be performed, and a non-invasive medical
examination shall be performed on passengers when it is suspected that their entry
constitutes a risk to public health; routine medical examinations can be performed.
Article 33.- Danger of contamination
1. When signs or clinical symptoms are found on board a ship, as well as information based
on facts or evidence of a risk to public health including sources of infection or
contamination, the following procedure shall be performed:
94 Annex 26
a) Disinfect, decontaminate and clear the vessel of insects or rats.
b) Decide on the technique to be employed to guarantee adequate control of the risk to
public health.
c) Carry out the related actions to prevent risks of contamination according to the needs
determined by the sanitation authorities.
2. The cost of the interventions indicated in letters a) and b) shall be assumed by the
shipowners.
Article 34.- Sanitation monitoring and control
To ensure or guarantee sanitation control, the following actions will be performed:
1. Inspect means of transport that enter with processed foods, verifying compliance with the
technical standards on labelling and sanitary registration.
2. Verify that the means of transport and facilities used by passengers are kept in hygienic
conditions and exempt from sources of infection or contamination, including vectors and
reservoirs;
3. Systematically inform the operators of the means of transport of the methods used for
sanitation control of the ships, crew and passengers and the obligation to facilitate this
control.
4. Monitor the sanitary conditions of the passengers, objects, cargo and ships.
Article 35.- Sanitation measures
Operators and shipowners must guarantee the following:
1. Individuals must be vaccinated in conformity with the official scheme of the Ministry of
Health and the International Health Regulations, and must provide the corresponding
documentation when requested by the sanitation authority.
2. Passengers must be given the immunizations determined in the event of sanitation
emergencies by the Ministry of Health.
3. Crew members must bear sanitation certificates issued by the competent authority.
4. Report to the competent authorities whether passengers carry medications that are
subject to sanitation control.
5. Have a first aid kid with sufficient materials to address passenger emergencies.
6. Place non-smoking signs in visible places.
7. Create facilities and provide adequate equipment and instruments that allow access,
mobility and safety to disabled persons.
8. Do not allow the embarking of persons with behavioural disorders with expression of
aggression or violence.
Article 36.- Monitoring Human Health
The captain or skipper must notify any event that constitutes a risk to public health, and
must apply the sanitary recommendations given by the Nicaraguan sanitation authority.
Article 37.- Declaration of a Health Emergency
1. In the event of an epidemic or danger of an epidemic to the communities on the
riverbanks, the Ministry of Health shall declare a Health Emergency and determine the
measures to protect the population and the passengers, temporarily regulating the entry of
passengers.
95Annex 26
2. The institutions, tourism operators, vessels and general population have the obligation to
comply with the recommendations and guidelines issued in order to prevent the spread or
development of new outbreaks.
CHAPTER IV
Monitoring and Control of Plant Health and Animal Health
Article 38.- Requirements for the entry or transit of products or subproducts of animal or
plant origin
The requirements are:
1. Health/phytosanitary import permit (original) which shall be requested 8 days in
advance, prior to the entry of the vessel into national territory
2. Official health/phytosanitary certificate from the country of origin and/or country of
departure (original)
3. Official certificate of origin of the exporting country (copy)
4. Cargo manifest (copy) bill of lading
5. Copy of commercial invoice
6. Negative results of official laboratories or certified by the competent authority of the
country of origin and/or departure.
7. For products originating from countries in Central America, the Unique Central
American Customs Form will be accepted as certificate of origin.
Article 39.- Special Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures to prevent the introduction of
Plagues and Diseases
1. All merchandise on which there is a suspicion of plague or that it may cause disease may
be subjected to the following measures:
a) Quarantine
b) Sanitary and phytosanitary control treatment
c) Quick tests or conventional lab tests
d) Confiscation
e) Rejection
f) Sanitary sacrifice
g) Any other duly justified sanitary or phytosanitary measure deemed pertinent.
2. The expenses related to the application of quarantine measures shall be assumed by the
owner without rights to reimbursement.
3. When there is suspicion or initial confirmation of plague or exotic disease outbreaks, a
state of alert shall be declared.
Article 40.- Inspection of Animals, Products and Subproducts of Animal and Plant Origin
All national or foreign vessels that transport and/or store animals, plants, plant parts,
vegetable products and materials susceptible to spreading plagues or diseases shall be
subjected to a sanitary and phytosanitary inspection.
Article 41.- Control of supplies and products for Agricultural, aquiculture, fishing, forestry
and agroforestry uses
Supplies and products for Agricultural, aquiculture, fishing, forestry and agroforestry uses
that enter through maritime or river ways shall be subject to inspection in order to
96 Annex 26
determine whether they comply with the requirements established in the law on this matter
and ministerial resolutions.
Article 42.- Confiscation and rejection of agrochemical products
All importers who fail to comply with the requirements established, such as chemical
properties, shall be subject to holding, confiscation and rejection of products which due to
their state represent inadmissible risks to Public Health, Animal Health, Plant Health and
the environment in general.
Article 43.- Service charges
Inspection and quarantine treatment shall be compulsory for all means of transport that
intend to arrive or depart from national territory, which must pay for the services received,
in conformity with Ministerial Agreement No. 15-2009 and the rate sheet issued for that
purpose.
CHAPTER V
Customs Controls and Regulations
Article 44.- Transit of persons, merchandise and means of transport
1. Passengers or carriers that transport merchandise on San Juan River for commercial
purposes, shall present and declare them immediately to the Customs Authority at the
checkpoints during the established hours, without modifying their state or conditions. For
this purpose they must fill out and submit a customs declaration issued by the Customs
Authority or, if applicable, submit a copy of the cargo manifest of the goods.
2. Companies dedicated to the international transport of persons have the obligation to
collaborate with the Customs Authority in the exercise of control over passengers and their
baggage, including providing the customs declaration. For a family group only one
declaration needs to be submitted.
Article 45.- Entry and departure of persons, merchandise and means of transport
1. The entry or departure of persons, merchandise and means of transport from customs
territory shall be performed at the established checkpoints and during the established hours.
These must appear or be presented before the Customs Authority and comply with the
control measures in effect.
2. Final import or export, and their modalities, or other customs regime, are subject to
compliance with customs requirements and formalities, or of other nature, required in each
case.
CHAPTER VI
Preservation of Public Order and Citizen Safety
Article 46.- Obligations of Vessel Operators
At the Harbour Master’s Office or Checkpoint vessel operators must:
1. Declare possession of firearms, munitions, explosives and other related materials, which
must be duly registered and authorized in conformity with the law on the matter.
2. Present the corresponding authorization for the transport of cattle.
Present the authorization for the transport of timber.
97Annex 26
Article 47.- Measures to be taken by police authorities
When the National Police presumes the commission of crimes it shall take the following
measures in coordination with the Nicaraguan Army:
1. Inspect, in coordination with the Harbour Master’s Offices and Checkpoints, the vessel,
crew and passengers transported.
2. Detain the alleged perpetrators of the crimes caught in flagrante.
3. Confiscate merchandise on which there is suspicion of smuggling, goods, cultural
heritage, flora and fauna.
4. Seize cash, securities, objects and precious metals introduced or intending to take from
the country without the corresponding customs declaration.
5. Perform the necessary investigations and forward them to the competent authority.
SECTION V
SAFETY STANDARDS
Chapter 1
Safety and Rescue Measures
Article 48.- Safety Standards
All vessels must comply with the following safety standards in the checkpoints and during
navigation:
1. The gasoline tank of passenger vessels with outboard motor (s) must be isolated from the
passenger area.
2. They shall have a superstructure according to the authorized number of pas sengers, be
equipped with hardtop cabin, a central corridor for the movement of passengers and
individual chairs with backrests, as well as compartments for hand luggage storage and
curtains on the sides for protection from rain or sun.
3. The net width of each passenger seat shall not be less than 0.45 meters.
4. The net width of internal corridors for passenger use shall not be less than 0.50 meters.
5. Perpendicular to the backrests of the seats, each adult passenger will occupy a length of
0.62 meters; there shall be no less than 0.12 meters between the passenger and the backrest
of the seat in front of him.
6. The minimum height of the passenger compartment is 1.70 meters.
7. Throughout the journey in the stretch of rapids, passengers and crew are required to wear
a life jacket, which will be provided by the helmsman or captain.
98 Annex 26
8. When embarking and during the trip, passengers and crew are required to wear a life
jacket.
9. Intoxicated passengers or crew shall not be allowed to board. Also, consumption of
intoxicating beverages or hallucinogenic substances is not allowed during the trip.
10. Refuelling the vessel while passengers are on board is not allowed.
11. Passenger vessels shall not transport explosive, flammable, or toxic products and, in
general, products that are dangerous to health, physical integrity and safety.
12. The maximum speed for the vessels navigating on San Juan River is six (6) knots.
13. All cargo and passenger vessels shall not carry more than their authorized capacity.
Article 49.- Information on board
Printed instructions about the maxim um number of passengers allowed, minimum safety
precautions on board and use of life jacket shall be located in a visible place in all vessels.
SECTION VII
TOURISM SERVICES
SOLE CHAPTER
REGARDING TOURISM SERVICES
Article 67.- Registration in the National Registry of Tourism
Individuals or corporations, national or foreign, who want to operate in San Juan River and
that engage in water transport tourism, tour guide, water vehicle rentals and tourist marinas
shall register before the National Registry of Tourism or sign agreements with national
companies of the same nature registered and authorized by the Nicaraguan Institute of
Tourism.
Article 68.- Tourist Card Payment
In accordance with the provisions of the judgment, payment of the tourist card shall be
waived to foreigners entering San Juan river on Costa Rican vessels.
All foreigners in Costa Rican vessels sailing in the stretch or route of San Juan River, in
which Costa Rica can navigate for commercial purposes and while navigating determines to
enter the country for tourism activities shall comply with the payment of the tourist card.
Article 70.- Regarding the vessels, the following is not allowed:
l. Navigation of casino vessels or hotel vessels.
99Annex 26
2. To navigate outside normal hours, except in cases of emergency.
3. To perform cross-border movement of toxic waste in San Juan River.
4. The sale of alcoholic beverages without proper authorization.
5. The shipment of human remains without proper certificates issued by competent
authorities and that do not meet international standards set for their transfer.
6. To transport animals with contagious diseases that pose a threat to people and wildlife.
7. To dock and disembark passengers or unload goods in unauthorized places.
8. To transport, trade and use the following pesticides as raw materials, formulated products
or any other mixture in San Juan River: 2,4,5 -T. (trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), aldrin,
dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, Chlordimeform, DBCP (Dibromochloropropane -Nemagon),
DDT (Dichloro Diphenyl Trich loroethane), Dinoseb, EDB (ethylene dibromide), Ethyl
parathion, HCB (hexachlorobenzene), Heptachlor, Lindane, Pentachlorophenol, Percloro
Penta Cyclodecane (Dechlorane or Mirex), Toxaphene, methyl parathion, methamidophos
(MTD) and Monocrotophos. Without prejudice to the prohibitions and restrictions
established in official documents.
100 ANNEX 27
Costa Rica, Ministerial Resolution 02572 of 2009,
Technical Guide for an Environmental Diagnostic – EDA (Extract)
2 November 2009
English Translation and Spanish Original
101102 Annex 27
(MINAET logo) (SETENA logo)
Ministry of the Environment (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones)
National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA))
Resolution N° 02752-2009 SETENA
The Ministry of the Environment (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones) –
National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), at 08 hours
00 minutes of 2 November 2009
AGREEMENT OF THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE COMMISSION
TECHNICAL GUIDE FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL DIAGNOSTIC - EDA
In the Regular Meeting No. 0121-2009 of this Secretariat, held on November 02, 2009, Article
No. 02, it was decided that:
1. What is an EDA?
An Environmental Diagnostic (Estudio de Diagnóstico Ambiental), hereinafter EDA, is an
instrument for environmental assessment similar to an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de
Impacto Ambiental, EsIA), but instead of being based on predictions (when the project is in the
planning or pre-investment stage), it is based on samples and measurements (since the activity
subject to the EDA has already been built and is in the operating stage).
…
The EDA has two main goals: i) identifying and measuring the significant negative impacts and risks
caused by an activity on the environment and the population, and ii) defining and establishing the
“environmental control measures” necessary to prevent, mitigate or compensate those negative
impacts originating from the activity, as well as the control of environmental risks, for which it
shall propose the corresponding Environmental Modification Program (Programa de Adecuación
Ambiental, PAA) and the Contingency and Accident Prevention Program (Programa de
Contingencia y Prevención de Accidentes, PCPA).
The PAA and PCPA are the main products of the EDA, and will become key instruments for the
environmental management of the activity or company which is granted the Environmental
License, as they are based on the pillars of environmental commitments, seeking to guarantee
compliance with the applicable environmental standard.
103Annex 27
The PAA focuses on control and monitoring, by the developer, of the negative environmental
impacts, especially those associated with water, air, soil and noise pollution, considering but not
limited to: waste management and disposal, control of noise pollution. Similarly, the PCPA focuses
on the risk generated by the activity subject to the EDA, and its content and scope will be based on
the nature and size of the activity subject to the environmental assessment instrument, as well as
the characteristics of the environment in which it is located.
…
104Annex 27
105Annex 27
106 ANNEX 28
Costa Rica, Emergency Decree No. 36440-MP
Published in the Official Gazette number 46 of 7 March 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
107108 Annex 28
Supplement No. 14 to The Gazette No. 46
Official Journal
Decree No. 36440-MP
Year CXXXIII
La Uruca, San José, Costa Rica
Monday, 7 March 2011
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE MINISTER OF THE
PRESIDENCY
In the exercise of the authority conferred on them by Articles 140, sections 3)
and 18) and 180 of the Political Constitution, Articles 25 section 1), 2.7 section
1) 28 section b), of Law No 6227 of 2 May 1978 which is the General Public
Administration Law, and Law No. 8488 of 11 January 2006 which is the
National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention.
Considering:
I.- That the constitutional system provides for special rules that allow the
Executive Branch to address emergency situations so that quick and decisive
action can be taken as required by the circumstances so as to eliminate or
minimize the consequences of natural and man-made disasters.
II.- That an essential function of the Costa Rican State is to protect of national
sovereignty, and in its safeguarding and defence the State is called upon to
exercise all necessary measures in observance of the civil and pacifist vocation
that informs the Costa Rican State, particularly with regard s to the abolition
of the army, peace, neutrality and the peaceful settlement of dispu tes, by the
use of the mechanisms provided by International Law.
III.- That the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the means by which the State
carries out all its tasks before any foreign Governments and institutions.
Furthermore, the Ministry for Public Sec urity is the entity responsible for the
defence of the territorial integrity of Costa Rica. Equally, other entities of the
State will be available to provide institutional support, in conformity with
their powers and responsibilities for those purposes.
IV.- That the military invasion and occupation of Costa Rica by Nicaragua,
since October 2010, with Nicaraguan troops occupying part of the territory of
Costa Rica, in clear violation of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and
national dignity.
V.- That the aforementioned has brought about a constant violation of the
territorial, aerial and maritime spaces of Costa Rica, thus affecting not only its
109Annex 28
national sovereignty, but also causing serious environmental damage through
the destruction of f ragile areas of national wetland duly registered and
recognized at the international level.
VI.- That to this day Nicaragua continues to occupy and to damage a part of
Costa Rican territory , with the presence of Nicaraguan armed forces in
particular, in Isla Portillo -Isla Calero, and continues to carry out dredging
works which ha ve caused serious environmental damage to the area in
question.
VII.- That as a result of actions carried out by the army of Nicaragua and the
Government of that country, several Costa Rican communities along the
border area, and Government institutions, have seen their normal functioning
conditions disrupted, some even isolated as they lack the means to access
basic services such as health, food , education, among others, and thus have
been placed in evidently vulnerable conditions.
VIII.- That the area that has been affected by the actions of the Nicaraguan
Government and Army is also under constant threat of natural phenomena
that causes flooding among other effects.
IX.- That the National Law on Emergen cies and Risk Prevention determines
that “Those within the national territory must have their lives, their physical
integrity, their property and the environment protected from dangerous
disasters or events that may occur.”
X.- That the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention defines as a
disaster a situation “or process that is brought about as the result of a
phenomenon with a natural, technological or man -made origin where a
population is brought under conditions of vulnerability, that causes intense
disruption of the community’s normal functioning conditions, such as the loss
of lives and health within the population, destruction or loss of the
collective’s property and severe damage to the environment.”
XI.- That the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention understands
an emergency to be the state of crisis created by the disaster.
XII.- That up until the present , attention to the disaster generated by the
actions of the Army and Government of Nicaragua , has been enabled by the
resources and ordinary procedures that regulate Public Administration;
however, at the present moment it is necessary t he use of the mechanisms of
exception provided to the Estate by the Constitution and the Law.
110 Annex 28
Therefore,
THEY DECREE:
“TO DECLARE THAT THE SITUATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
VIOLATION OF COSTA RICAN SOVEREIGNTY ON THE PART OF
NICARAGUA CONFORMS A STATE OF EMERGENCY”
Article 1- A State of Emergency is declared in the following cantons located
on the border with Nicaragua: La Cruz, Upala, Los Chiles, Sarapiquí, San
Carlos and Pocosi; and also the situations and/or processes that are being
unleashed as a result of the activities illicitly carried out by Nicaragua on
Costa Rican territory, which threaten the life, physical integrity and property
of those within national territory, as well as the national sovereignty and the
environment.
Article 2 -. To that effect, the present declaration of a state of emergency
includes the three phases established in the National Law on Emergencies
and Risk Prevention which are as follow:
a) Response phase.
b) Rehabilitation phase.
c) Reconstruction phase.
Article 3.- The present declaration of a state of emergency encompasses all the
actions and projects necessary for the protection of life, physical integrity,
property and the environment, as well as those necessary for attention,
rehabilitation, reconstr uction and restoration of infrastructure, housing,
communications and disrupted production activities as well as all damaged
public services within the zone covered under article 1) of this Decree, all of
which actions should be included in the General Eme rgency Plan approved
by the Governing Board of the National Commission on Risk Prevention and
Attention to Emergencies, in order that such attention and projects take place
in conformity with the concept of emergency.
Article 4.- In conformity with the st ipulations of articles 15 and 38 and also
the following articles of the National Law on Emergencies and Risk
Prevention, the Ministry for Public Security will coordinate with the National
Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to Emergencies, the Cent er for
Emergency Operations (COE by its Spanish acronym), and other coordination
entities to facilitate the development of a General Emergency Plan.
Article 5. - In conformity with stipulations of the National Law on
Emergencies and Risk Prevention, the Ex ecutive Branch, public institutions,
autonomous and quasi autonomous entities, State corporations,
municipalities, as well as any other entity or public organism are authorized
111Annex 28
to contribute, donate, transfer, and lend the necessary help and collaboration
to the National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to
Emergencies.
Article 6.- For implementation of the present declaration of an emergency, the
National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to Emergencies, in
conformity with the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention may
assign funds and accept donations from public and private entities.
Article 7 -. As part of its attention to the present emergency, the National
Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to Emergencies may use
unassigned funds remaining from other resolved or remaining emergencies
as determined by the Governing Board of this entity.
Article 8-. The grounds of private property situated in the geographic area
defined by this declaration of an emergency state shal l be bound to allow all
the legal easements necessary for the execution of these actions, processes and
projects to be carried by public entities in response to the emergency, as along
as these are indispensable to the opportune attention to the emergency in
conformity with the stipulations of the Phase 1 of the emergency.
Article 9-. The present declaration of a state of emergency will be in effect
during the period of time determined by the Executive Branch, depending on
reports issued by the National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention
to Emergencies, or during the maximum period of time established in Law
8488.
Article 10-. The present decree is in effect as of the moment of signature.
[The present decree was] signed in the Presidency of the Republic the twenty-
first of February of the year two thousand eleven.
LAURA CHINCHILLA MIRANDA. – The Minister for the Presidency, Marco
A. Vargas Díaz. – 1 time. – O.C. No. 10971. – (Request No. 030 -2011). – C-
64820. – (D36440-IN2011016261).
112 Annex 28
Alcance Nº 14 a La Gaceta Nº 46
DIARIO OFICIAL
La Uruca, San José, Costa Rica, lunes 7 de marzo del 2011
DECRETO Nº 36440-MP
LA PRESIDENTA DE LA REPÚBLICA
Y EL MINISTRO DE LA PRESIDENCIA
En ejercicio de las facultades que les confieren los artículos140 , incisos 3) y 18) y 180 de
la Constitución Política, artículos 25 inciso 1), 2.7 inciso 1), 28 inciso b), de la Ley Nº 6227
del 2 de mayo de 1978 que es Ley General de la Administración Pública, y la Ley Nº 8488
del 11 de enero del 2006, que es la Ley Nac ional de Emergencias y Prevención del
Riesgo.
Considerando:
I.—Que el sistema constitucional prevé reglas especiales que le permiten al Poder
Ejecutivo atender situaciones de emergencia, de modo que se pueda actuar con la
agilidad y energía que las circu nstancias requieran, y así eliminar o minimizar las
consecuencias de los desastres, naturales y antrópicos.
II.—Que es función esencial del Estado costarricense proteger la soberanía nacional,
ejerciendo para su resguardo y defensa todas aquellas medidas requeridas en
observancia con los principios de vocación civilista y pacifista que informan al Estado
costarricense, particularmente los de abolición del ejército, la paz, la neutralidy el
arreglo pacífico de las disputas, en uso de los mecanismos previstos por el Derecho
Internacional.
III.—Que el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, es el medio por el cual el Estado
realiza todas sus gestiones ante Gobiernos e Instituciones extranjeras. Asimismo, el
Ministerio de Seguridad Pública es el responsable de la defensa de la integridad territorial
costarricense. Asimismo, otras dependencias del Estado estarán en disposición de brindar
el apoyo institucional, de acuerdo con sus competencias y responsabilidades para dichos
fines.
IV.—Que con la invasión militar y ocupación realizada por Nicaragua en Costa Rica desde
el mes de octubre del 2010, tropas nicaragüenses ocupan una parte del territorio de Costa
Rica, en clara violación a la soberanía, integridad territorial y dignidad nacional.
V.—Que lo anterior ha generado una constante violación a los espacios terrestres, aéreos
y marítimos de Costa Rica, afectando no solo la soberanía nacional sino que también ha
generado una grave devastación ambiental al destruirse delicadas zonas de humedales
nacionales, debidamente registradas y reconocidas a nivel internacional.
VI.—Que al día de hoy Nicaragua continua ocupando y dañando parte del territorio
costarricense, con presencia de las fuerzas armadas nicaragüenses en particular en la
113Annex 28
Isla Portillo-Isla Calero, así como continúa realizando los trabajos de dragado que han
causado un gran daño ambiental a la zona en cuestión.
VII.—Que producto de las acciones ejecutadas por el ejército de Nicaragua y por el
Gobierno de ese país, varias comunidades costarricenses, a lo largo de la zona fronteriza,
y las instituciones del Gobierno, han visto alteradas sus condiciones normales de
funcionamiento, quedando algunas, incluso, aisladas, sin contar con las vías que les
permitan el acceso a los servicios básicos de salud, alimentación, educación, entre otros,
y colocadas en evidentes condiciones de vulnerabilidad.
VIII.—Que la zona que se ha visto afectada por las acciones del Gobierno y el Ejército
nicaragüense, se encuentra, además amenazada por constantes fenómenos natu rales,
que producen, entre otras afectaciones, inundaciones.
IX.—Que Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, establece que “Quienes
se encuentren en el territorio nacional deben ser protegidos en su vida, su integridad
física, sus bienes y el ambiente, frente a los desastres o sucesos peligrosos que puedan
ocurrir”.
X.—Que la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, define como desastre
la situación “o proceso que se desencadena como resultado de un fenómeno de origen
natural, tecnológico o provocado por el hombre que, al encontrar, en una población,
condiciones propicias de vulnerabilidad, causa alteraciones intensas en las condiciones
normales de funcionamiento de la comunidad, tales como pérdida de vidas y de salud en
la poblaci ón, destrucción o pérdida de bienes de la colectividad y daños severos al
ambiente.”
XI.—Que la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, entiende como
emergencia el estado de crisis provocado por el desastre.
XII.—Que la atención del desastre producto de las acciones del Ejército y el Gobierno
nicaragüense, hasta el momento se ha podido realizar con los recursos y por medio de los
procedimientos ordinarios que regulan la Administración Pública; sin embargo, se impone
en este momento, recurrir a los mecanismos de excepción que la Constitución y la Ley le
dan al Estado.
Por tanto, Decretan:
“DECLARAR ESTADO DE EMERGENCIA LA SITUACIÓN Y EL PROCESO
DESENCADENADO ANTE LA VIOLACIÓN DE LA SOBERANÍA COSTARRICENSE POR
PARTE DE NICARAGUA”
Artículo 1º—Se declara Estado de Emergencia, en los cantones, limítrofes con Nicaragua,
de La Cruz, Upala, Los Chiles, Sarapiquí, San Carlos y Pococí, las situaciones y/o
procesos que se desencadenan como resultado de las actividades que ilícitamente
Nicaragua realiza en territorio de Costa Rica, que atentan contra la vida, la integridad
física y los bienes de quienes se encuentran en el territorio nacional, así como contra la
soberanía nacional y el medio ambiente.
114 Annex 28
Artículo 2° —Para los efectos correspondientes, se t ienen comprendidas dentro de la
presente declaratoria de emergencia las tres fases que establece la Ley Nacional de
Emergencias y
Prevención del Riesgo a saber:
a) Fase de respuesta.
b) Fase de rehabilitación.
c) Fase de reconstrucción.
Artículo 3º—Se tienen comprendidas dentro de esta declaratoria de emergencia todas las
acciones y obras necesarias para la protección de la vida, la integridad física, los bienes y
el ambiente, así como la atención, rehabilitación, reconstrucción y reposición de la
infraestructura, las viviendas, las comunicaciones y las actividades productivas dañadas y
en general todos los servicios públicos dañados que se ubiquen dentro de la zona de
cobertura señalada en el artículo 1) de este Decreto, todo lo cual debe constar en el Pl an
General de la Emergencia aprobado por la Junta Directiva de la Comisión Nacional de
Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, para poder ser objeto de atención
conforme al concepto de emergencia.
Artículo 4º—De conformidad con las disposiciones de los artículos 15 y 38 y siguientes de
la ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, el Ministerio de Seguridad
Pública, coordinará con la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de
Emergencias, el Centro de Operaciones de Emergen cia (COE) y las demás instancias de
coordinación, para la elaboración del Plan General de la Emergencia.
Artículo 5º —De conformidad con lo dispuesto por la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y
Prevención del Riesgo, el Poder Ejecutivo, las instituciones pública s, entidades
autónomas y semiautónomas, empresas del Estado, municipalidades, así como cualquier
otro ente u órgano público están autorizados para dar aportes, donaciones, transferencias
y prestar la ayuda y colaboración necesaria a la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de
Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.
Artículo 6º —Para la atención de la presente declaratoria de emergencia la Comisión
Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, de conformidad con la
Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevenció n del Riesgo, podrá destinar fondos y aceptar
donaciones de entes públicos y privados.
Artículo 7º—La Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias,
para la atención de esta emergencia podrá utilizar fondos remanentes no comprometid os
de otras emergencias finiquitadas o vigentes, según disponga la Junta Directiva de este
órgano.
Artículo 8º—Los predios de propiedad privada ubicados en el área geográfica establecida
en esta declaratoria de emergencia, deberán soportar todas las servi dumbres legales
necesarias para poder ejecutar las acciones, los procesos y las obras que realicen las
entidades públicas en la atención de la emergencia, siempre y cuando ello sea
absolutamente indispensable para la atención oportuna de la misma, de confo rmidad con
lo dispuesto en la primera fase de la emergencia.
Artículo 9º —La presente declaratoria de emergencia se mantendrá vigente durante el
plazo que el Poder Ejecutivo disponga, según los informes que sean emitidos por la
115Annex 28
Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias o en su defecto
por el plazo máximo que establece la Ley 8488.
Artículo 10.— Rige a partir de su firma.
Dado en la Presidencia de la República, el veintiuno de febrero del año dos mil once.
LAURA CHINCHILLA MIRANDA.—El Ministro de la Presidencia, Marco A. Vargas Díaz.—
1 vez.—O. C. Nº 10971.—(Solicitud Nº 030-2011).—C-64820.—(D36440-IN2011016261).
116 ANNEX 29
Nicaragua, Presidential Decrees Number 88-2009 of 2 April 2009 and Number
01-2012 of 10 January 2012 (Extracts)
Appointment of Dr. Jaime Incer Barquero as Presidential Advisor for
Enviromental Issues and Natural Resources with the Rank of Minister
English Translations
117118 Annex 29
Presidential Agreement No 88-2009
The President of the Republic of Nicaragua
In use of the faculties that the Constitution gives him
AGREES
Article 1. To appoint Dr. Jaime Incer Barquero as Advisor to the President of the Republic
for Environmental Issues and Natural Resources with rank of State Minister in accordance
to Law 290 “Executive branch organization, competence and procedures law” published in
La Gaceta No. 102 of 3 June 1998 and its amendment in Decree 23 -2009, published in La
Gaceta Official Diary of the State No. 63 of first April of the year two thousand and nine.
Article 2. This agreement has effect from the present date. Publish in La Gaceta, Official
Diary.
Article 3. Given in the city of Managua, Casa de Gobierno, on the two of April of the year
two thousand and nine. Daniel Ortega Saavedra, President of the Republic of Nicaragua.
– Salvador Venegas Guido , Secretary of the Presidency in charge of the office of the
Private Secretary for National Public Policies.
119Annex 29
Translation into English
Government of Reconciliation and National Unity
United Nicaragua Succeeds
Presidential Decree No. 01-2012
The President of the Republic of Nicaragua
Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra
Pursuant to the powers conferred by the
Political Constitution
DECREES
Article 1. The following comrades are appointed as members of the Government Cabinet,
Ministers and Vice-Ministers, Attorney General, President, Vice-presidents, Directors, Sub-
Directors, General Manager of Autonomous and Decentralized Entities, General
Secretaries, Secretaries of the Presidency and Presidential Advisors:
…
As Presidents, Vice-presidents, Directors, Sub-directors and General Manager:
…
Edén Pastora Gómez, Delegate of the Presidency of the Republic to the Commission for the
Development of the San Juan River. [Page 8.]
…
As Secretaries and Advisors for the presidency:
…
Jaime Francisco Incer Barquero, Advisor to the President of the Republic for Enviromental
Issues and Natural Resources, with the rank of Minister. [Page 9.]
…
Article 3. This Decree is effective as of this date; to be published in the Official Gazette.
Done at Managua, Government House, Republic of Nicaragua, on the tenth day of January
two thousand twelve.
(Signed)
Daniel Ortega Saavedra
President of the Republic of Nicaragua
Paul Oquist Kelley
Private Secretary for National Policies
120 ANNEX 30
Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2012-8420 (Extract)
22 June 2012
English Translation
121122 Annex 30
Constitutional Court judgment N° 2012-008420 of 22 June 2012 (extract)
English Translation
“…IV. Regarding the power of the Government to issue the challenged Decree. The
Decree that is being challenged through these proceedings was issued in light of the
concrete and exceptional situation in which the country finds itself due to the grave acts
committed by the Government of Nicaragua against our national sovereignty, since rarely
has a country experienced an invasion of its te rritory as has occurred in the n orthern zone.
From this perspective, the Chamber considers that an external aggression of this severity
which resulted in the request of measures before the Organization of American States as
part of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance [known by the Spanish acronym
“TIAR”] and the adoption of said measures by the International Court of Justice in T he
Hague, is sufficient grounds to justify a national emergency in the terms that this Court has
defined, since there has been a violation of territorial integrity as well as of Costa Rica’s
national security. These real and objective circumstances, which given our country’s
peaceful and democratic tradition and adherence to International Law, did not result in a
war or in severance of diplomatic relations, constitute sufficient factual grounds to declare
as a state of emergency the situation and the process triggered as a result of the violation of
Costa Rica’s sovereignty by Nicaragua, as set out in the challenged Decree. Therefore,
based on the abovementioned case law , it is evident that there is a legal basis for the
Government to issue the challenged Decree in an attempt to give the country the necessary
tools to take concrete measures in order to repel the interference in our territory, among
them providing resources to effectively and rapidly address the situation. Thus, according
to the Chamber, the challenged Decree is not unconstitutional since there has been a
situation of a special, exceptional, urgent and necessary nature, given that the state of
necessity requires a modification of the legal system in place for normal situations, in light
of even ts of this magnitude, which jeopardize the purpose of the State and its very
existence, which is [in furtherance of] the common good, in such a way that when one or
several serious acts of considerable magnitude occur, the State must have the power to
defend the fundamental rights that were infringed and the national sovereignty from
imminent danger, in order to be able to return to a situation of normalcy (see
judgment 2009-009427 issued at fifteen hours and twelve minutes on 18 June 2009)…”
123124 ANNEX 31
Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2012-3266 (Extract)
7 March 2012
English Translation
125126 Annex 31
Constitutional Court Judgment N° 3266-2012 of 7 March 2012 (extract)
English Translation
“II. Regarding the breach of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced
environment… [ page 3 ] Therefore, after having analysed the evidence provided, and
having regard to the above quoted case law, this Court concludes that there has been no
breach of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This is because
through the reports submitted by the representatives of the defendant authority…and the
evidence provided for the resolution of this case, it has been duly determined that in the
context of the Costa Rica -Nicaragua-Calero Island conflict and the proceedings initiated
against Nicaragua before the International Court of Justice, the Executive Branch, in order
to mobilise the necessary resources and to undertake a series of basic and fundamental
infrastructure works, [which were] defensive measures of the country for the protection of
its inhabitants (see the report by the Presidency of the Republic), issued a national
emergency decree on the 21 of February 2011, that was published at Alcance 14 of the
Official Gazette 46 of 7 March 2011, Executive Decree number 36440-MP. Therefore, it is
determined that the conduct of the Public Administration is supported by the issue of a
national emergency decree. Thus, this decree fulfils the conditions set out in the Court’s
reasoning set out above . In any event, it has not been proven before this Court that the
construction of the aforesaid road has produced environmental damage. Therefore , it
follows to declare that the claim is without merit in this respect…”
127128 ANNEX 32
Costa Rica, Constitutional Court Judgment No 2013-8257 (Extract)
21 June 2013
English Translation
129130 Annex 32
Constitutional Court Judgment Nº 2013-008257 of 21 of June 2013 (extract)
English Translation
“III. – Antecedent. Regarding the issue of a possible breach of the fundamental right to a
healthy and ecologically balanced environment as result of the construction of the new road
on the bank of the San Juan River, this Court had already heard case No. 11-016293-0007 -
CO in which by Judgment No. 2012-03266 of sixteen hours and zero minutes of 7 March
2012 it considered the following as relevant:
II. – With regard to the breach of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced
environment. The Court has noted that the declared state of emergency exempts
compliance with environmental laws. Thus, by J udgment number 2003-06322 of
14:14 hours of 3 July 2003, the Chamber established that the following is relevant:
(« ) 6 . – Only the state of emergency exempts compliance with
environmental laws [original emphasis]: The state of emergency is a source
of Law that entails, in som e cases, a displacement, and in other cases an
increase in public authority, specifically to be able to address the exceptional
situation that arises (“urgent or unexpected needs in cases of war, internal
turmoil or public disaster”); thus the Executive Br anch is vested with the
authority to disregard its normal procedures or activities, contemplating for
such cases exceptional procedures that are more expeditious and simplified.
By definition, this encompasses transitory situations that are urgent and
where it is necessary to preserve the continuity of public services, so that the
Administration has authority on a provisional basis to serve the general
interests that cannot be sacrificed in favour of a purely legalistic approach
(...)’.
Therefore, after having analysed the evidence provided, and having regard to
the above quoted case law, this Court concludes that there has been no
breach of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.”…
It follows from the what has been partially transcribed above that the criterion about the
enforcement of environmental standards during circumstances where a state of emergency
has been declared is taken into account, in the sense that such declaration empowers the
Executive Branch to disregard its normal procedures or activities, contemplating for such
cases exceptional procedures that are more expeditious and simplified. Therefore, it follows
to dismiss the present claim in this regard, since this Tribunal does not find reasons to
depart from the criteria set forth in this previous resolution.”
131132 ANNEX 33
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Central American Court of Justice
Reference DM-AM-306-09
30 April 2009
English Translation and Spanish Original
133134 Annex 33
Translation into English
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
30 April 2009
DM-AM-306-09
Central American Court of Justice
Managua, Nicaragua
Dear Sirs:
On 23 March 2009 the Secretary General of the Central American Court of Justice sent a
communication to the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Costa Rica, intending to
communicate the resolution of the Central American Court of Justice issued at five thirty p.m. on
24 October 2008, admitting a claim filed by the Costa Rican Association of Customs Agents
(Asocación de Agentes de Aduana de Costa Rica) against the Republic of Costa Rica.
The Republic of Costa Rica does not recognize the jurisdiction or the legitimacy of the Central
American Court of Justice to hear cases in which the Republic of Costa Rica is a party.
With the sole purpose of confirming the legal status of the Republic of Costa Rica, documenting
the absolute legal inability of this Court to endow itself with jurisdiction and legitimacy to carry out
judicial activity with regard to this Republic, I am attach ing to this note an official document,
comprised of 33 pages plus appendixes.
With the highest consideration,
Bruno Stagno Ugarte
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Costa Rica
CC. Mr. Oscar Arias Sánchez,
President of the Republic of Costa Rica
Mr. Francisco Antonio Pacheco Fernández
President of the Legislative Assembly
Mr. Luis Paulino Mora Mora
President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Mr. Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel
Attorney General
135Annex 33
136 ANNEX 34
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Reference DM-AM-816-09
20 November 2009
English Translation and Spanish Original
137138 Annex 34
TRANSLATION
T heMinisterofForeignAffairsandWorship
San José, 20 November 2009
DM-AM-816-09
Samuel Santos López
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
Honourable Minister,
I have the honour of addressing you in relation to Decree N° 79- 2009 of the President of the
Republic of Nicaragua, published in the Gazette of October 2009, titled “CREATION OF THE
INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COMMISS ION TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT THE REGULATION S
REGARDING NAVIGATION O N THE SAN JUAN RIVER, SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE GRANTS LIMITED NAVIGATION RIGHTS TO THE
REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA,” which was communicated to us by means of Note
MRE/DM/DJST/556/10/09.
For the reasons indicated in the annex to this document, the Government of Costa Rica
considers that this Decree, which also contains the “REGULATIONS REGARDING NAVIGATION ON
THE SAN JUAN RIVER,” contravenes the judgment issued by the International Court of Justice on
13 July 2009 in the matter Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rghts (Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua). The Decree under consideration not only directly disregards aspects clearly established
in the aforementioned judgment, but also provisions of the Cañas-Jerez Trea ty of 1858, the
Cleveland Award of 1888 and the Fournier-Sevilla Agreement of 1956.
As you know, the judgment of the International Court of Justice is bindicompliance
entails a violation of an international obligation by the responsible State. Consequently, the
Government of Costa Rica formally protests against the provisions of the Decree that contravene the
decision of July 13, 2009 and the aforementioned instruments. In addition, my government requests
the repeal and non-execution of said provisions.
Considering that both countries have expressed that we abide by International Law, and that
we trust in the importance of diplomatic means as a means to resolve our differences, my
139Annex 34
Government considers that it is appropriate to establish an honest and significant dialogue in order to
fully comply with the o bligations and enjoy the rights that both countries have separately and with
each other.
To this end, Costa Rica proposes the creation of a binational commission, in order to discuss
the modalities of application of the judgment of the International Cour t of Justice, so that both
countries can fully enjoy the rights that have been internationally recognized.
If this proposal is accepted by the Government of Nicaragua, Costa Rica suggests holding a
meeting on 28 and 29 January 2010, in Managua or in San José, to establish a dialogue leading to a
tangible result. In the interim , my Government reiterates the need to not execute and to repeal the
provisions of said Decree which are contrary to the judgment and to the other instruments mentioned
above.
Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) (Stamped)
Bruno Stagno Ugarte Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Minister San José, Costa Rica
140 Annex 34
Annex to Note DM-AM-816-09
Decree N° 79-2009 of the President of the Republic of Nicaragua contravenes the judgment of
the International Court of Justice of 13 July 2009
This annex intends to provide details on the main provisions of Decree N°79-2009 of the President of
the Republic of Nicaragua which contravene the judgment of the International Court of Justice of 13
July 2009, and the international instruments that establish the regime of Costa Rican navigation and
related rights on San Juan River.
It is worth noting, firstly, that the title of said Decree is incorrect, given that Costa Rica’s navigational
rights over San Juan River were not “granted” by the Inter -American Court of Justice but by the
international instruments that are b inding on the parties, specifically the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858
and its interpretation by the Cleveland Award of 1888, as well as the Fournier-Sevilla Agreement of
1956.
In paragraph 87 of the judgment, the International Court of Justice clearly estab lished that
Nicaragua’s power to regulate the exercise by Costa Rica of its freedom of navigation under the
Treaty of 1858 “is not unlimited, being tempered by the rights and obligations of the Parties,” and, in
fact, it established in that same paragraph that any regulation established by Nicaragua must “have
the following characteristics:
1. it must only subject the activity to certain rules without rendering impossible or substantially
impeding the exercise of the right of free navigation;
2. it must be consistent with the terms of the Treaty [...];
3. it must have a legitimate purpose, such as safety of navigation, crime prevention and public safety
and border control;
4. it must not be discriminatory [...];
5. it must not be unreasonable, which means that its negative impact on the exercise of the right in
question must not be manifestly excessive when measured against the protection afforded to the
purpose invoked.”
The Decree and Regulations contained therein openly disregard that established in the judgment of
13 July and in the other related legal instruments. The general aspects of the Decree will be
highlighted below, as well as some of its specific standards.
A. The Decree is discriminatory
Firstly, it must be noted that , in general, the entire Decree violates principle 4 of paragraph 87 of the
judgment, given that it was created with the intention of specifically regulating Costa Rican navigation
141Annex 34
on San Juan River, as indicated by the title. Principle 4 clearly establishes that the regulations mus t
not be discriminatory, thus they must apply equally to Nicaraguan and to Costa Rican navigation on
the river. Since the Government of Nicaragua issued a decree exclusively to regulate Costa Rican
navigation it is disregarding this rule. On the other hand , the Decree also limits its application to the
geographical area where Costa Rica has navigational rights. This is also clear from the title, which
demonstrates since the beginning the discriminatory spirit of the aforementioned Decree and its
provisions.
B. Official Costa Rican vessels do not require a navigation permit
Articles 3 and 4 section a) of the Decree, as well as article 22 of the Regulations, stipulate that official
Costa Rican vessels must have an authorization from Nicaraguan authorities to be able to navigate.
However, this authorization is not necessary when the purpose of the navigation of official Costa
Rican vessels is: a) for purposes of commerce as established by paragraph 80 of the judgment of 13
July; b) to provide services to the communities on the riverbanks, pursuant to the conditions set forth
in paragraph 84 of the judgment; or c) when navigation is conducted with revenue service vessels as
described in the Cleveland Award, established in paragraph 83 of the judgment.
Therefore, Costa Rica should not be asked in any of these cases to “request, through the established
diplomatic channels , permission for arrival and navigation,” as indicated in Article 22 of the
aforementioned Regulations. It is also unlawful to request the requir ements established in said
article, as they are not set forth in the 1858 Treaty of Limits or the judgment of 13 July, and they also
fail to comply with the validity requirements indicated in paragraph 87 of the judgment.
C. Costa Rican vessels cannot be prevented from docking at any point on the riverbanks
Section e) of Article 4 of the Decree establishes a docking prohibition to ships with passengers or
tourists, and Article 18 section 2 of the Regulations prohibits Costa Rican vessels navigating on San
Juan River “from performing transfers of passengers or goods to another vessel during navigation
and approaching or unauthorized running aground on any of the riverbanks when it is not a
Checkpoint Post.” Similarly, subsection 7 of A rticle 70 of the Regulations prohibits “docking and
unloading passengers or merchandise at unauthorized places.”
These provisions disregards that established in Article VI of the Treaty on Limits of 1858, which
clearly determines that the vessels of both countries can dock anywh ere on the riverbanks of the
other. Therefore, Nicaragua cannot restrict Costa Rican vessels from performing transfers of goods
or persons, whether on the river or any of its riverbanks, within the framework of respecting the
conditions established by the decision of July 13, 2009. Similarly, Nicaragua cannot prohibit the
approaching or running aground of Costa Rican vessels on any of the riverbanks and especially the
right bank, which is sovereign territory of the Republic of Costa Rica. In addition, the f act that the
142 Annex 34
prohibition from docking or even approaching the riverbanks is applicable only to Costa Rican
vessels highlights the discriminatory nature of this standard.
D. Requirements related to the transport of merchandise contravene that established in
the judgment of 13 July
Letter f) of Article 4 of the Decree prohibits the transit of any type of cargo or merchandise for which it
cannot be demonstrated through the established documentation that it is for commercial purposes.
Subsection 10 of Article 10 of the Regulations also establishes as a requirement for navigation the
presentation of documents that demonstrate the lawfulness and commercial purpose of the
merchandise transported. Under these rules, most current cases of navigation would be prevent ed,
for example merchandise for which the sale is not performed with documentation, or the case of
persons living on the riverbanks that acquire merchandise for personal consumption and that of their
families. This would constitute a violation of the requi rement that the regulation must not render
impossible or substantially impede the exercise of the right of free navigation (para. 87 (1) of the
judgment).
The same can be said for articles 38 to 43 of Chapter IV of the Regulations, which establish a series
of measures for “monitoring and control of plant and animal health.” Article 38 requires a
“health/phytosanitary import permit (original) which shall be requested 8 days in advance,” “an official
health/phytosanitary certificate from the country of orig in and/or country of departure (original);” “an
official certificate of origin of the exporting country (copy),” “a cargo manifest (copy),” “copy of
commercial invoice” and “negative results of official laboratories or certified by the competent
authority of the country of origin and/or departure.”
These requirements are not justified in any manner . Firstly, a high percentage of merchandise
transported through San Juan River does not have and cannot have any documentation, given that in
a large number of c ases they correspond to products that families and producers from the area are
transporting from one place in national Costa Rican territory to another for commercial purposes,
such as fruit, vegetables, grains, eggs, fish and even cattle. Also, products a cquired at small
convenience stores and shops in the area are frequently transported. Requesting that persons
transporting these types of products prove their commercial nature or comply with the drastic health
and phytosanitary measures through documents that are impossible to obtain –especially since said
requirements were never previously requested- makes this requirement contrary to the elements
established by the Court as essential to any regulation. Specifically, it violates point 5 of paragraph
87 of the judgment, which establishes that the regulation cannot be unreasonable, meaning that its
negative impact on the exercise of the right of free navigation in question must not be manifestly
excessive when measured against the protection afforded to the purpose invoked. It is clear that
these requirements are excessive and unreasonable, and have the practical effect of complicating, if
not entirely impeding, the right of free navigation.
143Annex 34
In addition, there is another aspect that must be considered in the transport of merchandise. In those
cases where the merchandise was not purchased or it is not intended for sale it cannot be subject to
the prohibition if their transport is paid. This is the same logic applied in the case of transport of
passengers. The commercial operation for which a carrier is paid to transport merchandise complies
with that mandated by the Treaty. In those cases, the commercial or non -commercial nature of the
merchandise and goods transported cannot constitute a limitation for their transport on the river,
except when they are clearly illegal, such as the transport of illegal arms or psychotropic substances.
It is largely evident that Nicaragua confuses the transit of merchandise on San Juan River,
specifically the transfer from one place in Costa Rica to another, with the entry of merchandise into
Nicaraguan territory. Even so, the requirements are disproportionate. For example, the requirement
that a health/phytosanitary import permit must be requested 8 days in advance is not only senseless
insofar as the merchandise is not for export to Nicaragua, but also because it constitutes an
inadequate obstacle to the Costa Rican right to navigate on San Juan River. In addition, these are
measures that had never been requested before, which demonstrates that these are unnecessary
regulations created with a discriminatory character, given that to date Nicaragua had not considered
establishing this type of restriction. Similarly, subjecting Costa Rican merchandise beforehand to
compliance with “requirements established by the law on this matter and Ministerial resolutions” is
unjustified, as it does not identify these regulations or distinguish between merchandise circulating in
the exercise of free navigation and those intended for import into Nicaraguan territory. All of the
foregoing contravenes the requirements of paragraph 87 of the judgment.
On the other hand, Article 43 establishes that Costa Rican carriers shall pay the costs of “inspection
and/or quarantine treatment” which are mandat ory according to this article. This clearly contradicts
Article VI of the Treaty of Limits of 1858, given that this is a payment that Nicaragua is requesting
unilaterally as a requirement for Costa Ricans to exercise their right of free navigation.
Similarly, subsection 2 of Article 44 obligates tourists and any other passenger transported by Costa
Rican vessels to fill out a customs declaration. Again , this is an unnecessary procedure, given that
these are persons whose final destination is not Nicaragu an territory. Subsection 4 of Article 47 also
establishes another arbitrary rule, as it allows Nicaraguan police authorities “to seize cash, securities,
objects and precious metals introduced… without the corresponding customs declaration.”
Subsections 2 and 3 of Article 46 obligates vessel operators to present, among other requirements,
the corresponding authorizations for the transfer of cattle and wood, the drafting and meaning of
which are unclear. It is not clearly defined which authority must issue these authorizations, but in any
case they cannot be Nicaraguan since these are goods transferred from one place in Costa Rica to
another, and they are only transported on San Juan River to communicate between points on Costa
Rican national territory.
144 Annex 34
E. Other wrongful obstacles to Costa Rican navigation
There is another series of requirements established in the Decree and in the Regulations which, far
from pursuing a reasonable purpose , constitute in practice wrongful and illegal obstacles to Costa
Rican navigation. It is important to highlight some of these regulations, specifically in view of the
requirements that Nicaragua establishes for its own vessels outside the geographic area of
application of the Decree. Nicaragua does not require the same standard s for vessels that navigate
other sections of San Juan River , Lake Nicaragua or Coco River which constitutes the border with
Honduras. In other cases, there are regulations addressed to Costa Rican vessels that only highlight
the illegitimate and discriminatory nature of these regulations, as you will see below.
Articles 10 and 13 of the Regulations call for the presentation of a number of requirements , most of
which fail to comply with the criteria of reasonableness; rather, they represent unnecessary obstacles
to Costa Rica’s right of free navigation. For example, requiring the ship’s clearance (health and
phytosanitary permit) from the port of origin or of departure established in subsection 1 of Article 10
and in subsection 2 of Article 13 generates a problem for those vessels which do not leave from a
port. In any case , Costa Rica does not issue clearance documentation for vessels which do not
depart from a port and that navigate on internal waters. Therefore, in practice this standard means
that those individuals who live on the riverbanks cannot navigate San Juan River, or any other Costa
Rican vessel. These requirements openly disregard the Treaty of Limits of 1858 and paragraph 87 of
the judgment of 13 July, since they do not have a legitimate purpo se, are discriminatory and
unreasonable, and in practice they prevent Costa Rican navigation on San Juan River.
Regarding the cargo manifest and declaration of dangerous goods (red flag) established in
subsection 3 of Articles 10 and 13, it has already been indicated that documents of this nature are
hard to obtain for local carriers due to the nature of the goods transported. In addition, no objective
parameters are established to determine when merchandise must be considered as dangerous, and
even if those parameters existed they must agree with international agreements on this matter.
Regarding the establishment of the requirement to present licenses for the crew, according to
subsection 4 Article 10 and subsection 9 of Article 13, which in principle are regulated by the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers ,
such provisions are mainly intended for crews that navigate on the sea. In addition, Costa Rica is not
a party to this Agreement. It is a new requirement; it was never requested previously by Nicaragua.
On the other hand, Costa Rica does not require a log book from vessels which navigate on domestic
waters, and it does not understand why this requirement must be met in relation to navigation on San
Juan River on the portion where Costa Rica has navigational rights. There is no explanation for which
legitimate interest is met in relation to this requirement established in subsection 6 or Articles 10 and
13, other than adding to th e large number of documents and requirements established by Nicaragua
to substantially prevent, or completely inhibit, the navigation of Costa Rican vessels.
145Annex 34
The request for an insurance policy certificate established in subsection 7 of Articles 10 and 1 3, later
detailed in Article 16 of the Regulations, is a requirement that is impossible for Costa Rican vessel
owners to comply with, which in the end translates into a full impediment on the enjoyment of the
right of free navigation held by Costa Rica. In addition, Costa Rica considers that charging insurance,
or any type of rate, independently from its purpose, breaches that set forth in Article VI of the Treaty
of Limits, which indicates that neither country can charge navigation rates and establishes th e free
nature of Costa Rican navigation.
As regards to the certificate of registration and navigation permit of the vessel, set forth in subsection
8 of Articles 10 and 13, it is worth noting that Costa Rican vessels comply with this through the Title
Deed issued by the National Registry. In addition, Costa Rica issues a Navigation Certificate that is
valid for 12 months, which constitutes a navigation permit for Costa Rican vessels. The same
navigation certificate complies with that set forth in subsecti on 9 of the same article regarding the
health certificates of the vessel. Thus, there is no reason for Nicaraguan authorities to request
certificates additional to those already issued by Costa Rican authorities.
Articles 17 and 48, by establishing the c onditions to be met by vessels dedicated to the commercial
transport of merchandise and persons, limit the type of vessels that can navigate for commercial
purposes on San Juan River, something which neither the Treaty of Limits of 1858 nor the Cleveland
Award of 1888 nor the judgment of July 13, 2009 do. The establishment of certain dimensions and
characteristics of the vessels for the transport of passengers, including the fact that they must have a
toilet and a drinking water system, and that the seats, back of the seats, compartments and hallways
must have certain measurements, as desirable as they are, do not match the reality of the activities,
which although they are commercial, they could be performed by persons with limited economic
resources in a d eveloping country. Furthermore, subsection 1 of Article 17 indicates that these
vessels “must comply with the requirements established in these standards, as well as the provisions
ruled by the Maritime Authority,” which renders defenceless the boat owners dedicated to commercial
transport of persons as it subjects them beforehand to provisions that do not exist yet.
A similar situation occurs in the case of vessels used for the transport of goods, given that subsection
2 of Article 17 indicates that this service “shall be performed with vessels that meet the technical
characteristics adequate for the requirements of the type of cargo.” This not only limits the type of
vessel for the transport of goods, but also subjects it to criteria that have not been clearly defined.
Article 20 is also discriminatory, as it only establishes the obligation on Costa Rican vessels to
maintain continuous radio contact with Nicaraguan authorities. In addition, it presumes that Costa
Rican vessels must have high -power commu nication radios, which constitutes another irrational
limitation that is difficult to comply with. Even further, it is ironic that on one hand the Decree requires
Costa Rican vessels to carry radios, while on the other it establishes that the Nicaraguan Ar my can
seize and keep the means of communication found on said vessels, in subsection 4 of Article 27.
146 Annex 34
This shows the inconsistency of the law and the clear purpose of limiting or preventing the exercise of
the right of free navigation.
The same applies to the requirements of Article 24. Demanding navigation lights and guaranteeing
their functioning is evidently contradictory if the same Decree prohibits navigation during the night.
This same requirement is established in Article 58. What is the legitimat e purpose of requiring lights
on vessels to which night-time navigation has been prohibited?
Article 27, in relation to Chapter V of the Regulations, grants ample confiscation powers to the Army
of Nicaragua. Merging the seizing of drugs and illegal arms with that of goods and private property of
passengers and crew is a dangerous transformation of a legitimate purpose into an arbitrary,
irrational and illegitimate measure, especially using terms as vague as “goods in general” or
“personal items not declared.”
Regarding Article 29, Costa Rica highlights, in addition to the numerous other requirements, the
establishment of the presentation of two additional documents called “tarjetas de embarque y
desembarque” (embarking and disembarking cards), the characteristics and purpose of which have
not been clearly defined and have never been required before.
Regarding the provision of ID documents, the International Court of Justice determined that persons
can identify themselves with their passports or any other type of ID. In this regard, the Government of
Costa Rica considers that any identity document accepted as such by its own authorities should be
accepted as an ideal means of identification. Requiring minors less than 16 years of age to carry their
passport –document which very few persons in the area have - is clearly a violation of the
reasonableness of requirements established in the judgment of 13 July.
Article 30 of the Regulations establishes the denial of entry of foreigners to Nicaraguan territory. If
this provision is applied only to the entry to Nicaraguan territory and not to transit on San Juan River
by foreigners on Costa Rican vessels in the area where Costa Rica has navigation al rights, Costa
Rica will make no observations. However, if this provision intends to deny transit on San Juan River
to foreigners who are exercising, in one way or the other, the right to free navigation enjoyed by
Costa Rica, then Costa Rica would express its opposition.
In Chapter III, Articles 31 to 37, there is a series of requirements allegedly related to public health and
sanitation control, most of which are abusive. For example, Article 31 includes the obligation to
present “international vaccination certificates,” “maritime declaration of health for vessels,” “ship
sanitation certificate” and an “international control sheet for deceased persons.”
All of these provisions disregard the terms of judgment of 13 July, given that they stipulate a number
of requirements that have no grounds on the criteria presented in paragraph 87. Mainly, Nicaragua
confuses transit on San Juan River, which is for the transfer of persons and goods from one place on
147Annex 34
Costa Rica to another, with the entrance to Nicaraguan territory beyond San Juan River. Specifically,
requiring the international vaccination certificate, or compliance with official Nicaraguan vaccination
schemes, is pointless if those who transit San Juan River do not enter Nicaraguan land, other than
their transit on the river. However, apart from the lack of reasoning it is clearly discriminatory, as this
requirement is not even applied at immigration posts for persons who enter Nicaragua by air, water or
land. These regulations are evidently irrational and discriminatory.
Regarding the maritime declaration of health for vessels and the ship sanitation certificate their
function is also unclear, especially if listed as a maritime declaration. Once the ship has the
Navigation Certificate, this indicates that the vessel complies with the requirements for operation ;
thus, it is unreasonable to require additional documents certifying the conditions that have already
been confirmed. The legal authority to perform medical/sanitary inspections or non-invasive medical
testing on passengers who do not intend to enter Nicaraguan territory or hav e contact with
Nicaraguan people is also unreasonable.
It is worth noting that subsection 12 of Article 48 establishes a maximum navigation speed of 6 knots.
This speed would make the trip from the mouth of San Carlos River to Colorado Ri ver last about 8
hours; and from Sarapiquí River and Colorado River about three hours, when generally these routes
are covered in less than 3 hours for the first, and 1 hour for the second. The disproportionate nature
of this measure affects expedite transit and completely discourages the use of this route as a means
of communication. Furthermore, subsection 6 of Article 17 establishes that “vessels fitted to transport
up to 50 passengers and that perform trips of 30 minutes or less, shall have one toilet a s a minimum.”
In other words, the combination of both of these provisions compels all vessels, including those of
inhabitants of the riverbanks, to have a toilet. This is unreasonable and it renders impossible the
exercise of the right of free navigation.
Article 67 obligates Costa Rican tour operators that require using San Juan River as a means of
communication between two points on Costa Rican territory to “register before the National Registry
of Tourism or sign agreements with national companies of t he same nature which are registered and
authorized before the Nicaraguan Institute of Tourism.” This is evidently an unnecessary,
unreasonable and unlawful measure, as it fails to comply with all of the conditions established in
paragraph 87 of the judgmen t. It is clear that the transport of passengers, even if they are tourists,
falls under the commercial nature of the transport activity already defined by the Court. Requiring the
registration of Costa Rican tour operators in Nicaragua does not fulfil any legitimate purpose and it is
aimed at preventing the right of free navigation.
Subsection 1 of Article 70 prohibits “the navigation of casino boats or hotel boats.” This is prohibition
is illegal, given that these vessels would be navigating for commercial purposes, and they cannot be
excluded from Costa Rica’s right of free navigation. In the judgment of 13 July, the International Court
of Justice determined that the important aspect for commercial navigation to adapt to that established
in Article VI of the Treaty of 1858 is that the carrier “engages in the activity for profit -making
148 Annex 34
purposes.” (Paragraph 71) The type of activity that the passengers perform on board is irrelevant as
long as the operation of the vessel is for commercial purposes.
In addition, Costa Rica considers irrational and disproportionate the level of militarization imposed by
Nicaragua on the control over Costa Rican civil navigation. It also opposes the extensive powers of
inspection, seizure and hindering of Costa Rican navigation that Nicaragua has attributed to itself.
This list of provisions that contravene the judgment of 13 July 2009 is not exhaustive. Costa Rica
reserves the right to challenge other provisions. In addition, Costa Rica reserves the right to expand
on the comments and observations made through these means.
Although the judgment of 13 July established that Costa Rican vessels must comply with certain
Nicaraguan requirements, it also established that Nicaragua’s power to regulate is not unlimited, and
that it is restricted by the rights and obligations of the parties as set forth in the Treaty of 1858.
Therefore, Nicaragua cannot limit the type of Costa Rican vessels or establish characteristics that
they must have for the exercise of the right of free naviga tion established in the Treaty of 1858, or
subject their transit to compliance with measures that do not fulfil a legitimate purpose, are
discriminatory, unreasonable, and that, considering the purpose invoked, partially or fully impede the
exercise of the right of free navigation. Nicaragua has the rights that were specifically recognized by
the Court, but these cannot be exercised in a way that their purpose is to discourage or deny the
navigation rights held by Costa Rica.
***
Based on the foregoing, Costa Rica considers that said Nicaraguan Decree disregards the judgment
of the International Court of Justice of 13 July 2009, as well as the Treaty on Limits of 1858, the
Cleveland Award of 1888 and the Agreement of 1956.
149Annex 34
150Annex 34
151Annex 34
152Annex 34
153Annex 34
154Annex 34
155Annex 34
156Annex 34
157Annex 34
158Annex 34
159Annex 34
160Annex 34
161162 ANNEX 35
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
Reference MRE/AJST/297/3/2010
25 March 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
163164 Annex 35
Translation into English
Seal of the Republic of Nicaragua
TheMinisterofForeignAffairs
Managua, 25 March 2010
MRE/DM-AJST/297/3/2010
Dear Minister:
In relation to your communication DM -AM-816-09 of November 20, 2009, in which you attach an
appendix with the goal of “describing in detail the main provisions of Decree No. 79 -2009, of the
President of the Republic of Nicaragua, which” –it reads- “are contrary to the decision of the
International Court of Justice of 13 July 2009 and to the international instruments that establish
the regime for Costa Rican navigation and related rights on San Juan River,” I would like to express
that after careful consideration of the arguments mentioned in said appendix, the Government of
Nicaragua considers groundless the observations made by the Government of Costa Rica.
Decree No. 79 -2009 of the Government of Nicaragua exercises the sovereign right to regulate
navigation in terms that are not discriminatory and that are reasonable, for purposes of security,
public order, health, conservation of the environment and natural resources, as well as sustainable
development, with utmost respect for the decision issued by the International Court of Justice on
13 July 2009, and the pertinent international instruments, namely the Jerez -Cañas Treaty of 1858
and the Cleveland Award of 1888.
In any case, Nicaragua and Costa Rica have a good relationship as neighbo urs, with adequate
mechanisms to address any matter that may be of interest to the Parties.
I hereby express the assurances of my highest consideration.
Samuel Santos Lopez
His Excellency
Bruno Stagno Ugarte
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Costa Rica
His Office
165Annex 35
166 ANNEX 36
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Reference DM-AM-327-10,
22 April 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
167168 Annex 36
Translation into English
TheMinisterofForeignAffairs
22 April 2010
DM-AM-327-10
Samuel Santos López
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
Honourable Minister,
It is my pleasure to gre et Your Excellency in reference to your note MRE/DM -AJST/297/3/2010,
dated March 25, 2010.
Regarding the contents of said note, I wish to express that my Government regrets that the
Government of Nicaragua considers “groundless” the observations made by Costa Rica on Decree
No. 79-2009, especially because it does not provide reasons to explain its position.
My government does not object to the right of the Republic of Nicaragua to regulate navigation on
San Juan River, but it does object to –and continues to do so- that said regulation has the purpose
of establishing discriminatory measures that are mainly aimed at preventing the exercise of Costa
Rica’s right to free navigation.
In these circumstance s, it is evident that there is a fundamental differen ce between the way in
which Nicaragua interprets the judgment of the International Court of Justice of 13 July 2009 and
its literal meaning, specifically the conditions established by the Court in paragraph 87 of said
decision and later applied in its dispositive section, paragraph 156 of the judgment , which
indicates the requirements that must be met by Nicaragua to be able to regulate navigation on the
river. Consequently, this situation results in substantial differences between both countries
regarding the scope of the Court’s judgment.
In order to establish a constructive diplomatic channel, Costa Rica reiterates to Nicaragua its
proposal to create a bi-national commission, to establish a mechanism for dialogue to consider the
regulation that Nicaragua deems necessary to protect its sovereign interests on San Juan River,
but without negatively affecting the exercise of Costa Rica’s right to free navigation and related
rights, pursuant to the decision of the International Court of Justice. My country believes that the
Government of Nicaragua will agree with this proposal and thus prevent having to recourse to
other mechanisms of international law.
Please accept, your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Bruno Stagno Ugarte Stamped Minister of Foreign Affairs
169Annex 36
170 ANNEX 37
Letter from the Minister of Public Security of Costa Rica to the Minister of
Public Works and Transportation of Costa Rica
Reference 2278-2010
1 December 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
171172 Annex 37
Republic of Costa Rica
Ministry of Governance, Police and Public Security
Minister’s Office
December 1, 2010
2278-2010 DM
Mr. Francisco Jiménez Reyes
Minister
Ministry of Public Works and Transport
Dear Minister:
The National Security Council (Consejo Nacional de Seguridad), in its last session, with the
presence of the President of the Republic, performed an analysis of the important situation of the
access routes in the Northern area of the country, especially those near the border with
Nicaragua.
Situations of difficult access to the area have been detected, as specified below:
Sarapiquí Canton: Delta Costa Rica
Mouth of Río Sarapiquí
Pococí Canton: Puerto Lindo
Los Chiles Canton: La Trocha
For police logistics reasons these acc ess routes must be in acceptable condition for vehicle
transport; consequently, I respectfully request that you repair these routes.
Please accept the assurance of my highest consideration,
(Signed)
Jose María Tijerino Pacheco
Ministro de Gobernación, Policía y Seguridad Pública
Cc: Mrs. Laura Chinchilla Miranda, President of the Republic
Police Inspector Walter Navarro Romero, Viceminister of Public Security
Police Inspector Juan José Andrade Morales, General Director of the Public Forces
173Annex 37
174 ANNEX 38
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Reference DM-059-11
2 February 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
175176 Annex 38
TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
San Jose, 2 February 2011
DM-059-11
Your Excellency,
I address Your Excellency in reference to the public announcement made
yesterday by the Nicaraguan Institute of Territorial Studies (INETER), in which it
presented maps of Nicaragua recently produced by this institution, and that are currently
available on its internet website.
The abovementioned maps, one of which is entitled “Administrative Political
Division Map”, with a scale of 1:750000, and the other entitled “Topographical Map”,
with a scale of 1:50000, include a modification of the land border that exists between
and has been agreed upon by Costa Rica and Nicaragua, in particular with regard to the
Isla Portillos sector, since 1897. In that sector a part of the national territory of Costa
Rica has been represented as Nicaraguan.
Given that this error is manifest and deliberate, clearly intended to adjust
Nicaraguan cartography to the false arguments presented before the International Court
of Justice during the hearings held between the 11 th and 13 th of January, with the
obvious intention of justifying the unlawful occupation and destruction of Costa Rican
territory in that same area, Costa Rica voices its strongest protest to this situation. My
country, likewise, rejects outright any attempt to attach any legal value to these maps,
which were produced following the conclusion of the aforementioned hearings. These
maps, as well as the illegal activity undertaken by Nicaragua in Costa Rican territory,
are devoid today and in the future, of any legal value.
Finally, my Government wishes to remind Nicaragua that these acts exacerbate
the dispute between the two nations, and are contrary to international law.
I avail my self of this op portunity to extend the assurance of my highest
consideration.
Rene Castro Salazar
Minister
His Excellency Samuel Santos López
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
177Annex 38
178 ANNEX 39
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Reference DM-601-11
29 November 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
179180 Annex 39
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
29 November 2011
DM-AM-601-11
Dear Minister:
I extend my compliments to Your Excellency on referring to the statements issued by
senior authorities of the Nicaraguan Government claiming that a road being built by
Costa Rica in a common border area will allegedly cause environmental damage to
Nicaraguan territory.
With regard to this issue, the Government of Nicaragua is fully aware that the reasons
which have forced Costa Rica to undertake this infrastructure work are relat ed to
Nicaragua’s activities in the border area.
In turn, Costa Rica considers that these works are not affecting Nicaraguan territory.
Nonetheless, in the interests of maintaining a policy of good neighbourliness, as well as
of protecting the environment, and in compliance with agreements regarding this matter,
the Government of Costa Rica is willing to hear Nicaragua’s concerns in relation to this
road.
In this respect, my Government invites Nicaragua to formally state the reasons why it
considers environmental damage could be caused as a result or how it could affect
Nicaraguan interests, and Costa Rica requests that it be sent objective and serious
scientific information confirming Nicaragua’s claims. Along these same lines, my
country ex pects the same attitude from the Government of Nicar agua in relation to
works that could affect Costa Rican territory.
Finally, and also within the framework of Facilitation provided by the Governments of
Guatemala and Mexico, Costa Rica is more than willing to accept the participation of
both nations in the discussion and analysis of common environmental issues.
Please accept, Minister, the renewed assurances of my consideration,
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
San Jose, Costa Rica
His Excellency
Samuel Santos Lopez
Foreign Affairs Minister
Republic of Nicaragua
181Annex 39
182 ANNEX 40
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Secretary General of the United Nations
Reference DM-AM-663-11
14 December 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
183184 Annex 40
(Translation from the Spanish text)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
14 December 2011
DM-AM-663-2011
His Excellency, the Secretary General,
Since the month of October 201 0, the Republic of Costa Rica has been a victim of the
violation of its territorial integrity by the action of the government of Nicaragua, who
through the use of its armed forces, occupied the northern part of Isla Portillos, and then
tried to justify its alleged territorial sovereignty over that territory. Isla Portillos is Costa
Rican territory, recognized as such by an arbitration award issued by Edward Porter
Alexander, an Engineer from the United States of America, dating from 1897. From
then until the unlawful act of Nicaragua in 2010, cartography and the official conduct of
the parties had always been in accordance to the provisions of the Arbitration Award.
As Your Excellency knows, the Republic of Costa Rica filed a case before the
International Court of Justice against the Republic of Nicaragua on 18 November 2010,
as a result of the activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area between the two
republics.
On 8 March 2011, the International Court of Ju stice issued an order prescribing
Provisional M easures, most notably the withdrawal from th e territory declared as
"disputed" [ex hypothesi] of all civilian and security personnel of both states, and
providing that Costa Rica , in consultation with the Secretariat of the Ramsar
Convention, could send civilian personnel in charge of environmental protection to this
area in order to avoid irreparable damage from occurring to the wetland located there.
As Costa Rica has reported to the Security Council, the Republic of Nicaragua, through
civilians supported and organized by the Government of that country, sought to prevent,
by physical acts of harassment , that technical personnel from the Ramsar Convention
Secretariat and the Government of Costa Rica, could carry out a task mission between 5
and 6 April 2011, in order to prevent irreparable damage to the wetland, in compliance
with the order of the International Court of Justice.
Since that time, organized and supported by the Go vernment of Nicaragua, youngsters
from that country who sympathize with the ruling party, have been settled by Nicaragua
in the territory subject to the order of the International Court of Justice, in open
violation of what has been provided for in the order . Keeping people in this area by
Nicaragua is a clear violation not only of the territorial integrity of Costa Rica, but also
of the obligations set for in the order of the International Court of Justice of 8 March
2011.
185Annex 40
-2-
In view of the continuity of the hostile acts of the Government of Nicaragua, with
special attention to those events that gave rise to the case filed by Costa Rica before the
International Court of Justice, Costa Rica made a de claration of national emergency in
order to facilitate actions to defend its territorial integrity.
Among the actions that the Republic of Costa Rica is carrying ou t, includes certain
works in its territory to give security to the area disputed by Nicaragua, in accordance
with paragraph 78 of the order of 8 March 2011.
Also, as part of these works is the construction of a road , parallel to the international
border, and entirely within Costa Rican territory, with the purpose to allow the Republic
of Costa Rica to fully exercise its sovereignty in the border areas, safeguard its
territorial integrity, and to repel any hostile action against the nation.
This action is justified in Nicaragua’s repeated violations to international order, and in
the statements made by the authorities of that country, about their decision to ignore the
current international border regime, and disregard the principle of stability and finality
of borders.
Given a defamatory campaign against Costa Rica that Nicaragua is conducting as a
result of these actions, which is carried out in the media of that country and in
international organi zations, Costa Rica considers necessary to inform the United
Nations of the situation that has forced Costa Rica to c arry out those actions of defense
and to refute the accusations that are being proffered against the country.
Finally, I request that through your good offices, the Security Council be informed of
this communication, which content and purpose is made under the provisions of Chapter
VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Excellency, please accept the assurances of my highest consideration,
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
Republic of Costa Rica
His Excellency
Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary General
United Nations
City of New York
186Annex 40
187Annex 40
188 ANNEX 41
Note from the Viceminister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Reference DVM-AM-286-11
20 December 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
189190 Annex 41
ViceMinisterofForeignAffairs
December 20, 2011
DVM-AM-286-11
Honourable Minister,
I hereby refer to the notes MRE/DVM/AJST/500/11/11 of November 29 and MRE/DVS/VJW0685/12/11 of
December 10, both of the current year.
In relation to both of thesenotes, the Government of Costa Rica rejects the assertions that the construction of a
road in the Northern area of Costa Rica “gravely [affects] the environment and Nicaragua’s rights.” The listing of the
alleged “consequences” of these works, presented by the Government of Nicaragua, does not constitute evidence that
detriment has been caused to Nicaragua; consequently, we fully reject the intended complaint . Costa Rica is still
waiting for Nicaragua to provide reliable evidence of the location of the alleged irreversible damages that Nicaragua
claims are being caused to San Juan River.
It is contradictory that Nicaragua asks Costa Rica “to submit to Nicaragua, before beginning the road, the
Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environm ental Management Plan,” when Nicaragua has systematically
refused to inform Costa Rica and to present the studies corresponding to all of the works that it carries out in the
border area, including the dredging of San Juan River, which has included the cutting of meanders and altering the
course of the river from its natural flow. I call to mind that Nicaragua continues with the dredging of San Juan River,
which according to Nicaraguan studies entail s the removal of over 3 million cubic metres of sediment, all of which is
currently being dumped in the Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan wetland, a Ramsar site, in addition to the
sediment already deposited in the Caribe Noreste Wetland in Costa Rica, also a Ramsar site.
It is also worth noting that Nicaragua built a 2-kilometre long airport directly on Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río
San Juan wetland, in an area adjacent to Costa Rican territory and to Bahía San Juan del Norte, jointly owned by Costa
Rica. For both of these works, the dredging and subsequent dumping of sediment in the wetland as well as the
construction of the airport, Nicaragua failed to comply with its international obligations to notify the Secretariat of the
Ramsar Convention and to inform Costa Rica.
Nicaragua is also building quite a large bridge on San Juan River, and it has announced the construction of a
dam which, in the words of President Ortega’s advisor, will have a devastating impact on the environment for the
region. Costa Rica has not been notified of studies for these works either.
The works carried out by Costa Rica, pursuant to a National Emergency Decree, are solely for the purpose of
protecting the integrity of its territory and to bring development to that area of the country. These works, which are
being carried out with the minimum impact possible, are a consequence of the grave actions that Nicaragua has
performed and continues to perform in the border area, including the continued violation to the Order that indicated
Provisional Measures, issued by the International Court of Justice on March 8, 2011, by sponsoring the constant
191Annex 41
presence of members of Juventud Sandinista (Sandinista Youth) in Costa Rican territory , in the northern sector of Isla
Portillos known as Finca Aragón; the foregoing without mentioning the dest ruction of several hectares of primary
forest and the construction of an artificial canal in the Caribe Noreste Wetland in Costa Rican territory.
Although it is clear that the reasons for Nicaragua’s aggressive campaign against Costa Rica are not
environmental, Costa Rica , nevertheless, maintains its willingness to hear any legitimate concern which is duly
supported by evidence. In this regard, and since Nicaragua claims that damages could be caused to San Juan River,
Costa Rica requests that all existin g studies regarding the river be forwarded immediately, especially those dealing
with the historical records of the turbidity of its waters, chemical makeup, historical sediment load, and all scientific
data pertinent to the assessment of the river’s condition and to detect possible effects.
Lastly, considering its relation with the Nicaraguan policy of disregarding the established border and
threatening Costa Rican national security, the Government of Costa Rica takes this opportunity to strongly condemn
the facts occurred yesterday, Monday December 19, in which a group of 15 Nicaraguan soldiers entered approximately
one kilometre into Punta Castilla area, expressingthreats against officers of the Costa Rican Public Forces who were in
the area. This fact, which has been documented, is an unacceptable violation of Costa Rican sovereignty and it
confirms that Costa Rica has sufficient reasons to take the measures granted by international law for the protection of
its territorial integrity, as well as the civil works that allow ensuring the full exercise of its territorial sovereignty and
the monitoring of actions performed by foreign forces in our country, and that enable us to demonstrate these
violations before the corresponding international bodies.
Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.
Your Excellency
Samuel Santos López
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
192Annex 41
193Annex 41
194 ANNEX 42
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Reference DM-AM-045-12
26 January 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
195196 Annex 42
MinisterofForeignAffairs
January 26, 2012
DM-AM- 045-12
Honourable Minister:
I am addressing your Excellency in relation to note DVM-AM-286-11, dated December 20, 2011.
In the referred note my Government requested yours to forward all existing studi es regarding San
Juan River, especially those dealing with the historical records of the turbidity of its waters, chemical
makeup, historical sediment load, and all scientific data pertinent to the assessment of the river’s condition,
in order to assess its current situation.
In the same note Nicaragua was asked to submit all studies regarding the impact on San Juan River
that is being caused the construction of a bridge on a sector near San Carlos de Nicaragua, so as to determine
joint courses of action, if necessary.
Technical and environmental information was also requested regarding the construction of an airport
near Bahía de San Juan del Norte, at Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan wetland, to determine whether
the bay is being affected, as it is jointly owned by Costa Rica.
Since Costa Rica has not received any information in this regard, I reiterate our interest in receiving
it promptly.
Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.
Your Excellency
Samuel Santos López
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
197Annex 42
198 ANNEX 43
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention
Reference DM-110-12,
28 February 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
199200 Annex 43
TRANSLATION
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
28 February 2012
DM-110-12
Mr Anada Tiega
Secretary General
Convention on Wetlands [of International Importance (Ramsar)]
Gland, Switzerland
Honourable Secretary General,
As you know, the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica is constructing a road in
the northern border area, the purpose of which is to facilitate the security and defence
of the territorial integrity of Costa Rica as a result of the actions of Nicaragua in the
border area, which is the object of proceedings before the International Court of
Justice.
In recent months my Government has been carrying out basic infrastructure works to
improve a local road in the border area that, in accordance with the tech nical
description of the Northeast Caribbean Wetland , means that these works are taking
place in a sector of the area that forms part of the said wetland. My country is
complying with the obligation imposed on it by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands,
to notify the Secretariat of these works.
In my note sent last January I informed you that the road is not being constructed in
the said wetland. An update of this information allows me to inform you that some
works to improve pre-existing roads, namely basic civil engineering works, are being
undertaken in the wetland as part of the emergency plan to facilitate national security
and also to benefit the local population.
I reiterate that these works are taking place i n a sector that historically had already
been impacted. It is considered that the works entail no new impacts, and if there are
any such impacts the Secretariat will be duly informed of these and of any mitigating
measures that the Minister of the Environment and Energy would implement.
Finally, my Government formally invites the Secretariat to carry out a technical visit
to the Northeast Caribbean Wetland, if considered necessary at a convenient date.
Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
201Annex 43
202Annex 43
203204 ANNEX 44
Note from the Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
6 June 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
205206 Annex 44
TRANSLATION
[Ramsar Logo]
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
From the Secretary General
H.E.
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Relations and Worship
Republic of Costa Rica
Casa Amarilla
Avenida 7 and 9 streets 11 and 13
San José, Costa Rica
Gland, 6 June 2012
Excellency,
The Secretariat thanks you for your letters of 17 January and 28 February 2012 in
which you informed us about the road that the Republic of Costa Rica is constructing
parallel to the San Juan River in the framework of the request made by this Secretariat
on 19 December 2011.
In the note of 28 February you indicated that some of the infrastructure works
connected to the construction of the road are taking place within the Northeast
Caribbean Wetland and you invited the Secretariat to undertake a technical visit to the
area if necessary. In this vein, and on the basis of the information provided, the
Secretariat considers it appropriate to undertake a technical visit to examine the works
in question and to make recommendations that would allow any impacts, if there are
any, on the Ramsar site and/or on other wetlands situated where the construction work
is taking place to be minimised in accordance with the framework of the [Ramsar]
Convention.
In view of the above, the Secretariat could visit the area between 35 and 28 June 2012
th
prior to the Ramsar COP11 [11 meeting of the Conference of the Contracting
Parties], or afterwards between 23 and 26 July. However, taking into account that we
are at the end of the triennium, on this occasion the costs of the visit would have to be
covered by the Government of Costa Rica, with respect to which we await your
directions.
Please accept expressions of my consideration and esteem.
Anada Tiega
Secretary General
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
207Annex 44
208 ANNEX 45
Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the International Court
of Justice
Reference 02-19-12-2012,
19 December 2012
209210Annex 45
211Annex 45
212 ANNEX 46
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Ref. DM-AM-063-13,
6 February 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
213214 Annex 46
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
San José, 6 February 2013
DM-AM-063-13
Dear Minister,
As your Government is aware, Costa Rica has been building a road in northern
Costa Rica, entirely on its national and sovereign territ ory. Nicaragua, for
reasons discussed in the case concerning Construction of a road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) , has indicated that said
work seriously affects the San Juan River. Costa Rica, however, does not find
any of the adverse impacts that your government has indicated.
Despite the request for technical information requested by Costa Rica last year,
which Nicaragua did not provide, and in order to establish with certainty the
situation of the San Juan River in an objective and scientific manner, within the
framework of the procedure initiated by your Government before the
International Court of Justice, Costa Rica plans to undertake a series of
complementary actions to determine the true situation.
To that end, first, with the purpose of verifying the situation of the right bank of
the river, Costa Rican technicians propose to navigate the San Juan from
marker II to the intersection of the San Juan River and the Colorado River. This
navigation will be carried out by paying for the services of a private boatman, in
the exercise of the right of perpetual navigation established by the Treaty of
Limits Cañas-Jerez, in accordance with the decision of the International Court of
Justice in its Judgment of 13 July 2009.
Second, Costa Rica wishes to take discharge measurements and collect water
samples from the San Juan River on a monthly basis, to establish its chemical
quality and to measure the sediment load that the R iver carries. To this end,
Costa Rica proposes the following gauging sites along the river: 1) 200 metres
upstream from the town of San Carlos de Nicaragua, 2) at marker II, 3) 200
metres upstream from the mouth of the San Carlos River, 4) 300 metres
downstream from the mouth of the San Carlos River, 5) 200 metres upstream
from the mouth of the Sarapiquí River, 6) 300 metres downstream from the
mouth of the Sarapiquí River, and 7) 300 metres upstream from the intersection
of the Colorado River and the San Juan River.
These samples, taken each month over the course of a year, will establish
scientific criteria for determining the physical -chemical quality of the waters of
the River, and verify, also by reference to scientific criteria, whether or not there
is serious harm to the River as a result of the building of the road. Furthermore,
it will be necessary to undertake monthly gauging measurements of the San
Juan River, in locations that will be reported promptly to Nicaragua. Naturally,
the information obtained would be transmitted to your country.
215Annex 46
DM-AM-063-13
-page 2-
Costa Rica hopes to have the agreement of your Government to undertake the
actions referred to in paragraph 4 of this note, in which case the respective
dates of entry into the San Juan River for the aforesaid purpose, would be
communicated through official channels. In order to organize and carry out the
actions thus identified, my Government would appreciate receiving a prompt
response from you.
I take this opportunity to reiterate the assurances of my highest consi deration.
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister
His Excellency
Samuel Santos López
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
216Annex 46
217Annex 46
218 ANNEX 47
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-005-13
7 February 2013
219220Annex 47
221Annex 47
222Annex 47
223Annex 47
224Annex 47
225226 ANNEX 48
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
Reference MRE/DM-AJ/129/03/13
5 March 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
227228 Annex 48
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua, March 5, 2013
MRE/DM-AJ/129/03/13
Honourable Minister,
I am addressing you in reference to your note DM -AM-063-13 dated February 6, 2013,
which indicates that “in the exercise of the perpetual right of free navigatio n,” Costa Rican
specialists intend to navigate San Juan de Nicaragua River in order to assess the river’s situation,
and also request Nicaragua’s consent to perform measurements and take samples of the waters of
San Juan River on a monthly basis to determine its chemical quality and to measure the silt load.
In this regard, the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity of the Republic of
Nicaragua, which loyally complies with decisions of the International Court of Justice, wishes to
recall to the i llustrious Government of Costa Rica that based on the unanimous decision of the
Court in its judgment of July 13, 2009, in relation to the case “Dispute regarding Navigational and
Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),” the right of free navigation of t his country is limited
solely and exclusively to navigation “for commercial purposes” and to the space where navigation
is common. Thus, your government’s intention to navigate San Juan River for scientific purposes
disregards that set forth by the Court in conformity with that established in the Jerez-Cañas Treaty
of Limits.
The Government of Nicaragua equally wishes to reiterate that the Government of Costa
Rica has the obligation to present technical information regarding the construction of the highway,
and that to date Costa Rica has not only failed to comply with said obligation but has also
announced that the work on Highway 1856 is about to be renewed, as confirmed by the Minister
of Public Works, Pedro Castro, and is expected to be significantly completed by May 2014.
The renewal of the works has been announced despite the evident negative impact that
the construction of the 1856 Highway has caused, causes and continues to cause to San Juan de
Nicaragua River, which is detailed in the technical information annexed to the Counter-Memorial
presented by the Republic of Nicaragua in the case “Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in
the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)” and in the Memorial presented by the Republic of
Nicaragua in the case “Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.
Costa Rica).” As Costa Rica is aware, this technical information was prepared by internationally
renowned experts, environmental organizations and non -governmental organizations of
Nicaraguan as well as Costa Rica origin, in addition to Costa Rican and Nicaraguan institutions.
229Annex 48
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Page No. 2
March 5, 2013
Based on the foregoing, and specifically on the announcement that the works will be
continued, your illustrious government’s proposal to perform scientific studies to determine the
situation of San Juan de Nicaragua River is contradictory and anachronistic, especially considering
that the results of a potential study would be ready once the works are c ompleted. On the other
hand, and considering that navigation for scientific purposes is not included in the right of free
navigation of Cost a Rica clearly defined by the Court, even if Nicaragua were to authorize this
study it would have to be performed under the supervision and logistics parameters that
Nicaragua considers convenient.
Consequently, Nicaragua considers that a study performed jointly in Nicaragua and Costa
Rica could be an effective mechanism, mutually beneficial, and that it wou ld serve to implement
the order of the Court of 8 March 2011, provided that prior to the study Costa Rica immediately
cease the works and present the corresponding technical information.
In this regard, and seeking to protect San Juan de Nicaragua River, in conform ity with that
established by international law, conventions, bilateral, regional and multilateral treaties, as well
as in compliance with that established by the order of the International Court of Justice of 8 March
2011, as well as to what was indicated in the Judgment of the Central American Court of Justice o f
21 June 2012, the Government of Nicaragua emphatically reiterates to the Republic of Costa Rica
the request to immediately suspend the construction of Highway 1856 and to present the
Environmental Impact Study and Mitigation Plan due, among other s, to the Republic of Nicaragua
for its analysis and response.
Please receive, Honourable Minister, assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signature)
Samuel Santos López
Honourable Minister
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Costa Rica
230Annex 48
231Annex 48
232 ANNEX 49
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-013-2013
7 March 2013
233234Annex 49
235Annex 49
236Annex 49
237Annex 49
238 ANNEX 50
Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Agent of
Costa Rica
Reference 141641
11 March 2013
239240Annex 50
241242 ANNEX 51
Note from the President of the Environmental Administrative Tribunal of Costa
Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
Reference 200-13-TAA
9 April 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
243244 Annex 51
Translation into English
San José, April 9, 2013.
Note N° 200-13-TAA
Lic. Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs
His Office
Matter: Confidential
Dear Sir,
By means of this letter we would like to refer to Note DM -AM-171-13, received by this
Court on April 4, 2013, in relation to which we would like to express the following:
1. First, we must clarify that the explanations made in this letter shall not be interpreted
as the issuing of an opinion by this Court, as they refer to an administrative file in
process, number 223- 12-01-TAA, which is in the preliminary investigation phase.
What we will provide herein is a didactic summary, in general terms, of the standards
and criteria that guide the actions of this Court in matters that may have been referred
to in adm inistrative file number 223-12-01-TAA by the reports prepared by the
Technical Department of this Office. As indicated, the information provided below is
restricted to the aforementioned file.
2. Some of the references in English submitted by you (extracted f rom the memorial)
correspond to note TAA-DT-136-12 of June 21, 2013 signed by only one employee
of the Technical Department of this Court: paragraphs 5.19, 5.21. The quote in
paragraph 5.13 corresponds partially to note TAA -DT-138-12 of July 2, 2013, signe d
by the aforementioned employee and others. Communication TAA -DT-138-12 is
subsequent to TAA-DT-136-12, and it is also signed by four employees of the
Technical Department of the Environmental Administrative Court. It is also important
to take into consideration that the last conclusion of report TAA -DT-138-12 is the
following: “In the walking inspection performed by this Court we observed damages to
natural resources on Costa Rican territory. With regard to potential or alleged
damages in the neighbouring country (Nicaragua), we did not observe or find actual
evidence of sediment loading, or waste consisting of wood, stone or other.”
3. It is worth noting that note 136-12-TAA provides alleged findings by " performing an
overview of the area by means of a fly over on a small aircraft" while the field
inspection, with a direct view of the alleged impact, yielded the results included in
note 138-12-TAA. Thus, in the event of any discrepancy between them the second
note shall prevail, as it is subsequent and because it consists of a field study and not
6
245Annex 51
Translation into English
just a fly over.
4. In any case, the competencies of this Court are restricted to Costa Rican territory
(Article 5 of the Political Constitution) and to Article 111 of the Organic Environmental
Law; any other declarati on by any employee that exceeds this scope shall be
interpreted as a personal opinion of a citizen and not as an employee of this
Department.
5. The file is in the preliminary investigation stage, which, by definition, IS NOT
explaining “the truth of the fac ts,” rather, it consists of gathering contributions from
different sources, to obtain an ample outlook of the criteria of different entities. It is in
the ordinary administrative proceedings that “the truth of the facts ” is determined
(Article 214 LGAP), w hich is a subsequent stage following the conclusion of the
preliminary investigation.
Vote number 2007-13319 of the Constitutional Chamber establishes that:
“In sum, the preliminary investigation allows determining whether there are sufficient
grounds to begin useful administrative proceedings. It is evident that this prior
information does not require a judgment regarding the truth of the existence
or lack of a violation , given that this is precisely what the administrative
proceedings are designed for, with the principle of real or material truth as guideline.
It is a step that, in a strict sense, is not part of the administrative proceedings... This
previous information step is justified by the need to make administrative resources
more efficient and to rationalize them, to prevent wasting them and, mainly, to not
incur in the hasty opening of administrative proceedings. The preliminary
investigation may have different purposes; however, it is possible to clearly identify
three: a) determining whether there are sufficient grounds to open the
corresponding proceedings, b) identify those allegedly responsible when it is an
anonymous violation –in which a determinable group of employees or officers
intervened- and c) gather facts with which to form a judgment in order to originate
the notification of charges or summoning. These purposes may exist jointly or
separately, according to the specific circumstances, to justify the opening of a
preliminary investigation. Specifically, Vote No. 8841-01 of the Constitut ional
Chamber of August 31, 2001, indicated that : “(...) the preliminary investigation is
correct and relevant, as it is necessary to gather the criteria to rule out or confirm
the need for a formal procedure, or to allow its correct substantiation... ” (emphasis
in bold added by us).
6. In any case, it must be clarified that the declarations and reports by technical
employees of this Court (and of any other State entity) simplyconstitute expert reports
and NOT the criteria of this Office. The rulings of all Courts en banc are made through
written resolutions signed by the three judges, NOT by the criteria of the experts,
which may or may not be supported by the judges through written resolutions,
especially in the event of a final resolution. This Cour t has internal experts and not
external, as the Judicial Branch does, for purposes of savings by the Executive
Branch and for transparency. However, it must be clear that the reports by employees
of the Technical Department of this Office are solely expert reports, they are not
binding on the judges, who must assess them according to: the criteria of Article 16
6
246 Annex 51
Translation into English
LGAP, the elements of counterevidence submitted by the defendant (due process),
the constitutional principles of reasonableness and proportionality and on the basis of
sound judgment. Consequently, the criteria referred to in the memorial are only expert
reports and not the opinion of the Environmental Administrative Court.
7. As mentioned above, the rulings of this Court are issued through resolutions signed by
the three judges, especially for final resolutionsthat establish a list of proven facts and
those in which a decision is made on the merits of the case in dispute. (In fact, the
final judgment of a judicial resolution is limited to the operative part of said resolution,
and not to any other type of considerations. In addition, the binding case law consists
of ratio decidendi or the reason for the decision, meaning the pure and simple
reasoning that supports the operative part of the judgments and not other types of
judgments or statements made in the considering paragraphs of the resolutions). The
expert reports ARE NOT rulings by this Office, and neither are the declarations by one
or more judges; only the resolutions signed by the three judges as Court en banc . In
fact, Article 104 LOA indicates that the Environmental Administrative Court consists of
three regular judges and three deputy judges, and the following article explains in
more detail the requirements of the judges. Similarly, provisions 108 and 110 of the
same law give the understanding that the rulings of the Court are made, specifically ,
by written resolution of the three judges, especially in relation to a final decision or
resolution.
8. Resolution number 671-12-TAA of July 4, 2012, in c onsidering paragraph s even,
refers to a “Plan for Mitigation, Repair and Compensation of the alleged
environmental damage” (emphasis in bold added by us) , clarifying that, since we are
in the preliminary stage of the investigation, this Court s eeks to mitigate the impact
and does not deem proven the existence of environmental damage. The duty to
mitigate impact is based on the precautionary principle or in dubio pro natura
enshrined in Article 11 of the Law on Biodiversity.
9. Furthermore, it is worth noting the polysemy in the usage of the terms “damage” to the
environment and “environmental damages ,” evidenced by the contrast offered for
example by articles 2 and 111 LOA, on one hand, and article 3 of the General
Regulation on Procedures for Env ironmental Impact Assessments on the other, and
thirdly, article 3 of the Law on Biodiversity. The semantic spectrum is such that the
same term can mean, depending on how it is used, from “irreversible damage, ” the
most serious , to merely an “environmental impact,” the simplest. The term
“environmental impact” is generally not used by the technical experts in Costa Rica,
including our technical officers, especially in documents that are addressed to
attorneys and to the citizenry in general.
In this regard, it is important to consider that the language, although only one, includes
several “registers” or modes of language usage by different sectors of the population.
Communication by technical experts to the citizenry, in general, needs to be performed in a
“popular” register that can be easily understood by all, from the most prominent intellectual
to an illiterate youth. It is evident that to refer to that observed in any inspectiothe only
term that would be understood by everyone was “environmental damages ,” without it
6
247Annex 51
Translation into English
implying any pre-judgment. Any other word would generate confusion or lack of clarity to
the listener. This generates the referred polysemy, and the term “environmental damage”is
used a number of times as a synonym for a simple “environmental impact.”
10.Based on the foregoing, we can derive certain inaccuracies in the journal articles
provided by you. In addition, we can express the following:
a. El País 2012-07-15 indicates that: “the Court confirmed damages on Costa Rican
territory but d id not find evidence of sediment loading on San Juan River. ” In
addition, when summarizing the alleged resolution by this Office it employs the term
“possible environmental damage” several times.
b. El País 2012-07-26, when referring to the alleged effects on the protection area of
San Juan River, is in fact referring to Note TAA-DT-136-08. As mentioned above, we
shall abide by the subsequent note, TAA-DT-138-08, which makes a different ruling.
As indicated, none of these reports are signed by the judges of the Court, who only
issue rulings as said Court through resolutions signed by the three judges.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further clarifications you may require.
Signed:
Msc. Yamilette Mata Dobles Lic. José Luis Vargas Mejía
President Vice-President
Lic. Daniel Montero Bustabad
Secretary a.i.
Stamped:
Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones -Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo.
(Ministry of the Environment - Environmental Administrative Court).
6
248Annex 51
249Annex 51
250Annex 51
251Annex 51
252Annex 51
253254 ANNEX 52
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-26-13
24 May 2013
255256Annex 52
257Annex 52
258 ANNEX 53
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-31-13
13 June 2013
259260Annex 53
261Annex 53
262Annex 53
263264 ANNEX 54
Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the International Court
of Justice
Reference HOL-EMB-108
14 June 2013
265266Annex 54
267Annex 54
268Annex 54
269Annex 54
270Annex 54
271Annex 54
272 ANNEX 55
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-036-13
24 June 2013
273274Annex 55
275Annex 55
276Annex 55
277Annex 55
278Annex 55
279Annex 55
280Annex 55
281282 ANNEX 56
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Director General National Laboratory of Materials and Structures of the
University of Costa Rica
Reference DM-AM-389
15 July 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
283284 Annex 56
Translation
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
15 July 2013
DM-AM-389-13
Mister
Eng. Alejandro Navas Castro
Director
National Laboratory of Materials and Structural models
University of Costa Rica
Dear sir:
I have the pleasure to address you in reference to the case “Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)”, filed by Nicaragua against Costa Rica on 22
December 2011.
In the Memorial filed before the International Court of Justice last 19 December 2012, Nicaragua
uses a report about the border road prepared by the National Laboratory of Materials and
Structural Models (LANAMME), in which it relies on, among other documents, to claim that Costa
Rica has caused harm to the San Juan River.
With the purpose that LANAMME can give its opinion about the use that Nicaragua has given to
the referred document, if it considers it necessary, I am attaching the English translation filed by
Nicaragua of the referred report, as well as relevant extracts of Nicaragua´s Memorial where it
quotes the LANAMME report.
I avail myself of the opportunity to reiterate the assurances of my esteem and consideration.
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister
Cc. Ing. Guillermo Loría Salazar, Director PITRA
285Annex 56
286 ANNEX 57
Note of the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the Permanent and Observer
Mission to the United Nations, 5 August 2013, attaching Official Statement to
the Press by the Government of Nicaragua, 1 August 2013
Reference MINIC-MIS-114-13
5 August 2013
287288Annex 57
289Annex 57
290Annex 57
291Annex 57
292Annex 57
293Annex 57
294Annex 57
295Annex 57
296Annex 57
297298 ANNEX 58
Note from the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations to the
Permanent and Observer Missions to the United Nations, attaching Position of
Costa Rica in relation to a Press Release dated 1 August 2013 circulated by the
Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to all permanent and Observer Missions to the
United Nations on 5 August 2013
Reference MCRONU-458-13
7 August 2013
299300Annex 58
301Annex 58
302Annex 58
303Annex 58
304 ANNEX 59
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-052-13
7 August 2013
305306Annex 59
307308 ANNEX 60
Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Agent of
Costa Rica
Reference 142331
8 August 2013
309310Annex 60
311312 ANNEX 61
Letter from the Director General of the National Laboratory of Materials and
Structures of the University of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica
Reference LM-IC-D-0914-2013
14 August 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
313314 Annex 61
Translation into English from the original document in Spanish
August 14, 2013 LM-IC-D-0914-2013
M r. Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Honourable Minister:
In response to your Note DM-AM-389-13 dated July 15, we would like to express that:
a) The document received by this Department refers to a translation into English of our report INF -
PITRA-014-12 and the use of our institutional logos, which were not authorized by Universidad de
Costa Rica or by Laboratorio Nacional.
b) Our review of the documents submitted as evidence by the government of Nicaragua, regarding the
report issued by LanammeUCR (INF -PITRA-014-12), consisted of an individual analysis of two
different documents, namely:
• A translation into English of the contents of the original report issued by LanammeUCR in Spanish
(official language of Costa Rica, pursuant to Article 76 of the Political Constitution). The referred
translation into English is edited in a format similar to that of the original in Spanish issued in May
2012; and
• A summary of conclusions indicating as reference the contents of the report by LanammeUCR.
In relation to the above, we would like to indicate the following:
I. – On the translation into English of the original report in Spanish issued by LanammeUCR
Regarding the first document, we compared it to the original text of the report issued by LanammeUCR to
determine whether there were differences between the original and the English translation submitted as
evidence by the government of Nicaragua. In general, the document translated into English adjusts to that
written in the text of the original report issued in Spanish; however, in s ome parts of the translated
document literal translations are used which fail to accurately reflect important technical concepts included
in the original report by LanammeUCR.
315Annex 61
Translation into English from the original document in Spanish
1. In fact, based on a thorough comparison we found at least two fundamental di fferences
between the text of the document translated into English and the original document in Spanish by
LanammeUCR. In addition, the translated document uses (without any authorization) a similar
format (with all of the institutional logos) to that used by LanammeUCR. The discrepancies found
are as follows: Table #1 of the translated document is inaccurate in the numbering of the sectors
studied during the visit to Route 1856.
2. Figure #17 of the translated document does not correspond to figure #17 of the original
document by LanammeUCR, which results in an incorrect reference in the translated text.
The translation into English of LanammeUCR’s report is inaccurate and it conta ins significant errors that
separate it from what our Laboratory initially included in its original report.
II. – Regarding the Conclusions derived by the Government of Nicaragua from the document translated
into English and submitted as evidence before the International Court of Justice, we would like to make the
following observations:
REFERENCE ANALYSIS OF THE CONCLUSION
NM, para 2.26, fn62 The conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
NM, para 3.5, fns 106 The report by LanammeUCR does not use the word “negligent” anywhere to describe the
and 107 manner in which the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica has carried out the Project.
There is an error in quoting "causes increased cost, environmental problems, rapid
deterioration of the Projectinsofar as the original report by LanammeUCR does not mention
this sentence and does not reference environmental issues in any portion.
This conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
NM, paras 3.17 -3.18 fns
136-141
NM, paras 3.20, fns 143 INF-PITRA-014-12 never mentions the existence of a direct deposit of sediment into San Juan
146 River, as stated by this conclusion.
NM, para 3.24 and fns This conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
157-158
NM, para 3.26 and fns This conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
164-165
316 Annex 61
Translation into English from the original document in Spanish
NM, paras 3.35- 3.36, fns The information included is correct; however, by using the quotein most sectors”it is extended
185-191
to the full Route, when this reference is exclusive to one of the nine sectors of the project.
NM, para 3.40, fns 202 -
205 This conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
NM, para 3.42, fn 209 This conclusion is completely disproportionate. The basin of San Juan River is very large (it
practically covers the entire north area of CR and a good portion of Nicaragua) in comparison to
the area intervened for the construction of Route 1856, which barely surpasses 5% of said
basin. Based on this reality and on the hypothesis that a deposit of sediment is determined as
originating from Route 1856 , which contributes to all of the sediment in San Juan River, it is
evident that if we compare said total to the contribution by Route 1856 the latter would be
negligible.
NM para 3.46, fns 217 -
This conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
220
NM, paras 3.49- 3.50, fns The bodies of water mentioned in the report by LanammeUCR do not include San Juan River.
231-232, 234. They refer to creeks and streams located in Costa Rican territory. There are no direct damages
to San Juan River, given that Route 1856, in the areas where it is closest to the river, is at least
50 meters from the right bank.
NM, para 3.53, fns 240 - The bodies of water mentioned are all in Costa Rican territory.
241
NM, paras 3.55- 3.56 fns
248, 251- 253 This conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
NM, para 4.15, fn 365 Issues related to the navigability of San Juan River are NOT contemplated anywhere in the
original document of the report by LanammeUCR. The possibility of a risk to navigation on San
Juan River due to the works on Route 1856 cannot be inferred either from any part of the
original document.
This is a general conclusion with the same characteristics as the previous point. It is
disproportionate, and very far from that indicated in the text of the original document issued in
NM, para 6.7, fn 567
Spanish by LanammeUCR.
References in the Kondolf Report
KR, para 1.3.4 This conclusion corresponds to that written in report INF-PITRA-014-12.
KR, para 4.4
The second statement made in this Conclusion is not something that can be inferred from the
text of the report by LanammeUCR.
This conclusion cannot be made based on the report by LanammeUCR. In fact, the report by
KR, para 4.12 LanammeUCR DOES NOT include a single amount regarding quantities of sediment
deposited into the bodies of water.
KR, para 6 (p 51) It is not valid to extend that indicated in this Conclusion to the entire San Juan River.
317Annex 61
Translation into English from the original document in Spanish
III. – In sum:
a) There is no authorization from LanammeUCR to translate into English the text of the original report
referenced, which was issued by LanammeUCR in Spanish, official language of Costa Rica. The
document translated into English, which you sent to us for our review, cannot be recognized as an
official document of Laboratorio Nacional, even if it appears edited with the institutional logos, which
were not authorized for use either.
b) The conclusions included in the document translated into English follow a macro approach, while the
original report issued by LanammeUCR is more specific, following a sectors approach. This causes
most of the conclusions in the version translated into English to indicate a higher impact than those
included in the original report issued in Spanish by LanammeUCR (INF-PITRA-014-12); and
c) Lastly, it is worth noting that the goal of the report by LanammeUCR that we have been referring to
is to show the conditions of Route 1856 from a technical and functional perspective, directly related to
road topics and to the construction of low volume roads. The environmental aspect was not addressed
as it is very clear that this matter is completely separate from the competencies and capacities awarded
by law to this Laboratorio Nacional.
Respectfully,
Alejandro Navas Carro, Eng. Luis Guillermo Loría Salazar, Eng., Ph.D.
M. Sc. Director of LanammeUCR General Coordinator PITRA-LanammeUCR
318Annex 61
319Annex 61
320Annex 61
321Annex 61
322 ANNEX 62
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-055-13
26 August 2013
323324Annex 62
325Annex 62
326 ANNEX 63
Letter from the President of the Association of Engineers and Architects of
Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
Reference 034-2012-2013-PRES
28 August 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
327328 Annex 63
August 28, 2013
034-2012-2013-PRES
Mr. Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Costa Rica
Honourable Minister:
The undersigned, José Guillermo Marín Rosales, President of the General Board of Directors of Colegio
Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica (CFIA , Costa Rican Association of Engineers and
Architects), in response to your Note DM -AM-358-13 of June 27 of this year, would like to ex press the
following:
We have reviewed the documents that you sent us , the translation into English, by Nicaragua, of our
report DRD-INSP-299-2012 regarding Route 1856 of June 8, 2012, and relevant extracts of the Memorial
filed by Nicaragua before the Inte rnational Court in The Hague, which make reference to our report.
Consequently, we present herein a brief analysis of the main findings regarding both the translation of
our report and its use.
As derived from the analysis performed, the translation by Nicaragua alters in some cases the original
meaning of our report. In addition, we determined that the extracts of the report referenced in the
Memorial by Nicaragua attribute conclusions that were not issued by CFIA in its report.
Consequently, we would like to make the following clarifications:
Reasons for the report
In relation to that indicated by the press regarding the construction of Route 1856 and based on the
purposes indicated by our Organic Law, CFIA considered necessary to perform an inspection o f the
aforementioned route and its accesses in order to contribute, from a technical standpoin t, toward its
evaluation and improvement. Consequently, CFIA sent a group of inspectors, engineering and
architecture professionals, to visit said road. In this inspection they took note of the construction
problems of the works and made recommendations that consisted of corrective measures for
maintenance, conservation and improvement.
Scope of the report issued
The inspection by CFIA was performed when the works were in the construction process. The
observations made in the report are specific and detailed, and so are the recommendations. As a result
of the inspection, the CFIA report recommended the application of corrective measures in some sectors
of the works , while for other sectors maintenance measures were recommended. The CFIA did not
indicate at any time that the entire road had construction problems.
329Annex 63
The report by CFIA did not issue conclusions of an environmental nature, and did not carry out
measurements of sediments or hydrological studies in the San Juan River basin or in any other, given
that what was carried out was a technical inspection.
Said report did not include assessmentsof a legal nature either. The observations and recommendations
expressed in our report had the goal of contributing toward improvement from a technical perspective,
in a work that CFIA, in its condition as assistant to the State in the areas of engineering and architecture,
considers of great meaning and importance to the country.
Regarding the use of CFIA’s report
CFIA only issued the aforementioned report so that its recommendations would be taken into account
for the improvement of Route 1856, exclusively for domestic purpose, for national use. The inspection
performed and the report issued by CFIA did not intend at any time to determine impacts on San Juan
River or on Nicaraguan territory, not only because it was not for this purpose but also because this is
beyond the jurisdiction of CFIA.
The use given by the Republic of Nicaragua to our report is contrary to the CFIA’s goal when preparing it.
CFIA does not accept the interpretation or legal assessment that Nicaragua has tried to make of our
report, given that, as previously expressed, CFIA has solely complied with the purposes established in
our Organic Law and in assisting the Costa Rican government with technical aspects of a work in
construction.
In conclusion, any interpretation or assessmentof our report made by Nicaragua cannot be attributed to
this Association. Consequently, we reject the usage of the referred study as evidence of damage caused
to San Juan River or to Nicaraguan territory in general.
Finally, honourable Minister, the Board of Directors of the Colegio Federeado de In genieros y de
Arquitectos declares that it recognizes the importance of the construction of Route 1856 for the
Republic of Costa Rica, and that our intention has always been to collaborate with the State in the
construction aspects of this infrastructure w ork, with the understanding that its improvement is of
benefit to the communities in the area and to our country.
I take this opportunity to express theassurances of my highest consideration.
Signed – José Guillermo Marín Rosales
President, General Board of Directors
Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y de Arquitectos de Costa Rica (Stamped CFIA, Presidency)
330Annex 63
331Annex 63
332Annex 63
333Annex 63
334Annex 63
335Annex 63
336Annex 63
337Annex 63
338Annex 63
339Annex 63
340Annex 63
341Annex 63
342Annex 63
343Annex 63
344Annex 63
345Annex 63
346Annex 63
347Annex 63
348Annex 63
349Annex 63
350Annex 63
351Annex 63
352Annex 63
353Annex 63
354Annex 63
355Annex 63
356Annex 63
357Annex 63
358 ANNEX 64
Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the International Court
of Justice
Reference HOL-EMB-167
30 August 2013
359360Annex 64
361Annex 64
362Annex 64
363Annex 64
364Annex 64
365366 ANNEX 65
Letter from the Co-Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice
Reference ECRPB-63-2013
27 September 2013
367368Annex 65
369Annex 65
370 ANNEX 66
Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Agent of
Costa Rica
Reference 142549
27 September 2013
371372Annex 66
373374 ANNEX 67
Letter from the Agent of Nicaragua to the Registrar of the International Court
of Justice
Reference HOL-EMB-196
11 October 2013
375376Annex 67
377Annex 67
378Annex 67
379Annex 67
380Annex 67
381382 ANNEX 68
Letter from the General Director of the Costa Rican National Meteorological
Institute to H.E. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez
7 November 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
383384 Annex 68
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Calle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
07 November 2013
N°409-2013-IMN
Ambassador
Edgar Ugalde Álvarez
Agent of Costa Rica before
the International Court of Justice
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dear Mr. Ugalde:
With regard to your inquiry concerning hurricanes Joan (1988), Mitch (1998) and
Stan (2005), I am attaching the information gathered, making special reference to
the impact on the North and North Caribbean area of the country.
HURRICANE JOAN, 10-23 October 1988:
Hurricane Joan made contact with the coast of Nicaragua, at Bluefields.
For Costa Rica the rain accumulation from 20 to 23 October in the North and North
Caribbean region ranged from 20 to 250 mm (litres per square meter), the highest
numbers on the Caribbean area, and the lower numbers toward the area of
Sarapiquí, with intermediate values toward the area of Los Chiles.
HURRICANE MITCH, 22 OCTOBER TO 09 NOVEMBER 1998
This hurricane entered Central American territory through the central sector of the
coast of Honduras.
Similarly, due to its position on the Caribbean, the main effects on Costa Rica were
on the Pacific Watershed.
The map included below establishes that rain accumulation from 21 October to 01
November, which clearly shows that the rains recorded during those days in the
Caribbean Watershed and the North Area were below 100 mm (litres per square
meter).
385Annex 68
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Calle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
HURRICANE STAN, 01 TO 05 OCTOBER 2005:
The recorded rain accumulation from 02 to 05 October for the North and the North
Caribbean Area ranged from 150 mm in the Sarapiquí area to 15 mm on the coast.
It is worth noting that the north area of the country, due to its nature, is very
rainy. The average annual rain accumulation can reach 6 000 mm.
Regards,
Juan Carlos Fallas Sojo
General Director IMN
386 Annex 68
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Calle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
07 de noviembre de 2013
N°409-2013-IMN
Señor Embajador
Edgar Ugalde Álvarez
Agente de Costa Rica ante
la Corte Internacional de Justicia
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto
Estimado señor Ugalde:
Con respecto sobre su consulta sobre los huracanes Joan (1988), Mitch (1998) y
Stan (2005), le adjunto la información recabada, haciendo una referencia más
específica sobre sus impactos a la Zona de Norte y Caribe Norte del país.
HURACÁN JOAN, 10-23 de octubre 1988:
El huracán Joan hizo contacto con la costa de Nicaragua, en Bluefields.
Para Costa Rica, el acumulado de lluvia del 20 al 23 de octubre en la Zona Norte y
Caribe Norte del país, osciló entre 20 a 250 mm (litros por cada metro cuadrado),
ubicándose los valores más altos en la zona del Caribe, y los valores más bajos
hacia la Zona de Sarapiquí, con valores intermedios hacia la zona de Los Chiles.
HURACÁN MITCH, 22 DE OCTUBRE AL 09 DE NOVIEMBRE 1998
Este huracán ingresó a territorio de Centroamérica, sobre el sector central de la
costa de Honduras.
De igual forma por su posición sobre el mar Caribe, la afectación importante sobre
Costa Rica fue sobre la Vertiente del Pacífico.
En el mapa que se adjunta se establece el acumulado de lluvias del 21 de octubre
al 01 de noviembre, donde se muestra con claridad que las lluvias registradas
durante esos días en la Vertiente del Caribe y la Zona norte estuvieron por debajo
de los 100 mm (litros por metro cuadrado).
387Annex 68
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Calle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
HURACÁN STAN, 01 AL 05 DE OCTUBRE 2005:
El registro acumulado de lluvia del 02 al 05 de octubre, para la Zona Norte y el
Caribe Norte osciló entre 150 mm en la zona de Sarapiquí y de 15 mm hacia el
sector costero.
Es importante señalar que la zona norte del país, por su propia naturaleza, es muy
lluviosa, en donde el acumulado promedio anual puede alcanzar los 6 000 mm.
Sin otro particular y quedando a sus gratas órdenes, lo saluda cordialmente,
Juan Carlos Fallas Sojo
Director General del IMN
388 ANNEX 69
La Nación (Costa Rica)
‘Nicaraguan immigration denies entry to journalists through San Juan River’
available at
http://wfnode01.nacion.com/2010-10-
22/ElPais/UltimaHora/ElPais2564695.aspx?Page=3,
22 October 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
389390 Annex 69
http://www.nacion.com/archivo/Migracion-prohibe-periodistas-San-Juan_0_…
Nicaraguan immigration
denies entry to journalists
through San Juan River
CARLOS ARGUEDAS C. | CARLOS ARGUEDAS C. AND CARLOS HERNÁNDEZCTOBER 2010 AT: 12:00
A.M.
San José (Redacción). Nicaraguan Immigration Officers prohibited today the
entrance of two boats through San Juan River, on which Costa Rican journalists
travelled, heading to the Isla Calero area in Pococí, Limón.
This measure was communicated by Pedro Alemán, Nicaraguan Immigration
Officer, who indicated that “for security reasons” free transit is not allowed. He
argued that the conflict area is Nicaraguan territory therefore Costa Ricans lose all
rights there.
He explained that the journalists could request a permit from the Costa Rican
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and with said authorization they would allow
navigation to the interested party.
The measure affected the boat in which Carlos Hernández travelled, sent by La
Nación newspaper, and another in which Alfonso Gatgens from Diario La
Extra travelled.
Passage was prohibited from the mouth of Sarapiquí River.
ETIQUETAS
CONFLICTO CON NICARAGUA
391Annex 69
http://www.nacion.com/archivo/Migracion-prohibe-periodistas-San-Juan_0_…
Migración nica prohíbe paso a
periodistas por río San Juan
CARLOS ARGUEDAS C. | CARLOS ARGUEDAS C.Y CARLOS HERNÁNDEZ EL 22 DE OCTUBRE DE 2010
A: 12:00 A.M.
San José (Redacción). Funcionarios de Migración de Nicaragua prohibieron el
paso hoy a dos lanchas por el río San Juan, donde viajaban periodistas
costarricenses y que se dirigían hacia la región de isla Calero, en Pococí, Limón.
La medida la comunicó Pedro Alemán, trabajador de Migración nicaragüense,
quien dijo que por “razones de seguridad” no se permitía el libre tránsito.
Argumentó que la zona del conflicto es territorio de Nicaragua y que ahí pierden
cualquier derecho los costarricenses.
Explicó que los periodistas podrían pedir un permiso a la Cancillería costarricense
y con esa autorización ellos permitirían la navegación del interesado.
La medida afectó a una lancha donde viajaba Carlos Hernández, enviado del
periódico La Nación , y a otra donde se encontraba Alfonso Gatgens del diario La
Extra .
El paso se prohibió partir de la desembocadura del río Sarapiquí.
ETIQUETAS
CONFLICTO CON NICARAGUA
392 ANNEX 70
La Nación (Costa Rica)
‘Nicaragua Reinforces Troops at the Border’
available at
http://www.nacion.com/sucesos/Nicaragua-refuerza-tropas-
frontera_0_1154884554.html
24 October 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
393394 Annex 70
http://www.nacion.com/sucesos/Nicaragua-refuerza-tropas-frontera_0_1154…
Nicaragua reinforces troops at
the border
UPDATED ON 24 OCTOBER 2010, AT 12:00 A.M.
Managua. AFP Nicaragua sent troops yesterday to the border with Costa Rica in an
action that Colonel Juan Ramón Morales, chief of Public Relations of the Army,
reported is motivated by drug trafficking.
The mobilization “is related to drug trafficking (…) not to a situation that occurred
on the other side with the deployment by Costa Rica, which has full legal rights to
do so,” Morales indicated.
The special units soldiers of the Army were mobilized on Saturday morning to the
border area, where they carry out works to clear the waters of San Juan River, to
which San José expressed its opposition due to alleged environmental damages in
their territory.
“We do not see that any situation of that nature (armed) will arise (at the border).
These are separate things, (the presence of the army) is an activity against drug
trafficking,” Morales stated with regard to growing tension in the area between
both countries.
Before confirming the deployment of troops to the south, members of the Police,
the Army and the Attorney General’s Office gave statements regarding an escape
plan by six Honduran drug traffickers that were captured on September 30 at the
southern border.
Morales indicated that the case is related to the dismantling of an organized crime
base that was operating at the same place where the dredging works are being
carried out.
395Annex 70
“With the information regarding the drug traffickers’ escape plan, in addition to
other information provided, we are sending a unit to the area to detail the reports
and follow up on a drug trafficking group that is operating there,” he added.
The alleged chief of the gang, identified as “Aragón”, is thought to be in Costa
Rica. “They are the ones who are selling the idea that we are on Costa Rican
territory, trying to evade an illegal situation,” Morales noted.
ETIQUETAS
LÍO EN FRONTERA
396 Annex 70
http://www.nacion.com/sucesos/Nicaragua-refuerza-tropas-frontera_0_1154…
Nicaragua refuerza tropas en
la frontera
ACTUALIZADO EL 24 DE OCTUBRE DE 2010 A: 12:00 A.M.
Managua. AFP Nicaragua envió ayer tropas a la frontera con Costa Rica en una
acción que, según explicó, está motivada por el narcotráfico, informó el coronel
Juan Ramón Morales, jefe de Relaciones Públicas del Ejército.
La movilización “está relacionada al narcotráfico (...) no a una situación que se
presentó al otro lado con el desplazamiento que hizo Costa Rica, que está en su
pleno derecho”, dijo Morales.
Los soldados de unidades especiales del Ejército se habrían trasladado en la
mañana del sábado hacia la zona fronteriza donde se desarrollan las labores de
limpieza del caudal del río San Juan, al que San José se opuso por supuestos daños
ambientales en su territorio.
“Nosotros no vemos que ahí (frontera) se vaya a presentar alguna situación de esa
naturaleza (armada). Son cosas diferentes, (la presencia del Ejército) es una
actividad contra el narcotráfico”, dijo Morales ante una creciente tensión en la zona
entre ambos países.
Antes de confirmar la movilización de tropas al sur, funcionarios de la Policía, el
Ejército y la Fiscalía hicieron declaraciones sobre un plan de fuga de seis presuntos
narcotraficantes de origen hondureño capturados el 30 de septiembre en la frontera
sur.
El caso estaría relacionado con el desmantelamiento de una base del crimen
organizado que operaba en el mismo lugar donde se están llevando a cabo las
tareas de dragado, dijo Morales.
397Annex 70
“Con la información del plan de fuga de los narcotraficantes, más una serie de
informaciones que se están dando, enviamos un componente a la zona para
repuntualizar los informes y dar seguimiento al elemento narcotraficante que está
operando ahí”, agregó.
El presunto jefe de la banda, identificado como “Aragón”, estaría en Costa Rica.
“Son ellos los que están vendiendo la idea de que estamos en territorio
costarricense, tratando de evadir una situación ilícita”, subrayó Morales.
ETIQUETAS
LÍO EN FRONTERA
398 ANNEX 71
El 19 (Nicaragua)
‘Nicaragua will request before the ICJ Navigation through Río Colorado’
available at
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
18149:nicaragua-pedira-ante-cij-navegacion-por-rio-
colorado&catid=23:nacionales&Itemid=12
13 November 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
399400 Annex 71
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id…
ua-pedira-ante-cij-navegacion-por-rio-colorado&catid=23:nacionales&Itemid=12
NATIONAL NEWS
Under the same terms and conditions that Costa Rica enjoys
over San Juan de Nicaragua River
Nicaragua will request before the ICJ navigation through Río
Colorado
November 13, 2010 | Valeria Imhof
President Daniel Ortega announced that Nicaragua will request before the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) navigation through Río Colorado under the same terms and
conditions that Costa Rica has to navigate San Juan de Nicaragua River, whilst the
cleaning and dredging of this affluent are being concluded to recover its water level.
Daniel argued that 90% of the flow of water of Río Colorado comes from waters within
our country, from Lake Cocibolca through San Juan River.
“We are giving Costa Rica 90% of the water of Río Colorado, and Nicaragua does not
recover the water flow or exit of this river, while we continue to carry out its cleaning
401Annex 71
and creating an exit through Harbour Head Island; Costa Rica should accept that we
receive the same treatment to navigate Colorado River,” he expressed.
He added that Costa Rica can navigate 140 kilometres of the San Juan River and then
navigate through Río Colorado, whose volume is permanently maintained by Nicaragua’s
lakes and rivers.
“We are looking for a balance, for fairness, just as they benefit from San Juan River; we
could have the same conditions as they do to navigate through San Juan River, with the
same prerogatives, terms and privileges that Costa Rica has to navigate our river,” he
stated.
The President showed maps of the conflict area in 1960 and 2010 and the negative
effects caused by Costa Rica on the mouth of San Juan River, forest areas and natural
reserves for cattle-raising and agricultural projects.
“The flow of San Juan River was sufficient to have a huge bay, but since waters divert
into Río Colorado the water volume of San Juan River was affected,” he expressed.
He explained that this causes that during the summer the river cannot be navigated, and
in some places it even turns into small puddles and sand deposits.
“Those who have seen the river know that they can even walk on the river bed, because
the water is simply feeding Río Colorado,” he insisted.
He indicated that during the summer San Juan River loses water volume, therefore it is
unable to reach the historical mouth mentioned in the treaties, decisions and
international resolutions.
“Dredging works intend to recover the water level so that we can permanently have a
route that can be navigated, and this is what we are defending: what the treaties,
decisions and resolution of the International Court of Justice say,” he claimed.
The President also showed a map of the alleged Isla Calero, while he rejected the
campaign started by the Costa Rican government that Nicaragua has invaded its territory.
“A campaign has been started claiming that Nicaragua that has military occupation in Isla
Calero, a territory between San Juan River and Río Colorado which they have thus
named,” he said.
He added that in said territory, corresponding to 180 square kilometres, there isn’t a
single Nicaraguan soldier, and no soldiers or police have entered the area.
402 Annex 71
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id…
ua-pedira-ante-cij-navegacion-por-rio-colorado&catid=23:nacionales&Itemid=12
NACIONALES
En los mismos términos y condiciones que goza Costa Rica
sobre el Río San Juan de Nicaragua
Nicaragua pedirá ante CIJ navegación por Río Colorado
13 de Noviembre de 2010 | Valeria Imhof
El presidente Daniel Ortega anunció que Nicaragua pedirá ante la Corte Internacional de
Justicia (CIJ) la navegación por el costarricense Río Colorado, en los mismos términos y
condiciones en que este país puede navegar por nuestro Río San Juan de Nicaragua, al
mismo tiempo que se concluyen las labores de limpieza y dragado de este afluente para
recuperar su caudal.
Daniel argumentó que el 90 por ciento del caudal del Río Colorado proviene de las aguas
de nuestro país, desde el Lago Cocibolca, a través del Río San Juan.
“Nosotros le estamos entregando a Costa Rica el 90 por ciento del agua del Río Colorado
403Annex 71
y como Nicaragua todavía no recupera el caudal del río y su salida mientras nosotros
seguimos desarrollando la limpieza del río y el establecimiento de una salida a través de
la Isla Harbour Head que Costa Rica acepte que Nicaragua reciba el mismo tratamiento
para transitar por el Río Colorado”, expresó.
Agregó que Costa Rica puede recorrer el Río San Juan 140 kilómetros y luego transitar por
el Río Colorado, cuyo caudal tiene agua permanentemente gracias a los lagos y ríos de
Nicaragua.
“Lo que estamos buscando es un punto de equilibrio, de justicia así como ellos se
benefician del Río San Juan también nosotros podamos optar con las mismas condiciones
que ellos para navegar por el Río San Juan con las mismas prerrogativas, con las mismas
facilidades y con los mismos privilegios que tiene Costa Rica para navegar sobre nuestro
río”, manifestó.
El presidente mostró mapas de la zona en conflicto de los años 1960 y 2010 y las
afectaciones provocadas por Costa Rica en la desembocadura del Río San Juan, en las
zonas boscosas y las reservas naturales para desarrollar programas ganaderos y proyectos
agrícolas.
“El caudal del Río San Juan era suficiente como para que se pudiera contar con una
inmensa bahía pero en la medida que las aguas se fueron desviando hacia el Río Colorado
se fue afectando el caudal del Río San Juan”, expresó.
Explicó que esto ocasiona que el río no sea navegable en tiempos de verano inclusive en
lugares se convierta en pequeños charcos y bancos de arena.
“Los que han visitado el río saben que se puede caminar incluso por el lecho del río
porque sencillamente el agua está alimentando al Río Colorado”, insistió.
Señaló que el Río San Juan en época de verano pierde caudal por lo que no logra llegar a
su desembocadura histórica mencionada en los tratados, laudos y resoluciones
internacionales.
“Las labores de dragado tienen como objetivo recuperar el caudal para que de manera
permanente tengamos una ruta navegable y eso es lo que estamos defendiendo: lo que
mandan los tratados, los laudos y la resolución de la Corte Internacional de Justicia”,
aseveró.
El presidente además mostró un mapa de la supuesta Isla Calero al mismo tiempo que
rechazó la campaña emprendida por el gobierno costarricense de que Nicaragua ha
invadido su territorio.
“Aquí se ha levantado una campaña de que Nicaragua ha ocupado militarmente Isla
Calero un territorio que se encuentra entre el Río San Juan y el Río Colorado y que ellos
le han llamado con ese nombre”, dijo.
Agregó que ese territorio, correspondiente a 180 kilómetros cuadrados, no hay un sólo
soldado nicaragüense ni ha entrado un soldado ni policía a esa zona.
404 ANNEX 72
La Prensa (Nicaragua)
‘Nicas want Peace and Dialogue with Costa Rica’
available at
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/12/14/nacionales/46366
14 December 2010
English Translation and Spanish Original
405406 Annex 72
Managua, December 14, 2010
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/12/14/nacionales/46366
National news
Nicaraguans want peace and dialogue with Costa Rica
Less Nicaraguans want to leave
66% of those surveyed believe the troops should go
Preventing Conflict
“The Governments of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, in the current situation, should prioritize cooperation relations over conflict.”
Agree -Disagree – Don’t know
Opposition – FSLN – Independent - All Interviewees
Source M&R Consultores, November 27 to December 6, 2010
See enlarged image
By Geiner Enrique Bonilla and Josué Bravo
Managua and San José
Nicaraguans want a peaceful settlement for the conflict between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, which
arose from the dredging in San Juan River. At least this is what the most recent survey on public
opinion carried out by M&R Consultores indicates.
Of those surveyed, 95.9 percent indicated that they agree that the governments of both countries
must prioritize cooperation relationships over conflict.
A large majority of Nicaraguans also considers that it is time for dialogue; however, this requires
removing the military bodies from the conflict area, and they believe that this withdrawal of troops
would not mean risking national sovereignty.
407Annex 72
On the other hand, no one doubts that the conflict between both nations helped to feed the popularity
of Sandinista president Daniel Ortega, given that more than half of those surveyed qualified as
positive Ortega’s steps to manage the problem between Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
All of this data is compiled in the 27edition of the Public Opinion Monitoring System, which was
applied to a total of 1,600 persons nationwide, between November 27 and December 6.
The interviews were performed in person, to individuals over 16 years of age in urban and rural areas
of the country. The data included in the survey includes a reliability level of 95.5 per cent.
This time the results are shown based on the political sympathies of each interviewee.
Thus, although globally, over half of the interviewees consider that military troops should be
withdrawn to begin dialogue, 42.1% of the population which defined itself as Sandinista does not
agree with this possibility.
However, demilitarizing the border area would not mean at any time putting at risk or losing national
sovereignty. At least this is what 60% of the population with sympathy toward an opposition party
believes, and 54.2% of which proclaim to be independent.
CONTRADICTIONS
Regarding this point, Sandinistas differ greatly from the rest of the trends, and even contradict
themselves in their positions. Although a large portion (56.7%) of those who sympathize with the
government agrees with the withdrawal of troops to begin dialogue, 56.9 percent believe that
withdrawing the troops would mean risking national sovereignty.
However, globally, the scale tilts more toward those who think that national sovereignty is not
exposed (48.9), exceeding by a little over two points those who think the opposite (46.3 per cent).
These binational problems largely benefitted the popularity of the Sandinista president, given that
even the independent and opposition sectors rated highly Ortega’s actions to manage conflict.
Except for the opposition –the majority of which qualified Ortega’s management as regular- more than
half of Sandinistas and independent individuals consider the President’s work to be positive.
COSTA RICAN INVASION?
On the other hand, the Costa Rican Minister of Security (of Nicaraguan father), José María Tijerino,
continued escalating his militaristic dialogue by paraphrasing about an eventual military invasion
against Nicaragua, which in the midst of laughter, he ascertained will not occur yet.
In declarations to Telenoticias Canal 7, the public employee explained that the arrival of naval artillery
ships with US marines to its maritime territory is part of an agreement to fight against drug
trafficking.
“Nicaraguans can rest assured that we will not invade yet,” he said.
The issue of an eventual request for military help by Costa Rica to resolve the conflict with Nicaragua
is still latent, although the Costa Rican government speaks of peaceful solutions in conformity with
international law.
408 Annex 72
See enlarged image
The majority bet on dialogue
“The Governments of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, in the current situation, should withdraw the military troops from the Conflict Area to give way to
dialogue.”
Opposition – FSLN – Independent - All Interviewees
Source M&R Consultores, November 27 to December 6, 2010
409Annex 72
Managua, December 14, 2010
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/12/14/nacionales/46366
Nicas quieren paz y diálogo con Costa Rica
Valorar:
Resultados:
6 votos
Comentarios: 23
Menos nicas se quieren ir
El 66 por ciento de los encuestados cree que las tropas deben retirarse
Ver imagen ampliada
Por Geiner Enrique Bonilla y Josué Bravo
Managua y San José
Los nicaragüenses quieren una solución pacífica para el conflicto entre Nicaragua y Costa Rica,
desatado a raíz del dragado en el río San Juan. Al menos así lo indica la más reciente encuesta de
monitoreo de opinión pública que realizó M&R Consultores.
El 95.9 por ciento de los encuestados aseguró estar de acuerdo con que los gobiernos de ambas
naciones deben priorizar las relaciones de cooperación por encima del conflicto.
Otra gran mayoría de nicaragüenses considera que es hora de darle lugar al diálogo, pero para ello se
deben retirar los cuerpos militares de la zona de conflicto y creen que este retiro de tropas no
significaría arriesgar la soberanía nacional.
Por otra parte, nadie pone en duda que el conflicto entre las naciones ayudó a alimentar la
popularidad del mandatario sandinista Daniel Ortega, pues más de la mitad de los encuestados calificó
como positivas las gestiones de Ortega para manejar el problema entre Nicaragua y Costa Rica.
410 Annex 72
Todos estos datos están recopilados en la edición 27 del Sistema de Monitoreo de Opinión pública, que
se aplicó a un total de 1,600 personas a nivel nacional, entre el 27 de noviembre y el pasado 6 de
diciembre.
Las entrevistas se hicieron cara a cara, a personas mayores de 16 años de las zonas urbanas y rurales
del país. Los datos contenidos en la encuesta tienen un nivel de confianza de 95.5 por ciento.
En esta oportunidad se muestran los resultados basados en la simpatía política de cada entrevistado.
Así pues, aunque a nivel global, más de la mitad de los encuestados considera que se deben retirar las
tropas militares para iniciar el diálogo, un 42.1 por ciento de la población que se definió como
sandinista no está de acuerdo con esta posibilidad.
Pero desmilitarizar la zona fronteriza no significaría en ningún momento poner en riesgo o perder la
soberanía nacional. Al menos así piensa un 60 por ciento de la población que tiene simpatía por algún
partido de oposición y el 54.2 por ciento de los que se proclaman independientes.
SE CONTRADICEN
En cuanto a este punto, los sandinistas difieren mucho del resto de tendencias, e incluso se
contradicen en sus posiciones. Pues aunque gran parte (56.7 por ciento) de los simpatizantes al
partido de gobierno están de acuerdo con el retiro de tropas para iniciar el diálogo, 56.9 por ciento
creen que retirar las tropas sería arriesgar la soberanía nacional.
Sin embargo, a nivel global, la balanza se inclina más hacia los que piensan que no se expone la
soberanía nacional (48.9), superando por poco más de dos puntos a los que piensan lo contrario (46.3
por ciento).
Estos problemas binacionales beneficiaron grandemente la popularidad del mandatario sandinista,
pues incluso los sectores independientes y de oposición calificaron muy bien las acciones de Ortega al
momento de manejar el conflicto.
Exceptuando a los opositores —cuya mayoría calificó de regular la gestión de Ortega— más de la
mitad de los sandinistas e independientes consideran positivo el trabajo del Presidente.
¿INVASIÓN TICA?
Por su parte, el ministro de Seguridad de Costa Rica (de padre nicaragüense), José María Tijerino,
siguió escalando su discurso belicista al parafrasear sobre una eventual invasión militar contra
Nicaragua, la cual en medio de risas, aseguró que no se realizaría todavía.
411Annex 72
En declaraciones a Telenoticias de Canal 7, el funcionario explicó que el arribo de barcos artillados con
militares estadounidenses a su territorio marítimo es parte de un convenio para luchar contra el
narcotráfico.
“Pueden estar tranquilos los nicaragüenses, no pensamos invadirlos todavía”, dijo.
El tema sobre una eventual solicitud de ayuda militar de parte de Costa Rica para resolver el conflicto
con Nicaragua aún sigue latente, aunque el gobierno tico habla de soluciones “pacíficas” apegadas al
derecho internacional.
Ver imagen ampliada
412 ANNEX 73
Central American Court of Justice (Managua), transcript of interview with
Central American Court of Justice judges Ricardo Acevedo and Dario Lobo
‘The challenge is having Panama and Costa Rica join’
available at
http://portal.ccj.org.ni/ccj2/Publicar/tabid/88/EntryId/3/-El-reto-es-q…-
y-Costa-Rica-se-integren.aspx
English Translation and Spanish Original
413414 Annex 73
http://portal.ccj.org.ni/ccj2/Publicar/tabid/88/EntryId/3/-‐El-‐reto-‐es-‐que-‐Panama-‐y-‐
Costa-‐Rica-‐se-‐integren.aspx
“The challenge is having Panama and Costa Rica
join”
Interview
Judges of the Central American Court of Justice, Drs. Ricardo Acevedo Peralta,
outgoing president, and Francisco Darío Lobo, incoming president of the Central
American Court of Justice.
Yolanda Magaña
Diario El Mundo
The seat of the presidency at the Central American Court of Justice was fill ed once
again last Thursday by Honduran Francisco Darío Lobo Lara, who received it from
Salvadorian Ricardo Acevedo Peralta. Both agree that the integration of Panama and
Costa Rica is the next step after the late incorporation of Guatemala.
How is El Salvador leaving the Court?
Ricardo Acevedo Peralta (RAP): This year we managed to have Guatemala enter, after
14 years of absence. We also achieved one of the most important events, the first
meeting of international courts. They met in Managua.
Why is Guatemala joining now, after 14 years?
415Annex 73
RAP: The integration has progressed slowly for many reasons: apathy, the lack of
incentives. Guatemala signed, yet there were technical issues, and then the integration
process has been so sluggish that the European Un ion didn’t come in until now, and
the Europeans are asking the institutions that guarantee the rule of law to become
stronger, to integrate, since our process has unfortunately always moved forward
through external influences, the presidents realized that they needed to hurry…
Did the European Union have influence over Guatemala’s final integration?
RAP: It did have influence over Guatemala.
Why was there resistance?
RAP: There hasn’t been any resistance, but rather apathy, institutional laziness.
Is there mistrust regarding the regional Court?
RAP: That is not the case. Partly because the processes are not known, they haven’t
been sufficiently diffused, and partly because this process has moved forward very
slowly and there hasn’t been much interest, until now, when the European Union is
going to guarantee Europe’s investments in the region, since Europe is coming here to
a single Court, to a single nation.
What are the challenges you are faced with as you receive the presidency of
the Court?
Francisco Darío Lobo Lara (FDLL): The Court I am receiving has more of an
international outlook. This Court is new. It was founded on October 13, 1994. It is the
court of Central American integration.
What is the main challenge after Guatemala’s integration?
FDLL: To continue on the same path... Panama is about to join. The only state that
gets complicated is Costa Rica. We are confident that they will take measures. We
would like to strengthen the ethical aspect of our roles, to continue issuing respectable
rulings, to not bend the Law and to strengthen integration.
Is it indispensable for Costa Rica to join for the next Central American Court
and its next period?
FDLL: It is necessary. The word indispensable is more elevated.
Is it urgent?
FDLL: To some measure, it i s. We cannot stop. No one can stop Central America’s
integration. Everything is on our side.
But in order for the European Union to take the region seriously, is it
indispensable for Costa Rica to join?
416 Annex 73
FDLL: This is the European Union’s aspiration, to n ot be divided, to not be weakened,
because together we have better prospects for development. If Central America comes
together it becomes a power. The six Central American states are under the Court’s
jurisdiction, even if they don’t have judges, by the s overeign will of the six States. Now
there will be no excuse.
RAP: One of Costa Rica’s objections is interference in each State’s domestic conflicts.
Currently, it is sufficient for one of the parties to resort to the Court. In light of Costa
Rica’s suggestion, this power could become optional; the Court could participate only
when the State accepts it. This would be more difficult, but it’s a proposal.
Would this be a backward movement?
The Court cannot receive more power because it already has all of th e power in the
world. This remains to be seen. I am certain that El Salvador, Nicaragua... would not
agree. The court doesn’t need strength, it needs legitimacy. We have strength with or
without Costa Rica, and with or without Panama. A Court ruling in a d isagreement
between a European agreement and a Central American agreement has strength, but
not sufficient legitimacy if Panama and Costa Rica do not join.
Have the rulings issued been few (100 since 1994)?
RAP: No, not with the levels and the dynamics of the integration process, and
considering how recent it is. We are moving forward.
Are the rulings followed?
RAP: So far, the Court’s rulings have been followed, one way or another. The rulings
are applied by the same national judges. All of them are mandatory, no excuses. No
one can reform us to make us better.
FDLL: the rulings are issued by the Court; their execution depends on the Central
American presidents.
Is the work flow ideal?
Ideally it should increase. (The problem is that) the jurisdiction is extensive, but no one
is aware of this extent.
417Annex 73
Corte Centroamericana de Justicia > Publicar - “El reto es que Panamá y Costa Rica se ... Página 1 de 2
VOCERO DE LA CORTE
NOTICIAS
BUSCAR
“El reto es que Panamá y Costa Rica se integren”
EVENTOS
GALERÍAS
EEnnttrreevviissttaa
PUBLICACIONES EEnnttrreevviissttaa
DE MAGISTRADOS Magistrados de la Corte Centroamericana de
Justicia, Doctores Ricardo Acevedo Peralta ,
Presidente saliente y Francisco Darío Lobo,
Presidente Entrante de la Corte Centroamericana
de Justicia
YYoolladaa Maaggaaññaa
DiiaarriiooMuunnddoo
La presidencia de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia fue retomada el jueves pasado
por el hondureño Francisco Darío Lobo Lara, recibida del salvadoreño Ricardo Acevedo
Peralta. Ambos coinciden en que la integración de Panamá y Costa Rica es el siguiente
paso después de una tardía incorporación de Guatemala.
¿Cóómmoo eennttrreeggaaCoorrttee EEll SSadoorr??d
Ricardo Acevedo Peralta (RAP): Este año logramos que Guatemala, después de 14 años
de estar ausente, ingrese. Y logramos hacer uno de los e ventos más importantes, el
primer encuentro de las cortes internacionales. Se dieron cita en Managua.
¿¿PPooquuéé Guuaattmaallaa iinnggrreedeesspuuééssdee 14 aaññooss,, hhaassttaa aahhoorraa??
RAP: La integración ha marchado muy despacio por miles de razones: por desidia,
porque no ha habido incentivos. Guatemala firmó pero hubo problemas técnicos y,
como el proceso de integración ha caminado tan despac io, fue hasta ahora que viene
la Unión Europea y que los europeos están pidiendo que las instituciones que
garantizan el Estado de Derecho se fortalezcan, se integren, porque nuestro proceso
desafortunadamente siempre ha caminado a raíz de influencias externas, los
presidentes se dieron cuenta que había que acelerar...
¿¿LLaUnniióónn EEuupeeaa iinnfflluuyyóó eenn llaa iinntteeggrradeeGuuaattemaallaa?? d
RAP: Influyó en Guatemala.
¿¿YYpoorrquuéé hhboo rreessiisstteenncciiaa??
RAP: No ha habido resistencia, sino desidia, haraganería institucional.
¿Noo ssee ccoonnffííaa eeCoorrttee rreeggiioonnaall??
RAP: No es eso. En parte porque los procesos no se conocen, no se les ha dado la
suficiente divulgación y en parte porque este proceso ha caminado muy despacio y no
ha habido mayor interés. Hasta ahora que la Unión Europea que van a garantizar las
inversiones de Europa en la región, porque Europa vie ne aquí a una sola Corte, a una
sola nación.
¿Cuuáálleess ssoonn llooss rreettquuee uusstd rreeccbee llaprreesdeenncciidee llaCoorrttee??
Francisco Darío Lobo Lara (FDLL): La recibo como una Corte más proyectada a nivel
internacional. Esta Corte es nueva. Fue fundada el 13 de octubre de 1994. Es el
tribunal de la integración centroamericana.
¿Cuuááll eess eprriinnpaall rreetdeespuuééssdee llaa iinntteeggrradee Guuaattmaallaa??
FDLL: Es continuar la misma línea... Panamá está a punto de entrar. El único estado
que se pone un poco difícil es Costa Rica. Confiamos en que van a tomar medidas.
Queremos fortalecer la ética en nuestras funciones, segu ir dictando fallos respetables,
no torcer el Derecho y fortalecer la integración.
¿¿EEssdiipeennsbllequuee ssee igrreCoossttRiiccpaarrCooC rrtCeennttrrmeerriiccaannaa yy eenn ssuu
¿¿EEssdiipeennsbllequuee ssee iinntCoossttRiiccpaarrCooC rrtCeennttrrmeerriiccaannaa yy eenn ssuu
prróóxxmaa ggeessttiióónn??
FDLL: Es necesaria. La palabra indispensable es mucho más elevada.
¿¿EEss uurrggeennttee??
http://portal.ccj.org.ni/ccj2/Publicar/tabid/88/EntryId/3/-El-reto-es-q…... 11/5/2013
418 Annex 73
Corte Centroamericana de Justicia > Publicar - “El reto es que Panamá y Costa Rica se ... Página 2 de 2
FDLL: Sí, lo es, en alguna medida. No podemos detenernos. La integración
centroamericana nadie la detiene. Ya tenemos todo a nuestro favor.
PPeerropaarraquuee llUnniióónn EEupeeaa tmee eenn sseerriioo aa llaa rreeggiidiispeennssbllequuee ssee
iinntteegCoossttaRiiccaa??
FDLL: Es una aspiración de la Unión Europea, no divid irnos, no debilitarnos, porque
unidos tenemos mayores perspectivas de desarrollo. Centroamérica unida sería una
potencia. Los seis Estados centroamericanos están bajo la jurisdicción de la Corte
aunque no tengan magistrados, por voluntad soberana de los seis Estados. Ahora ya
no habrá ninguna excusa.
RAP: Uno de los argumentos que Costa Rica ha estado ob jetando es la injerencia en
conflictos internos en cada Estado. Ahora, es suficiente que una de las partes acuda a
la Corte. Ante la sugerencia de Costa Rica, esta potestad pasaría a ser opcional, sólo
podría participar la Corte, cuando el Estado lo acepte. Sería más difícil. Pero esa es
una propuesta.
¿¿SSeerrííaa uunn rreettrroocceessoo??
A la Corte no le pueden dar más poder porque tiene t odo el poder del mundo. Está
por verse. Estoy seguro que El Salvador, Nicaragua... no estarían de acuerdo. A la
Corte no le falta fuerza, sino legitimidad. Tenemos fuerza con Costa Rica o sin Costa
Rica, con Panamá o sin Panamá. Una resolución de la Corte en un diferendo entre un
convenio europeo y centroamericano tiene fuerza, pero no suficiente legitimidad si no
entran Panamá y Costa Rica.
¿¿SSoopooccaass llaass rreessoolluucmiitdaass 1000 deessdee199994))??
RAP: No, para los niveles y el dinamismo que tiene el mismo proceso de integración y
lo reciente que es, no es poco. Vamos caminando.
¿¿SSee mpuplleenn llooss ffaallllooss??
RAP: Hasta ahora se han cumplido los fallos de la Corte. De una manera o de otra. Las
resoluciones son aplicadas por los mismos jueces nacionales. Todas son obligatorias
sin excusa. A nosotros nadie nos puede reformar para hacernos mejor.
FDLL: Los fallos los dicta la Corte, la ejecución de los mismos les compete a los
presidentes centroamericanos.
¿¿EEss eell ffdee ttrbaajjodóónneeoo??
Lo idóneo es que se incremente. (El problema es que) l as competencias son amplias,
pero nadie las conoce.
http://portal.ccj.org.ni/ccj2/Publicar/tabid/88/EntryId/3/-El-reto-es-q…... 11/5/2013
419420 ANNEX 74
El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua)
‘Stop the Road’
available at
http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/234697-paren-carretera
30 November 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
421422 Annex 74
http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/234697-paren-carretera
November 30, 2011
NICARAGUAN GOVERNMENT DEFENDS SAN JUAN RIVER BEFORE COSTA RICA:
Managua, Nicaragua | END
“Stop the Road”
In a note of protest sent to San José yesterday,it demanded thatthe works be stopped until
their environmental impact is assessed. Chinchilla challenges and sees the extensive road as
“heritage.”
Matilde Córdoba andSixto Valladares | National news
The image shows how the Costa Rican road project along t he banks of the San Juan River is wreaking havoc in the
riverbank’s ecosystem. Courtesy of END
The government sent a note of protest yesterday for the damage being
caused to the environment by the construction of a 130 km long road at the
border, along San Juan River, and it demanded that the works be stopped
until their environmental impact is assessed. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Manuel Coronel Kautz, called to mind in the letter sent to his Costa
Rican counterpart, Enrique Castillo Barrantes , that this highway runs
parallel and at a very short distance from the river, and that it drains into
423Annex 74
the river. It also highlighted “the destruction of the flora and fauna ina very
extensive wetlands area.”
“The Government of Nicaragua reminds the Government of Costa Rica that
all projects of this nature , due to their inherent characteristics, must have
an Environmental Impact Assessment performed.”
“This study, due to the geographic location, should have been timely
notified to the Government of Nicaragua,” h e adds in the note of protest,
which referred to the decision of the International Court of Justice issued
on March 8, 2011 and to Article 5 of the Ramsar Convention.
Similarly, the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources, Juana
Argeñal, sent a letter on Monday to the Secretary General of the Ramsar
Convention, Anada Tiéga, informing him of the environmental destruction
being caused by the works performed by Costa Rica on the bordering area
with the river, and asked fora commission to be sent tovisit the area.
“Considering the gravity of the situation and imminent environmental risk
of an irreparable nature, and in view of the lack of cooperation in the
conservation of biodiversity and management of water resources, our
country requests the Convention to immediately send an advisory mission
to visit the area and to confirm in situ the evident violations of this sister
nation to the Ramsar Convention,” reads the letter sent to the Ramsar
Convention.
San José replies
However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied that the highway is
generating environmental damages. The Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Enrique Castillo, added in a note sent yesterday that the construction of the
highway has not affected Nicaraguan territory, but that he is willing to hear
Nicaragua’s claims.
Costa Rica indicated in the note that the construction of the road has not
affected Nicaraguan territory, and that the country has been “forced” to
build it due to the actions of Nicaragua at the shared border.
The government of Costa Rica accepted the mediation of the governments
of Guatemala and Mexico in this new chapter o n border disputes, but it
asked Nicaragua “to be responsible in its actions regarding the projects that
it is carrying out or that it intends to carry out in the border area.”
Meanwhile, Costa Rican president Laura Chinchilla indicated yesterday at a
press conference that the complaints of Daniel Ortega’s government are a
smoke curtain.
“For the first time in 190 years of independence Costa Ricans will be able to
travel along the north border area through a way other than exclusively
through the San Juan River. It is a heritage that we will leave Costa Rica
and which I am extremely proud of,” stated Chinchilla.
Environmental youth: prompt resolution
424 Annex 74
The executive director of Asociación de Jóvenes Ambientalistas
(Environmental Youth Association), Raomir Manzanares, consider ed that
this problem can be resolved at the Council of Ministers of the
Environment and Natural Resources comprised of the seven co untries that
are members of the Central American Commission for the Environment
and Development (CCAD), a body attached to Central American
Integration System (SICA).
Meanwhile, the president of the Central Ameri can Court of Justice ( CCJ),
Francisco Lobo, indicated yesterday that the conflict arising from the
decision of the southern neighbouring country to build a road along the
riverbank could be resolved at that regional instance.
Several ecologists in the country have alerted of the serious damaged being
caused to San Juan River by the construction of the highway, given that
according to the environmentalists’ claims the works have massively cut
down trees, removed earth, disturbed streams and virgin soil, and have
established the drainage and sewers system toward the water flow of the
San Juan River.
With the collaboration ofEdith Pinedaand Leyla Jarquín
425Annex 74
http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/234697-paren-carretera
“Paren carretera”
En una nota de protesta enviada ayer a San José, demandó la
detención de la obra hasta que se evalúe su impacto ambiental.
Chinchilla reta y ve la extensa vía como “una herencia”
END - -
El gobierno envió ayer una nota de protesta a Costa Rica por el daño que está causando al medio
ambiente la construcción de una carretera de 130 km de longitud en la frontera con el río San Juan, y
demandó detener la obra hasta que se valore su impacto ambiental.
El canciller por la ley, Manuel CoroneKautz, recordó en la misiva enviada a su par costarricense,
Enrique Castillo Barrantes, que dicha carretera corre paralelamente y a poca distancia del río y que
desagua en él. También hizo hincapié en “la destrucción de la flora y de la fauna en una mutensa
zona de humedales”.
“El Gobierno de Nicaragua recuerda al Gobierno de Costa Rica que todo proyecto de esta naturaleza,
por las características propias que implica, debe de contar con un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental”.
“Este estudio, el cual, por la ub icación geográfica del mismo, debió ser comunicado en su oportunidad
al Gobierno de Nicaragua”, agrega la nota de protesta, que cita la ordenanza de la Corte Internacional
de Justicia, emitida el 8 de marzo de 2011, y el artículo 5 de la Convención de Ramsar.
Asimismo, la ministra del Ambiente y de los Recursos Naturales, Juana Argeñal, envió el lunes una carta
a la secretaria general de la Convención Ramsar, Anada Tiéga, informándole sobre la destrucción del
medio ambiente que están causando las obras eje cutadas por Costa Rica en la frontera con el río, y
solicitándole que envíe una comisión para que visite la zona.
“Ante la gravedad de la situación y riesgo ambiental inminente de carácter irreparable, ante la falta de
cooperación en la conservación de la biodiversidad y manejo de los recursos hidrológicos, nuestro país
solicita que de manera inmediata la Convención envíe una misión de asesoramiento que visite la zona y
compruebe in situ las violaciones flagrantes de ese hermano país a la Convención Ramsar”, dice la carta
enviada a la Convención Ramsar.
San José contesta
Sin embargo, la Cancillería costarricense negó que la carretera esté generando daños ambientales. El
canciller Enrique Castillo añade en una nota enviada ayer que la construcción de la vía no ha afectado al
territorio nicaragüense, pero que está dispuesto a escuchar los argumentos de Nicaragua.
Costa Rica señaló en la nota que la construcción de la vía no ha generado afectaciones al territorio
nicaragüense, y que la misma se realiza dado ue este país se ha visto “forzado” a construirla como
consecuencia de las acciones nicaragüenses en la frontera común.
426 Annex 74
El gobierno tico aceptó la mediación de gobiernos de Guatemala y México en este nuevo capítulo de
conflictos fronterizos, pero, además, p idió a Nicaragua “también sea responsable en su actuar en
relación con los proyectos que está desarrollando o piensa desarrollar a futuro en la zona fronteriza”.
En tanto, la presidenta costarricense Laura Chinchilla aseguró ayer en conferencia de prensa q ue las
quejas del gobierno de Daniel Ortega son una cortina de humo.
“Por primera vez en 190 años de vida independiente los costarricenses vamos a poder recorrer la
frontera norte por una vía que no sea exclusivamente el río San Juan. Es una herencia que v amos a
dejarle a Costa Rica y de la que me siento profundamente orgullosa”, dijo Chinchilla.
Jóvenes ambientalistas: pronta resolución
El director ejecutivo de Asociación de Jóvenes Ambientalistas, Raomir Manzanares, consideró que este
problema puede ser resuelto en el Consejo de Ministros del Ambiente y Recursos Naturales que integran
los siete países miembros de la Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo, CCAD, órgano
adscrito al Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana, SICA.
Mientras, el presidente de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, CCJ, Francisco Lobo, dijo ayer que el
conflicto suscitado por la decisión del vecino del sur de construir una carretera a orillas del río, puede
ser resuelto en esa instancia regional.
Diversos ecólogos del país han alertado sobre el grave daño que está causando al río San Juan la
construcción de la carretera, pues según denuncias de ambientalistas las obras han arrasado con
árboles, removido tierra, roto riachuelos y suelo virgen, además que han dispuesto el sistema de
drenaje y alcantarillado de su vía hacia el caudal del San Juan.
Con la colaboración de Edith Pineda y Leyla Jarquín
El Nuevo Diario 1998-2013 / email:[email protected]
427428 ANNEX 75
La Gente, Radio la Primerísima (Nicaragua)
‘Central American Court admits lawsuit against Costa Rica’
available at
http://www.rlp.com.ni/noticias/111936/corte-ca-admite-demanda-contra-co…-
rica
19 December 2011
English Translation and Spanish Original
429430 Annex 75
http://www.rlp.com.ni/noticias/111936/corte-ca-admite-demanda-contra-co…
CA Court admits complaint against Costa Rica
Managua. Agency. | December 19, 2011
The six judges at the Central American Court of Justice (Corte Centroamericana de
Justicia, CCJ) unanimously admitted the complaint filed by Nicaraguan environmental
organizations against Costa Rica for damages being caused by the 160 kilometre road
under construction along the right bank of San Juan de Nicaragua River.
The announcement was made by the President of CCJ, Honduran Francisco Darío Lobo,
who expressed that the State of Costa Rica must submit the response to the complaint filed
by Fundación Nicaragüense para el Desarrollo Sostenible, coordinated by scientist Jaime
Incer Barquero, and also by Foro Nacional de Reciclaje, coordinated by environmentalist
Kamilo Lara.
Lobo expressed that a delegation of judges of the CCJ may perform a visit to the area
where Costa Rica is building the road to confirm the environmental damages caused by the
project and thus determine the precautionary measures to be imposed on the neighbouring
country.
In the event that Costa Rica disregards the decision of the CCJ, Lobo stated that it could be
declared “rebellious” given that the Central American state signed the agreements and
treaties of this regional legal body.
Although Costa Rica does not have judges at CCJ it cannot disregard the judgments and
decisions issued by this entity.
“The six Central American states are under the jurisdiction of this Court in all community
law and international law spheres, recognized by the states themselves. What has occurred
is that some states, such as Costa Rica, do not have judges here, but this does not exempt
them from the obligation of being under the jurisdiction of this court and abiding by the
judgments and decisions made,” Darío Lobo indicated.
A few days ago a Costa Rican court admitted an appeal for protection filed by Costa Rican
environmentalists who also oppose the highway project promoted by President Laura
Chinchilla.
Darío Lobo explained that by admitting the complaint against Costa Rica for environmental
damages means that a lawsuit is opened and a term of ten days is given for Chinchilla to
provide the response to the complaint.
431Annex 75
Corte CA admite demanda contra Costa Rica
Managua. Agencias. | 19 diciembre de 2011
Los seis magistrados de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia (CCJ) admitieron
por unanimidad la demanda introducida por los organismos ambient ales
nicaragüenses en contra de Costa Rica, a causa de los daños que está
ocasionado con la carretera de 160 kilómetros que construye en la margen
derecha del Río San Juan de Nicaragua.
El anuncio fue realizado por el presidente de la CCJ, el hondureño Francisco Darío
Lobo, quien manifestó que el estado costarricense debe contestar a la demanda
interpuesta por la Fundación Nicaragüense para el Desarrollo Sostenible, que
coordina el científico Jaime Incer Barquero, y también por el Foro Nacional de
Reciclaje, que coordina el ambientalista Kamilo Lara.
Lobo manifestó que una delegación de magistrados de la CCJ podría realizar una
visita en la zona en que Costa Rica construye su carretera para constatar los
daños ambientales que estaría ocasionando el proyecto y de esa manera definir
las medidas cautelares que se impondrían al vecino país.
En caso de que Costa Rica desconozca la decisión de la CCJ, Lobo dijo que
podría ser declarada "rebelde" pues recordó que ese estado centroamericano
firmó los convenios y tratados de conformación de este órgano regional jurídico.
Aunque Costa Rica no tenga magistrados en la CCJ no puede desconocer las
sentencias y mandatos que ahí se emitan.
"Los seis estados centroamericanos están bajo la jurisdicción de esta Corte en
todo el ámbito del derecho comunitario y del derecho internacional, aceptado por
estos estados mismos. Que ha ocurrido, algunos estados no tienen magistrados
como Costa Rica, pero eso no lo exime de la obligación estar bajo la jurisdicción
de esta corte y de acata r las resoluciones y sentencias que dictemos", señaló
Darío Lobo.
Hace algunos días un tribunal jurídico de Costa Rica admitió un recurso de
amparo introducido por ambientalistas costarricenses, que también se oponen al
proyecto carretero impulsado por la mandataria Laura Chinchilla.
Darío Lobo explicó que al admitirse la demanda contra Costa Rica por daños
ambientales, significa que también se abre un juicio y se da un término de diez
días para que Chinchilla conteste la demanda.
432 ANNEX 76
El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua)
‘CACJ opens trial to evidence’
available at
http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/politica/239562
24 January 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
433434 Annex 76
http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/politica/239562
January 24, 2012
CHINCHILLADID NOT RESPOND TO CALL FOR DIALOGUE UNTIL YESTERDAY
Managua, Nicaragua
CCJ opens evidentiary period
Sectors of the country continue to call for rapprochement of the presidents while Honduran
President Porfirio Lobo supports the actions of the Court
Miguel Carranza Menaand Sixto Valladares | Politics
MELVIN VARGAS / END Judge Francisco Darío Lobo, President of CCJ.
While the Central American Court of Justice, CCJ, opens the evidentiary
period as of today, by request of Nicaraguan environmental organizations,
Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla spoke in San José about the conflict
regarding the wetlands of Harbour Headbut did not refer to the dialogue
proposed by Daniel Ortega to her government. In the meantime, in
Managua, experts on international issues including Oscar Castillo and
Róger Guevara Mena considered that the negotiation between both
countries “should not wait any longer.”
The president of the CCJ, Judge Francisco Darío Lobo, stated in Managua
that yesterday morning the Full Court decided to open the evidentiary
period for twenty days in the complaint against the Government of Costa
435Annex 76
Rica, which has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of this Central
American Court.
Until yesterday Chinchilladid not speak of dialogue
Meanwhile, in Costa Rica President Laura Chinchilla went back in time
when she stated: “it is difficult to explain the military aggression and
invasion of a portion of our land.”
She also indicated that the incursion by Nicaragua “has not led Costa Rica
off track” in the search for pacific solutions, such as before the
International Court of Justice in The Hague, but as of yesterday afternoon
she did not refer to the informal meeting with Nicaraguan President Daniel
Ortega in Guatemala, regarding the wish to resolve the road conflict
through dialogue.
Court explains to SICA President
Upon returning to Managua, Darío Lobo urged the Costa Rican Minister of
Foreign Affairs to provide evidence of his alleged partiality toward
Nicaragua and asked the Nicaraguan environmental organizations to
submit sufficient evidence for the Court to not issue a judgment declaring
unfounded Nicaragua’s complaint.
Judge Darío Lobo also stated that in a meeting with Honduran President
Porfirio Lobo Sosa,who acts as president pro tempore of the System for
Central American Integration (Sistema de Integración Centroamericana,
SICA), the Honduran president indicated his support of the Central
American Court of Justice.
Judge Lobo indicated that the Honduran President was duly informed of
the CCJ’s work and the application by the court of justice of the treaties
signed by the six countries that are members of SICA, including Costa Rica.
Useful and necessary dialogue
The expert on international matters, Róger Guevara Mena, considered that
the idea of dialogue between both countries is useful and necessary, if both
parties wish to diminish excessive noise aimed at hiding greater internal
problems in Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
Guevara Mena indicated that it is important for both heads of state, Ortega
and Chinchilla, to take into account the opinion of the catholic bishops of
Costa Rica and Nicaragua, who have indicated their support of dialogue
between both countries to end the discrepancies on border issues.
Dr. Oscar Castillo indicated that both countries must convene dialogue
between the two nations, given that proceedings at The Hague are long and
costly.
“I think that what the bishops say is right, they should heed tothis good
advice, but it would be necessary to see what Costa Rica thinks in this
regard,” Castillo commented.
436 Annex 76
24 de enero de 2012 | 00:00:00
CHINCHILLA HASTA AYER NO RESPONDÍA A LLAMADO DE DIÁLOGO
Managua, Nicaragua
CCJ abre juicio a pruebas
Sectores del país siguen clamando por acercamiento de presidentes mientras mandatario
hondureño Porfirio Lobo respalda acciones de la Corte
Miguel Carranza Mena y Sixto Valladares | Política
MELVIN VARGAS / END Magistrado Francisco Darío Lobo, Presidente de la CCJ.
437Annex 76
Mientras la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, CCJ, abre un juicio a pruebas, a
partir de hoy, a solicitud de la s organizaciones ambientales nicaragüenses, la
mandataria de Costa Rica, Laura Chinchilla remojó el conflicto por los
humedales de “Harbour Head” en San José y no se refirió al diálogo que el
presidente Daniel Ortega propuso a su gobierno. En tanto en
Managua expertos en temas internacionales como Oscar Castillo y Róger
Guevara Mena, consideraron que la negociación entre ambos países “no
debería esperar más tiempo”.
El presidente de la CCJ, magistrado Francisco Darío Lobo, dijo en Managua
que la Corte Plena decidió la mañana de ayer abrir un juicio a pruebas por
veinte días contra el gobierno de Costa Rica, quien se ha negado a reconocer la
competencia de este tribunal centroamericano.
Chinchilla hasta ayer no hablaba de diálogo
En tanto, en Costa Rica la mandataria Laura Chichilla se remontó en el tiempo
cuando afirmó: “Resulta difícil explicar la agresión militar y la invasión de una
porción de nuestro territorio”.
También señaló que la incursión de parte de Nicaragua “no ha logrado
descarrilar a Costa Rica” de la búsqueda de soluciones pacíficas, como en la
Corte Internacional de Justicia, en La Haya”, pero hasta ayer por la tarde no se
refirió al encuentro informal con el presidente de Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, en
Guatemala, en el sentido que quiere resolver el conflicto de la carretera, por la
vía del diálogo.
Corte explica a presidente del SICA
Tras regresar a Managua, Darío Lobo instó al canciller costarricense a
comprobar su supuesta parcialidad a favor de Nicaragua y llamó a las
organizaciones ambientales nicaragüenses a presentar pruebas suficientes para
que la Corte no dicte sentencia declarando sin lugar la demanda de Nicaragua.
El magistrado Darío Lobo dij o también que sostuvo un encuentro con el
presidente de Honduras Porfirio Lobo Sosa, quien funge como presidente pro
tempore del Sistema de Integración Centroamericana, SICA. El mandatario
hondureño le manifestó su apoyo al tribunal de justicia centroamericano.
El magistrado Lobo señaló que el mandatario de Honduras quedó bien
informado de la labor de la CCJ y de la aplicación que el tribunal de justicia
hace de los tratados que han sido suscritos por los seis países miembros del
SICA, entre ellos Costa Rica.
Diálogo útil y necesario
El experto en asuntos internacionales, Róger Guevara Mena, consideró que la
idea del diálogo entre ambos países es útil y necesaria, si es que ambas partes
no quieren mantener un ruido excesivo que vaya dirigido a ocultar prob lemas
internos mayores en Nicaragua y Costa Rica.
Guevara Mena dijo que es importante que ambos mandatarios, Ortega y
Chinchilla tomen en cuenta la opinión de los obispos católicos de Costa Rica y
Nicaragua, quienes se han mostrado a favor de un diálogo entre ambos estados
para que se ponga fin a las discrepancias por asuntos limítrofes.
438 Annex 76
El doctor Oscar Castillo dijo que ambas naciones deben convocar a un diálogo
binacional, puesto que los juicios en la Haya son tardados y costosos.
“Yo creo que el llamado que hacen los obispos es correcto, deberían tomar esa
buena recomendación, pero habría que ver qué piensa el gobierno de Costa
Rica en ese sentido”, finalizó Castillo.
439440 ANNEX 77
El 19 Digital (Nicaragua)
‘Nicaragua advances in collecting evidence for case against Costa Rica at the
Hague’
available at
http://www.canal15.com.ni/noticia/34739
or
http://www.lavozdelsandinismo.com/nicaragua/2012-02-10/nicaragua-trabaja-
en-recopilacion-de-pruebas-sobre-danos-de-costa-rica-al-rio-san-juan/
10 February 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
441442 Annex 77
TRANSLATION
http://www.lavozdelsandinismo.com/nicaragua/2012-02-10/nicaragua-trabaj…-
recopilacion-de-pruebas-sobre-danos-de-costa-rica-al-rio-san-juan/
NATIONAL HEADLINES
Nicaragua advances in collecting
evidence for case against Costa Rica
in The Hague
10 February 2012 | Raúl Lenin Rivas
Dr. Carlos Argüello Gómez, agent of Nicaragua before the International Court of
Justice (ICJ ) in The Hague , stated that our continues to advance the
process of the claim filed in the international court against Costa Rica for the
construction of a 160 kilometre road on the bank of the Nicaraguan San Juan River.
Argüello explained that in January the Court fixed the timetable for the filing of
the memorial that will provide an explanation of the case, which will be submitted
on 22 December [2012] and for hich the Government of Nicaragua is already
working on gathering enough evidence to help strengthen the argument put
forward in the claim.
443Annex 77
“We are working, we are preparing and collecting all the necessary evidence so it
is absolutely clear that harm is being caused by Costa Rica with its road, as well as
[evidence of] all the environmental harm of which the road is the most recent
example. Costa Rica has for years been causing harm to the river in particular the
San Juan River, and we are collecting all t he evidence so that not the slightest
doubt remains about what is happening” he said.
The lawyer said that among the evidence that Nicaragua is collecting are the
studies and analyses of the waters of the River, which will support the argument
that there has been an increase of sedimentation that is affecting the flow of the
River as a result of the construction of the road, and that harm has been caused by
Costa Rica’s agriculture industry through the use of chemical products that have
been causing damage and poisoning the environment for many years.
According to Argüello, although the request currently before the Central American
Court of Justice (CACJ), which was brought by Nicaraguan environmental
organisations and the Government, is unrelated [to case before the ICJ] , the
evidence that is presented before this regional court could be very useful in the
judicial proceedings before the Court in The Hague.
“All the elements that we found in studies carried out in Nicaragua, presented
before the Central American Court, including those presented in Costa Rican Courts
because Costa Rican environmentalists are worried [about the road] , all the
elements that we found demonstrate that what is happening we can use in the
International Court of Justice”, added Dr. Argüello Gómez.
He said that one of the elements of the claim aga inst Costa Rica could include a
financial penalty for the southern neighbour, since the road is causing enormous
economic damage, “naturally Costa Rica is responsible for this damage and
Nicaragua is making a claim in this regard, this is part of our claim”.
444 Annex 77
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id…-
avanza-en-recopilacion-de-pruebas-para-juicio-en-la-haya-contra-costa-
rica&catid=23:nacionales&Itemid=12
NACIONALES
Nicaragua avanza en recopilación de
pruebas para juicio en La Haya contra
Costa Rica
10 de Febrero de 2012 | Raúl Lenin Rivas
El Dr. Carlos Argüello Gómez, representante de Nicaragua ante la Corte Internacional de
Justicia (CIJ) en La Haya, manifestó que el país pinolero continúa avanzando en el proceso d e
la demanda interpuesta en el tribunal internacional contra Costa Rica por la construcción de
una carretera de 160 kilómetros en la ribera del nicaragüense Río San Juan.
Argüello explicó que la Corte fijó en enero recién pasado el plazo para la presentaci ón de la
memoria ampliada con las explicaciones del caso, el que será presentado el 22 de diciembre y
445Annex 77
en el cual el Gobierno de Nicaragua ya está trabajando en la recopilación de las pruebas
suficientes que contribuyan a fortalecer el argumento de la demanda.
“Estamos trabajando, estamos preparando y recogiendo todas las pruebas necesarias para que
quede clarísimo el enorme daño que está causando Costa Rica con su carretera y todo el daño
ambiental, porque la carretera es lo último que está haciendo. Costa Rica tiene años de estar
dañando el río y en particular el Río San Juan, así que estamos recogiendo todas esas pruebas
para que no quede la más mínima duda de que es lo que está sucediendo”, expresó.
El jurista señaló que dentro de las pruebas que Nicara gua está recopilando se están tomando
en cuenta estudios y análisis de agua del Río, lo que sustentará el argumento del aumento de
sedimentación que se está produciendo sobre el caudal producto de la construcción de la
carretera, así como los daños ocasionados por la industria agrícola costarricense debido al uso
de productos químicos que han venido perjudicando y envenenando el medioambiente desde
hace muchos años atrás.
Según Argüello, aunque la demanda que se está ventilando ante la Corte Centroamerican a de
Justicia (CCJ), fue interpuesta por organismos ambientales nicaragüenses y el Gobierno no
está vinculado, las pruebas que se presenten en esta instancia de justicia regional podrían ser
de mucha utilidad en el proceso judicial ante la Corte de La Haya.
“Todos los elementos que nosotros encontremos tanto en estudios hechos en Nicaragua,
presentados ante la Corte Centroamericana, incluso presentados en Cortes de Costa Rica,
porque también los ambientalistas de Costa Rica están preocupados, todos los ele mentos que
nosotros encontremos que demuestren lo que está sucediendo lo podremos usar en la Corte
Internacional de Justicia”, agregó el Dr. Argüello Gómez.
Indicó que uno de los elementos de la demanda contra Costa Rica podría incluir una sanción
económica para el vecino del Sur, dado que la carretera está ocasionando un daño económico
enorme, “naturalmente que Costa Rica es responsable por ese daño y Nicaragua lo está
reclamando, eso es parte de nuestra demanda”.
446 ANNEX 78
La Prensa (Nicaragua)
‘CACJ Judgment will go to case at The Hague’
available at
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2012/07/03/ambito/107181-fallo-ccj-a-al
3 July 2012
English Translation and Spanish Original
447448 Annex 78
TRANSLATION
Managua, 3 July 2012
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2012/07/03/ambito/107181-fallo-ccj-a-al
Areas
CACJ Judgment will go to the case in The Hague
Judges may request assistance from the presidents [sic] concerning the Costa Rica
rebellion
Carlos Guerra, president of the CACJ, announcing the judgment.
LA PRENSA/G. FLORES.
Wilder Pérez R.
It’s official. The judgment of the Central American Court of Justice
(CACJ) blaming Costa Rica “for the ecological and related damages
[caused] to the San Juan de Nicaragua river” will be a fundamental
part of the case that Nicaragua filed for the same reason in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, The Netherlands.
Kamilo Lara, one of the representative of civil society who won the
case against Costa Rica, conf irmed that the CACJ judgment and
evidence from the Nicaraguan representatives [sub mitted to the
CACJ] will be submitted in The Hague, but first [she would wait for]
the reactions of the representatives of the Government of Costa Rica.
449Annex 78
The six judges of the CACJ ruled unanimously on ten points, after
almost six months of proceedings, during which the environmental
damage caused by the road that Costa Rica constructed alongside the
San Juan de Nicaragua River was discussed and deliberated.
“Declaring that the State of Costa Rica should not have constructed a
high risk and environmentally dangerous work in the framework of
communitarian obligations, because it exposes the shared basin and
the common ecosystem that it shares with Nicaragua and the region
to serious and unpredictable harm ” announced its president, Carlos
Guerra.
Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica, reacted, qualifying the CACJ
decision “spurious”, that is, having no direct relation to the facts. This
is despite the fact that environmen tal consequences are often
indirect.
Chinchilla, who at the Rio +20 summit held [the Costa Rican
Government] out to be environmentally friendly, recognised the
environmental harm before travelling to Brazil , but placed emphasis
on the effects on animals , the river and forests near the border,
displaying her poor knowledge of the ecology.
[CACJ] HAS JURISDICTION
Costa Rica never paid any attention to the [CACJ] proceedings,
arguing that the CACJ has no jurisdiction. In its judgment, the CACJ
recalled that Costa Rica, by signing the Central American Integration
System and by approving previous CACJ judgments , is a member of
the CACJ and is obliged not only to recognise but also to obey [CACJ]
judgments made against it.
Chinchilla’s government was fou nd guilty of violating 22 international
laws.
Chinchilla accused the CACJ of being biased because it is located in
Nicaragua, but was silent as to why it had submitted false information
about accusations against Nicaragua two years ago to the Ramsar
Convention, the regional headquarters of which are in Costa Rica.
The CACJ did not make an order for compensation because there was
no quantification of the damage. The National Recycling Forum and
the Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development [kn own by
the Spanish acronym Fonare] will conduct an assessment to start the
incrimination.
450 Annex 78
Managua, 3 de julio, 2012
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2012/07/03/ambito/107181-fallo-ccj-a-al
Ámbitos
Fallo de la CCJ irá al juicio de La Haya
Magistrados podrían solicitar ayuda a presidentes por rebelión tica
Carlos Guerra, presidente de la CCJ, al anunciar el fallo.
LA PRENSA/G. FLORES.
Wilder Pérez R.
Ya es oficial. El fallo de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia (CCJ) culpando a Costa Rica
“por los daños ecológicos y conexos al río San Juan de Nicaragua” será parte fundamental
del juicio que Nicaragua entabló por el mismo motivo en la Corte Internacional de Justicia
(CIJ) de La Haya, Holanda.
Kamilo Lara, uno de los representantes de la sociedad civil que ganó el jucio contra Costa
Rica, confirmó que harán llegar la resolución de la CCJ y las pruebas a los representantes
nicaragüenses en La Haya, no sin antes esperar las reacciones de los representantes del
Gobierno costarricense.
Los seis magistrados de la CCJ fal laron con unanimidad sobre diez puntos, tras casi seis
meses de proceso, en el que se discutió y deliberó sobre los daños ambientales causados por
una carretera que Costa Rica construyó junto al río San Juan de Nicaragua.
451Annex 78
“Declárese que el Estado de Cost a Rica construyó una obra de alto riesgo y peligrosidad
ambiental que debió evitar en el marco de las obligaciones comunitarias, porque expone la
cuenca compartida y el ecosistema común que tiene con Nicaragua y la región a daños
graves e impredecibles”, anunció su presidente, Carlos Guerra.
Laura Chinchilla, presidente de Costa Rica, reaccionó, calificando la actuación de la CCJ como
“espuria”, es decir, que no tiene relación directa de los hechos. Esto a pesar de que en
medioambiente las consecuencias suelen ser indirectas.
Chinchilla, quien en la cumbre Río +20 se mostró como ejemplo de administración amigable
con el medioambiente, había reconocido el daño ambiental antes de viajar a Brasil, pero
haciendo énfasis en que las afectaciones a los animales , río y bosques, terminaban en la
frontera, dando muestras de sus pobres conocimientos sobre ecología.
CON JURISDICCIÓN
Costa Rica nunca hizo caso al proceso, aduciendo que la CCJ no tiene jurisdicción. En el fallo,
la CCJ recuerda que Costa Rica, po r el hecho de ser firmante del Sistema de Integración
Centroamericana y por haber aprobado fallos anteriores a la CCJ, es miembro de la misma y
está obligada no solo a acusar sino también a obedecer cuando los fallos le son adversos.
El gobierno de Chinchilla fue encontrado culpable por violar 22 legislaciones internacionales.
Chinchilla acusó a la CCJ de parcial porque su sede se encuentra en Nicaragua, pero
mantuvo silencio sobre por qué entregó información falsa sobre acusaciones contra
Nicaragua hace dos años a la Convención Ramsar, cuya sede regional está en Costa Rica.
La CCJ no mandó a resarcir por los daños debido a que no existe una cuantificación. El Foro
Nacional de Reciclaje y la Fundación Nicaragüense para el Desarrollo Sostenible (Fonare)
realizarán la evaluación para iniciar la parte condenatoria.
Ver en la versión impresa las páginas: 5 A ,1 A
452 ANNEX 79
La Prensa (Nicaragua)
‘Damages to the river will be quantified’
available at
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2013/11/03/poderes/168532-cuantificaran-dano…-
rio
3 November 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
453454 Annex 79
Managua, 3 November 2013
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2013/11/03/poderes/168532-cuantificaran-dano…
Damages to the river will be quantified
Judgment of the regional court may be a reference before the Court in The Hague
By: Tania Sirias
The Central American Court of Justice will quantify the damages to San Juan River due to the construction of
the Costa Rican highway, after receiving in October a claim from Foro Nacional de Reciclaje.
LA PRENSA/ARCHIVE
Nicaragua and Costa Rica will face each other again in new proceedings before the Central American
Court of Justice (Corte Centroamericana de Justicia, CCJ). However, this time “the damages [caused
to the Nicaraguan San Juan River] will be measured,” Alejandro Gómez Vides, a judge from this
regional entity, explained.
The judge indicated that CCJ does not see directly the border problems between the countries, but it
does see the collateral damage. However, it indicated that said Court is based on the philosophical
455Annex 79
principles of the Protocol of Tegucigalpa, which in Article 4 indicates that the Central American
countries shall look for peaceful ways to resolve their problems.
He called to mind that the first decision issued by this regional Court verified the environmental
damage caused by Costa Rica to San Juan River, upon constructing a highway parallel to this
important water resource.
“We issued a judgment and sentenced Costa Rica, even though this country did not appear as a party.
They indicated that they had reports where they proved that there were no damages, thus we asked
them to present them to the Court, but they did not,” Gómez Vides indicated.
He added that although president Laura Chinchilla does not recognize the Central American Court, the
fact is that former Costa Rican President Rafael Calderón Fournier signed and recognized this body, as
well as members of the Supreme Court of Justice, Costa Rican public officers and academics.
“The signing of the Protocol of Tegucigalpa gives us jurisdiction over Costa Rica,” judge Gómez Vides
highlighted. He indicated that if the president and congress ratify it, the State accepts not only the
positive aspects but also the obligations of this international treaty.
“In addition, this protocol does not permit reservations, meaning that it accepts all articles, including
article 12 which created the Central American Court of Justice,” the judge indicated.
PRECEDENT BEFORE ICJ
Another element that the jurist highlighted is that there are precedents in which the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague bases its judgment on rulings of the Central American Court of
Justice.
He recalled the case of Honduras and El Salvador before The Hague to determine their borders after
the peace treaty, which included Honduras’ maritime limits in the Pacific.
“The decision of the International Court was based on a judgment of the Central American Court to
rule in favor of Honduras,” therefor, judge Gómez indicated, this could be a precedent in the case of
the conflict between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Gómez Vides was recently awarded the “Orden Francisco Morazán en el Grado de Gran Cruz, Placa de
Plata,” for his services relevant to case for Central American unity.
See the printed version in pages: 5 A
456 Annex 79
Managua, 03 de noviembre, 2013
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2013/11/03/poderes/168532-cuantificaran-dano…
Poderes
Cuantificarán daños al río
Sentencia del tribunal regional puede ser referente ante la Corte de la Haya
Por: Tania Sirias
La Corte Centroamericana de Justicia cuantificará los daños al río San Juan por la construcción de la
carretera costarricense, después de recibir en octubre una denuncia del Foro Nacional de Reciclaje. LA
PRENSA/ARCHIVO
Nicaragua y Costa Rica volverán a enfrentarse en un nuevo juicio ante la Corte Centroamericana de
Justicia (CCJ), nada más que esta vez “se cuantificarán los daños” provocados al nicaragüense río San
Juan, explicó el magistrado de esta instancia regional, Alejandro Gómez Vides.
El magistrado indicó que la CCJ no ve directamente los problemas limítrofes entre países, pero sí los
daños colaterales. Sin embargo dijo que esta Corte se basa en los principios filosóficos del Protocolo
de Tegucigalpa, en su artículo 4, el cual dice que los países centroamericanos deben buscar las vías
pacíficas para resolver sus problemas.
457Annex 79
Recordó que el primer fallo emitido por esta Corte regional comprobó el daño ambiental provocado por
Costa Rica al río San Juan, al construir una carretera paralela a este importante recurso hídrico.
“Nosotros dimos una sentencia y condenamos a Costa Rica, aunque este país no se mostró parte. Ellos
informaron que tenían informes donde comprobaban que no habían daños, por lo que pedimos que los
presentaran a la Corte, pero no lo hicieron”, manifestó Gómez Vides.
Agregó que aunque la presidenta Laura Chinchilla no reconozca a la Corte Centroamericana, el hecho
es que el expresidente costarricense, Rafael Calderón Fournier, firmó y reconoció a este organismo,
así como miembros de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, funcionarios y académicos costarricenses.
“La misma firma del Protocolo de Tegucigalpa nos da jurisdicción sobre Costa Rica”, subrayó el
magistrado Gómez Vides. Sostuvo que si el presidente y el Congreso lo ratifica, el Estado acepta no
solo las cosas a favor sino también las obligaciones de este tratado internacional.
“Además este protocolo no admite reserva, es decir que acepta todos los artículos y eso incluye el
artículo 12 donde se conformó la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia”, afirmó el magistrado.
PRECEDENTE ANTE LA CIJ
Otro elemento que destacó el jurista es que ya hay precedentes en que la Corte Internacional de
Justicia (CIJ) en La Haya, basa su sentencia en sentencias de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia.
Recordó el caso de Honduras y El Salvador en La Haya para delimitar sus fronteras luego del tratado
de paz, donde se tenía que ver la salida del mar territorial de Honduras en el Pacífico.
“El fallo de la Corte Internacional se basó en una sentencia de la Corte Centroamericana para darle la
razón a Honduras”, por lo tanto, dijo el magistrado Gómez que puede ser un precedente en el conflicto
entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua.
Gómez Vides fue recientemente condecorado con la Orden Francisco Morazán en el Grado de Gran
Cruz, Placa de Plata, por sus relevantes servicios a la causa de la unidad centroamericana.
Ver en la versión impresa las páginas: 5 A
458 ANNEX 80
El 19 (Nicaragua)
‘33rd Anniversary of the Naval Force’
available at
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php/discurso/ver/12213/33-aniversario-…-
fuerza-naval-
14 August 2013
English Translation and Spanish Original
459460 Annex 80
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php/discurso/ver/12213/33-aniversario-…-
SPEECHES
33rd Anniversary of the Naval Force
Wednesday, 14 August 2013 | Council of Communication and Citizenship
…
The Court also ruled, clearly, that San Juan River is heritage of the Nicaraguan people.
There was a dispute regarding San Juan River, and Costa Rica thought, some authorities in
Costa Rica thought, that the same could happen in that area as what happened in
Guanacaste… Nicaraguan territory. And we are speaking of thousands of square kilometres;
we are not talking of 3 square kilometres, 2.8 square kilometres in the Nicaraguan territory
of Harbour Head in the wetland… no, we are not talking about a tiny territory, we are
speaking of thousands of square kilometres. We could consider, given the circumstances,
and this is an issue that has not been discussed before the Court, we could consider taking
the case to the International Court of Justice. That would allow Nicaragua to recover an
immense territory, if the judgment were favourable for Nicaragua.
And there are historical grounds; there are also elements of confrontation and of fighting
Yankee expansionism... Note that we lost territories specifically when our country was
facing Yankee expansionism. And Costa Rica thought that since they were committing
troops in the battle against Yankee expansionism, which was also against them, and the
front line of battle was taking place in Nicaragua, afterward they considered that they had
to demand payment from Nicaragua, and charge the River and more territory; they even
wanted to take Lake Nicaragua! In other words, the ambitions of Costa Rican politicians who
have held power have gone that far; and History is right there, the Documents are there.
…
461Annex 80
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php/discurso/ver/12213/33-aniversario-…-
DISCURSOS
33 Aniversario de la Fuerza Naval
Miercoles, 14 de Agosto 2013 | Consejo de Comunicación y Ciudadanía
Acto del 33 Aniversario de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua. 13 de Agosto del
2013:
Maestro de Ceremonia
Presiden este Acto de Aniversario de la Fuerza Naval, el Presidente de la República y Jefe
Supremo del Ejército de Nicaragua, Comandante Daniel Ortega Saavedra; la Coordinadora
del Consejo de Comunicación y Ciudadanía, Compañera Rosario Murillo Zambrana; el
Comandante en Jefe del Ejército de Nicaragua, General de Ejército Julio César Avilés
Castillo; el Jefe del Estado Mayor General del Ejército de Nicaragua, Mayor General Oscar
Balladares Cardoza; el Inspector General del Ejército de Nicaragua, General de Brigada
Adolfo José Zepeda Martínez; la Secretaria General del Ministerio de Defensa, Doctora
Martha Elena Ruiz Sevilla; el Jefe de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua,
Contralmirante Marvin Elías Corrales Rodríguez; el Prelado de Honor de Su Santidad,
Monseñor Eddy Montenegro Avendaño.
También presiden este Acto, el Vicepresidente de la República, General de Ejército en Retiro
Moisés Omar Halleslevens Acevedo; Jefes y Delegados de Fuerzas Navales, Armadas y
Marinas de Guerra de, Federación de Rusia, República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Bolivia,
Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Panamá y Costa Rica;
462 Annex 80
Miembros de los Poderes del Estado y Gabinete de Gobierno; Directores de Entes
Autónomos e Instituciones Civiles Privadas, y Gerentes de Empresas.
Generales de Brigada y Oficiales Superiores; Miembros del Consejo Militar del Ejército de
Nicaragua; ex-Jefes de la Fuerza Naval en la honrosa Condición de Retiro; Miembros de la
Asociación de Agregados de Defensa; Militares Navales y Aéreos; Jefes de Misiones Militares
acreditados en Nicaragua, e Invitados Especiales.
Participan en este Acto, Oficiales de la Fuerza Naval en la honrosa Condición de Retiro;
Jefes, Oficiales, Suboficiales, Clases, Marineros y Personal Auxiliar de la Fuerza Naval;
Bloques de Tropas Representativos de la Fuerza Naval y Unidades Militares de la Capital;
Bloques Representativos de la Marina de Guerra de la Federación de Rusia; Hombres y
Mujeres de Prensa, e Invitados Especiales.
El Prelado de Honor de Su Santidad, Monseñor Eddy Montenegro Avendaño, dirigirá una
Invocación al Altísimo.
Invocación al Altísimo
Monseñor Eddy Montenegro Avendaño
Muy buenas tardes, Hermanas y Hermanos; Señor Presidente, Comandante Daniel Ortega
Saavedra; Compañera Rosario Murillo, Coordinadora del Consejo de Comunicación y
Ciudadanía; General Julio César Avilés; Hermanas y Hermanos que presiden; Hermanas y
Hermanos de nuestra Marina y del Ejército de Nicaragua; Hermanos de la Federación Rusa,
esa Gran Nación Hermana también de Nicaragua.
Esta tarde, bajo el Cielo Azul que nos regala el Señor en esta tarde, invocamos la Bendición
del Altísimo, especialmente sobre este Cuerpo de la Marina nicaragüense, en tiempos y en
un año tan especial en que nuestros Hermanos de la Marina patrullan esas aguas de la
Soberanía nicaragüense, restituida el año pasado por el Decreto de la Corte, y el resto de
todos nuestros Lagos, Ríos y Mares.
Por eso siempre cada año, en esta oportunidad invocamos la Bendición descendente sobre
ustedes, Marinos, sobre sus Familias, y principalmente sobre nuestra Patria Nicaragua, para
que continuemos siempre construyendo la Paz desde la Reconciliación; y habiendo Paz y
Reconciliación, hay Desarrollo y hay Progreso.
Bendice, pues, a nuestra Patria nicaragüense, de una manera muy especial en este día en
que nuestros ojos están viendo la acción, el actuar y el ser de nuestro Ejército a través de la
Marina. Que Dios los bendiga a cada uno de ustedes.
Maestro de Ceremonia
El Jefe de Personal y Cuadros del Ejército de Nicaragua, General de Brigada Ricardo
Sánchez Méndez, dará lectura a la Orden No. 0063-2013 del Comandante en Jefe, para
otorgar la Condecoración Medalla Honor al Mérito Naval en Primera y Segunda Clase.
Lectura de la Orden No. 0063-2013
del Comandante en Jefe
463Annex 80
“Orden del Comandante en Jefe del Ejército de Nicaragua, Número 0063-2013, para otorgar
la Medalla Honor al Mérito Naval en Primera y Segunda Clase, en el Acto Conmemorativo del
XXXIII Aniversario de Constitución de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua. Conforme a
facultad instituida en el Artículo 9, Inciso 8 de la Ley No. 181, Código de Organización,
Jurisdicción y Previsión Social Militar, en el Artículo 100 de la Normativa Interna Militar, y de
conformidad a lo establecido en el Artículo 292 de la Normativa para la prestación del
Servicio Militar Activo. Ordeno:
1°. Otorgar póstumamente la Medalla Honor al Mérito Naval en Primera Clase al Teniente de
Fragata Fernando Bermúdez López, en reconocimiento a su destacada participación como
Comandante de Guardacostas de la Fuerza Naval, y al Marinero Francisco Mena Baltodano,
en reconocimiento a su destacada participación como Artillero Naval de lanchas rápidas de
la Fuerza Naval.
2º. Otorgar la Medalla Honor al Mérito Naval en Primera Clase, al Teniente de Navío
Francisco Javier Díaz Mendoza, y al Teniente de Navío Juan Carlos Lira Meza, en
reconocimiento al cumplimiento de la primera travesía de la Misión Paz y Soberanía
“General Augusto C. Sandino”, demostrando un alto deber patriótico en nuestras aguas
restituidas por la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya.
3º. Otorgar la Medalla Honor al Mérito Naval en Primera Clase, en reconocimiento a los
Lazos de Amistad y Cooperación existentes con la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua, al
Almirante Gilberto Pinto Blanco, Comandante General de la Armada de la República
Bolivariana de Venezuela; al Vicealmirante Víctor Baldivieso Hache, Comandante General de
la Armada de la República de Bolivia; al Vicealmirante Carlos Antonio Lainfiesta Soto,
Comandante de la Marina de Guerra de la Defensa Nacional de la República de Guatemala;
al Contralmirante Rigoberto Espinoza Posadas, Comandante General de la Fuerza Naval de
la República de Honduras; al Capitán de Navío Miguel Ángel Castillo Guardado, Jefe del
Estado Mayor General de la Fuerza Naval de la República de El Salvador.
4°. Otorgar la Medalla Honor al Mérito Naval en Segunda Clase, en reconocimiento a los
Lazos de Amistad y Cooperación existentes con la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua, al
Contralmirante Rogelio Marbán Díaz, Agregado Naval a la Embajada de México en Panamá,
y representante del Secretario de la Marina de México; al Comisionado José de Jesús
Rodríguez, Jefe de la Primera Región Aeronaval del Servicio Nacional Aeronaval de la
República de Panamá; y al Comandante Javier Arturo Cubero Vargas, Oficial Director de la
Estación de Guardacostas Murciélago, del Servicio de Guardacostas de la República de Costa
Rica.
5º. En nombre del Ejército de Nicaragua, de la Comandancia General y en el mío propio, los
felicito por haber obtenido tan distinguida Condecoración.
Dado en la Comandancia General del Ejército de Nicaragua, El Chipote, Ciudad Managua,
Capital de la República, a los 13 días del mes de Agosto del año 2013. Comandante en Jefe
del Ejército de Nicaragua, General de Ejército Julio César Avilés Castillo”.
Contralmirante Marvin Elías Corrales
Jefe de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua
Comandante Daniel Ortega Saavedra, Presidente de la República y Jefe Supremo del
Ejército de Nicaragua; Compañera Rosario Murillo, Coordinadora del Consejo de
Comunicación y Ciudadanía; Vicepresidente de la República, General Omar Halleslevens
464 Annex 80
Acevedo; Comandante en Jefe del Ejército de Nicaragua, General de Ejército Julio César
Avilés Castillo; Jefe del Estado Mayor General, Mayor General Oscar Balladares Cardoza;
Inspector General, General de Brigada Adolfo Zepeda Martínez.
Doctora Martha Ruiz, Secretaria General del Ministerio de Defensa; Monseñor Eddy
Montenegro; Funcionarios de los distintos Poderes del Estado; Delegaciones Navales
extranjeras; Agregados Militares, Navales y Aéreos, y Jefes de Misiones Militares
acreditados en nuestro País; Oficiales Generales, Superiores, Subalternos, Clases, Soldados,
Marineros y Auxiliares, presentes en este Acto; Invitad@s Especiales, Medios de
Comunicación Social.
Desde esta Plaza de la Revolución, lugar lleno de Historia, donde hace 34 Años el Pueblo
celebró el Triunfo de la Revolución, hoy nos honramos en Celebrar el 33 Aniversario de la
Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua.
Quisiera agradecer la presencia de ustedes nuestr@s Invitad@s, que están compartiendo
con nosotros esta Celebración. Su presencia reafirma el compromiso de seguir trabajando,
permanente y eficientemente, tratando de mejorar día a día nuestro desempeño.
La Fuerza Naval tiene la Misión de garantizar el respeto a nuestra Soberanía en las fronteras
marítimas, la seguridad portuaria, el control del tráfico y la seguridad marítima. Realizar
operaciones contra el narcotráfico, la piratería marítima, el tráfico ilegal de armas y de
personas, la pesca ilegal, el contrabando de los productos del mar. Brindar protección a los
Recursos Naturales y al Medio Ambiente, Marino, Lacustres y Pluvial; y como una Misión
Especial, realizar operaciones de búsqueda, salvamento y rescate marítimo, así como el
apoyo a la población civil ante situaciones de Desastres Naturales.
Para lograr resultados efectivos en nuestras Misiones, la profesionalización de nuestro
personal constituye un elemento fundamental. Es necesario contar con personal altamente
calificado y con Vocación de Servicio.
Educados para la premisa del Sistema de Valores, orientados por el Comandante en Jefe, la
Fuerza Naval forma Hombres y Mujeres de Bien, dispuest@s a cumplir con su Misión con
Honor y Ética Militar, con un profundo sentido Patrio de Dignidad e Identidad Nacional,
inspirados en el Espíritu de Lucha de nuestros antepasados.
Es por ello que constantemente realizamos esfuerzos en el adiestramiento elevando los
conocimientos en los niveles de Jefes y Oficiales, Especialistas y Tropas, habiendo cumplido
un total de 1,928 horas lectivas de adiestramiento, que permite afrontar situaciones
extremas en el teatro de operaciones navales de responsabilidad.
Hemos cumplido los Planes de Educación Patriótica, haciendo énfasis en el fortalecimiento
de Valores y Principios, así como en lo relacionado al conocimiento de la Historia de nuestra
Patria y de la gesta de nuestros Héroes Nacionales.
En cuanto a la Técnica Naval hemos logrado mantener el 98% de disposición técnica en
todos nuestros medios. Con el apoyo del Comandante en Jefe y la Comandancia General,
hemos logrado el mejoramiento en las condiciones de vida de nuestro personal. Hoy
contamos con mejores condiciones, que ha permitido incrementar la operatividad y
presencia de nuestras Tripulaciones en los lugares más alejados del Litoral Caribe, así como
en los Lagos y sectores ribereños del interior del País, para posicionarnos con mejores
465Annex 80
controles de nuestros Litorales y Aguas Interiores, que nos permite incrementar los niveles
de estabilidad y seguridad en todos esos sectores.
En el período de Agosto del 2012 a Julio del presente año, en cumplimiento de los diferentes
Planes del Ejército de Nicaragua, hemos obtenido los siguientes resultados: Se realizaron
6,432 Misiones de todo tipo, navegando un total de 82,410.5 millas náuticas.
En la lucha contra el narcotráfico se incautaron 3,000 kilos con 473 gramos de cocaína y 22
kilos con 104 gramos de marihuana. Se ocuparon 38,013 dólares, los que fueron
entregados mediante Acta a las Autoridades competentes. Se ocuparon 19 narco-lanchas y
fueron capturados 17 narcotraficantes. En nuestras aguas jurisdiccionales fueron capturadas
y detenidas 57 embarcaciones de diferentes nacionalidades, con 215 tripulantes en labores
de pesca ilegal. Se ocuparon 141,297.33 pies tablares, 2,011 tucas, y 8,932 piezas de
madera de diferentes especies.
En búsqueda, salvamento y rescate se cumplieron 71 Misiones, logrando auxiliar a 32
embarcaciones, 128 personas, y rescatar 17 cadáveres. Brindamos seguridad y protección a
527 buques mercantes que recalaron en nuestros Puertos, y manejaron una carga con un
peso que asciende a 3 millones 651,447 toneladas métricas. Garantizamos la seguridad de
27 cruceros que permitieron el arribo de 27,990 turistas y tripulantes. Se realizaron 220
controles al uso correcto de los Dispositivos Exclusores de Tortugas, tanto en Puertos como
en alta mar. Se realizaron 129,163 sondeos a embarcaciones de todo tipo.
La Fuerza Naval ha contribuido a la Economía Nacional, apoyando la Seguridad de las
embarcaciones que realizan faenas de pesca, contribuyendo a que este sector exporte un
poco más de 63 millones de libras de producto, las que representan alrededor de 203
millones de dólares. Hemos participado en la Comisión de Seguridad Portuaria, realizando
16 inspecciones a los principales Puertos de nuestro País, con el propósito de mantener los
parámetros de seguridad establecidos en los Convenios Internacionales, garantizando que
los cinco Puertos certificados como Puertos Seguros mantengan esa condición.
En apoyo al Proceso Democrático de nuestro País, participamos activamente en el Proceso
de Elecciones Municipales del año recién pasado. Garantizando la seguridad y transportación
acuática del Material Electoral y de Funcionarios del Consejo Supremo Electoral hacia los
lugares más alejados del territorio del Caribe nicaragüense. Garantizando que los habitantes
de esos lugares pudieran ejercer su Derecho al Voto, para lo cual cubrimos 15 rutas; se
transportaron un total de 32,620 libras, y se navegó 1,520 millas náuticas.
Estos son los resultados del trabajo de nosotros los Miembros de la Fuerza Naval en el
período señalado.
Un reconocimiento especial a l@s Compañer@s que desde el 25 de Noviembre del año
pasado han cumplido con éxito la Misión Paz y Soberanía “General Augusto C. Sandino”, en
cumplimiento al objetivo principal ordenado por nuestro Comandante en Jefe, de ejercer
Soberanía en el mar y espacio aéreo jurisdiccional, restituido a Nicaragua por la Corte
Internacional de Justicia, donde hemos garantizado de manera
sostenida la presencia permanente de nuestras Unidades de Superficie en los espacios
restituidos.
En este Acto de Aniversario asumimos los Jefes, Oficiales, Clases, Comandos, Marineros y
Personal Auxiliar de la Fuerza Naval, el compromiso de elevar nuestra eficacia y eficiencia, y
de fortalecer la lealtad y cohesión, cuidando siempre el Honor, la Disciplina, la Firmeza y el
466 Annex 80
Prestigio de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua. Sigamos sirviendo a nuestro Pueblo,
siempre vigilantes y atentos, para salvaguardar los intereses de la Patria y los Valores
Supremos en la Defensa de la
Libertad, la Independencia y la Soberanía de nuestro Pueblo.
Queremos expresar nuestro reconocimiento a los familiares que en nombre de nuestros
Hermanos caídos en cumplimiento del Deber, recibieron en este Acto la Condecoración
Honor al Mérito Naval, así como a los que han sido condecorados por su actuación
destacada en la Misión Paz y Soberanía “General Augusto C. Sandino”, y a los que la
recibieron como muestra del fortalecimiento de los Lazos de Amistad y Cooperación
existentes entre las Fuerzas Navales.
Un agradecimiento especial a nuestros Invitados extranjeros. Al Comandante General de la
Armada Bolivariana de Venezuela, Almirante Gilberto Pinto Blanco, y su estimada esposa.
Gracias por los mensajes de saludo, y por la Medalla Almirante Sebastián Francisco de
Miranda, que me fue otorgada.
Al Comandante General de la Armada Boliviana, Vicealmirante Víctor Baldivieso Hache, y su
estimada esposa; al Comandante de la Marina de la Defensa Nacional de Guatemala,
Vicealmirante Carlos Antonio Lainfiesta Soto; al Comandante General de la Fuerza Naval de
Honduras, Contralmirante Rigoberto Espinoza Posadas, y su estimada esposa.
Al Jefe del Estado Mayor General de la Fuerza Naval de El Salvador, Capitán de Navío Miguel
Ángel Castillo Guardado, y su estimada esposa; al Agregado Naval a la Embajada de México
en Panamá, Contralmirante Rogelio Marbán Díaz, Representante del Secretario de Marina de
México, y su estimada esposa; al Jefe de la Primera Región Aeronaval del Servicio Nacional
Aeronaval de Panamá, Comisionado José de Jesús Rodríguez; y al Comandante Javier Arturo
Cubero Vargas, Oficial Director de la Estación de Guardacostas Murciélago, del Servicio
Nacional de Guardacostas de Costa Rica.
De igual manera, agradecer la presencia de la Delegación de la Marina de Guerra de la
Federación de Rusia, del Contralmirante Valery Vladimirovich Kulikov, Jefe del Grupo de los
Buques de Guerra; y al Capitán de Navío, Serguei Ivanovich Tronev, Jefe del Crucero de
Cohetes Moscú. Y agradecerles el haber enviado parte de la tripulación de Marinos rusos y
su buque, que hoy nos honran con su presencia en este Acto como una muestra de los
Lazos de Amistad y Cooperación existente entre nuestras Fuerzas Navales.
Queremos reiterarles el agradecimiento de los Miembros de la Fuerza Naval a los que nos
entregaron Placas de Reconocimiento; y a todos por compartir con nosotros este
Aniversario. Tengan la certeza que su presencia nos fortalece para cumplir cada día de la
mejor manera posible nuestras Tareas y Misiones.
Nuestro saludo y agradecimiento a los familiares del Coronel del Ejército Defensor de la
Soberanía Nacional, Abraham Rivera, y del Comandante Hilario Sánchez, por estar
presentes acompañándonos en este Aniversario.
Queremos agradecer y expresar nuestro reconocimiento a los Oficiales de la Fuerza Naval
en la honrosa Condición de Retiro, que hoy se han hecho presentes para compartir con
nosotros esta noche especial. Así como a los Jefes de la Fuerza Naval que jugaron un papel
importante en el desarrollo de la misma... en primer lugar, al Comandante Richard Lugo,
cuya familia nos acompaña esta noche; al Capitán de Navío Manuel Rivas Guatemala; al
467Annex 80
General Omar Halleslevens; al Contralmirante Juan Estrada y su esposa; y al Contralmirante
Róger González y su esposa, gracias por su presencia.
Nuestro recuerdo lleno de respeto y admiración a los Miembros de la Fuerza Naval, que a lo
largo de todos estos años han entregado su valiosa Vida en el cumplimiento del Deber por
nuestra Patria. Sus lecciones son la guía de nuestro quehacer diario, y su ejemplo
permanece en lo más profundo de nuestros corazones.
Agradecemos muy especialmente a nuestras Familias, por el apoyo permanente y solidario
que nos permite siempre cumplir con nuestro Sagrado Deber de servir a la Patria.
¡Viva el 33 Aniversario de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua! ¡Viva el 34 Aniversario
del Ejército de Nicaragua! ¡Viva el Ejército de Nicaragua! Muchas gracias.
General Julio César Avilés
Comandante en Jefe del Ejército de Nicaragua
Comandante Daniel Ortega, Presidente de la República y Jefe Supremo del Ejército de
Nicaragua; Compañera Rosario Murillo, Coordinadora del Consejo de Comunicación y
Ciudadanía; Hermanos de la Comandancia General, Mayor General Balladares, General
Zepeda; General de Ejército en Retiro, Omar Halleslevens, Vicepresidente de la República;
Contralmirante Marvin Corrales, Jefe de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua; Doctor
Julio Centeno, Fiscal General de la República; Canciller Samuel Santos.
Hermanos de la Policía Nacional, Subdirectores Generales Javier Meynard y Francisco Díaz;
Licenciada Martha Ruiz, Secretaria General del Ministerio de Defensa; señor Nikolay
Vladimir, Embajador de la Federación de Rusia; estimados Magistrados, Ministros,
Autoridades Gubernamentales, Alcaldes, y Representantes de Organizaciones de la Pesca;
Hermanos del Consejo Militar, ex-Jefes de la Fuerza Naval en la honrosa Condición de
Retiro; Delegaciones Internacionales de Venezuela, Bolivia, Guatemala, Federación de
Rusia, Honduras, El Salvador, México, Costa Rica y Panamá.
Agregados de Defensa, Militares, Navales y Aéreos, y Jefes de Misiones Militares acreditados
en nuestro País; estimados Jefes, Oficiales, Clases, Marineros y Personal Auxiliar de la
Fuerza Naval; Bloques Representativos de las Unidades Militares aquí formados; apreciados
familiares de nuestros Marineros y de nuestros Hermanos caídos en el Cumplimiento del
Deber; Monseñor Eddy Montenegro, le agradecemos sus Oraciones y Bendiciones; Invitados
Especiales; Amig@s de los Medios de Comunicación, gracias a tod@s por acompañarnos.
Este día conmemoramos el 33 Aniversario de constitución de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de
Nicaragua. En tan especial ocasión, queremos expresarles a todos sus integrantes las
felicitaciones y el merecido reconocimiento en nombre de la Comandancia General, el
Consejo Militar, los Oficiales, Clases, Soldados y Personal Auxiliar del Ejército de Nicaragua.
33 Años de entrega y dedicación cumpliéndole a la Patria, protegiendo nuestros mares, y
haciendo cumplir nuestras Leyes... ¡Cuánta Valentía, Dignidad y Patriotismo en ustedes
Hermanos Marineros! Todos son poseedores de una voluntad sin límites en sus Misiones de
Resguardo de nuestros Mares Soberanos, miles y miles de millas navegadas de día y de
noche en condiciones climáticas complejas. Navegación que se ha incrementado en más de
un 30% ahora que con la Ley y la razón de nuestro lado nos corresponde navegar en los
mares restituidos por la Corte Internacional de Justicia a Nicaragua.
468 Annex 80
Como tod@s conocemos, el 19 de Noviembre recién pasado la Corte Internacional de
Justicia reconoció los Derechos de Nicaragua muy al Este del Meridiano 82. Para ese día ya
estábamos listos para ejercer nuestra Soberanía a mayores distancias de nuestras costas,
aún con las limitaciones existentes.
El cumplimiento de la Misión Paz y Soberanía “General Augusto C. Sandino”, la iniciamos a
la orden del Presidente de la República el 25 de Noviembre, y desde esa fecha nuestra
Bandera Nacional ondea orgullosa en nuestras naves en esos amplios mares que nos
pertenecen. Nuestro reconocimiento especial a todos los Jefes, Oficiales, Sargentos y
Marineros que han estado cumpliendo esta Sagrada Misión.
Igualmente, queremos reconocer todos los esfuerzos permanentes por asistir a
embarcaciones y tripulaciones en peligro; por atender a pobladores en situaciones de
riesgo; por proteger los Recursos Naturales, y crear condiciones favorables para la actividad
pesquera de pequeñas, medianas y grandes embarcaciones. Nuestro reconocimiento por su
contribución en la seguridad de la navegación y sus aportes a la seguridad de nuestros
Puertos, lo que facilita el arribo, zarpe, movimiento de cargas y el turismo.
No podemos dejar de mencionar los aportes de nuestra Fuerza Naval a la Seguridad del
País, misma que se ve altamente beneficiada por la eficiente labor que desarrollamos en la
lucha contra el narcotráfico y el crimen organizado. Nuestros Marineros forman parte en la
primera línea de defensa de la Seguridad de la Nación, y con sus acciones capturan y
desvían droga que pretende circular por nuestro territorio. En este esfuerzo contra el
narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, mantenemos excelentes niveles de coordinación con
países con los cuales tenemos límites en nuestros mares.
Asimismo destacamos, que tenemos excelentes niveles de cooperación con los Estados
Unidos de América, en el marco del Convenio firmado en el año 2001 para la lucha contra el
narcotráfico. Y les agradecemos el apoyo brindado con la entrega de lanchas, equipos,
entrenamiento, y en la construcción y remodelación de instalaciones en el Distrito Naval
Atlántico.
En Agosto del año 2012, fue abanderado por usted Presidente, el Destacamento Naval de
Aguas Interiores “Comandante Hilario Sánchez”. Este Destacamento tiene entre sus
Misiones aportar a la seguridad en la navegación de las aguas interiores; asistir a la
población en caso de Desastres Naturales, y contribuir a la lucha contra el narcotráfico.
Un año después de su despliegue y puesta en operación, hemos hecho dos Ejercicios en
correspondencia con las Misiones que este Destacamento tiene planteada. Ejercicios en los
que hemos interactuado sobre objetivos únicos con Instituciones del Gobierno, como la
Empresa Portuaria Nacional, el Ministerio de Transporte, el Ministerio de Salud, el
SINAPRED, el INTUR, y también con las Alcaldías Municipales, y poblaciones ribereñas.
El despliegue del Destacamento Naval de Aguas Interiores nos significó un gran reto. Nos
desplegamos en las riberas de los lagos y ríos en condiciones de campaña muy difíciles;
hoy, un año después, además de tenerlo dotado con medios de comunicación y los medios
navales necesarios para el cumplimiento de sus Misiones, hemos mejorado las condiciones
de vida y de trabajo con la construcción o instalación de Módulos prefabricados en 14
puntos, los cuales tenemos en Granada, Solentiname, Malacatoya, San Carlos, San
Miguelito y en el Lago de Managua, entre otros sitios.
469Annex 80
No podemos hablar de este logro sin agradecer a la Federación de Rusia por el apoyo dado
a nuestra Fuerza Naval, para estos fines. Este año, en el marco de las relaciones de Amistad
y Cooperación, hemos tenido la visita de buques de China-Taiwán en Abril; y ahora en
Agosto tenemos la visita de la Federación de Rusia, quienes también tienen dos Bloques
Representativos participando en esta Ceremonia. Nuestro agradecimiento a ambas Fuerzas
Navales por estas visitas que nos han realizado.
Este día también queremos agradecer la presencia de las Delegaciones Navales amigas que
nos acompañan, y felicitarlos por las Condecoraciones recibidas de manos del Presidente de
la República. Nuestras felicitaciones a los Jefes de Delegaciones de Venezuela, Bolivia,
Guatemala, de la Federación de Rusia, Honduras, El Salvador, México, Costa Rica y Panamá.
Aprovecho para manifestar mi agradecimiento a la Armada de la República Bolivariana de
Venezuela, por la Condecoración que me fue impuesta por el Almirante Gilberto Pinto
Blanco. Muchísimas gracias.
Nuestro reconocimiento a los que póstumamente recibieron condecoraciones, al Teniente de
Fragata Fernando Bermúdez López, y al Marinero Francisco Mena Baltodano, ambos caídos
en el Cumplimiento del Deber en Misiones en los años 84 y 85.
Nuestras felicitaciones a los Tenientes de Navío, Lira Meza y Díaz Mendoza, Capitanes de los
Guardacostas, General de División José Dolores Estrada y Río Grande de Matagalpa,
respectivamente, que son los que incursionaron por primera vez después del Fallo de la
Corte Internacional de Justicia en las aguas del Caribe que nos fueron restituidas.
En el marco de esta Ceremonia queremos agradecer a las diferentes Instituciones que nos
apoyan para el exitoso cumplimiento de las Misiones de la Fuerza Naval; y de manera
especial a usted, Presidente de la República, por darnos siempre su respaldo.
Nuestras felicitaciones a todos los Miembros que integran la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de
Nicaragua, y por supuesto, a través de ustedes a sus familiares.
Nuestro reconocimiento a todos los que a lo largo de estos 33 Años contribuyeron a
fortalecer esta rama del Ejército de Nicaragua. Felicidades también a usted, Contralmirante
Corrales. Felicidades a los Jefes, Oficiales, Sargentos y Marineros, por los logros alcanzados.
Para finalizar, queremos reafirmar a nuestro Pueblo, que con Patriotismo y Dignidad, y los
modestos medios que tenemos, seguiremos cumpliendo en Paz las Misiones de Resguardo
de nuestros Mares Soberanos.
¡Viva el 33 Aniversario de Constitución de la Fuerza Naval! ¡Viva el Ejército de Nicaragua!
Muchas gracias.
Palabras de Daniel
Ahora que el Almirante Gilberto Pinto Blanco, Comandante General de la Armada de la
República Bolivariana de Venezuela, nos imponía en el pecho... en el pecho del Pueblo
nicaragüense, en el pecho de Sandino, en el pecho de Carlos, de Tomás, de Santos López;
en el pecho de quienes se enfrentaron al expansionismo yanqui en el siglo antepasado; en
el pecho de nuestros ancestros, de nuestros Caciques, de nuestros Héroes, con Diriangén a
la cabeza.
470 Annex 80
Qué honor para l@s nicaragüenses recibir esta Condecoración que representa la Fuerza
Liberadora de Miranda... Yo conocí a Miranda a través de la lectura, y para conocer a Bolívar
había que conocer a Miranda; y en Sandino encontramos al Hijo de Bolívar.
Y hoy, en estos Nuevos Tiempos de Nuestramérica Caribeña, de Unidad, de Integración, en
la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños, en el ALBA, en PETROCARIBE, en
los diferentes Procesos de Integración Sub-Regionales que se viven en toda la Región, para
nosotros es reconocer lo que ha significado en este Proceso, Bolívar a través de Chávez. Por
eso bien lo dice el Almirante Pinto Blanco, que así lo llama y lo dice el Pueblo Bolivariano; y
lo dicen nuestros Pueblos, y el Pueblo nicaragüense, en este mismo sitio donde el 10 de
Enero del año 2012, estuvo el Presidente-Comandante Hugo Chávez Frías,
acompañándonos.
¡Chávez vive...! Chávez vive en la lucha que libran los Pueblos Latinoamericanos y
Caribeños, por la Unidad, por la Integración, que nos permiten acercarnos más con un
objetivo común, y es, ¡Unid@s somos más Fuertes! Unid@s, al ser más Fuertes, entonces se
nos respeta en la Comunidad Internacional. Unid@s, podemos desarrollar Programas y
Políticas en Beneficio de las Familias Latinoamericanas y Caribeñas, ¿para qué? Para
sacarlas de la pobreza.
Porque es un gran reto que tenemos en toda América Latina y El Caribe... sacar a nuestros
Pueblos de la pobreza, de la miseria, del analfabetismo, en que lo ha venido enterrando
periódicamente el Capitalismo Salvaje, como bien lo llamó Juan Pablo II; y traerles
Bienestar a nuestros Pueblos... Salud, Educación, Trabajo. Esos son los grandes objetivos, y
para alcanzar esos grandes objetivos es fundamental la Estabilidad, la Seguridad, en
nuestras Naciones y en nuestras Regiones.
De ahí, la trascendencia que tiene el hecho de que estamos siendo respetuosos, estamos
demostrando ser respetuosos los Gobiernos Latinoamericanos y Caribeños; estamos
demostrando ser respetuosos del Principio de resolver nuestras diferencias por la vía del
diálogo, por la vía de la negociación. Y en el caso extremo, ya nunca jamás recurrir a
aquellas guerras fratricidas que bañaron nuestros territorios, sino recurrir a los Organismos
Internacionales que están instalados para poder pronunciarse, para definir lo que le
corresponde a cada quién.
Nicaragua tiene una larga historia en lo que es el acatamiento a los Organismos
Internacionales, en lo que es el recurrir a los Organismos Internacionales, a la Corte
Internacional de Justicia. Ahí hemos recurrido en múltiples ocasiones, en algunas ocasiones
el resultado ha sido adverso para Nicaragua... territorio en litigio que era disputado con la
Hermana República de Honduras.
El Fallo favoreció a Honduras, y nosotros indiscutiblemente reconocemos ese Fallo, se
reconoció en su momento, y lo seguimos reconociendo. Es un Fallo que al triunfar la
Revolución en el 79, no lo pusimos en duda, no lo pusimos en cuestión; ya había fallado la
Corte, por lo tanto no había razón alguna para venir a desconocer ese Fallo.
En cambio, un Tratado, un Acuerdo, que fue impuesto a Nicaragua allá por los años 1928,
cuando nuestro País estaba ocupado por las Tropas de la Marinería norteamericana; una
larga ocupación a la cual se enfrentó y resistió Sandino. En esas dolorosas circunstancias se
le impuso a Nicaragua, recurriendo como siempre a los que Sandino llamaba: “Peleles y
vendepatrias”, que los nombraron los yanquis como Presidentes en nuestro País, en
Elecciones que en ese entonces, incluso, el Consejo Electoral eran las Tropas yanquis, las
471Annex 80
Tropas de la Marinería yanqui... ¡Fíjense qué trabajo! las Tropas de la Marinería yanqui
ejerciendo la labor de Consejo Supremo Electoral en Nicaragua.
En esa circunstancia se impuso ese Tratado, y bueno, el Pueblo no lo aceptaba, y las nuevas
generaciones no lo aceptaban. Y saltamos del año 1928 al año 1979, el Triunfo de la
Revolución Popular Sandinista; y uno de los primeros actos legítimos de Gobierno de ejercer
Soberanía, fue el Decreto de la Junta de Gobierno, que en ese momento dijimos: Ese
Tratado es nulo de toda nulidad; por lo tanto, no lo podemos reconocer.
Y fuimos donde el Juez, porque no íbamos a plantearnos, aunque hubiésemos tenido la
fuerza militar no íbamos a plantearnos la vía militar para resolver ese Diferendo, sino que
dijimos: Vamos a la Corte; y fuimos a la Corte Internacional de Justicia. A esa misma Corte
a la que recurrimos en medio de la guerra, y que dictó un Fallo, una Sentencia Histórica,
donde condenó al Gobierno encabezado por el Presidente Ronald Reagan, que en Paz
descanse. Le condenó por todos los crímenes cometidos en Nicaragua; por los actos de
terrorismo cometidos en Nicaragua, por el minado de los Puertos, por la destrucción de
escuelas, por la destrucción de puentes; por el asesinato de Maestr@s, por el asesinato de
Médicos, por la muerte de miles de jóvenes, de miles de nicaragüenses. Lo condenó a
Estados Unidos, y ahí está la Sentencia.
Yo le decía en una entrevista un día de estos a RT, la Televisión Rusa, de la Federación
Rusa. Me preguntaban por el Fallo, y les decía que esa Sentencia sigue viva. Llegará el día
en que habrá una Administración en los Estados Unidos que reconocerá lo que dicta ese
Fallo, e indemnizará a Nicaragua, tal y como lo manda el Fallo de la Corte de Justicia.
Y fuimos a la Corte también, de común acuerdo Honduras y Nicaragua, para delimitar
nuestra línea en el territorio marítimo, en el Mar Caribe. Y el día de la Sentencia nos
reunimos los dos Presidentes: el Presidente Manuel Zelaya y yo, para dar una señal de
respeto a lo que es la Autoridad mundial en esa materia.
Y con Costa Rica hemos ido en múltiples ocasiones también a la Corte, y ahora continuamos
en la Corte con Costa Rica. Siempre dispuestos a dialogar con Costa Rica, siempre
dispuestos a buscar acuerdos con Costa Rica; pero mientras no se abra ese camino,
mientras Costa Rica no contemple ese camino, no considere esa posibilidad, no queda más
camino que continuar en la Corte; y continuamos en la Corte.
La Corte que falló también con toda claridad que el Río San Juan es Patrimonio de l@s
nicaragüenses. Había un Diferendo alrededor del Río San Juan, y Costa Rica pensaba,
algunas Autoridades en Costa Rica pensaban que podía pasar lo mismo que sucedió con
toda esa Zona que está en El Guanacaste... territorio nicaragüense. Y ahí estamos hablando
de miles de kilómetros cuadrados; no estamos hablando de 3 kilómetros cuadrados, 2.8
kilómetros cuadrados en ese territorio nicaragüense de Harbour Head en el humedal... no,
no estamos hablando de un territorio minúsculo, estamos hablando de miles de kilómetros
cuadrados. Nosotros podríamos considerar dada las circunstancias, y que este es un tema
que no ha sido debatido en la Corte, podríamos considerar llevar el caso a la Corte
Internacional de Justicia. Eso le permitiría a Nicaragua recuperar un inmenso territorio, si la
Sentencia favoreciese a Nicaragua.
Y hay fundamentos históricos, hay elementos también de confrontación y enfrentamiento al
expansionismo yanqui... Fíjense que hemos perdido territorios precisamente cuando nuestro
País ha estado enfrentado al expansionismo yanqui entonces. Y Costa Rica pensó que, como
estaban ellos comprometiendo tropas en el enfrentamiento contra el expansionismo yanqui,
472 Annex 80
que también iba contra ellos, y donde la primera línea de combate se estaba dando en
Nicaragua, entonces después consideraron que había que cobrarle a Nicaragua, y cobrarle el
Río y cobrarle más territorio, ¡hasta el Lago le querían cobrar a Nicaragua! O sea, hasta allí
han llegado las ambiciones de algunos políticos en Costa Rica que han ejercido poder; y ahí
está la Historia, ahí están los Documentos.
Entonces, pienso que eventualmente podemos también recurrir a la Corte, como es nuestro
derecho también en el caso de la Hermana República de Colombia, es nuestro derecho a
aspirar al Mar Territorial, es decir, a lo que está pendiente de definición en Instrumentos y
Organismos de Naciones Unidas. Porque con Colombia teníamos ese territorio donde se dio
ese Tratado en el período de la ocupación norteamericana.
Les decía que triunfó la Revolución, y entonces desconocimos el Tratado; luego fuimos a la
Corte, y después de tantos años, en Noviembre del año pasado falló la Corte. Y la Corte le
reconoció a Nicaragua lo que en derecho le corresponde a Nicaragua... 90,000 kilómetros
cuadrados recuperados. ¿Que no se logró reincorporar a Nicaragua las Islas de San Andrés?
Bueno, no nos queda más que ser respetuosos con la Sentencia. La Sentencia favoreció en
ese sentido a Colombia con San Andrés, y a Nicaragua con el Mar.
Nosotros desde ese momento hemos estado ejerciendo labores normales que se ejercen en
las aguas que le pertenecen a un Estado, en este caso al Estado nicaragüense.
Inmediatamente después del Fallo se empezó a navegar ¿con quién? con la Fuerza Naval, ¿y
acompañados de quién? de la Fuerza Aérea... Fuerzas Navales muy modestas las nuestras,
que ameritan lógicamente un fortalecimiento, y estamos trabajando para que se puedan
fortalecer nuestras Fuerzas Navales, con ánimo de Paz y Seguridad. Porque las Fuerzas
Navales se encuentran ahora, y se combinan, y lo decía antes, para enfrentar la pobreza,
para enfrentar la miseria, para enfrentar el hambre.
Tenemos que combatir el narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, porque esa es la principal
amenaza a la seguridad que tienen nuestros países; esa es la mayor amenaza. Y hay un
convencimiento de que es necesario unir esfuerzos, y hemos venido uniendo esfuerzos...
primero, en nuestra Subregión aquí en Centroamérica, en el Caribe, coordinando también
actividades con la Hermana República de Colombia.
Y hemos venido también trabajando con los Hermanos venezolanos, que hoy nos han
honrado con este Reconocimiento a nuestro Pueblo. Nuestros saludos a Nicolás, a Cilia; a la
Ministra de Defensa, la Ministra del Poder Popular para la Defensa, la Almirante en Jefe
Carmen Meléndez Rivas, para ella también nuestros saludos.
Igualmente, hemos trabajado con los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica... Cuando se
acordaron, cuando se tomaron estos Acuerdos, estos Convenios, recuerdo bien que había un
planteamiento de parte de los norteamericanos de instalar una base allá en el Caribe, en la
Zona de Bilwi. Nosotros estábamos en la oposición, y nos pidieron una reunión, nos
reunimos con ellos, y les manifestamos, yo les decía: Si Estados Unidos quiere ayudar en el
combate al narcotráfico, no es instalando bases aquí en Nicaragua, sino fortaleciendo las
Instituciones que tiene Nicaragua; fortaleciendo al Ejército, fortaleciendo a la Fuerza Naval,
fortaleciendo a la Fuerza Aérea. No haciéndolas a un lado instalando sus bases, imponiendo
sus tropas, imponiendo sus medios. Lo que necesitamos es que Estados Unidos aporte al
fortalecimiento de estas Instituciones que al final de cuentas le están cuidando las espaldas
a los Estados Unidos, aquí en la Región Centroamericana.
473Annex 80
Ese fue nuestro planteamiento, y uno de los puntos de mayor discusión es el que tenía que
ver con el patrullaje conjunto, que realmente se trata de una operación combinada donde la
Fuerza Naval norteamericana, que ya conocemos su poderío, patrulla en el Mar Caribe como
puede patrullar también en el Pacífico más allá de las 12 millas. Que ellos patrullen en
aguas internacionales, y luego, en coordinación con el Ejército y llevando Oficiales del
Ejército en las naves, se desarrollan operaciones para combatir el narcotráfico; operaciones
que han sido efectivas, y ha habido un buen trabajo en esa dirección.
Y ha habido algún aporte de parte de los Estados Unidos, en los últimos días aportaron dos
lanchas, yo diría que es el aporte más significativo de los últimos tiempos, las dos lanchas;
luego están barcos norteamericanos que traen Cuerpos Médicos que atienden a la población.
Hemos autorizado ese tipo de intercambios, porque la población recibe beneficios, y
también ellos están conociendo la realidad.
Los Soldados norteamericanos que vienen a nuestro País se están dando cuenta de la
realidad de Nicaragua; y estoy seguro que cada vez que viene un Soldado norteamericano a
Nicaragua debe de decir: ¿Cómo es posible que allá en las escuelas nos digan que
Nicaragua es una amenaza para la seguridad de los Estados Unidos? No lo pueden creer ya
cuando están en Nicaragua. A Oficiales norteamericanos les han dicho que Nicaragua es una
amenaza para la seguridad de los Estados Unidos. Ese tipo de planteamiento yo digo que ha
venido quedando realmente ya muy debilitado... Nicaragua más bien le ayuda a los Estados
Unidos, y los Estados Unidos todavía no retribuyen como deberían de retribuir la ayuda que
Nicaragua le brinda a los Estados Unidos. Nosotros tenemos que ser claros.
Y esta es una actitud compartida... compartida digo en la Región. En la Región hay un
malestar en este sentido, porque como que le resulta más fácil a Estados Unidos colocar
bases militares, en lugar de fortalecer a las Instituciones locales, a las Fuerzas Navales, a
las Fuerzas Aéreas; a las Fuerzas que están en la lucha contra el narcotráfico y el crimen
organizado, a las Fuerzas de la Policía. O sea, todavía ellos comprometen recursos, porque
han comprometido recursos, los comprometieron en la Reunión que se llevó a cabo en
Guatemala en el mes de Junio del año 2011. Allí se comprometieron la Comunidad
Internacional y Estados Unidos. Pero cuando nos reunimos los Presidentes
Centroamericanos, y revisamos la Agenda sobre el cumplimiento de esos compromisos, nos
encontramos con que muy poco se ha hecho de parte de los que se comprometieron a
aportar recursos; muy poco, muy poco.
Eso no tiene nada que ver, no hay punto de comparación entre los miles y miles de billones
de dólares que se comprometen en las guerras que se están librando allá lejos, en otras
Regiones, con los centavos que colocan aquí en la Región Centroamericana... ¡son centavos
realmente! Lo que sí debo destacar es que tenemos con los Estados Unidos una buena
relación en cuanto al combate contra el narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, con ese
problema que nos afecta a todos en la Región.
Igualmente, otras Naciones como la Federación Rusa con los cuales nosotros tenemos
relaciones históricas. En esta Nueva Etapa la Federación Rusa, a partir del año 2007 ha
venido estrechando relaciones con Nicaragua en todos los Campos y, ya se llevaron a cabo
las primeras operaciones contra el narcotráfico en el Mar Caribe con la Naval de la
Federación Rusa, intercambiando información, Inteligencia, y se golpeado ya al narcotráfico.
Porque la verdad es que, para enfrentar al narcotráfico tenemos que unir fuerzas tod@s; y
nosotros lógicamente estamos buscando más recursos para la Fuerza Naval. Porque la Zona
que hay que cubrir ahora frente al narcotráfico y el crimen organizado es mucho mayor con
474 Annex 80
el territorio recuperado, los 90,000 kilómetros recuperados en el Mar Caribe. Eso demanda
de más y mejores medios navales para patrullar la Zona. Que tengan más autonomía para
penetrar en la Zona, hacer labores de vigilancia, y combatir en primer lugar... porque la
prioridad allí es combatir el narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, porque es un asunto de
Seguridad, para Nicaragua y para toda la Región, ¡asunto de Seguridad!
Nosotros claro que estamos haciendo gestiones... hacemos gestiones, buscamos recursos,
buscamos el apoyo correspondiente, para poder contar con mayores y mejores medios
navales. No para hacerle daño a Pueblo Hermano alguno, sino para enfrentar el narcotráfico
y el crimen organizado, combinando nuestras operaciones como se combinan con la Fuerza
Naval colombiana, con las Fuerzas Navales que están en la Zona del Caribe, y con la Fuerza
Naval norteamericana, y ahora con la Fuerza Naval de la Federación Rusa.
Y nos sentimos también muy contentos que en este día, 33 Aniversario de la Fuerza Naval
de Nicaragua, nos acompañen dos Pelotones de la Fuerza Naval de la Federación Rusa. Aquí
los tenemos, dos Pelotones, son parte de una flota que se encuentra en Corinto, y que está
de visita en nuestro País en este proceso de fortalecer las relaciones con todo el Mundo. Y
lógicamente, la Federación Rusa tiene esa voluntad, tiene esa disposición, y le damos la
bienvenida a Nicaragua a la Fuerza Naval rusa.
Una Fuerza Naval con una Historia heroica, más que heroica, desde el Acorazado Potemkin,
donde los Oficiales y los Marinos se sublevaron en una Insurrección en el año 1905, contra
el zarismo. Y luego, cuando mandaron a otras naves a detenerlos, o a hundirlos, iban con la
orden de hundirlos si no se detenían, las otras naves no quisieron disparar contra sus
Hermanos; los dejaron pasar.
Luego, el Gran Lenin, Vladimir Ilich Ilianov, Lenin, Líder de la Revolución de Octubre, haría
referencia del Acorazado Potemkin; y decía: Fue el primer territorio libre en las batallas que
entonces estaban librando contra el zarismo. Una Fuerza Naval con una Historia que llena
de orgullo a ese Pueblo, y que nos llena de orgullo a nosotros que nos estén hoy aquí
acompañando.
Quiero saludar muy en particular al Contralmirante Valery Kulikov, Jefe del Grupo de los
Buques de Guerra de la Federación de Rusia... Bienvenido a Nicaragua, Almirante. Y
nuestros saludos para el Pueblo ruso, nuestros saludos para el Ejército ruso, y nuestros
saludos para el Presidente Putin. Gracias Compañero.
Igualmente, saludar al Capitán de Navío Sergey Tronev, Jefe del Grupo del Crucero de
Cohetes Moscú, de la Federación de Rusia. Bienvenido Capitán de Navío, Sergey.
Igualmente, nuestros saludos a todas las Delegaciones que han sido presentadas, que
hemos tenido la oportunidad de saludarlos aquí al momento de entregarles la Orden en el
Marco de este 33 Aniversario.
Nuestros saludos a la Compañera Rosario, que nos acompaña siempre en lo que es el
respaldo firme de este Gobierno Cristiano, Socialista y Solidario, para el Ejército de
Nicaragua y para su Fuerza Naval, para su Fuerza Aérea, para su Fuerza Terrestre, para
todas las Unidades del Ejército de Nicaragua.
Nuestros saludos para el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército de Nicaragua, General de Ejercito
Julio César Avilés Castillo; y felicidades porque ha estado de cumpleaños en estos días...
¡un aplauso para el General que cumplió años ahora en Agosto!
475Annex 80
La Compañera Rosario estaba recordando que ahora en Agosto cumplió años mi madre, mi
madre que falleció a los 97 años. Y hoy 13 de Agosto yo recordaba que en los años 79, 80,
mi madre fue a La Habana a acompañar a Fidel, y Tomás acompañaba también a Fidel,
porque Fidel está cumpliendo años el día de hoy, y Tomás igualmente cumple años el día de
hoy, ahí se reunían los tres. Ahí tengo las fotos todavía de Fidel con mi madre celebrando su
cumpleaños. Para Fidel, como siempre nuestro saludo, nuestro reconocimiento, nuestro
respeto, y sobre todo nuestro cariño, y nuestra lealtad, para con él, para con sus Ideas,
para con esa Gloriosa Revolución Cubana.
¿Y qué decir de Tomás, si decir Tomás dice mucho? Y todos sabemos lo que significa Tomás,
lo que ha significado y lo que continúa significando Tomás en la lucha de nuestro Pueblo. Y
Tomás entrevistando a Fidel, y publicando aquel libro “Un grano de maíz”. Y Chávez,
recordando que cuando estuvo en prisión tenía de cabecera el libro “Un grano de maíz”. Así
nos lo comentaba el Comandante Hugo Chávez, y lo hemos conversado con Nicolás, con
Cilia, con Diosdado, con Elías, con tod@s l@s Compañeros, cómo Chávez hizo uno de sus
libros de cabecera “Un grano de maíz”. Y lo citaba, en sus Discursos lo citaba.
Nuestros saludos al Jefe del Estado Mayor General del Ejército de Nicaragua, Mayor General
Oscar Balladares Cardoza; al Inspector General, General de Brigada Adolfo Zepeda
Martínez; a nuestro Hermano, Compañero Vicepresidente de la República, General de
Ejército en Retiro Moisés Omar Halleslevens Acevedo, quien estuvo al frente de esta
Institución también, como estuvo también al frente de ese Destacamento, del Comando
Juan José Quezada, con Germán Pomares, y con Eduardo Contreras.
Nuestros saludos al Jefe de la Fuerza Naval del Ejército de Nicaragua, Contralmirante Marvin
Elías Corrales. Hemos escuchado su Informe Compañero, y la verdad que no es más que
una síntesis, porque no es fácil hacer una síntesis de todo lo que son las labores de la
Fuerza Naval, en un mes, ya no digamos en un año, no es fácil.
Compañera Secretaria del Ministerio de Defensa, Martha Elena Ruiz Sevilla; Compañero
Canciller de la República, Samuel Santos; Fiscal General de la República, Doctor Julio
Centeno Gómez; Prelado de Honor de Su Santidad el Papa, Monseñor Eddy Montenegro
Avendaño, gracias por sus palabras. Porque a él Su Santidad Juan Pablo II, lo nombró
Prelado de Honor, a él y a otros siete Monseñores. Son Prelados de Honor de Su Santidad el
Papa.
Nuestros saludos para todos los Hermanos del Cuerpo Diplomático; para la Delegación de la
Federación Rusa... Y hablando con los Compañeros, y con esto voy concluyendo, hablando
con los Compañeros de las Navales Centroamericanas, y esto lo hago extensivo a la Naval
de Colombia también, hago un reconocimiento a la Naval de Colombia; porque, a pesar de
que el Gobierno del Presidente Santos todavía no se pronuncia sobre el Fallo de la Corte,
tuvimos la oportunidad de reunirnos en México con motivo de la Toma de Posesión del
Presidente Peña Nieto.
Y ahí acordamos buscar el diálogo, ¿para qué? Hay un Fallo, bueno, cómo tenemos que
trabajar para que, a partir de lo que dice el Fallo en adelante vamos a seguir coordinando
nuestro trabajo. Pero desgraciadamente en Colombia hay sectores radicales, extremistas,
que quieren que Colombia desconozca el Fallo, y eso reclaman, que Colombia desconozca el
Fallo, y entre ellos el que más destaca es el Presidente Álvaro Uribe, que quiere ser
Presidente, entonces piensa que con un mensaje de ese tipo va a ganar votos... ¡yo no
creo! Yo creo que el Pueblo colombiano quiere Paz.
476 Annex 80
Y nosotros reconocemos que en medio de un ambiente tan caldeado, porque todos los días
escuchamos declaraciones que vienen de Colombia, declaraciones incendiarias,
declaraciones confrontativas, han continuado sus labores la Fuerza Naval nicaragüense, ha
continuado desplazándose también la Fuerza Aérea en lo que le corresponde en los nuevos
territorios.
Hemos asignado Bloques para la exploración en la búsqueda de petróleo o de gas en los te-
rritorios, que ya definidos por la Corte le pertenecen a Nicaragua. A la hora de definir esto
de los Bloques hemos respetado la Zona de Reserva... Zona de Reserva que ya antes el
Gobierno de Colombia, no puedo decir qué Gobierno, si fue el del Presidente Uribe, ya había
empezado a desarrollar labores de exploración en la Zona de Reserva, cuando ellos tenían el
dominio en la Zona de Reserva ya habían empezado a hacer labores de exploración.
Nicaragua, en este sentido respeta y está listo para que con Colombia trabajemos en la
protección de esa Zona de Reserva. Estamos listos a que se pueda desarrollar ese diálogo,
esa negociación entre Colombia y Nicaragua, que nos permita finalmente superar esta
situación, y que trabajemos más, colombian@s y nicaragüenses, por la Paz, por la
Estabilidad.
Como les decía, hay que reconocer que en medio de toda esta turbulencia mediática, la
Fuerza Naval de Colombia que es muy poderosa, no lo dudamos, tiene un poderío militar
muy grande, ha sido cuidadosa, ha sido respetuosa, y no se ha presentado ningún tipo de
enfrentamiento entre la Fuerza Naval de Colombia con la Fuerza Naval nicaragüense,
gracias a Dios, y Dios quiera que se continúe trabajando de esa manera.
Y estoy convencido que, el que ha determinado esa actividad pacífica como le llama el Jefe
de la Fuerza Naval de Colombia, el que ha
determinado esa actividad pacífica es el Presidente Juan Manuel Santos. Estoy convencido,
y esperamos que esto continúe así hasta que se llegue a las conversaciones, se llegue a las
negociaciones, y se establezcan los Acuerdos definitivos para aplicar el Fallo, la Sentencia
que dictó la Corte en el mes de Noviembre del año pasado. Tenemos toda esa disposición.
Estamos hablando de un territorio muy grande donde el combate al narcotráfico nos da a
l@s nicaragüenses una mayor responsabilidad, y le da, por lo tanto, a la Fuerza Naval una
mayor responsabilidad, al Ejército una mayor responsabilidad, a la Fuerza Aérea una mayor
responsabilidad, combinando operaciones con todos aquellos países que a través de sus
Fuerzas Navales o de sus Fuerzas Aéreas estén dispuestos a trabajar con Nicaragua, en el
resguardo de esa Zona, para limpiar esa zona.
Nicaragua tiene que trabajar y hemos venido trabajando para limpiar la Zona. Limpiar
Nicaragua del narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, y que junt@s l@s centroamerican@s, l@s
mesoamerican@s, limpiemos toda la Región del narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, ¿para
qué? Para desarrollar mejor, en muchas mejores condiciones los Proyectos Sociales que le
llevan Bienestar a las Familias más empobrecidas; que le llevan Educación a la Juventud;
que le llevan Cultura y Deportes a la Juventud; que alejan a la Juventud de la droga, y que
aseguran lo que se conoce en el léxico clásico de las Democracias con intereses, la
Seguridad Democrática.
La Seguridad Democrática no se resuelve en estos momentos inventando un Organismo allí
en el SICA, que se llame Organismo de Seguridad Democrática. La Seguridad Democrática
se resuelve liberando a nuestros países de la presencia y el control que el narcotráfico y el
crimen organizado llegan a tener ya en buena parte del territorio centroamericano.
477Annex 80
¿Qué Seguridad Democrática puede haber en un país donde los narcotraficantes, donde el
crimen organizado tiene aterrorizada a la población, tiene aterrorizados a los comerciantes,
a los empresarios; los tienen chantajeados, los asesinan, los secuestran? ¿De qué Seguridad
Democrática están hablando? Allí no hay ninguna Seguridad Democrática. Para poder luchar
por la Seguridad Democrática en esos países, primero hay que acabar con el crimen
organizado, hay que acabar con el narcotráfico, hay que acabar con el poder que vienen
ejerciendo y vienen instalando en esos países que ya son en algunos poderes paralelos, y
van avanzando a buscar cómo ser poderes totales.
¡Esa es la amenaza! Si una gran amenaza tiene en este momento la Seguridad Democrática
es el narcotráfico y el crimen organizado. Esa es la mayor amenaza, y tenemos que trabajar
en esa dirección, tenemos que luchar en esa dirección, y nuestro compromiso es ese,
querid@s Herman@s nicaragüenses, queridas Familias nicaragüenses, seguir trabajando en
esa dirección.
O sea, no podemos descuidar, no podemos descuidarnos. Lo que ha logrado avanzar
Nicaragua, la Estabilidad y Seguridad que tiene Nicaragua tenemos que cuidarla, cuidarla
tod@s... el Pueblo, las Familias, l@s Trabajador@s, la Juventud, y las Instituciones, tod@s
junt@s tenemos que cuidarla. Porque aquí está en juego la Vida y la Seguridad misma de
las Familias, y de ahí pasa en juego la Vida y la
Seguridad del Barrio, y luego se pone en riesgo la Vida y la Seguridad del Pueblo, del
Municipio, del Departamento, del País.
Por eso es que nosotros tenemos como una prioridad para poder desarrollar en las mejores
condiciones el Programa de Desarrollo Humano en nuestro País, que saque definitivamente
de la pobreza en este Siglo XXI a todas las Familias nicaragüenses; eso pasa
necesariamente porque tengamos Estabilidad y Seguridad en el País. Lo que significa no
solamente contener, sino ir contrarrestando y alejando hasta que se vaya extinguiendo esa
plaga del narcotráfico y el crimen organizado, combinando esfuerzos, lógicamente.
Querid@s Herman@s, querid@s Compañer@s de la Fuerza Naval, nos honramos hoy en
entregarles Reconocimientos a los Hermanos Centroamericanos. Y decía que allí tenemos
también otro punto de enorme responsabilidad... el Golfo de Fonseca. Se lo decía al
Hermano de la Fuerza Naval de Honduras, al Contralmirante Rigoberto Espinoza Posadas,
Comandante General de la Fuerza Naval de la República de Honduras; y se lo decía también
al Capitán de Navío Miguel Ángel Castillo Guardado, Jefe del Estado Mayor General de la
Fuerza Naval de la República de El Salvador.
Reconocerles en primer lugar, que ellos han sabido garantizarnos la Paz y la Seguridad en el
Golfo de Fonseca. Porque tenemos un Diferendo allí, que aunque ya fue fallado por la Corte
todavía no logra asentarse, y eso crea roces. Y los primeros que rozan en ese mar territorial
del Golfo, son las Fuerzas Navales de El Salvador, de Honduras y de Nicaragua; y donde se
puede provocar una chispa, como se ha producido ya en otros momentos, y ha corrido la
sangre allí, y no es posible que vuelva a correr la sangre de Hermanos.
Tenemos que seguir trabajando para que el Golfo se convierta en una Zona de Desarrollo
Económico, de Desarrollo Social, de Desarrollo Cultural, y que esto permita entonces que
todas las Comunidades que están en el Litoral, yendo hacia el Golfo, desde El Salvador,
desde Honduras, desde Nicaragua, que puedan mejorar sus condiciones de vida. Y que ese
Golfo se convierta de manera definitiva en un Golfo de Paz, y que las Fuerzas Navales
puedan allí trabajar como Hermanos, garantizando el Desarrollo del Golfo como Zona de
Paz.
478 Annex 80
Y yo les decía a los Almirantes de El Salvador, de Honduras, que los felicitaba porque la
verdad es que han hecho una gran labor en
medio también de campañas mediáticas. De repente empiezan a crear tensiones mediáticas
que pueden generar incidentes. Gracias a Dios tambi&eacut
479480 ANNEX 81
G.M. Kondolf
‘Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels’
21(4) (1997) Environmental Management 533
481482 Annex 81
PROFILE
Hungry Water: Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining
on River Channels
G. MATHIAS KONDOLF sion and to many other rivers in attempts to restore spawning
Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental habitat. It is possible to pass incoming sediment through
Planning some small reservoirs, thereby maintaining the continuity of
University of California sediment transport through the system. Damming and min-
Berkeley, California 94720, USA ing have reduced sediment delivery from rivers to many
www.ced.berkeley.edu/,kondolf/ coastal areas, leading to accelerated beach erosion. Sand
and gravel are mined for construction aggregate from river
ABSTRACT / Rivers transport sediment from eroding up- channel and floodplains. In-channel mining commonly
lands to depositional areas near sea level. If the continucauses incision, which may propagate up- and downstream
sediment transport is interrupted by dams or removal of of the mine, undermining bridges, inducing channel instabil-
sediment from the channel by gravel mining, the flow may ity, and lowering alluvial water tables. Floodplain gravel pits
become sediment-starved (hungry water) and prone to have the potential to become wildlife habitat upon reclama-
erode the channel bed and banks, producing channel inci- tion, but may be captured by the active channel and thereby
sion (downcutting), coarsening of bed material, and loss obecome instream pits. Management of sand and gravel in
spawning gravels for salmon and trout (as smaller gravels rivers must be done on a regional basis, restoring the conti-
are transported without replacement from upstream). Gravelnuity of sediment transport where possible and encouraging
is artificially added to the River Rhine to prevent furthealternatives to river-derived aggregate sources.
As waters flow from high elevation to sea level, their ing along the bed (Leopold and others 1964). Bedload
potential energy is converted to other forms as they ranges from a few percent of total load in lowland rivers
sculpt the landscape, developing complex channel to perhaps 15% in mountain rivers (Collins and Dunne
networks and a variety of associated habitats. Rivers 1990), to over 60% in some arid catchments (Schick
accomplish their geomorphic work using excess energy and Lekach 1993). Although a relatively small part of
above that required to simply move water from one
the total sediment load, the arrangement of bedload
point on the landscape to another. In natural channels, sediments constitutes the architecture of sand- and
the excess energy of rivers is dissipated in many ways: ingravel-bed channels. Moreover, gravel and cobbles have
turbulence at steps in the river profile, in the frictional
tremendous ecological importance, as habitat for ben-
resistance of cobbles and boulders, vegetation along thic macroinvertebrates and as spawning habitat for
the bank, in bends, in irregularities of the channel bed
salmon and trout (Kondolf and Wolman 1993).
and banks, and in sediment transport (Figure 1). The rate of sediment transport typically increases as
The transport of sand- and gravel-sized sediment is a power function of flow; that is, a doubling of flow
particularly important in determining channel form,
typically produces more than a doubling in sediment
and a reduction in the supply of these sediments may transport (Richards 1982), and most sediment trans-
induce channel changes. The supply of sand and gravel port occurs during floods.
may be the result of many factors, including changes in
land use, vegetation, climate, and tectonic activity. This
paper is concerned specifically with the response of
river channels to a reduction in the supply of these Continuity of Sediment Transport
in River Systems
sediments by dams and gravel mining.
Sediment is transported mostly as suspended load: Viewed over a long term, runoff erodes the land
clay, silt, and sand held aloft in the water column by
surface, and the river network carries the erosional
turbulence, in contrast to bedload: sand, gravel, cobbles,products from each basin. The rates of denudation, or
and boulders transported by rolling, sliding, and bounc-
lowering of the land by erosion, range widely. The
Appalachian Mountains of North America are being
denuded about 0.01 mm/yr (Leopold and others 1964),
KEY WORDS: Dams; Aquatic habitat; Sediment transport; Erosion;
Sedimentation; Gravel mining the central Sierra Nevada of California about 0.1
Environmental Management Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 533–551 1997 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
r
483Annex 81
534 G. M. Kondolf
Figure 1. Diagram of energy dissipation in
river channels.
Figure 2. Zones of erosion, transport, and deposition, and the river channel as conveyor belt for sediment. (Reprinted from
Kondolf 1994, with kind permission of Elsevier Science-NL.)
mm/yr (Kondolf and Matthews 1993), the Southern deposition (Schumm 1977) (Figure 2). The river chan-
Alps of New Zealand about 11 mm/yr (Griffiths and nel in the transport reach can be viewed as a conveyor
McSaveney 1983), and the southern Central Range of belt, which transports the erosional products down-
Taiwan over 20 mm/yr (Hwang 1994). The idealized stream to the ultimate depositional sites below sea level.
watershed can be divided into three zones: that of The size of sediment typically changes along the length
erosion or sediment production (steep, rapidly eroding of the river system from gravel, cobbles, and boulders in
headwaters), transport (through which sediment is steep upper reaches to sands and silts in low-gradient
moved more or less without net gain or loss), and downstream reaches, reflecting diminution in size by
484 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 535
weathering and abrasion, as well as sorting of sizes by vial channels, the nature of which depends upon the
flowing water. characteristics of the original and altered flow regimes
Transport of sediment through the catchment and and sediment loads.
along the length of the river system is continuous. Dams disrupt the longitudinal continuity of the river
Increased erosion in the upper reaches of the catch- system and interrupt the action of the conveyor belt of
ment can affect the river environment many miles sediment transport. Upstream of the dam, all bedload
downstream (and for years or decades) as the increased sediment and all or part of the suspended load (depend-
sediment loads propagate downstream through the ing upon the reservoir capacity relative to inflow)
river network. On Redwood Creek in Redwood Na- (Brune 1953) is deposited in the quiet water of the
tional Park, California, the world’s tallest trees are
reservoir (reducing reservoir capacity) and upstream of
threatened with bank erosion caused by channel aggra- the reservoir in reaches influenced by backwater. Down-
dation (building up of sediment in the channel), which stream, water released from the dam possesses the
in turn was caused by clear-cutting of timber on steep
energy to move sediment, but has little or no sediment
slopes in the upper part of the catchment (Madej and load. This clear water released from the dam is often
Ozaki 1996, Janda 1978). referred to as hungry water, because the excess energy is
Along the river channel conveyor belt, channel
typically expended on erosion of the channel bed and
forms (such as gravel bars) may appear stable, but the banks for some years following dam construction, result-
grains of which they are composed may be replaced ing in incision (downcutting of the bed) and coarsening
annually or biannually by new sediment from upstream.
of the bed material until equilibrium is reached and the
Similarly, the sediments that make up the river flood- material cannot be moved by the flows. Reservoirs also
plain (the valley flat adjacent to the channel) are
typically mobile on a time scale of decades or centuries. may reduce flood peaks downstream, potentially reduc-
ing the effects of hungry water, inducing channel
The floodplain acts as a storage reservoir for sediments shrinking, or allowing fine sediments to accumulate in
transported in the channel, alternately storing sedi-
ments by deposition and releasing sediment to the the bed.
channel by bank erosion. For example, the Carmel
River, California, is flanked by flat surfaces (terraces) Channel Incision
that step up from the river. The lowest terrace is the
Incision below dams is most pronounced in rivers
channel of sand and gravel deposited by the 1911 flood, with fine-grained bed materials and where impacts on
but the surface now stands about 4 m above the present, flood peaks are relatively minor (Williams and Wolman
incised channel (Kondolf and Curry 1986). By 1960,
1984). The magnitude of incision depends upon the
the terrace had been subdivided for low-density hous- reservoir operation, channel characteristics, bed mate-
ing, despite the recent origin of the land and the rial size, and the sequence of flood events following
potential for future shifts in channel position.
dam closure. For example, the easily eroded sand bed
A river channel and floodplain are dynamic features channel of the Colorado River below Davis Dam, Ari-
that constitute a single hydrologic and geomorphic unit zona, has incised up to 6 m, despite substantial reduc-
characterized by frequent transfers of water and sedi-
tions in peak flows (Williams and Wolman 1984). In
ment between the two components. The failure to contrast, the Mokelumne River below Camanche Dam
appreciate the integral connection between floodplain
in California has experienced such a dramatic reduc-
and channel underlies many environmental problems tion in flood regime (and consequent reduction in
in river management today. sediment transport capacity) that no incision has been
documented and gravels are reported to have become
compacted and immobile (FERC 1993).
Effects of Dams Reduction in bedload sediment supply can induce a
Dams and diversions are constructed and operated change in channel pattern, as occurred on Stony Creek,
for a wide variety of purposes including residential, a tributary to the Sacramento River 200 km north of San
commercial, and agricultural water supply; flood and/or Francisco. Since the closure of Black Butte Dam in
debris control; and hydropower production. Regardless 1963, the formerly braided channel has adopted a
of their purpose, all dams trap sediment to some degree single-thread meandering pattern, incised, and mi-
and most alter the flood peaks and seasonal distribution grated laterally, eroding enough bedload sediment to
of flows, thereby profoundly changing the character compensate for about 20% of the bedload now trapped
and functioning of rivers. By changing flow regime and by Black Butte Dam on an annual average basis (Kon-
sediment load, dams can produce adjustments in allu- dolf and Swanson 1993).
485Annex 81
536 G. M. Kondolf
Bed Coarsening and Loss of Spawning Gravels
Channel erosion below dams is frequently accompa-
nied by a change in particle size on the bed, as gravels
and finer materials are winnowed from the bed and
transported downstream, leaving an armor layer, a
coarse lag deposit of large gravel, cobbles, or boulders.
Development of an armor layer is an adjustment by the
river to changed conditions because the larger particles
are less easily mobilized by the hungry water flows below
the dam. The armor layer may continue to coarsen until
the material is no longer capable of being moved by the
reservoir releases or spills, thereby limiting the ultimate
depth of incision (Williams and Wolman 1984, Dietrich
and others 1989).
The increase in particle size can threaten the success
of spawning by salmonids (salmon and trout), which
use freshwater gravels to incubate their eggs. The
female uses abrupt upward jerks of her tail to excavate a
small pit in the gravel bed, in which she deposits her
eggs and the male releases his milt. The female then
loosens gravels from the bed upstream to cover the eggs
and fill the pit. The completed nests (redds) constitute
incubation environments with intragravel flow of water
past the eggs and relative protection from predation.
The size of gravel that can be moved to create a redd
depends on the size of the fish, ranging in median
diameter from about 15 mm for small trout to about 50
mm for large salmon (Kondolf and Wolman 1993).
Below dams, the bed may coarsen to such an extent
that the fish can no longer move the gravel. The Upper Figure 3. Keswick Dam and the channel of the Sacramento
River downstream. (Photograph by the author, January 1989.)
Sacramento River, California, was once the site of
extensive spawning by chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), but massive extraction of gravel from the can provide short-term habitat, the amount of gravel
riverbed, combined with trapping of bedload sediment added is but a small fraction of the bedload deficit
behind Shasta Dam upstream and release of hungry below Shasta Dam, and gravels placed in the main river
water, has resulted in coarsening of the bed such that have washed out during high flows, requiring continued
spawning habitat has been virtually eliminated in the addition of more imported gravel (California Depart-
reach (Figure 3) (Parfitt and Buer 1980). The availabil- ment of Water Resources 1995). On the Merced, Tu-
ity of spawning gravels can also be reduced by incision olumne, and Stanislaus rivers in California, a total of ten
below dams when formerly submerged gravel beds are sites were excavated and back-filled with smaller gravel
isolated as terrace or floodplain deposits. Encroaching to create spawning habitat for chinook salmon from
vegetation can also stabilize banks and further reduce 1990 to 1994. However, the gravel sizes imported were
gravel recruitment for redds (Hazel and others 1976). mobile at high flows that could be expected to occur
every 1.5–4.0 years, and subsequent channel surveys
Gravel Replenishment Below Dams have demonstrated that imported gravels have washed
Gravels were being artificially added to enhance out (Kondolf and others 1996a,b).
available spawning gravel supply below dams on at least On the border between France and Germany, a
13 rivers in California as of 1992 (Kondolf and Mat- series of hydroelectric dams was constructed on the
thews 1993). The largest of these efforts is on the Upper River Rhine (progressing downstream) after 1950, the
Sacramento River, where from 1979 to 2000 over US$22 last of which (the Barrage Iffezheim) was completed in
million will have been spent importing gravel (derived the 1970s. To address the sediment deficit problem
mostly from gravel mines on tributaries) into the river downstream of Iffezheim, an annual average of 170,000
channel (Denton 1991) (Figure 4). While these projects tonnes of gravel (the exact amount depending on the
486 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 537
Figure 4. Gravel replenishment to
the Sacramento River below Keswick
Dam. (Photograph by the author,
January 1991.)
magnitude of the year’s runoff) are added to the river
(Figure 5). This approach has proved successful in
preventing further incision of the riverbed downstream
(Kuhl 1992). It is worth noting that the quantity of
gravel added each year is not equivalent to the unregu-
lated sediment load of the Rhine; the river’s capacity to
transport sediment has also been reduced because the
peak discharges have been reduced by reservoir regula-
tion. The amount of sediment added satisfies the
transport capacity of the existing channel, which has
been highly altered for navigation and hydroelectric
generation.
Sediment Sluicing and Pass-Through
from Reservoirs
The downstream consequences of interrupting the
flux of sand and gravel transport would argue for
designing systems to pass sediment through reservoirs
(and thereby reestablish the continuity of sediment
transport). To date, most such efforts have been under-
taken to solve problems with reservoir sedimentation,
particularly deposits of sediment at tunnel intakes and
outlet structures, rather than to solve bedload sediment
supply problems downstream. These efforts have been
most common in regions with high sediment yields such
as Asia (e.g., Sen and Srivastava 1995, Chongshan and
others 1995, Hassanzadeh 1995). Small diversion dams
(such as those used to divert water in run-of-the-river
hydroelectric generating projects) in steep V-shaped
canyons have the greatest potential to pass sediment.
Because of their small size, these reservoirs (or fore-
Figure 5. Barge artificially feeding gravel into the River Rhine
bays) can easily be drawn down so that the river’s downstream of the Barrage Iffezheim. (Photograph by author,
gradient and velocity are maintained through the dam June 1994.)
487Annex 81
538 G. M. Kondolf
Figure 6. Sand deposited in the bed of
the Kern River as a result of sluicing from
Democrat Dam in 1986. (Photograph by
the author, December 1990.)
at high flow. Large-capacity, low-level outlets are re- to draw down sufficiently to resuspend sediment and
quired to pass the incoming flow and sediment load. move bedload), when the river’s transporting capacity is
If low-level outlets are open at high flow and the inadequate to move the increased load. On the Kern
reservoir is drawn down, a small reservoir behaves River, the Southern California Edison Company (an
essentially as a reach of river, passing inflowing sedi- electric utility) obtained agency permission to sluice
ment through the dam outlets. In such a sediment sand from Democrat Dam in 1986, anticipating that the
pass-through approach, the sediment is delivered to sand would be washed from the channel the subsequent
downstream reaches in essentially the same concentra- winter. However, several years of drought ensued, and
tion and seasonal flood flows as prevailed in the predam the sand remained within the channel until high flows
regime. This approach was employed at the old Aswan in 1992 (Figure 6) (Dan Christenson, California Depart-
Dam on the River Nile and on the Bhatgurk Reservoir ment of Fish and Game, Kernville, personal communica-
on the Yeluard River in India (Stevens 1936). Similarly, tion 1992).
on the River Inn in Austria and Germany, floodwaters On those dams larger than small diversion struc-
with high suspended loads are passed through a series tures, the sediment accumulated around the outlet is
of hydropower reservoirs in a channel along the reser- usually silt and clay, which can be deleterious to aquatic
voir bottom confined by training walls (Hack 1986, habitat and water quality (Bjornn and Reiser 1991).
Westrich and others 1992). If topographic conditions Opening of the low-level outlet on Los Padres Dam on
are suitable, sediment-laden floodwater may be routed the Carmel River, California, released silt and clay,
around a reservoir in a diversion tunnel or permitted to which resulted in a large fish kill in 1980 (Buel 1980).
pass through the length of the reservoir as a density The dam operator has since been required to use a
current vented through a bottom sluice on the dam suction dredge to maintain the outlet (D. Dettman,
(Morris 1993). The Nan-Hwa Reservoir in Taiwan was Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, per-
designed with a smaller upstream forebay from which sonal communication 1990). On the Dan River in
sediment is flushed into a diversion tunnel, allowing Danville, Virginia, toxicity testing is required during
only relatively clear water to pass into the main reservoirsluicing of fine sediments from Schoolfield Dam (FERC
downstream (Morris 1993). 1995). Accidental sluices have also occurred during
If sediment is permitted to accumulate in the reser- maintenance or repair work, sometimes resulting in
voir and subsequently discharged as a pulse (sediment substantial cleanup operations for the dam operators
sluicing), the abrupt increase in sediment load may (Ramey and Beck 1990, Kondolf 1995).
alter substrate and aquatic habitat conditions down- Less serious effects are likely when the sediment
stream of the dam. The most severe effects are likely to pulse is released during high flows, which will have
occur when sediment accumulated over the flood sea- elevated suspended loads, but which can typically dis-
son is discharged during baseflow (by opening the perse the sediment for some distance downstream. The
outlet pipe or sluice gates and permitting the reservoir Jansanpei Reservoir in Taiwan is operated to provide
488 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 539
power for the Taiwan Sugar Company, which needs delivered to the river channel by tributaries accumu-
power for processing only from November to April. The lates in spawning gravels because the reservoir-reduced
reservoir is left empty with open low-level outlets for thefloods are inadequate to flush the riverbed clean.
first two months of the rainy season (May and June), so On the Trinity River, California, construction of
sediments accumulated over the months of July–April Trinity Dam in 1960 reduced the two-year flow from 450
can be flushed by the first high flows of the season m 3/sec to 9 m /sec. As a result of this dramatic change
before storing water in the latter part of the rainy seasonin flood regime, encroachment of vegetation and depo-
(Hwang 1994). sition of sediment has narrowed the channel to 20%–
At present, sediment pass-through is not commonly 60% of its predam width (Wilcock and others 1996).
done in North America, probably because of the limited Accumulation of tributary-derived decomposed gra-
capacity of many low-level outlets and because of con- nitic sand in the bed of the Trinity River has led to a
cern that debris may become stuck in the outlets, decline of invertebrate and salmonid spawning habitat
making them impossible to close later, and making (Fredericksen, Kamine and Associates 1980). Experi-
diversions impossible during the rest of the wet season mental, controlled releases were made in 1991, 1992,
until flows drop sufficiently to fix the outlets. These 1993, 1995, and 1996 to determine the flows required to
concerns can probably be addressed with engineering flush the sand from the gravels (Wilcock and others
solutions, such as trash racks upstream of the outlet and 1996).
redundancies in gate structures on the low-level outlet. Such flushing flows increasingly have been proposed
Large reservoirs cannot be drawn down sufficiently to for reaches downstream of reservoirs to remove fine
transport sediment through their length to the outlet sediments accumulated on the bed and to scour the bed
works, for such a drawdown would eliminate carryover frequently enough to prevent encroachment of riparian
storage from year to year, an important benefit from vegetation and narrowing of the active channel (Reiser
large reservoirs. and others 1989). The objectives of flushing flows have
In most reservoirs in the United States, sediment is not always been clearly specified, nor have potential
simply permitted to accumulate. Active management of conflicts always been recognized. For example, a dis-
sediment in reservoirs has been rare, largely because charge that mobilizes the channel bed to flush intersti-
the long-term costs of reservoir storage lost to sedimen- tial fine sediment will often produce comparable trans-
tation have not been incorporated into decision-making port rates of sand and gravel, eliminating the selective
and planning for reservoirs. Most good reservoir sites transport of sand needed to reduce the fine sediment
are already occupied by reservoirs, and where suitable content in the bed, and resulting in a net loss of gravel
replacement reservoir sites exist, the current cost of from the reach given its lack of supply from upstream
replacement storage (about US$3/m 3 in California) is (Kondolf and Wilcock 1996).
considerably higher than original storage costs. Mechani-
cal removal is prohibitively expensive in all but small Coastal Erosion
reservoirs, with costs of $15–$50/m 3 cited for the
Feather River in California (Kondolf 1995). Beaches serve to dissipate wave action and protect
coastal cliffs. Sand may be supplied to beaches from
headland erosion, river transport, and offshore sources.
Channel Narrowing and Fine Sediment
If sand supply is reduced through a reduction in
Accumulation Below Dams sediment delivery from rivers and streams, the beach
While many reservoirs reduce flood peaks, the de- may become undernourished, shrink, and cliff erosion
gree of reduction varies considerably depending upon may be accelerated. This process by which beaches are
reservoir size and operation. The larger the reservoir reduced or maintained can be thought of in terms of a
capacity relative to river flow and the greater the flood sediment balance between sources of sediment (rivers
pool available during a given flood, the greater the and headland erosion), the rate of longshore transport
reduction in peak floods. Flood control reservoirs along the coast, and sediment sinks (such as loss to
typically contain larger floods than reservoirs operated deeper water offshore) (Inman 1976). Along the coast
solely for water supply. Downstream of the reservoir, of southern California, discrete coastal cells can be
encroachment of riparian vegetation into parts of the identified, each with distinct sediment sources (sedi-
active channel may occur in response to a reduction in ment delivery from river mouths) and sinks (losses to
annual flood scour and sediment deposition (Williams submarine canyons). For example, for the Oceanside
and Wolman 1984). Channel narrowing has been great- littoral cell, the contribution from sediment sources
est below reservoirs that are large enough to contain (Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, and San Dieguito rivers
the river’s largest floods. In some cases, fine sediment and San Mateo and San Juan creeks) was estimated,
489Annex 81
540 G. M. Kondolf
Figure 8. Cumulative reduction in suspended sediment sup-
ply from the catchment of the San Luis Rey River due to
construction of Henshaw Dam. (Adapted from Brownlie and
Taylor 1981.)
function of wave energy striking the coast) is un-
changed, the result has been a sediment deficit, loss of
beach sand, and accelerated coastal erosion (Inman
Figure 7. The Oceanside littoral cell, showing estimated sand85).
and gravel supply from rivers, longshore transport, and loss tohe effects of sediment trapping by dams has been
3
the La Jolla submarine canyon (in m /yr). (Adapted from exacerbated in combination with other effects such as
Inman 1985, used by permission.) channelization and instream sand and gravel mining
(discussed below). Although sluicing sediment from
reservoirs has been considered in the Los Angeles
Basin, passing sediment through urban flood control
under natural conditions, at 209,000 m /yr, roughly
balancing the longshore transport rate of 194,000 channels could cause a number of problems, including
3 decreasing channel capacity (Potter 1985). ‘‘Beach
m /yr and the loss into the La Jolla submarine canyon nourishment’’ with imported sediment dredged from
of 200,000 m 3/yr (Figure 7) (Inman 1985).
reservoirs and harbors has been implemented along
The supply of sediment to beaches from rivers can be many beaches in southern California (Inman 1976,
reduced by dams because dams trap sediment and
because large dams typically reduce the magnitude of Allayaud 1985, Everts 1985). In some cases, sand is
transported to critical locations on the coast via truck or
floods, which transport the majority of sediment (Jen- slurry pipelines. The high costs of transportation, sort-
kins and others 1988). In southern California rivers,
ing for the proper size fractions, and cleaning contami-
most sediment transport occurs during infrequent floods nated dredged material, as well as the difficulty in
(Brownlie and Taylor 1981), but it is these energetic securing a stable supply of material make these options
events that flood control dams are constructed to infeasible in some places (Inman 1976).
prevent. On the San Luis Rey River, one of the principal To integrate considerations of fluvial sediment sup-
sources of sediment for the Oceanside littoral cell,
ply in the maintenance of coastal beaches into the
Henshaw Dam reduced suspended sediment yield by 6 existing legal framework, a system of ‘‘sand rights,’’
million tonnes (Figure 8), total sand and gravel yield by analogous to water rights, has been proposed (Stone
2 million tonnes (Brownlie and Taylor 1981). and Kaufman 1985).
Ironically, by trapping sediment and reducing peak
flows, the flood control dams meant to reduce property
Gravel Mining in River Systems
damage along rivers contribute to property damage
along the coast by eliminating sediment supply to the Sand and gravel are used as construction aggregate
protective beaches. For the rivers contributing sedi- for roads and highways (base material and asphalt),
ment to the Oceanside littoral cell as a whole, sediment pipelines (bedding), septic systems (drain rock in leach
from about 40% of the catchment area is now cut off fields), and concrete (aggregate mix) for highways and
by dams. Because the rate of longshore transport (a buildings. In many areas, aggregate is derived primarily
490 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 541
from alluvial deposits, either from pits in river flood-
plains and terrances, or by in-channel (instream) min-
ing, removing sand and gravel directly from river beds
with heavy equipment.
Sand and gravel that have been subject to prolonged
transport in water (such as active channel deposits) are
particularly desirable sources of aggregate because
weak materials are eliminated by abrasion and attrition,
leaving durable, rounded, well-sorted gravels (Barksdale
1991). Instream gravels thus require less processing
than many other sources, and suitable channel deposits
are commonly located near the markets for the product
or on transportation routes, reducing transportation
costs (which are the largest costs in the industry).
Moreover, instream gravels are typically of sufficiently
high quality to be classified as ‘‘PCC-grade’’ aggregate,
suitable for use in production of Portland Cement
concrete (Barksdale 1991).
Figure 9. Incision produced by instream gravel mining. a:
The initial, preextraction condition, in which the river’s
Effects of Instream Gravel Mining sediment load (Q s and the shear stress (t) available to
transport sediment are continuous through the reach. b: The
Instream mining directly alters the channel geom- excavation creates a nickpoint on its upstream end and traps
etry and bed elevation and may involve extensive sediment, interrupting the transport of sediment through the
clearing, diversion of flow, stockpiling of sediment, and
reach. Downstream, the river still has the capacity to transport
excavation of deep pits (Sandecki 1989). Instream sediment (t) but no sediment load. c: The nickpoint migrates
mining may be carried out by excavating trenches or upstream, and hungry water erodes the bed downstream,
causing incision upstream and downstream. (Reprinted from
pits in the gravel bed, or by gravel bar skimming (or
scalping), removing all the material in a gravel bar Kondolf 1994, with kind permission of Elsevier Science-NL.)
above an imaginary line sloping upwards from the
summer water’s edge. In both cases, the preexisting and banks to regain at least part of its sediment load
channel morphology is disrupted and a local sediment (Figure 9).
deficit is produced, but trenching also leaves a headcut
A vivid example of mining-induced nickpoint migra-
on its upstream end. In addition to the direct alterations tion appears on a detailed topographic map prepared
of the river environment, instream gravel mining may from analysis of 1992 aerial photographs of Cache
induce channel incision, bed coarsening, and lateral
Creek, California. The bed had been actively mined up
channel instability (Kondolf 1994). to the miner’s property boundary about 1400 m down-
stream of Capay Bridge, with a 4-m high headwall on the
Channel Incision and Bed Coarsening
upstream edge of the excavation. After the 1992 winter
By removing sediment from the channel, instream flows, a nickpoint over 3 m deep extended 700 m
gravel mining disrupts the preexisting balance between upstream from the upstream edge of the pit (Figure
sediment supply and transporting capacity, typically 10). After the flows of 1993, the nickpoint had migrated
inducing incision upstream and downstream of the another 260 m upstream of the excavation (not shown),
extraction site. Excavation of pits in the active channel and in the 50-yr flood of 1995, the nickpoint migrated
alters the equilibrium profile of the streambed, creating under the Capay Bridge, contributing to the near-
a locally steeper gradient upon entering the pit (Figure failure of the structure (Northwest Hydraulics Consul-
9). This over-steepened nickpoint (with its increased tants 1995).
stream power) commonly erodes upstream in a process On the Russian River near Healdsburg, California,
known as headcutting. Mining-induced incision may instream pit mining in the 1950s and 1960s caused
propagate upstream for kilometers on the main river channel incision in excess of 3–6 m over an 11-km
(Scott 1973, Stevens and others 1990) and up tributaries length of river (Figure 11). The formerly wide channel
(Harvey and Schumm 1987). Gravel pits trap much of of the Russian River is now incised, straighter, prevented
the incoming bedload sediment, passing hungry water from migrating across the valley floor by levees, and
downstream, which typically erodes the channel bed thus unable to maintain the diversity of successional
491Annex 81
542 G. M. Kondolf
Figure 10. Nickpoint upstream of 4-m-deep gravel pit in the bed of Cache Creek, California, as appearing on a topographic map
of Cache Creek prepared from fall 1992 aerial photographs. Original map scale 1:2400, contour interval 0.6 m.
five gravel mining operations within 8 km of the
Highway 395 bridge extract a permitted volume of
approximately 300,000 m /yr, about 50 times greater
than the estimated postdam bedload sediment yield
(Kondolf and Larson 1995), further exacerbating the
coastal sediment deficit.
Incision of the riverbed typically causes the alluvial
aquifer to drain to a lower level, resulting in a loss of
aquifer storage, as documented along the Russian River
(Sonoma County 1992). The Lake County (California)
Planning Department (Lake County 1992) estimated
that incision from instream mining in small river valleys
Figure 11. Longitudinal profile of the Russian River, near could reduce alluvial aquifer storage from 1% to 16%,
Healdsburg, California, showing incision from 1940 to 1991.depending on local geology and aquifer geometry.
(Redrawn from Florsheim and Goodwin 1993, used by permis-
sion.)
Undermining of Structures
The direct effects of incision include undermining
stages of vegetation associated with an actively migrat- of bridge piers and other structures, and exposure of
ing river (Florsheim and Goodwin 1993). With contin- buried pipeline crossings and water-supply facilities.
ued extraction, the bed may degrade down to bedrock Headcutting of over7mfroman instream gravel mine
or older substrates under the recent alluvium (Figure downstream on the Kaoping River, Taiwan, threatens
12). Just as below dams, gravel-bed rivers may become the Kaoping Bridge, whose downstream margin is now
armored, limiting further incision (Dietrich and others protected with gabions, massive coastal concrete jacks,
1989), but eliminating salmonid spawning habitat. and lengthened piers (Figure 13).
In many rivers, gravel mining has been conducted On the San Luis Rey River, instream gravel mining
downstream of dams, combining the effects of both has not only reduced the supply of sediment to the
impacts to produce an even larger sediment deficit. On coast, but mining-induced incision has exposed aque-
the San Luis Rey River downstream of Henshaw Dam, ducts, gas pipelines, and other utilities buried in the
492 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 543
Figure 12. Tributary to the Sacramento
River near Redding, California, eroded to
bedrock as a result of instream mining.
(Photograph by author, January 1989.)
Figure 13. Undercutting and grade con-
trol efforts along the downstream side of
the Kaoping Bridge over the Kaoping
River, Taiwan, to control incision caused by
massive gravel mining downstream. (Pho-
tograph by the author, October 1995.)
bed and exposed the footings of a major highway bridge form or undercutting of banks caused by incision.
(Parsons Brinkeroff Gore & Storrie, Inc. 1994). The Gravel mining in Blackwood Creek, California, caused
Highway 32 bridge over Stony Creek, California, has incision and channel instability upstream and down-
been undermined as a result of intensive gravel mining stream, increasing the stream’s sediment yield fourfold
directly upstream and downstream of the bridge (Kon- (Todd 1989). As a nickpoint migrates upstream, its
dolf and Swanson 1993). Municipal water supply intakes incision and bank undercutting release additional sedi-
have been damaged or made less effective on the Mad ment to downstream reaches, where the channel may
(Lehre and others 1993) and Russian (Marcus 1992) aggrade and thereby become unstable (Sear and Archer
rivers in California as the layer of overlying gravel has 1995). Incision in the mainstem Russian River propa-
decreased due to incision. gated up its tributary Dry Creek, resulting in undercut-
ting of banks, channel widening (from 10 to 400 m in
Channel Instability
places), and destabilization, increasing delivery of sand
Instream mining can cause channel instability and gravel to the mainstem Russian River (Harvey and
through disruption of the existing equilibrium channel Schumm 1987).
493Annex 81
544 G. M. Kondolf
Figure 14. Sediment budget for Stony Creek, California. (Reprinted from Kondolf and Swanson 1993, used by permission of
Spring-Verlag, New York.)
A more subtle but potentially significant effect is thechannel migration by bank protection, reduced over-
increased mobility of the gravel bed if the pavement bank flooding from levees, and instream mining. How-
(the active coarse surface layer) (Parker and Klingeman ever, in many rivers the rate of aggregate extraction is an
1982) is disrupted by mining. Similarly, removal of order of magnitude greater than the rate of sediment
gravel bars by instream mining can eliminate the supply from the drainage basin, providing strong evi-
hydraulic control for the reach upstream, inducing dence for the role of extraction in causing channel
scour of upstream riffles and thus washout of incubat- change. On Stony Creek, the incision produced by
ing salmon embryos (Pauley and others 1989). Black Butte Reservoir could be clearly distinguished
from the effects of instream mining at the Highway 32
Secondary Effects of Instream Mining
bridge by virtue of the distinct temporal and spatial
Among the secondary effects of instream mining are patterns of incision. The dam-induced incision was
reduced loading of coarse woody debris in the channel, pronounced downstream of the reservoir soon after its
which is important as cover for fish (Bisson and others construction in 1963. By contrast, the instream mining
1987). Extraction (even bar skimming at low extraction (at rates exceeding the predam sediment supply by
rates) typically results in a wider, shallower streambed, 200%–600%, and exceeding the postdam sediment
leading to increased water temperatures, modification supply by 1000%–3000%) produced incision of up to 7
of pool-riffle distribution, alteration of intergravel flow centered in the mining reach near the Highway 32
paths, and thus degradation of salmonid habitat. bridge, after intensification of gravel mining in the
Resolving the Effects of Instream Mining 1970s (Kondolf and Swanson 1993) (Figure 14).
from Other Influences Management of Instream Gravel Mining
In many rivers, several factors potentially causing Instream mining has long been prohibited in the
incision in the channel may be operating simulta- United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands,
neously, such as sediment trapping by dams, reduced and Switzerland, and it is being reduced or prohibited
494 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 545
in many rivers where impacts are apparent in Italy, lation of sediment rating curves, variations in hydraulic
Portugal, and New Zealand. In the United States and roughness, and inadequate understanding of the me-
Canada, instream mining continues in many rivers, chanics of bed coarsening and bank erosion (NRC
despite increasing public opposition and recognition of 1983).
environmental effects by regulatory agencies. Instream In 1995, the US Department of Transportation
mines continue to operate illegally in many places, such issued a notice to state transportation agencies indicat-
as the United States (Los Angeles Times 1992) and ing that federal funds will no longer be available to
Taiwan. repair bridges damaged by gravel mining, a move that
Strategies used to manage instream mining range may motivate more vigorous enforcement of regula-
widely, and in many jurisdictions there is no effective tions governing gravel mining in rivers by states.
management. One strategy is to define a redline, a
minimum elevation for the thalweg (the deepest point
in a channel cross section) along the river, and to
permit mining so long as the bed does not incise below Floodplain Pit Mining
this line (as determined by annual surveys of river Floodplain pit mining transforms riparian woodland
topography). The redline approach addresses a prob- or agricultural land into open pits, which typically
intersect the water table at least seasonally (Figure 15).
lem common to many permits in California, which have
specified that extraction is permitted ‘‘x feet below the Floodplain pit mining has effectively transformed large
channel bed’’ or only down to the thalweg, without areas of floodplain into open-water ponds, whose water
level commonly tracks that of the main river closely, and
stating these limits in terms of actual elevations above a
permanent datum. Thus the extraction limits have which are commonly separated from the active channel
migrated vertically downward as the channel incises. by only a narrow strip of unmined land. Because the pits
are in close hydrologic continuity with the alluvial water
Another approach is to estimate the annual bedload
sediment supply from upstream (the replenishment table, concerns are often raised that contamination of
rate) and to limit annual extraction to that value or the pits may lead to contamination of the alluvial
some fraction thereof, considered the ‘‘safe yield.’’ The aquifer. Many existing pits are steep-sided (to maximize
replenishment rate approach has the virtue of scaling gravel yield per unit area) and offer relatively limited
extraction to the river load in a general way, but bedload wetlands habitat, but with improved pit design (e.g.,
transport can be notoriously variable from year to year. gently sloping banks, irregular shorelines), greater
Thus, this approach is probably better if permitted wildlife benefits are possible upon reclamation (An-
extraction rates are based on new deposition that year drews and Kinsman 1990, Giles 1992).
rather than on long-term average bedload yields. More In many cases, floodplain pits have captured the
fundamentally, however, the notion that one can extract channel during floods, in effect converting formerly
at the replenishment rate without affecting the channel off-channel mines to in-channel mines. Pit capture
ignores the continuity of sediment transport through occurs when the strip of land separating the pit from
the river system. The mined reach is the ‘‘upstream’’ the channel is breached by lateral channel erosion or by
overflowing floodwaters. In general, pit capture is most
sediment source for downstream reaches, so mining at
the replenishment rate could be expected to produce likely when flowing through the pit offers the river a
hungry water conditions downstream. Habitat manag- shorter course than the currently active channel.
When pit capture occurs, the formerly off-channel
ers in Washington state have sought to limit extraction
to 50% of the transport rate as a first-cut estimate of safeit is converted into an in-channel pit, and the effects of
yield to minimize effects upon salmon spawning habitat instream mining can be expected, notably propagation
(Bates 1987). of incision up- and downstream of the pit. Channel
Current approaches to managing instream mining capture by an off-channel pit on the alluvial fan of
are based on empirical studies. While a theoretical Tujunga Wash near Los Angeles created a nickpoint
approach to predicting the effects of different levels of that migrated upstream, undermining highway bridges
gravel mining on rivers would be desirable, the inherent (Scott 1973). The Yakima River, Washington, was cap-
complexity of sediment transport and channel change tured by two floodplain pits in 1971, and began under-
makes firm, specific predictions impossible at present. cutting the highway for whose construction the pits had
Sediment transport models can provide an indication of been originally excavated (Dunne and Leopold 1978).
potential channel incision and aggradation, but all such High flows on the Clackamas River, Oregon, in 1996
models are simplifications of a complex reality, and the resulted in capture of an off-channel pit and resulted in
utility of existing models is limited by unreliable formu- 2 m of incision documented about 1 km upstream
495Annex 81
546 G. M. Kondolf
Figure 15. Floodplain pit along Cotton-
wood Creek near Redding, California.
(Photograph by author, January 1989.)
Figure 16. Incision of Clackamas River
approximately one mile upstream of
captured gravel pit near Barton, Or-
egon. The three men on the right are
standing on the bed of a side channel
that formerly joined the mainstem at
grade, but is now elevated about 2 m
above the current river bed, after up-
stream migration of a nickpoint from
the gravel pit. View upstream. (Photo-
graph by author, April 1996.)
(Figure 16) and caused undermining of a building at excavated on the floodplain and subsequently captured
the gravel mine site (Figure 17). the channel (Vick 1995). Juvenile salmon migrating
Off-channel gravel pits have been used successfully towards the ocean become disoriented in the quiet
as spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and trout in water of these pits and suffer high losses to predation by
Idaho (Richards and others 1992) and on the Olympic largemouth and smallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides
Peninsula of Washington (Partee and Samuelson 1993). and M. dolomieui). On the nearby Tuolumne River, a
In warmer climates, however, these off-channel pits are 1987 study by the California Department of Fish and
likely to heat up in the summer and provide habitat for Game estimated that juvenile chinook salmon migrat-
warm-water fish that prey on juvenile salmonids. During ing oceanward suffered 70% losses to predation (mostly
floods, these pits may serve as a source of warm-water in gravel pits) in the three days required to traverse an
fish to the main channel, and juvenile salmon can 80-km reach from LaGrange Dam to the San Joaquin
become stranded in the pits. The Merced River, Califor- River (EA 1992). To reduce this predation problem,
nia, flows through at least 15 gravel pits, of which seven funding has been allocated to repair breached levees at
were excavated in the active channel, and eight were one gravel pit on the Merced River at a cost of
496 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 547
Figure 17. Building undercut by bank
erosion as the Clackamas River flows
through a captured gravel pit near Bar-
ton, Oregon. (Photograph by the author,
April 1996.)
US$361,000 (Kondolf and others 1996a), and refilling be identified, and alternative sources such as mining
of two pits on the Tuolumne River has been proposed at gold dredger tailings or reservoir accumulations, should
a cost of $5.3 million (McBain and Trush 1996). be evaluated. Wherever possible, concrete rubble should
be recycled to produce aggregate for many applications.
Reservoir sediments are a largely unexploited source
Aggregate Supply, Quality, and Uses
of building materials in the United States. In general,
Aggregates can be obtained from a wide variety of reservoir deposits will be attractive sources of aggre-
sources (besides fluvial deposits), such as dry terrace gates to the extent that they are sorted by size. The
mines, quarries (from which rock must be crushed, depositional pattern within a reservoir depends on
washed, and sorted), dredger tailings, reservoir deltas, reservoir size and configuration and the reservoir stage
and recycling concrete rubble. These alternative sources during floods. Small diversion dams may have a low trap
usually require more processing and often require efficiency for suspended sediments and trap primarily
longer transportation. Although their production costs sand and gravel, while larger reservoirs will have mostly
are commonly higher, these alternative sources avoid finer-grained sand, silt, and clay (deposited from suspen-
many impacts of riverine extraction and may provide sion) throughout most of the reservoir, with coarse
other benefits, such as partially restoring reservoir sediment typically concentrated in deltas at the up-
capacity lost to sedimentation and providing opportuni- stream end of the reservoir. These coarse deposits will
ties for ecological restoration of sterile dredger tailings.xtend farther if the reservoir is drawn down to a low
In California, most aggregate that has been pro- level when the sediment-laden water enters. In many
duced to date has been PCC-grade aggregate from reservoirs, sand and gravel occur at the upstream end,
instream deposits or recent channel deposits in flood- silts and clays at the downstream end, and a mixed zone
plains. These deposits were viewed as virtually infinite inof interbedded coarse and fine sediments in the middle.
supply, and these high-grade aggregates have been used Sand and gravel are mined commercially from some
in applications (such as road subbase) for which other, debris basins in the Los Angeles Basin and from Rollins
more abundant aggregates (e.g., crushed rock from Reservoir on the Bear River in California. In Taiwan,
upland quarries) would be acceptable. Given that de- most reservoir sediments are fine-grained (owing to the
mand for aggregate commonly exceeds the supply of caliber of the source rocks), but where coarser sedi-
sand and gravel from the catchment by an order of ments are deposited, they are virtually all mined for
magnitude or more, public policy ought to encourage construction aggregate (J. S. Hwang, Taiwan Provincial
reservation of the most valuable aggregate resources for Water Conservancy Bureau, Taichung City, personal
the highest end uses. PCC-grade instream gravels should communication 1996). In Israel, the 2.2-km-long Shikma
be used, to the extent possible, only in applications Reservoir is mined in its upper 600 m to produce sand
requiring such high-quality aggregate. Upland quarry and gravel for construction aggregate, and in its lower 1
and terrace pit sources of lower-grade aggregate should km to produce clay for use in cement, bricks, clay seals
497Annex 81
548 G. M. Kondolf
for sewage treatment ponds, and pottery (Laronne than the generators of the impacts. The notion of
1995, Taig 1996). The zone of mixed sediments in the sediment rights (analogous to water rights) should be
mid-section of the reservoir is left unexcavated and explored as a framework within which to assess reservoir
vegetated so it permits only fine-grained washload to operations and aggregate mining for these impacts.
pass downstream into the lower reservoir, thereby ensur- Sediment pass-through should be undertaken in
ing continued deposition of sand and gravel in the reservoirs (where feasible) to mimic the natural flux of
upstream portion of the reservoir and silt and clay in sediment through the river system. Pass-through should
the downstream portion. The extraction itself restores be done only during high flows when the sediment is
some of the reservoir capacity lost to sedimentation. likely to continue dispersing downstream from the
Similarly, on Nahal Besor, Israel, the off-channel Lower reservoir. The cost of installing larger low-level outlets
Rehovot Reservoir was deliberately created (to provide (where necessary) on existing dams will generally be
needed reservoir storage) by gravel mining. Water is less than costs of mechanical removal of sediments over
diverted into the reservoir through a spillway at high subsequent decades. In larger reservoirs where sedi-
flows, as controlled by a weir across the channel (Cohen ment cannot be passed through a drawn-down reser-
1996). voir, alternative means of transporting the gravel and
Extraction of reservoir sediments partially mitigates sand fractions around (or through) reservoirs using
losses in reservoir capacity from sedimentation. Be- tunnels, pipes, or barges should be explored.
cause of the high costs and practical problems with Flushing flows should be evaluated not only in light
construction of replacement reservoir storage and/or of potential benefits of flushing fine sediments from
mechanical removal of sediment, restoration of reser- mobilized gravels, but also the potential loss of gravel
voir capacity may be seen as one of the chief benefits from the reach due to downstream transport.
from mining aggregate and industrial clays from reser- The regional context of aggregate resources, market
voirs. If these benefits are recognized, mining reservoir demand, and the environmental impacts of various
deposits may become more economically attractive in alternatives must be understood before any site-specific
the future, especially if the environmental costs of proposal for aggregate extraction can be sensibly re-
instream and floodplain mining become better recog- viewed. In general, effects of aggregate mining should
nized and reflected in the prices of those aggregates. In be evaluated on a river basin scale, so that the cumula-
the United States, construction of reservoirs was often tive effects of extraction on the aquatic and riparian
justified partially by anticipated recreational benefits, resources can be recognized. Evaluation of aggregate
and thus reservoir margins are commonly designated as supply and demand should be undertaken on the basis
recreation areas, posing a potential conflict with an of production–consumption regions, encompassing the
industrial use such as gravel mining. Furthermore, market for aggregate and all potential sources of aggre-
wetlands may form in reservoir delta deposits, posing gate within an economical transport distance.
potential conflicts with regulations protecting wetlands. The finite nature of high-quality alluvial gravel re-
sources must recognized, and high-quality PCC-grade
aggregates should be reserved only for the uses demand-
Conclusions ing this quality material (such as concrete). Alternative
sources should be used in less demanding applications
Comprehensive management of gravel and sand in
river systems should be based on a recognition of the (such as road subbase). The environmental costs of
instream mining should be incorporated into the price
natural flow of sediment through the drainage network of the product so that alternative sources that require
and the nature of impacts (to ecological resources and
to infrastructure) likely to occur when the continuity of more processing but have less environmental impact
become more attractive.
sediment is disrupted. A sediment budget should be Instream mining should not be permitted in rivers
developed for present and historical conditions as a
fundamental basis for evaluation of these impacts, many downstream of dams by virtue of the lack of supply from
upstream or in rivers with important salmon spawning
of which are cumulative in nature. (unless it can be shown that the extraction will not
The cost of sediment-related impacts of existing and
proposed water development projects and aggregate degrade habitat).
mines must be realistically assessed and included in
economic evaluations of these projects. The (very real)
costs of impacts such as bridge undermining, loss of Acknowledgments
spawning gravels, and loss of beach sand are now The concepts presented in this paper have drawn
externalized, borne by other sectors of society rather upon research over a decade and interesting discussions
498 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers
549
with many colleagues, including Ken Bates, Koll Buer, California Department of Water Resources. 1995. Sacramento
Brian Collins, Cathy Crossett, Peter Geldner, Peter River gravel restoration phase II study: A plan for continued
Goodwin, Murray Hicks, Jing-San Hwang, Steve Jones, spawning gravel replenishment between Keswick Dam and
clear Creek. Technical Information Record TIR ND-95-1.
Pete Klingeman, John Laronne, Han-Bin Liang, Bob California Department of Water Resources, Northern Dis-
MacArthur, Graham Matthews, Scott McBain, Gregg
trict, Red Bluff, California.
Morris, Mike Sandecki, Mitchell Swanson, Jen Vick, Ed Chongshan, Z., W. Jianguo, and L. Quigmei. 1995. Experi-
Wallace, Peter Wilcock, and John Williams. This paper ment study of approach for sediment removed from reser-
has benefitted from critical comments from Mary Ann voirs. Pages 149–154 in Proceedings of sixth international
Madej, Graham Matthews, and an anonymous reviewer. symposium on river sedimentation, New Delhi, India.
Cohen, M. 1996. Structures and sills in river channels. Pages
The research upon which this paper is based was
partially supported by the University of California Water 42–44 in J. B. Laronne (ed.), Reservoirs as a source of water
for the Negev conference proceedings. Ben-Gurion Univer-
Resources Center (UC Davis), as part of Water Re- sity, Be’er Sheva, Israel (in Hebrew).
sources Center project UCAL-WRC-W-748, adminis-
Collins, B., and T. Dunne. 1990. Fluvial geomorphology and
tered by the Center for Environmental Design Re- river gravel mining: A guide for planners, case studies
search, and by a grant from the Beatrix Farrand Fund of included. California Division of Mines and Geology Special
the Department of Landscape Architecture, both at the Publication 98. Sacramento.
Denton, D. N. 1991. Sacramento River gravel restoration
University of California, Berkeley. progress report. Unpublished report. California Depart-
ment of Water Resources, Red Bluff, California, January
1991.
Literature Cited
Dietrich, W. E., J. W. Kirchner, H. Ikeda, and F. Iseya. 1989.
Allayaud, W. K. 1985. Innovations in non-structural solutions Sediment supply and development of coarse surface layer in
gravel bedded rivers. Nature 340:215–217.
to preventing coastal damage. Pages 260–290 in J. McGrath
(ed.), California’s battered coast, proceedings from a confer-Dunne, T., and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental
ence on coastal erosion. California Coastal Commission. planning. W. H. Freeman & Sons, San Francisco.
Andrews, J., and D. Kinsman. 1990. Gravel pit restoration for EA (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology). 1992. Don
wildlife: a practical manual. The Royal Society for Protec- Pedro Project fisheries studies report (FERC Article 39,
tion of Birds, Sandy, Bedfordshire. Project No. 2299). Report to Turlock Irrigation District and
Merced Irrigation District.
Barksdale, R. D. 1991. The aggregate handbook. National
Stone Association, Washington, DC. Everts, C. H. 1985. Effects of small protective devices on
beaches. Pages 127–138 in J. McGrath (ed.), California’s
Bates, K. 1987. Fisheries perspectives on gravel removal from battered coast, proceedings from a conference on coastal
river channels. Pages 292–298 in Realistic approaches to
better floodplain management. Proceedings of the eleventh erosion. California Coastal Commission.
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1993. Final
annual conference of the Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Seattle, June 1987. Natural Hazards Research environmental impact statement, propose modifications to
and Applications Information Center, Special Publication the Lower Mokelumne River Project, California, FERC
No. 18. Project No. 2916-004. Washington, DC.
Bisson, P. A. and eight coauthors. 1987. Large woody debris in FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1995. Order
forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past present, and amending and approving sediment flushing plan, STS
future. Pages 143–190 in E. O. Salo and T. Cundy (eds.), Hydropower Limited and Dan River Incorporated, FERC
Project No. 2411-012. Washington, DC.
Proceedings of an interdisciplinary symposium on stream-
side management: Forestry and fishery interactions. Univer- Florsheim, J., and P. Goodwin. 1993. Geomorphic and hydro-
sity of Washington Press, Seattle. logic conditions in the Russian River, California: Historic
Bjornn, T. L., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of trends and existing conditions. Discussion document, pre-
salmonids in streams. Pages 83–138 in Influences of forest pared for California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland.
and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their Fredericksen, Kamine, and Associates. 1980. Proposed Trinity
habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. River Basin fish and wildlife management program. Unpub-
Brownlie, W. R., and B. D. Taylor. 1981. Sediment manage- lished report to US Water and Power Resources Service
ment for southern California mountains, coastal plain, and (now the US Bureau of Reclamation).
shoreline. Part C. Coastal sediment delivery by major rivers Giles, N. 1992. Wildlife after gravel: Twenty years of practical
in southern California. Report. 17-C, Environmental Qual- research by The Game Conservancy and ARC. The Game
ity Lab, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. Conservancy, Fordingbridge, Hampshire.
Brune, G. M. 1953. The trap efficiency of reservoirs. Transac- Griffiths, G. A., and M. J. McSaveney. 1983. Hydrology of a
tions of the American Geophysical Union 34:407–418. basin with extreme rainfalls—Cropp River, New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Science 26:293–306.
Buel, B. 1980. Effects of Los Padres Reservoir silt release.
Unpublished memo. Monterey Peninsula Water Manage- Hack, H. P. 1986. Design and calculation of reservoirs of run
ment District, Monterey, California. of river stations incorporating sedimentation. Pages 107–
499Annex 81
550 G. M. Kondolf
112 in W. Bechteler (ed.), Transport of suspended solids in Kondolf, G. M., J. C. Vick, and T. M. Ramirez. 1996a. Salmon
open channels, proceedings of Euromech 192. Munich, spawning habitat rehabilitation in the Merced, Tuolumne,
Germany. June 11–15, 1985. and Stanislaus Rivers, California: An evaluation of project
planning and performance. Report No. 90, University of
Harvey, M. D., and S. A. Schumm. 1987. Response of Dry
Creek, California, to land use change, gravel mining and California Water Resources Center, Davis, California.
dam closure. Pages 451–460 in Erosion and sedimentation Kondolf, G. M., J. C. Vick, and T. M. Ramirez. 1996b. Salmon
in the Pacific Rim, proceedings of the Corvallis symposium, spawning habitat rehabilitation on the Merced River, Califor-
August 1987. International Association of Hydrological nia: An evaluation of project planning and performance.
Sciences Publication 165. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:899–912.
Hassanzadeh, Y. 1995. The removal of reservoir sediment. Kuhl, D. 1992. 14 years of artificial grain feeding in the Rhine
Water International 20:151–154. downstream the barrage Iffezheim. Pages 1121–1129 in
Proceedings 5th international symposium on river sedimen-
Hazel, C., S. Herrera, H. Rectenwald, and J. Ives. 1976.
Assessment of effects of altered stream flow characteristics tation, Karlsruhe, Germany.
on fish and wildlife. Part B: California case studies. Report Lake County. 1992. Lake County aggregate resource manage-
by Jones and Stokes, Inc. to US Department of Interior, Fish ment plan. Lake County Planning Department, Resource
and Wildlife Service. Management Division, Lakeport, California. Draft.
Hwang, J. S. 1994. A study of the sustainable water resources
Laronne, J. B. 1995. Design of quarrying in the Shikma
system in Taiwan considering the problems of reservoir Reservoir, final report to Mekorot, Israeli Water Supply
desilting. Taiwan Provincial Water Conservancy Bureau, Company, Geography Department, Ben-Gurion University,
Taichung City, Taiwan. Be’er Sheva, Israel. July, 15 pp. (in Hebrew).
Inman, D. L. 1976. Man’s impact on the California coastal Lehre, A., R. D. Klein, and W. Trush. 1993. Analysis of the
zone. Summary report to California Department of Naviga- effects of historic gravel extraction on the geomorphic
tion and Ocean Development, Sacramento.
character and fisheries habitat of the Lower Mad River,
Inman, D. L. 1985. Budget of sand in southern California; Humboldt County, California. Appendix F to the draft
river discharge vs. cliff erosion. Pages 10–15 in J. McGrath program environmental impact report on gravel removal
(ed.), California’s battered coast, proceedings from a confer- from the Lower Mad River. Department of Planning, County
ence on coastal erosion. California Coastal Commission. of Humboldt, Eureka, California.
Janda, R. J. 1978. Summary of watershed conditions in the
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial
vicinity of Redwood National Park. US Geological Survey processes in geomorphology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco,
Open File Report 78-25, Menlo Park, California. 522 pp.
Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman, and D. W. Skelly. 1988. Impact of Los Angeles Times. 1992. Brothers get jail time for river
dam building on the California coastal zone. California mining. Article by Jonathan Gaw. 17 June.
Waterfront Age September.
Madej, M. A., and V. Ozaki. 1996. Channel response to
Kondolf, G. M. 1994. Geomorphic and environmental effects sediment wave propagation and movement, Redwood Creek,
of instream gravel mining. Landscape and Urban Planning California, USA.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms21:911–
28:225–243.
927.
Kondolf, G. M. 1995. Managing bedload sediments in regu- Marcus, L. 1992. Status report: Russian River resource enhance-
lated rivers: Examples from California, USA. Geophysical
Monograph 89:165–176. ment plan. California Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, Califor-
nia.
Kondolf, G. M., and R. R. Curry. 1986. Channel erosion along
the Carmel River, Monterey County, California. Earth Surface McBain, S. M., and W. Trush. 1996. Tuolumne River channel
restoration project, special run pools 9 and 10. Report
Processes and Landforms 11:307–319. submitted to Tuolumne River Technical Advisory Commit-
Kondolf, G. M., and M. Larson. 1995. Historical channel tee (Don Pedro Project, FERC License No. 2299) by McBain
analysis and its application to riparian and aquatic habitat and Trush, Arcata, California.
restoration. Aquatic Conservation 5:109–126. Morris, G. L. 1993. A global perspective of sediment control
Kondolf, G. M., and W. V. G. Matthews. 1993. Management of
measures in reservoirs. In S. Fan and G. L. Morris (eds.),
coarse sediment in regulated rivers of California. Report Notes on sediment management in reservoirs: National and
No. 80. University of California Water Resources Center, international perspectives. US Federal Energy Regulatory
Davis, California. Commission, Washington DC.
Kondolf, G. M., and M. L. Swanson. 1993. Channel adjust- Northwest Hydraulics Consultants. 1995. Cache Creek stream-
ments to reservoir construction and instream gravel mining, way study. Unpublished report to Yolo County Community
Stony Creek, California. Environmental Geology and Water
Development Agency, Woodland, California.
Science 21:256–269. NRC (National Research Council). 1983. An evaluation of
Kondolf, G. M., and P. R. Wilcock. 1996. The flushing flow
flood-level prediction using alluvial-river models. Commit-
problem: Defining and evaluating objectives. Water Resources tee on Hydrodynamic Computer Models for Flood Insur-
Research 32(8):2589–2599. ance Studies, Advisory Board on the Built Environment,
Kondolf, G. M., and M. G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Na-
salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resources Research 29:2275– tional Research Council. National Academy Press, Washing-
2285. ton DC.
500 Annex 81
Effects of Dams and Gravel Mining on Rivers 551
Parfitt, D., and K. Buer. 1980. Upper Sacramento River Sear, D. A., and D. R. Archer. 1995. The effects of gravel
spawning gravel study. California Department of Water extraction on the stability of gravel-bed rivers: A case study
Resources, Northern Division, Red Bluff. from the Wooler Water, Northumberland, UK. Paper pre-
sented to the 4th workshop on gravel bed rivers. Gold Bar,
Parker, G., and P. C. Klingeman. 1982. On why gravel bed
streams are paved. Water Resources Research 18:1409–1423. Washington.
Sen, S. P., and A. Srivastava. 1995. Flushing of sediment from
Parsons Brinkerhoff Gore & Storrie, Inc. 1994. River manage- small reservoir. Pages 149–154 in Proceedings of sixth
ment study: permanent protection of the San Luis Rey River
Aqueduct crossings. Report to San Diego County Water international symposium on river sedimentation, New Delhi,
Authority. India.
Partee, R. R., and Samuelson, D. F. 1993. Weyco-Brisco ponds Sonoma County. 1992. Sonoma County aggregate resources
habitat enhancement design criteria. Unpublished report, management plan and environmental impact report, draft.
Prepared by EIP Associates for Sonoma County Planning
Grays Harbor College, Aberdeen, Washington. Department, Santa Rosa, California.
Pauley, G. B., G. L. Thomas, D. A. Marino, and D. C. Weigand.
Stevens, J. C. 1936. The silt problem. Paper No. 1927. Transac-
1989. Evaluation of the effects of gravel bar scalping on tions American Society of Civil Engineers.
juvenile salmonids in the Puyallup River drainage. Univer-
sity of Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit Re- Stevens, M. A., B. Urbonas, and L. S. Tucker. 1990. Public–
port. University of Washington, Seattle. private cooperation protects river. APWA Reporter Septem-
ber: 25–27.
Potter, D. 1985. Sand sluicing from dams on the San Gabriel
River—is it feasible? Pages 251–260 in J. McGrath (ed.), Stone, K. E., and B. S. Kaufman. 1985. Sand rights, a legal
system to protect the shores of the beach. Pages 280–297 in
California’s battered coast, proceedings from a conference
on coastal erosion. California Coastal Commission. J. McGrath (ed.), California’s battered coast, proceedings
from a conference on coastal erosion. California Coastal
Ramey, M. P., and S. M. Beck. 1990. Flushing flow evaluation: Commission.
The north fork of the Feather River below Poe Dam.
Environment, Health, and Safety Report 009.4-89.9. Pacific Taig, M. 1996. Use of sediment accumulated in flood reser-
Gas and Electric Company, Department of Research and voirs. Pages 25–30 in J. B. Laronne (ed.), Reservoirs as a
source of water for the Negev Conference Proceedings.
Development, San Ramon, California.
Reiser, D. W., M. P. Ramey, and T. A. Wesche. 1989. Flushing Ben-Gurion University, Be’er Sheva, Israel (in Hebrew).
Todd, A. H. 1989. The decline and recovery of Blackwood
flows. Pages 91–135 in J. A. Gore and G. E. Petts (eds.),
Alternatives in regulated river management. CRC Press, Canyon, Lake Tahoe, California. In Proceedings, interna-
Boca Raton, Florida. tional erosion control association conference. Vancouver,
British Columbia.
Richards, C., P. J. Cernera, M. P. Ramey, and D. W. Reiser.
1992. Development of off-channel habitats for use by juve- Vick, J. 1995. Habitat rehabilitation in the Lower Merced
nile chinook salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries River: A geomorphological perspective. Masters thesis in
Environmental Planning, Department of Landscape Archi-
Management 12:721–727. tecture, and Report No. 03-95, Center for Environmental
Richards, K. 1982. Rivers: Form and process in alluvial chan-
Design Research, University of California, Berkeley.
nels. Methuen, London, 358 pp. Westrich, B., S. Al-Zoubi, and J. Muller. 1992. Planning and
Sandecki, M. 1989. Aggregate mining in river systems. Califor-
nia Geology 42(4):88–94. designing a flushing channel for river reservoir sediment
management. Pages 861–867 in 5th international sympo-
Schick, A. P., and J. Lekach. 1993. An evaluation of two sium on river sedimentation. Karlsruhe, Germany.
ten-year sediment budgets, Nahal Yael, Israel.Physical Geogra-
Wilcock, P. R., G. M. Kondolf, W. V. Matthews, and A. F. Barta.
phy 14(3):225–238. 1996. Specification of sediment maintenance flows for a
Schumm, S. A. 1977. The fluvial system. John Wiley & Sons, large gravel-bed river. Water Resources Research 32(9):2911–
New York. 2921.
Scott, K. M. 1973. Scour and fill in Tujunga Wash—a fanhead Williams, G. P., and M. G. Wolman. 1984. Downstream effects
valley in urban southern California—1969. US Geological of dams on alluvial rivers. US Geological Survey Professional
Survey Professional Paper 732-B. Paper 1286.
501502
Volume III - Annexes 11-81