Rights of nature

Summary: This case concerns defendants who illegally fished for, and captured, vulnerable-classified sharks within Ecuadorian territories using illegal fishing gear and fishing methods. The court discussed the presence and importance of natural reserves, including marine life reserves, and the inherent rights of nature. The court found that the defendants’ fishing was aimed at capturing sharks for profit and confirmed their criminal prison sentences in all respects as described in the lower court.

Summary: This case regards a defendant who shot and killed a jaguar, which was an endangered species, allegedly in the name of defense and necessity. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not require defense or true necessity, that he had to prove that he did not kill the jaguar, and that in circumstances of uncertainty, the court should hold in favor of nature (in dubio pro natura). The defendant was not a hunter and was not actively hunting the jaguar. Ecuadorian environmental law states that anyone who “hunts” a legally protected species will be punished with incarceration. The court discussed concepts of Ecuadorian constitutional law, rights of nature, and the juxtaposition of human beings working within the habitats of wild, and potentially predatory, animals. After a detailed discussion, the court accepted the appeal and unanimously agreed to punish the defendant with six months' prison time.

Summary: This case was filed against the defendant when the defendant, an airline employee, allegedly unknowingly participated in shipping thousands of sea cucumbers in cargo containers. The specific species of sea cucumber were endangered in Ecuador, and the plaintiff claimed that their harvesting and transport were a crime against the environment and a violation of the nation’s efforts to conserve the country’s unique ecosystems. The court discussed factors of which species and specimens are typically included in shipments similar to the one at issue, and Ecuador’s national efforts to protect its environment; especially its endangered species. The defendant was found to have participated in the offense as an accomplice for his part in transporting the sea cucumbers and was punished with serving a fraction of the punishment to be served by the primary offenders.

Summary: In this case, the plaintiff, the Ministry of the Environment, appeals decisions from multiple lower courts with regard to the defendant’s shrimp farm. The farm was located on a nature reserve and the plaintiff sued for protective action, arguing that the rights of nature must be respected and allowing the defendant to maintain his farm on the reserve violates such rights. However, the defendant argued that his right to due process was being violated and he wished to retain his property rights over his farm. The court again held in favor of the defendant, finding that his right to due process was violated despite its location on a protected nature reserve. The matter was to be resolved in a lower court.

Summary: This case is about a crime against the environment. The defendant, while out hunting, had shot and killed a condor. The condor was recognized by locals as an Andean Condor, and was environmentally classified as “endangered.” For its killing, the defendant received a prison sentence. The court reasoned that it is within the national interest to prosecute the defendant and protect the country’s environment, including its wildlife.

Summary: This case challenged the constitutionality of Law 28258: Mine Royalty Law. Most pertinently, articles 1-5 of the law establish guidelines and regulations regarding the use and royalty of mineral materials. The court discussed aspects of natural preservation, social equality, and liberty regarding the use and taxation of such materials. Ultimately, the court held that the claim was unfounded, and required transparency in how the funds were allocated to allow civil society to be aware of their uses.

Summary: Este caso fue presentado contra el acusado cuando éste, empleado de una aerolínea, supuestamente participó sin saberlo en el envío de miles de pepinos de mar en contenedores de carga. Las especies específicas de pepinos de mar estaban en peligro de extinción en Ecuador, y el demandante alegó que su recolección y transporte constituían un delito contra el medio ambiente y una violación de los esfuerzos de la nación por conservar los ecosistemas únicos del país. El tribunal analizó los factores de qué especies y especímenes suelen incluirse en envíos similares al que nos ocupa, y los esfuerzos nacionales de Ecuador por proteger su medio ambiente; especialmente sus especies en peligro de extinción. Se determinó que el acusado había participado en el delito como cómplice por su participación en el transporte de los pepinos de mar y se le impuso una pena equivalente a una fracción de la pena que debían cumplir los delincuentes principales.

Summary: Este caso se refiere a un acusado que disparó y mató a un jaguar, que era una especie en peligro de extinción, supuestamente en nombre de la defensa y la necesidad. El demandante alegó que el demandado no requería defensa o verdadera necesidad, que tenía que probar que no había matado al jaguar y que, en circunstancias de incertidumbre, el tribunal debía fallar a favor de la naturaleza (in dubio pro natura). El acusado no era cazador y no estaba cazando activamente al jaguar. La legislación medioambiental ecuatoriana establece que cualquier persona que "cace" una especie legalmente protegida será castigada con penas de prisión. El tribunal debatió conceptos del derecho constitucional ecuatoriano, los derechos de la naturaleza y la yuxtaposición de seres humanos que trabajan en el hábitat de animales salvajes y potencialmente depredadores. Tras un debate detallado, el tribunal aceptó el recurso y acordó por unanimidad castigar al acusado con seis meses de prisión.