The environmental group PRO-ECO, based in Tafí Viejo, Tucumán, was established as a plaintiff in the González, Juan Antonio lawsuit regarding the violation of Law 24.051, in which La Alumbrera mining company is being investigated for pollution.

LA ALUMBRERA LAWSUIT: PRO - ECO Grupo Ecologista is now a plaintiff

Tafí Viejo, Tucumán 16 December 2010

PRO-ECO Grupo Ecologista, a non-profit organization based in Tafí Viejo, Tucumán whose Company Number is 131/97, was established as a plaintiff in the González, Juan Antonio lawsuit regarding the violation of Law 24.051.

PRO-ECO Grupo Ecologista, in Defense of Water for Life, dedicates this lawsuit to the direct victims of the large-scale and open-pit mining disaster who defend, with dignified anger, our land and common goods, particularly all of the Citizens’ Assemblies that resist the “colored mirrors” of metal and nuclear mining policy in Argentina, imposed to serve national-transnational corporations at the expense of the people.

The González, Juan Antonio lawsuit regarding the violation of Law 24.051 dates back to 1999, in which the Salí-Dulce Basin is victim.  We continually find default in the work of the Tucumán federal courts.  It is a “procedural defect” that has delayed trial and public hearing proceedings for the corporate manager of the mining company La Alumbrera, charged as the alleged perpetrator of the environmental crime.  Since informal demonstrations of self-organized neighbors and protests at the Socio-Environmental Assembly of Northwestern Argentina directed at federal judges have not been sufficient, we decided to establish ourselves as plaintiffs, invoking the name of our civil organization which provides logic and support for our environmental actions.

Establishing ourselves as a complainant represents taking another step in the exercise of Environmental Rights, outlined in Article 41 of our country’s Constitution.  The impunity enjoyed by the white-collar criminals in our country with regard to the environment violates our collective rights to health, dependent upon a healthy and balanced environment; it violates our rights and obligations to conduct activities less harmful to Nature; it prevents us from taking intergenerational environmental responsibility in a context of a very serious global-local ecological crisis that requires urgent preservation and remediation.

Being involved in the proceedings enables us to clear up the reason and responsibilities for the delays in the State meting out justice.  It puts us in a situation of necessary and unavoidable knowledge with regard to our social commitment to provide the Environmental Education and Communication that our statute requires.

We are aware of the obstacles and risks that lie ahead.  However, we also have the support and security of our socio-environmental networks.

To the Great River that runs beneath the River, CHEERS!

Part of the Status issued by the sponsoring attorney dated December 16, 2010

Greetings, Everyone!  Below is an account of what happened in the Rooney case (FORMALLY ENTITLED: “GONZÁLEZ JUAN ANTONIO REGARDING VIOLATION TO LAW 24.051) since I joined it.

I joined during October around the 5th of the month as the new sponsor for Anita Loto, who was the only plaintiff at that time.  After, we were informed that Dr. Racedo (JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL) issued a resolution requesting that the parties (defense, plaintiff and public prosecutor) provide new evidence regarding the alleged provisions proposed by the Federal Court of Appeals of Tucumán in their most recent resolution (dated SEPTEMBER 3, 2010), which states, “with the elapsed time in mind, it is important that the parties provide new evidence if they deem it so necessary and that the judge reviews pertinent evidence before issuing a new statement”.  It is more than obvious that this resolution does nothing but repeat a segment of the decision from the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation dated September 21, 2009.  When reading both decisions (Court of Criminal Cassation and Federal Court of Appeals dated May 28, 2008), it can also be clearly inferred that the formal validity of a probationary measure is what is being attacked, not the quality of the challenged expertise to prove the criminal act itself.  At no time was it said that it was irrelevant for the resolution of the case.  Rather, it was made clear that it was important for resolving its formal validity, and that was what Dr. Racedo ordered.  Making an incorrect interpretation and taking it out of context, he is now requesting new evidence, as if the Courts had been requiring new evidence regarding the verification of the crime itself.

It is more clear that we are speaking of an endangerment crime (as it was also referred to by the Federal Court of Appeals in its decision), defined as “that which only requires that the legally protected good (in this case, water) be put at risk” (a true risk in this case because it involves a concrete endangerment crime).  If the danger was confirmed in the past, why is it necessary to request more evidence in the present or in the future?

It could never be inferred from a resolution issued by the same body that recognized it, which has now changed the requirements and is requesting new evidence about an event that already occurred and was proven, as if they (the judges of the Court) would recognize it and therefore decide to prosecute the accused.

In this situation, the only plaintiff established at that time presented a Speedy Trial Request for the judge to decide the procedural status of the accused, as both Courts had clearly ordered.  The Court replied that we are at the established, due to the aforementioned resolution of the Federal Court of Appeals in which they informed us that they plan to continue requesting additional evidence.  The plaintiff (Anita Loto) replied with a new Speedy Trial Request and given that the procedural deadline established by the Argentinean Penal Procedural Code to resolve our request had passed without having received a response from the Court, the plaintiff decided to file a Complaint for Delay of Justice with the Court, the resolution of which is still pending”.