Acceso usuarios
El presente trabajo tuvo como objetivo analizar el caso 20-12-IN respecto a la acción pública de inconstitucionalidad del acuerdo Nº 80 del Ministerio Ambiente mediante el cual se declara al Triángulo de Cuembi como Bosque Protector y Vegetación por la Corte Constitucional del Ecuador. No obstante, a las comunidades indígenas que habitan la zona se les restringió derechos fundamentales a: una vivienda, alimentación, identidad, a sus tradiciones, a mantener la posesión de sus tierras ancestrales, a conservar sus prácticas en el manejo del entorno natural, a la consulta previa de medidas que los afecten culturalmente, a ser consultados antes de tomar una medida normativa y a limitar las actividades militares en sus territorios. A través del análisis jurisprudencial junto a fuente de información documental secundaria, se desprende que el Estado preserva áreas protegidas como bosques y vegetaciones, al ser la Naturaleza sujeto de derechos, pero ello, sin desmedro del respeto a los pueblos, comunidades y nacionalidades indígenas. En este sentido, dentro de la motivación del caso son los principios del derecho:
convencionalidad, cláusula abierta y aplicabilidad directa, los que permiten determinar que el derecho a ser consultados posee una interpretación extensiva del Convenio 169 de la OIT sobre pueblos indígenas y tribales como tratado vinculante, es así que, las autoridades del ambiente están obligadas a emitir un nuevo acuerdo para la protección del área que asegure el respeto a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas que habitan la zona.
The present work had as objective to analyze the case 20-12-IN regarding the public action of unconstitutionality of agreement No. 80 of the Ministry of the Environment by which the Cuembi Triangle is declared a Protected Forest and Vegetation in the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. The objective of this work was to analyze the case 20-12-IN regarding the public action of unconstitutionality of agreement No. 80 of the Ministry of the Environment by which the Cuembi Triangle is declared a Protected Forest and Vegetation in the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. However, the indigenous communities that inhabit the area were restricted from fundamental rights: housing, food, identity, traditions, to maintaining possession of their ancestral lands, to conserve their practices in the management of the natural environment, to prior consultation on measures that affect them culturally, to be consulted before taking a regulatory measure and to limit military activities in their territories.
Through the jurisprudential analysis together with a secondary documentary source of information, it follows that the State preserves protected areas such as forests and vegetation, as Nature is the subject of rights, but this, without detriment to respect for indigenous peoples, communities and nationalities. In this sense, within the motivation of the case are the principles of law:
conventionality, open clause and direct applicability, which allow determining that the right to be consulted has an extensive interpretation of the ILO Convention 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples as a binding treaty, so the environmental authorities are obliged to issue a new agreement for the protection of the area that ensures respect for the rights of the indigenous peoples that inhabit the area.
