Pascua Lama makes allegations after two months of postponement
Judges Rubén Ballesteros, Haroldo Brito, Rosa Egnem, Andrea Munoz and Carlos Cerda, constitute the hall of the Supreme.
After two months of delays, finally yesterday in the Third Hall of the Supreme Court the allegations were made by the cause that has been suspended the Pascua-Lama project. Lawyers Jose Antonio Urrutia, representative of Minera Nevada, a subsidiary of Barrick; Alvaro Toro on behalf of the Indian Association of Guascoalto Diaguita Community Council, and Cristián Gandarillas on behalf of the Sociedad Agrícola Santa Monica Limitada and others.
The allegations were part of the appeal filed by the mining company to challenge the Environmental Court ruling that invalidated the actions of the Superintendent of Environment (SMA) in the penalty imposed for infringements of the project, including any imposed penalties.
In the ruling the $ 16 million fine is set aside because it was considered “miscalculated” and ordered to conduct a new investigation.
Yesterday the defending party of the Canadian Company reiterated its position by arguing that the court cannot dictate how the SMA must act, and called the ruling as “extra nugget” to be a penalty, which would be of the exclusive authority of the superintendency.
Regarding this situation they asked the Third Hall, which is constituted by ministers Rubén Ballesteros, Haroldo Brito, Rosa Egnem, Andrea Muñoz and Carlos Cerda, to issue a new judgment considering fewer defaults since current 22 may be grouped
Lawyers for communities called for the ratification of the ruling of the Environmental Court because it would set a precedent in the development of projects related to the environment.
They added that the principle of avoiding damage before punishing when they’re gone would be respected, along with strengthening the responsibility of those who pollute or harm the environment to take the environmental consequences.
Not qualify the claim of the mining company the penalty fixed by the SMA would be recalculated and, according to estimates by industry experts, the financial penalty could rise to $ 260 million.
Source: Diario Financiero
