Summary
Leader Góngora Farías Fausto, as a common attorney of 120 people, filed a lawsuit regarding the first and second subsections of article 16 of the Organic Law of the Food Sovereignty Regime. The plaintiffs claimed that the provisions of the LORSA “protects, camouflages, conceals, and even promotes activities that are not only illegal because they have violated express constitutional provisions regarding human rights and the rights of nature, seriously and in some cases irreversibly affecting the environment, caused by the shrimp industry who act outside the law…” The constitutional court denied the action, declaring that the text of Article 16, first and second subsections of the Organic Law of the Food Sovereignty Regime has not been amended and it is not appropriate to carry out comprehensive control of the possible unconstitutionality allegedthe issue has already been resolved by the Constitutional Court.
Suggested Citation:
Kauffman, Craig, Catherine Haas, Alex Putzer, Shrishtee Bajpai, Kelsey Leonard, Elizabeth Macpherson, Pamela Martin, Alessandro Pelizzon & Linda Sheehan. Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. V2. 2025. Distributed by the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor.https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/unconstitutionality-of-article-16-of-the-food-sovereignty-law/.
When using our data, please follow the FAIR and CARE Principles for data governance outlined in our Ethics Statement. We are doing our best to be correct in the information we provide, but if you notice any omission or inaccuracy, please report this to us immediately at info@ecojurisprudence.org so we can correct it.
Eco Jurisprudence Tracker is licensed under CC BY 4.0
