VI MERITS OF THE CASE

VI.1 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2.

El demandado en ningn momento ha violado el artculo 2 debido a que ha
adoptado las medidas necesarias para garantizar la vida de los ciudadanos.
1

Asimismo, el gobierno ha cumplido con su obligacin de prevenir la vida de

las personas ya que posee las alertas y defensas necesarias en caso de que
la mina se derrumbase.
The respondent has not violated article 2 because it has adopted
the necessary measures to guarantee the life of the citizens. 1
Also, the Government has complied with its obligation to prevent
the lives of the people because it has warnings and necessary
defenses if the mine collapses.
VI.2 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6.
El Gobierno se toma muy en serio el artculo 6, pero en ningn momento ha
sido violado ya que ste articulo habla sobre la responsabilidad civil, y en
este caso se solicita una compensacin por daos y perjuicios que se
encuentra dentro del derecho privado.
Asimismo, el Gobierno no ha violado el artculo 6 debido a que no ha
infringido el principio de igualdad de armas 2y tampoco ha prohibido el
acceso a los tribunales.
Finalmente, el artculo 6 no es posible aplicarlo en este caso debido a que
no existen derechos civiles afectados, y tampoco es posible interponer la
accin popular, cuando no hay peligro inminente, a un ser humano. 3
The government takes very seriously the article 6, but at no time
has been violated this article, because this article talks about the
civil responsibility, and is requested in this case compensation for
damages within private law.
In addition, the Government has not violated article 6 because it
has not infringed the principle of equality of arms 1 and also has
not banned access to the courts.
Finally, article 6 cannot apply it in this case because there are no
civil rights affected, and nor is it possible to bring the popular
action, when there is no imminent danger, a human being. 2
VI.3 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8

1 L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 23413/94)

2 Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain
3 Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland

La degradacin ambiental no supone necesariamente una violacin del

artculo 8 debido a que no incluye un derecho ambiental que afecte a la
proteccin del medio o conservacin de la naturaleza.
Asimismo, para que un problema que haya surgido en virtud de dicho
artculo los factores ambientales tienen que afectar de forma directa y grave
a la vida privada y familiar o al hogar.4
En este caso la implantacin de la mina puede afectar a los lugares de culto
de los 135 applicants, pero no afecta gravemente a su vida privada y
familiar o a sus hogares.
Por otra parte, durante el proceso de reapertura de la mina el demandado
actu de acuerdo con las regulaciones nacionales, (artculo 15 de la Ley
Nacional de Medio Ambiente). Esto demuestra el inters que tiene el
demandado de mantener o preservar el medio ambiente que rodea a
Kandelia y que en ningn momento tiene intencin de causar dao al medio
ambiente y a los habitantes.
Environmental degradation does not necessarily imply a violation of
article 8 since it does not include an environmental law that affects
the protection of the environment or nature conservation.
Also, so that a problem that has arisen under that provision the
environmental factors have to affect directly and seriously to
private and family life or the hogar.4
In this case the implementation of the mine can affect the places of
worship of the 135 applicants, but does not seriously affect their
private and family lifes or their homes.
On the other hand, during the process of reopening of the
respondent acted in accordance with national regulations, (article
15 of the national environment law). This demonstrates the interest
that has the respondent to maintain or preserve the environment
that surrounds Kandelia and never intend to cause harm to the
environment and residents

VI.4 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9.

El artculo 9 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos afirma que la
libertad de manifestar su religin o sus convicciones individual o
colectivamente, en pblico o en privado, por medio del culto, la enseanza,
las prcticas y la observancia de los ritos. El demandado est de acuerdo
con este artculo, pero afirma que en ningn momento ha sido violado ya
que respeta la pluralidad y creencias del pueblo.
Al abrir la mina no est privando a la gente de manifestar su religin, ni
tampoco afecta a los diversos lugares de culto debido a que la mina se
encuentra a 1 kilmetro de distancia de la zona de culto de los Leniterists.
4 Fadeyeva v. Russia, paragraph 68; Kyrtatos v. Greece, judgment of 22 May
2003, paragraph 52; Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine

Asimismo, el Gobierno es imparcial con las creencias religiosas del pueblo

debido a que lo nico que desea con la mina es que esa zona desfavorecida
crezca econmicamente hablando, y respetando siempre los lugares de
culto.5
Article 9 of the European Convention on human rights States that
"the freedom to manifest their religion or beliefs individually or
collectively, in public or in private, through worship, teaching,
practice and observance of rituals." The respondent is in
accordance with this article, but says that at no time has been
violated since it respects the plurality and beliefs of the people.
When the Government opening the mine it is not depriving the
people to manifest their religion and also it is not affect different
places of worship since mine is just 1 kilometre away from the cult
of the Leniterists area.
The Government is also fair with the religion of the people because
they want with the mine that this disadvantaged area grow
economically, and respecting places of worship. 2

5 Leyla Sahin v. Turkey