Criminal protection of the environment in Cuba

The present work aims to demonstrate that the environmental problems of our country cannot be solved by dint of criminal sanctions such as going to jail or paying a fine, but these are undoubtedly necessary; We cannot expect judges and prosecutors to replace the Administration, and even less to assume that the solution is in the hands of others. Each one of us is called to act in favor of our survival, of the rational use and exploitation of the resources that Nature offers us to guarantee their conservation and their permanence in time.

1. Introduction

Starting in 1972, with the World Conference on the Human Environment, the entire world experienced a turnaround when it became aware of the danger posed by the waste, misuse and depletion of renewable natural resources, the increasingly serious problems of pollution, and, in general, serious attacks on the environment. The change was felt in all orders and, as a logical consequence, in legal systems.

The Republic of Cuba faces problems of a national or specific nature that affect the environment, and it is the purpose of the State to confront them with all the necessary instruments. The multi and transdisciplinary nature of environmental issues, demanded the need to implement a new Environmental Law- Law No. 81 of July 11, 1997, which clarified the normative world of the provisions of the Penal Code on the matter, when pronouncing in the following terms:

Article 75: Actions or omissions that are socially prohibited by law under criminal injunction, which attempt against the protection of the environment, will be classified and sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of current criminal legislation.

However, the development achieved with administrative practice and the enrichment of the legislation has not been accompanied by the respective advances in Criminal Law, which has been absent from this evolutionary process, despite the sanctions constituting the force and credibility of that regulation. That arsenal, which also included sanctions for attacks on the environment, remained inaccessible because of its very abundance and fragmentation. It was, likewise, ineffective due to the absence or scarce development of a supporting legal theory that, by valuing it, would make it occupy its true place.

There is a gap between the evolution of Environmental Law and Criminal Law, which must provide protection to the legal assets recognized by the former. Criminal Law suffered a stagnation and, obviously, doctrine and jurisprudence in this field have not progressed as the circumstances require. It is necessary to open the floodgates that dam the evolution of Criminal Law in a specific area.

It is in Criminal Sciences perhaps where the absence of studies in the legal-environmental area is felt the most, which is necessary both for the safety of citizens about the illegal in order to adjust their conduct to the new criminal provisions, because the lack of environmental awareness among those in charge of applying sanctions on the matter is well known. For this reason, the dissemination of the sanctioning principles of Environmental Criminal Law is of the utmost interest, principles that, ultimately, will ensure the effectiveness of the legal standards for environmental protection, knowing that the best prevention will never be effective in its entirety..

In our country, despite having been timely proposed by CITMA to the Ministry of Justice, the inclusion in the current Criminal Code of a Chapter or Section on environmental crimes has not yet been achieved, which makes the application of this Regime difficult.

2. The environment as an object of criminal protection

Legal norms differ from moral, religious and other norms, due to the material sanction, it is this which will make the legal norm credible. The prescription indicated by the norm is supported by this material sanction, a consequence of the breach of legal duty. It may consist of various duties imposed on the sanctioned person and that coincide with the others whose non-observance made him worthy of punishment (such as the obligation to return to the situation prior to the commission of the prohibited conduct), but often the sanction is not based on new obligations but rather in the loss of pre-existing rights (such as the deprivation of life, liberty or part of their patrimony).

Understanding the sanction generically as a consequence of the breach of a legal duty, it is necessary to conclude that they can be of various kinds:

Civil (caused by illegal acts that support the obligation to repair the damage, in kind or equivalent), Administrative (in case of violation of administrative provisions) and Criminal (for the commission of crimes), covering the last two, in their majority, the character of grief.

However, our criminal code (Law 62/87) to which Law 81 refers us, does not provide for the criminalization of the so-called environmental crime, it only raises some unlawful conducts that injure the environment associated with the protection of health, people's property and the economy national, such as:

Human health, men's assets and the national economy, but not the environment in general. In this way, we can see that Chapter V of the Penal Code, called "Crimes against public health", includes most of the illegal conduct.

The Criminal Type

Our current Cuban Penal Code Law No. 62, is divided into General Part and Special Part, for this work we will analyze the second (Special Part) that for its study and application is divided into titles. However, these obey different classification criteria from those followed in the General Part. In each title of the Special Part, the criminal figures are grouped according to the object of the crime, that is, according to the social relationship that is defended by the legal-criminal norm by law, they appear located in the title referring to the crimes whose object is more related.

The Special Part is divided into the following thirteen titles:

I. Crimes against State security

II. Crimes against the Administration and jurisdiction

III. Crimes against the collective security

IV. Crimes against public order

V. Crimes against the national economy

SAW. Crimes against the national patrimony

VII. Crimes against public faith

VIII. Crimes against life and bodily integrity

IX. Crimes against individual rights

X. Crimes against labor rights

XI. Crimes against the normal development of sexual relations and against the family, childhood and youth.

XII. Crimes against honor.

XIII. Crimes against property rights.

As can be seen in the -Special Part- of our substantive criminal law. The Environment does not appear in their titles and therefore it is their chapters or sections leaving the environment totally unprotected - as a legal asset. There is no concomitance between the precept established in Article 27 of the Magna Carta, which establishes an obligation for both natural and legal persons, to care for and preserve the Environment, and where administrative, civil and other mechanisms that may exist fail, it must have the proper criminal protection as a last-row coercive instrument that the State has to protect its assets. In this case, one as precious as the Environment and the environment where we live and develop.

How are environmental effects reflected in our Penal Code?

The Cuban Penal Code in force, Law No. 62, includes effects on the environment in the known crimes of infringement of regulations to prevent and combat diseases and pests of animals and plants -Article 237 -contamination of waters - Article 238 - the illegal exploitation of the economic zones of the republic - Article 241 - illegal fishing - Articles 242 - and pollution of the waters and the atmosphere - Article 194 - regulated in the traditional titles of crimes against the National Economy and Collective Health.

There are other conducts that prepare contamination such as the adulteration of drugs - Article 189 - those that spread contamination such as the spread of epidemics - Article 187 - or those that as a consequence of a specific crime in these areas express a result of death, injury or damages, as other laws do.

Crimes on infractions of norms referring to the use and conservation of substances or other sources of ionizing radiation - Article 185 - included in the title against Collective Security, forces us to resort to an integrated study on the problem raised.

The issue of ecological crime in Cuba today has a constitutional dimension protected in its article 27, which contrasts with the existing insufficiencies in our punitive order in terms of the system and the different areas of protection, as well as it does not correspond to the response demanded by the criminal scientific doctrine and by broad sectors, sensitized with the defense of the environment.

If we analyze Criminal Law based on its preventive nature and taking into account that environmental crimes there is an advance of criminal behavior. Criminal Law must be projected to avoid injury, which is not evidenced in the criminal offenses that our Penal Code currently typifies.

It is necessary to penalize multiple behaviors that not only include pollution activities using toxic substances, but others that damage the environment, among which we can mention:

Crimes against Historical Heritage 1 Crimes against Spatial Planning 2 Crimes against Natural Resources 3 Crimes related to the protection of Wildlife 4 Other Behaviors 5

Few are the causes that are followed in the courts on environmental crimes, if we take into account the investigations carried out by the MC. Rufina de la Caridad Hernández Rodríguez, President of the Provincial Court of Havana, and associate professor of the Department of Criminal Law of the University of Havana, reflected in her master's thesis carried out in 2000.

According to Dr. Narciso Cobo Roura, President of the Cuban Society of Economic and Financial Law of the UNJC. In their work "Environmental justice before the Economic Chambers in Cuba" published in the Cuban Journal of Law No. 15 from January-June 2000. The Economic judges have been able to verify the need to contemplate in the new order prosecute for that the justices chambers have to be governed in their day, norms expressly designed for environmental justice and clearly oriented to respond to the situations of legitimation, practice of evidence, precautionary measures and execution of rulings, which today suffer from a lack of precision and force to resort to integrative constructions with which it is not always possible to overcome the omissions present today in the processing regulations.

Now, undoubtedly, prevention is the ideal way to protect the environment. This has led us to neglect repressive measures, those that intervene once the harmful event has occurred and, consequently, once it has been proven that prevention had flaws. However, the role of repressive measures is fundamental, even if only because they are going to ensure preventive measures.

On the one hand, the most detailed regulations and the most extreme precautions will not eliminate the risk of damage to the environment, especially in the case of a type of damage closely linked to technological advances, in permanent evolution. On the other hand, it is necessary to count, so that all situations could be foreseen, with the existence of actions carried out in violation of the established norms. Then we are faced with a reality: even though prevention always remains the most suitable and most desirable means to protect the environment, it becomes necessary, in case of failure of prevention, criminal sanctions with the appropriate treatment.

This results in two aspects: although the criminal law is necessary, we are faced with the principle of minimal intervention, this is only to be resorted to if all other legal mechanisms are insufficient or inappropriate. Consequently, the mechanisms of criminal protection will be applicable when the other tools offered by the Law are incapable of preventing environmental aggression or are not consistent with the severity of the aggression.

3. The environment as a legal asset

In modern criminal codes, transgressions are classified according to their protected values, that is, according to the legally protected good. In this way, the Criminal Law ensures by means of the sanction the protection of assets recognized by the legislator as worthy of guardianship. However, given the recent evolution of Environmental Law, most criminal codes have not contemplated crimes against the environment or against nature. For example, in Venezuela, the existing norms in this regard (the majority now in the Criminal Law of the Environment) were included within the "Crimes against the conservation of public and private interests."

The legal asset of the crime is that asset that is criminally protected and threatened or injured by criminal conduct. In modern criminal codes, crimes are classified according to the values they protect, that is, according to the legally protected property. In this way, Criminal Law ensures by means of the sanction the protection of the assets recognized by the legislator as worthy of protection.

In many countries (including ours) these crimes are still found in the titles corresponding to "crimes against public safety", "crimes against the economy" or crimes against life and bodily integrity. In this way, environmental crime, understanding by such in my criteria, the typical, unlawful and guilty action or violation of provisions, aimed at damagingly disrupting the environment, impairing the quality of life and deserving of a criminal sanction, was until now, just a doctrinal creation. This, because until very recently, nature was only considered as a backdrop for human activity and not as something legally valuable in itself.

This situation began to change, especially after the 1972 Stockholm Conference. In this sense, it is important to highlight Resolution No. 5 of 1977 of the European Council for Environmental Law, according to which “fundamental value such as life or private property and public, the environment must be protected at the same time by criminal law: beside murder or theft, each criminal code must include penalties for pollution, nuisance, destruction, degradation and other damage to nature.

We can take as an example according to Comparative Law to Venezuela that, a little before the previous resolution (June 1976), the Organic Law of the Environment, in its article 36, declared the environment as a legally protected asset as well as the obligation to establish the respective criminal regime: "In execution of this law, the criminal regulations must be issued to guarantee the legal rights protected by it." The constitutional consecration of the environment as a legal asset cannot be ignored, in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999, it is not new, as has already been pointed out, but now that recognition acquires constitutional status. Indeed, the preamble of the new text recognizes this. The recognition is in itself substantial, taking the environment as worthy of criminal protection.

It is clear that both the legislator and the constituent wanted to make sure to provide the environment with all the possibilities for its safeguarding, including those granted by Criminal Law, not being an obstacle to its character of last resort. By granting the character of a legal asset to the environment, it is being individualized, in order to separate it from any other legal asset. And this is so, to the point that most environmental crimes constitute complex or multi-offensive crimes, where more than one legal asset is violated: the environment in any case, and others, generally, health (as in the case of pollution water), life (as in the case of hazardous waste) or property (as in the case of a fires in cultivated vegetation).

The environment thus acquires a value per. se, regardless of the economic value of the threatened or violated legal object.

4. The consecration of the environment in criminal laws

But one thing is the consecration as a legal good and another is the implementation of this recognition. Long after Environmental Law entered the legal systems, criminal laws were enacted to guarantee the environmental legal rights provided for in other laws that do not entail a sanction for non-compliance.

Ignoring the existing legal obligation, it has been tried to deny rationale to the fact of classifying attacks on the environment in a specific way, that is, of declaring it as a legal right and, therefore, as worthy of criminal protection, arguing that when the environment is protected is done according to man, therefore, a title "Of crimes against the environment" or a special law in the same sense is not justified. This argument is very weak; If accepted, we would conclude by denying the category of legal good, for example, to property, good customs or the administration of justice, because when property, good customs or the administration of justice is protected, it is always done according to of man, unable to be conceived otherwise. And, from all evidence, if the property, etc., deserves to be protected,all the more so the environment, on which we depend.

And the issue is not only in relation to the jurisdictional authority: there is no value judgment on this type of crime, only now does there begin to be a true social reproach - judges included, of course - for those who destroy or threaten nature, even when such destruction is done at the expense of others and for financial gain (neither more nor less than any organized crime). Only after a short time does one become aware of the importance of such transgressions that put life itself in danger.

On the other hand, it is true that there are penal sanctions for environmental protection inserted in various laws, including the Penal Code, and yet they are not applied by the judges. This has led to say - especially to non-jurists - that what is necessary is to apply such rules and not create new ones to continue to be ignored.

It has also been argued that infractions of environmental norms should be punished only as an administrative infraction, since, as in the other orders, not all acts of offense against legal rights have the same entity. The less serious behaviors should be punished as offenses, the most serious as crimes.

But until the environment had its own place in the Penal Code or in special criminal laws, judges would continue to be reluctant to apply the norms that in a scattered and incoherent manner criminally sanction attacks on the environment.

Of course, even if there are express rules, it will be difficult to escape the problems derived from the formulation of an emerging law. For the rest, by classifying aggressive behavior towards the environment and renewable natural resources, not only are they protected, but one of the principles of Criminal Law is achieved: the safety of citizens regarding what is illegal. Likewise, the enactment of laws containing administrative sanctions is relevant.

The enactment of a criminal law for the protection of the environment, and not isolated sanctions, with different objectives, with partial solutions, in a single body and a single criterion, or its inclusion in criminal codes is necessary as it will serve as an incentive and guidance. As if the theoretical reasons were not enough, it is worth mentioning the Venezuelan example.

It has been repeated by jurists from that brother country, since the project was drawn up in 1988, that the mere enactment of a law is not enough, but that, nevertheless, a large part of the difficulties in matters of criminal repression of crimes against the environment would be resolved with the effective consecration of the environment as a legal asset. There was no error in the assessment: taking up the example of Venezuela, as soon as the Penal Law on the Environment was enacted, even before it came into force, a change had already taken place in this regard. And a substantial change.

There were numerous (and still are) forums, seminars, conferences, workshops and courses on the subject; The companies began to worry about adjusting to the regulations, which, on the other hand, already existed for the most part, since this legal text does not create technical standards, it only penalizes non-compliance.

The judges are now studying the subject or at least looking for some information. Lawyers who had never cared about Environmental Law before and were even unaware of the new legal branch, found out about its existence and some, more daring, are “specializing” in a matter of days.

The classification of crimes against the environment will obligatorily direct Environmental Law towards the satisfaction of its real objectives and needs and, at the same time, will promote a deeper awareness regarding damage to the environment. On the other hand, such promulgation is not indispensable only for the announced reasons. It is essential, likewise, by its nature that it escapes the traditional norms.

5. The criminal law of the environment

Of course, the distinction between Criminal Law and Criminal Law of the Environment is only due to an academic need, the criminal rules of Environmental Law respond to the principles of Criminal Law. However, the specialty of Environmental Law is of such magnitude that it has impregnated its criminal laws with these specificities. And it could not be otherwise.

The criminal norms, whose objective is to classify as crimes the conducts against the conservation, defense, improvement, use, management and restoration of the environment, as well as establish the penalties for conducts contrary to these principles, must respond to this specificity. The specialty of the solutions in this matter is not limited to the class of applicable sanctions. And this is one of the reasons, as already said, that they argue in favor of specific criminal legislation for environmental matters.

5.1. Attachment to the principle of typicality

Paradoxically, we will start by advocating a common principle of Criminal Law. In terms of typicity, Environmental Law cannot deviate from the general rule in criminal matters. In some laws, there is a marked tendency to describe criminal offenses too broadly, to the point of granting a very long power of appreciation to the judge.

The behaviors to be considered environmental crimes must be described, as for the protection of any legal asset, with a sufficient level of detail to avoid a too wide margin of action of interpretation. Contemplating crimes that are too vague or generic would lead not only to create insecurity in the citizen but would also make it impossible for judges and authorities to apply them. It is not enough to simply design an essential core and then give clues or signals to the interpreter, such as "as long as it causes damage to ecosystems."

That would be fine for a constitutional norm, as is the case and taking up the example that we have been setting from Venezuela, but not for a criminal law. Legislative action cannot be left to the judge, which could be reverted to an ad hoc application, which responds to reasons of opportunity, convenience or conjuncture, and an escape route for corruption or, at least, for apathy in environmental matters.

The true usefulness of Environmental Criminal Law is found in correlation with a serious and coherent legislative work, which provides for a list of behaviors described as completely as possible, and not made up of mere evaluative elements. One thing is minimal intervention, and another is minimal intervention by the legislator.

5.2. Criminal Rules Blank

But due to one of the characteristics of Environmental Law, which is its support in natural sciences, science and technology, which makes it even dependent on such knowledge, a mode of description corresponding to blank criminal types is imposed, which must be complemented by other regulations, often administrative. Which does not at all conflict with the principle indicated above.

Returning to the example of the Venezuelan Criminal Law of the Environment, most of the types are of this order, since it is necessary, due to the characteristic that we have just mentioned, the reference to provisions in which the technical element constitutes the most relevant aspect, and therefore its inclusion in the text of the law would soon make it obsolete, inadequate or impracticable and its exclusion would go against the principle of legality, that is, it would result in a description so imprecise that it would grant that very high margin of appreciation or discretion to the judge, referred to earlier.

Although it is an undesirable formula in Criminal Law, it is rigorous to admit it in environmental criminal law, given the basis of environmental regulations in natural laws and technology and, therefore, in administrative regulations. In this category of crimes, although the description of the conduct is not perfectly foreseen since it contains normative gaps that must be completed by other norms, even sublegal, it must comply with certain requirements so that the norm is not unconstitutional due to an attack. of the principle of typicality. The norm must contain at least the essentials of the conduct so that it cannot be confused with another, no more than one referral should be admitted, and that there is sufficient certainty of what is illegal

Just as in Criminal Law, the rule is the perfect or univocal norm and the exception, the blank criminal norm, in Environmental Criminal Law the opposite happens: the rule is the blank criminal norm and the exception is the perfect norm, such is the specificity of this variant.

5.3. The criminal responsibility of the legal person

It has already been seen when recognizing, in the majority of world laws and in almost all of Latin America, the criminal responsibility of the legal person, typified in our Penal Code in Article 16.4 where only companies are excluded from the figure state, one of the characteristics of the environmental crisis is that the great damage is caused by corporations. Due to their greater economic power, they have more capacity to modify or destroy a greater quantity of renewable natural resources than natural persons and their economic possibility to pay for research and technology, allows them to take full advantage of natural resources indiscriminately.

This point has led to discussions and debates, which will necessarily be different from the traditional discussion about the impossibility of applying corporal punishment to legal persons, since other types of measures are necessary with regard to the environment and are perfectly applicable, and preferably applicable to legal entities, such as factory closures and others. See Article 28.4 of the Penal Code. On the penalties applicable to Legal Persons.

5.4. Civil obligations arising from crimes

The measures included among the civil obligations derived from crime (SEE ARTICLES 70.1, 71.1, 231,232 and 333 of the Penal Code), such as the modification or demolition of constructions that violate provisions on protection, conservation or defense of the environment, are also particular in Environmental Law. and renewable natural resources and their compliance with the provisions violated; the restoration of the altered places to the closest possible state to the one they were in before the environmental attack; the remission of elements to the natural environment from which they were stolen, if possible and pertinent; the restitution of illegally obtained forest, water, wildlife or soil products;the repatriation to the country of origin of toxic or dangerous residues or wastes illegally imported or prohibited in their place of origin.

This is extremely important, not only theoretical but practical, since civil obligations derived from crime do not reach the effects of amnesty or pardon, likewise the death of the transgressor does not extinguish them and they can be made effective against the heirs.

But the cause of considering these measures as civil obligations is not what has been indicated, that is, of course, the consequence; The reason is that measures such as restoration, the restitution of objects derived from crime or the modification of irregular constructions, are nothing other than authentic restitution, repair of damage or compensation, and, therefore, included in civil liability and must follow the provisions of the Penal Code in this regard, as there is no difference, for example, between the return of illegally harvested wood, which, consequently, did not belong to the offender, and the return of objects from other types of crimes; its nature is the same, and in this sense it must proceed.

Another thing is the confiscation of the objects with which the offense was committed, this is a real penalty, since the offender is imposed a reduction of a right.

5.5. Security measures

One of the characteristics of the penalty is repression, which involves punishing the criminal act once committed, although we noted that to fulfill its purposes it should also be restorative (in order to reduce or eliminate its negative consequences) and preventive, (fundamentally through the persuasion that fear of punishment can exert on the individual). On the contrary, the main objective of the security measures is to prevent future attacks against the legal rights protected by the norm.

Security measures have traditionally been based on protecting society from the danger posed by certain subjects who cannot be punished for being unimpeachable (especially the insane), or who may be, the penalty is not enough to mitigate the danger they represent (as adults who, without becoming alienated, present states of notorious danger).

For this reason, they are more related to the dangerousness of the agent than to the seriousness of the crime committed and most of the time they consist of securing or isolating the person who committed the act or offering them corrective and educational treatments. But the dangerousness in ecological crime transcends the sphere of the agent to encompass the elements available to him to perpetrate it.

Hence, in Environmental Law, security measures take another form, by preventing attacks, not by assuring the person who can commit the degrading action of the environment, but by ensuring the material object that can produce such an act. Thus we see measures such as the retention of substances suspected of being contaminated or the closure of the source of contamination while the cause that gave rise to the measure lasts.

An extensive inventory is necessary, not limiting, but by way of example, because in matters such as these, such indications are imposed that will constitute, if you like, didactic elements that can serve as guidance to the judges for the innovation of other solutions depending on the specific cases.

Thus we have the temporary occupation of polluting sources; the interruption or prohibition of the activity originating the contamination; the retention, treatment, neutralization or destruction of materials or objects suspected of being contaminated, causing contamination or being in poor condition; the retention of materials, machinery or objects that damage or endanger the environment or human health; the occupation or elimination of obstacles, devices, objects or elements whatsoever that alter the appearance or rational use of water resources, the lake, marine and coastal environment or areas under special administration regime; the immobilization of land, river, sea or air vehicles.

6. Conclusion

The law can be a product or a factor of change. The time has come to turn around in the promulgation, application and study of the specific criminal regulations of Environmental Law, because even when it is nourished by principles of common law, it is much more than a muddle of those principles, inasmuch as it is found based on own and characteristic perspectives and objects. Unfortunately, the need is not only theoretical, it is not only to see, out of scientific curiosity, the horizons of Criminal Law expanded. The need is for survival: it is not possible to wait for an environmental crisis to be present to begin looking for solutions.

But it is unacceptable to think that the needs of Environmental Law can be fully satisfied with the simple compilation of the sanctioning norms included in the different existing laws in the different countries on the matter.

Something else is required. And that something else is the updating of criminal sanctions -and others-, which cannot mean a mere increase in traditional penalties. New responses correspond to new damage.

Criminal Law cannot become stagnant in a world in permanent change, on the contrary, it must respond to its needs, as in fact, it has been doing in other domains. In the adoption of different measures whose effects fall on the object of the damage and not on the cause of the damage, there is the future of Environmental Law, since the simple transposition of the solutions from general damage to ecological damage proved insufficient.

New solutions correspond to new damage. It is necessary to respect the specificity of the environmental problem by creating the appropriate norms that correspond to the evolution of Environmental Law. And this must be taken into consideration when discussing in our country -CUBA- new draft laws for the criminal protection of the environment or the new criminal codes.

Bibliography

Manual of Cuban Environmental Law, Collective of Authors, University of Havana.

Legal Review # 17 of 2004, Catholic University of Santiago de Guayaquil

Cortaza Vinuesa Carlos: "Environmental Crimes" Of Concrete, Abstract or Hypothetical Danger or Injury? Legal Review No. 17/2004.

Proposal for a Penal Regime in environmental matters of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

Law Magazine: "The Legal Protection of the Environment" Spain.

Fermín Morales Prats: “The Structure of the Crime of Environmental Pollution two basic questions: The Criminal Law in White and the concept of danger. (Conference)

From Caridad Hernández Rufina: Diploma work to obtain the Master category. Title: The effectiveness of the Penological Protection of the Environment.

Legislation

Constitution of the Republic of Cuba of February 24, 1976, amended in July 1992.

Law 81 of the Environment, of July 11, 1997.

Penal Code Law No. 62, December 29, 1987.

Civil Code Law No. 59, of July 16, 1987.

Civil Administrative and Labor Procedure Law. Law No. 7 of August 19, 1977.

Criminal Procedure Law Law No. 5 of August 13, 1977.

NOTES

1.- All states and ours is not alien to it, it has sufficient historical reasons, and of particular historical, artistic and cultural interest that it needs to protect in order to preserve the cultural heritage, constituting part of our identity.

2.- Illegal and irrational urbanizations scattered throughout the territories, are among others, some behaviors that transcend at present, when it comes to constructions on undeveloped land or of considerable landscape, ecological, artistic, historical, or cultural value.

3.- Emissions or discharges, on the other hand, produce serious danger to Health, people, but also to animal life, forest, spaces or useful plantations, which potentiates the damage not only for Health but also for the environment.

The deposits or landfills of urban or industrial solid waste or waste clandestine or without complying with the imposed requirements, even more so when the deposit or landfill is made on land classified as being of ecological or scenic interest, affecting the environment. What constitutes today the largest source of contamination in Cuba.

4.- The illegal trade in endangered flora and fauna species are, among others, types of ecological crimes.

5.- The emission of vibrations as a new behavior that can be typified or noise pollution, is a phenomenon that raises doubts that are hardly fickle, as in relation to the possibility of physical and especially mental damage caused by excessive noise and consequently its typicality and persecution for compliance with this normative element, the extent of the damage and danger and civil liability both in relation to the determination of the right holder and consequently legitimacy to postulate a claim for compensation, as well as the certification of this.