Why the Costa Rican Constitutional Court’s Ruling on Wildlife Electrocutions Matters

The Costa Rican Constitutional Court found that the authorities in the district of Nosara did not take mitigation measures to protect howler monkeys from electrocution threats, the first judgement on the topic of wildlife electrocution and environmental protection in Costa Rica.

—

On January 16, the Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court partially granted a constitutional appeal against the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE) regarding the issue of wildlife electrocutions. 

The court found the authorities to be in breach of their duties, as bare electrical wiring, which is extremely dangerous to local arboreal animals, was used in the district of Nosara, Guanacaste. It gave ICE and MINAE six months to adopt mitigating measures, or face strict penalties, including imprisonment, if they fail to comply. 

The ruling sets an important precedent about the importance of wildlife protection in Costa Rica and the magnitude of consequences in case of non-compliance.

A Long Fight

Despite it being the first judgment on the topic of wildlife electrocutions in Costa Rica, the case is the culmination of a long and arduous fight of conservation NGOs and wildlife rescue centers to protect wild animals from the risk of electrocution. National statistics show that between June 2022 and June 2023, 6,262 cases of wildlife electrocution were reported in Costa Rica, making it one of the biggest causes of wildlife deaths in the country. That is due to the fact that in Costa Rica, the prevalence of aerial power lines poses a growing threat to arboreal species – including howler monkeys, sloths, and squirrels – whose habitats are being squeezed by rapid urbanization and deforestation.

With this issue in mind, MINAE enacted a decree to prevent and mitigate wildlife electrocutions in January 2024. The decree requires electrical providers – among other addressees – to implement all necessary measures to prevent ecosystem fragmentation caused by the electrical network, to reroute or insulate existing electrical wires, and to undertake detailed environmental impact assessment when planning new constructions. Local animal rescue centers, however, reported that even a year after the decree’s enactment, there has been little change in the number of electrocution cases, attributing this to the tardy and lax implementation of the regulation.

20 conservation organizations and wildlife rescue centers established a coalition called “Esto No Es Pura Vida” (This Is Not Pura Vida, or ENEPV) with the goal of spreading awareness about the issue and advocating to hold responsible institutions accountable. The ENEPV is led and coordinated by the Nosara-based International Animal Rescue Costa Rica (IARCR), which has played a central role in organizing the coalition and compiling scientific and veterinary evidence. This technical and scientific support was used to substantiate a constitutional appeal filed with the Constitutional Court on July 3, 2025 by the Costa Rican law firm Alta Legal.

Court’s Decision 

The appellants claimed that the authorities omitted to effectively implement the regulatory framework measures for prevention, mitigation and protection against the electrocution of wildlife. Their claim was based primarily on the data collected by Francisco Sánchez Murillo, Veterinary Director at IARCR. They argued that such an omission entails a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, established in Article 50 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica. 

While the court decided that the claims about the authorities’ lax implementation in general were not specific enough, and that the authorities have been implementing mitigation measures, the documentation regarding new construction projects from the district of Nosara clearly showed improper action on behalf of ICE. In particular, the court noted that using bare electrical wiring in new construction projects creates new areas with a risk of electrocution, which goes against the obligations imposed on MINAE and ICE. 

Significance

The judgment is significant for two reasons. First, this decision – stemming from the highest court in the country – signals that wildlife electrocution is a problem that is to be taken seriously, and that grave sanctions will be administered in case of no implementation. As Attorney Marvin Carvajal from Alta Legal put it, “[F]rom now on, any electricity trading company will have to act in accordance with the precedent or face a judgment against it if it does not comply.” 

Secondly, Dr. Murillo of IARCR told Earth.Org that the judgment “acknowledges the work behind the case, from veterinary care to data collection and sustained follow-up with electricity providers, and shows how essential this information is in driving real results.”

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.