{"id":25594,"date":"2026-07-15T15:25:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-15T21:25:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/"},"modified":"2026-07-15T15:25:54","modified_gmt":"2026-07-15T21:25:54","slug":"suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/","title":{"rendered":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP) in Costa Rica"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation<\/em>” (SLAPP) in Costa Rica <\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Businessman<\/strong>: \u201cDid you hear what came out on social media and in the press last weekend against our megaproject in Punta La Mona? Several investors called me and I had to reassure them, telling them that we\u2019re going to have to shut this girl and her environmentalist friends up by any means necessary, and that we\u2019re working on it starting today.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Legal advisor<\/strong>: \u201cWell, I suggest we take her to the criminal courts for alleged defamation. Before going to trial, there will be a chance to demand that she publicly retract in exchange for us not continuing with the lawsuit against her. If you authorize me to pair the criminal complaint with a civil damages claim for a few million for harm to our reputation and good name as a company, she\u2019ll have no choice but to retract.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Businessman<\/strong>: \u201cAnd\u2026 does that really work?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Legal advisor<\/strong>: \u201cGetting her to retract? Of course it works!\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Excerpt from a fictional conversation that could very well have taken place in certain Costa Rican corporate circles, under certain circumstances<\/p>\n\n

Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Costa Rica (UCR). Contact: nboeglin(a)gmail.com <\/em><\/p>\n\n

Introduction<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

In Costa Rica, many environmentalists have been subjected to lengthy criminal proceedings in the courts for alleged defamation, in the context of lawsuits filed by companies whose megaprojects violate environmental legislation. Typically, a defamation lawsuit of this kind is accompanied by a civil damages claim for a multimillion-dollar amount corresponding to the alleged “harm<\/em>” suffered by the company. <\/p>\n\n

This is a reality many other people in Latin America and around the world have faced when speaking out in defense of the environment, but in Costa Rica\u2019s case it is of particular interest: indeed, it is a little-known side of the heavily promoted “Green Costa Rica<\/em>” projected to the rest of the world by the Costa Rican state apparatus for many years, and of the “Costa Rica that defends human rights<\/em>” on which it has built its image internationally.<\/p>\n\n

This dark side has also been laid bare by Costa Rica\u2019s refusal to ratify the Escaz\u00fa Agreement: a regional instrument to protect the rights of those who defend the environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, adopted in March 2018 in… Costa Rica. How so? Just as it reads. By the way, there are already 19 States Parties (see the official status<\/a><\/strong> of signatures and ratifications), including Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Panama: in none of them has there been any observed paralysis of the economy, nor of major public infrastructure projects, much less any loss of export competitiveness, as claimed by several major Costa Rican business chambers in 2022 (see the joint letter<\/a><\/strong>). So is it really that easy to “convince<\/em>” Costa Rica\u2019s political class against the Escaz\u00fa Agreement? It would seem so\u2014along with the active participation of a constitutional justice stirring up\u2014in a manner as unusual as it is unfortunate\u2014the “threat<\/em>” that the Escaz\u00fa Agreement supposedly poses regarding the burden of proof (Note 1<\/strong>), and repeating corporate-sector arguments as if they were her own (Note 2<\/strong>). It is worth recalling that in 2008 the business leadership obtained from the same Costa Rican Executive Branch a veto of a law approved this time by the Legislative Assembly on citizen participation in environmental matters: see in this regard the texts<\/a><\/strong> of this law and the Executive Branch veto, as well as this 2008 press note<\/a><\/strong>. Notably, in the 2008 annual report of an influential business chamber, one reads that: <\/p>\n\n

\n

Likewise, by the end of the year UCCAEP exerted the necessary pressure for the President of the Republic to veto the Environmental Law. To that end, a series of opinion pieces were published and, through various representatives, there was media presence around the business sector\u2019s position regarding the law approved by the Legislative Assembly<\/em> (see the text<\/a> of UCCAEP\u2019s report titled \u201cWork Report, March 2009<\/em>\u201d, p. 36).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Beyond the so-called “myths<\/em>” against the Escaz\u00fa Agreement that we had the opportunity to analyze at the time when they arrived in Costa Rica imported from the southern part of the American continent in 2020 (Note 3<\/strong>), the recent case of Juan Bautista Alfaro Rojas, better known as \u201cJuamBa<\/em>\u201d, sued by a company in charge of a tourism megaproject in Bah\u00eda Papagayo, is one more in a long list of people in Costa Rica: after making public their complaints about violations of current environmental legislation and reproaching state authorities, they become the target of criminal lawsuits for alleged defamation accompanied by a civil damages claim. <\/p>\n\n

In other words, by calling into question whether a project of a certain scale complies with Costa Rica\u2019s current environmental legislation, a person may find themselves criminally sued for alleged defamation through an action filed by the company in charge of the project. Note that on many occasions it is the strange sense of collusion with local (and\/or national) authorities that leads a person to speak out and demand explanations from the public entities responsible for ensuring the correct application and interpretation of Costa Rican environmental legislation: the latter, on numerous occasions, have opted for heavy silences, evasions, or attempts to discredit the petitioner when an appeal is filed before the Constitutional Chamber, as we had the opportunity to point out regarding a ruling by Costa Rica\u2019s constitutional judge in 2023 (Note 4<\/strong>). A Canadian mining company in Costa Rica resorted to this type of criminal lawsuit for alleged defamation in 2011 against five people: two lawmakers, an environmental leader, and two university professors. One of the few reports produced by UCR\u2019s Era Verde<\/em> program on these lawsuits, bringing together the five defendants (see the video<\/a><\/strong> of Part II), explains in under five minutes what these lawsuits were seeking, all of which failed before Costa Rican justice. Part I (six minutes) of the documentary (see the link<\/a><\/strong>) presents the legal and political context in which they were filed: a true environmental scandal that buried Costa Rican justice. <\/p>\n\n

Almost 25 years ago, in a statement supporting a councilwoman from Miramar de Puntarenas, the target of a lawsuit filed by a mining company, it was stated (see the statement<\/a><\/strong> of September 5, 2001) something that JuamBa and his fellow activists are likely demanding in 2026:<\/p>\n\n

\n

We ask the government of Costa Rica to live up to its rhetoric, by honorably protecting natural resources, ensuring that human rights are respected, the right of peoples to self-determination, and the right to free expression.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

How do these legal actions operate in criminal matters, and why do they always\u2014or almost always\u2014end up being dismissed by national judges? What are companies really seeking by filing them, knowing in advance they will not succeed? What has the Inter-American human rights system said about this? Why should this type of lawsuit not impress the accused\u2014much less intimidate environmental organizations\u2014but rather raise red flags? These are the questions the following lines will attempt to answer, not without first clarifying the unprecedented nature of what has been observed in JuamBa\u2019s specific case. <\/p>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\"\"
Photo taken from a press article in Costa Rica (Semanario Universidad), titled “Six environmental defenders and four Indigenous groups face death threats and violence for their complaints”, May 14, 2025. Text available at this link<\/a><\/strong>. <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n

What is extremely striking about JuamBa\u2019s case<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

In JuamBa\u2019s case, at this link<\/a><\/strong> you can read a Semanario Universidad<\/em> piece about the acquittal judgment, whose “operative part<\/em>” was made known on June 26. <\/p>\n\n

The text of the judgment was made public a week later, last Friday, July 3, 2026 (see the full text<\/a><\/strong> of this decision), and it states (page 17) that:<\/p>\n\n

\n

In the case before us, under a strict technical-legal analysis of the stage of typicity of the conduct complained of, this panel of judges considers that the evidence received at trial does not allow it to be demonstrated with the required certainty that the complained-of facts attributed as criminal to Alfaro Rojas fit the factual scenario described in the rule, and furthermore, at the level of the subjective element, it has also not been possible to prove that the accused acted with intent; for the reasons set out below<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

In this interview<\/a><\/strong> conducted by Semanario Universisad<\/em> and made public on July 8, 2026, you can learn in more detail what it meant for JuamBa and his family, as well as his fellow activists, to be criminally accused before the courts.<\/p>\n\n

The “tangent<\/em>” the judges took, which a well-known environmental lawyer refers to in this piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em> on July 10, points to a magnificent opportunity… missed by Costa Rica\u2019s national justice system to classify this type of criminal lawsuit and condemn the companies that resort to them.<\/p>\n\n

What has indeed been unprecedented in JuamBa\u2019s case is that the company managed, in August 2025, to get Costa Rican justice to order a precautionary measure freezing his bank accounts (see the article<\/a><\/strong> published on August 6, 2025 by Semanario Universidad<\/em>, titled “\u201cThey won\u2019t silence us,\u201d says activist whose accounts were seized at the request of a megaproject developer in Playa Panam\u00e1<\/em>“, highly recommended reading). <\/p>\n\n

This unprecedented move raised alarms in both the environmental and academic sectors, as it was a situation never before experienced by a Costa Rican environmentalist (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em>). For some (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Elmundo.cr<\/em>), it is a “distorted use<\/em>” of a legal tool usually used in commercial relationships when one party foresees, with evidence in hand, a likely breach within a contractual relationship. <\/p>\n\n

In this other article<\/a><\/strong>, some clues are suggested as to such an unusual decision by Costa Rican justice in ordering the seizure of a bank account, mentioning a kind of “political-business revenge<\/em>” (sic). <\/p>\n\n

It should be noted that, according to what was heard in this interview<\/a><\/strong> conducted on July 1, 2026 on Radio UCR\u2019s Interferencia<\/em> program (see the video<\/a><\/strong>), the company\u2019s lawyers separated the criminal lawsuit for alleged defamation from the civil lawsuit for US$342,000, which remains in force, as does the other action seeking the seizure of his bank account. In other words, it is a battery of legal actions of very different kinds against JuamBa, separated from one another, which guarantees the company several years of proceedings before finally concluding with a final, binding judgment. <\/p>\n\n

Note that in this piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em>, it is stated that more people were sued, in addition to JuamBa:<\/p>\n\n

\n

On June 26, the company announced in a statement that it had filed four private criminal complaints for the offense of defamation of a legal entity against four content creators (\u201cinfluencers\u201d), \u201cwhose false statements were intended to affect the reputation of the company and its representatives.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

The legal action was directed against Juan Bautista Alfaro Campos (juambacaminando), Lily Cabezas \u00c1lvarez (Lilly Cabezas), Evangelina Gonz\u00e1lez (alinfinitoo) and Javier Aldefang (javiereleconomista).<\/em>“<\/p>\n\n

If, in addition to JuamBa, these three people are no longer the target of criminal and\/or civil lawsuits, it is possibly because they reached a settlement with the company\u2019s lawyers. In that regard, it would be of great interest to know the exact content of the settlement agreement and what the company obtained in exchange for withdrawing the lawsuits against them. If it was a confidential settlement, it will not be possible to know the content of the “deal<\/em>” that was reached, despite the ongoing interest many may have. <\/p>\n\n

The \u201cJuamBa effect\u201d exposing environmental illegalities in Playa Panam\u00e1<\/em><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n

As a result of the public interest generated by JuamBa\u2019s case (particularly following the unusual seizure of his bank assets observed in August 2025), and the complaints made by other entities and, more generally, the intense controversy generated by the tree felling involved in this megaproject in Bah\u00eda de Papagayo:<\/p>\n\n

– in April 2026, two separate actions were filed before the Constitutional Chamber by lawyers specializing in environmental litigation (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in La Voz de Guanacaste<\/em>);<\/p>\n\n

– on April 17, the same constitutional judge ordered the planned felling to be immediately suspended (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Teletica), while; <\/p>\n\n

– UCR\u2019s School of Biology made its view known regarding the strange authorization to fell more than 740 trees (see the statement<\/a><\/strong>) in May 2026; <\/p>\n\n

– at the end of that same month of June, it was the Environmental Prosecutor\u2019s Office that ordered the suspension of the permit to fell 751 trees in Playa Panam\u00e1 (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em> of June 22, 2026), which states that:<\/p>\n\n

“The Prosecutor\u2019s Office requested the registry annotation of the criminal proceeding in the margin of the concessioned property 5-2168-Z-000, in order to warn of the existence of the investigation and ensure the effectiveness of the requested precautionary measures.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n

– a few days later, several environmental organizations backed JuamBa\u2019s complaints (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Delfino.cr<\/em> of June 25); <\/p>\n\n

– also in June 2026, the press reported that the previous administration\u2019s (2022-2026) “inventions<\/em>” had been repealed by the… Executive Branch itself (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em>). <\/p>\n\n

Threats and intimidation faced by those who defend the environment in Costa Rica<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

Costa Rican environmentalists like JuamBa have spent many years suffering this and many other types of threats, intimidation, and even murders: several of the actions against them have been compiled in this very comprehensive book published in 2021 (see the article<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em>), which systematizes 30 years of criminalization against environmentalists in Costa Rica (see the link<\/a><\/strong>, with the option to download the publication at the end).<\/p>\n\n

Protecting those who speak out on environmental matters in Costa Rica in the face of constant threats and intimidation\u2014which sometimes end in murders, but also abuses and stigmatization of all kinds\u2014as well as criminal trials for alleged defamation that the courts dismiss one after another, is a long-standing human rights debt in Costa Rica. In this regard, it is worth mentioning this very comprehensive documentary<\/a><\/strong> by the University of Costa Rica (UCR) titled \u201cThe Escaz\u00fa Agreement and environmental defenders<\/em>\u201d, which is recommended viewing. This other documentary<\/a><\/strong>, also by UCR, lays bare in under 10 minutes the various “myths<\/em>” against the Escaz\u00fa Agreement spread by several business chambers. <\/p>\n\n

In 2014, we had the opportunity to analyze<\/strong>r<\/u><\/a> the content of the UN Special Rapporteur\u2019s report on Environment and Human Rights following his visit to Costa Rica: 12 years later, a full reading is also recommended, and the recommendations to the Costa Rican state gathered in his report<\/a><\/strong> (read them from point 61 onward) remain pending tasks and, in the case of some of them, true challenges for a Costa Rica that is increasingly unrecognizable in environmental matters.<\/p>\n\n

With regard to the official narrative of the Executive Branch heard over the last four years in Costa Rica, it has not only been expressed against the Judiciary, but also against many other sectors that, for one reason or another, question certain government decisions: journalists, unions, human rights organizations, academics from public universities, as well as environmental organizations, and some senior officials of Costa Rican oversight bodies have seen their name or their institution strongly questioned as a result of this same official narrative.<\/p>\n\n

With respect to the environmental sector as such, as a recent example, the then President-elect, not yet in office, labeled environmental organizations in the Gulf of Papagayo as \u201cradical people<\/em>\u201d (sic.) (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em> of April 23, 2026) for opposing the felling of trees and for managing to obtain a ruling from the Constitutional Chamber suspending that felling. This is a narrative that clearly stigmatizes a sector and incites hatred, a crime that Costa Rican criminal legislation does not currently contemplate (Note 5<\/strong>). <\/p>\n\n

It is also worth recalling that in August 2022, a Costa Rican congressman referred to environmental groups in Costa Rica\u2019s Southern Caribbean as “terrorists<\/em>“, causing astonishment and indignation among many Costa Rican social organizations (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in SurcoDigital<\/em>): the distinguished lawmaker left office on May 1, 2026, without it being known whether he was (or was not) subject to any sanction or reprimand by the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly, the Board, or his caucus. Costa Rica\u2019s Southern Caribbean is an area living under extreme tension: in July 2024, intimidation suffered by a well-known activist and leader in the area was made public (see the piece<\/a><\/strong>), and in August 2024, death threats against several environmental groups were made public (see the piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em>). The renowned Costa Rican writer, author of “La Loca de Gandoca<\/em>“, also spoke out in July 2024 (see the interview<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em>): her work, written in the early 1990s, remains fully relevant, and this long interview<\/a><\/strong> given by Ana Cristina Rossi to UCR in 2021 makes that clear. In this latter 2021 interview, the following is stated: <\/p>\n\n

\n

It all started in 2005. A friend, who was fighting against pineapple in Gu\u00e1cimo, had a meeting with the Municipality in Manzanillo, but she went into the wrong room and, from there, she managed to hear that in the adjoining room they said \u201cwe have to get rid of Ana Cristina Rossi.\u201d She called me immediately and told me, \u201cAna, they\u2019re going to kill you.\u201d I told her, \u201cdo me a favor, go back and take another look and describe them to me.\u201d It turned out they were members of an association that called itself ecological, but all they wanted was to make money. So I wrote down the names and faxed don Abel, who immediately called don Rogelio Ramos, who was the Minister of Security. He also called the environmental prosecutor and the attorney general. We all met and they decided to start an investigation and they forbade me from going to the refuge for 6 months. In the end, they called me to give me their conclusions and they told me, \u201cwe couldn\u2019t detect a concrete threat, like saying there\u2019s a plan to kill Ana Cristina, but they have all the communities in the refuge against you. Anything bad that happens there they\u2019re going to blame on you. So it\u2019s very easy for you to have an accident, it\u2019s very easy to make you disappear, because no one will defend you, everyone blames you for everything. As soon as you can, start easing out, little by little, from the struggle, sell the house.\u201d And that\u2019s what I did <\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

In this other piece<\/a><\/strong> in Semanario Universidad<\/em> from May 2025, several accounts are compiled from Costa Rican environmental defenders and leaders of small Indigenous communities, and the type of threats and intimidation they receive for their complaints, as well as their total lack of protection: it is a situation that reveals to Costa Rica and the world the other side of “Green Costa Rica<\/em>“, and that should interest many other Costa Rican media outlets, beyond the university press.<\/p>\n\n

In this other piece<\/a><\/strong> from 2010, the director of the Costa Rican digital outlet ElPais.cr<\/em> and environmental groups in Sardinal were subjected to intimidation and death threats, with emails circulated in English by a group called WeWaWa<\/em>, apparently never investigated: unless we are mistaken, no one in Costa Rica has been sanctioned for these threats.<\/p>\n\n

The lack of protection for those who defend the environment in Costa Rica takes on very particular relevance each month of December, the month in which the death is commemorated of three activists whose incinerated bodies were found in a house on December 7, 1994 in Moravia, and the death of a fourth member whose body was found in February 1995 in La Uruca (the AECO<\/a><\/strong> case): regarding this painful case over which impunity hangs (as in many other cases of intimidation and threats in which the victims are environmentalists, Indigenous leaders, and women peasant leaders), the opinion<\/a><\/strong> of the Attorney General\u2019s Office from 1997 stating that these were \u201caccidental<\/em>\u201d deaths and the fourth a “natural<\/em>” death, is possibly one of the most persistent official maneuvers by the Costa Rican state to conceal the true reasons behind these four deaths, along with a few more. A careful, detailed reading of that report<\/a><\/strong> by the PGR is recommended: to date, it has not led to any rectification by the state or an official expression of regret (public apology) for what happened in December 1994 to these four AECO members. <\/p>\n\n

In this long interview<\/a><\/strong> published by the National University (UNA) with a tireless leader in Siquirres who has opposed the senseless expansion of pineapple in her canton (an interview whose full reading is recommended), reference is made to another type of criminal actions, recalling that in the mid-2000s, pineapple companies in the area and their lawyers opted for quite creative strategies against community leaders and residents:<\/p>\n\n

\n

But anyway, since all that mess happened, the judge\u2014first they called us to try to settle, and we said we weren\u2019t settling anything because we hadn\u2019t done anything. Then they called us to give the verdict, the judge, well, if we settled it would be as if we had done something. He told us he didn\u2019t see any sense in that complaint, that it seemed, how can I put it, like a soap opera story, because imagine, it makes no sense\u2014at two in the morning, someone swinging a machete to wipe out thirty hectares of pineapple, that\u2019s impossible.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Then, another thing I experienced that was quite worrying was that one of the pineapple guys, even affiliated with CANAPEP, set up a supposed journalist on me\u2014a Chilean guy, by the way, I still see him sometimes in San Jos\u00e9\u2014and he was like my shadow. If I went to San Jos\u00e9, he went; if I went to UCR, he showed up there. Sometimes I went to the Legislative Assembly to visit some of the party colleagues, some who were there\u2014he showed up\u2026 so wherever I was, he was there with his camera taking pictures of me. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\"\"
Photo taken from a Semanario Universidad article of June 19, 2018, titled “Pineapple expansion continues unchecked”, available at this link<\/a><\/strong> and recommended reading. This documentary<\/a><\/strong> by DW (Germany) from 2018 on the social and environmental damage caused by Costa Rica\u2019s export MD2 pineapple can also be watched: it is worth noting what is shown from minute 16:10, where the journalists reproduce a document signed by the top official of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) sent in August 2017 requesting that Costa Rica\u2019s embassy in Germany proceed with “arrangements” (sic.) before the documentary was broadcast in Germany. <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n

Now, criminal and\/or civil lawsuits against environmentalists, community leaders, peasant leaders, or Indigenous people are a very peculiar type of lawsuit, due to the following characteristic: unlike the astonishing creativity of some pineapple companies against a multitude of residents in Siquirres, the choice of who to sue responds to a clear intimidation strategy, selecting people whose voice, name, or influence at the neighborhood, regional, or national level stands out in the public debate about their megaproject.<\/p>\n\n

In the lines that follow we will cite some cases that became public and gave rise to criminal lawsuits against community leaders and\/or environmentalists: pineapple companies in Siquirres, Cementos David in San Rafael de Alajuela, Playa Grande in Guanacaste, the Coco-Ocotal aqueduct project in Sardinal, and the Crucitas mining project. We are already very aware that there are many others that have not received any publicity: in that regard, we would appreciate in advance the forwarding of acquittal (or conviction) judgments to cursodicr(a)gmail.com<\/em><\/strong>, in order to expand knowledge of this very peculiar use of the criminal route that the Costa Rican legal system continues to offer, with the aim of harassing and silencing people who defend the environment. A systematization of all these judgments would be of great interest to the environmental and academic sectors as well as the judicial and political sectors, and has not yet been done (unless we are mistaken). <\/p>\n\n

What are SLAPP lawsuits as a form of intimidation to silence some people?<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

Criminal or civil lawsuits against environmentalists are also referred to in specialized legal doctrine as \u201cstrategic lawsuits against public participation<\/em>\u201d and are better known by their English acronym SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation<\/em>“): these are criminal and\/or civil judicial actions whose objective is to intimidate or silence those who speak out in defense of the environment and to intimidate other individuals and\/or environmental organizations from continuing to do so (Note 6<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n

In this recent study<\/a><\/strong> published in 2024 in Argentina by UBA (University of Buenos Aires), the conclusions state that: <\/p>\n\n

\n

The spread of SLAPP lawsuits as a strategy to silence critical voices reflects the times we live in. It is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of the growing deterioration of civic space and the weakening of the guarantees needed to freely express ideas and opinions without fear of reprisals. Those who file this type of lawsuit find in the judicial system a profitable and accessible instrument to gag critical voices. But just as numerous contempt laws and criminal offenses of slander and insult were repealed, today the challenge is to design and implement legal mechanisms that make it possible to discern in time between actions that legitimately seek to protect a person\u2019s right to honor, and those that only seek to harass those who speak out on matters of public interest. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

As a global phenomenon, there have been various responses to try to curb the rise of criminal lawsuits filed by powerful economic and\/or political sectors against community leaders, peasant leaders, environmentalists, academics, or sometimes ordinary citizens organized in a neighborhood collective outraged by environmental destruction, in plain sight of national authorities. <\/p>\n\n

It must be clear that economic and\/or political power are part of the framework to which a strategic criminal lawsuit against citizen participation usually responds. A businessman or a group of investors who issue a press release publicly announcing that they are criminally suing a peasant, community, or environmental leader seeks, in a certain way, to show the rest of society the power they have at their disposal. Usually\u2014and this is how the various studies in specialized doctrine analyze it\u2014this businessman or group of investors maintains very close relationships with certain political sectors, whether at the local, regional, or national level. Reading this 2018 article<\/a><\/strong> by the NGO Greenpeace about the criminal actions brought by Chevron in Ecuador reflects this sense of power displayed by some foreign companies in Latin America, stating that: <\/p>\n\n

\n

Meanwhile, in Ecuador, the Indigenous and peasant villagers won a $9.5 billion compensation judgment, confirmed by appellate courts and by Ecuador\u2019s Supreme Court <\/a>(Court of Cessation). In response, Chevron sold its assets in Ecuador, fled the country, refused to pay, and threatened<\/a> the victims with a \u201clifetime of litigation”. The company has since retained over 60 law firms, 2,000 lawyers<\/a>, paralegals, six public relations firms, squads of private investigators, and at least one bribed<\/a> witness, who later admitted<\/a> to lying. Lawyers for the victims estimate Chevron has spent over $2 billion to avoid payment of the court judgement, the largest collection of SLAPP suits in history. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

In the case of Costa Rica, a careful re-reading of the 2010 ruling is recommended, in which three judges of the Administrative Litigation Court (TCA) annulled the Crucitas mining project of the Canadian mining company Industrias Infinito (see full text<\/a><\/strong>): to explain the sequence of illegal permits and authorizations granted by the Costa Rican State, the three judges referred, for the first time in the entire judicial history of Costa Rica, to a true “orchestration of wills<\/em>” in their ruling (Note 7<\/strong>). This expression refers to the strange sense of State\/company symbiosis and may explain why this foreign company had no reservations, after reading the “therefore<\/em>” section of this ruling, in suing two legislators, an environmental leader, and two university professors for alleged defamation. As if it wanted to demonstrate something related to its power to Costa Rican society, for reasons that would be, personally, of great interest to know. <\/p>\n\n

In 2009, following a report produced by the University Council of UCR, the mining company carried out an advertising campaign in various media, discrediting the members of the commission that prepared the report (see statement<\/a><\/strong> from the University Council of June 10, 2009): if their idea was to win public sympathy and generate support for their mining project, we can say that the idea turned out to be… mistaken.<\/p>\n\n

Regarding economic and\/or political power as the backdrop of a strategic lawsuit, in a Directive of the European Union (EU) itself, Directive 2024\/1069 (see <\/strong>text<\/strong><\/a>), adopted in April 2024, it can be read that:<\/p>\n\n

\n

Strategic lawsuits are often filed by powerful entities, such as individuals, lobby groups, companies, politicians, and state bodies, in an attempt to silence public debate. They often involve a power imbalance between the parties, as the claimant has greater financial or political power than the defendant. Although not an indispensable component of such cases, a power imbalance, when present, considerably increases the harmful and deterrent effects of legal actions against public participation. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

In this publication<\/a><\/strong> from 2024 by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which should be translated into the other official languages of the United Nations, it reads in the “Imbalance of power<\/em>” section (page 2) that:<\/p>\n\n

\n

Where claimants are well-resourced, they typically do not need to win the case to have the effect of suppressing public participation on matters of public interest. Instead, well-resourced claimants can turn the proceedings into a punishment itself by protracting litigation and exhausting the defenders’ resources. At times, the mere threat of litigation may be sufficient to silence potential defenders. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

It should be noted that it was last April that Spain<\/strong> announced that European Directive 2024\/1069 (see text<\/strong><\/a>) adopted on April 11, 2024, better known as the European “Anti-SLAPP” Directive, is being implemented by the Spanish Ministry of Justice (see official statement at this link<\/a><\/strong> from April 14, 2026). <\/p>\n\n

In France<\/strong>, it was recently (April 2026) that the “D\u00e9cret n\u00b0 2026-337 du 30 avril 2026 relatif aux proc\u00e9dures engag\u00e9es contre des personnes en raison de leur participation au d\u00e9bat public et portant transposition de la directive (UE) 2024\/1069 du Parlement europ\u00e9en et du Conseil du 11 avril 2024 sur la protection des personnes qui participent au d\u00e9bat public contre les demandes en justice manifestement infond\u00e9es ou les proc\u00e9dures judiciaires abusives (\u00ab poursuites strat\u00e9giques alt\u00e9rant le d\u00e9bat public \u00bb)” was adopted (see text<\/a><\/strong>). At this link<\/a><\/strong> from the specialized legal publishing house Dalloz, our esteemed readers will find a brief commentary in French on this French Decree. <\/em><\/p>\n\n

In the case of Belgium<\/strong>, it is a collective of jurists and academics (see site<\/a><\/strong>) that, after several consultations with Belgian civil society organizations, has presented a draft law (see text<\/a><\/strong>) that should be discussed in the coming months. Similarly, in February 2026, this amendment proposal (see text<\/a><\/strong>) was proposed in Ireland<\/strong> to protect people from clearly intimidating criminal actions. <\/em><\/p>\n\n

In contrast, in the Netherlands<\/strong>, an online petition (see link<\/a><\/strong>) demands that its authorities begin to regulate the matter, based on the aforementioned EU Directive 2024\/1069 of April 2024.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

In the case of the American hemisphere, a joint statement from September 2025 (see link<\/a><\/strong>), titled “Joint Declaration on the Protection of the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association Against Criminalization Amid Intensifying Existential Threats<\/em>” (signed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the Commissioner Rapporteur for Human Rights Defenders of the IACHR, and the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and focal point on reprisals in Africa of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)) it reads that:<\/p>\n\n

\n

We are additionally concerned about the growing use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), filed by companies and other non-state entities, including lawsuits for civil damages, defamation, and violation of rights, which have often been used to restrict the work of civil society, human rights defenders, and independent journalists, to exhaust their resources, stigmatize them, and criminalize them. SLAPPs have a broad chilling effect on freedoms and public participation<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

As can be seen, States have the ability to substantially curb the number of lawsuits of this type, and in the process, lighten the burden on their respective judiciaries of processing criminal and\/or civil lawsuits that usually, as in the case of JuamBa, end up being dismissed by national judges.<\/p>\n\n

In Latin America, a bill presented in Colombia in July 2021 (see full text<\/a><\/strong>) should be able to inspire legislators throughout the region to adopt legislation called “AntiSLAPP<\/em>” as already exists in various parts of the United States (see link<\/a><\/strong>). At this other link<\/a><\/strong> from the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, which systematizes the “anti SLAPP<\/em>” laws already existing in the United States, Canada, and Europe, it also indicates the specificity of SLAPPs by warning that: <\/p>\n\n

\n

SLAPPs are an abuse of the law, not a legitimate use of it. Unscrupulous companies abuse existing legal frameworks and laws, such as those relating to slander and other types of defamation, to carry out costly and demoralizing legal proceedings. SLAPPs are often accompanied by other types of attacks against defenders, in some cases perpetrated by the State, such as intimidation, threats, and various forms of judicial harassment, including both civil and criminal legal actions. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

In the case of Peru<\/strong>, a ruling considered historic by the Supreme Court in 2025 acquitting a collective of indigenous people and environmentalists opposed to a megaproject and sued for alleged defamation (see press note<\/a><\/strong>), used inter-American standards to invalidate previous judicial rulings by Peruvian judges of the Madre de Dios judicial circuit (see full text<\/a><\/strong>), stating without hesitation that:<\/p>\n\n

“5.2<\/strong> In the present case, the application of domestic norms in a literal interpretation has resulted in a systematic violation of rights protected by the ACHR, so it is appropriate to declare the nullity of the challenged resolutions of the underlying process, having verified an impact on the constitutional rights to due process, freedom of opinion, expression and dissemination of thought, and proper reasoning, therefore it is appropriate to reverse the challenged ruling and, reforming it, declare this claim founded, having verified in this specific case that the judicial authority did not act with scrupulous respect for the fundamental rights of the parties, nor did it establish in its analysis the context of the relationship between the parties, and the preventive principle previously mentioned that is sought in consolidated jurisprudential line, when resolving this type of conflict in which the rights of indigenous populations are under debate, under an intercultural and preventive approach, rendering null and void what was ordered, as well as the cessation of prior censorship against FENAMAD<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n

The inter-American human rights protection system and SLAPPs <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The decision of the Peruvian constitutional judges is of great interest in adopting the criteria issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. There are already several cases that have come to the attention of the inter-American judge for the protection of human rights, in which journalists or environmentalists have been unjustly convicted by national justice, obtaining several years later a favorable decision from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights itself. <\/p>\n\n

In the field of Central American journalism, this very comprehensive 56-page report (see link<\/a><\/strong>) accounts for the ease with which a communicator can be intimidated with SLAPP lawsuits following a publication in a press outlet in Central America, and the legal gaps existing in the national legal frameworks of the States of the region.<\/p>\n\n

In a ruling against Costa Rica<\/strong>, following a lawsuit that was brought to the attention of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the case of two journalists sued for alleged slander and defamation (see link<\/a><\/strong>), it reads in paragraphs 74-75 of this 2022 ruling that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that:<\/p>\n\n

\n

In its jurisprudence, the Court has considered to be of public interest those opinions or information about matters in which society has a legitimate interest in staying informed, in knowing what affects the functioning of the State, or affects general rights or interests or brings important consequences. Determining this has consequences in the analysis of the conventionality of the restriction on the right to freedom of expression, since expressions that deal with matters of public interest\u2014such as, for example, those concerning the suitability of a person for holding public office or the acts performed by public officials in the performance of their duties\u2014enjoy greater protection, so as to promote democratic debate. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

75.<\/strong> Thus, the Court has stated that, in a democratic society, those persons who influence matters of public interest are more exposed to public scrutiny and criticism. This different threshold of protection is explained because their activities leave the domain of the private sphere to enter the sphere of public debate and, therefore, they have voluntarily exposed themselves to this more demanding scrutiny<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n

People who work as journalists in Costa Rica today are not exempt from this type of lawsuit: in March 2026, the College of Journalists of Costa Rica (COLPER) itself warned (see official statement<\/a><\/strong>) of lawsuits against communicators filed this time by Costa Rican public officials. Apparently, since the case against Costa Rica in which it was condemned by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, little has been established at the level of its criminal code to prevent this type of abusive lawsuit against professionals and communicators in Costa Rica. This article<\/a><\/strong> from February 2026 about the case of a UCR journalist facing criminal charges for defamation filed by a then presidential candidate in the 2018 elections shows that Costa Rican communicators must be much better protected. <\/p>\n\n

In the case of a Chilean environmentalist subject to a lawsuit for slander and defamation filed by a public official and convicted by Chilean justice, the case concluded with a ruling against Chile<\/strong>, in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2022 (see full text<\/a><\/strong>) stated that (paragraphs 117-118):<\/p>\n\n

\n

Likewise, the Court observes that in the present case there is no controversy about the presence of a matter of public interest. Particularly, the Court reiterates that in the case of environmental matters, the statements under study are clearly of public interest, which implies a stricter analysis of the restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in environmental matters. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

118<\/strong>. In relation to the above, the Court recalls that, within the framework of debate on matters of public interest, the right to freedom of expression not only protects the expression of harmless statements or those well received by public opinion, but also the expression of those that clash, irritate, or disturb public officials or any sector of the population. Thus, although Mr. Baraona Bray’s statements were extremely critical of Senator SP’s conduct in relation to the authorities responsible for the conservation of the alerce tree, this does not mean that his speech is unprotected from the perspective of freedom of expression. The use of expressions that may be shocking or critical are communicational resources or strategies used by human rights and environmental defenders, who seek to communicate and raise awareness among the general population. In this way, a statement on a matter of public interest enjoys special protection in view of the importance that this type of discourse has in a democratic society. Taking into account the nature and purpose of the statement, the requirement of exceptio veritatis in judicial proceedings is inappropriate, since the aim is to point out a situation of public interest that deserves to be investigated by the relevant authorities. It would be an impossible burden to fulfill, the requirement of this before each situation involving allegations related to corruption, misuse of public funds, or environmental damage, as in the present case. <\/em><\/p>\n\n

In environmental matters as such, and in order to strengthen the jurisprudential line of the inter-American judge regarding the necessary and urgent protection of those who raise their voices in defense of the environment, in its Advisory Opinion OC 32<\/strong> of 2025 (see full text<\/a><\/strong>), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights requested that States carry out the following task (which to date Costa Rica has not even begun), as read in paragraph 587<\/strong> that:<\/p>\n\n

\n

The Court considers that, to combat this phenomenon, States have the obligation to: (i) identify laws applied selectively or recurrently to persecute and punish environmental defenders solely because of the legitimate exercise of their human rights defense work, as well as those that, due to their ambiguity, may produce an intimidating or deterrent effect; (ii) review the conventionality of such laws and adopt legislative or administrative measures to repeal or modify them, if necessary; (iii) establish procedures that allow the rapid dismissal of judicial or administrative actions merely intended to intimidate or silence defenders, before imposing measures that restrict their rights, and (iv) undertake training and capacity-building efforts directed especially at competent police and judicial authorities on inter-American standards for the protection of environmental defenders with the aim of preventing and avoiding forms of judicial harassment or the adoption of judicial decisions that violate the right to defend human rights. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Regarding the “conventionality control<\/em>” referred to by the inter-American judge when stating “(ii) review the conventionality of such laws and adopt legislative or administrative measures to repeal or modify them, if necessary,<\/em>” we refer to this booklet<\/a><\/strong> published by the Court itself, and to a more extensive undergraduate thesis presented at the Faculty of Law of UCR in 2016, which analyzes conventionality control and the resistance found within the Costa Rican Judiciary (Note 8<\/strong>). <\/p>\n\n

For one of the leading specialists in environmental law in Costa Rica, this 2025 advisory opinion OC 32 of the inter-American judge and the Escaz\u00fa Agreement (not ratified by Costa Rica) constitute a guide that should call on Costa Rican state entities to rectify some things right now:<\/p>\n\n

\n

Advisory Opinion OC-32\/25 does not introduce a disruption in the Costa Rican legal system, but rather offers a roadmap consistent with the existing constitutional foundations.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

From this perspective, the eventual ratification of the Escaz\u00fa Agreement would not represent a legal revolution, but rather the express formalization of standards that, to a large extent, are already part of the country’s living constitutional law. Therefore, the pending ratification should not be read solely as an act of adherence to an international instrument, but as the political and legal recognition of a floor of environmental democracy that Costa Rican jurisprudence has been building for more than three decades<\/em> (Note 9<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n

The statements that serve as the basis for a criminal and\/or civil lawsuit against those who defend the environment in Costa Rica<\/h5>\n\n

In environmental matters in Costa Rica, these lawsuits filed by companies generally originate in statements made either in a Municipal Council, to the press, or at some public meeting such as in a community hall where a lawyer for a questioned company gathers a few phrases uttered by a person to present them as alleged defamation in a criminal lawsuit. <\/p>\n\n

The “Chilean guy<\/em>” referred to in her interview by the previously cited Siquirres leader was, in her case, the person in charge of collecting and filming her various interventions against the expansion of pineapple in Siquirres. There have probably been many more cases in Costa Rica of environmentalists who feel filmed and recorded in their various interventions, and all testimony of this type deserves to be known or posted somewhere, so as to be able to specify the type of companies that have resorted to this “technique<\/em>” in Costa Rica.<\/p>\n\n

In the case of a well-known activist, sued by a Vice Minister of Environment and later by The Leatherback Trust<\/em> for denouncing what was happening at Playa Grande, Guanacaste, these were statements given to Semanario Universidad<\/em> (see press note<\/a><\/strong> from 2009 in which this tireless activist is quoted as saying “Protected areas won<\/em>” upon learning of the first acquittal ruling).<\/p>\n\n

It can also be statements made in the context of a documentary, as occurred in the case of two criminal lawsuits each accompanied by a civil damages action for one million US dollars each against two academics based on their statements in the documentary “Fool’s Gold<\/em>” produced by the University of Costa Rica (UCR) in 2011 (see link<\/a><\/strong> to this documentary): in this regard, see this note<\/a><\/strong> from Semanario Universidad<\/em> and this official note<\/a><\/strong> from October 2012 from UCR upon learning of the acquittal ruling for one of them. As will be recalled, the Canadian mining company Infinito Gold found nothing better after losing in court in 2010 than to sue a total of five people: two legislators, an environmental leader from San Carlos, and two UCR professors. The repeated absence of the mining company’s lawyers at the criminal trials brought against the last three led the defendants to point out in various press outlets how strange it seemed to them to attend hearings with, at the last moment, absences justified by ailments as sudden as they were repeated: see in this regard the opinion article<\/a><\/strong> titled “Hearings with Infinito: absences…<\/em>” published in La Naci\u00f3n<\/em> in July 2012 in which it was stated that: <\/p>\n\n

\n

It should be noted that while we are all subject to health problems, the fact that these ailments systematically appear for these hearings in three separate criminal actions is striking. Similarly, the fact that a company like Industrias Infinito S.A. has not presented a substitute lawyer who can represent it at a public hearing before a criminal judge<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Despite the importance of the amounts of each of these actions ($1 million each) with which the Canadian mining company assessed the alleged damages suffered by it and its image due to our statements, the undersigned would like to point out that these repeated absences prevent us, within the framework of a hearing, from demonstrating to the Costa Rican judicial system that what each of us expressed has ample evidentiary support, which is why we find no reason whatsoever to retract.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Still in relation to UCR and the Crucitas mining project, a letter from one of the company’s lawyers asking that some academics not participate in a forum prompted a forceful reaction from the Rector of UCR (see official note<\/a><\/strong>) in July 2012: a foreign mining company, called Infinito, indicating who can and cannot participate in a forum within UCR itself? How so? As stated. It must be acknowledged that only a foreign company with certain power in Costa Rica can think, even for an instant, of such an affront to an entity like UCR. <\/p>\n\n

What happens after the lawsuit is filed and the person who is the subject of it is notified? <\/p>\n\n

The entire Costa Rican judicial system is activated, without at any time there being any type of prior filter to rule out clearly intimidating and\/or abusive lawsuits or those that do not in the least respond to the definition of “Defamation of a legal person<\/em>” contemplated in the Criminal Code and which reads as follows:<\/p>\n\n

“Defamation of a legal person. ARTICLE 153<\/strong>.-<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Anyone who spreads false facts concerning a legal person or its representatives by reason of the exercise of their positions that may seriously damage public confidence or the credit they enjoy shall be punished with thirty to one hundred days’ fine<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n

If they do not retract, as the lawyers of the plaintiff companies usually request at first, the judge has no choice but to proceed to order a trial and set the dates for the parties.<\/p>\n\n

The person accused of alleged defamation is then subjected to several years of proceedings, until finally these lawsuits are rejected for lack of grounds. <\/p>\n\n

Unless we are mistaken, no Costa Rican environmentalist has ever had to pay any sum to any company in the context of a civil damages lawsuit for alleged defamation: the only sums that the environmental defender has had to pay are an amount corresponding to the legal assistance required by a criminal process that can extend over several years, particularly if the company appeals an initial acquittal ruling. <\/p>\n\n

In the event that an environmentalist is convicted by Costa Rican justice, the next path in their struggle for the environment and for those who defend it would be to resort to the inter-American human rights protection system: as stated previously, the latter has already heard several cases of intimidating criminal actions not considered as such by criminal judges at the national level, with decisions by the inter-American judge condemning States for allowing environmental defenders and\/or defenders of other collective interests to be intimidated (with very similar legal actions taken against journalists or against peasant, union, or indigenous leaders). <\/p>\n\n

As already indicated in this article<\/a><\/strong> from Semanario Universidad<\/em> about the Escaz\u00fa Agreement and the Juamba case, the fact that Costa Rica has not ratified this valuable regional instrument that has already been ratified by 19 States (see official status<\/a><\/strong> of signatures and ratifications) is shameful and calls into question the green international image that Costa Rica projects to the world. However, the lack of ratification of the Escaz\u00fa Agreement is no impediment to begin legislating in favor of people who defend the environment: <\/p>\n\n

“For some time now, the Criminal Code of Costa Rica has been incorporating criminal figures to criminalize social protest. We see it again and again with long criminal trials against protesters, students, locally organized groups that protest, environmental defenders, community groups defending water. These are trials that, after many years, end either with an acquittal or with an appeal in which an appeals court annuls the previous conviction. There is a whole review of this legal framework that can be done right now, regardless of whether or not the Escaz\u00fa Agreement is approved<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n

By way of conclusion<\/h3>\n\n

Clearly, these strategic criminal lawsuits have one objective: to intimidate and silence and in the process suggest to other people and groups not to report certain things that happen in Costa Rica in environmental matters. <\/p>\n\n

Reading this ruling<\/a><\/strong> from the Sentence Appeals Court of 2012 on an action for alleged defamation filed by the company Cementos David against residents of San Rafael de Alajuela is of interest, as it shows the great creativity of the company in appealing the initial decision: without much success.<\/p>\n\n

In 2013, we personally had to read a very similar ruling from the same Appeals Court (see ruling<\/a><\/strong>) as well as from Chamber III (see text<\/a><\/strong>) in which the lawyers of the mining company Industrias Infinito also displayed infinite creativity (pardon the redundancy…) in their attempts to convict us for alleged defamation: without much success. In our specific case, the statements used were extracted from the aforementioned documentary “Fool’s Gold<\/em>” and from others given at the Faculty of Law of UCR in the context of a forum. The extreme creativity of the mining company’s legal team had already been verified in 2011, when appealing the 2010 TCA ruling, based on truly novel arguments… without much success (Note 10<\/strong>). <\/p>\n\n

In the case of the controversial Coco-Ocotal aqueduct in Sardinal, several residents and community leaders were subject to criminal lawsuits in the period 2007-2009, a highly questioned project (see conclusions of a Commission of the University Council of UCR and statement<\/a><\/strong>) finally inaugurated in 2019 (see note<\/a><\/strong> from Semanario Universidad<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n

In the rulings of criminal courts or Chamber III if the case goes to appeal, it is common to read that these strategic criminal lawsuits are dismissed and\/or rejected for lack of evidence and atypicality of the conduct in relation to the definition of defamation in the Criminal Code, for violating a person’s right to freedom of expression, or the right to participate in deliberation processes in defense of the environment, whether as a community leader, peasant leader, environmental leader; or as a simple neighbor or citizen who takes the microphone in a community hall, or in an academic forum, deeply outraged to see heavy machinery authorized by national authorities destroying a forest, a lagoon, a source of drinking water, or another natural element of the community in which they reside with their family. <\/p>\n\n

In the case of academics who are brought before criminal justice in the context of lawsuits of this type, academic freedom is also invoked, which protects every university professor in their various activities as an academic.<\/p>\n\n

Far from being intimidated and silenced, JuamBa’s struggle to prevent the felling of 751 trees has not stopped, and today, thanks to his work and that of his fellow activists, much of Costa Rica supports his struggle and encourages him to remain standing, serene and imperturbable, come hell or high water (and a few corporate lawyers): like the 751 trees of Playa Panam\u00e1.<\/p>\n\n

Notes<\/h3>\n\n

Note 1<\/strong>: On the principle of reversal of the burden of proof in environmental matters contained in the Escaz\u00fa Agreement that a Costa Rican magistrate of the Constitutional Chamber interpreted completely erroneously in a vote in March 2020, see a fierce criticism recently released, whose full reading is recommended: CHINCHILLA-CALDER\u00d3N R., “Principle of innocence, criminal ‘burden of proof,’ environmental crimes and the Escaz\u00fa Agreement<\/em>,” Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho, Cultura y Ambiente, 2024. Full text available here<\/a>. An earlier observation on such strange ignorance of what is in force in environmental matters in Costa Rica by various political sectors can be read in: PE\u00d1A CHAC\u00d3N M.<\/strong>, “The Escaz\u00fa Agreement and the reversal of the burden of environmental proof<\/em>,” Delfino.cr<\/em>, edition of October 12, 2020. Text available at this link<\/a><\/strong>. In his conclusion the author states that: “As can be seen, in Costa Rica the reversal of the burden of proof in environmental matters is a procedural rule of mandatory application in the contentious-administrative, civil, and agrarian jurisdictions, and has had the endorsement of the First Chamber, Agrarian Court, Administrative Litigation Courts, as well as by the World Bank’s ICSID. <\/em>Thus, since 1998, Costa Rica has had legislative and jurisprudential measures to facilitate the production of evidence of environmental damage, fully complying with the provision contained in Article 8.3.e of the Escaz\u00fa Agreement to guarantee the procedural human right of access to justice in environmental matters<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n

Note 2<\/strong>: In this article<\/a><\/strong> published by Semanario Universidad in 2021, which interviews the Escaz\u00fa Agreement negotiator, Patricia Madrigal Cordero, it is stated that there is a coincidence that, as of today (July 14, 2026), remains unexplained: \u201cSecond, Justice Nancy Hern\u00e1ndez, in a note, expresses her interpretative concerns about the Escaz\u00fa Agreement, which coincidentally are the same ones that the Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector (UCCAEP) has found in order to oppose the bill,\u201d Madrigal added”.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Note 3<\/strong>: See BOEGLIN N.<\/strong>, ” “<\/em>The myths have arrived!”: regarding the recent statements against the Escaz\u00fa Agreement<\/em>“, UCR Portal, Expert Voice section, December 17, 2020 edition. Text available at this link<\/a><\/strong>. Regarding the latest recorded accession by the Bahamas in June 2025 to the Escaz\u00fa Agreement, see BOEGLIN N.<\/strong>, “Escaz\u00fa Agreement: some notes regarding the Bahamas\u2019 recent accession<\/em>“, June 7, 2025. Text available at this link<\/a><\/strong>. Regarding other States that, like Costa Rica, resist ratifying the Escaz\u00fa Agreement, this extensive report<\/a><\/strong> from April 2025 on the situation in Peru<\/strong> details the extreme vulnerability and lack of protection faced by Peruvian environmental defenders. Likewise in Central America, this note<\/a><\/strong> from May 2025 regarding the death of environmentalists in Guatemala<\/strong> and this other note<\/a><\/strong> about the murder in Honduras<\/strong> of a well-known environmental defender in April 2025. In February 2025, criminal lawsuits were reported in El Salvador<\/strong> against opponents of mining projects (see press note<\/a><\/strong>). The NGO Amnesty International<\/em> issued an international alert about the fate of an environmental defender in Paraguay<\/strong> in April 2025 (see link<\/a><\/strong>). In the case of Brazil<\/strong>, the NGO Human Rights Watch<\/em> issued a report<\/a><\/strong> calling on its authorities to ratify the Escaz\u00fa Agreement without further preamble, in view of the wave of threats and intimidation, as well as murders, suffered by environmental defenders, particularly in the Amazon region.<\/p>\n\n

Note 4<\/strong>: In 2023, we had the opportunity to write the following: “As a detail, we found in<\/em> ruling 11236-2023<\/a> the following statement by the Secretary General of Setena (Findings, point 3): \u201cWhat the appellant mentions is a reckless expression that calls into question the work of the Environmental Assessment Department and SETENA itself<\/u>\u201d. <\/em>Beyond whatever effect the attempt to discredit an appellant may have, none of Setena\u2019s arguments (nor the company\u2019s) found any echo among the constitutional justices”<\/em>. See BOEGLIN N.<\/strong>, “Regarding a recent ruling. Citizen participation in environmental matters<\/em>“, Expert Voice section, UCR Portal, July 18, 2023 edition. Text available at this link<\/strong><\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

Note 5:<\/strong> See in this regard BOEGLIN N<\/strong>., “Incitement to hatred in Costa Rica: some reflections in light of ignored warnings to prevent it<\/em>“, May 15, 2026. Full text available at this link<\/a>. <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n

Note 6<\/strong>: As recent material on SLAPPs in Spanish, we recommend, in addition to the citations in the text, GRANIA GIANONI J.<\/strong>, “Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP): The challenge of abuse of judicial systems and advances in anti-SLAPP regulations<\/em>“, 2024, an academic article, available at this link<\/a>, as well as PE\u00d1A CHAC\u00d3N M.<\/strong>, “SLAPP lawsuits and the defense of environmental rights<\/em>“. 2025, an opinion piece, published in the digital outlet Delfino.cr and<\/em> available at this link<\/a>.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n

Note 7<\/strong>: In the 2010 TCA ruling (see<\/strong>text<\/strong><\/a>) it reads: \u201cWith regard to this point, it is necessary to indicate that in the present case something exceptional occurs, namely that the various illegalities detected and the nullities declared all coincide in that they tended toward approval of the Crucitas mining project, and several of them were issued while an executive decree imposing a moratorium on open-pit metallic gold mining was in force, all of which makes it plausible to consider as possible an eventual concurrence or orchestration of wills to carry out, in any way, this mining project<\/em>\u201d (paragraph XL). What is striking is the limited interest among researchers, academics, and law school faculty in analyzing in detail, in a monograph or thesis, what some analysts at the time called in their columns the \u201cCrucitas affair<\/em>\u201c. In this article<\/strong><\/a> published in 2019 in the digital outlet Delfino.cr<\/em> (and whose full reading is recommended), it states: \u201cThe foregoing is a summary of only part of the numerous and significant illegalities and inconsistencies of the Crucitas mining project, and is therefore far from exhaustive<\/em>\u201d (see FERN\u00c1NDEZ FERN\u00c1NDEZ E., \u201cIllegalities of the Crucitas project: beyond the decree of national convenience<\/em>\u201c, Teclado Abierto section, Delfino.cr<\/em>, January 21, 2019 edition). See also SAGOT RODRIGUEZ A.<\/strong>, “The illegalities and what is fair in Crucitas<\/em>“, Ambientico Magazine (UNA), 2010. Full text available at this link<\/a><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

Note 8<\/strong>: See AMADOR GARITA C., RODRIGUEZ MATA N. D.<\/strong>, Conventionality control in Costa Rica: a proposal for application by ordinary judges. Comparative analysis from the perspective of public international law<\/em>, thesis to obtain the Licentiate degree in Law, Faculty of Law, UCR, 2016, 647 pages. Full text available at this link<\/a>. <\/strong>In environmental matters, reading this thesis can be complemented by another defended years later, on the changes observed in the inter-American system regarding the defense of the environment: RUCAVADO ROJAS D.<\/strong>, “Scope and limitations of the justiciability of the right to a healthy environment in the inter-American system: recent aspects in the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights<\/em>“, thesis to obtain the Licentiate degree in Law, Faculty of Law, UCR, 2019, 261 pages. Full text available at this link<\/a><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

Note 9: <\/strong>See PE\u00d1A CHAC\u00d3N M.<\/strong>, “Escaz\u00fa without ratification: OC-32\/25 as the basis for environmental conventionality control in Costa Rica<\/em>“, Actualidad Ambiental, May 9, 2026 edition. Full text available at thislink<\/strong><\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

Note 10<\/strong>: Indeed, in November 2011, the 2010 TCA decision was unanimously upheld in all respects by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (see text<\/strong><\/a>). No justice was swayed by the barrage of arguments presented by the Canadian mining company. It should be noted that the reversal of the burden of proof in environmental matters alleged by the appellant in its appeal and rejected by the First Chamber (paragraphs XIX and XX of the First Chamber\u2019s ruling) shows a lack of understanding of this principle\u2014something basic\u2014and its legal reality in Costa Rica: a lack of understanding that, it seems, still extended to some members of the Constitutional Chamber when, in March 2020, they analyzed the scope of the provisions of the Escaz\u00fa Agreement, in particular one justice who is no longer a member of it. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP) in Costa Rica Businessman: \u201cDid you hear what came out on social media and in the press last weekend against our megaproject in Punta La Mona? Several investors called me and I had to reassure them, telling them that we\u2019re going to have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":25593,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[110,103,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ecology-en","category-society-en","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nSuing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica - SensorialSunsets<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica - SensorialSunsets\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SensorialSunsets\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Sensorial-Sunsets-109180614715562\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-15T21:25:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-15T21:25:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-1-1024x683.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sensorial Sunsets\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sensorial Sunsets\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"50 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sensorial Sunsets\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7fbe869b21d07a3c3ece1037dc8a8dd9\"},\"headline\":\"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP) in Costa Rica\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-15T21:25:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-15T21:25:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":9964,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/image-1.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Ecology\",\"Society\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/\",\"name\":\"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \\\"strategic lawsuits against public participation\\\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica - SensorialSunsets\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/image-1.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-15T21:25:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-15T21:25:54+00:00\",\"description\":\"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \\\"strategic lawsuits against public participation\\\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/image-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/image-1.png\",\"width\":1500,\"height\":1000},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"SensorialSunsets.com\",\"description\":\"Discover the culture and society of Costa Rica on our blog. Explore captivating articles and share the content.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Costa Rica Live Blog\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"SensorialSunsets\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/Logo_base_line_fond_clair.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/Logo_base_line_fond_clair.svg\",\"width\":\"1024\",\"height\":\"1024\",\"caption\":\"SensorialSunsets\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/Sensorial-Sunsets-109180614715562\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/sensorialsunsets\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7fbe869b21d07a3c3ece1037dc8a8dd9\",\"name\":\"Sensorial Sunsets\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5f2d62681b1dad94c28f1500d4fc75582acdfd32b55fd1acce0a36a3c487eabe?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5f2d62681b1dad94c28f1500d4fc75582acdfd32b55fd1acce0a36a3c487eabe?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5f2d62681b1dad94c28f1500d4fc75582acdfd32b55fd1acce0a36a3c487eabe?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sensorial Sunsets\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\\\/en\\\/author\\\/asistentes-sensorial-sunsets\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \"strategic lawsuits against public participation\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica - SensorialSunsets","description":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \"strategic lawsuits against public participation\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \"strategic lawsuits against public participation\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica - SensorialSunsets","og_description":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \"strategic lawsuits against public participation\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica","og_url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/","og_site_name":"SensorialSunsets","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Sensorial-Sunsets-109180614715562","article_published_time":"2026-07-15T21:25:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-15T21:25:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-1-1024x683.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Sensorial Sunsets","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sensorial Sunsets","Est. reading time":"50 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/"},"author":{"name":"Sensorial Sunsets","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/7fbe869b21d07a3c3ece1037dc8a8dd9"},"headline":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP) in Costa Rica","datePublished":"2026-07-15T21:25:51+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-15T21:25:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/"},"wordCount":9964,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-1.png","articleSection":["Ecology","Society"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/","url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/","name":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \"strategic lawsuits against public participation\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica - SensorialSunsets","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-1.png","datePublished":"2026-07-15T21:25:51+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-15T21:25:54+00:00","description":"Suing environmental defenders? JuamBa and so-called \"strategic lawsuits against public participation\" (SLAPP) in Costa Rica","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/suing-environmental-defenders-juamba-and-so-called-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-in-costa-rica\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/image-1.png","width":1500,"height":1000},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/","name":"SensorialSunsets.com","description":"Discover the culture and society of Costa Rica on our blog. Explore captivating articles and share the content.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Costa Rica Live Blog","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#organization","name":"SensorialSunsets","url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Logo_base_line_fond_clair.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Logo_base_line_fond_clair.svg","width":"1024","height":"1024","caption":"SensorialSunsets"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Sensorial-Sunsets-109180614715562","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/sensorialsunsets\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/7fbe869b21d07a3c3ece1037dc8a8dd9","name":"Sensorial Sunsets","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5f2d62681b1dad94c28f1500d4fc75582acdfd32b55fd1acce0a36a3c487eabe?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5f2d62681b1dad94c28f1500d4fc75582acdfd32b55fd1acce0a36a3c487eabe?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5f2d62681b1dad94c28f1500d4fc75582acdfd32b55fd1acce0a36a3c487eabe?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sensorial Sunsets"},"url":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/author\/asistentes-sensorial-sunsets\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25594"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25594\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25595,"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25594\/revisions\/25595"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25593"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sensorialsunsets.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}