Claimants and landowners sued for condor deaths in Malargüe

The provincial attorney general's office has lodged a complaint with the nation's Supreme Court of Justice against three retailers and four companies for the death of 34 condors who were poisoned in a Malargüe camp in January 2018.

In his brief, the public prosecutor of the Republic of Mendoza, Fernando Simón, claimed before the highest national body an action in environmental damages collectively caused to the companies Valle de Las Leñas SA, Valles Mendocinos SA and Altos Cerros SA and Nieves de Mendoza SA , and Ramón Rojas, Nibaldo and Víctor Armando Baigorria, in addition to businessman Eduardo Valentini.

Simón understands that the defendants are directly responsible for the mbad death of condors in the Los Molles area, alleging that this "involved a serious and relevant environmental change, due to carbofuran poisoning caused by the practice of farming. "", it being understood that " there is a responsibility on the part of those who carry out these activities and the companies that own the properties with which the said producers have contracts for their exploitation "

More on this topic

"This situation was part of an action in collective environmental damages, that is to say, of harm that affects the entire community, in solidarity, in its right to the protection of the environment (Article 41 CN), "said the prosecutor's writing. At the same time, he is asking the defendants to carry out the necessary work to restore the pre-episode natural environment and request the creation of an Andean Condor Environmental Recovery Fund in the area.

For the prosecution, the companies belonging to the same economic group dominated by Nieves de Mendoza and whose repertoires are practically identical, have responsibilities in the poisoning of the condors by the possession of the land where the dead took place and the recognition, to Through Valentini (who is president of three of the four companies), the technique of poisoning wildlife and protected species is a common practice for supporters of the region, although it is prohibited.

"The liability of the defendant companies, even when their conduct may be diligent, is constituted by the rule of Article 28 LGA which makes the liability for environmental damage accountable, but also responds simultaneously for its principal character to the activities that (probably dependent, or in any other case) develop under your knowledge on the property ", the details of the document.

More on this topic

At the same time, the prosecutor's office contends that these companies "also respond to the risky nature of the activity and property of property used for the development of the business, in which poisoned baits were used (Articles 1757 and 1758 CCyC), both by the means used – legally – in the same way to control pests and the circumstances in which it was carried out and is generally carried out in the area (as recognized by the defendant company) the practice of pest control by toxic substances as something that characterizes the activity. "

In the case of the settlers, who are engaged in rural farming and grazing on the land they rent to the companies, the prosecutor's office determined that "the poisoned bait was placed by those who raised the cattle at their own expense. where it trails through the area. "" Although it is not possible to determine precisely who among those who make up the group of stalls who practice rural practices on these lands, is the one who placed these baits, or to what extent some have put baits and others have omitted the generic requirement of Preventing visible and notorious mortality occurring continuously over time, the truth is that all must respond jointly and severally to the rule of art 31 LGA38 ", he added.

The complete application: