Polluter pays them
0 Comment(s) 15094 View(s) Dangerous Goods
The Court confirmed Cordoba Maximum sentences Francisco Edgardo Parra and Pancello for violation of the Hazardous Waste Act, rejecting the appeals brought by defense lawyers against the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal who applied them a penalty three-year suspended sentence and was disqualified for eight years for "the exercise of the activity of agrochemical application."
The ruling was issued in the case "Gabrielli, Jorge Alberto and other p.ss.aa. infringement -Appeal Law 24.051 of Cassation" by the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court, composed of judges Tarditti Aida, Sebastián Cruz López Peña and Maria de las Mercedes G. Blanc Arabel and confirmed by the statement that had established that Parra, which exploited a ucercanos fields to Ituzaingó neighborhood, "driving a machine type mosquito" and "several times, in an undetermined number of Sometimes, he practiced in the crops "spraying" with hazardous chemicals, "including" some totally prohibited by SENASA (dieldrin, DDT) "}
All this, knowing that the municipal ordinances had banned the use of pesticides or chemical biocides via ground or aerial spraying, whatever their type and dose, less than in 2500 (2,500) meters of any dwelling or group of dwellings that sector populated. The judges of the First Criminal Court, who imposed the sentence, had understood that "the application of these chemicals contaminated the general atmosphere of the neighborhood so dangerous to the health of its inhabitants."
The other fact, for which he was sentenced Pancello, was that the inlaying, on board an aircraft, "and according to the agreed with Parra for money plan, carried out the spraying of fields it operated with soybeans to the edge of the Schrodinguer street Barrio Ituzaingó Annex Córdoba City, agrochemicals (endosulfan, glyphosate), despite the ordinances "
The members of the High Court agreed with the criminal frame assigned to the two facts that incriminate that "using waste refers to" Law 24.051 "Poisons, adultery or defiled in a dangerous way to health, soil, water, atmosphere or environment in general, "referring to the penalties conminadas in art. 200 of the Penal Code, unless the act is followed by the death of any person. "
On that point, the ruling stated that "restrictions to prohibit sprays in close proximity to population centers areas, namely in the areas that are intended for the settlement of the people and not holding, are presented as manifestly reasonable ".
The Supreme Court reasoned in that regard that the use of pesticides "may set an allowable risk in the field for which that job entails certain benefits for agriculture," but that "it is an impermissible risk as substances are used in fields territorial prohibited where they settle or are close to population groups ".
"I pointed out qualitatively intensified when the population center that referred (Barrio Ituzaingó City Córdoba), it was a vulnerable sanitary group, having declared by the municipality health emergency", stressed the members of the Criminal Chamber.
"In this context, the release of pesticides within the territory prohibited, that is encroaching on areas closer than the allowed regarding housing a population center a health emergency involves introducing into the environment something that should not be, because lacking not only of little use to people who inhabited dwellings exposure permitted products for other purposes (prevention and treatment of crop pests), potentially have ability to affect human health of the whole health emergency ", summarized the magistrates.