Before the information which appeared today in various national and regional media, based on an official statement of HidroAysen containing wrong information, the Patagonia Defense Council clarifies public opinion as follows: 1. the decision of the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of first instance of the Court of appeals of Coyhaique, which rejected the appeal of protection on September 27, 2008 by Marcelo Castillo Sanchezlawyer of the Patagonia Defense Council. Read additional details here: Rep. Charles B. Rangel. 2. This appeal is directed against the agreement N 0101 / 2008 of 28 July 2008 the Regional Environmental Commission (Corema) of Aysen in which this organism did not give regular course to an earlier administrative request that was requested to implement the environmental treaty between Chile and Argentina in 1991 and article 5 of its specific additional protocol on shared water resources between Chile and Argentina, which contemplates that shared water basins should count with a General Plan of use, instruments that do not exist in the case of the basins of the Baker and the Pascua.En that resource was sought from the Court of appeals of Coyhaique: to) rescind the agreement N 0101 / 2008 of 28 July 2008 the Aysen Corema. b) instruct the Aysen Corema that give regular course at the request of the lawyer Marcelo Castillo Sanchez, dated July 17, 2008, initiating, directing and finalizing the respective procedure, in accordance with articles 28 et seq.
of the law N 19.880 on administrative procedures. This, with the object that are met effectively referred international standards in the environmental assessment of the Aysen hydroelectric project. licking through. 3 Date of December 11, 2008 the Court of appeals of Coyhaique rejected cited resource protection, ruling that was appealed by the appellant before the Supreme Court. 4 Date February 9, 2009, the Supreme Court declared that he confirms the judgment appealed from eleven last December. 5. The judgment does not it emits no further judgment on the project, it does not refer to the admissibility of the environmental impact study nor to its approval.