So the supreme court in Guatemala is the lower court and theconstitutional court is the higher court or what would be the supreme
court in the west or at least north america. It's the lower supreme court
that placed the suspension and not the higher constitutional court.
And based on past precedence, presumably based on merit, that THO
says it has, (hopefully that is very correct), the repeal of the suspension
could be done as speedily as in 2 months as in past incidences with
other companies.
Let's hope that is all the case and more legally the case to really the
case, or result, in 2 months.
From
'Tahoe Resources (TAHO) Reports Suspension of
Mining License by Guatemalan Supreme Court (ie the
lower court in Guatemala)'
by Street Insider
https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Tahoe+Resources+(TAHO)+Reports+Suspension+of+Mining+License+by+Guatemalan+Supreme+Court/13072391.html "The Guatemala Supreme Court is the initial trial court (ie the lower
court) in Guatemala for constitutional actions filed against MEM (the
gov't in effect). Appeals from these decisions are heard by Guatemala's
Constitutional Court (ie the higher court).
Based on a prior ruling by the Constitutional Court (ie the higher court)
involving (
the same problem of)
'consultation obligations
' with respect to
a large natural resource project (ie the suspension was lifted in 2 months),
the Company believes that its operating license should remain in effect
'while any additional consultation is completed
'.
Accordingly, the Company intends to both appeal the decision to the
Constitutional Court and ask for the Supreme Court (also, which is
probably unnecessary and a waste of time) to reconsider its provisional
ruling.
The Company (of course, and hopefully correctly) believes that all 'consultation
obligations' relating to the permitting of the Escobal license were met. The
last official census shows the San Rafael community to be 98.6% non-
indigenous and with no Xinca community presence. (1) Despite the fact that
the Escobal mine is not located in or impacting any indigenous communities
of Guatemala, (2) the Company understands (hopefully correctly), (3) that MEM
held a consultation process (4) that complied with the requirements set forth
in ILO Convention 169, (5) (relating more to indigenous people, not community
people)."
Me- For conspiracy theorists, it is possible that MEM (ie the gov't) didn't argue
as effectively as they could of in order to negotiate a new contract with THO?
Or that the lower court, (ie the supreme court in Guatemala, not the higher
constitutional court) wants to make sure that all the COMMUNITY safety
procedures that should be done to them as far as cyanide containment and
making appropriate corrections to open pit mining, if any, are on the books
and being met.
Take your pick????
We know that THO will argue the merits very effectively (and hopefully accurately).
Also hopefully THO is meeting all environmental, cleanup and return to as
pristine conditions as possible, responsibilities that are required.