**2.5 The development of the right to nature since the sentences issued by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador**

In Ecuador, a jurisprudential line has been developed regarding nature as a subject of rights through the Constitutional Court. Thus, several rulings have been handed down in the recent years, for example: a) in Ruling No. 012–18-SIS-CC Case No. 0032–12-IS, the violation of the rights of nature is recognised due to effects on the

### *Reconstruction of Ethics: Nature as a Subject of Rights DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112336*

Vilcabamba river; b) in Ruling No. 22–18-IN−/21 Case No. 22–18, it is stated that mangrove ecosystems are holders of the recognised rights to nature and have the right to have their existence, maintenance, and regeneration of their life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes fully respected; c) in Ruling No. 1149–19-JP/21, the affectation of the rights of nature by allowing mining activity in the Protective Park "Los Cedros" is recognised. It was determined that nature has intrinsic value as a holder of rights and not necessarily as a value linked to human beings. Therefore, it has legal protection for itself; d) in judgement No.1185-20-JP/21 (The Aquepi River) case No. 1185-20-JP, the legal valuation of the river as a subject of rights individually and simultaneously as part of an ecosystem, recognised that rivers are dynamic, complex, and integrating ecosystems with multiple connections with other ecosystems.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court has established a jurisprudential line that recognises nature as a complex subject that must be understood from a systemic perspective. This comprises an interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible set of biotic and abiotic elements, in which, when one part is affected, the functioning of the entire system will be altered. Thus, Ruling No.253-20-JH (habeas corpus action in favour of a Chorongo monkey named Estrellita) recognised wild animals as subjects of protection rights by being part of nature.
