Forest Reclamation and Habitat Conservation

Case statement:
In the year 2137, a sizable human company G in City L rented the forest T348. On February 28 of the same year, they opened the forest without notifying EcoEye, destroying the habitat of numerous endangered species and uncommon flora. EcoEye detected this transgression of state ethics on March 14 and filed a lawsuit against company G on behalf of the plants in forest T348 (hereafter referred to as group F) for violating their right to survive.

Court dialogue：
The EcoVoice of Group F:
Your Honour, we request that Company G cease cultivation and restore habitats for afflicted species. If it is no longer habitable, they must locate a new parcel of land in order to return to Group F. I believe that G's actions have caused Group F to lose the habitat they require for survival, thereby violating Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Sentient Beings and affecting Group F's right to survive. Consequently, I request an end to cultivation and compensation.

The EcoVoice of Company G:
Your Honour, our company is not attempting to destroy the ecosystem through malice or sabotage. Without considering its ecological impact, this is done to facilitate the allocation and exchange of local biological resources. In the near future, we will provide JusticeJet with additional details regarding the allocation and exchange plan for biological resource production and the request for land reclamation consent.

The EcoVoice of Group F:
G's behavior has had an irreversible impact on the forest ecosystem, and the cultivated forest may no longer be suitable for these plants to inhabit. How can other sentient beings survive without habitat? G's behavior seriously violates the principles of environmental protection and Balance of nature. G should take responsibility, stop illegal activities, and return the habitat suitable for plants to Group F to protect the integrity of the ecosystem and Species diversity.

The EcoVoice of Company G:
We believe that the advantages of cultivating this forest outweigh the disadvantages. This development project has brought more opportunities for the allocation and exchange of local biological resources production. Moreover, the responsibility for protecting species and the environment should not be solely borne by development companies, but should be shared by sentient biological conservation organizations and other relevant parties. We should not be forced to assume responsibility, so we do not accept the plaintiff's request.

The EcoVoice of Group F:
All Constitutional subjects are sentient beings. In addition to humans, all sentient beings include animals, vegetation, and so on. Additionally, plants are protected by law. Your Honour, there is a strong suspicion of species discrimination in the other party's remarks. The EcoVoice of Company G is unaware that destroying the forest is equivalent to violating the right to life of flora and state ethics.

The EcoVoice of Company G:
We have objections and believe the plaintiff's statement is emotional in nature. We do not engage in species-based discrimination; rather, we are refuting the other party's allegations.

JusticeJet:
Rejection of objection. Please pay attention to your comments on Group F.

The EcoVoice of Company G:
Your honour, if our actions do affect Group F's right to survive, we are willing to provide new habitats for Group F. Regarding already-cultivated land, we request the right to continue cultivating the remaining forests.

JusticeJet:
The court will conduct deliberations based on both parties' arguments and evaluate them in accordance with applicable laws. I will consider the impact of forest cultivation on the habitats of various species, as well as potential alternatives. The court could require the submission of an environmental impact assessment report, expert witness testimony, and any applicable legal guidelines.

Adjudication:
Based on Article 1 of Chapter 4 of the Constitution of t Sentient Beings, which specifies that "the state implements the principles of environmental protection and ecological balance," this court renders the following decision.
This court recognises the accusations levelled by group F against development firm G. Group G does infringe on Group F's right to survive; therefore, it is necessary to return the suitable habitat for Group F's survival and arrange the vegetation rationally.
G was also sentenced to collective relocation as a result of their cultivation without formal procedures. I hope that G can experience the feelings of plants abandoning their habitats and learn to respect other species from this migration.
Lastly, since G did not apply for land reclamation rights, there is no land reclamation right, and the residual forests cannot be cultivated. Consequently, G's request is denied. Regarding the cultivated land, it will be treated by sentient beings protection organisations. JusticeJet will communicate the specifics of each side separately.