Full Case Name:  Causa No. 09209202301263

See summary in Spanish.

This is a ruling responding to a habeas corpus filed by three lawyers on behalf of the animals confined at the Narayana Aventura Park against the park, the Ministry of Environment, water, and Ecological Transition, and the city of Guayaquil. Citing the precedent established by the Constitutional Court in decision No. 253-20-JH/22 concerning the Rights of Nature and Animals as subjects of rights, the Plaintiffs requested:

1) The immediate release of all animals, including farm animals, exotic, and endemic species, such as various species of monkeys and birds, tapirs, ocelots, lions, ostriches, roosters, chickens, cows, and ponies, as they were unlawfully, arbitrarily, and illegitimately held at the zoo, in violation of their constitutional rights. The plaintiff argued that these animals were suffering from malnourishment and endured precarious conditions of confinement;

2) The permanent closure of the Narayana Adventure Park as a restorative measure;

3) An immediate on-site evaluation by the Ministry to determine the condition of the animals and arrangements for their relocation to sanctuaries and or conservation centers;

4) The reinstatement of the right to freedom of affected animals.

In analyzing the adequacy of the writ of Habeas Corpus in animal cases, the court stated that nature under Article 71 of the constitution included all the elements of an ecosystem inhabited by living beings. Furthermore, the court cited decision No. 253-20-JH/22, known as the "Estrellita" case, stating that "The rights of a wild animal must be objectively protected, considering their life, freedom, and integrity as inherent rights, rather than based on the interests, desires, or intentions of third parties. IN THESE CASES, JUDGES, UPON VERIFYING THAT THE DEPRIVATION OR RESTRICTION OF THE FREEDOM OF A WILD ANIMAL IS ILLEGITIMATE, MUST DETERMINE THE MOST SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LIFE, FREEDOM, INTEGRITY, AND OTHER RELATED RIGHTS OF THE VICTIM, which may include, without limitation, its reintegration into its natural ecosystem, its translocation to shelters, sanctuaries, aquariums, eco-zoos, or its treatment in animal rehabilitation centers."

The defendants requested the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, arguing that the legal requirements for its applicability were not met and that the rights of the animals had not been violated. Specifically, the defendants based their request on the inconsistency of the plaintiff's argument, asserting a violation of the right to freedom and demanding immediate release while simultaneously demanding the relocation of the animals to another center where they would be confined. Arguing that this contradicted the technical nature of the law, which mandates aligning behavior with prescribed norms. Furthermore, the defendant argued that the writ of habeas corpus was inapplicable under the circumstances, as the center was established and operated under the supervision of the Ministry of the Environment, fully complying with the law. They demonstrated possessing necessary permits granting legal custody of the animals to the park for their care and rehabilitation, which, according to their argument, demonstrated that the animals were not illegally or arbitrarily held. They also denied violations of the rights to freedom, life, integrity, free development of animal behavior, and health under the precedent set in the Estrellita case. They maintained that since the animals were alive, the right to life was not violated. In addition, they argued that the animals had the minimum health conditions for their well-being and exhibited normal behaviors for their species.

After a thorough analysis of the case and considering existing law and jurisprudence, the judge granted the writ of habeas corpus to the animals at Narayana Adventure Park, recognizing the impact of the defendant's conduct on the rights of exotic, endemic, and even the farm animals kept by the park. The judgment was based on Article 89 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, which establishes that the writ of habeas corpus is to recover the freedom of those unlawfully deprived of it and protect the life and physical integrity of those deprived of liberty. The judge also considered the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which is binding in Ecuador, stating that in case of illegitimate or arbitrary deprivation, the judge shall declare the violation of the right, order immediate release, and full reparation. Additionally, the judge referred to Judgment No. 253-20-JH/22, Case of Estrellita, where the constitutional court explained that "[a]nimals as elements of Nature have the right to rehabilitation according to Article 72 of the Constitution; AS LONG AS IT IS POSSIBLE AND DOES NOT CAUSE DETRIMENT TO THEM . . ."

However, because the park had all the necessary permits from the Ministry of Environment and considering that the technical expert commission in the case recommended against relocating the animals in order to guarantee the Constitutional Right to Nature, specifically to ensure that Animals as Subjects of Rights have their constitutional rights to freedom, to the free development of their animal behavior, the Right to Exist, the Right to Integrity, and their Right to Health, the judge ordered the animals remain at the park and instructed the adaptation of the enclosures and the animals' diet according to the specifications and recommendations in the technical reports issued by the expert commission. Such adaptation was to be made within a three-month period from the date of the judgment. Furthermore, the judge ordered improvements to the living conditions and health standards of the farm animals living in the park, as they were intended for human consumption and production.

The defendant in this case filed an appeal with the "SALA ESPECIALIZADA DE LO PENAL, PENAL MILITAR, PENAL POLICIAL Y TRÁNSITO DE LA CORTE PROVINCIAL DE JUSTICIA DE GUAYAS," and the decision is currently under review.

The following text is a literal translation of the constitutional analysis of the court:

The following question should be asked before analyzing the current issue: Did the animal rescue Center NARAYANA AVENTURA PARK violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs to the right to Nature and the animals' right to freedom, right to exist, right to integrity, right to the free development of their animal behavior, the right to health due to the alleged malnourishment of the animals and precarious conditions of confinement?

In the development of the issue in the specific case, the plaintiff alleged a violation of the right to Nature and animals, the right to freedom, the right to exist, the right to integrity, the right to the free development of their animal behavior, and the right to health. Therefore, I proceed to conduct the following analysis based on the actions taken by the defendant regarding the Constitutional Right A of Nature, Specifically, Animals as Subjects of Rights.

9.1. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its advisory opinion OC 23/17, dated November 15, 2017, on "Environment and Human Rights" (State obligations concerning the environment within the framework of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and personal integrity - the interpretation and scope of articles 4.1 and 5.1, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), has recognized the rights of Nature considering the elements and components that constitute it: "This Court considers it important to highlight that the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, unlike other rights, protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers, seas, and others, as legal interests in themselves. IT SEEKS TO PROTECT NATURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT NOT ONLY FOR THEIR CONNECTION WITH A UTILITY FOR HUMAN BEINGS or for the effects that their degradation could cause on other rights of individuals, such as health, life, or personal integrity BUT FOR THEIR IMPORTANCE FOR OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS WITH WHOM THE PLANET IS SHARED that also deserve protection in themselves."

9.1.2 The Constitutional Court, in its Judgment No. 22-18-IN/21, para. 27 has already stated that "Nature is composed of an interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible set of biotic and abiotic elements (ecosystems). Nature is a community of life. ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT MAKE IT, including the human species, are linked and have a purpose or role. The properties of each element arise from the interrelationships with the rest of the elements and function as a network." That is, the Constitutional Court specifies that Nature is a subject of rights in itself; however, this condition is not limited, and, on the contrary, it is shared with all its members, elements, and factors, as the Court has stated in its judgments No. 1185-20-JP/21 and No. 2167-21EP/21. In this way, all animals, including wild animals, are included in this group. The Constitutional Court has referred to these animals as sentient beings.

9.1.3 Regarding doctrine, the Constitutional Court, in Judgment No. 253-20-JH/22, cites the author Tom Regan, who recognizes animals as "sentient beings and, above all, as subjects of life capable of being aware of their own existence and its purposes." Thus, the Court emphasizes that the recognition of animals as subjects of rights CONSTITUTES THE MOST RECENT PHASE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR LEGAL PROTECTION, which is based on the recognition of them as living beings with an intrinsic value that makes them holders of rights.

9.1.4 The Court emphasizes that the status of animals as subjects and holders of rights includes the faculties to exercise, promote, and demand their rights before the competent authorities, understood under the principles of interspecies and ecological interpretation, hence the rights of animals.

9.2 On the Constitutional Right to freedom, Constitutional Right to the free development of their animal behavior, Right to exist, Right to integrity, Right to health

9.2.1 The right to freedom is a fundamental right of all living beings, including animals, which are considered subjects of rights as expressed in our constitutional norm. Freedom extends to justice; everyone must be equal in the eyes of the law and have the right to a fair trial. Arbitrary detention or deprivation of liberty without due process are severe violations of this fundamental right. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 22/18. Case 12.931. Merits. Daría Olinda Puertocarrero Hurtado, Ecuador, February 24, 2018, para. 41. Also, in Report No. 42/17. Case 12.031. Merits. Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio, Peru, May 23, 2017, para. 195, establishes that Any decision restricting the right to personal liberty through imprisonment must contain sufficient and individualized motivation that allows evaluating whether such detention complies with the necessary conditions for its application, particularly the existence of procedural purposes and the reasons why less harmful measures are not applicable to achieve such purposes.

In Judgment No. 253-20-JH/22 (Rights of Nature and animals as subjects of rights), the constitutional body establishes non-taxative parameters or minimum criteria for the adoption of measures by public authorities that limit the right to freedom of movement of wild animals. Therefore, it establishes that:

i) Any decision resulting in limiting the right to free movement of wild animals must be sufficiently motivated.

a. The motivation must indicate the reasons why the measure pursues a legitimate purpose and is adequate, NECESSARY, and proportionate.

Consequently, the arguments must be presented to show that restricting the animal's locomotion is the most efficient and effective measure to PROTECT ITS LIFE AND INTEGRITY, as well as the non-existence of other less burdensome measures.

ii) THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS MUST HAVE AN INTEGRAL EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND STATUS OF THE ANIMAL, INCLUDING, AT LEAST, THE ANALYSIS OF THE PHYSICAL STATE, THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLACE WHERE IT LIVES, the level of imprinting with its keepers, THE EXISTENCE OF SIGNS OF ILL-TREATMENT, BEATING OR TORTURE, the degree of orientation, the degree of loss of instinctive reflexes, the level of aggressiveness; and the apparent reasons why a human holds the wild animal.
In this evaluation, it must also be indicated if there are indications as to whether the animal constitutes a biological risk.

iii) In the report drawn up as a result of the evaluation indicated in the preceding paragraph, it must be stated whether the animal's keeper could prima facie meet the requirements to obtain a license or authorization for the possession of wildlife.

9.2.2 The Constitutional Court indicates that the right to free animal behavior protects the general freedom of action of wild animals; that is, the right to behave according to their instinct, the natural behaviors of their species, and those learned and transmitted among the members of their population. The right to free animal behavior also protects the right of animals to develop their cycles, processes, and biological interactions freely. In other words, the right to the free development of animal behavior implies guaranteeing that animals have space conditions that ensure their free development. This also includes the prohibition of domesticating non-human animals or forcing them to acquire human characteristics. This right also guarantees that wild animals "are not removed from their natural habitat to be transferred to human environments and forced to adapt or remain in them, to assimilate characteristics different from those naturally possessed by their species, for the convenience or benefit of the human being" (Judgment No. 253-20-JH/22).

9.2.3 The Constitutional Court of Ecuador has indicated that "Wild animal species have as their main right, the right to exist, and consequently, not to be destroyed for non-natural or anthropic reasons...".

9.2.4 The right to the integrity of non-human animals, as established by the Constitutional Court, pertains to the rights of wild animals. Their integrity is mainly protected concerning their physical integrity, which includes "the preservation of the entirety of the body and the functions of its parts, tissues, and organs." Therefore, the Court concludes that "actions that are harmful to the preservation of the body of a wild animal or that affect the functioning of its organs infringe upon this scope of the right to integrity."

9.2.5 The constitution of Ecuador, in its article 32, establishes that the right to health "is a right guaranteed by the State, whose realization is linked to the exercise of other rights, including the right to water, food, (…) healthy environments, and others that sustain good living". The Right to health in animals includes animal diseases and the interaction between animal welfare and animal food safety.

Regarding the right to the health of animals, the Constitutional Court has specified that for the protection of their rights, "i) Animals, wherever they are located, must have access to adequate water and food to maintain their health and wellness; additionally, iii) Adequate sanitary conditions must be guaranteed to protect their health and physical integrity...". From the review of the case files and the submissions by the parties in the public hearing, the following must be noted:

In their constitutional claim, the plaintiffs mainly state, among other general provisions of the law, that according to the provisions of Article 10, number 3, of the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control, in order to demonstrate the violation of constitutional rights resulting from the act/omission that led to the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of wild animals, the background information and circumstances of this must be known: The plaintiffs have become aware of the case of a farm located on the outskirts of Guayaquil, specifically in the Chongón sector, operating under the commercial name of NARAYANA AVENTURA PARK, where ALL THEIR ANIMALS ARE FOUND Malnourished AND IN PRECARIOUS Captivity CONDITIONS.

There are farm animals, exotic species, and endemic wild species on the premises, such as an ocelot and a spider monkey. Among the species identified in this place are Land turtles (chelonis), Amazonian tapir (tapir terrestris), Ocelot (leopardus pardalis), white caiman (caiman crocodilus), blue-and-yellow macaw (Ara ararauna), capuchin monkey (cebus albifrons), and spider monkey (ateles fusciceps). There are also lions, ostriches, roosters, hens, cows, ponies, horses, goats, pigeons, and cockatoos. The current situation where the animals detailed in this claim are found shows evident malnutrition and undignified and precarious captivity conditions.

We insist this directly violates the constitutionally recognized rights of animals by the Constitutional Court in its RULING NO. 253-20-JH/22 RIGHTS OF NATURE AND ANIMALS AS SUBJECTS OF RIGHTS) CASE "MONA ESTRELLITA. On the day of the public hearing, the judge conducted an on-site inspection of the Narayana Rescue Center, where it was observed that there were wild, production, and consumption animals in said center. From the review of the evidence provided by the parties, it is observed that the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition has granted the Narayana Rescue Center the Wildlife Management patent No. MAAE-DZG-2022-003 dated September 20, 2022, signed by the Zonal Director of Guayas, granted in favor of Antonio Chedraui as legal representative of the Narayana Rescue Center, authorizing this Rescue Center to carry out all activities related to the possession and management of wildlife, as specified in Annex 1 that rolls from page 110 to 112 of the records, and as indicated by the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition in the Public Hearing where they stated that they are currently in the process of renewing said wildlife management patent, the party acted.

Following the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control, an order issued by my predecessor is recorded on pages 129 and 130 of the records in which he provided evidence requested by the parties and as requested by the party acted and being appropriate, and that will serve for the Judge Aquo to reach a conviction of the facts that are eminently technical and bio-zootechnical study, ordered to send to the Universities of the city of Guayaquil, that is, Veterinary and Zootechnical faculties, so that in this way they may disclose the names of professionals in the field, in order to appoint a commission, to clarify facts that are linked to this constitutional action, once that list is obtained, we proceeded as requested and as established by law. Within the records are the letters sent by the universities to this court with the names of the professionals as ordered in the records.

On page 196 of the records, an order issued by the judge is recorded in which she assumes knowledge of this constitutional action, and it was ordered to form the specialized commission with experts from the universities of Guayaquil with the following experts: Cinthia Karina Ubillús Di Luca, a Veterinary professional from the University of Guayaquil, Mvz Márquez Cabrera Israel Emilio, Msc, Mvz Piña Paucar Ana Lucía Msc Veterinary Professionals from the Agricultural University of Ecuador, Biologist Luis Antonio Cobo Argudo Researcher in Wildlife, Doctor José Echeverría Alcívar Clinical and Specialist in Wildlife and Dr. Fabiola Jiménez Valenzuela Ethologist from UCSG., to carry out a visit to the place of the events, collect the relevant evidence, and prepare a Unique Technical Report on the Animal Habitat conditions of the Narayana Adventure Park Animal Rescue Center, which should indicate:

a) Analysis of the Nutritional and environmental status of the animals;

b) Field scientific analysis of the results that could generate the transfer of the animals and possible attributable scenarios; and

c) On the captivity conditions of each animal, a unique report is ordered to be presented within THIRTY DAYS from the possession of the Commission.

The Perjury Act is recorded on pages 202 to 208. On pages 213 to 242 of the records, the Technical Report on the habitat conditions, nutrition-nutrition, and behavioral evaluation of the animals that are in the rescue and Rehabilitation center Narayana conducted by the Technical Commission appointed by the constitutional judge formed by professional experts of the veterinary medicine career of the Universities of the City of Guayaquil, in which it details from pages 243 to 270 of the records the recommendations for each of the little animals described there with respect to the characteristic, state of the environment, and the conclusions in which they suggest specific recommendations for each of them, as well as a detailed analysis of feeding and nutrition of the Specimens of the NARAYANA rescue center in which they also suggest specific improvement recommendations for each animal detailed there, as well as a detailed analysis of the behavioral evolution of each of the specimens of wild life in the Narayana Rescue Center, in which they also make specific recommendations for improvement in that aspect for each of the animals, and that from the information collected and the analysis thereof, the team of professors perjurers of the Universities of the city of Guayaquil, since in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the LOGAJCC, the commission to gather evidence may be single-person or multi-person, to carry out a visit to the place of the events, collect versions on the facts and the relevant evidence, and prepare a report that will have the value of evidence practiced which was carried out by the technical commission appointed within this constitutional action and in its technical report they conclude and recommend the following:

Regarding the confinement conditions of each species, it establishes that installations and the handling of the animals have been appropriate and adjusted to the available resources. Only in the case of lions, caimans, and ducks IT IS SUGGESTED TO EXPAND THE AREA TO FACILITATE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND THEIR HANDLING. We are aware that the number of specimens housed is changing since, being a rescue center, they are under a governing entity, which in this case would be the Ministry of the Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition, which determines the location of wildlife species according to need. The permits for this year are still pending due to the political difficulties the country is facing, but it has the Management Patent until 2022.

The analysis of the nutritional and environmental status of the animals is adequate. The diet can be reinforced according to specific suggestions for each species with low or medium investment resources, increasing protein by 10% in the diet of carnivores and by 60 to 80% of fruits and vegetables in the diet of herbivores and omnivores. THEY CAN SEEK GOVERNMENTAL AID FOR FOOD DONATION, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE GREATER OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE DIET without spending resources. IT IS RECOMMENDED TO ESTABLISH AN INSECT BREEDING GROUND at the Narayana Rescue Center to have protein for CERTAIN SPECIES THAT NEED AVAILABLE PROTEIN TO BE ABLE TO MEET NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SPECIES OF WILDLIFE ALL YEAR ROUND. They can start with crickets and mealworms, among other insects that can be bred in the insect breeding ground.

As for the subjective evaluation of the general health status of the animals, in terms of body condition, the general range is 3, with good fur and skin, good feather presentation, and a good condition of scales and shells. The case of the ocelot with a visual impairment greater than 80% is a matter that the center's veterinarians should address, but his health status is acceptable despite his limitations.

Regarding the ethology of the species, considering the indicators of animal welfare and health such as vocalization, breathing, locomotion, presence or absence of stereotypical behaviors, and sensory state, it is concluded that they are acceptable due to the positive responses in the majority of species.

When evaluating the results of the scientific and thorough analysis conducted, it is determined that regarding the transfer of animals, potential scenarios are generated, as described: RELOCATION EXPOSES ANIMALS TO HIGH LEVELS OF STRESS. Due to the manipulation process, animals must undergo physical confinement methods and some even chemical procedures (anesthetic procedures) that, combined with elevated stress levels, ENDANGER THEIR LIVES. Every anesthetic procedure carries risks, and each organism responds differently, so the protection of the animals' integrity cannot be ensured 100% at any transfer. Despite having a trained human team for the proper transfer, stressed animals may respond in multiple ways and may even injure the staff despite their capacity and experience. The adaptation period of animals to a new environment and new caregivers will depend on each specimen. Currently, they are in a balanced and harmonious environment. Removing them from that environment and adapting them to a new one may have psychological and clinical repercussions on each animal. It is also reminded that the Environmental Authority (MAATE) must issue animal transport permits to transport animals.

FINAL CONCLUSION: The Narayana Rescue Center presents an efficient management plan, both technical and sanitary, with good operational and administrative capacity, capable of implementing the modifications suggested in this report and improving the care of the 148 individuals it houses.

Therefore, based on the evaluation results, the possible scenarios: that could ARISE IN A TRANSFER AND THE REPERCUSSIONS IT COULD CAUSE, THE PANEL OF EXPERTS: CONSIDERS IT UNNECESSARY AND INAPPROPRIATE." Also, in said report, in its conclusion, it mentions that "The Narayana Rescue Center PRESENTS AN EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, BOTH TECHNICAL AND SANITARY, GOOD OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY, capable of implementing the modifications suggested in this report and improving the care of the 148 individuals it houses." Pages 114 to 123 of the case file contain the expert report with the respective evidence presented by the respondent party, which was adequately supported by the accredited expert appointed by the Judiciary Council, Mr. Pablo Fernando Novoa, a veterinarian by profession, who in his conclusions indicates the following:

1) In the NARAYANA RESCUE CENTER, at the time of inspection, NOT A SINGLE ANIMAL MALNOURISHED.

2) At the time of inspection, the NARAYANA RESCUE CENTER had the best confinement spaces for wild animals in Ecuador. (the translation of this point might be inaccurate due to what appears to be a typo in the official document, more specifically on page 41 of 107)

3) The Narayana Rescue Center has two veterinarians, each with more than twenty-five years of experience in wild animals, which is a plus for the center.

4) The Narayana Rescue Center has an excellent environment for the development of wildlife.

5) The NARAYANA RESCUE CENTER has the Wildlife Management Patent Permit from the MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, WATER, AND ECOLOGICAL TRANSITION, the competent authority for this case.

5) The design and distribution of the rescue center are the result of years of planning.

Likewise, it is recommended:

1) Not moving the animals from that location, as it has been the only habitat for all the animals involved in this process. As a veterinarian, I can attest that ex-situ conservation is beneficial for these animals.

2) View the animals as the primary recipients of benefits, who will unlikely be able to survive in a wild environment without adequate reintegration measures. The Organic Environmental Code states that some species cannot be reintroduced into their natural environment. This is a criterion with which I agree.

It is important to emphasize that within Decision No. 253-20-JH/22, Case MONKEY Estrellita, the Court has made it clear that "... Animals as elements of Nature have the RIGHT TO REHABILITATION according to article 72 of the Constitution; WHENEVER POSSIBLE AND NOT CAUSING THEIR DETRIMENT, reintegration of the wild animal into its natural ecosystem should be preferred, either as an immediate measure when circumstances allow it, or as a DEFERRED MEASURE, WHEN IT IS NECESSARY for the wild animal to go through a PHASE OF READAPTATION and rehabilitation." Proper rehabilitation must be guaranteed to ensure their well-being.

The technical report on the Habitat Conditions of the Narayana Rescue and Rehabilitation Center prepared by experts from the Universities of Guayaquil, Agrarian University of Ecuador, and Catholic University Santiago de Guayaquil in their conclusions state that "THEREFORE, BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION PERFORMED, THE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS: THAT COULD ARISE IN A TRANSFER AND THE REPERCUSSIONS IT COULD CAUSE, THE PANEL OF EXPERTS: CONSIDERS IT UNNECESSARY AND INAPPROPRIATE."

The commission formed by specialized experts advises against relocating the animals, stating that it would induce high-stress levels, jeopardizing their right to life, based on the scientific analysis of the commission when stating in the third numeral of their report that "RELOCATION EXPOSES ANIMALS TO HIGH LEVELS OF STRESS DUE TO THE MANIPULATION PROCESS, THEY MUST UNDERGO PHYSICAL CONFINEMENT METHODS AND SOME EVEN CHEMICAL PROCEDURES (anesthetics) that, combined with elevated stress levels, ENDANGER THEIR LIVES.

Every anesthetic procedure carries risks, and each organism responds differently, so the protection of the animals' integrity cannot be ensured 100% at any transfer." It is also observed that the report contains recommendations to improve their captivity conditions and diet. The experts of the Technical Commission formed by the undersigned Constitutional Judge recommend the following:

"A) It is suggested that a handling cage be built for all the species.

B) Specifically, regarding the ocelot species (Leopardus Pardalis-Male), improve the space as he has a visual impairment, giving him more space for mobility.

C) Regarding the Procyon Cancrivorus - Raccoon species, female, remove the wire-wrapped perches as it represent a danger to the animal.

D) Regarding the Panthera Leo species, three lionesses and one male improve the area, provide more space, and provide appropriate enrichments.

E) Regarding the caimans, create an additional enclosure to redistribute the species.

F) Regarding the Maria and white-faced ducks, provide more space and a larger pool to accommodate the number of birds.

G) For the Sjino-collared peccary species, build a pond with the depth indicated in the report. Regarding the Guatusas and Guantas, improve the pool as it is contaminated.

H) Concerning the feeding and nutrition of the specimens, while it is advised to enhance the diet in line with the report's recommendations for most species, it is crucial to adjust the feeding approach for the ocelot. Due to his health issues, blindness poses challenges for natural hunting, requiring a modified feeding method.

I) For the spectacled caimans, improve the enclosure (create an additional enclosure) according to the report, as this also affects their feeding since the small pool does not allow them to turn and tear as they naturally do. Offer them fish and mollusks, etc.

J) Add the recommended foods in the report to the parrot, capybara, tapir, turtle, etc.

K) Finally, regarding behavioral evaluation, specifically regarding the sajino, place him in an appropriate enclosure since being in a temporary one affects his well-being, causing stress.
On the other hand, there is a technical report filed by the Welfare Directorate of the Municipality of Guayaquil within the case regarding the Narayana Adventure Park animal rescue center, in which they make respective recommendations. They express that they have the authority to regulate the Narayana animal rescue center since there is an ordinance issued by said municipal entity to regulate the protection, ownership, and control of urban wildlife in the Guayaquil canton. They provide a report on the habitat, nutrition, health, behavior, and mental well-being of the animals at the respondent center and conclude that they recommend its closure because the place does not meet the minimum conditions required to provide animal welfare to wildlife specimens. However, it is also true that on the date this habeas corpus action was filed, the Municipality of Guayaquil never showed interest in the animal habitat in this center and never intervened despite having the competence, according to municipal ordinances, to develop and implement an improvement plan for the confinement and nutrition conditions of the animals at the Narayana Adventure Park animal recovery center. Therefore, the conclusions reached in the technical report on the Habitat Conditions of the Narayana Rescue and Rescue Center prepared by the specialized zootechnical experts from the Universities of Guayaquil and the Agrarian University of Ecuador, indicate that the transfer of said animal habitat would be counterproductive. Even a violation of their RIGHT TO LIFE, based on the scientific analysis of the commission when stating in the third numeral of their report that "A TRANSFER EXPOSES ANIMALS TO HIGH LEVELS OF STRESS DUE TO THE MANIPULATION PROCESS, THEY MUST UNDERGO PHYSICAL CONFINMENT METHODS AND SOME EVEN CHEMICAL PROCEDURES (anesthetic processes) that, combined with elevated stress levels, ENDANGER THEIR LIVES. Every anesthetic procedure carries risks, and each organism responds differently, so it cannot be ensured 100% to safeguard the animals' integrity at any transfer." It is important to note that the Municipality of Guayaquil is the only competent entity to regulate the ownership of domestic and consumable animal wildlife. The Ministry of the Environment has the authority to regulate all activities related to the ownership and management of wildlife.

Article 45 of the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control provides the following: "... Art. 45.- Rules of application. - Judges shall observe the following rules: 2. In case of illegal or arbitrary deprivation, the judge shall declare the violation of the right and order immediate release and full reparation.

Arbitrary or illegitimate deprivation shall be presumed in the following cases:

a) When the person is not brought to the hearing.

b) When the order of deprivation of liberty is not presented.

c) When the order of deprivation of liberty does not meet the legal or constitutional requirements.

d) When procedural errors have been incurred in the deprivation of liberty. e) In cases where deprivation of liberty is carried out by individuals when deprivation of liberty is not justified…". In constitutional proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the respondent, with the purpose of strengthening constitutional rights. However, in the specific case, the defendant, having the burden of proof, had to show that they did not violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff in the form and manner indicated by the plaintiff. However, with the technical reports of the technical commission included in the case and the expert report on pages 114 to 123, it has been proven that the animals inhabiting the Narayana Rescue Center are neither malnourished nor in precarious confinement conditions. Now, regarding the alleged "Illegality" of the deprivation of liberty of the animals in question, it has been proven that the Narayana rescue center has the permits required by law, that is, the Wildlife Management Patent MAAE-DZG-2022-003 dated September 20, 2022 signed by the Zonal Director of Guayas granted to Antonio Chedraui, legal representative of the Narayana Rescue Center, which is on pages 110 to 112 of the case. Regarding the alleged "illegitimacy," the Constitutional Court in Case No. 253-20-JH (RIGHTS OF ANIMALS, MONA ESTRELLITA), established that "In these cases if it is verified that the deprivation or restriction of the freedom of a wild animal is illegitimate, the judges must order the most suitable alternative for the preservation of life, freedom, integrity, and other related rights of the victim." The essence and nature of the habeas corpus action, by application of the specific regulations given by article 89, third paragraph of the Constitution, and article 45 on the rules of application of the habeas corpus action of the LOGJCC, establish that the presumption of wrongfulness of the deprivation of liberty arises when "... Arbitrary or unlawful deprivation shall be presumed in the following cases: a) When the person is not brought to the hearing. b) When the order of deprivation of liberty is not exhibited. c) When the order of deprivation of liberty DOES NOT MEET LEGAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. d) When procedural errors occur during the deprivation of liberty. e) In cases where deprivation of liberty is carried out by individuals when deprivation of liberty is not justified…". In the specific case, when analyzing the conditions for the deprivation of liberty of an animal to be illegitimate or arbitrary, it is evident that this would occur if it is applied contrary to the Constitution and the law.

However, from the analysis of this Habeas Corpus action, it has been proven that the deprivation of liberty of the animals has not been illegal, illegitimate, or arbitrary since the Narayana Rescue Center has the permits legally issued by the Ministry of the Environment to carry out all activities related to the ownership and management of wildlife, with all the corresponding specifications for its operation. The same Constitutional Court within decision No. 253-20-JH/22 has indicated that "... if the ability for movement and behavior of an animal is restricted, it is clear that we are facing a scenario that represents (...) but not an illegitimate or arbitrary act of deprivation of freedom". Therefore, illegality has not been demonstrated since the required permits are in place, and it is not illegitimate or arbitrary because the constitutional rights of the animals have been respected, as verified in the commission's report where it is found that the habitat conditions, nutrition-feeding, behavioral conditions, and clinical evaluation generally result in non-human animals at the Narayana Center being in good condition and there are no signs of mistreatment or torture, malnuorishment, or confinement conditions, precariousness complying with the minimum non-taxative criteria established by the Constitutional Court for the adoption of measures by public authorities that lead to the limitation of the right to freedom of movement of wild animals, this is "ii) THIS TYPE OF DECISIONS MUST HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE STATE OF THE ANIMAL, INCLUDING, AT LEAST, THE ANALYSIS OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION, THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLACE IT INHABITS (...), THE EXISTENCE OF SIGNS OF MISTREATMENT, BEATINGS OR TORTURE". In this constitutional proceeding, there is a thorough assessment of individual circumstances and the animals" condition. This includes analyzing the animals' physical condition and the environment where the animals are housed. The specialized technical commission conducted this evaluation, and their detailed findings and recommendations are documented in this case's technical report. The report advises against relocating the animals, stating that it would induce high-stress levels, jeopardizing their right to life. It is worth emphasizing that while recommendations highlight areas for improvement in the habitat, they do not imply the illegitimacy of the animal's confinement.

In general, regarding confinement conditions, the report is clear in demonstrating that "the facilities and management of the animals have been appropriate" (Fs231); despite this, the judge considers adopting the recommendations made in the technical report on the Habitat Conditions of the Narayana Rescue and Rehabilitation Center prepared by the zootechnical expert experts from the Universities of Guayaquil, the Agrarian University of Ecuador, and the Catholic University Santiago de Guayaquil to improve the confinement and diet conditions of the animals living in the center because they have the right to rehabilitation under article 72 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, which is possible and does not detract from it.