habeas corpus mascotas apelación.pdf (86.83 KB)
Habeas Corpus mascotas primer nivel.pdf (98.11 KB)
See summary in Spanish.
This is the case of four cats (Luna, Manchas, Sonic, and Tiger) and two dogs (Pantera and Noah) that were inside the properties seized by the authorities in a drug trafficking case. Attorney Kevin Prendes Vivar filed a habeas corpus petition for the animals' caretaker, stating that the animals were illegally kept by the "Technical Secretary of Real Estate Management of the Public Sector" or "Inmobiliar," the government agency that seized the properties. The claimant argued that in accordance with the Constitutional Court decision 253-20-JH/22 (Estrellita case), the companion animals in the case are subjects of rights, that were left unattended, exposing them to potential health and well-being concerns, given their emotional attachment to their caretakers. "Animals are sentient beings different from other objects, and their detriment is reflected in their physical and emotional health, causing conditions such as depression and anxiety, conditions that could potentially end their lives." The animals were kept by Inmobiliar, and neither the caretaker nor the attorney had been given information about the condition of the animals. Furthermore, the claimant was concerned about whether the animals were being fed, as Inmobiliar did not have a budget to feed animals subject to seizures. According to the claimant, the animals were her family members, and her children suffered without them.
The provincial court of Guyanas granted the habeas corpus, holding that animals are subjects of rights, finding that Inmobiliar had violated the animals' rights by considering them seizable personal property. Therefore, the court held that their seizure was illegal, arbitrary, and illegitimate. To protect the companion animals' rights to life, freedom, and integrity, the court ordered Inmobiliar to return the animals to their caretakers. In its analysis, the court stated that according to Estrellita's case, animals should not be protected solely from an ecosystem perspective or from the perspective of human needs but rather from their individuality and intrinsic value. The court further instructed the government entity not to consider "pets" as movable objects in future judicial proceedings and to distribute, through institutional email, to all its officials the constitutional court's decision 253-20-JH/22, directing them to read and analyze it.
This decision was appealed by Inmobiliar and a tribunal of the Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Guyanas struck down the decision granting the habeas corpus in favor of the animals, stating that this legal mechanism was not appropriate in the case of domestic animals. In its holding, the court ordered the return of the possession of the animals to Inmobiliar. This decision has been sent to the Constitutional Court for review. If the court selects it, it will decide whether the writ of habeas corpus is appropriate in cases concerning companion animals specifically.