Colombia-decision C-148-22- prohibiting sport fishing.pdf (1.03 MB)
In this opportunity, the Colombian Constitutional Court deemed national recreational fishing regulations unconstitutional three years after banning recreational hunting. Specifically, the Court determined that provisions pertaining to this matter, contained in the Code of Natural Renewable Resources, the General Statute of Animal Protection, and the Fishing Statute, violated the government's constitutional obligation to protect the environment, the right to environmental education, and the prohibition of animal cruelty.
The Court emphasized that the responsibility to protect animals originates from the principle of an ecological constitution, the social function of property, and human dignity. In examining whether recreational fishing constituted a cruel practice, the Court recognized constitutional limitations on the prohibition of animal cruelty that were based on religious freedom, eating habits, medical research and experimentation, and deeply rooted cultural manifestations. Consequently, the Court held that fishing for recreational purposes was a cruel practice that did not fall within any of these exceptions.
Furthermore, the Court maintained that due to challenges in determining the full extent of harm to animals and hydrological systems, applying the precautionary principle was pertinent given the scientific evidence of fish sentience, so it was important to prevent negative impacts on these animals and their environment.
Finally, the Court noted that the Constitutional Court had established a legal precedent wherein:
1. There is a duty to protect animals and, therefore, to prohibit cruelty,
2. This duty not only involves acts that have the potential to endanger the diversity and balance of the ecosystem but also protects animals as individual and sentient beings,
3. The degree of protection is adapted based on species (domestic or wild), and
4. The duty of animal protection has an indisputable binding regulatory content, in which both legislators and judges must evaluate its application in terms of reasonableness and proportionality.
This decision demonstrates the shift away from a predominantly human-centered approach to environmental protection towards a more holistic view, where the consideration of animal welfare and the impact of human activities on the environment play a crucial role in the development of the law. One dissenting opinion and seven concurring opinions were filed in this ruling.