Peru
Displaying 1 - 10 of 80
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Supreme Decree 038-2001-AG, 2001 - Rights of Nature (Peru) | This law establishes the natural legally protected areas and ecosystems of Peru, their importance to scientific, ecological, and sustainable studies and development, and well as their permitted uses. |
| Supreme Decree 011-84-AG, 1984 - Peru | This law deems it necessary to promote the breeding of fighting cattle as a national interest. |
| Supreme Decree 007-2021 - Peru (2021) | The purpose of this law is to describe a series of infractions and penalties regarding forestry and wildlife matters. It establishes who may punish those who violate a regulation and guarantees sanctioning power to the relevant administrations. The law aims to protect the principles in Laws 28763, 27444, and other applicable legislation relevant to the protection and conservation of forestry and wildlife. |
| Supreme Decree 006-2002-SA - Peru (2002) | This decree approves Law 27596, Law the Regulates the Regime of Dogs, and all of its comprising parts. The law goes on to provide the text of the law and its sections regarding ownership, sanctions, care, and other related topics. |
| Supreme Decree 004-2019-MC, 2019 - Peru | This law aims to regulate the criteria for evaluating whether a public event can be considered, or “qualifies,” as a non-sporting cultural event. Such events that may fall into this category include, but are not limited to, opera, ballet, theater, and circus. The law modifies Law 30870, which established the criteria for evaluating whether a spectacle can be considered a non-sporting cultural event. Specific to animal law, the law states that the messages and actions in the event must not incite hatred or violence against animals or other non-human living things. |
| Supreme Decree 004, 2014 - Peru |
This law approves an updated list of categorization and classification of legally protected endangered wild life species into the following categories; critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened, and data deficient. It describes the regulations and prohibitions regarding activities related to endangered species, as well as regulations relating to the export of such animals for cultural or scientific purposes. |
| Supreme Decree 001-2017-MIMP, 2017 - Peru | This law aims to further regulate and promote the use of guide dogs for the visually impaired, including veterinary care for the dogs, certification and registration of their guide dog status, training, and conditions of use. |
| Serrano v. Horse Brown SAC - Peru | The appellant in this case filed a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the company Horse Brown against the Lima Park Service to obtain possession of the numerous farm animals that the park possessed on their property. The appellant alleged a violation of the right to property, and that their taking constituted a violation of the respect for life, dignity, and treatment of animals as the legal system protects their welfare. The court discussed ideas of habeas corpus, amparo law, and animal dignity in its opinion. The court held that the defendant did not violate the appellant’s right to property, given that the animals were not in danger of dying, and that the appellant abandoned the animals. The court declared this issue unfounded, which it states must be understood as an application of Amparo law. |
| Sentencia Jane Margarita Cósar Camacho y otros contra Resolucion De Fojas 258 - Perros guia - Espanol- Peru (2014) | La demandante, una mujer con discapacidad visual, presentó una demanda constitucional contra la decisión emitida por la Quinta Sala Civil de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima el 15 de enero de 2013. Esta decisión negó la acción de amparo después de que los demandados le negaran la entrada a la perra guía de la demandante en sus supermercados. El Tribunal Constitucional ordenó que se permitiera a las personas ciegas ingresar a los supermercados con sus perros guía. |
| Sentencia EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC - Peru | En este caso, el apelante presentó una acción de hábeas corpus contra un magistrado por amenazar con arrestarlo por mostrar descontento político usando una rata como mascota en una jaula. El magistrado ordenó a la policía que confiscara la rata, implicando una amenaza para el animal. El tribunal de primera instancia falló en contra del apelante, declarando que sus acciones ofendieron la dignidad del magistrado y que el magistrado estaba protegiendo su reputación. El tribunal de apelación estuvo de acuerdo, señalando la diferencia entre la libre expresión y ofender el honor, y también declaró infundada la queja. |