Results
Displaying 1681 - 1690 of 6844
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision 95-20-IN/2024 Marine ecosystems (Ecuador) Do not publish | Case | ||
| Decision AHC4806－2017 | Decision AHC4806－2017 | (Original case in Spanish below; English translation attached as pdf). The Supreme Court of Justice rules in favor of the spectacled bear, ‘Chucho’, granting him the habeas corpus after the bear’s attorney challenged the lower court decision that denied it. Chucho is a 22 year old spectacled bear that was born and raised in semi-captivity. He lived for 18 years in a natural reserve in the city of Manizales with his sister. After his sister died, Chucho became depressed and started escaping. The environmental authorities thought that it would be in the best interest of the bear to relocate him, for which they decided to move him to a zoo in the northern of Colombia. Unfortunately, the living conditions of Chucho were diminished, as he went from living in semi-captivity to living into a smaller area. Attorney Luis Domingo Maldonado filed an habeas corpus in representation of the bear that was denied on first instance by the civil chamber of the Superior Tribunal of Manizales. Attorney Luis Domingo Maldonado argued that the current legal system did not have a specific proper mechanism that allowed the taking of immediate and urgent measures to protect the rights of animals as sentient beings to retire them for centers of captivity when they have spent their lives in natural reserves. He also used as examples the precedents from Brazil and Argentina where a chimpanzee and an orangutan were granted habeas corpus. Attorney Maldonado sought that the court order the immediate and permanent relocation of Chucho to the natural reserve ‘La Planada’, located in the Department of Narino. The Civil Chamber reversed the decision on first instance, and ordered the relocation of Chucho from the zoo in Barranquilla to a more appropriate location of semi-captivity conditions. In its reasoning, the magistrate judge stated that animals are entitled to rights as sentient beings, not as humans, and that the idea is to insert a morality of respect to counter a global ecological public order where the tendency of men is to destroy the habitat. After long considerations, the chamber stated that it is necessary to modify the concept of ‘subject of rights’ in relation with nature, understanding that who is subject of rights is not necessarily correlatively-bound to have duties. “The legal, ethical and political purpose is the unavoidable need to create a strong conscience to protect the vital environment for the survival of men, conservation of the environment and as a frontal fight against the irrationality in the man-nature relationship.” | Case |
| Decision C-408 de 2024, Constitutional Court, Companion animals are excempt from seizure (Colombia) Do not publish | Case | ||
| Decision C-468-2024, Colombia | Sentencia C-468 de 2024, Corte Constitucional Colombiana | Case | |
| Decision Condor Arturo No. 01901-2013-0204, 2014 - Ecuador | Decision Condor Arturo No. 01901-2013-0204 | This is the case of Arturo, an Andean condor. Prior to his demise, Arturo had been rehabilitated and released after being rescued by the Ministry of the Environment. Arturo was shot and killed by a hunter in the province of Napo, in Ecuador. The Office of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Environment charged the hunter with committing an environmental crime, emphasizing the case's public interest, as Arturo belonged to a critically endangered species protected by national laws and international treaties. In addition, the Ministry of Environment stated that Arturo was protected under the Rights of Nature. For its killing, the defendant received a prison sentence of six months. The court reasoned that it is within the national interest to prosecute the defendant and protect the country’s environment, including its wildlife. | Case |
| Decision Condor Arturo No. 01901-2013-0204, 2014 - Ecuador- Do not publish | Decision Condor Arturo No. 01901-2013-0204 |
Este caso trata de un delito contra el medio ambiente. El acusado, mientras cazaba, había disparado y matado a un cóndor. El cóndor era reconocido por los lugareños como cóndor andino, y estaba clasificado medioambientalmente como "amenazada". |
Case |
| Decision EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC - Peru | Sentencia EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC | In this case, the appellant filed a habeas corpus action against a magistrate for threatening to arrest him for displaying political disfavor using a pet rat in a cage. The magistrate ordered the police to seize the rat, implying a threat to the animal. The first court ruled against the appellant, stating his actions offended the magistrate's dignity and that the magistrate was protecting his reputation. The appellate court agreed, noting the difference between free expression and offending honor, and also declared the complaint unfounded. | Case |
| Decision lPP 149744/2022-0, Lola Limon, the cougar - Argentina | IPP 149744/2022-0 | In this case, Argentine Environmental Protection Agency members found a puma cub, “Lola Limon,” tied up in the garden of the defendant’s home. It was determined that the defendant was in possession of the cub, and was prosecuted for abuse or acts of cruelty. The prosecutor argued that Lola, being in good health and well cared for, should be released back into nature. The court held that Lola’s protection and conservation are of national interest, as she is part of Argentine wildlife. Most importantly, however, is that the court held that Lola, a puma, is the subject of rights and therefore, non-human subjects are holders of rights as is necessary for their protection. Lola was granted her freedom from the defendant and released to an ecopark dedicated to ecological conservation. | Case |
| Decision N.°0507-12-EP, 2015 Shrimp Farm in Cayapas - Ecuador | CAUSA No. 0507-12-EP | In this case, the defendant, the Ministry of the Environment, appeals decisions from the lower court concerning the plaintiff's shrimp farm. The farm was located on a nature reserve, and the plaintiff sued for protective action, arguing that the Ministry's administrative resolution ordering the closing of the farm violated his property rights and due process. The lower court held in favor of the shrimp farm. The Ministry subsequently filed an Extraordinary Writ of Protection with the Constitutional Court, held that the lower court's decision had infringed upon the defendant's right to due process, invalidated the lower court's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. | Case |
| Decision No. 117, 2025 - Horse as a Subject of Rights (Argentina) Do not Publish yet | Case |