Displaying 11 - 20 of 23
Titlesort descending Citation Summary Type
Chile - Hunting - Ley 19473, 1996 Ley 19473, 1996 This law regulates the hunting, capture, breeding, conservation and sustainable use of wildlife animals, with exception of those species whose preservation is regulated by the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture. Statute
Chile - Marine mammals - Ley 20293 Ley 20293 The cetacean law prohibits the killing, hunting, capturing, harassing, keeping, possessing, transporting, disembarking, preparing, or carrying out any transformation process, as well as the commercialization or storage of any species of cetacean that inhabits or crosses the maritime areas of national sovereignty and jurisdiction in Chile. Statute
Chile - Research animals - Ley No. 21.646 (2024) Ley No. 21.646, 2024 This law modifies the sanitary code and Law 20380 (animal protection law) to prohibit animal testing in Chile and the sale, trade, importation, and introduction of products that have been tested on animals into the country. Statute
Chile - Slaughter - Decreto 28, 2013 Decreto 28, 2013 (1051388) This "Decreto" or executive order contains the regulations for the protection of animals that are used for meat, leather, feathers, and other byproducts by imposing the use of rational methods to avoid unnecessary suffering during technical procedures and slaughter. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 29, and 30, 2013. Animals must be stunned by the use of adequate methods that minimize their suffering before slaughter, and the animal must remain insensible until death. Article 24 exempts ritual slaughter. Statute
Chile - Slaughter - Ley 21.3016 Ley 21.3016 This law modifies Law No. 19.162, increasing sanctions for violations of animal health regulations in slaughterhouses, and information falsification in the livestock and meat traceability system. This law increases monetary fees from 100 monthly tax units (UTM) to 500 UTM. In addition it adds a paragraph to artiicle 8 of Law No. 19.162 stating the following: "The person who, in an export process, incurs violations of this law related to animal health or traceability will be sanctioned with a fine of 100 to 1,000 monthly tax units and with the confiscation of the products. Additionally, they will be sanctioned with the prohibition of export between three to five years. In case of recidivism within the five years following the end of the prohibition, the conduct will be sanctioned with the perpetual prohibition to export. In the case of a legal person, the same sanction will fall on the natural person or persons controlling the said company and the other companies they control." Statute
Chile - Sterilization - Decreto 2, 2015 Decreto 2, 2015 This Decreto lays out the regulations for the reproductive control of pets. Its purpose is to control the population of companion animals through the sterilization of these species. Statute
Chile - Transport, animals - Decreto 30 Decreto 30 This "Decreto" or executive order contains welfare standards for animals during transport. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 28, and 29, 2013. Under this decreto, cattle cannot be transported in conditions that could cause unnecessary pain and suffering. However, there are no limitations regarding the number of animals that can be loaded, and animals can be transported without food, water, and rest for up to 24 hours. if it is impossible to unload the animals, the carrier must ensure that animals are provided food and water. Statute
Chile - Wildlife - Decreto 531, 1967 Decreto 531, 1967 (125338) This Decreto ratifies The Convention for the Protection of Flora, Fauna, and Natural Scenic Beauty of the Americas, signed in Washington on October 12, 1940. Statute
Corte Suprema Rol N°50.969-22 Corte Suprema Rol N°50.969-22 In July 2022, the Interspecies Justice Foundation filed the first writ of habeas corpus for a non-human animal in Chile. The petition urged the court to recognize Sandai, a 28-year-old orangutan to be recognized as a non-human person and subject of rights, and therefore, to end his captivity in Buin Zoo in Chile. The plaintiff argued that Sandai lived in conditions unfit for his species. One of the expert testimonies submitted to the court stated that “Sandai’s body language reflects a depressed, defeated, and vulnerable emotional and psychological state, which is normal if we consider the conditions in which Sandai is being kept.” The Chilean Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court denying the admissibility of the habeas corpus filed on behalf of Sandai. In dismissing the appeal, the court stated that the constitution in its article 19 refers to persons and that in accordance with the Royal Spanish Academy, persons are individuals of the human species. Therefore, Sandai does not meet the legal requirements to be protected under this legal mechanism. Thus, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel on July 27. Furthermore, with the purpose of protecting the well-being of Sandai, the Supreme Court ordered the Livestock Service (SAG) to adopt all appropriate measures to guarantee that the Buin Zoo complies with the law, specifically attending to Sandai’s case, stating: “that the deprivation of his liberty does not cause him suffering and any other alteration of its normal development, verifying that they have the appropriate facilities for his species, avoiding all mistreatment and deterioration of his health”. Case
D. Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar y otros con Ilustre Municipalidad de Viña del Mar 491-2015 The ‘Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar’ and the owners of ‘Coches Victoria’ filed a complaint or ‘acción de protección’ against Viña del Mar and its Mayor, arguing that municipal decree Nº 11.349, 2014 and the ordinance for the transportation of Passengers in Victoria carriages in Viña del Mar were arbitrary an illegal. The plaintiffs requested the modification of many clauses of the ordinance such as those related to the restriction of schedules and routes, the social evaluation of carriage owners, the requirement of specific technical characteristics for carriages, and the limitation on the number of carriages that a person could own. The Plaintiffs argued that the clauses affected the general interest of the community and the rights of the plaintiffs and their families such as the right to equality, the right against discrimination in the economy, the right to physical and emotional integrity, the right to privacy, and the right to property. The city argued that the statute of limitations had already expired, and that additionally, it had the authority to regulate transportation. Furthermore, the city stated that the ordinance was enacted with the purpose of improving passenger safety and the well-being of the horses. The court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its authority to regulate transportation and finding that the ordinance did not violate any of the constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the ordinance was upheld. Case