Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 43
Title Citation Summary Type
Excerpt Criminal Code of the State of Coahuila - Mexico CÓDIGO PENAL DE COAHUILA DE ZARAGOZA Excerpt of Coahuila's Criminal Code concerning title ten "of the crimes against animals that affect the right to a life free from violence." The criminal code of the state of Coahuila establishes the duty to respect all vertebrate non-human animals that are not considered a "pest" according to the law. It establishes penalties ranging from one to three years plus monetary fines in addition to the confiscation of all animals under the care of the person found guilty of committing animal cruelty crimes These acts include: mistreating a working animal by the use of instruments that cause unnecessary pain and suffering; practicing animal vivisection for purposes that are not scientifically necessary to preserve human life or health; and mutilating any part of the body of a living animal or perform surgery on it, without providing anesthesia. Under the Criminal Code, activities such as zoophilia and animal fighting in public or private settings are also prohibited. Veterinarians, caretakers, and people involved in commercial activities involving animals may, in addition to the penalties established in this code, be subject to suspension or disqualification for a period of one to five years from employment, position, profession, trade, authorization, license, commercialization, or any circumstance under which the crime was committed. Statute
Tlaxcala

This southwestern state is the smallest of the Mexican states. In 2022, Tlaxcala joined the vast list of states in Mexico that punish animal cruelty as a criminal offense. Before that, this state only had an animal protection law that was enacted in 2019.

 Policy
Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental This law governs environmental responsibility arising from environmental harm and addresses the legal damages and consequences resulting from such harm. It recognizes damages caused to the environment regardless of the damages caused to the owner of the land and the natural resources. Statute
Federal Beekeeping Law Ley Federal Apícola This federal law holds applicability across the entire territory of Mexico. It serves as a comprehensive framework for treating and protecting bees, encompassing all activities related to this vital species, explicitly designating apiculture (or beekeeping) as a prioritized activity of public interest. Statute
Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal de Tlaxcala-Mexico Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal de Tlaxcala-Mexico This law seeks to promote animal welfare by providing proper care, suitable living conditions, fostering their natural development, and maintaining their health. It also seeks to protect their natural behavior, guaranteeing public health. Article 3, IV defines animal as a “multicellular living being with a developed nervous system, which feels and moves voluntarily or by instinct.” It includes various definitions, but it does not define animal cruelty. Statute
Excerpt Federal Criminal Code of Mexico Código Penal Federal de Mexico This excerpt contains the provisions of the Federal Code of Mexico within "Crimes Against the Environment and Environmental Management." It contains a dedicated chapter to biodiversity, where it gives special protection to wildlife. It does not mention protection of domestic animals. However, it contains provisions prohibiting dog fighting (Article 419 Bis). According to Article 1, this code applies to federal crimes committed within the country. Statute
Resolución 063/2018 - Comisión Derechos Humanos del Estado de Guerrero, Mexico Resolución 063/2018 Resolution 063/2018 by the Human Rights Commission of Guerrero, Mexico addresses concerns raised by members of the civil association "Responsible Citizen" and a professor and students from the Master's in Law program at the Autonomous University of Guerrero against the Director of Zoochilpan Zoo. The complaint alleged violations to the state animal protection statute, the Rights of Nature (Recognized in the constitution since 2014), and the right to a healthy environment due to inadequate conditions for the animals. After an inspection, the commission noted various issues such as animals of diverse species living together, dirty water in a pond, and animals in small enclosures. The zoo also failed to meet the standards of the Association of zoos, breeders, and aquariums "AZCARM," leading to recommendations for improvement. Resulting from these inspections, the commission found that the animals were housed inadequately, violating the state anti-cruelty law. They also highlighted potential impacts on the human right to a healthy environment for visitors and zoo staff. The Commission's recommendations include advising the Secretary of the Environment to implement recommendations for the welfare of exhibited animals, suggesting ongoing training for zoo staff to ensure dignified treatment, and advising the Zoo Director to implement legal and administrative measures for the animals' well-being, including budget allocation for necessary infrastructure and optimal conditions. Case
CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL DISTRITO FEDERAL CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL DISTRITO FEDERAL Animal cruelty against any animal has been considered a crime Under the Criminal Code of Mexico City since 2014. Chapter IV contains the provisions regarding the crimes committed by acts of cruelty or mistreatment against non-human animals. Article 350 BIS establishes that "whoever intentionally mistreats or cruelly acts against any specimen of any animal species causing injury, damage, or alteration in their health will be punished with one to up to three years of imprisonment and three hundred to five hundred times the Units of Measure and Update. In addition, intentional acts of cruelty or mistreatment that cause the death of an animal will be punished with imprisonment from two years to up to six years and six hundred to twelve hundred times the Units of Measure and Update. The penalties will be increased by up to two-thirds in those cases where methods that cause serious suffering to the animal are used prior to the death. Methods that cause serious suffering are understood as all those that lead to non-immediate death and prolong the animal's agony. Using an animal for sexual purposes is punishable with one to three years in prison and five hundred to a thousand times the Units of Measure and Update. Enhanced Penalties: The sanctions stipulated in this article shall be subject to a one-half increase if, in addition to the acts mentioned above, the individual responsible or any other person captures visual evidence with the purpose of publicly disseminating these acts through any means. The same increase applies to the killing of a companion animal for purposes of human consumption." Other articles in this code concerning animals include Article 54. 76, 226 BIS, and 226 TER. Statute
MX - Bird - Parrot Ban in Spanish (DECREE by which article 60 2 to the General Law of Wildlife) artículo 60 Bis 2 a la Ley General de Vida Silvestre

(Text of law in Spanish). The ban prohibits the capture, export and import of 22 Mexican parrot species. The ban on imports was needed because most species are shared with Central and South American countries and many were being imported and used as cover up for illegal trade. The ban was approved by Congress last April by consensus and it was originally drafted after a presentation of a 2007 report, "The Illegal Parrot Trade in Mexico: A Comprehensive Assessment." The report revealed for the first time the volume of the illegal trade of parrots within Mexico. An estimated 65,000 -78,500 wild parrots and macaws are captured illegally each year, with more than 75 percent of the birds dying before ever reaching a purchaser. The measure was passed in late October of 2008.

Statute
Amparo en Revisión 80/2022 - Mexico AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 80/2022 This is a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico pertaining to a 2019 decree of Nayarit declaring horse racing, bullfighting, cockfighting, and similar practices intangible cultural heritage of the state. A civil association whose mission is to help protect the environment and animals brought an Amparo against the decree, arguing a violation of the right to a healthy environment, as bullfighting and cockfighting are cruel activities where animals are tortured and killed. The Supreme Court analyzed three main questions: (1) What activities can be protected by cultural rights? (2) Does the right to a healthy environment protect animals from abuse or suffering by humans? (3) Can “bullfighting and cockfighting” be constitutionally protected by cultural rights? In answering the first question, the court held that the human right to cultural participation cannot be used as an excuse to violate or destroy other human rights. On the contrary, its exercise must allow the harmony and development of the other rights recognized in our country. Therefore, while some activities, expressions, or manifestations are perceived as “cultural” to society, it is crucial to acknowledge that, from a constitutional standpoint, only those fully aligned with human rights can be officially recognized as such by our nation. Regarding the second question, the court held that “[t]he human right to a healthy environment is a broad concept that includes animal life and well-being, conceiving animals not only as members of a single species or group of species, but also as individual living beings capable of experiencing fear, suffering, and pain.” Moreover, the court stated that it meant that “one of the demands of the right to a healthy environment implied that human beings must live in harmony with other species, not because these species are 'persons,' but because people – that is, human beings – should not behave in a way hostile and cruel towards animals. On the contrary, they must consider animals as beings that must be respected and treated in a decent manner to preserve and be faithful to their moral responsibility as the main driver of the destiny of other species.” Lastly, addressing the third question on whether “bullfighting and cockfighting” should be constitutionally protected under cultural rights, the court concluded in the negative. This decision was based on the recognition that these activities involved the infliction of agony, suffering, and even death upon animals solely for the sake of entertainment, sport, or recreation. The court granted the Amparo and held that the state of Nayarit lacked the power to declare bullfighting and cockfighting intangible cultural heritage as it is a power only the federation has, and not the states, according to the interpretation of the Federal Constitution and the General Law of Culture and Cultural Rights. Case

Pages