Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 43
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Law of Human Rights and its Guarantees of Mexico City | Ley Constitucional de Derechos Humanos y sus Garantías de la Ciudad de México | This 2019 law is a secondary law that regulates the application of the constitutional mandate that the Mexico City government guarantees the fulfillment of the more than fifty fundamental rights established in the Constitution. This law addresses the issue of animal protection, specifically in Article 95. Article 95 states that animal protection shall be guaranteed in the broadest way to provide a livable city and seek people's fulfillment of the right to a healthy environment. | Statute |
| Constitución Política de la Ciudad de México | Constitución Política de la Ciudad de México | The Constitution, adopted in 2017, is the most recently enacted in the nation. It places a strong emphasis on human rights and also acknowledges animals as sentient beings. Specifically, Article 13(b) explicitly recognizes animals as sentient beings and mandates their dignified treatment. This article not only imposes a moral obligation, but also a legal duty to uphold the life and well-being of animals. Under this provision, authorities are tasked with ensuring the protection, well-being, and the dignified and respectful treatment of animals. | Statute |
| Código Penal para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Tlaxcala | Código Penal de Tlaxcala | In 2022, Decreto No. 160 modified the Criminal Code by adding Title XX, “Of the Crimes Committed Against Animals.” It has only one title: “Crimes Against the Life, Integrity, and Dignity of Animals,” which comprises articles 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 442. Article 435 deals with acts of mistreatment and animal cruelty. | Statute |
| CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL ESTADO LIBRE Y SOBERANO DE TLAXCALA | CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL ESTADO LIBRE Y SOBERANO DE TLAXCALA | In 2022, Decreto No. 160 modified the Criminal Code by adding Title XX, “Of the Crimes Committed Against Animals.” it has only one title: “Crimes Against the Life, Integrity, and Dignity of Animals,” which comprises articles 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 442. Article 435 considers acts of mistreatment and animal cruelty: unjustifiably causing the death of an animal; killing an animal using methods other than those established in official Mexican standards or depriving an animal of life using any means that causes excessive or unnecessary suffering or prolongs its agony; any mutilation, injury, or permanent mark for nonmedical purposes; inflicting injuries that endanger the life of an animal, that generate permanent partial or total disability, that reduce any of its faculties, or that affect the normal functioning of an organ or member; causing the ingestion or application of any toxic substance or object that endangers the life of an animal or causes its death; depriving an animal of air, light, food, water, space, mobility, medical care, or adequate shelter appropriate to its species, with the purpose of causing harm; abandoning an animal or neglecting it for prolonged periods that compromise its well-being; or inciting animals to attack each other or being neglectful when the animals' aggressiveness or physical power could potentially result in harm or death. Under this modification, animal cruelty is punishable with imprisonment ranging from six months to five years. If the injuries inflicted on the animal put the animal's life at risk, the punishment will be increased by half. If the animal dies as a result of the cruel behavior, the penalty will imprisonment from two to four years, and if the methods utilized caused excessive or unnecessary suffering or prologue the animal’s agony, the punishment will be increased by half. Sexual conduct with vertebrate animals is punishable with jail time ranging from six months to two years. Dog fighting is also proscribed as a criminal offense. Lastly, under Article 497, certain exemptions apply, such as the death of an animal resulting from cultural activities, the death or mutilation of an animal considered a pest, justified death or mutilation of an animal under the care and supervision of a specialist, marking or shoeing of vertebrate animals for the purpose of distinguishing livestock, and the slaughter of animals for human consumption in accordance with Norm NOM-033-SAG/ZOO-2014. With this amendment, the state takes a step toward enhancing animal protection. The next steps should focus on implementing this law, Investing in training government employees, and promoting awareness and education about animal cruelty laws and their implications within the state. Through these efforts, trust in a government capable of conducting investigations into animal cruelty and enforcing sanctions will encourage citizens to report such cases. | Statute |
| Código Penal para el Estado de Querétaro | Código Penal para el Estado de Querétaro | Queretaro's Criminal Code was enacted in 1987. Chapter II, articles 189 – 190 TER of this code regulates the crime of rustling and imposes up to 16 years of imprisonment on whoever commits this crime. Title VII talks about crimes against the environment and animals. Article 246-D BIS imposes 6 to 12 months of jail time to those who, with or without intention, commit acts of mistreatment against domestic animals or wild animals, causing them injuries, together with monetary fines and 90 days of community work. However, if any of the conducts mentioned above endangers the life of the animal or the functioning of their vital organs, the punishment imposed will be increased to up to 4 years, monetary fines, and 150 days of community work. If the animal dies, the punishment will be up to 7 years, monetary fines, and 1000 days to improve daily coexistence. One noteworthy aspect of this state is that even though the penalties imposed are some of the higher ones in the country, the law does not define welfare, cruelty, or mistreatment. Moreover, this code does not proscribe actions such as neglect, abandonment, or sexual conduct towards animals. | Statute |
| CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL DISTRITO FEDERAL - Ciudad de Mexico | Criminal Code - Mexico City | Animal cruelty against any animal is 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. | Statute |
| 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 |
| Chiapas |
Chiapas is the only state in Mexico that has yet to establish animal cruelty as a criminal offense. Chiapas has instead enacted the Wildlife Protection Law, which primarily emphasizes the protection and responsible use of "fauna" to ensure the welfare of both wild and domestic animals. |
Policy | |
| Animal Protection Law - Mexico City | Ley de Protección Animal de Ciudad de México | This law seeks to protect animals, ensure their welfare, and provide attention, good treatment, maintenance, lodging, natural development, and health. Furthermore, it seeks to avoid mistreatment, cruelty, suffering, bestiality, and deformation of their physical characteristics, as well as to ensure animal health, public health, and the five freedoms of the animal. This law has had several reforms. Under this law, the Ministry of the Environment, through the Animal Care Agency, together with the Ministry of Education, coordinate the development of education, protection, care, and dignified treatment programs. At the same time, The Animal Care Agency, among other tasks, manages the veterinary hospital in the city. The sanctions imposed under Chapter X of this law, range from admonitions, and monetary fines, to arrest of up to 36 hours in the case of repeat offenders. This law stipulates the standards and regulations for the functioning of the Animal Surveillance Brigade, which is responsible for preventing animal cruelty, responding to reports of animal cruelty, and providing care to animals in need. | 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 |