Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 84
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M.J.G.G. v. Policia Nacional, 2024 - Familia multiespecie (Colombia) | ACCIÓN DE TUTELA M.J.G.G. contra la Policia Nacional | Radicado: 680013333014-2023-00278-01 | En este caso, una menor de 7 años presentó una acción de tutela contra el empleador de su padre, el departamento de policía, por no haberlo transferido a una unidad policial más cercana al hogar de la demandante. La menor vivía en un pueblo rural con su abuela y varios animales. No quería mudarse a la ciudad donde trabajaba su padre, ya que esto la separaría de sus animales, a quien consideraba miembros de su familia. Como prueba, la menor presento un dibujo en el que estan sus familiares humanos y no humanos. El tribunal discutió ideas sobre derechos fundamentales, procedimientos policiales y el significado de una "familia". El tribunal sostuvo que la policía violó el “derecho a arraigarse” de la demandante y reconoció que los animales pueden ser miembros fundamentales de una familia. | Case |
| Sentencia T-095, 2016 | Sentencia T-095/16 | In this decision, the court drew a line between the concept of animal welfare and the concept of animal rights. The court continues to see animal protection from a moral perspective when it states animals do not necessarily have rights, even though they should be treated with respect and should not be abused. The Plaintiff brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary, created for the sole purpose of protection of fundamental rights) against ‘la Personería Local of Fontibón’, the local Mayor’s office of Fontibon, the District Secretary of Health, the Zoonosis Center and the Distril Secretary of the environment of Bogota. The Plaintiff argued that these governmental entities had violated his fundamental right to petition and the right to animal welfare of twenty five dogs, when the authorities ordered the confiscation the canines that were located in the District Ecological Park of the Wetland of Capellanía and who were cared for by volunteers. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants did not respond to his request to provide funds to build a shelter and provide food and veterinary assistance of the dogs or funds to relocate them. The Plaintiff sought a response from governmental authorities on the petition and to provide the funds to save the animals, thereby avoiding the Zoonosis Center to assume their care, who would euthanize the sick animals that were not adopted after five days of being up for adoption. The lower court denied the protection of the fundamental right to petition, as it found that the authorities responded to the petition of the Plaintiff in a clear and timely matter by denying the request to fund the Plaintiff to relocate the dogs or build a shelter for them. In regards to the right to animal welfare, the lower court considered it was a legal rather than a constitutional issue, therefore the action of ‘tutela’ was not the appropriate mechanism as its purpose is to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. The court held that there was a constitutional duty of animal protection that derives from the duty to protect the environment. However, this duty to guarantee the well-being of animals as sentient beings is not absolute and may be subject to exceptions. The court determines that the mandate to protect the environment, which includes sentient beings, does not translate into a right to animal welfare, and for that reason such duty is not enforceable through an action of tutela. The duty to protect animals presumes an obligation to care and prohibits maltreatment and cruelty against animals, unless these actions come from one of the limits stipulated in the constitution. The court affirmed the lower court decision to deny the protection to the right to petition and declared the inadmissibility of the action of tutela for the protection of animal welfare. | Case | |
| Colombia - Veterinary - LEY 576, 2000, Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. | LEY 576, 2000 | This law reflects the Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. This law contains the guidelines and standards of the veterinary professions that must be followed by veterinarians and veterinary zoo technicians to avoid veterinary malpractice liability. Ley 576, prescribes the type of behaviors that are not allowed and the circumstances were such behaviors could take place. In addition, this law also creates the tribunal of professional ethics for these professions, and the legal procedure that must be followed by this tribunal in the undertaking of investigations and hearing of users’ complaints. Furthermore, this law regulates the ethical behavior, and responsibilities of the veterinary professionals towards their clients, other colleagues, veterinary assistants, natural resources, and professional associations. | Statute | |
| Colombia - Animal control - Ley 769 | Ley 769 | This law is Colombia's National Code of Traffic. Article 97 delegates to the territorial entities the duty to create municipal shelters ("cosos municipales" or animal deposits") adequate for the keeping of animals of minor species, major species, and wildlife. | Statute | |
| Legal materials investigation Research Center- materials | Relevant legal documents concerning investigation into the cruel treatment of animals at the Malaria Research Center in Cali, Colombia. | Policy | ||
| 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 | |
| Colombia - Whaling - Ley 1348, 2009 | Ley 1348, 2009 | This law adopts the "International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling" signed in Washington D.C. on December 2, 1946 and the Protocol to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed in Washington D.C. on November 19, 1956. Colombia is one of the 89 countries that are part of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). This Commission is an intergovernmental organization that seeks to implement measures aiming for the conservation of whales and the regulation of whaling. Colombia joined this commission in 2011. | Statute | |
| Colombia - Farm animals - Decreto 2113 de 2017 | Decreto 2113 de 2017 | Adds a Chapter to Title 3, part 13, 2nd book of Decree 1071, 2015 (Sole Regulatory Decree of the Agricultural, Fisheries, and Rural Development Administrative Sector), titled “Animal welfare for production species in the agricultural sector,” which establishes the general provisions and requirements for livestock Animal Welfare in the agricultural sector. Among other things, it establishes that Decree 1071, 2015 is framed based on the five freedoms (freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom to express normal and natural behavior) and defines production animals as “vertebrates and invertebrates used in commercial production.” Some of the general aspects include that surfaces (for walking, resting, etc.) must be adapted to the species in order to minimize the risks of injury or transmission of diseases or parasites to the animals. The environmental conditions must allow for comfortable rest and safe and comfortable movements, including changes in normal postures, as well as allow the animals to show natural behavior. Allowing animals to be in social groups encourages positive social behaviors and minimizes injury, disorder, or chronic fear. When painful procedures cannot be avoided, pain should be managed to the extent available methods allow. Animal handling should promote a positive relationship between humans and animals and not cause injury, panic, lasting fear, or avoidable stress. Finally, the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) is the enforcing authority in charge of imposing sanctions for violations of animal health and welfare regulations. | Statute | |
| M.J.G.G. v. Policia Nacional, 2024 - Colombia | 2023-00278-01 | Este caso se refiere a una demandante de 7 años que interpuso una acción de tutela contra el empleador de su padre, el departamento de policía, por no trasladarlo a una unidad de policía más cercana al domicilio de la demandante. La demandante vivía en un pueblo rural a tiempo completo con sólo su abuela y varios animales. No quería trasladarse a la ciudad donde trabajaba su padre porque la separaría de sus queridos animales. El tribunal debatió ideas sobre derechos fundamentales, procedimiento policial y el significado de "familia". El tribunal sostuvo que la policía violó el "derecho de arraigo" de la demandante y reconoció que los animales pueden ser en gran medida miembros fundamentales de una familia. | Case | |
| Sentencia C-041, 2017 | Sentencia C-041, 2017 | Sentencia C-041 is one of the most important court decisions on bullfighting. On this occasion, the court held unconstitutional Article 5 of Ley 1774 of 2016 that referred to the Article 7 of the Statute of Animal Protection. Article 7 contains the seven activities that involve animals for entertainment that are exempted from the duty of animal protection. The practices permitted correspond to rejoneo, coleo, bullfighting, novilladas, corralejas, becerradas and tientas (all variations of bullfighting), cockfighting and all the related practices. Even though the court held that the legislature had fallen into a lack of constitutional protection towards animals, and stated that bullfighting was cruel and inhumane, it deferred the effects of its sentence and gave Congress a two-year period to decide whether bullfighting and the other exception established in Article 7 of the Statute of Animal Protection will continue to be legally allowed. If after this period, the Congress has not legislated on the matter, decision C-041, 2017 will take full effect and bullfighting along with all the practices established in Article 7 will be considered illegal. | Case |