Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 70
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencia C-467/16 | Sentencia C-467/16 | This lawsuit seeks the unconstitutionality of articles 665 and 658 of the Civil Code that define "movable objects" and "real property by destination." The plaintiff alleges that these categorizations are against the Constitution's environmental orientation and international agreements. The court upheld the validity of these articles and stated that such categorizations were not against legally considering animals as sentient beings deserving of protection against pain and suffering. In other words, the protection of animals is not affected by this language. "Animals are included in the category of property because property rights may be exercised over them, and animals are often the subjects of legal transactions. Therefore, categorizing animals as property responds to a necessity and does not affect the regulation in other provisions to develop the duty to protect animals as sentient beings (Law 1774, 2016)." | Case | |
| Legal materials-PETA's investigation Caucaseco Research Center- materials - can this be published but hidden? I just need the links to the docs | Relevant legal documents concerning PETA's investigation into the cruel treatment of animals at the Malaria Research Center CAUCASECO, in Cali, Colombia. | Policy | ||
| Council of the State, Sentencia 22.592 of May 23, 2012 | Sentencia 22.592 of May 23, 2012 | Appeal, brought by the Plaintiff, who sought compensation for negligence on the part of the municipality of Anserma for the wrongful death of her husband, who died in the corrals of the slaughterhouse of Anserma when a bull charged him, causing him to fall and hit his head. The Plaintiff alleged that the slaughterhouse facilities were in poor condition, which was the cause of her husband’s death. If the facilities have been in good condition, he would not have had the accident. The court analyzed whether the damage was a result of the municipality's negligence as it did not maintained the facilities in a safe condition, or, if alternatively, it was an unfortunate accident not imputable to the Defendant. The court concluded that the Plaintiff did not present enough evidence to prove that the conditions of the facilities were the cause of the death of her husband. The court also found that the municipality was not in charge of the cattle in the slaughterhouse. Therefore, the damages were not imputable to the municipality. Furthermore, the court found the deceased was not an employee of the municipality, he was an independent employee that was hired by the slaughterhouse workers to assist them during the slaughter of cattle. The Court affirms the decision of the lower court and declares an exception of unconstitutionality of the expression “and if he alleges that he was not able to avoid the damage, he will not be heard.” of the Article 2354 of the Civil Code In its reasoning, the court determined that the accident was a result of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk on the part of the deceased, and not a result of the behavior of the animal. The court addressed Article 2354 of the Civil Code, that established that the caretaker of a fierce animal that does not report any benefit for the owner will be responsible for the damages the animal may cause, but if he alleges that if the damages were unavoidable, he will not be heard. The court declared unconstitutional the line “ and if he alleges that he was not able to avoid the damage, he will not be heard.” The court stated that it was inappropriate to address this scenario that involves responsibility derived from the behavior of animals under the parameters in the Civil Code that treated animals as goods. As today, it was of common acceptance that animals are sentient beings. Animals just as disabled people and other beings had dignity in themselves. They have a vital purpose, so much that they can enter a direct and permanent relationship with humans. The court continues to say that without this idea, the notion of legal capacity and the recognition of fundamental rights for legal persons could not exist. Animals should not be compared to objects or things, as they have dignity. The court recognized that animals and other living beings have their own value, and that even if it is acceptable that they are used for the human’s own benefit, it does not prevent us from recognizing that they are living beings, endowed with own value, and therefore subject to some rights. | Case | |
| Sentencia C-367, 2006 | Sentencia C-367, 2006 | Decision C-367 decides on the unconstitutionality of some of the provisions of the Taurine Regulatory Statute. The Court held the provisions constitutional, but added a limitation to the participation of minors in the practice of bullfighting. With this decision, children under 14 cannot participate in the “cuadrillas.” The term “cuadrillas” is used to describe the group of people that accompany and assist the matador in the bullring throughout the duration of the bullfight. Sentencia C-367 imposes the principle of impartiality on the behavior of Mayors. Mayors have to act in strict accordance to the Law and the Constitution, and must be impartial when it comes to making decisions that affect this activity. According to this principle, “Mayors have the duty to act, recognizing that the purpose of the different procedures is to assure and guarantee the rights of all the people without any level of discrimination.” The Court also reaffirmed that Congress has complete power to legislate on bullfighting on the national level. | Case | |
| Colombia, Resolución 8430, 1993 | Resolución 8430, 1993 | Resolution 8430, 1993 of the Colombian Ministry of Health, establishes scientific, technical, and administrative norms for investigation in the health field. Title V of this resolution regulates the biomedical research on animals. | Statute | |
| CO - Animal control - Ley 2054 de 2020 | Ley 2054 de 2020 | This law modifies Law 1801 of 2016. It imposes the duty on all districts or municipalities to establish an animal welfare center, municipal shelters, or transitory homes to take domestic animals to the extent possible according to the financial capacities of the territorial entities. If the district or municipality does not have these centers, it must support the efforts of private animal shelters or foundations that receive domestic animals. If the animal has not been claimed by his or her owner or keeper after thirty days, the animal will be declared abandoned, and the authorities will proceed to promote his or her adoption. This law also establishes that domestic animals or pets cannot be restricted from common areas in apartment buildings. Dogs have to be leashed, and in the case of potentially dangerous dogs, they have to be muzzled, and the owner must have the corresponding license in accordance with the law. | Statute | |
| ANIMAL LAW IN COLOMBIA SINCE THE ADOPTION OF ACT 1774 OF 2016 | CARLOS ANDRÉS CONTRERAS LÓPEZ | Review of Act 1774 of the Republic of Colombia | On January 6, 2016, the President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, approved Act 1774 of the Republic of Colombia, which led to the most important development concerning the legal protection of animals in the country, and represented a turning point in Animal Law in Latin America in terms of the new conception of the legal relationships between people and non-human animals, which is the basis of modern Animal Law. The drafting of the bill, presented by Chamber Representative Juan Carlos Losada, relied on the participation of lawyers and experts, who in turn involved associations and activists who had been working for a long time on animal protection issues in Colombia. The author had the honor of participating in the drafting of the bill, exchanging opinions, knowledge, and experiences in a very enriching debate that culminated with the consolidation of a text that is fully coherent with the Colombian legal framework. The Act reformed the National Animal Protection Statute (Act 84 of 1989), as well as the Colombian Civil, Criminal and the Criminal Procedure Codes. This commentary analyzes the novel aspects brought about by the publication of the abovementioned Act, which within the first two years that it has been in force has already been interpreted in several decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court. These judicial decisions have explored the actual implications behind the conception of animals as “not things” and as “sentient beings,” turning the focus onto the materialization of legal principles and declarations into everyday life. | Article |
| Derechos de los animales en Colombia: una lectura crítica en perspectiva ambiental | Carlos Lozano | Lozano, C. 2022. Animal rights in Colombia: a critical reading in environmental perspective. State Law Magazine. 54 (Nov. 2022), 345–380. | Animal rights are commonly understood as an expression of the rights of nature. However, both are in open contradiction, due to the complex interactions of ecosystems and the place of fauna in them, poorly understood by the generators of animal law rules, because in those animal suffering is inherent. The rights of animals in Colombia are not an expression of the rights of nature, on the contrary, they undermine them, and hinder the consolidation of an environmental right aligned with social justice and that puts the survival of ecosystems at the center. The above, because animal law outlaws critical ecological processes, gentrifies environmental law, promotes an artificial binary between fauna and flora, contradicts certain forms of climate action, hinders conservation, stigmatizes cultural diversity, agency class discrimination, prevents the control of invasive species, generates a protection deficit for other kingdoms of life, like the vegetable and the fungi, and promotes a transition from anthropocentrism to a kind of zoocentrism (article in Spanish). | Article |
| Legal Framework of Bullfighting and Societal Context in Colombia | Angie Vega | Animal Legal & Historical Center | 2023 Update: Despite the efforts of animal activists and members of congress, six bills being introduced in the past six years, and many unconstitutional lawsuits, the legal status of bullfighting in Colombia remains the same. Bullfighting is allowed in those municipalities where it is a culturally-rooted tradition. Moreover, Local governments of cities and municipalities that meet this requirement do not have the authority to prohibit bullfighting or to modify the conditions under which they take place. Large cities such as Bogota, Manizales, and Cali meet these criteria. Therefore, bullfights are allowed to take place in them despite the opposition of the local governments. The Constitutional Court’s precedent establishes that as a cultural tradition, bullfighting is constitutionally protected, and congress is the only one that can regulate or prohibit this practice (see Sentencia C-041, 2017; Sentencia C-666, 2010; and Sentencia C-889 de 2012). The national bullfighting statute, enacted in 2004, is still valid. This essay provides an overview of the current situation and the legal framework regarding bullfighting in Colombia. The Spanish conquest of Latin America dramatically transformed cultural practices. Spanish heritage was brought with the colonization of the South American countries and with it the cultural practices of bullfighting that carries a strong element of tradition in the Hispanic culture. The evolution of laws and court decisions regarding bullfighting have been dramatically altered in recent years. Today, the position of the Colombian Constitutional Court is aimed at the abolishment of the practice. However, the Colombian Congress’ position regarding bullfighting is not as clear. Tradition has been one of the main arguments in the justification of bullfighting. However, it is important to understand that the current debate focuses on whether bullfighting should be regulated or abolished. | Article |
| Colombia | Angie Vega |
Colombia |
Topical Introduction |
