Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 84
| Title | Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia - Animal control - LEY 1801 DE 2016, National Code of Police and Coexistence | LEY 1801 DE 2016 | This is the National Code of Police and coexistence. Under Title XIII entitled, “Of the Relationship with Animals," this law regulates concerns to the relationship of humans and domestic animals, the responsibilities that owners have towards their pets, and the responsibilities pet owners have towards society. It regulates topics such as domestic animals in public places and public transportation; the creation of animal welfare centers in districts and municipalities to provide attention to abandoned animals; behaviors that pet owners must avoid to not disrupt the healthy and peaceful coexistence of the members of society; and the general provisions regarding the treatment of potentially dangerous dogs. | Statute |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Ley 2404 de 2024 - Colombia | LEY 2404 DE 2024 (Agosto 02) | El objeto de la presente ley es erradicar el sufrimiento innecesario producido a los ejemplares de fauna silvestre rescatada o decomisada por las autoridades ambientales, en los casos que requiera ser transportada para recibir tratamientos y rehabilitación con condiciones específicas, y con carácter de urgencia a centros especializados donde recibirán atención para garantizar su bienestar, así como el transporte para su posterior liberación o reubicación a un establecimiento según el concepto técnico emitido. Los animales silvestres deben ser tratados como seres sintientes a la hora de ser transportados vía aérea, terrestre o fluvial.” | Statute |
| Sentencia C-148, 2022 | Sentencia C-148, 2022 | In this opportunity, the Colombian Constitutional Court deemed national recreational fishing regulations unconstitutional three years after banning recreational hunting. Specifically, the Court determined that provisions pertaining to this matter, contained in the Code of Natural Renewable Resources, the General Statute of Animal Protection, and the Fishing Statute, violated the government's constitutional obligation to protect the environment, the right to environmental education, and the prohibition of animal cruelty. The Court recognized constitutional limitations on the prohibition of animal cruelty that were based on religious freedom, eating habits, medical research and experimentation, and deeply rooted cultural manifestations. Consequently, the Court held that fishing for recreational purposes was a cruel practice that did not fall within any of these exceptions. | Case |
| Colombia - Research animals - 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 |
| Colombia - 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 |
| Ley 2385, 2024 - prohibicion de las corridas de toros (Colombia) | Ley 2385, 2024 | La Ley 2385 prohíbe las corridas, el rejoneo, las novilladas, becerradas y tientas en todo el territorio Colombiano. El objetivo de esta ley es fomentar una transformación cultural basada en el reconocimiento y respeto por la vida de los animales. Algunos de los puntos clave de esta ley incluye un modelo de transición que otorga un plazo de tres años para eliminar gradualmente las corridas de toros y prácticas similares, la creación de un plan de "reconversión" laboral y cultural para ayudar a quienes dependen económicamente de estas industrias a encontrar nuevas formas de sustento, y la reutilización de las plazas de toros de propiedad pública para usos culturales, recreativos, deportivos y artísticos. Además, esta nueva ley crea un comité interinstitucional compuesto por funcionarios gubernamentales y representantes de la industria taurina encargado de supervisar la implementación y el cumplimiento de la ley y del programa de reconversión. Finalmente, ordena al Ministerio de Culturas, Artes y Saberes a implementar políticas, programas y acciones para promover la protección animal y desincentivar la tauromaquia de forma gradual en la sociedad, mostrando los perjuicios y consecuencias de estas prácticas. | Statute |
| 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 |