Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 84
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision C-468-2024, Colombia | Sentencia C-468 de 2024, Corte Constitucional Colombiana | Case | ||
| Colombia - Slaughter - LEY 9, 1979, Health Code | LEY 9, 1979 | This law lays out the general rules that are the basis for “the provisions and regulations necessary to preserve, restore and improve sanitary conditions in relation to human health. It also contains the procedures and measures that must be adopted for the regulation, legalization and control of the discharges of waste and materials that affect or may affect the sanitary conditions of the Environment.” In its Article 307, Ley 9 establishes that the slaughter of animals for human consumption can only be done in authorized slaughterhouses. | Statute | |
| Colombia - Research animals - LEY 2047, 2021 | LEY 2047, 2021 | This law prohibits the experimentation, import, manufacture, and commercialization of cosmetic products tested on animals in the entire Colombian territory. | Statute | |
| Sentencia T-760, 2007 | Sentencia T-760/07 | The Plaintiff brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary created for the purpose of protection of fundamental rights) against Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas ‘CORPOCALDAS’, arguing that ‘CORPOCALDAS’ had violated the fundamental rights to health, personal integrity, life and human integrity of the Plaintiff’s wife, who became severely depressed when the Defendant confiscated an amazonian parrot she kept as her pet. The Plaintiff argued that the parrot was the only company the Plaintiff’s wife had for over five years, and that the confiscation of their parrot, was a violation of the Plaintiff's wife's fundamental rights. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argued that his wife was 65 years old, had raised the parrot that was never abused or neglected and who was allowed to move freely as her wings were never trimmed. The Plaintiff sought the the return of the parrot by the environmental authority ‘CORPOCALDAS’ to his wife, as well as the granting of the parrot’s title to her. The Court was able to find that the Plaintiff’s wife’s health was indeed diminished after the confiscation of the bird and the she had to undergo treatment as a result of it. However, the court found that the Plaintiffs were unable to provide evidence tending to prove that they had acquired the animal in a legal manner, as no permit, hunting license, or evidence that the parrot was obtained from a legal breeder were provided. The court determined that CORPOCALDAS did not overstep its responsibilities, as it is its duty to protect the wild fauna of the nation. Touching on the issue of whether the the fundamental rights of the plaintiff had been violated, the court concluded there was not such violation, as the environmental authority’s action was legal, reasonable, necessary and legitimate, and the Plaintiff did not obtained the parrot in accordance with the requirements legally established. In this case, the collective right to a healthy environment prevailed over the personal interest of the Plaintiff. The Constitutional Court affirmed the judgment of the ‘Juzgado Segundo Laboral del Circuito de Manizales’. | Case | |
| Sentencia SU016/20 | Sentencia SU016/20 | In decision SU016 of 2020, the court confirmed its decision to revoke the habeas corpus granted to Chucho, the Andean bear. After holding a public audience where many experts spoke as to the possibility of granting wild animals the status of legal persons and the right to freedom, the Constitutional Court held that the judge that have granted habeas corpus had incurred in a legal error as animals have not a right to freedom, and the habeas corpus is a legal mechanism available for humans that are illegally and unjustly detained. It is no available to animals. Moreover, the court stated that there were other more adequate mechanism to guarantee the well-being of animals, such as an inquiry for intervention of the environmental authorities, or a popular action. With this decision, the status of animals remains the same. Animals are legally recognized as sentient beings, subject to special legal protection, and humans have the duty to take care of them. | Case | |
| 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 |
| Colombia - Cruelty - LEY 1774, 2016 | Ley 1774 de 2016 | This law modifies the Animal Protection Statute Ley 84, 1989 by modifying the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. Ley 1774 changes the status of the animals in the legal system, by declaring that all animals are ‘sentient beings’, subject to special protection against pain and suffering. The duty of animal protection, is established as a collective responsibility where the government and the citizens are required to assist and protect animals. Citizens have the duty to report when an animal is being subject to cruelty. | Statute | |
| Colombia - Dangerous dogs - DECRETO 380 DE 2022 | DECRETO 380 DE 2022 | This decree adds Chapter 10 to Title 8 of Decree 1070, 2015 (Regulatory Decree of the Defense Administrative Sector). It regulates the civil liability of owners or keepers of "special management dogs." Owners and keepers must acquire liability insurance and dogs in this category must be microchipped. | Statute | |
| Sentencia T-608, 2011 | Sentencia T-608/11 | The Plaintiff brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary created for the purpose of protection of fundamental rights) acting as the legal guardian of her husband, who had spastic quadriplegia and mixed aphasia as a result of a severe cranioencephalic trauma, against Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas ‘CORPOCALDAS’. The Plaintiff argued that Corpocaldas had violated the rights to health and dignified life of her husband when the Defendant confiscated a parrot that was part of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation treatment. The Plaintiff sought immediate restitution of the parrot by the Defendant. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court to deny the Plaintiff’s petition. The court determined that the confiscation of the parrot by Corpocaldas was reasonable and according to the law, therefore there was not a violation of the rights of the Plaintiff. The court stated that as wild animals belong to the nation and they can only be reduced to property when the are obtained through legal hunting or from legal breeders. In this particular case, the Plaintiff obtained the parrot as a present from her cousin, and she did not present evidence of title. The court concluded that the bird belonged to the nation, and therefore the environmental authority had acted in accordance to its duties. The court stated that even though there was a narrow relationship between the rights to health and life with the right to environment, the protection of the environment did not only aim to the protection of humans. The court indicated that the environment should be protected whether or not it offered a benefit to the human species. The rest of the beings that are part of the environment are dignified beings that are not at the absolute and unlimited disposition of the human beings. Humans are just another element of nature, and not a superior entity that has the environment at their disposition. Therefore, the use of natural resources should not cause damage or deterioration that could threaten diversity and environmental integrity, the court stated in its reasoning. | Case | |
| AUTO 1928 de 2022 | AUTO 1928 de 2022 | In Colombia, municipalities are not allowed to prohibit bullfighting. It is a power reserved for Congress. Bogota attempted to regulate the practice through ordinance 767 in 2020. Since the city was not allowed to prohibit bullfights, it regulated them by prohibiting the use of sharp objects and killing of the bulls in the ring. In addition, they required that 30% of the publicity of the event be focused on educating the public on the suffering of bulls. It imposed a 20% tax and decreased the number of annual bullfights allowed from 8 to 4. During this time, no bids were sent to use "Plaza Santamaria" (Bogota's bullfighting stadium) because owners and sponsors of this practice did not agree with such requirements. Thus, Plaza Santamaria did not hold any bullfights since 2020. In December 2022, the Constitutional Court ordered the city to refrain from taking any action conducing to the violation of decision T-296 of 2013 and ordered the opening of Plaza Santamaria “to allow bullfights to take place in the usual conditions as an expression of cultural diversity and social pluralism,” effectively ordering the city to do what’s necessary for the comeback of bullfighting to the capital. | Case |