Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 46
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ley 25.052, 1998 | Ley 25.052 | Ley 25.052/98 prohibits the hunt or capture of orca whales (Orcinus orca) by nets or by the forced stranding system. The penalty for violating this law will result in fines starting from one million Argentine pesos, and up to two million pesos when the capture resulted in the death of the specimen. The Secretary of Natural Resources, through the Direction of Ictícolas and Acuícolas Resources, are the authorities in charge of the application of this law. The Naval Prefecture of Argentina is the authority that exercises police power, and federal justice will know of the complaints made by the enforcement authority, the police authority, or any citizen or non-governmental institution. | Statute |
| Ley 23.094, 1984 | Ley Nacional 23.094/84 | This law declares the southern right whale a natural monument within Argentine jurisdictional waters and subject to the rules established by Law No. 22.351, which regulates the concerning procedures for the declaration of national parks, natural monuments, and national reserves. | Statute |
| Ley 22.584, 1982 | LEY N° 22.584 | Ley 22584 approves the "Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources” that was adopted at the Diplomatic Conference held in Canberra on May 20, 1980 and subscribed by Argentina on the September 11th of that year. | Statute |
| Ley 22.421, 1981 | LEY Nº 22.421 | Ley 22.421 is the the law for the protection of wild fauna. It regulates conservation and the use of the wild fauna in Argentina. This law establishes that the protection of wild fauna is of public interest and therefore all the citizens have the duty to protect it. When a person resulted harmed when executing this duty, they can seek administrative compensation. Article 3 establishes what animals are considered wild fauna, wild animals, wild animals that live under the control of humans, in natural or artificial environments, and domestic animals that, for any reason, return to the wild. Wildlife are deemed to be part of this category in terms of this law, with exception of the animals subject to fishing laws. Other matters regulated by this law include national and international trade and transportation of wild fauna, protection of the environment, hunting and its requirements, and the responsibilities of the authorities in prosecuting crimes and imposing penalties. | Statute |
| Ley 22.344, 1980 | LEY Nº 22.344 | This is the law by which Argentina approves and adopts the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (CITES), signed in the city of Washington on March 3, 1973, with its Appendices and Amendments. The purpose of CITES is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. | Statute |
| Ley 21.676, 1977 | LEY Nº 21.676 | Ley Nº 21.676 approves the "Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals" adopted by the Conference on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals held in London in 1972 and signed by the Argentine Republic on June 9, 1972. | Statute |
| Ley 2.786 | Ley 2.786 | Ley Sarmiento was the first law in South America enacted for the protection of animals. This criminal law prohibited animal cruelty at the national level and imposed on the police the duty to enforce laws protecting animals in cooperation with the Argentinian Society for the Protection of Animals. It imposed fines instead of prison time. The Sarmiento law paved the way for the Peron law (ley 14.346) that was enacted in 1954, which is valid to this day. | Statute |
| Ley 14346, 1954 | LEY DJA: S-0410 | This law seeks to protect animals against mIstreatment and cruel acts. Mistreatment are cruel acts and considered criminal offenses, which can be punished from 15 days to 1 year in prison. Article 2 of this law establishes the acts considered mistreatment, which includes not feeding domestic and captive animals with food in enough quantity and quality. Also included are the acts of forcing animals to work excessive hours without providing adequate rest according to the weather and stimulating them with drugs without pursuing therapeutic purposes, among others. Article 3 defines acts that are considered cruel. These acts include practicing vivisection for purposes that are not scientifically demonstrable, or in places or by people who are not authorized to operate on animals without anesthesia and without the title of doctor or veterinarian, except in cases of emergency. In addition, cruelty includes: mutilating any part of the body of an animal unless the action has purposes of improvement; marking of the respective animal species unless performed for reasons of mercy; performing public or private acts of animal fights, bullfights and parodies where animals are killed, injured or harassed; and other listed acts. | Statute |
| Incidente de apelación en autos G. B., R. s/inf. ley 14346 | Causa Nº 17001-06-00/13 | This is an appeal of a decision in first instance where the lower court gave the custody of 68 dogs to the Center for Prevention of Animal Cruelty. The 68 dogs were found in extremely poor conditions, sick, malnourished, dehydrated under the custody of the Defendant. Various dogs had dermatitis, conjunctivitis, otitis, sparse hair and boils, lacerations, pyoderma and ulcers. The officers that executed the search also found the decomposing body of a dead dog inside the premises. The lower court determined the defendant had mental disabilities, which did not allow her to comprehend the scope of her acts, for which she was not found guilty of animal cruelty. However, the court determined that she was not suited to care for the dogs. The Defendant appealed the decision arguing that the authorities were not entitled to seize the animals. | Case |
| Fallo Kattan Alberto c/ Estado Nacional. Año 1982 | 42.470/83 | Before the Argentina National Constitution of 1994, the attorney Alberto Kattan and Juan Schroder brought an action of amparo (protection of rights) against the national government to prevent the hunting of 14 Commerson's dolphins that had been authorized by the national government. The question was whether these people had a cause of action as they had not suffered any direct or personal harm. The court declared the action of amparo valid leaving the administrative authorizations that allowed the hunting of Commerson's dolphins without effect. | Case |