Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 40
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2620-2003-HC/TC Pedro Ignacio Paz de Noboa Nidal v. Tumbes | 2620-2003-HC/TC | El apelante en este caso presentó un recurso de hábeas corpus por su rata mascota contra el apelado, que tomó posesión de la rata y supuestamente amenazó con arrestar al apelante por expresar sus opiniones, que no eran favorables al apelado. El tribunal mencionó la "vida e integridad" de la rata, pero en última instancia sostuvo que el caso era un "disparate" y ofensivo para el propósito del tribunal. El tribunal declaró el caso infundado. | Case |
| 2620-2003-HC/TC Pedro Ignacio Paz de Noboa Nidal v. Tumbes | 2620-2003-HC/TC | The appellant in this case brought a writ of habeas corpus for his pet rat against the appellee, who took possession of the rat and allegedly threatened to arrest the appellant for expressing his opinions, which were not in favor of the appellee. The court mentioned the “life and integrity” of the rat, but ultimately held that the case was “nonsense” and offensive to the purpose of the court. The court declared the case unfounded. | Case |
| Case of Petunia, the pet pig, 2022 - Peru | Resolución N° 13, Juzgado Civil, Sede la Merced, Petunia, the pig (2022) - Peru | The case concerns a legal dispute between the plaintiff and the District Municipality of San Ramón over the plaintiff's right to keep her pet pig, Petunia, at her dwelling. The plaintiff filed an Amparo petition to invalidate four administrative resolutions and dismiss an administrative sanctioning procedure that ordered Petunia's removal. She argued that the resolutions violated her rights to due process, personal development, and privacy, emphasizing the emotional bond with Petunia and Petunia's welfare rights. The lower court denied the Amparo, suggesting administrative procedures as the proper recourse. However, on March 16, 2022, the Juzgado Civil de La Merced granted the petition, invalidated the resolutions, and allowed the plaintiff to keep Petunia under good sanitary conditions. | Case |
| Caso 02437-2013, Jane Margarita Cósar Camacho Y otros Contra Resolucion De Fojas 258 - Service dogs- Peru (2014) | Caso 02437-2013 | Plaintiff, a visually impaired woman, brought a constitutional grievance against the decision issued by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on January 15, 2013. This decision denied the action of protection after Defendants denied entry of Plaintiff's guide dog at their supermarkets. The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that the blind were allowed to enter to the supermarkets with their guide dogs. | Case |
| Chang v. Alzamora, 01936-2017-PHC/TC - Peru | 01936-2017-PHC/TC | El demandante interpuso una demanda de habeas corpus en su nombre y en el de sus dos hijas pequeñas contra el demandado por violación de sus derechos a la libertad individual y a la tranquilidad familiar. El demandante alegó que los perros del demandado ladraban con tanta frecuencia y tan fuerte que la familia no podía descansar por la noche ni desplazarse por los pasillos por miedo a ser atacada. El tribunal debatió la constitucionalidad de la materia abstracta, la finalidad de una demanda de habeas corpus y el derecho a la integridad personal en relación con la reclamación del demandante. En última instancia, sostuvo que la demanda debía admitirse a trámite en la presente sede constitucional con carácter excepcional. | Case |
| Chang v. Alzamora, 01936-2017-PHC/TC - Peru | 01936-2017-PHC/TC | The plaintiff brought a habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of himself and his two young daughters against the defendant for violating their rights to individual liberty and family tranquility. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s dogs barked so frequently and loudly that the family could not rest at night and travel through the halls out of fear of being attacked. The court discussed the abstract subject matter’s constitutionality, the purpose of a habeas corpus lawsuit, and the right to personal integrity regarding the plaintiff’s claim. It ultimately held that the claim must be admitted for processing in the present constitutional venue on an exceptional basis. | Case |
| Decision No. 11, 2024 - Zorro Run Run (Peru) | EXPEDIENTE : 04921-2021-0-1801-JR-DC-03 | In this case, the city of Lima was keeping a wild Andean fox, Run Run, in a zoo, after he had been seen around neighborhoods in the area. Biological welfare groups, as well as civilians, were upset to hear about Run Run’s poor treatment and filed a suit against the city for his release. The court discussed ideas of one's duty to respect nature, national character and biodiversity, and natural preservation. In this landmark decision, Peru granted Run Run his autonomous rights. | Case |
| Decision EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC - Peru | Sentencia EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC | In this case, the appellant filed a habeas corpus action against a magistrate for threatening to arrest him for displaying political disfavor using a pet rat in a cage. The magistrate ordered the police to seize the rat, implying a threat to the animal. The first court ruled against the appellant, stating his actions offended the magistrate's dignity and that the magistrate was protecting his reputation. The appellate court agreed, noting the difference between free expression and offending honor, and also declared the complaint unfounded. | Case |
| Decision Report 00022-2018-AI, 2020 - Peru | 00022-2018-AI | This report discussed issues of constitutionality against Law 30407, which allows for cockfighting and bullfighting in the name of cultural character. | Case |
| El caso del Festival Gastronómico del Gato, 2014 (Peru) | El Festival de Currunao era una celebración anual que se celebraba en el sur de Lima, Perú. Este festival estaba dedicado a la celebración de Santa Efigenia de Etiopía. Tradicionalmente, este evento incluía prácticas controvertidas, como el consumo de gatos y carreras en las que se les lanzaban fuegos artificiales. En 2013, un grupo de activistas presentó una demanda de amparo solicitando la suspensión inmediata de estas prácticas, argumentando que eran crueles según la antigua ley peruana contra la crueldad animal, No. 2725. Además, argumentaron que los animales son seres sintientes, capaces de experimentar dolor y sufrimiento. Ese mismo año, el Juez Civil de Cañete emitió una medida cautelar, suspendiendo dichas actividades. En 2014, la Corte Superior de Justicia de Cañete prohibió permanentemente estas prácticas, concluyendo que violaban el derecho a un ambiente equilibrado y saludable, fomentaban la violencia y representaban graves riesgos para la salud pública y el bienestar social. | Case |