Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 40
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolucion No. 07, 2023 - Kira's case - Peru | Expediente: 00045-2023-1-0905-JR-PE-02 | The plaintiff brought this case on behalf of one of her dogs, Kira. The plaintiff attended a social gathering with her children and left their two dogs, Kira and Logan, playing outside. The plaintiff returned to their home to find that their neighbor, the defendant, had committed an act of bestiality against Kira. The court discussed several constitutional questions and theories of punishment. It weighed the factors of what the defendant had done to Kira with his lack of prior record and low chance of recidivism. The court decided that the defendant was to serve 17 months of incarceration and was required to pay civil fines for the suffering of both the plaintiff and Kira. Rooted in the issue of animal welfare, too, was its holding in prohibiting the defendant from “keeping” animals to further reduce the risk of recidivism. Ultimately, the court based its decisions on grounds of animal welfare and condemnation of cruelty towards animals. | Case |
| Resolucion No. 07, 2023 - Caso Kira - Peru | 00045-2023-1-0905-JR-PE-02 | La demandante presentó esta demanda en nombre de uno de sus perros, Kira. La demandante asistió a una reunión social con sus hijos y dejó a sus dos perros, Kira y Logan, jugando fuera. La demandante regresó a su casa y descubrió que su vecino, el demandado, había cometido un acto de zoofilia contra Kira. El tribunal examinó varias cuestiones constitucionales y teorías de la pena. Sopesó los factores de lo que el demandado había hecho a Kira con su falta de antecedentes y su escasa probabilidad de reincidencia. El tribunal decidió que el demandado debía cumplir 17 meses de encarcelamiento y pagar multas civiles por el sufrimiento tanto de la demandante como de Kira. También se basó en la cuestión del bienestar de los animales su decisión de prohibir al demandado la "tenencia" de animales para reducir aún más el riesgo de reincidencia. En definitiva, el tribunal basó sus decisiones en motivos de bienestar animal y condena de la crueldad hacia los animales. | Case |
| Relatoría 00022-2018-AI, 2020 - Peru | 00022-2018-AI | Esta relatoria discutió cuestiones de constitucionalidad contra la Ley 30407, que permite las peleas de gallos y las corridas de toros en nombre del carácter cultural. | Case |
| Judgment 07392-2013-PHC/TC, Horse Brown SAC v. El Servicio de Parques de Lima- Peru | 07392-2013-PHC/TC | This judgment resolves the dissents of the judges as written in the Serrano v. Horse Brown SAC case. It discusses ideas of the protection of nonhuman animals and the prevalence of positive and negative duties to nature, as well as Peruvian constitutional rights concerning property and overall personal liberty. The judgment resolves that the lawsuit was unfounded and must be understood within the framework of Amparo law. | Case |
| Judgment 00316-2018-0-1801-SP-CI-01, use of horses by law enforcement - Peru | 00316-2018-0-1801-SP-CI-01 | This case concerns the use of horses as transportation and control by police. The suit was brought by the Peruvian Institute of Legal Counsel for the Environment and Biodiversity against the Ministry of the Interior to challenge a law relating to the police force and the use of horses. The Institute cites Law 30407, which prescribes the protection of animal welfare, as the horses are put in peril when used in policing matters. In its ruling, the court discussed issues of animal welfare, constitutionality, and judicial precedent, including the interpretation of the word "mounted" in Article 229(6) of the Police Law Regulations, which specifies the functions of the special police and when the use of "mounted police" is justified. Animal welfare concerns led the court to partially invalidate the lower court decision, removing the word "mounted" from numeral 6 of Article 229 of the Police Law Regulations. However, the ruling did not prohibit the use of horses for crowd control. | Case |
| Judgment 00048-2004-AI, 2005 - Peru | 00048-2004-AI | This case challenged the constitutionality of Law 28258: Mine Royalty Law. Most pertinently, articles 1-5 of the law establish guidelines and regulations regarding the use and royalty of mineral materials. The court discussed aspects of natural preservation, social equality, and liberty regarding the use and taxation of such materials. Ultimately, the court held that the claim was unfounded, and required transparency in how the funds were allocated to allow civil society to be aware of their uses. | Case |
| Judgment 00017-2010-PI/TC, 2011 - Peru | 00017-2010-PI/TC | The Bar Association of North Lima brought this suit against the Congress of the Republic of Peru regarding several pieces of legislation promoting the development of non-sporting public shows, such as bullfights and cockfights. The Bar Association claimed that the legislation was unconstitutional as it contradicted the right to equality as well as several fiscal principles by taxing non-sporting events but not sporting events. It further claimed that through these practices, the State neglected its duty to guarantee participation in Peru’s national cultural heritage. Congress argued that the claim should be unfounded as no one had been discriminated against based on demographic factors. The court held that the claim was unfounded, as bullfighting is a regulated cultural manifestation and the Peruvian Constitution allows the legislators to use their discretion to impose taxes. | Case |
| Judgement 01413-2017-PA/TC, 2016, animals and horizontal property - Peru | 01413-2017-PA/TC | The plaintiff brought this Amparo suit against the building owners where he rented his apartment for a new regulation prohibiting pets in the building and not allowing them to take the elevator. The plaintiff claims that this recent ban on pets violates his property rights, as well as his rights to the free development of personality, freedom of movement, and the principle of non-discrimination. He also raised issues of health and safety for pets with regard to not being allowed to take the elevator. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and discussed various regulations that would serve as a compromise between the parties. Additionally, the Owner's Association was instructed to revoke any warnings or sanctions imposed on the plaintiff under the application of the regulation and to apply the ruling to guide dogs. Finally, the court determined that this ruling would constitute binding legal precedent. | Case |
| Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete, Exp No. 00949-2022-PA/TC - Peru | 00949-2022-PA/TC | Este caso trata de la tenencia de mascotas y de los derechos constitucionales de las personas en los espacios de alquiler vacacional. La opinión mayoritaria razonó que el espacio de alquiler estaba autorizado a prohibir los animales de compañía, ya que lo hacía como expresión de la voluntad compartida de los cohabitantes, y por tanto, no violaba los derechos del demandante, ya que éste entró voluntariamente en la propiedad. El tribunal señaló que los animales de servicio son animales de trabajo, y no simples "mascotas", cuya presencia es necesaria para que sus propietarios disfruten de la plena accesibilidad del inmueble en cuestión, y no pueden ser prohibidos. Las opiniones discrepantes trataron los temas de los animales como propiedad, las libertades constitucionales y el bienestar de los animales, y argumentaron que la demanda del demandante debía ser fundada. | Case |
| Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete, Exp No. 00949-2022-PA/TC - Peru | EXP. N.° 00949-2022-PA/TC | This case is about pet ownership and a person’s constitutional rights within vacation rental spaces. The majority opinion reasoned that the rental space was permitted to prohibit pets, as it was doing so as an expression of the cohabitors’ shared wills, and therefore, does not violate the plaintiff’s rights as he willingly entered the property. The court noted how service animals are working animals, and not just “pets,” whose presence is required for their owners to enjoy the full accessibility of the property in question, and cannot be prohibited. The dissenting opinions discussed topics of animals as property, constitutional freedoms, and animal welfare, and argued that the plaintiff’s claim should be founded. | Case |