Share |

Angie Vega (2022)

Derecho animal en Argentina

I. Introduction

Argentina is a country located in the southern side of South America. It is the second-largest country in South America and the eighth-largest country in the world. It is organized under a federal system, divided into 23 provinces and one autonomous city, Buenos Aires, which is the country’s capital. Buenos Aires and the 23 provinces have their own constitutions. Argentina is a civil law country, which means that codes are the main source of law. These codes contain all the principles that judges have to abide by when making a decision. Judges do not have to follow judicial precedent, as prior decisions are not considered binding for all.

As one of the biggest red meat producers in the world, Argentina has an extensive list of laws and regulations that aim to regulate subjects such as animal health, cattle production, humane transport, slaughter facilities, and stunning methods. It also has the National Program of Organic Production and the National Police for animal health. Animal health is considered a topic of national interest.

Argentina is one of the leading countries in the region when it comes to animal protection laws and animal rights. The first animal protection law "Ley 2.786," commonly known as “Ley Sarmiento” was passed in Argentina in 1954, established that animals could be victims, but created lenient punishment for acts of cruelty against animals. This law was replaced in 1956 by "Ley 14.346" or “Ley Peron,” which established jail time for those who committed cruel acts against animals, and is still valid to this day. The first societies for the protection of animals were created back in the XIX century in Buenos Aires (1882) and Rosario (1886) as well. The prohibition of bullfighting and cockfighting were also some of the major accomplishments for animal protection of this century.

Article 41 of the National Constitution establishes that everyone has the right to enjoy a healthy environment. Natural and cultural heritage, as well as biological diversity, are part of it, and the authorities and all citizens have the duty to protect it. It can be said that, under this article, animals are tacitly protected.

Interestingly, animals are not considered sentient beings by the law. Particularly, the Civil and Commercial code in its article 227 defines animals as “movable objects” that can move by themselves or can be moved by an external force. However, Argentina is a pioneer in the animal rights movement. It was the first country to judicially declare an orangutan (Sandra) and a chimpanzee (Cecilia) subject of rights through two separate legal actions. Sandra was granted legal rights through an “amparo,” whereas Cecilia was granted a writ of habeas corpus.

Animal mistreatment and cruelty are considered misdemeanors under the criminal code and Ley 14346 and can be reported to the police or to the prosecutor’s office by any person. This law also prohibited cockfighting in 1886. Even though, animal cruelty is considered a misdemeanor, under Ley 14.346, judges have repeatively held that animals are subjects of rights. In 2011, the “National Program for Responsible Ownership and Health of Dogs and Cats” was created.

Argentina has special legislation protecting specific species. It has statutes for the protection of wild fauna, rheas, vicuñas, and jaguars. Dog racing is also prohibited in the entire territory, and Andean deer are considered natural monuments. When it comes to cetaceans, Argentina has a number of laws granting them special protection. For instance, “Ley 25577” prohibits cetacean hunting and intentional capture in the entire territory; “Ley 25052” prohibits the hunting or capture of killer whales using fishing nets or forced stranding; and “Ley 23094” declares Southern Right Whales national natural monuments.

Argentina is also part of various international treaties and conventions such as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterbird Habitat, Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, and CITES.

Finally, Argentina is one of the countries opening the door to the legal recognition of the “multispecies family.” In an unprecedented case in this country, a criminal judge declared that a family dog named “Tita” was a nonhuman person and a non-human daughter to her family, who was a multispecies family. Tita was shot and killed by an on-duty police officer in 2020. Even though the charges were set aside and the police officer that shot Tita was acquitted in 2022, the tribunal did not mention the status of Tita as a member of her multispecies family in its reasoning setting aside the verdict.


Related articles - The first animal protection society against barbaric spectacles and cruelty in Argentina

Related cases

“Pedroni, Matías Andrés c/ Capello Marina Alejandra s/ Medidas Precautorias – Familia” (2023): This case involves a divorced couple, Matías Andrés Pedroni and Marina Alejandra Capello, who shared custody of two dogs, Burke and Roma. Following a domestic violence accusation resulting in a restraining order, Pedroni was denied access to the dogs. He filed an injunction seeking visitation rights, arguing that the unfunded decision caused him emotional distress because the dogs were part of his multispecies family.

Capello contested, claiming sole ownership based on adoption records, and argued against recognizing visitation rights. The judge acknowledged that animals are considered movable objects under the civil code but noted the evolving societal view of animals as part of family dynamics. Furthermore, the court recognized that companion animals are part of multispecies families, and their status as sentient beings with emotional bonds transcends ownership disputes.

The judge concluded that Burke and Roma were non-human members of the family, and the emotional bond persisted post-divorce. A visitation schedule was ordered, allowing Pedroni to spend every other weekend with the dogs.

M.E.R. c/ B.A.B. del C.| Divorcio por presentación conjunta (2022): In August 2022, Amorina Bascoy and Emmanuel Medina jointly petitioned for divorce after ten years of marriage. The couple did not have children but shared their life with Popeye and Kiara, their two beloved dogs. the couple filed their agreement regarding the division of marital assets and the care of Kiara and Popeye, together with the communication agreement regarding their care and visitation time, where visitation dates and times would be assessed flexibly by both spouses. In this instance, the family judge recognized the agreement reached by the spouses regarding the care of their beloved dogs, where each divorcee would keep the custody of a dog according to each dog's preference. In addition, in her holding, the judge stated that "although our legal system has not yet advanced in such a way that it can anticipate and/or regulate the situation in which members who also make up the family and have joined it -will be after the termination of the relationship, in this case, two dogs, POPEYE and KIARA-, this brings a reality that cannot be denied and a question that must be answered but those of us that have an obligation to provide a response because, it is known, that everything that is not prohibited by law is otherwise permitted, even in the absence of specific rules that establish it." the judges continues "Thus, we can say that it is known that animals, especially domestic ones, are sensitive beings, who feel, miss, rejoice, suffer, and who acquire habits, the reason why it is undoubted that the change that will produce the separation of the spouses, will also affect them. It will be their owners, then, who are in a better position, to look out for the dogs' interests. Such an understanding has been accepted in some countries, such as Spain, in the same way as in our jurisprudence. This case joins the set of cases in Argentina, such as the Tita and Sidney cases, and other countries in the region where the consideration of animals as non-human persons is becoming more common among judges.

R. L. N. y otros s/ 239 resistencia o desobediencia a la autoridad, IPP 246466/2021-0: Coco, formerly known as Simon, is an approximately 6-year-old howler monkey found in a closet without food, water, or ventilation during a police raid following a neighbor complaint due to excessive noise. Coco was underweight, stunted, and deformed. The veterinary report revealed that Coco had broken bones due to malnourishment, had missing teeth, and other irreversible ailments due to the inappropriate conditions he lived in. The prosecutor requested the fulfillment of Coco’s rights, the granting of his freedom, and his relocation to “Proyecto Carayá.” The judge in this case held that Coco was to be granted total and absolute freedom in his status as a non-human animal. Furthermore, the judges stated that animals have legal protection based on their legally recognized status of victims. Since they can’t seek legal protection, humans have the duty to guarantee the protection of their rights. The judge also recognized Coco’s status of the subject of rights and ordered his relocation to the Proyecto Carayá for treatment and rehabilitation. Due to the extent of his injuries, experts recommended that Coco be kept by himself, since he could not defend himself and would be outcompeted for food if he shared space with other monkeys.

"C., M. M. M. s/ Denuncia Maltrato Animal"; seguidos contra E. P. S., D.N.I. N° X- Causa Tita (2021): In this case, a judge recognized the significance of families as multispecies units and acknowledged non-human animals as sentient beings with rights. The case stemmed from a tragic incident in March 2020 in Argentina's Chubut Province, where a police officer fatally shot "Tita," a beloved Pitbull-mix family dog, after she attacked him while on duty. The judge determined that Tita was considered a non-human person and a cherished member of her human family, emphasizing the irreparable loss suffered by her loved ones.

Furthermore, the judge emphasized that animals are not mere "things" but sentient beings deserving respect for their lives. The court's decision underscored this point by citing the case of Sandra, an orangutan, and the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights. The police officer received a sentence of one year of suspended imprisonment and professional disqualification for two years for abuse of authority and damages but was acquitted of animal cruelty charges in 2022. On appeal, the Chubut's criminal chamber of the Superior Court of Justice upheld the officer's acquittal, determining that he acted in self-defense when confronted by Tita, who was unleashed and aggressive. The court distinguished Tita's case from Sandra's, stating that the circumstances warranted the officer's actions and that Sandra's case involved a habeas corpus petition for a hominid primate based on genetic similarity to humans. Notably, the court did not address Tita's status as a member of her multispecies family.

QUATTROCCHIO WANDA S/ MALTRATO ANIMAL (Expte. Nº PEX 292565/21): This is an animal cruelty case in which Wanda Quattrochio witnessed the defendant whipping the neighbor's dogs. Wanda recorded the events and filed a complaint about animal cruelty. The defendant was in charge of caring for the dogs while their owner was away. When the authorities arrived at the house to seize the dogs, they found six dogs in small dirty kennels, with unclean water and without food. After considering the testimony of witnesses and other evidence, the judge concluded that the defendant had violated articles 1-3 of the anti-cruelty law (Ley 14.346) and was found guilty of animal cruelty. In her analysis of the case, the judge stated that animals were not things or resources but rather living beings with the potential to be "subjects of life."

Expte. N° HC-656/21 "Habeas Corpus en favor del Tortugo Jorge”: orge is an 80-year-old turtle living in the Municipal Aquarium of Medoza, Argentina. In 2021, three animal lawyers filed a habeas corpus on behalf of Jorge, arguing a violation of the turtle’s right to his locomotive freedom and a violation of Mendoza’s law 7.887, 2018, which prohibits the exhibit of animals in circuses or other events. The lawyers stated that Jorge had to be relocated to a more natural environment where he could live the last years of his life, raising concerns for his age and health. After learning that the government is turning the aquarium into a biodiversity center and after consulting with several experts, the tribunal denied the Habeas Corpus as it found the controversy was moot. It also rejected the idea of releasing Jorge into the wild. However, it is important to mention that the tribunal did not oppose his relocation into a sanctuary so long as his physical integrity was protected.

Pometti, Hugo c/Provincia de Mendoza s/acción de amparo (2017): This is an action of protection or "accion de amparo” filed by Hugo Edgardo Pometti against the Province of Mendoza in The Court of Associated Judicial Management No. 2 of Mendoza. The Petitioner sought to stop the transfer of the chimpanzee Cecilia to the sanctuary located in Brazil and to keep her in the Zoo of Mendoza in order to preserve the natural and cultural heritage and the biological diversity. The petitioner also requested a precautionary action to not transfer the chimpanzee until decision on the action of amparo was issued.

“PRESENTACIÓN EFECTUADA POR A.F.A.D.A RESPECTO DEL CHIMPANCÉ “CECILIA”- SUJETO NO HUMANO (2016): “Abogados y Funcionarios de defensa Animal” (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Cecilia, a 30-year-old chimpanzee that lived in the Mendoza Zoo, alleging that the chimpanzee had been illegitimately and arbitrarily deprived of her right to ambulatory freedom and right to have a dignified life on the part of authorities of the Zoo of the City of Mendoza, Argentina. The court granted habeas corpus to Cecilia, ruling that Cecilia was a living being with rights and instructing defendants to immediately free her and to relocate her to the Great Ape Project Sanctuary in Brazil. Until this moment, only humans illegally detained had been granted this writ. 

ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO (2015): The court held that Sandra, an orangutan that had lived at the Buenos Aires Zoo for over 20 years, is a non-human person subject to rights, based on the precedent of the Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation of December 18, 2014 and Ley 14.346, 1954. “Sandra has the right to enjoy the highest quality of life possible to her particular and individual situation, tending to avoid any kind of suffering that could be generated by the interference of humans in her life.” In its holding, the court also stated that the Buenos Aires government has to guarantee Sandra’s adequate condition of habitat and the activities necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities. The amicus curiae experts Dr. Miguel Rivolta, Héctor Ferrari and Dr. Gabriel Aguado were instructed to prepare a binding report resolving what measures had to be adopted by the government in relationship to Sandra. 

F. c/ Sieli Ricci, Mauricio Rafael s/ maltrato y crueldad animal (2015): "Poli" was a mutt dog that was tied to the bumper of a car by the defendant and dragged at high speed for several miles. Poli sustained severe injuries as a result of being dragged by the car. After the incident, the defendant untied her and left on the road to die. The defendant was found guilty of the crime of animal cruelty, under "ley 14.346." the judge held that this law "protects animals as subjects of rights, and the defendant's conduct was not against an object or a "thing," but rather against a subject deserving of protection." The defendant was sentenced to 6 months of suspended imprisonment for the crime of "animal mistreatment and cruelty." In addition, the judge ordered the defendant to provide food weekly for the animals in A.M.P.A.R.A (The ONG that filed the police report), with the purpose of giving the defendant the opportunity to learn firsthand that “all animals in general, and dogs, in particular, are sentient beings, that have feelings, suffer, cry, and that their right to live, freedom, and integrity has to be respected…” this, with the purpose to prevent the defendant from committing animal cruelty crimes in the future.

Causa Nº 17001-06-00/13 “Incidente de apelación en autos G. B., R. s/inf. ley 14346” (2015): 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 dogs were not subject to confiscation.

Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus (2014): This decision was decided on an appeal of the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of an orangutan named Sandra after it was denied in its first instance. Pablo Buompadre, President of the Association of Officials and Attorneys for the Rights of Animals (AFADA), brought a writ of habeas corpus against the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the City Zoological Garden of Buenos Aires on behalf of the hybrid of two different orangutan species named "Sandra." AFADA sought the immediate release and relocation of Sandra to the primate sanctuary of Sorocaba in the State of São Paulo, in Brazil. AFADA argued that Sandra had been deprived illegitimately and arbitrarily of her freedom by the authorities of the zoo, and that her mental and physical health was at the time deeply deteriorated, with imminent risk of death. For the first time, basic legal rights were granted to an animal. In this case, Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that animals are holders of basic rights. The Court stated that “from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, it is necessary to recognize [Sandra] an orangutan as a subject of rights, as non-human subjects (animals) are holders of rights, so it imposes her protection."

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.

Sentencia definitiva numero: 86 "PRIETO, GERMÁN LUIS C/ COLONNA LUCIANA ANDREA, EXPTE. N° 450237" (2012): German Luis Prieto (the plaintiff) and Luciana Andrea Colonna (the defendant) were embroiled in a legal dispute concerning the ownership of personal property acquired during their cohabitation. The plaintiff contended sole ownership of these assets and sought their return, while the defendant argued that they constituted community property obtained for their shared residence during their relationship. Moreover, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had granted her exclusive possession and had gifted the property to her upon their separation, therefore, absolving her of any obligation to return it. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his right to reclaim the property, except for their dog, Bauty. Recognizing the significant emotional bond between Bauty and the defendant, the court concluded that surrendering the dog could inflict unnecessary suffering. Thus, allowing the defendant to retain custody of the canine companion. In the judge's view, dogs were not mere "things." Consequently, the judge upheld the lower court's decision in part, ordering all the assets to be returned to the plaintiff.

T., J. A. s/ infracción Ley 14.346 (2012): The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to eleven months of imprisonment after finding him criminally responsible for acts of cruelty in violation of Article 1 of Ley 14.346 against a stray dog. The Defendant was found guilty of sexually abusing a dog, who he forced into his premises. The dog’s genital area was sheared, and she had serious injuries, which the veterinarian concluded were clear signs of penetration. The Supreme Court referred to the Chamber of Appeals on Criminal Matters of Parana "B.J.L. s/ infracción a la Ley 14.346", of October 1, 2003, where the referred court stated that “the norms of Ley 14.346 protect animals against acts of cruelty and mistreatment, is not based on mercy, but on the legal recognition of a framework of rights for other species that must be preserved, not only from predation, but also from treatment that is incompatible with the minimum rationality." Further, "the definition of ‘person’ also includes in our pluralistic and anonymous societies a rational way of contact with animals that excludes cruel or degrading treatment."

Fallo Kattan Alberto c/ Estado Nacional. Año 1982 42.470/83 (1983): 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. 

Related laws

Argentina Laws (Complete List)

Relevant Laws:

Ley 27330, 2016: Prohibits dog racing of any breed in the entire territory. The organization, promotion, and facilitation of a dog race are punishable by imprisonment of not less than 3 months and not more than 4 years. Together with fines that can go from 4,000 Argentinian pesos to $80,000.

Ley 27233, 2015: Declares health and wellbeing of animals and plants as matters of national interest. Under Ley 27233, all individuals, including legal entities, involved in the agro-food chain—covering activities such as production, procurement, transportation, and processing of products, by-products, and derivatives originating from agriculture, forestry, and fisheries—are mandated to ensure and uphold the health, safety, hygiene, and quality standards of agricultural production in compliance with prevailing regulations.

Article 2 deems national regulations concerning the preservation of animal health, plant protection, and the sanitary conditions of agricultural food as matters of general interest. This obligation extends to those engaged in various stages of the agro-food chain, including production, distribution, storage, transportation, commercialization, sale, import, and export of animals, plants, food products, raw materials, food additives, reproductive materials, animal feed, fishery products, and other items of animal and/or plant origin, whether acting individually, collaboratively, or sequentially within the chain.

Decreto 1088, 2011: Creates the "National Program for Responsible Ownership and Health of Dogs and Cats" in Argentina."

Ley 26.600, 2010:  Approves the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, adopted in Caracas, Venezuela.

Ley 25.577, 2002: This law prohibits hunting or intentional capture of any of the cetacean species specified in the appendix. It establishes fines for those who violate this law of not less than 1 million Argentinian pesos ($1,000,000).

Ley 25.463, 2001: Designates the Panthera onca, commonly known as the yaguareté, Jaguar, overo tiger, or painted onca, as a natural monument. Enacted under Law 25.463/01, it directs the National Park Administration and the Directorate of Wildlife and Flora of the Nation to collaborate on a management plan for the species within their respective jurisdictions, aligning with national faunal policy. The Enforcement Authority is tasked with ensuring the development and implementation of preventive measures in instances where a specimen poses circumstantial risks to humans or their productive activities.

Decreto 206, 2001: Creates the National Program of Organic Production (PRONAO), operating under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishing, and Food within the Ministry of Economy. This program was established to foster the growth and trade of organic goods in Argentina. More specifically, Chapter VII, focuses on regulating animal production. Article 13 states: "Organic livestock management should cultivate a symbiotic relationship among land, vegetation, and livestock, while honoring the physiological and behavioral needs of animals." Animals raised under these organic standards must adhere to guidelines ensuring their welfare. The program strongly recommends employing alternative practices to avoid mutilations such as tail-docking, debeaking, and the trimming of teeth and wings, emphasizing that such methods are discouraged as standard practices.

Ley 25.335, 2000: Approves the amendments to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially the Waterbird Habitat, Ramsar 1971, adopted by the Extraordinary Conference of the Parties in the city of Regina, Canada. Additionally, the finalized text of the Convention on Wetlands was endorsed during the same proceedings.

Ley 25.052, 1998: 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.

Decreto 666, 1997: This “Decreto” regulates Law No. 22,421, relating to the law for conservation of wildlife, emphasizing the management powers of the national enforcement authority through the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development. This regulatory decree also regulates the practice of hunting and creates the National Registry of Hunters. The National Registry of Hunters deals in: sport hunting, commercial hunting, hunting with scientific or educational purposes, and hunting for control of harmful species. Other topics that Decreto 666 regulates include: sanctuaries, breeding stations for wildlife, import, export and interprovincial trade of wildlife and byproducts. In the latter, it is mandatory to register in the corresponding registry of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and to keep books that record the movement of such animals and products. It is also mandatory to supply the reports that are required and to facilitate access at all times of the authorized officials for inspection and control. The law created the Advisory Commission for Wildlife and its Habitat to propose solutions to problems relating to the sustainable use of wild fauna.

Ley Nº 23.899, 1990: This law establishes the National Service of Animal Health (NSAH), defining its objectives, responsibilities, and structure. The NSAH has the responsability of implementing governmental policies regarding animal health. Its primary purpose is to prevent, control, and eradicate animal diseases, including those transmissible to humans, while ensuring sanitary standards for all animal-derived products. It operates with cutting-edge health technology and modern control procedures for disease diagnosis, prevention, and treatment products. As a public-private entity with national jurisdiction, it maintains its ties to the national government through the Undersecretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries of the Nation.

Ley Nº 24.702, 1996: Declares various species of Andean deer as natural monuments. These species include Hippocamelus bisulcus, known as huemul, güemul, or guamul (in Araucano); shoan, shoam, or shonen (in Tehuelche); Andean deer; southern huemul; trula or trulá; Chilean huemul; hueque; and deer (in southern Patagonia). Additionally, Hippocamelus antisensis, referred to as tarusch, taruga, taruka, or chacu (in Quichua); deer; northern or northern huemul; fallow deer; cerrero deer; huemul cordillerano; huemul peruano; and peñera are included.

Ley 23.094, 1984: 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.

Ley 22.584, 1982:  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.

Ley 22.421, 1981: This is 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 in harm 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.

Ley 22.344, 1980: 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.

Ley 21.676, 1977: 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 Argentina on June 9, 1972.

Decreto 1248, 1975: Seeks to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals throughout transportation and related activities.

Ley 18.819, 1970: This law outlines the protocols for animal slaughter, specifically focusing on bovine, equine, ovine, porcine, and caprine species. However, Article 2 grants the executive branch the authority to extend these provisions to include the slaughter of birds, rabbits, and other minor species. Slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants in Argentina are mandated to adhere to desensitization requirements and procedures set forth by the executive power. The use of clubs for slaughtering is prohibited under this law. Oversight of compliance falls under the veterinary inspection services operated by national, provincial, or municipal administrations.

Ley 14346, 1954: This law seeks to protect animals against mistreatment and cruel acts. Mistreatment includes cruel acts and is considered a criminal offense, punishable by 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.

Ley 3.959, 1900: This law regulates the Animal Health Police. It establishes parameters to protect livestock from contagious exotic diseases. This legislation governs aspects such as the import and export of livestock, explicitly prohibiting the transport of animals infected with contagious diseases or under suspicion of infection.

Related Links - Animal mistreatment - Page in Spanish - "Animals: Living, sentient beings with legal rights. Animal Law Jurisprudence analysis in Argentina" - Article in Spanish 

Share |