Peru-2011-dogs-shelters-Tobada-v-Trujillo- Spanish.pdf (1.95 MB)
In this case, the plaintiff-appellant, Taboada, filed a compliance lawsuit against the mayor of Trujillo, Peru, to have him comply with an ordinance that required the municipality to provide shelter or temporary housing for stray dogs. Trujillo did not have a municipal dog shelter nor an agreement with a nonprofit that could house the dogs. The city had been housing the dogs in the Anti-Rabies Center of Trujillo, which did not comply with the requirements as described and corroborated in other areas of binding law.
Trujillo argued that the purpose of the ordinance at hand was not to protect abandoned dogs, but to regulate and improve the issue of potentially dangerous dogs running loose in the streets. The city stated that it housed the abandoned dogs in the Anti-Rabies Center for having attacked humans, not for veterinary treatment. Trujillo further claimed that the plaintiff was mistaken that the city should create a shelter for abandoned dogs. It argued that the ordinance was subject to differing interpretations and the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed.
The lower court found the plaintiff’s claim inadmissible, as the ordinance established the guidelines only for “potentially dangerous” dogs, not abandoned dogs or dogs in general. This finding was confirmed on appeal at another lower court.
Here, the court made note of other relevant law that discussed the city’s obligation to take care of the dogs found wandering in the streets, and if the owner is unknown, to reinsert the dogs back into the community so long as they are not dangerous. The ordinance at hand exclusively referred to regulating potentially dangerous dogs with an owner. In short, the ordinance refers to only potentially dangerous dogs, while the other binding law excludes them. This court found the two laws contradictory, especially as Article 1 of the other law specifically mentions potentially dangerous dogs. This court, therefore, reversed the lower courts’ decisions. Trujillo must comply with the ordinance and provide a Municipal Dog Shelter, and if this is not an option, enter an agreement with nonprofits to temporarily house found dogs.