Peru-2020-Bullfighting-and-cockfighting-constitutionality- Spanish.pdf (1.95 MB)
This case follows the Peruvian Constitutional Court’s comprehensive discussion of bullfighting, including fights between two bulls and between a bull and a human, and cockfighting in Peru with regard to animal welfare and cultural preservation.
At the head of the opinion were ideas of national culture and preservation, bringing in discussion of Latin American history between the Spaniards and the continent's Indigenous peoples. The court weighed the divided national opinions, one being to allow the fights in the name of cultural freedom of expression, and the other strongly advocating for the protection of animal welfare in the traditionally gruesome fights. They did so through a discussion of history, Catholic religious ideas, art, music, and comparative animal law from other Latin American and European nations.
The court distinguished between fights between two bulls (peleas de toros) and fights between a bull and a human matador (corridas de toros). It held, ultimately, that bullfights in both capacities did not constitute animal cruelty or unconstitutionality, respectively. The court discussed in detail the rules and regulations in place for peleas de toros and found that this treatment did not fall within the scope of cruelty. However, corridas de toros were a bit more complicated, and the court ultimately held that they were not unconstitutional as they are a part of Peruvian national culture. The court did, though, note that there must be regulations as to the treatment of the bulls to not do unnecessary harm or extensively cruel acts to them.
As for cockfights, the court also upheld their constitutionality as a part of Peruvian national tradition. However, it made an important distinction: cockfights become unconstitutional when humans interfere, through the addition of weaponry, with the intensity and violence of the fight.
The court discussed an article of Law 30407, which, in brief, exempts peleas de toros, corridas de toros, and cockfights from its overall animal welfare protections for being of cultural significance. The panel of judges was rather divided on how the claims at hand should be decided. In sum, the opinion was either that the fights were of significant national significance and should not be held unconstitutional or highly regulated, and the other being that animal welfare and anticruelty prevail over the desire to kill for spectacle. The court provided multiple examples of other animal-related cultural practices for comparison and a discussion of cultural identity and both human and animal dignity.