12340061 (1).pdf (131.66 KB)
On September, 2009, a group of construction workers that fed a stray dog on a regular basis and that worked near the Defendant’s home filed a complaint alleging that the Defendant had inflicted cruel and perverted acts against the dog, when he sheared the dogs genital area to perform sexual acts on her, which resulted on severe injuries.
The prosecutor and Plaintiff requested one year of imprisonment for incurring in acts of cruelty according to the norms of Ley 14.246. The Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, alleging that the evidence presented was insufficient, and that there was a violation of the principle of congruence, in which the prosecution would have fallen as there was a difference of one day respecting the date on which the crime had supposedly occurred.
The court rejected the argument that the principle of congruence had been violated. The court considered that even though there was a difference of one day respecting the date on which the crime had occurred, it was not an essential element of the factual basis, since all the other elements were consistent and coherent throughout the entire procedure.
Regarding the evidence presented, the court stated that it had taken into account the statements of all of the witnesses that included the person who filed the complaint, the workers, the veterinarians that treated the dog, and a neighbor that witnessed the Defendant forcing the dog into his house was also the same dog that exited the house scared and injured. The judge found all the statements to be coherent and concluded that all the witnesses’ statements concurred on the described dog, which led him to believe beyond reasonable doubt that it was the Defendant who had committed such acts of cruelty against the specific dog.
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," and that 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."
Finally, the court concluded that the injuries described did not have valid human reason. Therefore, in addition to generating unnecessary suffering, they were clear evidence of the existence of a perverse inclination in the actions of the accused. The judge also made a special recognition of the group of people who came forward to report the case to the authorities and “give testimony of what happened to an animal without owner and without apparent value and that nothing else -not anything except- the only thing she had was her life." The court upheld the decision of the lower court and denied the appeal of the Defendant.