Colombia
Displaying 41 - 50 of 83
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Decision AHC4806－2017 |
(Original case in Spanish below; English translation attached as pdf). The Supreme Court of Justice rules in favor of the spectacled bear, ‘Chucho’, granting him the habeas corpus after the bear’s attorney challenged the lower court decision that denied it. Chucho is a 22 year old spectacled bear that was born and raised in semi-captivity. He lived for 18 years in a natural reserve in the city of Manizales with his sister. After his sister died, Chucho became depressed and started escaping. The environmental authorities thought that it would be in the best interest of the bear to relocate him, for which they decided to move him to a zoo in the northern of Colombia. Unfortunately, the living conditions of Chucho were diminished, as he went from living in semi-captivity to living into a smaller area. Attorney Luis Domingo Maldonado filed an habeas corpus in representation of the bear that was denied on first instance by the civil chamber of the Superior Tribunal of Manizales. Attorney Luis Domingo Maldonado argued that the current legal system did not have a specific proper mechanism that allowed the taking of immediate and urgent measures to protect the rights of animals as sentient beings to retire them for centers of captivity when they have spent their lives in natural reserves. He also used as examples the precedents from Brazil and Argentina where a chimpanzee and an orangutan were granted habeas corpus. Attorney Maldonado sought that the court order the immediate and permanent relocation of Chucho to the natural reserve ‘La Planada’, located in the Department of Narino. The Civil Chamber reversed the decision on first instance, and ordered the relocation of Chucho from the zoo in Barranquilla to a more appropriate location of semi-captivity conditions. In its reasoning, the magistrate judge stated that animals are entitled to rights as sentient beings, not as humans, and that the idea is to insert a morality of respect to counter a global ecological public order where the tendency of men is to destroy the habitat. After long considerations, the chamber stated that it is necessary to modify the concept of ‘subject of rights’ in relation with nature, understanding that who is subject of rights is not necessarily correlatively-bound to have duties. “The legal, ethical and political purpose is the unavoidable need to create a strong conscience to protect the vital environment for the survival of men, conservation of the environment and as a frontal fight against the irrationality in the man-nature relationship.” |
| Decision STL12651-2017 |
The Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided on an action of ‘tutela’ filed by la Fundación Botánica y Zoológica de Barranquilla, Fundazoo against the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, Luis Domingo Gómez Maldonado, Corpocaldas and others. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants had violated their rights to due process and right to defense, as well as the principle of legality and contradiction, when the Defendant ordered the transfer of the spectacled bear ‘Chucho’ from the Barranquilla zoo to a natural reserve in Narino. Plaintiff sought to leave without effect Decision AHC4806 2017 that granted habeas corpus to ‘Chucho’, the spectacled bear, allowing the bear to stay at the Barranquilla Zoo, which according to Plaintiffs, is able to provide Chucho with all the requirements for his well being, including veterinary care, food, companionship and infrastructure. The Labor Chamber decided for the Plaintiff and left without effect the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, arguing that the Civil Chamber had ruled based on norms that did not apply to the specific case, to a point that the effects of such application had resulted in an interpretation that completely deferred to what the legislative had intended. The Civil Chamber, the court said in its reasoning, wrongly applied the procedure of habeas corpus, which led to the violation of the due process of law of the Plaintiffs, as ‘Chucho’ has no legal capacity to be a party in a legal procedure. The labor chamber explained that from a constitutional view, the granting of habeas corpus for the protection of animals was not proper, as it is established to protect the right to freedom of persons, which is the basis for a society. For that reason, it can only be attributable to human beings that can be individualized. This rules out the other beings to use this mechanism, including legal persons, as it would erode the real essence of this legal mechanism, the court stated. Furthermore, the magister judge states that the legal treatment that has been given to animals corresponds to the sentients beings, which implies their protection, rather than persons. This means that humans have the responsibility to respect animals, but does not imply that animals can fight for their freedom through the mechanism of habeas corpus, in these cases the defense of animals cannot be resolved by giving them the status of persons, but rather through judicial mechanisms such as popular actions (for the protection of collective and diffuse rights and interests), or with preventive material apprehension |
| Derechos de los animales en Colombia: una lectura crítica en perspectiva ambiental | Animal rights are commonly understood as an expression of the rights of nature. However, both are in open contradiction, due to the complex interactions of ecosystems and the place of fauna in them, poorly understood by the generators of animal law rules, because in those animal suffering is inherent. The rights of animals in Colombia are not an expression of the rights of nature, on the contrary, they undermine them, and hinder the consolidation of an environmental right aligned with social justice and that puts the survival of ecosystems at the center. The above, because animal law outlaws critical ecological processes, gentrifies environmental law, promotes an artificial binary between fauna and flora, contradicts certain forms of climate action, hinders conservation, stigmatizes cultural diversity, agency class discrimination, prevents the control of invasive species, generates a protection deficit for other kingdoms of life, like the vegetable and the fungi, and promotes a transition from anthropocentrism to a kind of zoocentrism (article in Spanish). |
| Law 2404, 2024, Transportation and Handling of Wild Animals (Colombia) | The purpose of this law is to eradicate the unnecessary suffering caused to wildlife specimens rescued or seized by the environmental authorities, in cases that require transportation for treatment and rehabilitation under specific conditions, and urgently to specialized centers where they will receive care to ensure their welfare, as well as transportation for their subsequent release or relocation to an establishment according to the technical concept issued. Wild animals must be treated as sentient beings when transported. |
| Legal Framework of Bullfighting and Societal Context in Colombia | This essay provides an overview of the current situation and the legal framework regarding bullfighting in Colombia. The Spanish conquest of Latin America dramatically transformed cultural practices. Spanish heritage was brought with the colonization of the South American countries and with it the cultural practices of bullfighting that carries a strong element of tradition in the Hispanic culture. The evolution of laws and court decisions regarding bullfighting have been dramatically altered in recent years. Today, the position of the Colombian Constitutional Court is aimed at the abolishment of the practice. However, the Colombian Congress’ position regarding bullfighting is not as clear. Tradition has been one of the main arguments in the justification of bullfighting. However, it is important to understand that the current debate focuses on whether bullfighting should be regulated or abolished. |
| Legal materials investigation Research Center- materials | |
| Ley 2374 de 2024 - Esterilización obligatoria de los animales de compañía (Colombia) | Esta ley crea un programa nacional de esterilización quirúrgica de perros y gatos como método ético de control seguro de la natalidad para reducir los riesgos para la salud pública asociados a los animales vagabundos, así como para reducir la cantidad de animales abandonados, que sufren y son maltratados. El Congreso busca proteger la fauna salvaje mediante este decreto. Las instituciones que realizan la esterilización deben llevar un registro e identificar a los animales que han sido esterilizados, así como prestar sus servicios "sin barreras" a las comunidades que, de otro modo, no podrían esterilizar a sus animales. El Congreso debatió los problemas de bienestar animal relacionados con el abandono y el maltrato, y que al disminuir el número de animales nacidos, se puede dañar a menos animales. Además, se ha demostrado que la esterilización aumenta la calidad y esperanza de vida de los animales esterilizados. |
| Ley 2374 de 2024 - Mandatory Spay and neuter (Colombia) | “Objeto. Crear e implementar el Programa Nacional de Esterilización Quirúrgica de Gatos y Perros como método ético de control de la natalidad, con el fin de reducir los fenómenos de maltrato, sufrimiento e indigencia animal, propender por un ambiente sano, y mitigar los riesgo para la salud pública asociados a ia presencia de animales en las calles.” |
| Ley 2385, 2024 - Bullfighting ban (Colombia) | Law 2385 establishes a nationwide ban on the practices of bullfighting, rejoneo, novilladas, becerradas, and tientas. Its purpose is to foster a cultural transformation rooted in the recognition and respect for the lives of animals. Some of the key points of this law include a transitional model that provides a three-year timeline to phase out bullfighting and similar practices, the creation of a labor and cultural “reconversion” plan for transitioning those who economically depend on these industries to new livelihoods and to repurpose publicly owned bullfighting arenas for cultural, recreational, sports, and artistic uses. Additionally, this new law creates an interinstitutional committee comprising government officials and bullfighting industry representatives tasked with overseeing the implementation and compliance with this law and the reconversion program. Finally, it directs the Ministry of Cultures, Arts, and Knowledges to implement policies, programs, and activities to encourage animal protection and discourage bullfighting by highlighting its harms and consequences. |
| Ley 2385, 2024 - prohibicion de las corridas de toros (Colombia) | La Ley 2385 prohíbe las corridas, el rejoneo, las novilladas, becerradas y tientas en todo el territorio Colombiano. El objetivo de esta ley es fomentar una transformación cultural basada en el reconocimiento y respeto por la vida de los animales. Algunos de los puntos clave de esta ley incluye un modelo de transición que otorga un plazo de tres años para eliminar gradualmente las corridas de toros y prácticas similares, la creación de un plan de "reconversión" laboral y cultural para ayudar a quienes dependen económicamente de estas industrias a encontrar nuevas formas de sustento, y la reutilización de las plazas de toros de propiedad pública para usos culturales, recreativos, deportivos y artísticos. Además, esta nueva ley crea un comité interinstitucional compuesto por funcionarios gubernamentales y representantes de la industria taurina encargado de supervisar la implementación y el cumplimiento de la ley y del programa de reconversión. Finalmente, ordena al Ministerio de Culturas, Artes y Saberes a implementar políticas, programas y acciones para promover la protección animal y desincentivar la tauromaquia de forma gradual en la sociedad, mostrando los perjuicios y consecuencias de estas prácticas. |