Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 51
| Title | Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina - Wildlife - Ley 22.421, 1981 | LEY Nº 22.421 | Ley 22.421 is the 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 harmed 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. Other matters regulated by this law include national and international trade and transportation of wild fauna, protection of the environment, hunting and its requirements, and the responsibilities of the authorities in prosecuting crimes and imposing penalties. | Statute |
| Expte. N° HC-656/21 - Habeas Corpus en favor del Tortugo Jorge | Expte. N° HC-656/21 | Jorge 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. | Case |
| 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. | Case |
| Argentina - Trade, wildlife - Ley 22.344, 1980 | LEY Nº 22.344 | 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. | Statute |
| PRIETO, GERMÁN LUIS C/ COLONNA LUCIANA ANDREA, EXPTE. N° 450237 - Bauty, the dog - Argentina | Sentencia definitiva numero: 86 "PRIETO, GERMÁN LUIS C/ COLONNA LUCIANA ANDREA – ORDINARIO – EXPSentencia número 86 de la Cámara de Apelaciones de lo Civil y Comercial y en lo Contencioso Administrativo, de la ciudad de Río Cuarto de 26 de octubre de 2012 | This case revolves around a dispute between German Luis Prieto (the plaintiff) and Luciana Andrea Colonna (the defendant) regarding the ownership of personal property acquired during their cohabitation. The plaintiff claimed sole ownership of the property assets and sought their return, while the defendant argued that these assets constituted community property acquired for their shared residence during their relationship. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff granted her exclusive possession and gifted the property to her upon their separation, relieving her of any obligation to return it. The court held that the plaintiff had the right to take back the property, with the exception of Bauty, considering that the latter had developed a significant emotional bond with the defendant and that his surrender could cause unnecessary suffering. 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. At the same time, the defendant was allowed to retain custody of the canine companion. | Case |
| Argentina - Farm animals - Decreto 206, 2001 | Decreto 206/2001 | Decreto 206/2001 created the The National Program of Organic Production (PRONAO), which is under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishing and Food of the Ministry of Economy. The purpose of this program is to promote the production and trade of organic production in Argentina. Specifically, Chapter VII of this decreto regulates animal production. Article 13. Reads: “Organic livestock should develop a harmonious relationship between land, plants and livestock, and respect the physiological and behavioral needs of animals." Animals produced under these organic standards must meet animal welfare guidelines. This program advises to use alternative practices to mutilations such as tail-docking, debeaking, tooth and wing trimming. It specifically states that this practices are not recommended as a concurrent practice. | Statute |
| QUATTROCCHIO WANDA S/ MALTRATO ANIMAL | 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." | Case |
| Argentina - Racing, dog - Ley 27.330 | Ley 27.330 | This law prohibits dog racing in the country regardless of the dog breed. It establishes a punishment of up to four years of prison and fines for those who organize, promote, or facilitate dog races. | Statute |
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 22.584, 1982 | LEY N° 22.584 | Ley 22584 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. | Statute |
| Decision lPP 149744/2022-0, Lola Limon, the cougar - Argentina | IPP 149744/2022-0 | In this case, Argentine Environmental Protection Agency members found a puma cub, “Lola Limon,” tied up in the garden of the defendant’s home. It was determined that the defendant was in possession of the cub, and was prosecuted for abuse or acts of cruelty. The prosecutor argued that Lola, being in good health and well cared for, should be released back into nature. The court held that Lola’s protection and conservation are of national interest, as she is part of Argentine wildlife. Most importantly, however, is that the court held that Lola, a puma, is the subject of rights and therefore, non-human subjects are holders of rights as is necessary for their protection. Lola was granted her freedom from the defendant and released to an ecopark dedicated to ecological conservation. | Case |