Mexico

Mexico
Angie Vega (2023)

I. Introduction

Mexico is a North American country that borders the United States to the north and Belize and Guatemala to the south. Like many Latin American countries, Mexico is also considered a megadiverse country with a wide variety of animals and plants, which include many unique and endangered species. In addition, it has diverse ecosystems, ranging from forests and wetlands to deserts and coral reefs.

Mexico has a federal presidential representative democratic republic system and, unlike most countries in the region, it has a federal government. It has 31 individual state governments and one Federal District, which is Mexico City. The federal government is divided into the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Mexico's president is the nation's head of state and government and oversees the executive branch. Congress is the head of the legislative power, which comprises the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Like the federal judiciary in the United States, the Mexican Federal Judiciary operates on a three-tiered system.

The judicial power is vested in the following:

• The Supreme Court of Justice has final appellate jurisdiction over state and federal courts.
• The circuit courts are federal appellate courts.
• The district courts and jury courts.

When it comes to animal protection, the development of the law has been relatively slow at the national and even at the state level. In general, animal law has a welfare focus. However, these laws are often not implemented and don’t have actual applicability in the real world. Furthermore, public policy focusing on animals is considerably deficient. Animals are classified as property. More specifically, the civil code classifies pets and companion animals as movable objects. Mexico does not have anticruelty laws at the national level. However, as of April 2023, 29 out of 32 states have either enacted anti-cruelty statutes or modified their criminal codes to incorporate animal cruelty as a crime. Specifically, 28 states currently impose penalties for animal cruelty as a criminal act, while 31 states have instituted anti-cruelty laws.

At the state level, administrative laws share a similar language, focusing on animal welfare and the dignified treatment of animals. In contrast, Criminal provisions addressing animals vary significantly from state to state. Mexico City, for example, recognizes animals as sentient beings in its constitution, but states such as Coahuila and Campeche have more comprehensive sets of laws protecting animals. In Coahuila, for example, animal cruelty crimes apply indistinctively to all vertebrate animals, and prison sentences range from one to six years. In addition, the authorities can confiscate all animals under the care of the person found guilty of animal cruelty (Article 261.B, Criminal Code, Coahuila). Animal fighting (which includes bullfighting and cockfighting) is prohibited. On the other hand, Campeche, stronger normative framework that protects all “non-humans” (except those used in bullfighting, cockfighting, and other similar activities. It punishes acts of cruelty for commission and omission, including those that endanger the life of an animal and abandonment. However, animal cruelty penalties fall short in comparison with other states, with prison sentences ranging from one to three years, respectively. (Atlas, AnimaNaturalis, Estado de Campeche, México 2021).

II. Animals in the Constitution

The political constitution of Mexico is the Supreme law of the land on which all the federal and state law is based on. The Constitution does not mention animals. However, Article 4 establishes that “all men and women have the right to a healthy environment to guarantee their health and well-being.” This Article further states that whoever damages or deteriorates the environment will be liable under current legal provisions. Even though this provision does not specifically protect animals through this right, it could be argued in future litigation that animals and wild animals, more specifically, should be protected in order to guarantee this fundamental right.

III. Animals in the Civil Code

Like most civil codes based on Roman law, the Civil Code of Mexico classifies animals as property. Specifically, Article 752 states that movable objects are by their nature or by legal disposition. Article 753 defines movable objects by nature as those bodies that can move from one place to another either by themselves or by an external force. Animals are included in this classification, and the subsequent chapters talk about the appropriation of animals (arts 774-784, 854-874, 886-889). 

IV. Animals in the Criminal Code

Even though Mexico does not have an anti-cruelty law at the federal level, the Federal Criminal Code contains a few provisions regarding animals, where wild animals have notoriously more protections than domestic animals. The Criminal Code contains a dedicated chapter on biodiversity. As expected, It does not mention the protection of domestic animals. However, it contains provisions prohibiting dog fighting (Article 419 Bis). Breeding, training, owning, transporting, buying, or selling dogs for activities involving fighting between two or more dogs are some of the activities prohibited under this Article. Penalties range from six months to five years. In addition, this article punishes the organization, promotion, advertisement, sponsorship, or selling of tickets for dog fighting events and attending or enabling a minor to attend or witness a dogfighting event.

Chapter II contains provisions regarding crimes against biodiversity. For instance, Article 417 prohibits the introduction and trafficking of forest resources, living or dead wild flora or fauna, their products, or derivatives. The punishment for this crime is 1 to 9 years of imprisonment and monetary fines from 1 to 3,000 days, which is higher than most state anti-cruelty laws.
Article 420 contains provisions regarding crimes against aquatic life. It prohibits capturing, damaging, or killing turtles and marine mammals and collecting and storing their products or by-products. It also prohibits the capture, transformation, collection, transportation, or damage of specimens of aquatic species declared in the closed season. Article 420, II Bis prohibits the intentional capture, transformation, collection, transportation, destruction, or trade of the aquatic species abalone, shrimp, sea cucumber, and lobster, within or outside the closed periods, without the corresponding authorization, in quantities that exceed 10 kilograms of weight. The article also penalizes the hunting, fishing, or capture of any specimen of wild fauna by unlawful means, especially if it threatens the biological viability of a population or wildlife species.

Article 420 Bis establishes punishment of two to 10 years in prison and monetary fines for damaging wetlands, mangroves, lagoons, creeks, swamps, or coral reefs. Introducing exotic species of flora or fauna that damage the ecosystem or hinder, alter, or affect native or migratory species in the natural cycles of their reproduction or migration.

Title 22nd, “Crimes against persons and their patrimony,” Chapter I, titled “Theft,” establishes in its article 381 that a person who “commits the crime of cattle rustling, who by himself or by an intermediary takes one or more heads of cattle, without the consent of whoever can legally dispose of them.” In the terms of this article, the following species are considered cattle: bovine, Equidae, donkeys, mules, ovine, caprine, porcine, colonies of bees in an apiary, as well as that domesticated, wild, hoofed, major cattle or minor cattle.

Lastly, it is important to mention that virtually all states, with the exception of Chiapas, have enacted anticruelty status.

V. Other Laws Protecting Animals

There are four primary federal laws regarding the treatment of animals: The General Law of Wildlife (2000), the Federal Law of Animal Health (2007), the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (1988), and the Official Norm 033, 2014 regarding the humane slaughter of domestic and wild animals. The purpose of these laws is to avoid unnecessary animal pain and suffering resulting from the use of animals by humans. The following are the general laws that apply to more than one group of animals. Laws tailored specifically to farm animals or wildlife will be discussed in the appropriate section.

Official Mexican Law Nom-033-Zoo-2015, Humane Killing of Domestic and Wild Animals. (Norma Oficial Mexicana Nom-033-Zoo-1995, Sacrificio Humanitario de los Animales Domesticos y Silvestres). Regulates the humane slaughter and anesthesia of farm, domestic, and wildlife animals. It contains detailed guidelines about methods allowed depending on the species and how to handle animals prior to slaughter or euthanasia procedures. For instance, this law mandates that all farm animals and wild animals slaughtered for human consumption are stunned, while companion animals must be sedated before euthanasia. It also contains provisions on emergency killing protocols for all species.

The definition of animals encompasses all living creatures except for aquatic animals. It prohibits cruel and painful methods, such as the use of substances that induce muscular paralysis without causing loss of consciousness and that cause death by suffocation. The use of potassium chloride, in any form that results in the demise of animals, is prohibited due to the severe pain and anxiety it induces, which causes diastolic cardiac arrest in conscious individuals. Nevertheless, it is permitted for use on mega vertebrates, provided that the animal is under anesthesia and a veterinarian authorizes it. Inducing hypothermia or using electricity for stunning, anesthesia, killing, and euthanasia of all reptiles is also prohibited. In addition, it is prohibited to kill rodents, lagomorphs, and small mammals by hypothermia and/or freezing, chest compression, strangulation, drowning, or other mechanical suffocation methods. Finally, it is prohibited to use trapping methods to kill wildlife.

Failure to comply with the provisions established in this law will be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Law of Animal Health and the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization.

Official Mexican Law Nom-051-Zoo-1995, Humane treatment in Animal Transportation. (Norma Oficial Mexicana Nom 051-Zoo-1995, Trato humanitario en la movilización de animales) This law establishes the general requirements for the transportation and handling of animals and additional requirements depending on the species. It seeks to set the parameters of the animal transportation system with the purpose of diminishing suffering during the transportation process.
This law defines animals as organic beings that live, feel, and move voluntarily or by instinct. An important aspect of this law is that it applies to a wide range of animals, including small animals, big cats and birds, nonhuman primates, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles. This is a clear distinction from the national welfare provisions regarding animal welfare in the United States, which only apply to certain mammals. And in the case of the “twenty-eight hour law,” which regulates the transportation of only cattle, sheep, swine, mules, and horses.

Some of the general provisions include the prohibition to deprive animals of food and water prior to being transported; the prohibition against transporting animals that cannot stand on their own, that are sick, injured, or fatigued, unless it is an emergency case, or the animals have to be transported to receive medical treatment. Transporting young animals that rely on their mothers for sustenance and nurturing is only permissible when their mothers accompany them. In the case of ectothermic species (or cold-blooded animals) such as invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles, the law requires the taking of precautions to facilitate ventilation and maintenance of animals in temperatures close to the optimal range for each case. Endotherms (or warm-blooded animals) such as birds and mammals shall not be transported in extreme weather conditions.

Other provisions include the handling of animals during transportation, requirements for vehicles, kennels, and cages, and the loading of animals. The requirements and recommendations on the time for transportation according to the species are as follows:

• The transportation period for domestic birds should not be longer than 12 hours. Rest periods are not recommended during the transportation of birds. There are no benefits.
• It is not recommended to transport newborn chicks for periods longer than 16 hours.
• The transportation period for cattle should not exceed 18 hours without rest and without giving them drinking water.
• Rest periods without unloading livestock during land travel must be at least 3 hours and in accordance with sections 4.2.13. and 4.2.14. of this Standard.
• In the case of transportation longer than 24 hours, food must be offered to the animals in addition to breaks every 18 hours.
• Cows in production or recently calved must be milked every 12 hours.

• Pregnant cows within the first two-thirds of gestation and Calves up to 6 months of age should be transported for at most 8 hours without rest or offering them water and food.

• The transportation period for sheep and goats should not exceed 18 hours without rest periods and without watering the animals.

• Rest periods without unloading livestock during land travel must be at least 2 hours and in accordance with sections 4.2.13 and 4.2.14 of this Standard.
• Lambs and kids must receive water and food every 8 hours during periods of movement.

• The transportation period for pigs should not exceed 20 hours.

• The period of mobilization without rest should not exceed 8 hours.
• Rest periods will be completed at least every 8 hours with the animals inside the vehicle, parking it under the shade for periods that will not exceed 1 hour.

• Equines must be transported for a maximum of 18 hours, followed by an 8-hour rest period, preferably in appropriate facilities.

•  If the mobilization is longer, the horses must travel for periods of up to 12 hours, allowing stops every 6 hours, lasting one hour, to provide them with food and water.

• Dogs and cats should not remain without food for more than 24 hours during transportation periods.

• If transportation takes place for more than 6 hours, a receptacle containing drinking water must be firmly fixed to the inside of the cage. The shape and material of the container must prevent the water from emptying and the animal from getting hurt.

• In transporting crocodiles, lizards, alligators, and gharials, feeding adult animals during mobilizations of less than 72 hours is not required. The maximum fast for babies and developing animals must be 24 hours.

• It is required to feed large or racing birds such as ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries if the transportation lasts 24 hours. A feeder and waterer must be inside the container to offer water and food if it lasts longer.

• Non-human primates must be given water and food as often as required. On trips longer than 8 hours, it is generally necessary.

• Carnivorous terrestrial mammals that travel for up to 24 hours are not required to be given food and water, except for growing animals or small species that need water. Still, if the transport lasts longer, they will always be offered food and water.

The owner of the animals and the person or transportation company are responsible for complying with the rules set forth in this law. The enforcing authority under this law is the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development and the State Governments. The General Directorate of Animal Health, the State Delegations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development, and the State Governments are responsible for implementing the provisions outlined in this law within the scope of their respective responsibilities and territorial jurisdictions.

General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (1988). (Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente (LGEEPA)). This law focuses on the sustainable use of the environment and wildlife and the preservation and restoration of the ecosystems. It seeks to protect the national biodiversity and establish and manage protected areas. It establishes that to protect and sustainably use the flora and fauna, it is important, among other things, to encourage dignified and respectful treatment of animals to avoid cruelty against them. Moreover, it establishes that it is the duty of the federal government, the states, and the municipalities within their respective power to regulate the dignified and respectful treatment of animals (arts 78-79). The regulation of this treatment must be based on the following principles:

• Provide animals with enough water and food in order to keep them healthy.
• Provide animals with an adequate environment for their rest, movement, and space according to the species.
• Provide animals with adequate veterinary care and, in case of illness, provide prompt veterinary treatment.
• Allow animals to express their natural behavior.
• Provide animals with adequate treatment and conditions to guarantee their well-being.

A. Companion Animals 

As previously mentioned, Mexico does not have an anti-cruelty law that applies nationwide, in spite of various bills being proposed at the federal level to address animal welfare.

However, there are a few general provisions within some laws that provide some sort of protection to companion animals. For instance, the criminal code does not have an article, chapter, or title dedicated to the protection of companion animals. Nonetheless, it specifically prohibits dog fighting. Article 419 Bis prohibits various activities related to dogs, such as breeding, training, ownership, transportation, purchase, or sale for involvement in dog fights. Violators may face penalties ranging from six months to five years. Furthermore, this article penalizes those who organize, promote, advertise, sponsor or sell tickets for dog fighting events and those facilitating a minor's attendance at or participation in such events.

The Federal Law of Animal Health (2007) is another example. This law establishes in Article 21 the responsibility of domestic animal and captive wildlife owners or caretakers to provide them with an appropriate quantity and quality of food and water tailored to the species and their reproductive phase.

The protection of companion animals takes place at the state level, where most federal entities have enacted criminal anti-cruelty laws. Some of these states will be discussed at the end of this article, but a complete compilation of state laws is offered in Spanish by AnimaNaturalis Mexico.

B. Wildlife 

The regulations governing wildlife protection and management of wildlife species are the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (1988), the General Law of Wildlife (2000), and the General Law of Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture (2007). These laws are grounded on conservation and sustainable use principles, which stem from the constitutional recognition of the human right to live in a healthy environment.

The Federal Law of Environmental Responsibility (2013). (Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental). Governs environmental responsibility arising from environmental harm and addresses the legal damages and consequences resulting from such harm. It recognizes damages caused to the environment regardless of the damages caused to the owner of the land and the natural resources.

Wildlife General Statute (2000). (Ley General de Vida Silvestre). The purpose of this law is to preserve wildlife through its protection and sustainable use. Article 4 establishes the duty to protect wildlife and prohibits any act that causes its destruction, damage, or disturbance to the detriment of the interests of the Nation. This article also states that owners or legitimate holders of land where wildlife lives have rights of sustainable use over the species, parts, and their derivatives.

Under this law, wildlife species are defined as "Organisms that subsist and are subject to processes of natural evolution and that develop freely in their habitat, including their minor populations and individuals that are under the control of humans and wild populations as well.
The Federal Attorney's Office for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA) is the administrative authority overseeing environmental law compliance. Art 107 establishes that any person can file a complaint for any damages caused to wildlife or its habitat.

In addition, the 2008 amendment to this law prohibited the use of wild animals in circuses.

General Law of Ecologic Balance and Environmental Protection (1988). (Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente (LGEEPA)). This law focuses on the sustainable use of the environment and wildlife and the preservation and restoration of ecosystems. It seeks to protect the national biodiversity and establish and manage protected areas. It establishes that to protect and sustainably use the flora and fauna, it is important, among other things, to encourage the dignified and respectful treatment of animals to avoid cruelty against them. Moreover, it establishes that it is the duty of the federal government, the states, and the municipalities within their respective power to regulate the dignified and respectful treatment of animals (arts 78-79). The regulation of this treatment must be based on the following principles:

• Provide animals with enough water and food in order to keep them healthy.
• Provide animals with an adequate environment for their rest, movement, and space according to the species.
• Provide animals with adequate veterinary care and, in case of illness, provide prompt veterinary treatment.
• Allow animals to express their natural behavior.
• Provide animals with adequate treatment and conditions to guarantee their well-being.

Finally, Article 159 Bis 3 establishes that every person shall have the right to request that the Secretariat, the States, the Federal District, and the Municipalities provide them with environmental information. This article defines environmental information as any written, visual, or database information available to environmental authorities concerning water, air, ground, flora, fauna, and natural resources in general, as well as information about activities or measures that may affect them. It requires that requests for environmental information be submitted in writing, specifying the information being requested and the reasons for the request.

To facilitate the exercise of this right, Article 159 Bis 5 mandates that environmental authorities respond in writing to information requests within a twenty-day timeframe from receiving such requests. Additionally, Article 159 Bis mandates the Secretariat to establish a National Environmental and Natural Resources Information System.

C. Farm Animals

Mexico does not have any legislation pertaining to the welfare standards of farm animals during the rearing phase. Even though there are manuals of good practices, these are not mandatory.

Official Norm 051 contains provisions covering the transportation and handling of farm animals after they have left the rearing facility, and Official Norm 033 regulates slaughter methods in slaughterhouses. Both laws seek to diminish animal suffering after the animals leave the farm. However, they do not require the training of personnel, and these laws are seldom enforced. (Isabel Franco, “Retos en la defensa legal de animales en granja,” Igualdad Animal Mexico, 2023).

Federal Law for Beekeeping (2021). This federal law applies to the entire territory of Mexico. It serves as a comprehensive framework for treating and protecting bees, encompassing all activities related to this vital species, explicitly designating apiculture (or beekeeping) as a prioritized activity of public interest. The objectives of this law extend beyond the aforementioned points:

1. Recognizing Bees as Priority Species: The law aims to acknowledge bees as a species of paramount importance in biodiversity preservation, highlighting the need for their protection.
2. Promoting Education and Awareness: An essential aspect of this legislation is promoting education and awareness regarding the importance of respecting, caring for, protecting, conserving, and fostering a deep appreciation for bees.
3. Equal Status with Livestock: The law seeks to elevate their status to the same level as cattle. Consequently, stealing bees would be considered a rustling crime under the Federal Penal Code.
4. Recognizing Honey's Nutritional Value: The law also aims to establish honey as a perfect food, recognizing its exceptional nutritional properties. It advocates for honey to be considered an essential component of a balanced diet to safeguard the health of society.

Furthermore, this law contains provisions to enhance the regulation and support of apiculture, including the rights and obligations of beekeepers; it creates the National Council of the Beekeeping Product System, outlines the responsibilities and attributions of relevant authorities, and sets forth specific standards, reporting procedures, and licensing requirements for various aspects of beekeeping, including the establishment of apiaries, the movement of hives or their products, and other relevant activities.

The Federal Law of Animal Health (2007). (Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal). This law establishes the foundation for diagnosing, preventing, controlling, and eradicating zoonotic diseases. Defines animal welfare and outlines best practices related to livestock, among other things. This law defines animal welfare as the Set of activities aimed at providing animals comfort, tranquility, protection, and safety during rearing, maintenance, exploitation, transport, and slaughter.

V. Relevant Jurisprudence

Mexico is a civil law country with both federal and state court systems. According to the constitution, in order for a judicial decision to have binding effects in Mexico, it has to be issued by the Nation’s Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación or SCJN) or by the Collegiate Circuit Courts (Tribunales Colegiados de Circuito), who have authority to hear writs of “Amparo.” Juries are not part of the judicial proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Justice has the power of judicial review and the authority to invalidate legislation. It adjudicates cases in either plenary sessions or chamber sessions contingent on the nature of the case (criminal, administrative, civil, labor, or auxiliary). In addition, decisions rendered by one of the chambers can be invalidated by the court in plenary. (See Judiciaries Worldwide, Country Profile – Mexico). Since 2021, for a Supreme Court opinion to be binding, there must be a qualified majority, which requires a minimum of four votes within a chamber or eight votes in plenary.

The Collegiate Circuit Courts deal with appeals and the protection of individual rights. They primarily hear writs of “Amparo.” These court’s decisions create legal precedent that must be followed by lower courts.

Writ of Amparo is a constitutional mechanism to protect constitutional rights that was established in Mexico in 1847 and has been the inspiration for the creation of similar constitutional mechanisms in other Latin American countries (See “The Writ of Amparo in Latin America as a judicial protection instrument against the acts of the authorities and public officials” or “ la acción de amparo en América Latina como instrumento de protección judicial contra los actos de las autoridades y funcionarios públicos,” Allan R. Brewer-Carías, 2017). It is regulated by Articles 94, 103, and 107 of the Constitution, the “Amparo” Law (Ley of Amparo of 1935), Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation of 1935 (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial de la Federación) and the Federal Code of Civil Procedure. This constitutional mechanism allows individuals to seek judicial redress for violations of their rights by the government or government employees.

There are very few decisions pertaining to animal welfare and animal rights in Mexico. As previously noted, the Amparo decisions hold binding authority across the nation. For that reason, most cases below involve rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice on Amparo writs, although there are also noteworthy state-level rulings. In general, recent decisions prioritize animal welfare and the protection of animals from cruel treatment. A significant milestone in this regard was the 2022 case in Queretaro, marking the first instance of a prison sentence being imposed for animal cruelty. Regarding animal rights, the Supreme Court of Justice is currently reviewing the case of Ely, “the loneliest elephant.”

The case of Ely, the loneliest elephant (2023)

This case starts as an Amparo concerning Ely, a 38-year-old African elephant that previously lived in a circus, and who now resides in San Juan de Aragón Zoo, in Mexico City since 2012. A petition filed by an activist from "Opening Cages, Opening Minds" ("Abriendo Jaulas, Abriendo Mentes") sought her relocation to a Brazilian sanctuary, citing past abuse and current conditions causing physical and psychological harm. Despite claims of ethical violations, the court found that the zoo fulfilled its obligations. After the ruling, the zoo enhanced Ely's enclosure and introduced Gipsy as a companion to her. The Supreme Court will now review the Fourth Administrative District's decision in favor of the zoo for considering it a relevant question that needs to be addressed.

Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Amparo en revisión 80 (2022)

This Supreme Court decision pertains to Nayarit's 2019 decree declaring horse racing, bullfighting, cockfighting, and similar practices as cultural heritage. A civil association challenged the decree, arguing it violated the right to a healthy environment by endorsing cruel activities. The court addressed three key questions:

1. The court ruled that cultural rights cannot excuse violating other human rights; only activities aligned with human rights can be officially recognized as cultural.
2. It affirmed that the right to a healthy environment includes animal well-being, emphasizing the moral responsibility to treat animals with respect and decency.
3. The court rejected the constitutionally protected cultural status for "bullfighting and cockfighting" due to the inherent infliction of agony and suffering on animals for entertainment.

Ultimately, the court granted the Amparo, stating Nayarit lacked the authority to declare these practices as cultural heritage, emphasizing that such power resides only with the federation, not the states, according to the Federal Constitution and the General Law of Culture and Cultural Rights.

Suprema Corte de Justicia de La Nación, Primera Sala, Amparo en Revisión 163 (2018)

This case concerns a 2016 Amparo petition questioning the constitutionality of a ban on cockfighting in Veracruz, Mexico. The President of the Mexican Commission for Cockfighting Promotion and Efraín Rábago Echegoyen challenged the ban, citing violations of fundamental rights, such as the right to culture, right to property, freedom of work, and the right to equality and non-discrimination. The District Court upheld the ban, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, affirming the lower court's decision, applied a proportionality test to assess the alleged violations of the rights to culture, property, and freedom to work. Regarding the right to culture, the court recognized cockfighting as a cultural tradition. However, it concluded that it did not merit constitutional protection since it involved the abuse and unnecessary suffering of animals. The court emphasized that the right to culture is limited and must align with values compatible with human dignity and respect for others and nature.

Addressing the right to property and the right to work, the court acknowledged their limitations in the face of public interest. The right to work, in particular, is constrained by the legality of the activity, third-party rights, and societal interests. The court determined that animal protection constituted a legitimate reason to limit these fundamental rights, especially considering the severe physical harm inflicted on birds in cockfighting.
In weighing these rights, the court concluded that the prohibition of cockfighting was justified to protect animal welfare, emphasizing that, even though animals are not subjects of rights, their well-being can legitimately limit certain human rights in a constitutional democracy.

Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, segunda sala, Proyecto de Resolucióndel Amparo en Revisión 630 (2017)

This is a draft of a withdrawn “Amparo” decision, but it is relevant as it highlights the connection between the human right to a healthy environment and the duty to protect animals, specifically in the context of bullfighting. The plaintiff, Promociones y Espectáculos Zapaliname, S.A. de C.V., filed an "Amparo" against the state of Coahuila, contesting the prohibition of bullfighting introduced in the 2015 amendment to the animal protection law.

The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, emphasizing that the right to a healthy environment includes the protection of animals. The court departed from a purely property-oriented view of animals and highlighted existing laws, such as the Federal Animal Health Law, the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, the General Wildlife Law, and the Mexican Official NOM-033-SAG/ZOO-2014, which collectively establish a foundation for animal welfare in Mexico.

The court asserted that the ban on bullfighting aligns with the broader legal framework designed to protect and dignify animals. It recognized that allowing such a cruel practice would compromise animal welfare and, by extension, the societal interest in preserving a healthy environment and conserving species, as stipulated in Article 4 of the Constitution. Invalidating the amendment, the court argued, would represent a regression, undermining the need for governments to adopt gradual measures to protect animals.

VI. Relevant state legislation and jurisprudence

The scope and implementation of animal protection vary across states. In general, all the states have enacted anti-cruelty laws, but this has created a patchwork of laws ranging from states with with irrisory administrative penalties, states with exemplary criminal penalties, and even states recognizing animals as sentient beings. Most states have implemented popular complaints, or “denuncia popular” in Spanish, as the legal mechanism by which individuals and public and private institutions can file animal cruelty complaints. Even though laws to protect animals are in place in all states, the country presents similar issues in the implementation of such laws to other countries in the Latin American region. For instance, many states such as Aguas Calientes, Hidalgo, Chiapas, and Zacatecas, still allow bullfighting. In addition, other activities involving animals as entertainment that are inherently cruel, suchs as “charreadas,” cockfighting, hunting, and fishing are allowed in many states as well.

Despite the fact that all states have enacted anti-cruelty laws, statistics show that animal cruelty is still prevalent in the country, and the report numbers are still very low. For instance, in 2020, the Superior Court of Justice in Veracruz reported only three animal cruelty cases. Hidalgo reported eleven, Guanajuato three, and Morelos four. In the meanwhile, states such as Oaxaca and Southern Baja California had no reports (Effectiveness of Animal Abuse Penalization in Mexico (Article in Spanish) AnimalNaturalis, 2021). Furthermore, it was only in 2022 that a court in Mexico rendered its first-ever guilty verdict in an animal cruelty case. It was the case of Athos and Tango, two Red Cross dogs that were poisoned by a neighbor in the state of Queretaro. In this landmark decision, the court sentenced the defendant to 10 years of imprisonment and a $2.4 million Mexican pesos fine (approx. USD $13,500) as reparation.

Bullfighting is another important issue. This cruel practice is prohibited in only five states (Coahuila, Sonora, Sinaloa, Guerrero, and Quintana Roo). Currently, bullfighting, cockfighting, and similar practices are considered exceptions to the duty to respect animals in the criminal code of eight states (Baja California, Campeche, Jalisco, Michoacan, Nayarit, Queretaro, Puebla, and Zacatecas). Finally, overturned the Amparo that previously suspended bullfighting in Mexico City in 2022. This decision effectively reinstates the practice in the city (Mexico's Supreme Court lifts 2022 ban on bullfighting, abc News, 2023).

The following five states help illustrate the current state of animal protection at the state level and also show the legal diversity and lack of uniformity in this topic in terms of legislative and jurisprudential development on animal law issues.

A. Mexico City 

B. Queretaro

C. Chiapas

D. Tlaxcala

Despite the existence of an animal legal framework in Mexico, its effectiveness is compromised by its limited scope, underdeveloped legislation, and precarious jurisprudence. This is reflected in the infrequency of reported animal cruelty cases and police interventions countrywide despite of Mexico being the third country with the highest numbers on animal cruelty.

Furthermore, the absence of comprehensive public policies and the establishment of governmental bodies responsible for ensuring the welfare of animals once they enter the legal system—whether for care, rehabilitation, adoption, or reintroduction into their natural habitat—contribute to the overall shortcomings in the animal protection framework.

Federal entities such as Mexico City and Durango are commended for recognizing animals as sentient beings, but there is a long road for the integral protection of animals in this country. On the phase of the recent setback for animal activists due to the highest court's decision allowing the return of bullfighting to Mexico City, the hope is that the court will redeem itself and takes a turn towards stronger animal protection measures by granting Ely, the elephant, the right to be relocated to a sanctuary.

Amidst the challenges, there is an interesting development evidenced in recent Supreme Court rulings. It signals the beginning of a separation between the right to a healthy environment and the protection of nature and animals for their intrinsic value. Perhaps, this shift could take animal protection into a new phase. As numerous initiatives have been filed in recent years, the upcoming steps at the federal level are intriguing. Will animals be recognized as sentient beings or as subjects of rights in the not-so-distant future?

Special gratitude is extended to Arturo Berlanga, Director of AnimaNaturalis in Mexico for his generosity in sharing his expertise and providing invaluable materials (Atlas de Maltrato Animal), which played a significant role in the shaping of this content.