Lola Limon case (2022): 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.
“P.M.A c/ C.M.A s/ Medidas Precautorias – Familia- Burke and Roma- Argentina” (2023): This case involves a divorced couple, Matías Andrés Pedroni and Marina Alejandra Capello, who shared custody of two dogs, Burke and Roma. Following a domestic violence accusation resulting in a restraining order, Pedroni was denied access to the dogs. He filed an injunction seeking visitation rights, arguing that the unfunded decision caused him emotional distress because the dogs were part of his multispecies family.
Capello contested, claiming sole ownership based on adoption records, and argued against recognizing visitation rights. The judge acknowledged that animals are considered movable objects under the civil code but noted the evolving societal view of animals as part of family dynamics. Furthermore, the court recognized that companion animals are part of multispecies families, and their status as sentient beings with emotional bonds transcends ownership disputes.
The judge concluded that Burke and Roma were non-human members of the family, and the emotional bond persisted post-divorce. A visitation schedule was ordered, allowing Pedroni to spend every other weekend with the dogs.
M.E.R. c/ B.A.B. del C.| Divorcio por presentación conjunta (2022): In August 2022, Amorina Bascoy and Emmanuel Medina jointly petitioned for divorce after ten years of marriage. The couple did not have children but shared their life with Popeye and Kiara, their two beloved dogs. the couple filed their agreement regarding the division of marital assets and the care of Kiara and Popeye, together with the communication agreement regarding their care and visitation time, where visitation dates and times would be assessed flexibly by both spouses. In this instance, the family judge recognized the agreement reached by the spouses regarding the care of their beloved dogs, where each divorcee would keep the custody of a dog according to each dog's preference. In addition, in her holding, the judge stated that "although our legal system has not yet advanced in such a way that it can anticipate and/or regulate the situation in which members who also make up the family and have joined it -will be after the termination of the relationship, in this case, two dogs, POPEYE and KIARA-, this brings a reality that cannot be denied and a question that must be answered but those of us that have an obligation to provide a response because, it is known, that everything that is not prohibited by law is otherwise permitted, even in the absence of specific rules that establish it." the judges continues "Thus, we can say that it is known that animals, especially domestic ones, are sensitive beings, who feel, miss, rejoice, suffer, and who acquire habits, the reason why it is undoubted that the change that will produce the separation of the spouses, will also affect them. It will be their owners, then, who are in a better position, to look out for the dogs' interests. Such an understanding has been accepted in some countries, such as Spain, in the same way as in our jurisprudence. This case joins the set of cases in Argentina, such as the Tita and Sidney cases, and other countries in the region where the consideration of animals as non-human persons is becoming more common among judges.
R. L. N. y otros s/ 239 resistencia o desobediencia a la autoridad, IPP 246466/2021-0: Coco, formerly known as Simon, is an approximately 6-year-old howler monkey found in a closet without food, water, or ventilation during a police raid following a neighbor complaint due to excessive noise. Coco was underweight, stunted, and deformed. The veterinary report revealed that Coco had broken bones due to malnourishment, had missing teeth, and other irreversible ailments due to the inappropriate conditions he lived in. The prosecutor requested the fulfillment of Coco’s rights, the granting of his freedom, and his relocation to “Proyecto Carayá.” The judge in this case held that Coco was to be granted total and absolute freedom in his status as a non-human animal. Furthermore, the judges stated that animals have legal protection based on their legally recognized status of victims. Since they can’t seek legal protection, humans have the duty to guarantee the protection of their rights. The judge also recognized Coco’s status of the subject of rights and ordered his relocation to the Proyecto Carayá for treatment and rehabilitation. Due to the extent of his injuries, experts recommended that Coco be kept by himself, since he could not defend himself and would be outcompeted for food if he shared space with other monkeys.
"C., M. M. M. s/ Denuncia Maltrato Animal"; seguidos contra E. P. S., D.N.I. N° X- Causa Tita (2021): In this case, a judge recognized the significance of families as multispecies units and acknowledged non-human animals as sentient beings with rights. The case stemmed from a tragic incident in March 2020 in Argentina's Chubut Province, where a police officer fatally shot "Tita," a beloved Pitbull-mix family dog, after she attacked him while on duty. The judge determined that Tita was considered a non-human person and a cherished member of her human family, emphasizing the irreparable loss suffered by her loved ones.
Furthermore, the judge emphasized that animals are not mere "things" but sentient beings deserving respect for their lives. The court's decision underscored this point by citing the case of Sandra, an orangutan, and the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights. The police officer received a sentence of one year of suspended imprisonment and professional disqualification for two years for abuse of authority and damages but was acquitted of animal cruelty charges in 2022. On appeal, the Chubut's criminal chamber of the Superior Court of Justice upheld the officer's acquittal, determining that he acted in self-defense when confronted by Tita, who was unleashed and aggressive. The court distinguished Tita's case from Sandra's, stating that the circumstances warranted the officer's actions and that Sandra's case involved a habeas corpus petition for a hominid primate based on genetic similarity to humans. Notably, the court did not address Tita's status as a member of her multispecies family.
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."
Expte. N° HC-656/21 "Habeas Corpus en favor del Tortugo Jorge”: orge 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.
Pometti, Hugo c/Provincia de Mendoza s/acción de amparo (2017): This is an action of protection or "accion de amparo” filed by Hugo Edgardo Pometti against the Province of Mendoza in The Court of Associated Judicial Management No. 2 of Mendoza. The Petitioner sought to stop the transfer of the chimpanzee Cecilia to the sanctuary located in Brazil and to keep her in the Zoo of Mendoza in order to preserve the natural and cultural heritage and the biological diversity. The petitioner also requested a precautionary action to not transfer the chimpanzee until decision on the action of amparo was issued.
“PRESENTACIÓN EFECTUADA POR A.F.A.D.A RESPECTO DEL CHIMPANCÉ “CECILIA”- SUJETO NO HUMANO (2016): “Abogados y Funcionarios de defensa Animal” (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Cecilia, a 30-year-old chimpanzee that lived in the Mendoza Zoo, alleging that the chimpanzee had been illegitimately and arbitrarily deprived of her right to ambulatory freedom and right to have a dignified life on the part of authorities of the Zoo of the City of Mendoza, Argentina. The court granted habeas corpus to Cecilia, ruling that Cecilia was a living being with rights and instructing defendants to immediately free her and to relocate her to the Great Ape Project Sanctuary in Brazil. Until this moment, only humans illegally detained had been granted this writ.
ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO (2015): The court held that Sandra, an orangutan that had lived at the Buenos Aires Zoo for over 20 years, is a non-human person subject to rights, based on the precedent of the Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation of December 18, 2014 and Ley 14.346, 1954. “Sandra has the right to enjoy the highest quality of life possible to her particular and individual situation, tending to avoid any kind of suffering that could be generated by the interference of humans in her life.” In its holding, the court also stated that the Buenos Aires government has to guarantee Sandra’s adequate condition of habitat and the activities necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities. The amicus curiae experts Dr. Miguel Rivolta, Héctor Ferrari and Dr. Gabriel Aguado were instructed to prepare a binding report resolving what measures had to be adopted by the government in relationship to Sandra.
F. c/ Sieli Ricci, Mauricio Rafael s/ maltrato y crueldad animal (2015): "Poli" was a mutt dog that was tied to the bumper of a car by the defendant and dragged at high speed for several miles. Poli sustained severe injuries as a result of being dragged by the car. After the incident, the defendant untied her and left on the road to die. The defendant was found guilty of the crime of animal cruelty, under "ley 14.346." the judge held that this law "protects animals as subjects of rights, and the defendant's conduct was not against an object or a "thing," but rather against a subject deserving of protection." The defendant was sentenced to 6 months of suspended imprisonment for the crime of "animal mistreatment and cruelty." In addition, the judge ordered the defendant to provide food weekly for the animals in A.M.P.A.R.A (The ONG that filed the police report), with the purpose of giving the defendant the opportunity to learn firsthand that “all animals in general, and dogs, in particular, are sentient beings, that have feelings, suffer, cry, and that their right to live, freedom, and integrity has to be respected…” this, with the purpose to prevent the defendant from committing animal cruelty crimes in the future.
Causa Nº 17001-06-00/13 “Incidente de apelación en autos G. B., R. s/inf. ley 14346” (2015): 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 dogs were not subject to confiscation.
Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus (2014): This decision was decided on an appeal of the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of an orangutan named Sandra after it was denied in its first instance. Pablo Buompadre, President of the Association of Officials and Attorneys for the Rights of Animals (AFADA), brought a writ of habeas corpus against the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the City Zoological Garden of Buenos Aires on behalf of the hybrid of two different orangutan species named "Sandra." AFADA sought the immediate release and relocation of Sandra to the primate sanctuary of Sorocaba in the State of São Paulo, in Brazil. AFADA argued that Sandra had been deprived illegitimately and arbitrarily of her freedom by the authorities of the zoo, and that her mental and physical health was at the time deeply deteriorated, with imminent risk of death. For the first time, basic legal rights were granted to an animal. In this case, Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that animals are holders of basic rights. The Court stated that “from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, it is necessary to recognize [Sandra] an orangutan as a subject of rights, as non-human subjects (animals) are holders of rights, so it imposes her protection."
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.
Sentencia definitiva numero: 86 "PRIETO, GERMÁN LUIS C/ COLONNA LUCIANA ANDREA, EXPTE. N° 450237" (2012): German Luis Prieto (the plaintiff) and Luciana Andrea Colonna (the defendant) were embroiled in a legal dispute concerning the ownership of personal property acquired during their cohabitation. The plaintiff contended sole ownership of these assets and sought their return, while the defendant argued that they constituted community property obtained for their shared residence during their relationship. Moreover, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had granted her exclusive possession and had gifted the property to her upon their separation, therefore, absolving her of any obligation to return it. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his right to reclaim the property, except for their dog, Bauty. Recognizing the significant emotional bond between Bauty and the defendant, the court concluded that surrendering the dog could inflict unnecessary suffering. Thus, allowing the defendant to retain custody of the canine companion. 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.
T., J. A. s/ infracción Ley 14.346 (2012): The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to eleven months of imprisonment after finding him criminally responsible for acts of cruelty in violation of Article 1 of Ley 14.346 against a stray dog. The Defendant was found guilty of sexually abusing a dog, who he forced into his premises. The dog’s genital area was sheared, and she had serious injuries, which the veterinarian concluded were clear signs of penetration. 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." Further, "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."
Fallo Kattan Alberto c/ Estado Nacional. Año 1982 42.470/83 (1983): Before the Argentina National Constitution of 1994, the attorney Alberto Kattan and Juan Schroder brought an action of amparo (protection of rights) against the national government to prevent the hunting of 14 Commerson's dolphins that had been authorized by the national government. The question was whether these people had a cause of action, as they had not suffered any direct or personal harm. The court declared the action of amparo valid, leaving the administrative authorizations that allowed the hunting of Commerson's dolphins without effect.
