I. Introduction
Peru is a country located on the western side of South America. With the Amazon Basin, Andes Mountains, the Pacific coast, and arid plains, it is considered one of the most diverse countries in the world.
It is a civil law country with a democratic republic divided into 25 regions. The government is divided into legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Constitution of 1993 is the supreme law, followed by international treaties and domestic legislation. The judicial branch interprets and applies domestic legislation, and judges are not obligated to follow judicial precedent. Courts collect the evidence to decide the cases. Peru's justice system does not include a jury in their trials. The trials are controlled by the judge, who has a more active role than judges in common law countries. However, every defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
Although the law for animal protection and welfare recognizes animals as "sensitive beings," and a recent ruling grants rights to a fox, Peru has one of the least developed frameworks in the region. It has general and vague laws that still significantly focus on animal protection as a matter of public health.
The Constitution of 1993 established the right to a healthy, balanced, and adequate environment. Although the Constitution does not address animal protection directly, it establishes that all citizens are responsible for protecting and conserving the landscape and nature. In the civil code, animals are classified as "acquirable assets." Animal owners and keepers are responsible for the damages that animals may cause unless it is proven that a third party is at fault.
The criminal code treats animal cruelty as a misdemeanor, punishable with up to five years of imprisonment when the animal dies as a consequence of the cruelty or abandonment.
Ley 30407 is the statute of animal protection and welfare. This law grants all vertebrate domestic and wild animals kept in captivity the status of sentient beings. It sets guidelines for protecting vertebrate domestic and captive wildlife from abuse and cruelty, whether humans caused those acts directly or indirectly. Bullfighting, cockfighting, and other activities declared of cultural importance are considered exceptions to the duty of animal protection, such as animal experimentation, research, and other activities done in compliance with the law.
Farm animals are the least protected under the law. Producers of food for animal consumption may be punished with up to one year of prison and fines when they endanger the life, health, or integrity of animals by selling products not up to standards. The criminal code also considers certain acts against an animal "an act against good practices," where the actor has committed cruel acts against an animal or manifestly subjects an animal to excessive work or mistreatment.
II. Animals in the Constitution
Like most constitutions in Latin America, the Peruvian Constitution does not explicitly mention animals or their protection. However, it protects every individual's right to live in a balanced environment conducive to life (Peruvian Constitution of 1993, Article 2, Numeral 22). Courts have interpreted this provision to extend protection to wildlife, recognizing its importance within the broader context of environmental balance.
Articles 66-69 set forth the provisions for environmental and natural resources. Article 68 establishes the government's obligation to promote the conservation of biological diversity.
III. Animals in the Civil Code
Under Art 886 of the Civil Code, animals continue to be classified as movable objects, which are those chattels that can move from one place to another. Chapter II, subchapter I, talks about the ways to acquire property. Articles 930 and 931 specifically address hunting and fishing as the method to acquire animals, and they are considered the property of the hunter or fisher when the animal falls in a trap or a net or they are injured or chased without interruption.
Animals are considered sensitive beings by the Law on Animal Protection and Welfare. However, this change has not been included in the Civil Code. Thus, the property classification continues to be in place for all animals.
IV. Animals in the Criminal Code
Decreto Legislativo No. 635, 1991 is the Criminal Code in Peru. Animal protection is generally based on the right to a healthy environment, property rights, and public health. This code does not have a dedicated chapter or title addressing crimes against animals. However, there are many provisions addressing harm to animals. Specifically, animal protection provisions are found within chapters concerning crimes against property and the environment. Law 30407, 2015, "Law for the Protection and Welfare of Animals," also introduced a series of modifications in the Criminal Code. Before the enactment of this law, animal cruelty was regulated under Title IV, "Offenses against Good Customs", and cruelty, including causing death to an animal, was punished with criminal fines. Now, animal cruelty is regulated under crimes against property in chapter IX "damages."
Article 205. "Simple damage" states, "whoever damages, destroys, or renders a movable or immovable property, either wholly or partially, belonging to another person, shall be punished with imprisonment of no more than three years and a fine of thirty to sixty days."
Causing death to an animal is considered an aggravated form of simple damage punishable with one to six years of imprisonment under Article 206(4).
Article 206-A regulates abandonment and acts of cruelty of both domestic and wild animals. It establishes jail time and permanent or temporary forfeiture of animal ownership. The Article states,":
"Anyone who commits acts of cruelty against a domestic or wild animal, or abandons them, shall be punished with a prison sentence of no more than three years, a fine of one hundred to one hundred eighty days, and disqualification [to own an animal] in accordance with item 13 of Article 36.
If, as a result of these acts of cruelty or abandonment, the domestic or wild animal dies, the penalty is imprisonment for not less than three years and not more than five years, a fine of one hundred fifty to three hundred sixty days, and disqualification [to own an animal] in accordance with item 13 of Article 36;" Article 306.
This Article does not provide any guidance as to what may or may not constitute a cruel act. However, article 451(5) implicitly exempts animal-drawn vehicles from animal cruelty by stating that driving this type of vehicle at excessive speed or entrusting its operation to a minor or an inexperienced person is considered a misdemeanor against public safety.
Other articles punishing actions that directly or indirectly affect animals include Article 207, "Production or sale of spoiled food for animals;" Article 293, "Sale of animals unsafe for consumption; Article 447, "Entry of animals into another's property." Finally, Chapter II-A, articles 189-A - 189-C, regulate cattle rustling.
The Peruvian Constitution imposes the duty on the government to prevent and control environmental contamination. As such, the protection of the environment is extensively regulated in Title XIII, "Environmental Crimes."
Articles 304 - 314: This title comprises four chapters and 14 articles. Most of these chapters contain provisions that might be useful to protect animals, particularly wildlife inhabiting affected ecosystems.
Article 304 states that those in violation of existing laws contaminate "The atmosphere, the soil, the subsoil, terrestrial, maritime, or underground waters, which causes or may cause harm, alteration, or serious damage to the environment or its components, environmental quality, or environmental health, shall be punished with a prison sentence of no less than four years and no more than six years, and with a fine ranging from one hundred to six hundred days."
Chapter II of this title regulates crimes against natural resources. This chapter contains crimes such as Article 308 "Illegal trade of wild flora and fauna;" Article 308-A "Illegal trade of aquatic species of flora and fauna;" Article 308-B, "Illegal extraction and processing of aquatic species;" Article 308-C, "Predation of wildlife and flora;" and Article 313 "Alteration of the environment or landscape."
Articles 308 and 308-A state that domestic and international wildlife trade requires permits and certificates by the corresponding authorities. Selling, transporting, storing, importing, and exporting wildlife without the required permits and certificate is punishable with imprisonment of no less than three years and no more than five. Plus, monetary fines. The same penalty applies in the case of buying, selling, transporting, storing, importing, or exporting aquatic species or their products without valid permits and certificates, or quantities and sizes that are prohibited or beyond the scope of the permits, or in seasons and areas that are prohibited or closed.
Hunting, capturing, collecting, extracting, and processing wildlife of their products also requires the corresponding authorization by the competent authority. Not complying constitutes a crime of Predation of wildlife and flora, and it is punished with a prison sentence of no less than three years and no more than five years, and a fine of fifty to four hundred days' worth of salary" in terms of Article 308-C.
Article 309 contains the provision regarding the aggravating circumstances for these crimes, which include:
- When the species, specimens, products, or genetic resources involved in the crime come from protected areas, restricted zones, or lands owned by indigenous or local communities, or from indigenous reserves.
- When the species of wild flora and fauna or genetic resources involved in the crime are protected by national legislation.
- When weapons, explosives, or toxic substances are used.
In addition, the prison sentence will be no less than eleven years and no more than twenty years when the perpetrator acts as a member of a criminal organization."
Article 313 regulates the crime of "Alteration of the Environment or Landscape." It states that "Anyone who, in violation of the provisions of the competent authority, alters the natural environment or urban or rural landscape, or modifies the flora or fauna, through construction or tree cutting, will be punished with a custodial sentence of no more than four years and with sixty to ninety days-fine."
Lastly, Article 314-C allows judges to order precautionary measures to suspend the illegal activity or seize the wildlife specimens and the equipment or means used for the commission of the alleged offense. Additionally, upon request from the Public Prosecutor, the Judge can order the search or raid of the location where the alleged criminal act is taking place.
Other articles regulating environmental protection in a way that might affect animals include Article 279, "Manufacture, supply, or possession of hazardous materials and hazardous waste."
V. Animal Protection Laws
Peru has a animal protection framework that has developed more significantly in recent years. the main law is the statute of Animal Protection and Welfare (Law 30407) that applies to all domestic and wildanimals. Besides this law, there are a series of laws and decrees protecting animals addressing specific topics. Most of them focusing on a specific category of animals. Namely, companion animals, wildlife, and the least protected category, farm animals.
It is important to note that despite the latest advances, practices such as bullfigting anc cockfighting are an exception to the duty to protect animals as they are consider cultural heritage.
The following are the most prominent laws and decrees pertainng animals.
Ley 30407 is the statute of animal protection and welfare. It recognizes animals as “sensitive beings” and sets the guidelines for the protection of all vertebrate domestic and wild animals kept in captivity and against abuse and cruelty caused directly or indirectly by humans. This law also promotes respect for the animals’ lives and well-being through education and participation in the promotion of animal protection of entities of the public and private sector entities. Some of the topics that this law regulates include the responsibilities of society and the government towards animals; protection, possession, and handling of animals; animal research and experimentation; and euthanasia of companion animals and captive wildlife. Ley 30407 has 36 articles in 8 chapters. As a result of its promulgation, the previous animal welfare act, together with Article 450-A of the criminal code, was repealed. Bullfighting, cockfighting, and other activities declared of cultural character by authorized authority are considered exceptions to this law. It is important to mention that the regulation of this law is rather precarious. This its application is almost inexistent (La necesidad de reglamentar la Ley 30407, Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal, Beatriz Franciskovic Ingunza, 2022).
Article 9, numeral 9.1 of the aforementioned law establishes the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MINAGRI) as the authority to regulate animal welfare regarding farm animals and captive wildlife. Such regulation is carried out through “complementary norms,” and this body has authority even when these animals are used in animal experimentation, research, education, conservation, and commercialization. Additionally, the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for regulating and setting guidelines regarding wildlife with the Ministry of the Environment.
This law establishes abandonment of animals as an act of cruelty and against public health.
Finally, Ley 30407 incorporates Article 206-A to the Criminal Code under crimes against property. This new article incorporates animal cruelty as a crime. In addition, abandonment is also considered an act of cruelty punishable with up to three years of imprisonment plus monetary fines.
A. Companion animals
Companion animals and wildlife receive the most significant protections under the Peruvian law. Under the Animal Welfare and Protection law, all citizens have the duty to protect the welfare of all animals to protect life, animal health, and public health (Articles 2 and 5). Companion animals are statutorily defined as all domestic animals that live in a family environment and whose actions can be controlled by the owner or possessor.
This law consistently uses the term "companion animal" throughout its text and includes specific prohibitions regarding their treatment, which show an acknowledgment of the distinction between animals as mere pets and the familial relationship humans build with them. Though still general and vague, these prohibitions are more extensive than provisions addressing the protection of farm animals. This law regulates topics such as responsible ownership, companion animal breeding, and potentially dangerous dogs. In addition, it introduces prohibitions which include activities such as training
- Promoting, or organizing animal fights,
- Raising or using companion animals for consumption,
- indiscriminate exploitation of animals for commercial purposes that harm their well-being, and
- The breeding in numbers exceeding what their owner or caretaker can manage
The Animal Protection and Welfare Law establishes the government duty to protect companion animals, ensuring their right to life, health, and the ability to live in harmony with their environment.
Besides the provision in this law, the framework for the protection of companion animals includes laws addressing adoption, spay and neuter programs, and the management of "potentially dangerous" dogs.
Ley Nº 31807, 2023
The amendment to the Protection and Animal Welfare law, establishes new requirements for the identification and adoption of companion animals. Article 5 mandates that pet owners use technological methods for the identification and tracking of their animals. A new provision, Article 21-A, empowers local governments and relevant organizations to collaborate on adoption campaigns for abandoned animals. It requires those facilitating adoptions to submit monthly reports detailing information about adopters and the animals to local authorities. Furthermore, adopters must be informed about the health conditions of the animals, while local governments are responsible for ensuring compliance with animal welfare regulations. Under this law, organizations are required to monitor the animals post-adoption and report any concerns to local authorities.
Ley 31311, 2021
This law aims to regulate the circumstances and appropriate manners under which dogs and cats should be sterilized (spayed or neutered) for public health and safety purposes. The main purposes of these measures are to control infectious diseases and animal overpopulation.
This regulation adds to the lists of regulations regarding dog care centers and the health and handling of the dogs in their care
Resolution 1776-2002-SA/DM, 2002
This regulation establishes a brief list of what could be considered "potentially dangerous dogs" in accordance with Law 27596, 2001.
Decreto Supremo 006-2002-SA
This decree approves Law 27596, which regulates the regime for dog ownership in all its aspects. The law outlines various provisions related to ownership, sanctions, care, and other pertinent topics.
Specifically, Article 5 addresses the rights of dogs. However, no subsequent law or jurisprudential development indicates that dogs are legal persons. This provision states:
"Every dog has the right to protection of its life and physical integrity, including health and nutrition, which must be provided by its owner, keeper, or breeder. This ensures the dog can develop in harmony and sociability with the community in an appropriate environment. Those identified in Article 3 are responsible for complying with the provisions of this regulation and any related regulations. Additionally, the State is tasked with ensuring the protection of dogs in accordance with Law No. 27265."
Article 6 stipulates that "The ownership of dogs is contingent upon the hygienic and sanitary conditions of health and comfort in each location and property, as established in this regulation. This is to ensure that ownership does not pose risks or dangers to the health of both human and animal populations."
This law also covers various topics, including identification, permits, and licenses; breeder regulations; euthanasia; training centers; transportation; and the use of public spaces. Furthermore, it addresses the responsibilities for damages caused by dogs, environmental and sanitary obligations, and outlines administrative sanctions.
Ley Nº 27596, 2001
Law 27596 establishes regulations regarding the breeding, training, commercialization, possession, and transfer of potentially dangerous dogs for the purpose of protecting people's integrity, health, and tranquility.
The law prohibits encouraging any form of canine aggression and makes particular reference to dog fighting. In general, owners of potentially dangerous dogs must be competent and physically capable of caring for the dog, including providing them with appropriate training. In the event of a stray, the dog must be taken in by the municipality whose jurisdiction is within and reinserted into the community through animal care programs, so long as it is not deemed aggressive. The law also describes the procedure for how to handle a dog that attacks another living being or kills an animal, and the corresponding consequences of such events. Lastly, the law states regulations for handling dogs with grave diseases that could be transmitted to human beings.
B. Farm animals
The legal framework for the protection of farm animals in Peru is notably weak compared to that of companion animals and wildlife. Besides the general animal protection law and a few regulations issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, there are no specific laws establishing requirements for the care of farm animals during the rearing period at the farms, transport, or slaughter phases. There are no laws or regulations regarding the welfare of specific species, such as cattle, chickens, or pigs, and their different uses in the industry.
The Law of Animal Welfare and Protection covers all domestic animals, which includes both companion animals and farm animals. Under this law, the government has the duty to "ensure proper and responsible handling and management of farm animals" (Ley 30407, 2015, Article 7).
The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation is the governing and regulating body for the protection and welfare of farm animals. Article 9 (9.1) establishes this Ministry as the designated authority to regulate the treatment of farm animals.
Under Article 16 of this law, transporters, owners, managers, and those responsible for a farm or slaughterhouses are required to comply with animal protection and welfare measures established by the Ministries of Agriculture and Irrigation, the Environment, and Production. These measures are based on best practices related to the raising, transport, slaughter, processing, and both population and individual management of farm animals. The slaughtering process must ensure either instant death or immediate unconsciousness of the animal. However, there are no provisions stating methods or requirements to ensure the humane treatment of animals.
Article 23 prohibits the slaughter of animals in public spaces and the raising and transporting of animals in an unsanitary environment.
Finally, Chapter VIII of this law outlines the sanctions for violations of the provisions in this law. Administrative infractions under Art 30 are imposed by relevant ministries, with regional and local governments having enforcement power during and before administrative procedures.
Sanctions can include fines, suspension of activities, closure of facilities, confiscation of items used to commit the infraction, and revocation of permits/licenses.
The following are some relevant laws and regulations pertaining to the welfare of farm animals.
Decreto Supremo N° 010-2022-MIDAGRI
This Supreme Decree, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation of Peru (MINAGRI), approves the Sanitary Regulation for the Production and Commercialization of Genetic Material from Farm Animals. It aims to establish provisions for the implementation of sanitary measures in the production and commercialization of genetic material from these animals, supporting epidemiological surveillance, and the prevention, control, and eradication of diseases affecting animals. All these efforts are designed to prevent the spread and transmission of diseases that could compromise the country's sanitary status.
Resolución Ministerial No. 0269-2017-MINAGRI
This regulation orders the creation of a temporary specialized working group to draft the corresponding regulations to the Law on Animal Protection and Welfare (Law 30407) regarding farm animals and captive wildlife.
Decreto Supremo 011-84-AG, 1984
This law deems it necessary to promote the breeding of fighting cattle as a national interest.
C. Wildlife
Peru is a megadiverse country that is a party to numerous international treaties and agreements aimed at protecting biodiversity, wildlife, and the environment, including CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity, Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation, and the Convention on Wetlands. Furthermore, native wildlife species are recognized as national heritage and renewable resources. Regardless of the great interest of the international and national communities in protecting native wildlife, these species face critical threats from illegal trafficking, deforestation, and the introduction of invasive species (Perú: primer diagnóstico sobre fauna amenazada muestra 64 especies en peligro crítico, Yvette Sierra Praeli, Mongabay, 2018). This complexity explains the more significant development of the legal framework protecting this type of animal.
The Animal Protection and Welfare law covers wild animals. Specifically, Article 1, 1.2 establishes the Principle of Biodiversity Protection. Under this principle, "the State ensures the conservation of legally protected wildlife species and their habitats through the approval of national conservation plans, as well as the protection of migratory species. Wild species in captivity are provided with conditions that allow for the development of behavioral patterns characteristic of their biodiversity in accordance with national policies for environmental conservation, management, and sustainable use of wildlife, agricultural production and health, and public health prevention."
The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation is the authority in charge of regulating captive wildlife protection.
This law prohibits acts that harm wildlife, including:
- Illegal trade
- Keeping wildlife in captivity without the necessary permits and adequate sanitary and welfare conditions
- Mutilations that are not for medical purposes or intended to save the animal's life
- Training and exhibiting wildlife for entertainment or commercial purposes
- The use of protected wildlife for scientific research without the required permits and scientific justification
In addition, there is a strict prohivition to harm vertebrate aquatic life. Article 26 specifically prohibits hunting aquatic mammals and marine turtles and their intentional or incidental capture in industrial activities. Keeping and training these animals for entertainment purposes is also prohibited unless it promotes environmental education. Additionally, hunting aquatic mammals and reptiles in continental waters is forbidden.
Other topics addressed in this law include euthanasia of this type of animals when kept in captivity, sanctions, and penalties.
Decreto Supremo 007, 2021
The purpose of this law is to describe a series of infractions and sanctions related to forestry and wildlife. It establishes who can sanction those who violate a regulation and guarantees the sanctioning authority to the competent administrations. The law aims to protect the principles of Laws 28763, 27444, and other applicable regulations concerning the protection and conservation of forestry and wildlife.
Resolución Ministerial N.° 312-2018-MINAGRI
This resolution issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MINAGRI) extends the term of the temporary Specialized Working Group under the MINAGRI, tasked with drafting regulations and establishing guidelines and complementary provisions for Law N.º 30407, the Animal Protection and Welfare Law, specifically regarding wildlife.
Forestry and Wildlife Law. This law introduced modifications to the forestry sector, and recognizes native groups contribution in the management and conservation of the environment. This law establishes that "Everyone has the right to access, use, and benefit from the nation's forest and wildlife heritage, in accordance with the procedures set by national authorities and regulations, as well as territorial planning and management tools" (Article 1) Additionally, it states that "Every individual has the responsibility to contribute to the conservation of this heritage and its components." Native wildlife is considered national heritage and as such, this law outlines the provisions managing topics such as endangered species, wildlife trade, hunting and fishing.
The law creates the National Forestry and Wildlife Service (SERFOR) as the National Authority for Forestry and Wildlife (article 15), and The Forest and Wildlife Resources Supervision Agency (OSINFOR) as the responsible authority for overseeing and regulating the sustainable use and conservation of forest and wildlife resources, as well as the services provided by forest ecosystems and other wild vegetation ecosystems (article18)
Ley 30203, 2014
This law requires the protection and conservation of the Andean Condor as the protection of this species is considered of national interest.
Decreto Supremo 004-2014-MINAGRI
This law approves an updated list of categorization and classification of legally protected endangered species of wild animals into the following categories:
- Critically endangered,
- Endangered,
- Vulnerable,
- Near threatened, and
- Data deficient
It describes the regulations and prohibitions regarding activities related to endangered species and regulations relating to the export of such animals for cultural or scientific purposes.
Resolucion Ministerial No. 0307, 2013 – MINAGRI
Prohibits the entry of wildlife into Peruvian territory for the purpose of being used in circuses and other shows involving animals.
Decreto Supremo 038-2001-AG, 2001, Rights of nature
This law establishes Peru's natural legally protected areas and ecosystems, their importance to scientific, ecological, and sustainable studies and development, and their permitted uses.
Resolución Legislativa 26181, 1992
This legislative resolution adopts the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on June 5, 1992. The CBD strives for the conservation and sustainability of biodiversity and its components.
Decreto Ley 21080, 1975
This Decreto Ley approves and adopts the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) into the Peruvian legal system. The primary purpose of this international agreement is to ensure that the international trade of wildlife specimens does not threaten their survival.
LEY 9147, 1949
This law declares government protection over all the wild species of animals that are within the national territory. It also prohibits the hunting of vicuña, chinchilla, and guanacu species.
D. Regulation of specific animal uses
i. Service dogs
Reglamento de la Ley 29830, 2017
This regulation is approved through Supreme Decree No. 001-2017-MIMP. The purpose of this regulation is to establish the provisions of Law No. 29830, as amended by Law No. 30433, which promotes and regulates the use of guide dogs by visually impaired persons. Among other provisions, this regulation designates the National Council for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities (CONADIS) as the authority responsible for implementing and outlining the parameters for registering guide dogs in the National Guide Dog Registry. Additionally, it mandates that visually impaired persons and their guide dogs be allowed to enter and remain in their place of work, study, and any other business on equal terms, regardless of whether the establishment is public or private, and without any additional cost for bringing the dog. This includes access to public transportation as well.
Ley 30433, 2016
This law amends Law 29830, which aims to promote and regulate the use of guide dogs for the visually impaired. The modification describes sanctions if the applicable legislation is not followed. Such impacts include strict fines for denying the visually impaired person access to the property, amenity in question, or their workplace and related benefits.
Ley 29830, 2012
This law seeks to promote and regulate the use of guide dogs for the blind in public and private spaces. It provides that people with vision impairment are permitted to keep their service dogs in private and public places, including public transportation and places of work, and regulates the training and general care of the dogs.
ii. Animals in Circuses
Decreto Supremo 004-2019-MC, 2019
This law aims to regulate the criteria for evaluating whether a public event can be considered, or “qualifies,” as a non-sporting cultural event. Such events that may fall into this category include, but are not limited to, opera, ballet, theatre, and circuses. The law modifies Law 30870, which established the criteria for evaluating whether a spectacle can be considered a non-sporting cultural event. Specific to animal law, the law states that the messages and actions in the event must not incite hatred or violence against animals or other non-human living things.
Resolución Ministerial Nº 0307-2013-MINAGRI
Prohibits the entry of wildlife into the Peruvian territory with the purpose of being used in circuses and other shows involving animals.
Ley 29763, 2015
The Forestry and Wildlife Law. In its First Final Complementary Provision, this law prohibits the exhibition and use of native and exotic wildlife specimens in traveling circus performances.
VI. Relevant Jurisprudence
A. Jurisprudence on animal rights
Decision No. 11, 2024 - Zorro Run Run
IPALEMA filed a writ of Amparo that SERFOR and the city of Lima release the captured Andean fox, Run Run, from a zoo to a wildlife management area for reinsertion into the wild once rehabilitated, claiming that Run Run’s treatment violated the constitutional principle of the protection of animal welfare and the environment. The court discussed constitutional principles of wildlife preservation, “the obligation to respect” nature, and national character, as well as the importance of protecting fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to a healthy environment. The court reasoned that animals, like humans, are sentient, thinking, and conscious beings and should be respected and protected under the law. As such, Run Run was provided protection, rights, and autonomous guardianship as a “member of nature,” derived from the concept of rights of nature. This landmark case provides Peru’s first recognition of animals as subjects of autonomous rights and protection. Run Run was ordered to be reevaluated to determine whether he could be released back into the wild.
B. Judicial decisions on animal cruelty and other animal issues
Sentencia 01128-2023-0-1814-JR-PE-03, Dachi’s case, 2023, 3rd Preparatory Investigation Court
In this matter, a man repeatedly stabbed his girlfriend's dog, "Dachi," after she confessed to having an affair with his friend. The man had been drinking and taking drugs and, in his anger, took violent action against Dachi as revenge against his girlfriend. Dachi survived, but veterinarians were unsure of how long Dachi would live or her quality of life. The man was later found to have psychological instabilities and had committed several other crimes. He was convicted of crimes against property and cruelty to animals and was given an incarceration sentence and a civil fine.
00949-2022-PA/TC Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete
This case concerns pet ownership and a person's constitutional rights within vacation rental spaces. The majority opinion reasoned that the rental space was permitted to prohibit pets, as it was doing so as an expression of the cohabitors' shared wills, and therefore, does not violate the Plaintiff's rights as he willingly entered the property. The court noted that service animals are working animals, not just "pets," whose presence is required for their owners to enjoy the full accessibility of the property in question and cannot be prohibited. The dissenting opinions discussed topics of animals as property, constitutional freedoms, and animal welfare, and argued that the Plaintiff's claim should be founded.
Judgment 00316-2018-0-1801-SP-CI-01. SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE OF LIMA, FIRST CIVIL CHAMBER
This case concerns the use of horses as transportation and control by police. The suit was brought by the Peruvian Institute of Legal Counsel for the Environment and Biodiversity against the Ministry of the Interior to challenge a law relating to the police force and the use of horses. The Institute cites Law 30407, which prescribes animal welfare protection, as the horses are in peril when used in policing matters. In its ruling, the court discussed issues of animal welfare, constitutionality, and judicial precedent, including the interpretation of the word "mounted" in Article 229(6) of the Police Law Regulations, which specifies the functions of the special police and when the use of "mounted police" is justified. Animal welfare concerns led the court to partially invalidate the lower court decision, removing the word "mounted" from numeral 6 of Article 229 of the Police Law Regulations. However, the ruling did not prohibit the use of horses for crowd control.
Sentencia 01413-2017-PA/TC - Companion animal in horizontal property
The Plaintiff brought this Amparo suit against the building owners, who rented his apartment for a new regulation prohibiting pets in the building and not allowing them to take the elevator. The Plaintiff claims that this recent ban on pets violates his property rights, as well as his rights to the free development of personality, freedom of movement, and the principle of non-discrimination. He also raised issues of health and safety for pets with regard to not being allowed to take the elevator. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff and discussed various regulations that would serve as a compromise between the parties. Additionally, the Owner's Association was instructed to revoke any warnings or sanctions imposed on the Plaintiff under the application of the regulation and to apply the ruling to guide dogs. Finally, the court determined that this ruling would constitute binding legal precedent.
Chang v. Alzamora, 01936-2017-PHC/TC. Constitucional Tribunal of Peru - Barking Dogs
The Plaintiff brought a habeas corpus lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of himself and his two young daughters for violating their rights to individual liberty and family tranquility. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendant's dogs barked so frequently and loudly that the family could not rest at night and travel through the halls out of fear of being attacked. The court discussed the abstract subject matter's constitutionality, the purpose of a habeas corpus lawsuit, and the right to personal integrity regarding the Plaintiff's claim. It ultimately held that the claim must be admitted for processing in the present constitutional venue on an exceptional basis.
Sentencia 07392-2013-PHC/TC: Serrano v. Horse Brown SAC. Constitutional Tribunal of Peru
The Plaintiff, in this case, filed a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the company Horse Brown against the Lima Park Service to obtain possession of the numerous farm animals that the park owned on its property. The Plaintiff alleged a violation of the right to property and that their seizure constituted a violation of the respect for life, dignity, and treatment of animals, as the legal system protects their welfare. In its ruling, the court analyzed the concepts of habeas corpus, the writ of protection or 'Amparo,' and the dignity of animals. The court held that the defendant did not violate the Plaintiff's property rights, given that the animals were not in danger of death and that the Plaintiff had abandoned the animals. The court dismissed this issue, which, it stated, should be understood as an application of the right to protection.
Festival Gastronómico del Gato (2013)
The Currunao Festival was an annual event held in southern Lima, Peru. This festival was a celebration dedicated to Santa Efigenia of Ethiopia. Traditionally, this festival included controversial practicesof consuming cats and subjecting them to races where fireworks were thrown at them. In 2013, a group of activists filed an Amparo lawsuit, seeking the immediate suspension of these practices, arguing these practices were cruel under Peru's former anti-cruelty law, No. 2725. Moreover, they stated that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering. That same year, the Civil Judge in Cañete issued a temporary injunction, suspending these activities. In 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in Cañete permanently banned the practices, ruling that they violated the right to a balanced and healthy environment, fostered violence, and posed serious risks to public health and societal well-being.
Decision Jane Margarita Cósar Camacho y otros contra Resolucion De Fojas 258 - Service dogs
Plaintiff, a blind woman, brought a constitutional grievance against the decision issued by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on January 15, 2013. This decision denied the action of protection after Defendants denied entry to Plaintiff's guide dog at their supermarkets. The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that the blind were allowed to enter the supermarkets with their guide dogs.
Tobada v. Trujillo, 2011. Constitutional Tribunal of Peru - Municipal shelters
In this case, the Plaintiff sued the mayor of Trujillo, Peru, to enforce an ordinance requiring the city to provide shelter for stray dogs. Trujillo lacked a municipal dog shelter and used the Anti-Rabies Center, which did not meet the legal requirements. The city argued that the ordinance aimed to manage potentially dangerous dogs, not to protect abandoned ones, and housed dogs at the Anti-Rabies Center due to their aggressive behavior. The lower courts ruled against the Plaintiff, interpreting the ordinance as applying only to potentially dangerous dogs. However, the Constitutional Tribunal found conflicting laws regarding the city's responsibilities and reversed the decision, ordering Trujillo to provide appropriate shelter or collaborate with nonprofits to house stray dogs.
Sentencia EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC - The case of a pet rat
In this case, the appellant filed a habeas corpus action against a magistrate for threatening to arrest him for displaying political disfavor using a pet rat in a cage. The magistrate ordered the police to seize the rat, implying a threat to the animal. The first court ruled against the appellant, stating his actions offended the magistrate's dignity and that the magistrate was protecting his reputation. The appellate court agreed, noting the difference between free expression and offending honor, and declared the complaint unfoun
C. Multispecies families
Resolucion No. 10, 2022 Case Munay, the mixed dog
In this case, the Plaintiff's mixed-breed dog, named Munay, was attacked and seriously injured by the defendant's two unleashed and unmuzzled rottweilers. The defendant knew her rottweilers were considered a "potentially dangerous breed" and had documentation confirming her responsibility for them. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for her emotional suffering and related expenses, recognizing that the attack impacted her emotionally because her dog is considered part of her family under the concept of a multispecies family. The court noted that pets should not be viewed merely as property but as beings with meaningful bonds to their owners.
Case of Petunia, the "pet" pig, 2022
The case concerns a legal dispute between the Plaintiff and the District Municipality of San Ramón over the Plaintiff's right to keep her pet pig, Petunia, at her dwelling. The Plaintiff filed an Amparo petition to invalidate four administrative resolutions and dismiss an administrative sanctioning procedure that ordered Petunia's removal. She argued that the resolutions violated her rights to due process, personal development, and privacy, emphasizing the emotional bond with Petunia and Petunia's welfare rights. The lower court denied the Amparo, suggesting administrative procedures as the proper recourse. However, on March 16, 2022, the Juzgado Civil de La Merced granted the petition, invalidated the resolutions, and allowed the Plaintiff to keep Petunia under good sanitary conditions.
D. Bullfighting
Relatoría 00022-2018-AI, 2020
Roughly five thousand Peruvian citizens filed a lawsuit of unconstitutionality against part of Law 30407, which allowed events such as cockfights and bullfights in the name of cultural character and expression. The plaintiffs raised animal welfare arguments. Particularly regarding certain animals' biological abilities to feel emotions and have moral capacity. They also balanced human fun and culture and animal welfare, arguing that human fun should not be at the expense of the suffering of animals. The court was divided in its opinions and varied in whether it believed the claim was founded. Many areas were discussed, including biology, history, morality, cultural studies, and legal precedent. The court was so divided that it did not come to a conclusion in this opinion per the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court.
Sentencia EXP. N.° 00022-2018-PI/TC
This case follows the Peruvian Constitutional Court's comprehensive discussion of bullfighting, including fights between two bulls and between a bull and a human, and cockfighting in Peru concerning animal welfare and cultural preservation.
Decision 00017-2010-PI/TC, Bullfighting, 2010. Constitutional Tribunal of Peru
The Bar Association of North Lima brought this suit against the Congress of the Republic of Peru regarding several pieces of legislation promoting the development of non-sporting public shows, such as bullfights and cockfights. The Bar Association claimed that the legislation was unconstitutional as it contradicted the right to equality as well as several fiscal principles by taxing non-sporting events but not sporting events. It further claimed that through these practices, the State neglected its duty to guarantee participation in Peru's national cultural heritage. Congress argued that the claim should be unfounded as no one had been discriminated against based on demographic factors. The court held that the claim was unfounded, as bullfighting is a regulated cultural manifestation, and the Peruvian Constitution allows the legislators to use their discretion to impose taxes.
VII. Conclusion
Even though the legal framework protecting animals in Peru has begun to develop faster in the last decade, the country remains one with the least developed animal law frameworks in the region. Regardless ofthe fact that animals are considered sensitive beings and that there is a recent judicial decision granting rights to a fox and even a law where specifically the rights of dogs are mentioned, there is no evidence of significant advances in practice regarding animal rights. In addition, this legal framework has a strong focus on public health and human interest as opposed to having legal consideration for the animals. Implementation and enforcement is another issue. According to Infobae, in 2023, more than half of the cruelty reports were archived (Maltrato animal: más de la mitad de denunciasregistradasporabandono y actos de crueldad en 2023 fueronarchivadas, Bibiana Guardamino Soto, www.infobae.com) This means that even though there is a basic legal framework, authorities still struggle to take animal protection seriously (¿Olvidados por la ley?: El drama de los animales en el Perú, Redacción Nexos). In addition, farm animals in Peru receive almost no protection, and bullfighting and cockfighting remain legal as exceptions to the duty to safeguard animals. As the legal landscape for animals continues to evolve, animals in Peru have the advantage they lack in most countries: they are recognized as sentient beings, and both the legislative and judicial branches have acknowledged that animals can have rights. Hopefully, the implementation and enforcement of animal laws will continue to strengthen so that animals will be afforded the protection they deserve in a not-so-long-distanced future.