Ecuador

Summary: This case concerns defendants who illegally fished for, and captured, vulnerable-classified sharks within Ecuadorian territories using illegal fishing gear and fishing methods. The court discussed the presence and importance of natural reserves, including marine life reserves, and the inherent rights of nature. The court found that the defendants’ fishing was aimed at capturing sharks for profit and confirmed their criminal prison sentences in all respects as described in the lower court.

Summary: This case regards a defendant who shot and killed a jaguar, which was an endangered species, allegedly in the name of defense and necessity. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not require defense or true necessity, that he had to prove that he did not kill the jaguar, and that in circumstances of uncertainty, the court should hold in favor of nature (in dubio pro natura). The defendant was not a hunter and was not actively hunting the jaguar. Ecuadorian environmental law states that anyone who “hunts” a legally protected species will be punished with incarceration. The court discussed concepts of Ecuadorian constitutional law, rights of nature, and the juxtaposition of human beings working within the habitats of wild, and potentially predatory, animals. After a detailed discussion, the court accepted the appeal and unanimously agreed to punish the defendant with six months' prison time.

Summary: This case was filed against the defendant when the defendant, an airline employee, allegedly unknowingly participated in shipping thousands of sea cucumbers in cargo containers. The specific species of sea cucumber were endangered in Ecuador, and the plaintiff claimed that their harvesting and transport were a crime against the environment and a violation of the nation’s efforts to conserve the country’s unique ecosystems. The court discussed factors of which species and specimens are typically included in shipments similar to the one at issue, and Ecuador’s national efforts to protect its environment; especially its endangered species. The defendant was found to have participated in the offense as an accomplice for his part in transporting the sea cucumbers and was punished with serving a fraction of the punishment to be served by the primary offenders.

Summary: In this case, the plaintiff, the Ministry of the Environment, appeals decisions from multiple lower courts with regard to the defendant’s shrimp farm. The farm was located on a nature reserve and the plaintiff sued for protective action, arguing that the rights of nature must be respected and allowing the defendant to maintain his farm on the reserve violates such rights. However, the defendant argued that his right to due process was being violated and he wished to retain his property rights over his farm. The court again held in favor of the defendant, finding that his right to due process was violated despite its location on a protected nature reserve. The matter was to be resolved in a lower court.

Summary: This case is about a crime against the environment. The defendant, while out hunting, had shot and killed a condor. The condor was recognized by locals as an Andean Condor, and was environmentally classified as “endangered.” For its killing, the defendant received a prison sentence. The court reasoned that it is within the national interest to prosecute the defendant and protect the country’s environment, including its wildlife.

Summary: Este caso fue presentado contra el acusado cuando éste, empleado de una aerolínea, supuestamente participó sin saberlo en el envío de miles de pepinos de mar en contenedores de carga. Las especies específicas de pepinos de mar estaban en peligro de extinción en Ecuador, y el demandante alegó que su recolección y transporte constituían un delito contra el medio ambiente y una violación de los esfuerzos de la nación por conservar los ecosistemas únicos del país. El tribunal analizó los factores de qué especies y especímenes suelen incluirse en envíos similares al que nos ocupa, y los esfuerzos nacionales de Ecuador por proteger su medio ambiente; especialmente sus especies en peligro de extinción. Se determinó que el acusado había participado en el delito como cómplice por su participación en el transporte de los pepinos de mar y se le impuso una pena equivalente a una fracción de la pena que debían cumplir los delincuentes principales.

Summary: Este caso se refiere a un acusado que disparó y mató a un jaguar, que era una especie en peligro de extinción, supuestamente en nombre de la defensa y la necesidad. El demandante alegó que el demandado no requería defensa o verdadera necesidad, que tenía que probar que no había matado al jaguar y que, en circunstancias de incertidumbre, el tribunal debía fallar a favor de la naturaleza (in dubio pro natura). El acusado no era cazador y no estaba cazando activamente al jaguar. La legislación medioambiental ecuatoriana establece que cualquier persona que "cace" una especie legalmente protegida será castigada con penas de prisión. El tribunal debatió conceptos del derecho constitucional ecuatoriano, los derechos de la naturaleza y la yuxtaposición de seres humanos que trabajan en el hábitat de animales salvajes y potencialmente depredadores. Tras un debate detallado, el tribunal aceptó el recurso y acordó por unanimidad castigar al acusado con seis meses de prisión.

Summary: Este caso se refiere a los acusados que pescaron y capturaron ilegalmente tiburones de categoría vulnerable en territorio ecuatoriano utilizando artes y métodos de pesca ilegales. El tribunal discutió la presencia e importancia de las reservas naturales, incluidas las reservas de vida marina, y los derechos inherentes a la naturaleza. El tribunal consideró que la pesca de los acusados tenía como objetivo la captura de tiburones con fines lucrativos y confirmó sus condenas penales en todos los aspectos descritos en el tribunal inferior.

Summary: Los demandantes interpusieron un Habeas Corpus argumentando la vulneración de los derechos a la libertad, vida, integridad, libre desarrollo del comportamiento animal y derecho a la salud de los animales alojados en el Narayana Aventura Park. El argumento principal se centró en el estado grave de desnutrición en el que se encontraban los animales, así como en las condiciones de confinamiento inadecuadas a las que estaban sujetos. El Narayana Aventura Park se presenta como un centro de rescate que alberga una variedad de animales exóticos, endémicos y domésticos. Su represéntate negó cualquier violación a los derechos de los animales, asegurando que se les proporcionaban las condiciones mínimas de bienestar requeridas por ley y contaban con todos los permisos necesarios. Tras un exhaustivo análisis del caso y una cuidadosa consideración de las leyes aplicables al caso, la juez decidió conceder el Habeas Corpus a favor de los animales alojados en el Parque reconociendo que si hubo un impacto significativo en los derechos de los animales bajo el cuidado del parque. La juez llegó a esta conclusión basándose en el Artículo 89 de la Constitución de Ecuador, así como en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la Sentencia No. 253-20-JH/22 (Caso de Estrellita). No obstante, siguiendo las recomendaciones de los de la comisión de peritos en el caso, el tribunal permitió que los animales permanecieran en el parque y ordenó la readecuación de los espacios y las dietas de todos los animales del parque dentro de un plazo de tres meses tras el fallo de cuerdo a las sugerencias en dichos expertos. Es importante anotar que el demandado apeló esta decisión y actualmente está en proceso de revisión.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed a Habeas Corpus claiming the violation of the rights to freedom, life, integrity, the free development of animal behavior, and the right to health of all animals housed at Narayana Aventura Park. Plaintiffs argued that the animals were in a malnourished and in inadequate captivity conditions. The Narayana Aventura Park sells itself as a rescue center and keeps various exotic, endemic, and domestic animals. They denied any violations to the rights of the animals, stating that the animals were provided the minimum welfare conditions required by the law. In addition, they contended that the park was acting in accordance to the law and had all the permits required by the authorities to keep the animals. After thorough examination of the case and careful consideration of applicable laws and jurisprudence, the judge granted the habeas corpus. This ruling acknowledges the significant impact on the rights of exotic, endemic, and even the farm animals under the park's care. Grounded in Article 89 of the Constitution of Ecuador, as well as jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Judgment No. 253-20-JH/22, the judge arrived at this conclusion. However, attending to the recommendations issued by the experts, the court decided to let the animals stay at the park, instructing the enhancement of the enclosure and diets of all animals within a three-month period after the judgment. This decision was appealed by the defendant, and it is currently under review.