Mexico

Summary: This is a writ of Amparo on behalf of Ely, a 38-year-old female African elephant that lived in a circus before being relocated to the San Juan de Arago Zoo in 2012. In this instance, a concerned citizen and activist affiliated with the Association "Opening Cages, Opening Minds" ("Abriendo Jaulas, Abriendo Mentes") filed an Amparo petitioning the authorities in Mexico City to take necessary actions for the relocation of Ely from the zoo to a sanctuary in Brazil. The petitioner asserted that Ely had endured abuse from a young age during her 25-year tenure in a circus, and was currently experiencing deprivation of freedom at the zoo. Ely is solitary and grappling with skin and nail injuries, infections, and ailments such as dermatitis and hyperkeratosis. The petitioner further argued that Ely was suffering from issues in one of her limbs due to an old fracture and jaw problems stemming from the use of a handling hook during her circus days, among other concerns. Moreover, the elephant's confinement in a cement enclosure has compounded adverse effects on her physical and psychological well-being. Observations indicate distressing behavior including self-harm, such as eating her own feces, and striking herself with her trunk and against the fence. Ely also exhibited repetitive behavior attributed to inadequate mental, physical, social, and environmental stimulation. The treatment she has received is deemed a violation of ethical standards for animal respect and protection. The judge determined that Ely received appropriate and ample care at the zoo, where her enclosure adhered to the needs of her species. It was noted that she was receiving the necessary attention to address the chronic ailments stemming from her time in the circus. Consequently, the San Juan de Aragón Zoo fulfilled its obligation to protect and care for the elephant, addressing her physiological, behavioral, and health requirements and ensuring her overall well-being. Following the verdict, the zoo enlarged Ely's enclosure and introduced Gypsy, another elephant of similar size and age, to provide companionship for Ely. After pursuing various legal avenues without success, the complainant sought review from the Supreme Court of Justice, and the high court accepted the request. The Supreme Court will review the decision of the Fourth Administrative District court, which ruled for the zoo, finding that Ely was being kept in adequate conditions.

Summary: Resolution 063/2018 by the Human Rights Commission of Guerrero, Mexico addresses concerns raised by members of the civil association "Responsible Citizen" and a professor and students from the Master's in Law program at the Autonomous University of Guerrero against the Director of Zoochilpan Zoo. The complaint alleged violations to the state animal protection statute, the Rights of Nature (Recognized in the constitution since 2014), and the right to a healthy environment due to inadequate conditions for the animals. After an inspection, the commission noted various issues such as animals of diverse species living together, dirty water in a pond, and animals in small enclosures. The zoo also failed to meet the standards of the Association of zoos, breeders, and aquariums "AZCARM," leading to recommendations for improvement. Resulting from these inspections, the commission found that the animals were housed inadequately, violating the state anti-cruelty law. They also highlighted potential impacts on the human right to a healthy environment for visitors and zoo staff. The Commission's recommendations include advising the Secretary of the Environment to implement recommendations for the welfare of exhibited animals, suggesting ongoing training for zoo staff to ensure dignified treatment, and advising the Zoo Director to implement legal and administrative measures for the animals' well-being, including budget allocation for necessary infrastructure and optimal conditions.

Summary: 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. In particular, it sheds light on how this right influences the legal assessment of bullfighting's legality. In this case, plaintiff, Promociones y Espectáculos Zapaliname, S.A. de C.V., a company specializing in organizing bullfighting events, filed a legal action against various governmental entities and individuals in the state of Coahuila, in Mexico. The plaintiff challenged the 2015 amendment to Coahuila's animal protection law, which prohibited bullfighting and similar practices, on the grounds that it violated their rights to work, property, and cultural expression. The lower court dismissed the case regarding Article 20, Section XV of the animal protection law due to a lack of legal interest and because these provisions were not applicable to the case. The court also rejected the Amparo concerning Article 20, Section XIV of the same law. The case was appealed and eventually transferred to the Supreme Court of Justice. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, after hearing the case de novo, upheld the constitutionality of Article 20, Section XIV of Coahuila's animal protection law. The judge emphasized that the right to a healthy environment includes the protection of animals as an element of the environment, moving away from viewing animals purely as property. The court highlighted the presence of various laws recognizing the need for humane treatment of animals and prohibiting cruelty, even though Mexico lacks a national anti-cruelty law. This legal framework justified the ban on bullfighting and supported the broader legislative objective of protecting and treating animals with dignity. The court argued that allowing bullfighting caused suffering and death for the sake of entertainment, which was detrimental to the societal interest of protecting the environment and species conservation, as established in Article 4 of the Constitution. It also stressed the importance of governments adopting gradual measures to protect animals, and regressing on these measures would be undesirable.

Summary: This law seeks to promote animal welfare by providing proper care, suitable living conditions, fostering their natural development, and maintaining their health. It also seeks to protect their natural behavior, guaranteeing public health. Article 3, IV defines animal as a “multicellular living being with a developed nervous system, which feels and moves voluntarily or by instinct.” It includes various definitions, but it does not define animal cruelty.

Summary: In 2022, Decreto No. 160 modified the Criminal Code by adding Title XX, “Of the Crimes Committed Against Animals.” it has only one title: “Crimes Against the Life, Integrity, and Dignity of Animals,” which comprises articles 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 442. Article 435 considers acts of mistreatment and animal cruelty: unjustifiably causing the death of an animal; killing an animal using methods other than those established in official Mexican standards or depriving an animal of life using any means that causes excessive or unnecessary suffering or prolongs its agony; any mutilation, injury, or permanent mark for nonmedical purposes; inflicting injuries that endanger the life of an animal, that generate permanent partial or total disability, that reduce any of its faculties, or that affect the normal functioning of an organ or member; causing the ingestion or application of any toxic substance or object that endangers the life of an animal or causes its death; depriving an animal of air, light, food, water, space, mobility, medical care, or adequate shelter appropriate to its species, with the purpose of causing harm; abandoning an animal or neglecting it for prolonged periods that compromise its well-being; or inciting animals to attack each other or being neglectful when the animals' aggressiveness or physical power could potentially result in harm or death. Under this modification, animal cruelty is punishable with imprisonment ranging from six months to five years. If the injuries inflicted on the animal put the animal's life at risk, the punishment will be increased by half. If the animal dies as a result of the cruel behavior, the penalty will imprisonment from two to four years, and if the methods utilized caused excessive or unnecessary suffering or prologue the animal’s agony, the punishment will be increased by half. Sexual conduct with vertebrate animals is punishable with jail time ranging from six months to two years. Dog fighting is also proscribed as a criminal offense. Lastly, under Article 497, certain exemptions apply, such as the death of an animal resulting from cultural activities, the death or mutilation of an animal considered a pest, justified death or mutilation of an animal under the care and supervision of a specialist, marking or shoeing of vertebrate animals for the purpose of distinguishing livestock, and the slaughter of animals for human consumption in accordance with Norm NOM-033-SAG/ZOO-2014. With this amendment, the state takes a step toward enhancing animal protection. The next steps should focus on implementing this law, Investing in training government employees, and promoting awareness and education about animal cruelty laws and their implications within the state. Through these efforts, trust in a government capable of conducting investigations into animal cruelty and enforcing sanctions will encourage citizens to report such cases.

Summary: This law 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.

Summary: This law aims to regulate, encourage, and manage the use of fishing and aquaculture resources in the national territory and the areas over which the nation exercises its sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Summary: This law seeks to promote animal welfare by providing proper care, suitable living conditions, fostering their natural development, and maintaining their health. It also seeks to protect their natural behavior, guaranteeing public health. Article 3, IV defines animal as a “Multicellular living being with a developed nervous system, which feels and moves voluntarily or by instinct.” It includes various definitions, but it does not define animal cruelty.

Summary: In 2022, Decreto No. 160 modified the Criminal Code by adding Title XX, “Of the Crimes Committed Against Animals.” It has only one title: “Crimes Against the Life, Integrity, and Dignity of Animals,” which comprises articles 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 442. Article 435 deals with acts of mistreatment and animal cruelty.

Summary: The Wildlife Protection Law in the State of Chiapas primarily emphasizes the protection and responsible use of "fauna" to ensure the welfare of both wild and domestic animals. Noteworthy provisions of this law include the prohibition of circuses, animal fighting, and the use of animals for teaching purposes and experiments at all educational levels throughout the state, except for higher education levels when such practices are necessary for their educational objectives. This law also defines "animal cruelty" as suffering, torture, or mistreatment.