Peru

Share |
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).
  • Warning: iconv(): Wrong encoding, conversion from "HTML-ENTITIES" to "UTF-8" is not allowed in Twig\Extension\CoreExtension::convertEncoding() (line 1206 of /opt/drupal/vendor/twig/twig/src/Extension/CoreExtension.php).

Resolución N° 10, 2022 - Peru

Summary:

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.

LEY Nº 27596, 2001- Peru

Summary:

La Ley 27596 regula la crianza, adiestramiento, comercialización, tenencia y traslado de perros potencialmente peligrosos, con el fin de proteger la integridad, salud y tranquilidad de las personas. La ley prohíbe fomentar cualquier forma de agresión canina y hace especial referencia a las peleas de perros. En general, los propietarios de perros potencialmente peligrosos deben ser competentes y estar físicamente capacitados para cuidar del perro, lo que incluye proporcionarles un adiestramiento adecuado. En caso de perro callejero, el perro debe ser acogido por el municipio en cuya jurisdicción se encuentre y reinsertado en la comunidad mediante programas de atención a los animales, siempre que no se considere agresivo. La ley también describe el procedimiento para tratar a un perro que ataque a otro ser vivo o mate a un animal, y las correspondientes consecuencias de tales sucesos. Por último, la ley establece normas para el manejo de perros con enfermedades graves que puedan transmitirse a los seres humanos.

LEY Nº 27596, 2001- Peru

Summary:

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 special 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 it 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.

Ley Nº 31807, 2023 - Peru

Summary:

Esta ley, aprobada en junio de 2023, describe una modificación a la ley 30407 para incluir normas relativas a la adopción de mascotas abandonadas y entregadas, o animales adoptados para ser de compañía. El objeto de esta modificación es ampliar la protección de los animales de compañía y garantizar su bienestar.

Sentencia EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC - Peru

Summary:

En este caso, el apelante presentó una acción de hábeas corpus contra un magistrado por amenazar con arrestarlo por mostrar descontento político usando una rata como mascota en una jaula. El magistrado ordenó a la policía que confiscara la rata, implicando una amenaza para el animal. El tribunal de primera instancia falló en contra del apelante, declarando que sus acciones ofendieron la dignidad del magistrado y que el magistrado estaba protegiendo su reputación. El tribunal de apelación estuvo de acuerdo, señalando la diferencia entre la libre expresión y ofender el honor, y también declaró infundada la queja.

Sentencia EXP. N.° 2620-2003-HC/TC - Peru

Summary:

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 also declared the complaint unfounded.

RESOLUCION N° 07, 2023 - Peru

Summary:

En este caso, la demandante presentó esta demanda alegando daño contra el patrimonio y actos de crueldad. La demandante asistió a una reunión social con sus hijos y dejó a sus dos perros Kira y Logan, jugando fuera. La demandante regresó a su casa y descubrió que su vecino, el demandado, había cometido un acto de zoofilia contra Kira. El tribunal examinó varias cuestiones constitucionales y teorías de la pena. Sopesó los factores de lo que el demandado había hecho a Kira con su falta de antecedentes y su escasa probabilidad de reincidencia. El tribunal decidió que el demandado debía cumplir 17 meses de encarcelamiento y pagar multas civiles por el sufrimiento tanto de la demandante como de Kira. También se basó en la cuestión del bienestar de los animales su decisión de prohibir al demandado la "tenencia" de animales para reducir aún más el riesgo de reincidencia. En definitiva, el tribunal basó sus decisiones en motivos de bienestar animal y condena de la crueldad hacia los animales.

RESOLUCION N° 07, 2023 - Peru

Summary:

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing the defendant committed a crime against his patrimony and cruel acts against animals under the criminal code. The plaintiff attended a social gathering with her children and left their two dogs, Kira and Logan, playing outside. The plaintiff returned to their home to find that their neighbor, the defendant, had committed an act of bestiality against Kira. The court discussed several constitutional questions and theories of punishment. It weighed the factors of what the defendant had done to Kira with his lack of prior record and low chance of recidivism. The court decided that the defendant was to serve 17 months of incarceration and was required to pay civil fines for the suffering of both the plaintiff and Kira. Rooted in the issue of animal welfare, too, was its holding in prohibiting the defendant from “keeping” animals to further reduce the risk of recidivism. Ultimately, the court based its decisions on grounds of animal welfare and condemnation of cruelty towards animals.
Share |