Results
| Title Sort descending | Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment 00017-2010-PI/TC, 2011 - Peru | 00017-2010-PI/TC | 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. | Case |
| Judgment 00316-2018-0-1801-SP-CI-01 - Peru | 00316-2018-0-1801-SP-CI-01 | This case regards the use of horses as transportation and control by police. |
Case |
| Judgment 01413-2017-PA/TC, 2016 - Peru | 01413-2017-PA/TC | The plaintiff brought this amparo suit against the owners of the building where he rented his apartment for newly prohibiting pets in the building and not allowing them to take the elevator. The plaintiff claims that, through the prohibition of pets, several of his property rights have been violated. He also raised issues of health and safety for pets with regard to not being allowed to take the elevator. The court declared the claim founded and discussed various regulations that would serve as a compromise between the parties. | Case |
| Judgment 07392-2013-PHC/TC - Peru | 07392-2013-PHC/TC | This judgment resolves the dissents of the judges as written in the Serrano v. Horse Brown SAC case. It discusses ideas of the protection of nonhuman animals and the prevalence of positive and negative duties to nature, as well as Peruvian constitutional rights concerning property and overall personal liberty. The judgment resolves that the lawsuit was unfounded and must be understood within the framework of Amparo law. | Case |
| Peru - Environmental - Judgment 00048-2004-AI, 2005 | 00048-2004-AI | This case challenged the constitutionality of Law 28258: Mine Royalty Law. Most pertinently, articles 1-5 of the law establish guidelines and regulations regarding the use and royalty of mineral materials. The court discussed aspects of natural preservation, social equality, and liberty regarding the use and taxation of such materials. Ultimately, the court held that the claim was unfounded, and required transparency in how the funds were allocated to allow civil society to be aware of their uses. | Case |
| Relatoría 00022-2018-AI, 2020 - Peru | 00022-2018-AI | Esta relatoria discutió cuestiones de constitucionalidad contra la Ley 30407, que permite las peleas de gallos y las corridas de toros en nombre del carácter cultural. | Case |
| Report 00022-2018-AI, 2020 - Peru | 00022-2018-AI | This report discussed issues of constitutionality against Law 30407, which allows for cockfighting and bullfighting in the name of cultural character. | Case |
| RESOLUCION N° 07, 2023 - Peru | RESOLUCION N° 07, 2023 | 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. | Case |
| RESOLUCION N° 07, 2023 - Peru | CUARTO JUZGADO PENAL UNIPERSONAL TRANSITORIO SEDE CARABAYLLO, Resolucion No. 7, 2023 | 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. | Case |
| Resolución N° 10, 2022 - Peru | Resolución N° 10, Santiago, 28 de febrero de 2022 | 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 |