Anti-Cruelty

Summary: The purpose of this law is to modify the provisions of the National Code of Police and Coexistence (Law 1801 of 2016) to prohibit the use of animals for deterring demonstrations, riots, and unrest while adhering to existing regulations and obligations regarding animal protection and welfare. Article 4, PAR1 states: "Under no circumstances should the involvement of animals be construed as a component of the application of force outlined in this article. Animals, such as canines and equines that have been trained by law enforcement, are only allowed to engage in surveillance, preventive measures, and control tasks during events like mass gatherings, rescue operations, searches, explosive detection, illegal crop eradication, or law enforcement deployment. The use of animals to disperse public demonstrations, incite riots, or quell public unrest by law enforcement is explicitly prohibited."

Summary: This reflects Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief. In a press release, Plaintiff Legal Impact for Chickens states, "[t]oday, one of the country’s largest poultry producers and a KFC supplier, Case Farms, was sued by animal-welfare charity Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC) in Burke County District Court for its pattern of gross mismanagement and animal cruelty. The complaint comes on the heels of a 2021 undercover investigation by animal advocacy group Animal Outlook, revealing a trend of cruel and deadly abuse at a Morganton, N.C. Case Farms hatchery that processes more than 200,000 chicks daily. LIC accuses Case Farms of violating both industry standards and North Carolina law."

Summary: Excerpt of Coahuila's Criminal Code concerning title ten "of the crimes against animals that affect the right to a life free from violence." The criminal code of the state of Coahuila establishes the duty to respect all vertebrate non-human animals that are not considered a "pest" according to the law. It establishes penalties ranging from one to three years plus monetary fines in addition to the confiscation of all animals under the care of the person found guilty of committing animal cruelty crimes These acts include: mistreating a working animal by the use of instruments that cause unnecessary pain and suffering; practicing animal vivisection for purposes that are not scientifically necessary to preserve human life or health; and mutilating any part of the body of a living animal or perform surgery on it, without providing anesthesia. Under the Criminal Code, activities such as zoophilia and animal fighting in public or private settings are also prohibited. Veterinarians, caretakers, and people involved in commercial activities involving animals may, in addition to the penalties established in this code, be subject to suspension or disqualification for a period of one to five years from employment, position, profession, trade, authorization, license, commercialization, or any circumstance under which the crime was committed.

Summary: Defendant appealed from a judgment convicting him of animal cruelty in violation of New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 353. The conviction stemmed from defendant's action in repeatedly striking one of his dogs out of "frustration" after the dog failed to come when called. On appeal, defendant called into question the authentication of surveillance video from a nearby gas station showing him striking the dog. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division found the portion of surveillance video showing defendant repeatedly striking one of his dogs was sufficiently authenticated. Further, other evidence established that he "cruelly beat" the dog by punching the dog with a closed fist three to five times. Finally, defendant's challenge to the penalty imposed under Agriculture and Markets Law § 374 (8)(c) (the possession ban provision) that prohibits defendant from owning or otherwise having custody of any other animals for 10 years was rejected by the court. The judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Summary: Animal cruelty against any animal is considered a crime Under the Criminal Code of Mexico City since 2014. Chapter IV contains the provisions regarding the crimes committed by acts of cruelty or mistreatment against non-human animals. Article 350 BIS establishes that whoever intentionally mistreats or cruelly acts against any specimen of any animal species causing injury, damage, or alteration in their health will be punished with one to up to three years of imprisonment and three hundred to five hundred times the Units of Measure and Update. In addition, intentional acts of cruelty or mistreatment that cause the death of an animal will be punished with imprisonment from two years to up to six years and six hundred to twelve hundred times the Units of Measure and Update.

Summary: This law seeks to protect animals, ensure their welfare, and provide attention, good treatment, maintenance, lodging, natural development, and health. Furthermore, it seeks to avoid mistreatment, cruelty, suffering, bestiality, and deformation of their physical characteristics, as well as to ensure animal health, public health, and the five freedoms of the animal. This law has had several reforms. Under this law, the Ministry of the Environment, through the Animal Care Agency, together with the Ministry of Education, coordinate the development of education, protection, care, and dignified treatment programs. At the same time, The Animal Care Agency, among other tasks, manages the veterinary hospital in the city. The sanctions imposed under Chapter X of this law, range from admonitions, and monetary fines, to arrest of up to 36 hours in the case of repeat offenders. This law stipulates the standards and regulations for the functioning of the Animal Surveillance Brigade, which is responsible for preventing animal cruelty, responding to reports of animal cruelty, and providing care to animals in need.

Summary: This law focuses on the sustainable use of the environment and wildlife, the preservation and restoration of the ecosystems. It seeks to protect the national biodiversity and establish and manage protected areas. It establishes that, to protect and sustainably use the flora and fauna, it is important, among other things, to encourage dignified and respectful treatment of animals to avoid cruelty against them. Moreover, it establishes that it is the duty of the federal government, the states, and the municipalities within their respective power to regulate the dignified and respectful treatment of animals (arts 78-79). The regulation of this treatment must be based on the following principles: (1) provide animals with enough water and food in order to keep them healthy and healthy; (2) provide animals with an adequate environment for their rest, movement, and space according to the species; (3) provide animals with adequate veterinary care and, in case of illness, provide prompt veterinary treatment; (4) allow animals to express their natural behavior; and (5) provide animals with adequate treatment and conditions to guarantee their well-being.

Summary: This regulation has been in effect since 2009, and it seeks to regulate the responsible ownership of dogs. It focuses on those breeds that are not recommended as pets because they are considered dangerous. This is with the purpose of protecting the health and life of the citizens (Article 1). This regulation establishes the standards of welfare for the keeping of dogs, duties, and obligations of owners and keepers. It regulates the breeding and commercialization of dogs, population control, dogs as companion animals, dangerous dogs, working dogs, and service dogs.

Summary: This excerpt is from the Criminal Code of Ecuador, Chapter 4, crimes against the environment and nature or "Pacha mama." The crimes against animals are outlined in this chapter. More specifically, Section 2, "Crimes of private action against animals that are part of the urban fauna," articles 249-250. Under the current criminal code, causing injury to an animal is punished with confinement in jail for two to six months. If the act involves cruelty or torture, the punishment is six to twelve months of confinement in jail. Sexual conduct with an animal and sexual exploitation of an animal is also punishable. The death of an animal resulting from sexual conduct is considered an aggravating factor punishable with confinement in jail between one to three years. If the animal dies due to circumstances other than sexual behavior on the animal, the punishment is confinement in jail for six months to one year. Finally, If death is the product of cruel acts, confinement will last one to three years. Dog fighting, abandonment of companion animals, and mistreatment are also prohibited.

Summary: Petitioner was charged with animal cruelty in West Virginia. The incident stemmed from 2020 where humane officers in Putnam County seized several horses and a donkey that were denied “basic animal husbandry and adequate nutrition[.]” After the seizure, petitioner claimed the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the case because farm animals are excluded under the Code. That motion was granted by the magistrate and the animals were returned to the petitioner. After a short period of time, petitioner was charged with six counts of criminal animal cruelty and again the magistrate dismissed the complaint. However, the magistrate stayed the dismissal on the State's motion so that the circuit court could determine whether § 61-8-19(f) excludes livestock. The circuit court agreed that the section encompasses livestock from inhumane treatment and the magistrate was prohibited from dismissing the complaint. Petitioner now appeals that decision here. This court first examined the anti-cruelty statute finding that the structure of the exception under subsection (f) refers back to the conditional phrase that ends in "standards" for keeping the listed categories of animals. The court disagreed with the petitioner's claim of a "blanket exclusion" for livestock since the Commissioner of Agriculture has promulgated rules that govern the care of livestock animals that includes equines. The court rejected petitioner's attempt to parse the placement of clauses and antecedents to support her claim. The court held that § 61-8-19(f) establishes an exclusion for farm livestock only when they are “kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock ... production and management." The circuit court's writ of prohibition was affirmed and the matter was remanded.