While our faculties are still discussing the recognition of animal rights and the defenders of the traditional doctrine is still determined to argue that they can only be attributed to persons, the Judicial Power of the Federation has already asserted, in two resolutions, the prerogatives that are legally recognized to these new subjects of law.
Last October, as part of their campaign #SACRIFICIOCERO, the association AnimaNaturalis won an under unprecedented against the Care Center Canine Dr. Alfonso Angellini de la Garza, in the delegation of Coyoacan of CDMX. The resolution ordered the termination of the sacrifice of healthy animals that were under his shelter and those that are subsequent to the judgment were to be channeled to their facilities.
Central arguments: that the Federal Law of Animal Health, and the Law of Animal Protection of the Federal District limit the sacrifice of domestic animals to the cases in which they are in a state of suffering on account of an accident, illness, or physical disability disorders senile that compromise their well-being; that the provisions of the Mexican Official Standard that allows the slaughter of healthy animals cannot be enforced when they contravene a law, given its nature and regulatory in attention to the prevalence of hierarchical laws on regulations.
Finally, the measures imposed by the aforementioned NOM-042-SSA2-2006 violate the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness, according to which, among the measures that pursue the protection of a certain right by the affectation of a second, should be the preferred approach provided that which to alter in a lesser proportion, the second of the rights. And added judge Fernando Silva García: the sacrifice of animals in these centres, while they can be effective to protect the human right to health, it is not to be the measure which least changes the “legally recognized rights of animals”, an argument which was confirmed in the appeal for review by a Court, with the unanimous vote of the three judges Roque, Hernandez, and Nauhuatt.
These judgments equate to the failure of judges and courts of north America (2015) and Argentina (2016) that recognize chimpanzees as subjects of rights. These sentences, despite the misgivings of some, will argue on legal grounds and ethical more robust than you think, and that also have motivated the recognition of their rights as sentient beings in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Peru, Colombia, and in the article 13 of the new Constitution of the CDMX.
All this seems to indicate that it may be time to put aside the skepticism and to remember the lessons given by the history of the construction of our regulatory systems when expanded rights to people of color, to women, to children, to the third age, and even have a recognized legal personality to national parks and rivers (New Zealand, 2016). Perhaps we should finish the already fruitless discussion and begin planning the agenda for the tuition of Animal Rights, whose inclusion in the curricula it seems, if not immediate, yes imminent. Signature www.sacrificiocero.com