Ecuadorian Animal Rights Decision Is Mixed Bag

• Published date: 07 April 2022
• Subject Matter: Environment, Government, Public Sector, Environmental Law, Constitutional & Administrative Law
• Law Firm: Duane Morris LLP
• Author: Mr John M. Simpson

Animal rights activists have pointed to a recent decision by the highest court in Ecuador ' the Constitutional Court (Corte Constitucional Del Ecuador) ' as a breakthrough for animal rights. As the NonHuman Rights Project (NHRP) described it, the decision 'constitutes one of the most important advances in the field of animal rights and environmental law in recent years. . . . The Court's groundbreaking ruling advances the constitutional protection of animals ' ranging from the level of species to the individual animal ' with their own inherent value and needs.'

Upon closer examination, the Court's Final Judgment is not as far-reaching as has been claimed.

The case involved a female chorongo monkey named 'Estrellita.' The chorongo monkey is endangered under Ecuadorian law and is listed in Appendix II of CITES as a species that could become endangered unless trade is strictly controlled. Estrellita evidently was taken from the wild at the age of one month, was domesticated and lived with her human owner, a librarian, for 18 years. Apparently based on a neighbor's tip that the owner had possession of a wild animal without a license, local authorities seized the animal and transferred it to an 'ecozoo' where it died about 3 weeks later. A necropsy indicated cardiorespiratory arrest as the cause of death and noted nutritional deficiencies, exposure to unfavorable environmental conditions, stress levels, confinement and mistreatment. The record was disputed as to whether this stemmed from actions by the owner or the seizing authorities or both, but the Constitutional Court ultimately viewed it as attributable to both. (' 153-54).*

Unaware of the animal's death, the owner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking return of the animal, along with a license to lawfully possess it. When notified of the animal's death, the owner revised her petition to seek a declaration that the monkey's right to life had been violated and the establishment of a protocol for restraining animals. The lower courts dismissed the petition but the Constitutional Court reversed.

The Ecuadorian Constitution recognizes the rights of Nature, and the Constitutional Court had previously recognized that this included ecosystems such as mangroves, rivers and forests. (' 70). Thus, the Court's focus in this case was on the rights of an animal living in the wild as 'a specific dimension with its own particularities of the rights of Nature.' (' 91). In that regard, the Court did broadly state that...