Palau (Christianity, souvenir sheet); Jamaica (Columbus, souvenir sheet); Saint Vincent (Columbus, miniature sheet); Burundi, Intl Women's Year, 2 strips of 4); Hungary (Saint Stephen Kiraly, souvenir sheet); Ghana (John Kennedy souvenir sheet); Pitcairn Islands (Bicentenary, souvenir sheet)
Question: To date, in how many countries have courts granted animals legal rights?
Winner will be first response with correct answer at or before 8 P.M. November 2, 2021 eastern US time. If there is no correct response, first response will win. My decision of winner will be final.
The Wiki article is from 2019 and not up to date.
It list the following 32 countries.
Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
I found that also Pakistan and recently the Hippos in the US got added to that list, so 34 to my counting but might have missed some news.
Time for a hint: Note that the question is where have courts granted animals legal rights, meaning where are they recognized as "persons" who can have actions brought in court regarding their interests, much as corporations in the US are considered legal persons.
Quote: "Coinman48"Time for a hint: Note that the question is where have courts granted animals legal rights, meaning where are they recognized as "persons" who can have actions brought in court regarding their interests, much as corporations in the US are considered legal persons.
Will
Plus, there would be France (but different topic)
'Animals have appeared in court before. At Clermont in France, a pig was tried and convicted of killing and eating the baby of Jehan and Gillon Lenfant on Easter Day, 1494. It was executed by strangulation'
To be honest, I wasn't expecting to win after seeing so many denied possible responses.
I had shortlisted Colombia on 29th October but didn't add it as I wasn't sure.
After spending more time into research I realized that only 5 countries are related to this topic and the decision of adding 5th country was finally being made by me yesterday.
A little summary prepared by me during research :
(1) Argentina - [Cecila a chimpanzee, nonhuman legal person, 2016.] - a court order
(2) USA - (a) World’s First Habeas Corpus Order Issued On Behalf Of An Elephant 2018, (b) Cocaine hippos, interested persons, 2021.
(3) Pakistan - [an Asian elephant named Kaavan, Islamabad High Court in Pakistan that “without any hesitation” affirms the rights of nonhuman animals, 2020.]
(4) Colombia - [A spectacled bear call Chucho, habeas corpus was granted and a month later, a panel of the Colombian Supreme Court reversed the ruling, 2017.] - Summary of the case has been attached below.
(5) India - (a) Dolphins, 2013 - the government remarked that "dolphins should be seen as 'non-human persons' and as such should have their own specific rights. (b) Uttarakhand High Court in July 2018, declared personhood to all animals, Punjab and Haryana High Court gave a similar judgment in 2019. Courts haven’t clearly illustrated the rights that will accompany personhood. This can be developed through future litigation.
Summary of Chucho's case :
In 2017 a group of animal rights petitioners appealed to the Constitutional Court of Colombia for Chucho’s release, relying on Colombian Law 1774 (2016), which declares that animals are sentient beings and not objects of property. The Court ruled in favor of the animal and its rights, emphasizing the bio-centric interrelationship between humans and nature, granted Chucho the protection of habeas corpus, and upheld his human right of freedom, allowing him to return to the reserve at Rio Blanco.
A month later, a panel of the Colombian Supreme Court reversed the ruling, writing that “the writ of habeas corpus is inappropriate in the present case.
lawyer Luis D. Gómez then appealed Chucho’s case to the Colombian Constitutional Court, which ordered a hearing. On August 8, 2019, NhRP President Steven M. Wise says in his video message, the question before the Court is “whether even the most fundamental interests of a species, like Chucho’s, should ever, under any circumstances, count. If it is possible that under any circumstances their fundamental interests should count, then they should be designated as persons, for this then gives them the capacity for legal rights to protect their most fundamental interests.”
On January 23, 2020 - The constitutional court of Colombia ruled that a writ for habeas corpus is not the proper mechanism to resolve the controversy regarding the permanent habitat of the Andean bear named Chucho in a zoo to the extent that this instrument serves to protect the freedom of human beings, and this right cannot be predicated to animals.
Thank you Will for creating such a question. Before this question, I didn't know about habeas corpus, NhRP & also rights to animals in different countries.
The USA decision for cocaine hippos expert witness deposition was possible only because Colombia recognized the hippos as legal persons in a case to decide if the government can kill the hippos or instead should give them birth control.
Quote: "Coinman48"The USA decision for cocaine hippos expert witness deposition was possible only because Colombia recognized the hippos as legal persons in a case to decide if the government can kill the hippos or instead should give them birth control.
Will
Thanks for throwing light, Will. Your reading skills are Top.
If articles on cocaine hippos were carefully read by me then it would have saved me from more efforts.
A federal statute that allows anyone who is an "interested person" in a foreign lawsuit to ask a federal court to permit them to take depositions in the U.S. in support of their case. Because advocates for the hippos can bring lawsuits to protect their interests in Colombia, the hippos should be considered "interested persons" under US law.
After reading thoroughly, now I also feel the Animal Legal Defense Fund may be alone to celebrate.
I want to point another similar case(actually much bigger), the National Feral Camel Action Plan of Australia. It has been going on for a long. Last year they were required to cull 10000 camels to maintain present levels. I still feel killing is not the solution. Snatching their right to live is not good.
