Summary
In 2017, citizen Luis Domingo Gomez Maldonado filed a writ of habeas corpus to contest a decision to transfer an Andean spectacled bear named “Chucho” to the Barranquilla Zoo. On June 17, 2017, the Civil and Family Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Manizales declared the action inadmissible. According to the court, although the plaintiff’s injunction is consistent with the constitutional recognition of the duty to protect animal life, the instrument used by the plaintiff to the instrument employed by the plaintiff to safeguard the defense of the bear is inadequate because animals are not holders of fundamental rights, and so habeas corpus is not applicable.
After the ruling was challenged, on July 26, 2017, the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice revoked the previous ruling and granted the action, ordering the Botanical and Zoological Foundation of Barranquilla, the Regional Autonomous Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas, Aguas de Manizales S.A. ESP, the Special Administrative Unit of the Paraná
Special Administrative Unit of the National Natural Parks System and the Ministry of Environment and Development and the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development, to agree and
and arrange, within a term not to exceed 30 days from the execution of the sentence, the transfer of Chucho to an area that guarantees his well-being, in semi-captivity conditions, and as a priority in the Río Blanco Natural Reserve. The Supreme Court of Justice ruled that animals feel and therefore are subjects of rights. It held that, even though in principle the habeas corpus is intended to guarantee the freedom of movement of persons, it could eventually be used to demand the protection of animals that, as sentient beings and subjects of rights, their integrity and basic conditions of existence may be threatened.
The attorney of the Fundación Botánica y Zoológica de Barranquilla filed a tutela action to the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that the judicial decision seriously violated the right to due process, saying it completely ignored the legal nature of the habeas corpus. The Colombian Constitutional Court overturned the Supreme Court of Justice ruling, establishing that animals are not subjects of rights.