Argentine Court Extends Human Right to Freedom to Orangutan
In an unprecedented decision, an Argentine court has ruled that the Sumatran orangutan 'Sandra', who has spent 20 years at the zoo in Argentina's capital Buenos Aires, should be recognized as a person with a right to freedom. The ruling, signed by the judges unanimously, would see Sandra freed from captivity and transferred to a nature sanctuary in Brazil after a court recognized the primate as a "non-human person" which has some basic human rights. The Buenos Aires zoo has 10 working days to seek an appeal.
The "habeas
corpus" ruling in favor of the orangutan was requested last November by
the Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights (AFADA) alleging that
Sandra suffered "unjustified
confinement of an animal with proven cognitive ability." Lawyers argued
that just as a person, the ape is capable of maintaining emotional ties and has
the ability to reason, while feeling frustrated with her confinement.
Furthermore, the legal team claimed that the 29-year old orangutan can make decisions,
has self-awareness and perception of time. And therefore, all things
considered, Sandra's presence at the Zoo constituted illegal deprivation of
liberty.
Habeas corpus is
a fundamental legal term in human rights, dating back to the early fourteenth
century during the reign of Edward I in England. At that time courts began
requiring the monarchy to report the reasons behind restricted freedom of a
subject. "This
opens the way not only for other Great Apes, but also for other sentient beings
which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, circuses,
water parks and scientific laboratories," the daily
La Nacion newspaper quoted AFADA lawyer Paul Buompadre as saying.
Sandra who was
born in 1986 in the German zoo of Rostock, arrived in Buenos Aires in September
1994, where she’s spent 20 years behind bars. The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF)
claims Sumatran orangutan to be the most endangered of the orangutan species.
Found only in the northern and western provinces of Sumatra, Indonesia, the
species is fast losing its natural habitat to agriculture and human
settlements. Sandra's case is
not the first in which "habeas corpus" was invoked to secure the
release of wild animals in human captivity. However, in the US the two recent
cases failed. A New York court, earlier this month has ruled that Tommy
chimpanzee was not legally a person and is therefore not entitled to human
rights. And in 2011, a lawsuit against SeaWorld to free five wild-captured orca
whales was dismissed by the San Diego court.
Apeus corpus? Chimps not Human, Says New York Court.
A New York court
has ruled that a chimpanzee is not legally a person and is therefore not
entitled to human rights. An animal rights group had sought to free a chimp
from captivity, likening it to a person suffering unlawful solitary
confinement.
Tommy is the great ape at the center of the scandal. Formerly in the entertainment business, his life has fallen on harder times and he’s forced to live in a cage on his own in upstate New York. His owner Patrick Lavery, who’s had Tommy for 10 years, claims he is well-cared-for under strict state and federal license rules and inspections. He says Tommy lives in a seven room enclosure and has access to lots of toys and other forms of entertainment, according to AP.
Tommy is the great ape at the center of the scandal. Formerly in the entertainment business, his life has fallen on harder times and he’s forced to live in a cage on his own in upstate New York. His owner Patrick Lavery, who’s had Tommy for 10 years, claims he is well-cared-for under strict state and federal license rules and inspections. He says Tommy lives in a seven room enclosure and has access to lots of toys and other forms of entertainment, according to AP.
The case was put
forward by the Nonhuman Rights Project, who wanted Tommy to be released from
captivity and sent to a wildlife refuge in Florida to enjoy his retirement. A
spokeswoman for the group Eyder Peralta stated why she believes chimps should
not be kept in cages in solitary confinement.
"The
argument has been that scientists have found that a chimp is cognitively
similar to humans, therefore deserves some of the same rights. In this case,
the Nonhuman Rights Project is asking the court for a writ of habeas corpus,
which compels a person's captor to explain why he has a right to hold a person
captive," she said. However, the
courts have failed to see the group’s point of view. An appeals court in October ruled
against the Nonhuman Rights Project in October and Tommy’s hopes for
freedom have been dashed again after panel of five judges at New York Supreme
Court's appellate division voted unanimously to deny Tommy legal personhood. "Needless
to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit
to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.
In our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and
societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the
legal rights —
such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus
— that have been afforded to human
beings," an extract from the ruling stated.
The decision was
welcomed by Tommy’s owner: "I just couldn't
picture any court granting habeas corpus for an animal," he
said. "If it works for one
animal, it works for all animals. It would open a can of worms," Lavery
said.
The Nonhuman
Rights Project says it will once again appeal the decision: "It is time for the common law to recognize that these
facts are sufficient to establish personhood for the purpose of a writ of
habeas corpus," the organization said, referring to characteristics of
chimps it says are "similar to those possessed by human beings," the
organization said in a statement.
There is some
light at the end of the tunnel though for the Nonhuman Rights Project as the
judges in the court added that the decision does not leave chimps defenseless.
The judges cited legal protections to animals, including the fact that New Yorkers
may not possess primates as pets. "Thus,
while petitioner has failed to establish that common-law relief in the nature
of habeas corpus is appropriate here, it is fully able to importune the
Legislature to extend further legal protections to chimpanzees," the judges
said, as published on the Nonhuman Rights Project’s website.
(Russia Today: December 05, 2014 09:27)
No comments:
Post a Comment