00:00Section C of Article 17 of Law 84 of 1989, better known as the Protection Statute of
00:09The Animals, established that it was lawful, that it was viable, that when an animal not for human consumption was found in
00:18in a condition of extreme old age, he was sacrificed, he was eliminated.
00:23In other words, whoever engaged in that behavior was not subsequently subject to any sanction or punishment.
00:33of the Colombian legal system.
00:35However, that provision was studied by the Constitutional Court, which, through judgment 336 of
00:46The year 2026, announced through a press release dated October 15, 2026, found that it was
00:57unconstitutional, that is, it was unenforceable, that is, it went against the legal order.
01:03What were the arguments or reasons that the Court established or indicated to reach that decision?
01:11According to the aforementioned statement, the Court used three arguments to reach its decision.
01:19your conclusion.
01:20The first was that the notion or concept of extreme old age used by the standard was an absolutely indeterminate concept,
01:32In other words, there wasn't enough information about the circumstances to establish exactly when it happened.
01:41It happened, and when it didn't.
01:51The second argument the Court gave, or on which the Court based its decision, was that it found that the
01:57The legal provision was contradictory; it went against the principles that inspire the Constitution regarding the
02:05animal protection.
02:07Furthermore, the Court stated that the Constitution places the burden on those who live with pets, in this case,
02:15to protect them, to care for them, to prevent them from suffering, in short, all those burdens that correspond to humans with respect
02:24of the animals.
02:25So it seemed, excuse me, contradictory that when the little animal is already old, when it demands more attention, when it most
02:35Care is required; the option the law gave people was simply to eliminate it.
02:42And thirdly, in accordance with the second argument, is that maintaining the provision in the legal world was
02:50contrary to the ecological principles that govern the Constitution.
02:54In conclusion, then, nowadays it is no longer feasible to slaughter a non-consumption animal when it is old.
03:03Whoever does so will, to date, incur the penalties established by law for causing a
03:12mistreatment or unjustified killing of an animal.
03:17We, personally, celebrate the decision of the Constitutional Court; we believe that it simply reflects a principle of
03:26gratitude,
03:27Because these little animals, when they are puppies, when they are small, when they are playful, bring us immense joy.
03:35So it is completely unfair that when they are old, when they are elderly, when they are close to death
03:42to die,
03:43They should be made easier to simply eliminate because they are causing annoyance to those who previously enjoyed their benefits, as we have already pointed out.
03:55We hope this legal tip has been helpful to all of you, and we thank those who regularly follow us.
