A report from the Council of the Judiciary warns of "important problems" in the reform of the Penal Code on animal abuse

The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has informed today of possible conflicts in the reform of the Criminal Code promoted by the Ministry of Social Rights to toughen the penalties for animal abuse.

The evaluation —of which the member Roser Bach has been a speaker and will be discussed in plenary session of this body this Thursday— warns that the new regulation “may affect the principle of proportionality of sanctions” and poses “important problems” to reconcile the protection of animals with public health or the environment.

For its part, the Ministry of Social Rights has responded that this reform is “essential” and has described as hoaxes some of the information published by the media on this legal analysis.

One of the main novelties of the Penal Code reform is that it protects “all vertebrate animals”.

However, the CGPJ report considers that this protection may conflict with the protection that must also be granted to other legal rights, such as public health or the environment.

"On more than one occasion, the defense of these legal rights will come into conflict with the protection of the physical integrity or even the life of the vertebrate animal," says the evaluation, which stresses that this will require an immediate response that is not always will have the support of laws or other provisions, issued prior to the reform, that justify the conduct in question.

The Draft Organic Law submitted to the analysis of the CGPJ intends to toughen the Criminal Code to put an end to what is described in its explanatory statement as "a sensation of generalized impunity for animal abuse, with ineffective penalties for such actions and lacking effects deterrents”.

This occurs because, today, the sentences provided for these crimes are usually less than two years, which is why those convicted do not go to prison as they can be suspended or replaced.

The proposed report that must now be debated by the governing body of judges warns, however, that the draft does not achieve what it announces as the first justification for the reform, since, although both in the case of injuries and in the of the death of the animal slightly increase the prison sentences,

More information

Courses for all dog owners and cat sterilization: what changes the future animal welfare law for those who have pets

This evaluation also considers that the need indicated by the legislator to toughen penalties may compromise the principle of proportionality.

As indicated, this can occur when the penalty provided for animal abuse concurs with the aggravating circumstance of having committed the acts to cause harm to whoever is or has been the perpetrator's spouse, since the punishment provided for this case is higher than what is currently established for the minor offense of coercion, that of minor threats, that of injuries that do not require medical or surgical treatment or that of mistreatment in the field of violence against women.

Likewise, the report ensures that if the crime of injuring vertebrate animals that do not require veterinary treatment is compared with the minor crime of injuring people that do not require medical or surgical treatment, the penalty is the same, that is, a penalty of fine of one to three months.

However, it also specifies that in the first of the cases, when it affects animals, the possibility of an alternative sentence of works for the benefit of the community is foreseen with an extension (from 31 to 90 days) that corresponds to a less serious crime. and not a minor crime, as is the case of injuries without medical or surgical treatment in people.

However, the analysis makes "a positive assessment" of the inclusion, for the first time in the legal system, of the responsibility of legal persons in the commission of crimes of animal abuse.

Likewise, it also considers correct the precautionary measures that may be adopted in the procedure to protect the animals, such as, for example, the provisional change in the ownership of the animal in order to favor its care and well-being.

Following the information disseminated by the CGPJ, the Ministry of Social Rights has defended this reform as "essential" and has stressed that "until now burning a fox alive or drowning a wild boar calf had no criminal reproach."

“This law comes to put an end to impunity for animal abusers which, until now, was almost total in Spain”, he added.

Likewise, the department of Ione Belarra has rejected the comparison made by the report between the penalties for mistreatment of animals and victims of sexist violence.

“The hoax that is being spread refers to the penalty for vicarious violence.

A new form of sexist violence in which an abuser hurts the animal to attack the woman.

Damage is done to the animal and also to the person, therefore the penalty is greater ”, has responded Social Rights.

"The aggravating circumstances are only applied in the case of serious injuries to the animals (requiring surgery or veterinary treatment) or death of the animal and, in this case, in addition, when aggression against the animal is used as coercion against the person" , has stressed in turn Sergio Torres, General Director of Animal Rights of this ministry.

You can follow CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT on