The Antofagasta District Court orders the local police not to issue an arrest warrant against the owner of the 22 dogs, who must relocate half of them because there is no space to keep them.

The Antofagasta Court of Appeal partially upheld the grievance against the City’s First District Police Court and ordered that an arrest warrant against the appellant be issued and an extension of time for her to comply with the ruling ordering half of his pets before her. He would be moved, because he did not have enough space in the house to house the 22 dogs he owned.

The ruling indicates that without prejudice to the belief that the decision issued to issue the arrest warrant is not illegal or arbitrary, because it was issued by a competent court, within its powers and sufficiently based on the information disclosed, it is necessary to consider the special circumstances of the matter resolved by the courts. . In this regard, it must be borne in mind that initially the appellate judge ordered that in case of non-compliance, this will be obtained through administrative cases, which actually occurred, as the plaintiff informed the Environment Directorate of matters of impossibility it. In this context, he asked for a deadline until October, which the court did not agree to, and chose to submit a daily fine for non-compliance.

For the Court of Appeal, given the factual circumstances of the required compliance, because if the appellant does not find a place to refer her pets – given the impossibility claimed by the municipality to provide co-operation – this could even lead to the possible abandonment of the same object, which would constitute a new breach of tenure law, according to art. 12 that prohibit the abandonment of animals, as this is exactly what the regulations intend to avoid.

See also  Villavicencio's street vendors denounce the public space mafia

Therefore, I considered it expedient for the judge concerned to take into account this background, as well as that accompanying in this case, for the purpose of granting a longer period to comply with the judgment, again to serve in the corresponding municipal directorate. , as it provides cooperation in the search for shelter for animals, similar to those provided for in Articles 12 of Law No. 21010 and 48 et seq. of Decree 4/2011, on the protection, responsible ownership and control of the population of dogs and pets in general in the city of Antofagasta.

Therefore, it was decided to accept the lawyer’s protection appeal against the First District Police Court of Antofagasta, once the order was given to refrain from issuing the arrest warrant and to grant a longer period to comply with the law of final judgment, and to assign it to the competent municipal directorate.

See rule Roll Nº343.

Myrtle Frost

"Reader. Evil problem solver. Typical analyst. Unapologetic internet ninja."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top