:quality(85)//cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/infobae/L4735GOLV5GRXJTONGWU34EHWE.png "The district institution rejected that a pet could be subject to an embargo 1")
After having taken note of the decision taken by the Supreme Court of Justice according to which ratified as the embargo on pets or pets it is possible, by authorizing a two-canine procedure as a precautionary measure of a civil divorce, the District Institute for the Protection and Welfare of Animals (Idpyba) spoke.
The Idpyba explained that it promotes the interspecific family and its recognition within the framework of social and civic construction in favor of a society that respects and considers animal welfare, that transcends legal concepts.
“The family as the essential core of society is protected by the Constitution, and even children have a fundamental right, among other things, to have a family,” added the Idpyba.
According to the Institute for the Integral Protection of the Family, it must be recognized that may be composed of other speciesTherefore, the defense of interspecific families is crucial for proper integration between people and animals as sentient beings.
“Those who enjoy special constitutional and legal protection,” the district institute said.
Based on the above, the District Institute for the Protection and Welfare of Animals rejected considering that a pet could be seized and/or removal in legal disputes, as occurs in the cessation of civil effects or in the dissolution of the marital union.
The Idpyba pointed out that these precautionary measures on pets are contrary to their recognition as “Be Sensitive”included in article 1 of law 1774 of 2016:
“Animals as sentient beings are not things, they will receive special protection against suffering and pain, especially those caused directly and indirectly by man”
The head of the Idpyba Legal Advice Bureau, Yuly Castro, indicated that when conflicts are generated within the family, in the judicial or administrative special considerations must be taken on the definition of custody and distribution of animal feed.
“Let them be part of the family, with a view to protection and well-being over them,” Castro explained.
For Idpyba, in Colombia, the concept of interspecific family is a cultural construct that derives from socio-cultural dynamics, where connects animals to the daily lives of familiespublic and private spheres.
In this sense, Castro added that the importance of the interspecific family it’s not just a reference to daily interaction with pets, alludes to the importance of establish affirmative practices within families to promote human-animal welfare.
“It is essential that legal conditions be created that recognize animals as sentient beings and the existence of interspecific families, composed of them, based on judicial and administrative decisions and those that occur within the family” , Castro added.
In the event that the precautionary measure was taken by the Supreme Court of Justice, Judge Aroldo Wilson Quiroz ruled on the decision and added that the notion of multi-species family has not been taken into account, which circumvented the provisions of Law 1774 of 2016.
The official explained that what is happening cannot be ignored, adding that society “is becoming more depersonalized and virtualized every day, physical interaction has decreased, the birth rate has decreased and increases flexibility in romantic relationships.
Quiroz believed that animals can come to occupy a role previously occupied by human beings “transforming them into recipients of affection and care”, so these beings they should not be treated as moving objects.
The magistrate concluded that in divorce cases involving pets justice must establishas for children,Who should bear the cost of maintenance and to whom custody will be entrustedas well as visitation rights.