Organgutan oblivious to Argentine court ruling that it was a 'nonhuman person' unjustly confined

Sandra, a shy 29-year-old who was born in Germany, was taking her newfound celebrity in stride. Fresh from a court's decision that asserted she was entitled to her liberty, she celebrated with a meal of a green melon. Then she took the rind, and wore it like a hat. Sandra is an orangutan, and the subject of a ruling by an Argentine court that she deserves some of the basic rights of a human being. As such, the court decided, she was being subjected to unjust confinement at the Buenos Aires Zoo, where she has lived for the past 20 years. Zoo officials said they were scratching their heads at the court's December 18 decision. "This is how she's lived for the past 20 years. It's a large space, there are specialists who take care of her diet, monitor her health, and in general she lives in very good conditions," said Adrian Sestelo, who is the chief biologist at the zoo. But that is not the way everyone sees it. Argentina's Association of Professionals and Lawyers for Animal Rights filed a habeas corpus writ - a form of legal redress against unlawful imprisonment - arguing that Sandra was a "non-human being" with thoughts, feelings and rights. Sandra, who was born in a German zoo in 1986 and moved to Argentina in 1994, is known for her shyness at the zoo, where she often hides from sight. Animal activists had said that was a sign of depression, but Sestelo disagreed. "It's not true. That shows ignorance of the species' basic biology," he said. "Orangutans live solitary lives. Their behaviour is very relaxed, very calm," he said, as Sandra tugged on a green rope inside her enclosure. Sandra weighs about 50 kilograms and is almost 1.5 metres tall. She is a cross between the two species of orangutan, one from the Southeast Asian island of Borneo and the other from the nearby island of Sumatra. Born after her mother was artificially inseminated at the Zoo Rostock in Germany, she has never lived in the wild. Wild apes have a life expectancy of about 30 to 40 years. Captives can live longer. Zoo officials said that even before the court decision, they had been exploring two new homes for Sandra: a nature reserve in Brazil or a zoo in the United States with a specialized orangutan shelter. But Sestelo questioned the wisdom of taking the matter to court. "Speaking from a technical point of view, all animals have the right to life and animal rights. What you can't do is humanise animal behaviour," said the biologist. "It's very characteristic of humans," he said. "We want to liken their behaviour to ourselves, but that's a natural error of humankind." At first glance, the implications of recognising that Sandra is not an object but a "nonhuman person" who deserves basic rights such as life, liberty and freedom from torture sound revolutionary. Andres Gil Dominguez, who represented the orangutan, said the "unprecedented" decision paved the way for the habeas corpus rights to be accepted by the courts and for Sandra to be released at a sanctuary. "It sets a precedent that changes the paradigm of animal guardianship and will impact their rights… It will lead to a lot of discussions," Gil Dominguez said. "From this ruling forward ... the discussion will be whether captivity in itself damages their rights." If the Argentinian legal system says that one orangutan deserves its freedom, then how can one species of great ape - humans - be allowed to confine others (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos) to zoos, circuses or scientific laboratories in any country? If this ruling applies to great apes, then why not orcas or whales or other highly intelligent mammals? Yet the Argentinian court ruling may not be as far-reaching as it first appears. The case was based on the argument that "shy" Sandra was particularly traumatised by being on display to people and is therefore simply one individual case. It is also a civil law case, according to the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), a New York-based organisation which is seeking basic rights for animals in a more far-reaching common law. The NhRP is trying to liberate individual chimpanzees in the United States by arguing that the writ of habeas corpus can apply to a nonhuman, and therefore a chimpanzee's owners would have to justify the animal's imprisonment. So far, its attempts to obtain rights for four captive chimpanzees have foundered. In the case of Tommy, a privately owned chimpanzee, the group's lawyer, Steven Wise, said in October that the chimp's living conditions were akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement. Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. But in a ruling, the US judge said such animals couldn't contribute to society or suffer the legal consequences of their actions - couldn't, essentially, participate in our society as humans do - and therefore couldn't share our basic rights. The nonhuman rights movement often likens intelligent mammals to similarly intelligent young children who possess basic rights but are not able to fully participate in society. But the judge in Tommy's case argued: "To be sure, some humans are less able to bear legal duties or responsibilities than others. These differences do not alter our analysis, as it is undeniable that, collectively, human beings possess the unique ability to bear legal responsibility." The judge said animals couldn't contribute to society or suffer the legal consequences of their actions - couldn't, essentially, participate in our society as humans do - and therefore couldn't share our basic rights. In the case of Sandra, Dominguez successfully argued that while she was not identical to humans biologically, she is in fact like humans emotionally, and would be happier living in a semi-wild habitat. Yet another problem with such individualistic legal challenges is that the animals in question may not be able to enjoy the rights they may deserve: Sandra can never be returned to the Sumatran rainforest because she was born in captivity, and to release her into the wild would condemn her to death That represents an improvement in her welfare, not a rights revolution. A similar case was thrown out earlier this month by a New York court. Sandra looked uninterested in all the legal wrangling. Approaching the photographers' lenses this week, she sized them up from behind her glass wall, then went to play under some leafy trees. Agence France-Presse, The Guardian and Associated Press

Organgutan oblivious to Argentine court ruling that it was a 'nonhuman person' unjustly confined

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Argentine court ruling that she was unjustly confined and a 'nonhuman person' outrages zoo officials, but has animal rights activists applauding

Argentine court ruling that she was unjustly confined and a 'nonhuman person' outrages zoo officials, but has animal rights activists applauding