FEDDA calls for Animal Protection Department to be reinstated
The Federation's president, Lorenny Solano, explained the situation.
The Dominican Federation for Animal Rights (Fedda) asked that the Department of Animal Protection be reinstated and given sufficient resources for its proper operation.
In conversation with LISTÍN DIARIO, Lorenny Solano, who is president of Fedda, explained that they are not against prosecutors’ offices at the national level handling cases of violations of Law 248-12 on Animal Protection and Responsible Possession, but with “having its head removed,” since the department governs essential work that makes cases adequately prosecuted.
“It is absurd the decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Superior Council of this entity to close the department because the issue of all the prosecutor’s offices handling animal protection cases is correct. we are not against that, but then, why remove its head, why remove the animal protection department, which has to govern with other work and other functions so that the issue processes well?” she said on behalf of everyone who makes up the organization.
The Superior Council of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, through resolution 005701, considered “unnecessary the maintenance of a structure that provides these services at a national level, since the prosecutors’ offices can carry out these tasks more quickly and efficiently, than the scheme or structure in place operating before the entry into force of the general instruction, under the Animal Protection Department.”
Among its arguments on the need for the Animal Protection Department, Fedda questioned that other departments could operate under the same scheme within the General Directorate of Prosecution of Public Prosecutor’s Offices. However, the animal department is the only one they decide to touch.
“The Animal Protection Department is within the General Directorate of Prosecution of Public Prosecutor’s Office. There is the Criminal Investigation Unit, the specialized prosecutor’s offices, the Department of Animal Protection, the Department of Human Rights, of Attention to Victims, the Service of Legal Presentation of Victims and the Centers of Attention to Victims of Children and Adolescents, then all that has to be closed and put in the prosecutor’s offices,” questioned the head of Fedda.
“If what they want is that the prosecutors’ offices attend all cases equally, then none of these departments should exist, but that the prosecutors’ offices assume that role as well,” Solano added.
Likewise, Fedda maintained that in the country, there are no “units,” only “one” that acted and gave support to all the cases in the national territory, making it evident that the Public Prosecutor’s Office “did not know that it was only one department that was carrying out all the functions and with almost no resources.”
“When someone called for a complaint, they said they could not go for lack of fuel, vehicle, and driver. If they didn’t have that, they couldn’t go out…so how are the prosecutors’ offices all over the country going to operate the animal protection issue? And we have the cases, and if you want, we can send them to you… Now, who is going to take care of when there is a small animal that was left behind because the family went on vacation for a whole week? Is a prosecutor going to go out with all the work he has to look after it as well?
Resolution 005701 ordered the redistribution of the human and material resources of the Animal Protection Department to other instances of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In addition, it instructed the General Directorate of Prosecution of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to advise on violations of Law 248-12 on Animal Protection and Responsible Possession.
Fedda added that not all people have the time to go to a prosecutor’s office to file a complaint and that it should be ex officio.
“In no case has the Public Prosecutor’s Office handled ex officio. The crime is not prosecuted if a person does not file a complaint to a prosecutor’s office. That is what that department was for, which with its precariousness functioned as a legal body that allowed to enter even properties to take away a mistreated animal from a person, who will do it now if the department is closed?” she said.
“It is tough to understand the position of the Public Prosecutor’s Office that all the prosecutors’ offices will do it if in a year that has this resolution, what we have is pure evidence that this does not work. No one is showing their face for the cases of violence to animals, and for proof of that, if you want to enter the social networks of any animalist,” assured Solano.