fundamentalrightsforprimates - sentience politics · cle of those bearing fundamental rights and,...

Fundamental rights for primates

Policy paper

Nonhuman primates are highly complex beings possessing an intrinsic essential interest

in living a life of bodily and mental integrity However current legal provisions worldwide

hardly accommodate these interests Therefore nonhuman primates need to be protected

by fundamental rights which guarantee that their essential interests are respected In this

positionpaperwe first proposea scientific andmoral basis for such rights and subsequently

give several arguments forwhysuch rightsareneeded Weconcludebysuggestinganumber

of ways to implement fundamental rights to life and physical as well as mental integrity for

nonhuman primates

May 2016

Policy paper by Sentience Politics

Preferred Citation Fasel R Blattner C Mannino A und Baumann T (2016) Fundamental Rights forPrimates Policy paper by Sentience Politics (1) 1-16

First release May 2016 Last update May 2016

Website sentience-politicsorg

Contents

Introduction 1

Primates 2

Animal welfare regulations 3

Fundamental rights for primates 6

Objections and responses 8

Conclusion 10

Acknowledgements 10

References 11

AUTHORSRAFFAEL FASEL SENTIENCE POLITICSCHARLOTTE BLATTNER PHD-CANDIDATE IN INTERNATIONALLAW AND ANIMAL LAW UNIVERSITY OF BASELADRIANO MANNINO PRESIDENT SENTIENCE POLITICSTOBIAS BAUMANN DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY SENTIENCEPOLITICS


Introduction

Ever sinceCharlesDarwinrsquos seminalwork it has been clearthat adhering to views of the world which present the hu-man being as ldquothe pride of creationrdquo or as the top of aldquogreat chain of beingrdquo cannot be justified Despite the ex-traordinary characteristics which human beings have de-veloped over time we should according to Darwin ldquobearin mind that he (man) is but one of several exceptionalformsof primatesldquo[1]More precisely the humanbeing be-longs to an order of more than 300 primate species[2]Compared tomanyother animals primates feature a largebrain a complex social structure as well as a high phys-ical and mental capacity to suer However all too of-ten these characteristics and abilities determine the fateof those primates who do not belong to the species Homosapiens For instance nonhuman primates are consideredespecially suited for biomedical research they are exhib-ited for amusement as well as for purposes of educationand conservation and they are kept as exotic pets

Themore scientific findings on the remarkable charac-teristics of nonhuman primates we obtain the more dii-cult the moral justification of such practices becomes Ac-cording to one of the most crucial principles of fairnessequal things should be treated equally and unequal thingsshould be treated in an unequal way In this position pa-perwepoint out that despite nonhumanprimates andhu-mans being unequal in some respects the morally rele-vant qualities mdash their mutual interest in not suering andin not being killed mdash are of comparable value Thereforenonhuman primates mdash like human beings mdash are entitledto a fundamental right to life and a fundamental right tobodily integrity

This extension of legal protection to nonhuman pri-mates via fundamental rights has become self-evidentgiven the moral progress towards a non-discriminatorysociety which we have been experiencing for severaldecades Not so long ago people were considered inferiorand were discriminated against based on arbitrary crite-ria such as their skin colour ethnicity origin or sex Theseallegedly primitive people were deprived of many if notall of their fundamental rights Forced labour serfdom

mistreatment and the refusal of appropriate political rep-resentation are only a few examples of the injustices thatbefell these people In many places intensive societal de-bates led to the integration of these people into the cir-cle of those bearing fundamental rights and thus to therecognition of their interests as equally valuable in bothmoral and legal terms Slavery and serfdomwere formallyabolished and people who once had to perform forcedlabour are now protected in their fundamental rights onboth the national and international level[3] Women ob-tained franchise and complete property rights[4] The in-terests of children and disabled people are nowadays pro-tected by fundamental rights as well[5] Recent decadeshave witnessed additional progress taking place in termsof LGBT rights[6]Despite the remaining roomfor improve-ment these cases of bothmoral and legal progress consti-tute essential milestones in creating a more just societyYet empathy and the rational application of moral and le-gal principles such as fundamental rights ought not onlyto apply to human beings but also to nonhuman animalsThis position paper aims to highlight why the interests ofnonhuman primates need to be protected by fundamen-tal rights In Switzerland for instance we demand in a po-litical initiative the introduction of a fundamental right tolife and a fundamental right to bodily andmental integrityfor nonhuman primates at the cantonal level Emphasis-ing the particular abilities and interests of nonhuman pri-mates the following chapters show how current nationallegal provisions and their implementation still subordi-nate even the most essential of these interests mdash those oflife and integrity mdash to trivial human interests Hence weargue that primates need to be protected by the funda-mental rights to life and integrity inorder toguarantee thattheir vital interests are respected We conclude by show-ing that potential objections and reservations against thedemand for fundamental rights for nonhuman primatesprove unfounded


Primates

Biological systematics and distribution

Primates constitute a particular order within the classof mammals and comprise both human and nonhumanprimates[7] The order of primates can roughly be dividedas illustrated in figure 1

Within the superfamily apes the two families gibbonsand hominids are distinguished The latter comprises thetwo species of orangutan the two species of gorilla chim-panzees bonobos and humans[8] Since the beginningof the 1990s however some scientists have proposed toclassify humans chimpanzees and bonobos within a sin-gle genus[9] based on more recent findings in genetic re-search Comparing genes in human beings to those inchimpanzees gorillas orangutans and Old World mon-keys as well as in mice researchers find that humans andchimpanzees are most closely related they share 994identity at functionally important DNA sitesmdash ldquothose scru-tinized and shaped by natural selectionrdquo[10] This geneticevidence provides support for two previously proposedtaxonomic changes firstly that the family Hominidaeshould include all extant apes and secondly that thegenus Homo should include the three extant species andtwo subgeneraHomo (Homo) sapiens (humankind)Homo(Pan) troglodytes (the common chimpanzee) and Homo(Pan) paniscus (the bonobo chimpanzee)[11]

Nonhuman primates living in the wild can be found inAfrica India Southeast Asia and South America[12] How-ever many nonhuman primates are held in captivity es-pecially in North America and Europe They are oen keptin zoos or in cages by either private companies or publicinstitutions In Switzerland for instance 251 nonhumanprimates were used in research in 2014[13] and Basel Zooalone held around 130 nonhuman primates in 2015[14]

Characteristics and abilities

Characteristics that all primates possess mdash apart fromphysical properties like specialisednerveendings inhandsand feet highly adapted to grasping[15] mdash include ex-traordinary behavioural traits and abilities Among otherthings primates show high social intelligence whoseemergence and development is ascribed to the require-ments of their complex social life[16] Young primates staydependent on adults for a relatively long time This al-lows them to learn the relevant skills for surviving and liv-ing in a complex social group[17] This includes the abilityto feel empathy towards other primates[18] The findings

of a study on rhesus macaques for example show thatthey prefer to go without food if doing so allows them tosave their fellows from electric shocks[19] Furthermoreprimates grieve for deceased relatives and friends[20]

Just like human primates nonhuman primates learnsocially through a process which is stimulated first bythe mother and later by extended groups[21] By applyingthe ldquodo-as-I-doldquo learning technique primates teach eachother how to forage for food rummage through thewood-lands and make and use tools[22] In particular mdash but notonly mdash with regard to great apes (hominids) such activi-ties aredescribedas cultures and traditions[23] For exam-ple in West Africa two groups of chimpanzees have beenobserved cultivating dierent traditions members of thegroup living west of the river Sassandra-NrsquoZo crack nuts ina specific way while members of the group living east ofthe same river donot cracknuts at all even though there isa comparableamountofnutsonbothsidesof the river[24]

Equally remarkable are the communication skills dis-played by nonhuman primates Through vocalisation andvarious gestures they are able to exchange feelings plansand ideas both with their fellows and with individualsof other species For this purpose they have distinctivesounds and dialects which are unique to their groups[25]Certain primates have even learned to communicate us-ing abstract symbols For example Kanzimdash a bonobowholives with the Ape Cognition and Conservation Initiative(ACCI) in Iowa and whose cognitive skills have been stud-ied for decades mdash is proficient in more than 400 lexigrams(ie symbols on a keyboard) This allows him to communi-cate with humans about objects places activities experi-ences and future plans[26] In another case chimpanzeeswho had learned a sign language from humans were sub-sequently able to teach it to younger chimpanzees the lat-ter successfully learning the language without additionalhuman assistance[27]

Furthermore primates are able to put themselves inthe position of other individuals For instance some pri-mates actually fool others by anticipating their behaviourthat is they pay attention to what the others see hearor intend to do and go on to adapt their own behaviouraccordingly[28] This behaviour is linked to primatesrsquo abil-ity tomentally travel in time they are able to both remem-ber past events and foresee future ones Contrary to pop-ular belief recent studies have shown that primates areable to anticipate future needs (such as hunger or thirst)even though they do not yet feel the particular need atthat point in time[29] Chimpanzee Santino living in aSwedish zoo was even observed systematically collecting

2


Figure 1 Primate taxonomy

and hiding stones and other projectiles which he wouldlater throwatgroupsof visitorspassinghis compound[30]Also primates are able to recognise themselves in themir-ror mdash an ability that researchers consider as evidence ofself-awareness[31]

Finally there is no doubt nowadays that all primatesare sentient beings This is mainly explained by thefact that they possess a highly developed central ner-vous system with brains structurally similar to those ofhumans[32] Being able to feel physical as well as men-tal pain primatesmay suer frommental illnesses like de-pression as well as from serious behavioural disorders in-duced by negative experiences like maternal neglect ormistreatment[33]

This overview shows that nonhuman primates areindividuals possessing high social intelligence self-awareness a sense of the past and the future as well as adistinct ability for experiencing pain

Animal welfare regulations

In many countries worldwide animal welfare regulationsare in force that apply to nonhumanprimates These regu-

lations dier substantially in the extent to which they pro-vide legal protection to nonhuman primates Howevereven themostambitiousamong themdonotprovide sui-cient legal protection the core of nonhuman primatesrsquo in-terests in living and integrity remainsunprotecteddown tothepresentday This insuicient legal protectionhas a sig-nificant real life impact since the weighing up of interestsstipulated in animal welfare regulations usually disadvan-tages any nonhuman animals involved Hence a seriousimprovement of the protection of nonhumanprimatesrsquo in-terests can only be achieved by granting them fundamen-tal rights which guarantee the protection of their interestsin life and integrity

The following overview presents various internationaldemands for fundamental rights highlighting the ways inwhichnonhumanprimatesrsquo essential interests arenotpro-tected to a suicient degree In contrast to human pri-mates the core contentof these interests is not legallypro-tected and in practice nonhuman primatesrsquo interests aresubordinated to even trivial human interests Thereforenonhuman primates need the degree of legal protectionprovided by fundamental rights which exceed existing an-imal welfare regulations

3


International demands for fundamental rights and polit-ical advances

The particular characteristics and abilities of nonhumanprimates has prompted both political demands for legalchanges as well as legal proceedings in dierent coun-tries worldwide Recently various political advances haveaimed at improving the legal protection of nonhuman pri-mates In addition there have been several lawsuits thattried to set precedents for the rights of nonhuman pri-mates These approaches express the growing awarenessof the mdash at times striking mdash drawbacks regarding nonhu-man primatesrsquo legal protection

In 1975 US lawyer Stephen Burr proposed in a peer-reviewed article ldquo[] an act establishing standards of careowed to certain types of animalsrdquo[34] Distinguishing be-tween three dierent classes of animals the standards de-manded in his dra bill include the following protectionanimals in class A ie themost cognitively advancedonesincluding great apes should have the right to life

In 1980 a campaign to grant great apes the fundamen-tal rights to life and integrity started in New Zealand[35]However only aer the Great Ape Project (GAP) wasfounded in 1993 by philosophers Paola Cavalieri and PeterSinger[36] and became an international movement thattries to achieve fundamental rights for great apes by po-litical means did the New Zealand campaign gain mo-mentum In an eort to include nonhuman great apes ina community of equals with human beings GAP cam-paigns for granting chimpanzees gorillas orangutans andbonobos the fundamental rights to life freedom and bod-ily andmental integrity[37]

The Great Ape Project New Zealand (GAPENZ) targetedthe countryrsquos animal welfare legislation which was thenunder review Enacted in 1999 the newAnimalWelfare Actbans harmful experimentation on nonhuman hominidsie any nonhumanmember of the family Hominidae be ita gorilla chimpanzee bonobo or orangutan Hence theAct does not accommodate the demands for fundamentalrights articulated by GAPENZ limiting its immediate im-pact Still the new law can be considered a small but im-portant step in ldquothe legal dismantling of speciesismwithinthehominid familyrdquo[38] TheAct recognises those interestsof nonhuman hominids which cannot be easily trumpedby human interests This is perceived as the Actrsquosmost sig-nificant asset as it arguably constitutes aquasi-right ie atleast a weak right Also it is argued that the refusal to in-clude specific rights in the Animal Welfare Act should notbe considered a rejection of the hominid rights concept as

such but rather that the idea shouldbeput towider publicdebate[39]

In 2015 the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand pro-posed amendments to the Animal Welfare Act of 1999which would prohibit the killing of nonhuman hominidsand provide a penalty for the oence[40] The Green Partyperceives the need for such a right to life for non-humanhominids as a crucial follow-up in the Animal Welfare Actsince the very stipulation that prohibits experimentationon nonhuman hominids constitutes a danger for those in-dividuals that canno longerbeused for thatpurpose Theyface a greater risk of being killed and are more vulnerableto other kinds of abuse and exploitation the Green Partyargues In general a prohibition on killing would protectall nonhuman hominids in captivity without commercialvalue[41] However the Animal Welfare Amendment Billfailed[42]

In Switzerland the insuicient legal protection of non-human primates has been questioned several times in theformof parliamentarymeasures In 2006 a parliamentaryinitiative demanding a ldquoBan onmediumandheavily stren-uous animal experiments with primatesrdquo[43] was submit-ted based on the report ldquoResearch on primates mdash an eth-ical assessmentrdquo by the Swiss Federal Commission on An-imal Experiments and the Swiss Federal Ethics Commit-tee on Non-Human Biotechnology In addition the inter-pellation ldquoMarmoset experiment at ETHZldquo in 2006 as wellas the postulate ldquoExperiments on primatesldquo[45] in 2007also aimed at improving the legal protection of nonhu-man primates More recently a parliamentary measuredemanding a ldquoBan on straining animal experiments withprimatesldquo[46] was submitted in 2015 (with no outcomeyet)

In Austria the animal rights group Association AgainstAnimal Factories started legal proceedings on behalf ofchimpanzee Matthew (aectionately called ldquoHiaslrdquo) in2007 The grouprsquos goal was to convince the judge to de-clare Matthew a person and to appoint a legal guardianthat would represent Matthew in court PrimatologistVolker Sommer and other experts supported the case sci-entifically The group argued that Austrian law recognisesall members of the genus ldquohomordquo as persons[47] mdash andbecause chimpanzees share 994 of human genes aspointedoutbefore[48] theybelong to this genus Besidesthe biological definition of ldquopersonrdquo refers to the posses-sionofa ldquotheoryofmindrdquowhichchimpanzeesdohave Be-ing accepted as a person was a requirement for Matthewto enforce his interests and to start legal proceedings inwhich he could claim for damages against those respon-

4


sible for his abduction in 1981 from Sierra Leone when hewas ten months old[49] Such compensation was neededto secure his future as the Vienna animal shelter whereMatthew lived began to encounter financial diiculties in2006[50] Appealing to the highest possible court noneof the courts accepted the case stating that the applicanthad no legal standing Because no Austrian court had ad-dressed thekey issueofpersonhood insteadavoiding it byrefusing the case for technical reasons the group decidedto file a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rightsarguing that Matthew had been denied a fair trial[51] TheEuropean Court of Human Rights then rejected the caseas well stating once more that the applicant had no legalstanding[52]

The goal of this lawsuit was not to win fundamentalrights for Matthew (let alone for great apes or nonhumanprimates more generally) The goal was merely to ensurethat Matthew be recognised as a person instead of beingregarded as a thing mdash which would neither have requiredany change of Austrian civil law nor have constituted a po-litical decision[53]

In Spain the Parliamentrsquos environmental committeeapproved in 2008 a resolutionwhich aimed at implement-ing the demands of the Great Ape Project (GAP) Howevernothing followed from this approval[54] Thus so far fun-damental rights for great apes do not exist in Spain

In Germany the Giordano Bruno Foundation submit-ted in 2014 the petition ldquoFundamental Rights for GreatApesrdquo to the Bundestag The petition mdash similar to the res-olution in the Spanish parliamentmdash demands the amend-ment of Article 20a of the German Fundamental Law bythe following paragraph ldquoThe right of great apes to per-sonal freedom to life and bodily integrity is protectedrdquoWell-known primatologists supported the petition andthe Foundation also perceived approval for the demandsamongst themajorityof theGermanpopulation Howeverthe announcement of the petitionwas rejected by theGer-man parliamentrsquos petition committee in the same year ar-guing the petition did not have any chance of success[55]

In the United States mdash in contrast to Matthewrsquos casein Austria mdash a Manhattan Supreme Court justice implic-itly recognised in 2015 that chimpanzees could be con-sidered legal persons and do have fundamental rightsto integrity and freedom The Nonhuman Rights Project(NhRP) had petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas cor-pus demanding to investigate the lawfulness of the chim-panzeesrsquo captivity[56]

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP)was founded in2007 by attorney Steven M Wise The grouprsquos goal is to

change the current law that separates humans from non-humans More precisely they try to achieve legal per-sonhood for (initially) some of the most cognitively ad-vanced animals eg chimpanzees elephants dolphinsand whales These nonhuman animals should be recog-nised as persons who have inter alia fundamental rightsto bodily integrity and to freedom they should not be per-ceived any longer as things which do not even have thecapacity to possess any legal rights In order to gain suchlegal rights for nonhuman animals the organisation hasundertaken a long-term strategic litigation campaign TheNhRP filed its first lawsuits in 2013 on behalf of captivechimpanzees and plans to bring in further actions[57]

Finally in 2015 media announced that orangutan San-dra living in the Buenos Aires Zoo had been granted un-precedented legal rights in Argentina[58] More preciselyanArgentine appellate courtwas reported tohave issuedawrit of habeas corpus that had been petitioned by AFADAan Argentine animal rights organisation on behalf of San-dra On closer inspection however it turned out thatldquothe court had neither issued a writ of habeas corpus norgranted Sandra personhood for any purpose nor orderedher to be moved to a sanctuaryrdquo[59]

Similarly but referring to animal rights more broadlyGermany was reported by the media to have guaranteedrights to animals back in 2002 in an amendment to its Con-stitution (making it the first EuropeanUnionmember todoso) The altered clause obliging the state to protect ani-mals was presented as amilestone since ldquothe federal con-stitutional court will have to weigh animalsrsquo rights againstother rights like those to conduct researchrdquo[60] Again oncloser inspection this legal change was not about animalrights that would eectively protect animalsrsquo interests (inbodily integrity eg) butmerely about animal welfare[61]

Considering the progress in animal welfare regulationsworldwide may at least provide some cause for optimismregarding animal rights and more specifically fundamen-tal rights for nonhuman primates In Switzerland for ex-ample there have been several legal reforms aimed at im-proving the status and protection of animals since the be-ginning of the 1990s in 1993 the ldquodignity of the creaturerdquowas added to the constitution In 2003 a change to theCivil Codewas brought into eect stating that animals arein principle not objects In 2008 the ldquodignity of animalsrdquowas stipulated in the completely revised Animal Protec-tionAct Finally in 2010 the internationally followed refer-endum on the countrywide introduction of ldquoAnimal Attor-neysrdquo took place (the initiative failed unfortunately)[62]

In Canada the General Assembly of the Province of

5


Quebec adopted a modification of the Quebec Civil Codechanging the legal status of animals from property to sen-tient beings in 2015 The legislation states that animalsare not things They are sentient beings and have bi-ological needs[63] Recognising animals as sentient be-ings instead of perceiving them as mere property may bean important step towards granting them legal person-hood Equally recognising animalsrsquo biological needs maybe consideredapart of thepath to recognising their essen-tial interests in living and in bodily andmental integrity

In this regard broader political advances worldwidehave aimed at improving the legal protection of animalsin general including nonhuman primates They per-tained to animal experiments[64] hunting[65] and zooanimals[66]

Alongside these national measures calls for funda-mental rights for nonhuman animals are growing everlouder at an international level For example the Univer-sal Charter of the Rights of Other Species aswell as theDec-laration of Animal Rights demand that nonhuman animalsbe awarded the right to life the right to bodily and men-tal integrity the right to freedom of movement and otherfundamental rights[67]

Thisoverviewmakesclear thatour call for fundamentalrights to life andbodily andmental integrity for nonhumanprimates is part of a significant global movement

Themeasuresmentioned here showhuman concern inmany countriesworldwide over the insuicient protectionof nonhuman primates However in all cases the progressmade in the area of animal protection fails to take sui-cient account of the outstanding abilities and interests ofprimates since none of the present measures guaranteethe fundamental rights of nonhuman primates to life andbodily and mental integrity But these are precisely therights that are indispensable for nonhuman primates aswe lay out in the next chapter ldquoFundamental rights for pri-matesrdquo


Why fundamental rights

Current animal protection regulations worldwide andtheir application to the protection of the fundamental in-terests of nonhuman primates to life and integrity are in-suicient since under current law these central interestsof nonhuman primates are not protected anywhere andin practice their interests are subordinated to even trivialhuman ones The interests of nonhuman primates need

special legal protection This protection can only be guar-anteed through fundamental rights Fundamental rightshave several central advantages over animal protectionlaws

Fundamental rights possess a core area of protectionthat must not be restricted under any circumstances Sowhilst in the usual area of protection aweighing up of con-flicting interests is possible (see the subchapter ldquoRestric-tions to fundamental rightsrdquo) the interests of the core con-tent must never be traded o This core content of funda-mental rights guarantees that the most central aspects ofan interest so protected can never be sacrificed to oppos-ing interests however great the latter may be In compar-ison to simple bans such as bans on cruelty to animalsfundamental rights also have the advantage of beingmoregeneral This creates room for dynamic future interpre-tations which can further the protection provided by theright To illustrate the fundamental right to life guaran-teed to humans is not simply the counterpart of the crimi-nal prohibition on murder For unlike this prohibition thefundamental right to life has come to be interpreted so asto give the state a positive responsibility to protect peoplein cases where a killing a disappearance or a risk to lifeis threatened[68] In other words fundamental rights arenot limited tonegativebanning but alsoprovideapositivesteer in the direction of protecting particular interests

Moreover fundamental rights have a social functionwhich is not achieved by simple bans Things are alsoldquoprotectedrdquo through bans but only those individuals thatpossess characteristics and interests which are particu-larly worthy of protection have fundamental rights Who-ever falls under the umbrella of a fundamental right en-joys a higher status than things or beings who do not havethose rights Bearing fundamental rights also has a so-cial signalling value by recognising nonhuman primatesas bearers of fundamental rights it is impressed uponother members of society that the interests of primatesare equally valuable as the comparable interests of otherbearers of such rights This means that the interests of allindividuals who possess the fundamental rights to life ofintegrity should be protected equally in relation to theseinterests[69] In this way bearers of fundamental rightswill be measured by the same yardstick or to put it an-other way they will find themselves on an equal footingas far as their interests protected by fundamental rightsare concerned This guarantees that the fundamental in-terests of nonhuman primates will be taken seriously andwill not be subordinated to trivial human interests Thisfunction of fundamental rights also explains why histori-

6


cally the achievement of fundamental rights was of cen-tral importance for groups that were not previously takenseriously by the law The struggle for fundamental rightswas therefore important for slaves black people womendisabled people and other groups not only because itbrought with it the prohibition of other injustices but be-cause it admitted them into the circle of thosebearing fun-damental rights

Since fundamental rightsbringwith themastrong legaland social protection they are oen described as ldquotrumpcardsrdquo[70] They protect the interests of their bearers es-pecially well and even guarantee the core content of suchinterests absolutely Aneicientprotectionof the interestsof nonhuman primates to life and integrity therefore re-quires a fundamental right to life and a fundamental rightto integrity

Can only humans have fundamental rights

Is therea reasonwhyonlyhumans shouldhave fundamen-tal rights As was shown above the species Homo sapiensdoes not present a special order of mammal In fact hu-mans comprise only one of over 300 species of primateDoes thismean that there is no dierence between humanand nonhuman primates This question of ldquoanthropologi-cal dierencerdquo has been heavily debated for some time

Arguments which are oen used as grounds for such adierence are rationality conceptual thinking and capac-ity for abstraction the ability to put oneself in the shoes ofanother the possession of a soul humour anticipation offuture events or conditions aesthetic taste use of toolsconstruction of tools technology free will the ability tofollow rules personality and culture[71] However none ofthese characteristics and abilities actually present quali-ties possessed exclusively by all humans and by no non-human primates[72] Expressive characteristics and abili-ties suchas anaesthetic taste or a complex languagemayindeed be confined to humans when narrowly definedHowever they are not characteristics and abilities that allhumans have to the same extent Young children peoplewith severe learningdisabilities andpeoplewithadvanceddementia donot have these characteristics and abilities Afew expressive markers such as the use of tools or con-sciousness arguably belong to all humans but are alsoknown amongst nonhuman primates and other animals

Other than membership in the species Homo sapienswhich is common to all humans there is no characteris-tic or ability that could form the basis of an anthropologi-cal dierence between humans and nonhuman primatesBut falling back upon species membership as a basis for

the conferment of fundamental rights violates the moralprinciple of species neutrality whereby equally ranked in-terests must be considered independently from speciesmembership In principle rights should be made as inde-pendent frommembership to a particular species as theyare from membership of a particular gender ethnicity orage group

Moreover the debate over anthropological dierencedoes not only break down because there is no morallysignificant dierence between human and nonhuman pri-mates Even if therewere such a dierence the discussionis on a hiding to nothing a characteristic that all humanspossess exclusively would at themost justify a fundamen-tal right protecting that particular characteristic Funda-mental characteristics and interests like those for life andintegrity belong to nonhuman primates too

Justifications

What reasons are there for an individual to have funda-mental rights Fundamental rights as already shownserve to protect the particular abilities and interests pos-sessed by an individual Below we set out which abilitiesand interests are relevant for nonhuman and human pri-mates as a basis for their fundamental rights to integrityand to life

The fundamental right to bodily andmental integrity

The fundamental right to bodily and mental integrityserves in the first place to protect its bearers from exces-sive physical and mental pain[73] Physical pain meansan ldquounpleasant sensory experience which is associatedwith current or potential material damage or is describedin terms of such damagerdquo[74] Some criteria for the defini-tion of pain can be brought into play the possession of acentral nervous system an avoidancemechanism protec-tivemotor reactions suchas reducedusageof theaectedpart of the body physiological changes compromises be-tween stimulus avoidance and other motives opioid re-ceptors and indications of reduced sensitivity to pain withthe use of local anaesthetics or analgesics as well as highcognitive ability and consciousness[75] Like human pri-mates nonhuman primates also have a central nervoussystem learn avoidance behaviour make compromisesbetween stimulus avoidance and other motives (eg ac-quiring food) have opioid receptors show reduced sen-sitivity to pain under local anaesthetic or analgesic andhave high cognitive abilities and consciousness Hencejust like humanones nonhumanprimates fulfill all the cri-

7


teria for experiencingphysical pain[76] It follows fromthisthat nonhuman primates also have an interest in remain-ing physically unharmed

Freedom from mental pain means protection frompsychological suering that reaches a certain minimalintensity[77] Not only human primates but also nonhu-man primates can be mentally harmed So the animalprotection law also specifies that the welfare of nonhu-man animals is only ensured where ldquoharm and fear areavoidedrdquo From the perspective of evolutionary biologythere is no indication that nonhuman primates are fun-damentally any dierent from humans in this regard Asset out above nonhuman primates are highly intelligentwhich makes them particularly susceptible to psychologi-cal traumas Research on nonhuman primates has shownthat they suer from serious mental illnesses such as de-pression and other mental disorders because of negativeexperiences like social separation social withdrawal ma-ternal neglect or abuse[78] Sincenonhumanprimates cansuer from such mental disturbances they have an inter-est in remaining mentally unharmed

The fundamental right to life

The death of an individual is oen associated with painBecause nonhuman primates are sentient beings who ex-perience pain they have a strong interest not to dieEven if however their death could be brought to passpainlessly this would not mean that nonhuman primateshad no interest in living Nonhuman primates have theability to look back into the past and to anticipate the fu-ture In otherwords they do not live simply in the presentbut leada transtemporal life Evenapainless killingbreakso this life and violates their preference to live on More-over abilities like the experience of pain serve to avoiddangerous behaviour and through this to to ensure onersquosown survival at least temporarily For these reasons non-human primates have a fundamental interest in living Fi-nally life is particularly worthy of protection because itforms the logical precondition of all other fundamentalrights like that to integrity

Restrictions to fundamental rights

As with those of humans it is also the case for the pro-posed fundamental rights of nonhuman primates thatthey are subject to certain recognised restrictions A re-striction in fundamental rights is possible if it does not vi-olate the core content if a legal basis exists if it is justifiedby a public interest or the protection of the fundamental

rights of third parties and if it is proportionateWith human primates as with nonhuman ones the

fundamental right to life means a prohibition on arbitrarykilling What counts as ldquoarbitraryrdquo should be measured bythe same standard as is used for human primates A killingfor the simple purpose of a medical trial or because of alack of enclosures would not constitute suicient groundsand would violate the fundamental right to life On theother hand there would be no violation of this funda-mental right if a nonhuman primatewere killed to preventan otherwise unavoidable serious endangering of anothergood (for example the life of a child) Such a restriction ofa fundamental right is therefore justified if the four criteriamentioned above for a legitimate restriction are met Thesame is true for the fundamental right to bodily and men-tal integrity For humans too this right does not guaran-tee an absolute protection fromphysical ormental restric-tions

Nevertheless it is central that fundamental rights mdashdespite leaving room for potential restrictionsmdash representtrump cards that bring their bearers to the same level asother bearers of fundamental rights in cases of weighingup interests against one another Through this their in-terests become considerably more protected than the in-terests of individuals who possess no fundamental rightsand the core content is absolutely guaranteed

Objections and responses

A series of objections could be raised against the demandfor fundamental rights to life and bodily and mental in-tegrity for nonhuman primates which will be analysedand responded to below

Is zoo-keeping justified

Objection This demand would lead to the closure of allzoosResponse The demand for fundamental rights to life andbodily and mental integrity for nonhuman primates doesnot mean that no nonhuman primates can be held in zoosany more Zoos must simply ensure that the fundamentalrights demanded for nonhumanprimates are observed Inpractice this means that in relation to the fundamentalright to life nonhuman primates must not be killed for ar-bitrary reasons If this cannot be guaranteed then zoosmust take suitable action in order not to violate this funda-mental right In addition zoos must guarantee the funda-mental right of nonhuman primates to bodily and mentalintegrity In general this would be met if zoos themselves

8


did not inflict any physical and psychological harm andalso took positive measures to avoid such damage

Is medical research rendered impossible

Objection This demand renders biomedical research im-possibleResponse Our demand is not directed against biomedicalresearch It merely requires that research projects do notviolate the fundamental rights of nonhuman primates tolife and integrity For example further research on nonhu-man primates would be conceivable if it did not overstepthe degree of seriousness 0 mdash that is trials that place noburden upon animals and in which general results are notsignificantly restricted

ldquoHuman rightsrdquo for primates

Objection This demand gives primates human rightsResponse The claim that the proposals made here giveldquohuman rightsrdquo to nonhumanprimates is false What is de-manded is simply a fundamental right to life and a funda-mental right to bodily and mental integrity for nonhumanprimates These fundamental rights certainly do mirrorthe relevant fundamental rights for humans as the foun-dations for both sets of rights are the same However theycannot be equated with human rights since the categoryof ldquohuman rightsrdquo contains more than the two fundamen-tal rights proposed here by us For instance human rightsalso encompass the rights to freedomof expression and toreligious freedom As nonhuman primates do not possessthe characteristics that ground these fundamental rightstheyalsohaveno interest in these rightsandsononeed forprotection in relation to these rights Our demand there-fore does not lead to nonhuman primates being conferredwith all of the fundamental rights held by humans

Impracticability

Objection You canrsquot give primates fundamental rights asthis would be completely impracticableResponse That nonhuman primates cannot exercise theirfundamental rights themselves does not mean that theyshouldnrsquot possess any Many other humanprimates are ei-ther temporarily (as in the case of small children or comapatients) or permanently (as in the case of persons withsevere physical disabilities or advanced dementia) inca-pable of exercising their fundamental rights themselvesInmany countries state institutions ensure that the funda-mental rights of these people are observed too The se-curing of the fundamental rights of nonhuman primates

could be guaranteed in a similar way The appointmentof an ombudswoman or an independent primate advisorwould be conceivable to secure the life and integrity ofnonhuman primates

A slippery slope

Objection If we start giving nonhuman primates funda-mental rights then soon dogs cats cows rats and eveninsects and plants will have fundamental rights tooResponse Our current proposal restricts itself to nonhu-man primates which as demonstrated above possesscharacteristics and interests which justify their entitle-ment to these two fundamental rights This does not ex-clude the possibility that other animals presenting the rel-evant characteristics might also come to enjoy the same(or other) fundamental rights These proposals concernonly nonhuman primates because of the particular ur-gency of the recent failures to recognise them Howeverthis doesnrsquot lead to a ldquoslippery sloperdquo as first of all it wouldneed to bedemonstratedwhich other individuals have thenecessary characteristics and interests Also fundamentalrights are subject to certain restrictions in any case Thuseven if further individuals obtained fundamental rights itdoes not follow that this would prohibit necessary com-promises

No rights without responsibilities

Objection Primates canrsquot have any rights because theycanrsquot fulfil any responsibilitiesResponse Bearers of fundamental rights donrsquot have to bein a position to exercise responsibilities themselves Smallchildren and people with severe developmental disabili-ties or advanced dementia are not in this position but arestill protectedby fundamental rights Thiswouldbenodif-ferent for nonhuman primates

An undermining of human rights

Objection If we give primates fundamental rights we un-dermine human rightsResponse Quite the opposite our proposal strengthenshumanrights Current conceptsofhumanrightsarepoorlyunderpinned theoretically as they either support rightson the basis of membership of the human species (a cir-cular argument) or fall back upon putatively specific hu-man characteristics like autonomyand rationality The lat-ter line of argument places the fundamental rights of peo-ple with learning disabilities small children and peoplewith advanced dementia on very shaky ground as many

9


of these people are not in fact autonomous or rational tovarying degrees Supporting arguments are oen used tosecure their rights such as the argument that such peo-ple belong to a species whose normal members are au-tonomous and rational But these supporting argumentsarenot theoreticallypersuasive if for example the rightsofa ldquonormalrdquo person (if one could even agreewhat ldquonormalrdquomeans) were definitive of the rights of a small child thenevery small childwould receive the right to vote andadriv-ing license andbeheld criminally responsible to the samedegree as an adult That such arguments are not plausi-ble means that the related human rights concepts fail tojustify the fundamental rights of those people who havemost need of them In contrast to this our proposal wouldforma secure foundation for the fundamental rights of hu-mans who aremarginalised by conventional formulationsof human rights small children severely disabled peopleand those with dementia are also capable of suering andhave an interest in living For precisely these reasons wemust protect their fundamental rights to life and integrity(as well as all other applicable rights)

Anthropocentrism

Objection The demand for fundamental rights for nonhu-man primates is anthropocentric it only gives rights tothose animals which are most like humansResponse Our demand relates to a particular order ofspecies (primates) on purely practical grounds The re-striction to nonhuman primates is not based on moralgrounds Other animals need fundamental rights too ifthey have the characteristics and interests necessary tothese rights From a historical point of view this approachis not unprecedented In thehistory of fundamental rightsthe circle of those bearing rights has always expanded

gradually

Conclusion

Nonhuman primates are highly intelligent social beingswho are capable of suering and have the ability to re-member past experiences and to plan for future eventsThey have a fundamental interest in living and in bodilyand mental integrity The relevant national and interna-tional legal regulations hardly take these interests into ac-count since the animal protection laws themselves allowinfringements upon the central core of life and integrityand in practice the fundamental interests of primates aresubordinated to even trivial human interests For their in-terests to be taken seriously nonhuman primates there-fore require legal protection which goes further than ani-mal protection regulations Fundamental rights oer suchprotection Fundamental rights cause the interests of theirbearers to be recognised as equally valuable and so theirinterests are better protected than those of individualswho have no fundamental rights Fundamental rightsare therefore oen described as trump cards Moreoverthrough fundamental rights the core of the protected in-terests is absolutely guaranteed Possible objections andconsiderations that could be raised against this demandfor fundamental rights for nonhuman primates to life andintegrity show themselves to be unfounded

Acknowledgements

Supporters

Professor Oliver Bendel (University of Applied Sciencesand Arts Northwestern Switzerland)Professor Markus Wild (University of Basel)

10

References

[1] Charles Darwin The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex First Volume London John Murray 1871 p171 Darwin in turn cites St George Mivart Philos Transact 1867 p 410

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica Online ldquoPrimaterdquo 2016 httpwwwbritannicacomanimalprimate-mammal (lastaccess 26 February 2016)

[3] See the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery from 25 September 1926 as well as the SupplementaryConvention on the Abolition of Slavery the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery from 7September 1956

[4] See eg the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) from 18December 1979

[5] See the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) from 20 November 1989 and the Convention on the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities vom 13 December 2006

[6] See eg European Court of Human Rights Factsheet Sexual Orientation Issues February 2016httpwwwechrcoeintDocumentsFS_Sexual_orientation_ENGpdf (last access 8 March 2016)

[7] Friderun Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy An Introduction 2nd ed San Diego Academic Press 2000 p 1

[8] Colin P Groves Primates in Don E WilsonDeeAnn M Reeder (eds) Mammal Species of the World A Taxonomicand Geographic Reference 3 ed Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press 2005 p 181

[9] Elizabeth E WatsonSimon EastealDavid Penny Homo Genus a Review of the Classification of Humans and theGreat Apes in Phillip V TobiasMichael A RaathJacopo Moggi-CecchiGerald A Doyle (eds) Humanity fromAfrican Naissance to Coming Millenia Florence Firenze University Press 2001 Morris GoodmanCalvin APorterJohn CzelusniakScott L PageHoracio SchneiderJeheskel ShoshaniGregg GunnellColin P Groves Towarda Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence in MolecularPhylogenetics and Evolution vol 9 1998 Jared Diamond The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee New YorkHarper Collins 1991 p 21

[10] Derek E WildmanMonica UddinGuozhen LiuLawrence I GrossmanMorris Goodman Implications of naturalselection in shaping 994 nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees Enlarging genusHomo in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol 100 2003 p 7181At functionally less important sites humans and chimpanzees share 984 identity

[11] Derek E WildmanMonica UddinGuozhen LiuLawrence I GrossmanMorris Goodman Implications of naturalselection in shaping 994 nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees Enlarging genusHomo in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol 100 2003 p 7181Giordano Bruno Stiung Brother Chimp Sister Bonobo Rights for Great Apes 2011 p 5httpwwwgiordano-bruno-stiungdesitesgbsfilesdownloadgreatapes2pdf (last access 26 February 2016)

[12] Encyclopaedia Britannica Online ldquoPrimate Distribution and Abundancerdquo 2016httpwwwbritannicacomanimalprimate-mammalDistribution-and-abundance (last access 26 February 2016)

[13] Swiss Federal Oice for Food Safety and veterinary aairs Statistics on Animal Experiments 2014httpwwwtv-statistikchdeerweiterte-statistikindexphp (last access 6 April 2016)


[14] Own research

[15] Robert M SeyfarthDorothy L Cheney Knowledge of Social Relations in John C MitaniJosep CallPeter MKappelerRyne A PalombitJoan B Silk (eds) The Evolution of Primate Societies Chicago University of ChicagoPress 2012 p 637

[16] ibid p 637-638

[17] John P Raerty Primates New York Encyclopaedia Britannica Publishing 2011 p xii

[18] Frans de Waal The Evolution of Empathy in Greater Good 1 September 2005httpgreatergoodberkeleyeduarticleitemthe_evolution_of_empathy (last access 26 February 2016)

[19] Jules H MassermanStanley WechkinWilliam Terris bdquoAltruisticldquo behavior in rhesus monkeys in The AmericanJournal of Psychiatry 1964 vol 121 p 584

[20] Andrew Knight The beginning of the end for chimpanzee experiments in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities inMedicine 2008 vol 3

[21] AndrewWhiten Social Learning Traditions and Culture in John C MitaniJosep CallPeter M KappelerRyne APalombitJoan B Silk (eds) The Evolution of Primate Societies Chicago University of Chicago Press 2012 p 695

[22] ibid

[23] ibid

[24] AndrewWhiten Primate Culture and Social Learning in Cognitive Science 2000 vol 24 p 487

[25] Klaus Zuberbuumlhler Communication Strategies in John C MitaniJosep CallPeter M KappelerRyne APalombitJoan B Silk (eds) The Evolution of Primate Societies Chicago University of Chicago Press 2012 p 658

[26] ibid p 648

[27] Roger S FoutsDeborah H FoutsThomas E van Cantfort The Infant Loulis Learns Signs from Cross-FosteredChimpanzees in R Allen GardnerBeatrice T GardnerThomas E van Cantfort (eds) Teaching sign language tochimpanzees Albany State University of New York Press 1989

[28] Josep CallLaurie R Santos Understanding Other Minds in John C MitaniJosep CallPeter M KappelerRyne APalombitJoan B Silk (eds) The Evolution of Primate Societies Chicago University of Chicago Press 2012 pp 675677

[29] William A Roberts Mental Time Travel Animals Anticipate the Future in Current Biology vol 17 2007 p 418Thomas R Zentall Mental time travel in animals A challenging question in Behavioural Processes vol 72 2006p 173 Nicola S ClaytonTimothy J BusseyAnthony Dickinson Can animals recall the past and plan for the futurein Nature Reviews Neuroscience vol 4 2003 p 685 Even sceptical scientists like Thomas Suddendorf andMichael C Corballis emphasise that it would ldquoof course not be too surprising to find that our closest living relativeshave at least some of the capacity that we humans employ to such great eect Limited evidence from nonhumanspecies may imply a continuum echoing Darwinrsquos () remark that ldquo the dierence in mind betweenman and thehigher animals great as it is certainly is one of degree and not of kindrdquordquo Thomas SuddendorfMichael C CorballisBehavioural evidence for mental time travel in nonhuman animals in Behavioural Brain Research vol 215 2010 p295

[30] Mathias OsvathElin Karvonen Spontaneous Innovation for Future Deception in a Male Chimpanzee in PLoS ONEvol 7 2012 p 1 Michael Balter Stone-Throwing Chimp is Back ndash And This Time Itrsquos Personal in Science 9 May2012 httpwwwsciencemagorgnews201205stone-throwing-chimp-back-and-time-its-personal (last access 26February 2016)

12


[31] Abigail Z RajalaKatharine R ReiningerKimberly M LancasterLuis C Populi Rhesusmonkeys (Macacamulatta) dorecognize themselves in the mirror Implications for the evolution of self-recognition in PLoS ONE vol 5 2010 p1 Monique W de VeerGordon G Gallup JrLaura A TheallRuud van den BosDaniel J Povinelli An 8-yearlongitudinal study of mirror self-recognition in chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) in Neuropsychologia vol 41 2003p 229 Frans de WaalMarietta DindoCassiopeia A FreemanMarisa J Hall The monkey in the mirror hardly astranger in National Academy of Sciences USA vol 102 2005 p 11140-11147 Justin J Couchman Self-agency inrhesus monkeys in Biology Letters vol 8 2012 p 39

[32] Helen Proctor Animal Sentience Where Are We and Where Are We Heading in Animals vol 2 2012 p 632

[33] See eg William S GilmerWilliam T McKinney Early experience and depressive disorders human and nonhumanprimate studies in Journal of Aective Disorders vol 75 2003 p 103

[34] Stephen Burr Toward Legal Rights for Animals in Boston College Environmental Aairs Law Review vol 4 1975 p232

[35] More precisely the demands included guardianship provisions as well as three specific legal rights ldquothe right tonot be deprived of life the right to not be subjected to torture or to cruel degrading or disproportionately severetreatment and the right to not be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation where it is not in the bestinterests of the individual hominidrdquo Rowan Taylor A Step at a Time New Zealandrsquos Progress Toward HominidRight in Animal Law Review at Lewis amp Clark School of Law vol 7 2001 p 37 available herehttpswwwanimallawinfositesdefaultfileslralvol_7p35pdf (last access 15 April 2016)

[36] Paola CavalieriPeter Singer (eds) The Great Ape Project Equality beyond Humanity New York St Martinrsquos Press1993

[37] GAP is an international network of animal rights organisations in eg Argentina Brazil(httpwwwprojetogaporgbren last access 15 April 2016) Germany (httpgreatapeprojectde last access 15April 2016) Mexico and Spain

[38] Rowan Taylor A Step at a Time New Zealandrsquos Progress Toward Hominid Right in Animal Law Review at Lewis ampClark School of Law vol 7 2001 p 37 available herehttpswwwanimallawinfositesdefaultfileslralvol_7p35pdf (last access 15 April 2016)

[39] Rowan Taylor A Step at a Time New Zealandrsquos Progress Toward Hominid Right in Animal Law Review at Lewis ampClark School of Law vol 7 2001 p 39-40 available herehttpswwwanimallawinfositesdefaultfileslralvol_7p35pdf (last access 15 April 2016)

[40] More specifically the amendment states ldquo(1) Except in self-defence and the defence of others (including nonhumanhominids) no person without prior approval in writing from the Director-General may deprive a nonhumanhominid of life (2) The Director-General must not give permission under subsection (1) unless satisfied thatdeprivation of life is in the best interests of the nonhuman hominid (3) A person commits an oence whocontravenes subsection (1)rdquo House of Representatives Supplementary Order Paper No 47 Animal WelfareAmendment Bill 17 February 2015 available herehttpwwwlegislationgovtnzsopmembers20150047latestwholehtml (last access 15 April 2016)

[41] House of Representatives Supplementary Order Paper No 47 Animal Welfare Amendment Bill 17 February 2015available here httpwwwlegislationgovtnzsopmembers20150047latestwholehtml (last access 15 April2016)

[42] House of Representatives Animal Welfare Amendment Bill - In Committee 31 March 2015httpwwwparliamentnzen-nzpbdebatesdebates51HansD_20150331_00000012animal-welfare-amendment-bill-E28094-in-committee (last access 15 April2016)

13


[43] In German ldquoVerbot vonmittel- und schwerbelastenden Tierversuchen an Primatenrdquo Parlamentarische Initiative06464

[44] In German ldquoMarmosetten-Versuch der ETHZldquo Interpellation 063126

[45] In German ldquoVersuche an Primatenldquo Postulat 073345 This postulate raises the question whether a weighing ofinterests should be completely forbidden when it comes to research on primates due to the animalrsquos dignity

[46] In German ldquoVerbot von belastenden Tierversuchen an Primatenldquo Motion 154241 submitted on 17 December 2015by National Councillor Maya Graf (Green Party of Switzerland)

[47] ldquoThe Austrian civil law code ABGB does not define what a person is Section sect16 of the civil law code declares allhumans to be persons ldquoEvery human is born [ ] with rights and therefore has to be considered a personrdquo Whathowever is meant with the term ldquohumanrdquo The definition of ldquohumanrdquo in sect16 ABGB has to be interpretedbiologically Aer all beings acting like humans but not being genetically human (possibly computers or robots)are not included On the other hand genetic human beings who have mental defects or have been socialized in atribe of monkeys definitely do count as persons before the lawrdquo Martin BalluchEberhart Theuer Personhood Trialfor Chimpanzee Matthew Pan 18 January 2008 httpvgtatpublikationentexteartikel20080118Hiaslhtm (lastaccess 19 April 2016)

[48] Derek E WildmanMonica UddinGuozhen LiuLawrence I GrossmanMorris Goodman Implications of naturalselection in shaping 994 nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees Enlarging genusHomo in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol 100 2003 p 7181

[49] Having been brought to Austria illegally customs oicers seized him and eleven other baby chimpanzees upontheir arrival in 1982 Matthew was ldquooicially given into the care of the Vienna animal shelter () where a carer took[him] home to raise [him] together with his own human children Matthew has therefore been socialized in ahuman environment and considers himself part of the human species He reacts to other humans like his socialpartners or his rivals or his sexual mates to this dayrdquo Martin BalluchEberhart Theuer Personhood Trial forChimpanzee Matthew Pan 18 January 2008 httpvgtatpublikationentexteartikel20080118Hiaslhtm (lastaccess 19 April 2016)

[50] At the end of 2006 a person donated a large sum of money to the president of the Association Against AnimalFactories provided that a legal guardian would be appointed for Matthew ldquowho can receive this money at the sametime and who can decide what the two together would want to spend the money on With this contract thepresident of the Association Against Animal Factories could argue to have legal standing to start court proceedingsfor a legal guardian for Matthew This application was made on 6th February 2007 at the district court in MoumldlingLower Austriardquo Martin BalluchEberhart Theuer Personhood Trial for Chimpanzee Matthew Pan 18 January 2008httpvgtatpublikationentexteartikel20080118Hiaslhtm (last access 19 April 2016)

[51] Martin BalluchEberhart Theuer Personhood Trial for Chimpanzee Matthew Pan 18 January 2008httpvgtatpublikationentexteartikel20080118Hiaslhtm (last access 19 April 2016)

[52] Own research

[53] As Association Against Animal Factories emphasises Matthewrsquos recognition as a person and the appointment of alegal guardian for him would not give him fundamental rights He would ndash ldquomerelyrdquo but importantly ndash berecognised as a bearer of rights instead of being considered a thing Which rights Matthew could enjoy as aconsequence would still be debatable For instance his rights may only be based on those laws which protect himfrom being killed since he would then be ndash via his legal guardian ndash a legal subject (ie he would have legal standing)Again granting Matthew (just as with other chimpanzees great apes or nonhuman primates more generally)fundamental rights to life to bodily andmental integrity as well as to freedomwould clearly require a politicaldecision Martin BalluchEberhart Theuer Personhood Trial for Chimpanzee Matthew Pan 18 January 2008httpvgtatpublikationentexteartikel20080118Hiaslhtm (last access 19 April 2016)

14


[54] Thus Steven M Wise draws two conclusions The resolution did not seek legal rights for great apes and it has neverbeen enacted by the full Spanish parliament Steven M Wise Ask the Animal Rights Lawyer ldquoDo great apes havelegal rights in Spainrdquo 5 March 2012 httpwwwnonhumanrightsprojectorg20120305ask-the-animal-rights-lawyer-E2809Cdo-great-apes-have-legal-rights-in-spainE2809D (last access 13 April2016)

[55] Giordano Bruno Stiung Verfassungsziel Speziesismus 2 June 2014httpwwwgiordano-bruno-stiungdemeldungverfassungsziel-speziesismus (last access 20 April 2016)

[56] See Steven M Wise Thatrsquos One Small Step for a Judge One Giant Leap for the Nonhuman Rights Project 4 August2015 httpwwwnonhumanrightsprojectorg20150804thats-one-small-step-for-a-judge-one-giant-leap-for-the-nonhuman-rights-project (last access 12 April2016)

[57] Nonhuman Rights Project What is the Nonhuman Rights Projecthttpwwwnonhumanrightsprojectorgoverview (last access 19 April 2016)

[58] Emiliano Gimeacutenez Argentine orangutan granted unprecedented legal rights 4 January 2015httpeditioncnncom20141223worldamericasfeat-orangutan-rights-ruling (last access 19 April 2016)

[59] Steven M Wise Update on the Sandra Orangutan Case in Argentina 6 March 2015httpwwwnonhumanrightsprojectorg20150306update-on-the-sandra-orangutan-case-in-argentina (lastaccess 19 April 2016 italics in the original)

[60] USA TODAY Germany guarantees animal rights in constitution 18 May 2002httpusatoday30usatodaycomnewsworld20020518germany-rightshtm (last access 19 April 2016)

[61] See eg Deutscher Tierschutzbund Grundgesetz ndash Staatsziel Tierschutzhttpwwwtierschutzbunddeinformationhintergrundrechtgrundgesetzhtml (last access 19 April 2016)

[62] Margot MichelEveline Schneider Kayasseh The Legal Situation of Animals in Switzerland Two Steps Forward OneStep Back ndash Many Steps to go in Journal of Animal Law vol 7 2011 p 1 available herehttpwwwafgoetschelcomdedownloadslegal-situation-of-animals-in-switzerlandpdf (last access 19 April2016)

[63] The Canadian Press Quebec bill calls animals rsquosentient beingsrsquo and includes jail time for cruelty 5 June 2015httpwwwcbccanewscanadamontrealquebec-bill-calls-animals-sentient-beings-and-includes-jail-time-for-cruelty-13102399 (last access 19 April 2016) Sophie GaillardMartin GibertEacutelise Desaulniers Animals are not thingsndash Manifesto for the Evolution of Animalsrsquo Legal Status in the Civil Code of Quebec 4 December 2015httpanimalsarenotobjectsca (last access 19 April 2016)

[64] For instance a parliamentary advance in Switzerland in 2015 demanded a ldquoBan on animal experiments for theproduction of cosmetics cleaning and housekeeping suppliesrdquo (in German ldquoVerbot von Tierversuchen fuumlrKosmetika Reinigungs- und Haushaltsmittelrdquo Motion 154240 no outcome yet) Further afield there are a range ofstates like Belgium Austria the Netherlands New Zealand and Great Britain which have enacted an absolute banon experiments on apes as well as a partial ban on experiments on other nonhuman primates In the states of theEuropean Union (EU) research on apes was banned in principle with the enactment in 2010 of the Guidelines for theprotection of animals used in scientific research (201063EU Art 8 Fig 3) Under Art 55 Fig 2 of the guidelinesthis ban is only lied if such research is absolutely necessary as a last resort for the preservation of a species or forthe prevention of a situation threatening human life The guidelines go on to tighten the requirements for researchon other nonhuman primates (Art 8) The implementation period of these guidelines expired on 10 November2012 In connection with this see Protection of laboratory animals retrievable underhttpeur-lexeuropaeulegal-contentENTXTuri=URISERV3Asa0027 (last access 26 February 2016)

15


[65] Examples are the interpellation ldquoMeasures against the illegal trade of bushmeatldquo (in German ldquoMassnahmen gegenden illegalen Buschfleischhandelldquo Interpellation 133887) from 2013 and the parliamentary advance ldquoBan on theimport of hunting trophiesldquo (in German ldquoImportverbot fuumlr Jagdtrophaumlenldquo Motion 153736 no outcome yet) from2015 both in Switzerland The latter advance demands inter alia a general ban on primate trophies

[66] Examples for this issue are the enquiry ldquoThe dignity of animals in Swiss zoosldquo (in German ldquoWuumlrde der Tiere inSchweizer Zoosldquo Anfrage 091042) from 2009 and the interpellation ldquoMoratorium of animal breeding in zoos as acrowd pullerrdquo (in German ldquoStopp der Tierzucht in Zoos als Publikumsmagnetldquo Interpellation 143722) from 2014both in Switzerland

[67] The Universal Charter of the Rights of Other Species 2013 retrievable underhttpwwwall-creaturesorgarticlesar-universal-charter-rights-specieshtml (last access 26 February 2016) TheDeclaration Of Animal Rights 2011retrievable under httpwwwdeclarationofarorgtextSignphp (last access 26February 2016)

[68] See eg European Court of Human Rights Factsheet Right to life June 2013 p 3httpwwwechrcoeintDocumentsFS_Life_ENGpdf (last access 20 April 2016)

[69] The equal value that we demand for primates through fundamental rights does not mean equal legitimacyfundamental rights will not make nonhuman animals the same as humans in actual fact They will simply beendowed with equally valuable fundamental rights in relation to specific interests (namely life and integrity)

[70] See Ronald Dworkin Taking Rights Seriously London Bloomsbury p 6

[71] Hans-Johann Glock The Anthropological Dierence What Can Philosophers Do To Identify the DierencesBetween Human and Non-human Animals in Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement vol 70 2012 p 111

[72] Bernd Ladwig Menschenrechte und Tierrechte in Zeitschri fuumlr Menschenrechte Bd 1 2010 p 137

[73] English source

[74] International Association for the Study of Pain IASP Taxonomy httpwwwiasp-painorgTaxonomyPain (lastaccess 20 April 2016)

[75] Robert W ElwoodStuart BarrLynsey Patterson Pain and stress in crustaceans in Applied Animal BehaviourScience vol 118 2009 p 129

[76] See eg Helen Proctor Animal Sentience Where Are We and Where Are We Heading in Animals vol 2 2012 p632

[77] See eg Sabine Michalowski Article 3 ndash Right to the Integrity of the Person in Steve PeersTamara HerveyJeKennerAngela Ward The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights A Commentary Oxford Hart Publishing

[78] See for an overviewWilliam S GilmerWilliam T McKinney Early experience and depressive disorders human andnonhuman primate studies in Journal of Aective Disorders vol 75 2003 p 103

16

Sentience Politics is an anti-speciesist political think-tank We advocate a society which grants moral

consideration to all sentient beings regardless of their species membership Our activities include

political initiatives and the composition of scientific position papers in order to encourage rational

discussion on important issues

Our philosophy is based on eective altruism How can we use our limited resources (time and

money) to reduce asmuch suering as possible Sentience Politics uses rationality and empirical sci-

ence in order to identify and implement the most eective strategies We also use this approach in

order to select and prioritize the causes that we work on

Sentience Politics was founded as a project of the Eective Altruism Foundation (EAF) in 2013 EAF

is an independent think tank and project overseer founded at the intersection of science and ethics by

a team of young interdisciplinary individuals It is a part of the fast-growing Eective Altruismmove-

ment and aims to improve the lives of as many sentient beings as extensively as possible In order to

achieve this goal with limited resources EAF uses rational thinking and evidence-based approaches

Would you like to support our work Please visithttpsentience-politicsorgensupportfor more information on several ways to support us

copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Policy paper by Sentience Politics

Preferred Citation Fasel R Blattner C Mannino A und Baumann T (2016) Fundamental Rights forPrimates Policy paper by Sentience Politics (1) 1-16

First release May 2016 Last update May 2016

Website sentience-politicsorg

Contents

Introduction 1

Primates 2




Conclusion 10

Acknowledgements 10

References 11



Introduction






Primates











2










3











4













5













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Contents

Introduction 1

Primates 2




Conclusion 10

Acknowledgements 10

References 11



Introduction






Primates











2










3











4













5













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References


Introduction






Primates











2










3











4













5













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References


Primates











2










3











4













5













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References










3











4













5













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References











4













5













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References













5













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References













6










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References










Justifications




7















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References















8







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References







Impracticability



A slippery slope






9



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References



Anthropocentrism


gradually

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Supporters


10

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

References















[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References


[14] Own research


[16] ibid p 637-638






[22] ibid

[23] ibid



[26] ibid p 648





12














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References














13











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References











[52] Own research


14













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References













15










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References










[73] English source






16















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References















copy 2016

Introduction

Primates




Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References