Abstract
The study assessed the coherence between the seriousness of wildlife crime offenses and the severity of judicial responses, while triangulating institutional perceptions. Five judgments issued between 2018 and 2020 were systematized and functional interviews were analyzed. Offending conduct, evidentiary elements, aggravating circumstances, penalties, fines, reparation, date, jurisdiction, and evidentiary observations were compared using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of categories (trafficked goods, affected species, and custody procedures). Three patterns were identified: predominance of bushmeat and anatomical parts over live animals; high variability in fines and in the definition of reparation; and recurrent deficiencies in the chain of custody and expert reports. The severity of sanctions revealed heterogeneity in relation to aggravating circumstances. A checklist is proposed to support proportionality in sanctioning and standardization in reparation. The comparative matrix used is replicable at the cantonal level and useful for future provincial comparisons.
References
M. Pascual, J. Wingard, N. Bhatri, A. Rydannykh, and J. Phelps, “Building a global taxonomy of wildlife offenses,” Conservation Biology, pp. 1903–1912, May 2021, doi: 10.1111/cobi.13761.
UNODC, “World Wildlife Crime Report 2024,” Vienna, May 2024. Accessed: Nov. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/wildlife/2024/Wildlife2024_Final.pdf
A. Cardesa-Salzmann and D. Campbell, “Literature Review of Sentencing of Environmental and Wildlife Crimes,” Scottish Sentencing Council, Mar. 2020, Accessed: Nov. 13, 2025. [Online]. Available: www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk
R. Ogden and A. Linacre, “Wildlife forensic science: A review of genetic geographic origin assignment,” Forensic Sci Int Genet, vol. 18, pp. 152–159, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1016/J.FSIGEN.2015.02.008.
Asamblea Nacional República del Ecuador, “CÓDIGO ORGÁNICO INTEGRAL PENAL, COIP,” Feb. 2021. Accessed: Nov. 13, 2025. [Online]. Available: www.lexis.com.ec
S. Knauß, “Conceptualizing Human Stewardship in the Anthropocene: The Rights of Nature in Ecuador, New Zealand and India,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2018 31:6, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 703–722, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1007/S10806-018-9731-X.
O. Wuraola, “Rights of Nature in Action: An Analysis of Laws in Ecuador,” Ecuadorian Science Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–13, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.46480/esj.9.2.218.
A. D. M. Dobson, E. J. Milner-Gulland, D. J. Ingram, and A. Keane, “A Framework for Assessing Impacts of Wild Meat Hunting Practices in the Tropics,” Hum Ecol, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 449–464, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1007/S10745-019-0075-6.
I. Cummins, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, A. Barnard, and R. Nasi, “Agouti on the wedding menu: Bushmeat harvest, consumption and trade in a post-frontier region of the Ecuadorian Amazon,” Center for International Forestry Research, 2015, doi: 10.17528/CIFOR/005730.
F. Javier-Oñate et al., “Microbiological Analysis of Wild Meat Seized in the Province of Orellana and Its Impact on the SDGS,” Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, vol. 4, no. 3, p. e02706, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v4.n03.pe02706.
A. Hutchinson, M. Camino-Troya, and T. Wyatt, “Global scoping of wildlife crime offences, penalties, and statistics,” The Global Journal of Animal Law, vol. 11, no. 1, Jun. 2023, Accessed: Nov. 13, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://journal.fi/gjal/article/view/148769
R. Villalba-Briones, P. Mendoza, D. Garces, E. Belen Molineros, J. S. Monros, and S. Shanee, “Synergistic Threats to Wild Fauna in Ecuador: Using a Novel Data Source to Estimate the Impacts of Trafficking and Human–Wildlife Conflict,” Diversity (Basel), vol. 16, no. 8, p. 490, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.3390/D16080490/S1.
T. D’Anna et al., “The Chain of Custody in the Era of Modern Forensics: From the Classic Procedures for Gathering Evidence to the New Challenges Related to Digital Data,” Healthcare, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 634, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/HEALTHCARE11050634.
P. W. Trail, “Morphological species identification of wildlife forensic evidence based on digital images,” Forensic Science International: Animals and Environments, vol. 1, p. 100021, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.FSIAE.2021.100021.
C. M. Kauffman and P. L. Martin, “How Ecuador’s Courts Are Giving Form and Force to Rights of Nature Norms,” Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 366–395, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1017/S2047102523000080.
L. J. Kotzé and P. V. Calzadilla, “Somewhere between Rhetoric and Reality: Environmental Constitutionalism and the Rights of Nature in Ecuador,” Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 401–433, 2017, doi: 10.1017/S2047102517000061.
M. Sas-Rolfes, D. W. S. Challender, A. Hinsley, D. Veríssimo, and E. J. Milner-Gulland, “Illegal Wildlife Trade: Scale, Processes, and Governance,” Annu Rev Environ Resour, vol. 44, no. Volume 44, 2019, pp. 201–228, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ENVIRON-101718-033253/CITE/REFWORKS.
S. Cole et al., “Environmental compensation for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A flexible framework that addresses human wellbeing,” Ecosyst Serv, vol. 50, p. 101319, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2021.101319.
V. A. M. Rivera, J. I. E. Jara, and F. E. C. Cárdenas, “Incidencias en la aplicación del principio de proporcionalidad en el derecho procesal penal de Ecuador,” Reincisol., vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 3246–3263, May 2025, doi: 10.59282/REINCISOL.V4(7)3246-3263.
A. N. Thaharah, “Criminal Sanctions for Unauthorized Transportation of Protected Animals within the Perspective of the Purpose of Punishment,” Administrative and Environmental Law Review, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 97–106, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.25041/AELR.V4I2.2980.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.