Employee was accused of causing serious injury to animals
We are appealing the decision to acquit a Vivotecnia employee charged with mistreatment of and causing serious injury to animals.
We were a complainant in the trial, held in Madrid on 7 and 8 May, and are appealing the acquittal of Carlos Martín Llanos over the retro-orbital extractions performed on several rats at the Vivotecnia contract testing facility in April 2019.
The extractions involve applying a blunt cannula through the rats’ eyes to extract blood. Footage taken undercover shows that up to 11 stabs with the cannula were needed to get at the blood, as the rats visibly struggled. This procedure, called ‘retro-orbital blood extraction’, can, in the words of the judge, cause “intense pain and serious injuries”. The city regulator, the Comunidad de Madrid, acknowledged that “this is not a recommended technique for animal welfare [reasons]” – even when done with full anaesthetic. The licence for the procedure required a foot reflex test to ensure that the rats were fully anaesthetised.
After hearing evidence from the whistleblower, the defendant, and several veterinary experts, Judge Jacobo Vigil Levi decided:
‘In the case at hand, I consider it proven that the defendant, Mr. Martín Llanos, on April 1, 2019, proceeded to extract blood from the retro-orbital area of several rats without anesthesia, as required by Article 26.3 of Royal Decree 53/13 and also required by the protocol of the study carried out. With this conduct, he caused unnecessary pain and suffering to the animals, of which the defendant was aware, yet he repeated his actions with at least two rats.’
He also decided that Mr Martin Llanos was indifferent to the suffering of the animals. The evidence of the whistleblower was that anaesthesia was never given.
However, the judge acquitted the defendant, mainly because it was not possible to be sure that the absence of anaesthesia had caused extra injuries to those which were permitted. In our appeal, we argue that this is clearly the wrong approach: “injuries that seriously damage [an animal’s] health” within Article 337(1) of the Spanish Penal Code must include carrying out a test without anaesthesia where this is required, irrespective of whether the absence of anaesthesia causes additional visible physical injury.
We are not appealing the acquittal of co-defendant Rubén Cabrero Minguela.
The trial followed an in-depth investigation by a whistleblower using the pseudonym Carlota Saorsa, who took hours of undercover footage over an 18-month period[4]. We then released that footage in 2021, causing a public outcry and huge media and political interest in Spain and around the world.
The evidence revealed yet again the chasm between the rhetoric and the reality of how animals are treated in laboratories.
Vivotecnia is a contract research organisation which conducts large numbers of tests on monkeys, rabbits, dogs, pigs and rodents for a global client base of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. The company’s website claims that its “in-house team of veterinarians ensures that animal welfare is paramount”, that its facilities “exceed animal welfare regulatory guidelines”, and that “all Vivotecnia work procedures are in adherence” with EU and Spanish law. We believe the reality is very different.
Our Chief Executive, Michelle Thew, said: “This verdict cast serious doubt about the ability of Spanish law to give any real meaningful protection to animals in laboratories. The fact that the bar for conviction has been set so high means that the law is not fit for purpose. Imagine if a human being was operated on without the necessary anaesthesia – that would be enough for a serious criminal offence, without any need to prove that physical injury had been caused in addition to that involved in the operation. Why should the position be any different with vulnerable animals, who do not consent to what is done to them?
“We now hope that our appeal will help to bring legal recognition of the suffering inflicted upon some of the animals at Vivotecnia, and highlight the inherent and horrific cruelty of toxicity testing on animals. If everything that happened at Vivotecnia was legal, it shows that society tolerates this cruelty to animals in laboratories on a routine basis. Our investigation uncovered horrendous evidence of the way animals are housed, handled and abused in toxicity tests, as well as what we believe to be countless breaches of Spanish and EU legislation. It is unthinkable that this should still be happening in Europe.”
