A reform that falls short
On 30 June 2025, the Chamber of Deputies unanimously approved a reform to the Criminal Code introducing Article 291 quater. It was presented as a historic advance against zoophilia. The text sent to the Senate, however, does not create the independent criminal offence contemplated by the original bill. It merely adds an aggravating circumstance to animal cruelty.
That choice has practical consequences. The criminal response remains dependent on proving the underlying cruelty offence, its deterrent effect is limited, and the legal protection offered to animals is inadequate for a form of violence that has its own characteristics.
From a specific offence to a symbolic aggravation
Bill No. 16,733-07 originally proposed a separate, carefully structured offence. It would have criminalised zoophilia and other sexual conduct committed against animals, including penetrative acts, without requiring proof of physical injury. The proposed penalty was medium-degree minor imprisonment, a fine, and permanent disqualification from keeping animals.
The proposal also increased the penalty where serious injury or death resulted and covered recording, storing, promoting, or disseminating the acts—thereby addressing the market for zoopornographic material as well as the direct abuse. It further excluded certain mitigating circumstances based on emotional disturbance or prior good conduct.
During parliamentary processing, this coherent framework was dismantled. What remains is a subordinate aggravating circumstance, rather than a response calibrated to the particular seriousness of sexual violence against animals.
Why the aggravation has restricted effects
Under Articles 67 and 68 of the Chilean Criminal Code, one generic aggravating circumstance does not generally allow the sentence to move to the next degree. It allows the court to impose the upper part of the degree already prescribed by law.
For cruelty without physical injury, the basic penalty ranges from 61 days to three years. The aggravation excludes the lowest range but does not raise the maximum to the five years that the original proposal could have allowed in cases of serious injury or death. The same structural limitation applies to other forms of animal cruelty.
The reform therefore increases the floor in some cases without creating the autonomous offence, evidentiary framework, or sanctioning range that a meaningful criminal response requires.
A task still pending
Sexual violence against animals should not be treated merely as an accessory feature of another offence. A future reform should restore a specific offence, recognise that visible injuries are not the only relevant harm, address the production and circulation of recordings, and impose disqualification from animal custody where appropriate.
The unanimous vote demonstrates political recognition of the issue. The remaining question is whether that recognition will be translated into a law capable of protecting animals in practice rather than a largely symbolic promise.