While attempting to stun a goat, one slaughterhouse employee fails to correctly place the electric stun gun between the animal's eyes and ears in order to ensure optimal spanning of the brain. The employee slips while holding the forceps and clamps the animal's nose and mouth section between the electrodes. The animal's ensuing screams and panicky reaction indicate that it has suffered a painful electric shock. The goat panics and tries to get away from the employee and the kill floor. The worker makes another attempt to stun the animal only to miss the correct spot again and hit the goat in the chest with the electrodes. Again, the goat cries out indicating that the animal has suffered another electric shock. The animal then manages to jump over the barriers and is caught by the slaughterhouse worker, who grabs it by its hind legs and tries to drag it back over the barrier onto the kill floor. His first attempt fails, so a second slaughterhouse worker comes and grabs the animal by the horns. Together they lift the goat back over the barrier. Its screams indicate that the rough handling by the men is causing it a great deal of pain and distress.

Due to the considerable pain and suffering inflicted on the goat, it is clear that the acts involved constitute maltreatment. The maltreatment of an animal is legally considered as animal cruelty and is therefore punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or a monetary penalty. Hence, it is incomprehensible that the public prosecutor's office qualified the criminal acts described in this case as minor misdemeanors according to article 28 paragraph 1 AWA and sentenced the perpetrator to a fine of as little as 250 francs. In our opinion, this is a clear misjudgment.

The lenient sentence neither does justice to the goat's suffering nor does it have a preventive effect with regard to future animal welfare violations. On the contrary, it creates the impression that the scenes described are nothing more than minor transgressions in the eyes of the public prosecutor.  It is also incomprehensible why the other obvious animal welfare violations that can be seen in the video were not prosecuted. Neither was the question raised as to whether the incidents in the slaughterhouses were structural problems; if so, the actions would be attributable to the facility operators or the competent management bodies.

For years, TIR has been criticizing the inadequate enforcement of animal welfare-related criminal law in Switzerland. Every year, we evaluate all animal welfare-related criminal proceedings reported to the FSVO and publish a comprehensive analysis of the Swiss animal welfare-related penal practice to shed light on the weaknesses in the penal system. TIR's annual reports show that animal welfare violations are still not being pursued and punished with the necessary consistency. In many cantons, the competent law enforcement authorities lack not only the necessary personnel but also, and above all, the necessary expertise in the field of animal welfare law. They are often unfamiliar with the relevant legal provisions resulting in a poor and inconsistent penal practice. In addition, the maximum penalties as stipulated in the animal welfare legislation are not even nearly exhausted. As a result, the penalties imposed are often far too lenient and in no way reflect the suffering inflicted on the animals.

In its report on the events surrounding the animal cruelty case "Hefenhofen", published at the end of 2018, the investigative commission of the Canton of Thurgau stresses the central importance of specialized agencies to ensure proper enforcement of animal welfare law. Among other things, it recommends the establishment of a special office for animal welfare offenses within the cantonal police force and the prosecution of animal welfare offenses by specialized public prosecutors. As part of its annual analysis, TIR also regularly compiles a catalogue of important requirements to ensure the effectiveness of the animal welfare-related penal practice. It is only when the penal provisions of the AWA are correctly applied, and animal welfare violations are consistently and adequately punished can animal welfare law develop the preventive effect it was intended for and prevent future animal welfare violations.