Three animal‑abuse officials sentenced over Pájara kennel scandal: 207 dogs dead or missing, mass graves uncovered

Eight years after the SEPRONA inspection that uncovered the horror at the La Pared kennel, the courts have sentenced three responsible parties for the death or disappearance of more than 200 dogs. The sentences, reduced due to delays and subsequent improvements, reopen the debate over the lack of exemplary punishments for animal cruelty in Spain.

Justice has finally put an end, eight years later, to one of the darkest episodes in public animal management on Fuerteventura.
The court has handed down convictions against three officials of the La Pared kennel, where severe negligence between 2016 and 2017 led to the loss of life of more than two hundred dogs.

The events date back to the period when the centre was jointly managed by the Centro‑Sur Commonwealth and the Pájara City Council.
The case was opened after a SEPRONA inspection on 16 October 2017, during which agents found “a Rottweiler dead amid blood‑stained feces.” That scene sparked a judicial investigation that, years later, proved the negligent conduct of those responsible for the animals’ custody: Pájara councilor María Ángeles A.P., Commonwealth manager Sara P.S., and veterinarian Yoenia M.G.

According to the ruling, the three “performed their duties negligently, allowing an unjustified sacrifice of a huge number of dogs and losing control of many others.” In total, the death or disappearance of approximately 207 dogs was documented.

Mass graves around the kennel

The investigation also established that the dead animals were “in open mass graves created by the City Council around the kennel facility,” without sanitary control or environmental supervision.

During that period, animal‑rights groups on Fuerteventura played a crucial role, highlighted by lawyer Maite Bautista of the association Abogados Pro‑Defensa de los Animales de Canarias (PROTA), which acted as a popular prosecutor.

“They adopted every animal could, sometimes up to 30 at a time, having to pay the adoption fee as well as the of the microchip and vaccination,” she emphasized.

In many cases, the dogs were taken directly to external veterinary clinics “to be hospitalized and treated” or to provide them “a dignified death through euthanasia.”

The court text describes the evidence presented by veterinarians as “irrefutable and chilling,” and records other incidents in which the convicted parties prevented shelter volunteers from removing sick or injured animals, leading to fatal outcomes.

The popular prosecution: PROTA

Lawyer Maite Bautista drove the procedure forward and initially filed a popular prosecution demanding the maximum penalty under the Penal Code: 18 months imprisonment and a four‑year ban on animal ownership.

However, that was not the final sentence. According to the attorney, two mitigating circumstances were recognized during the process, forcing a reduction in the penalties: excessive procedural delays (the trial stretched over almost eight years) and reparation of the damage, as material and personnel improvements were implemented at the kennel.

The judicial document notes that the centre “now operates excellently, allowing sick dogs to be removed without hindrance and granting shelters access to visit and care for the animals on weekends."

Reduced sentences due to delays and reparation

The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested six months imprisonment and a twoyear disqualification, while PROTA’s popular prosecution asked for nine months imprisonment and two and a half years of disqualification. Those penalties were accepted for the three defendants, on the that they do not serve time in prison.

In addition, they were convicted of an environmental crime for opening mass graves with unregulated carcasses, receiving a sentence of three months imprisonment and a fine equivalent to eight months’ wages, calculated at six euros per day.

“Exemplary convictions will never be achieved”

Despite securing a conviction in a complex case, PROTA’s lawyer expressed disappointment with the modest criminal response.

“As long as the Penal Code does not impose sanctions comparable to other European countries—such as five years imprisonment—exemplary convictions that deter animal abusers will never be achieved,” she concluded.