Abstract: [...]this peculiarity of Estrellita’s case, added to the fact that it was the first writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of an animal in Ecuador, explains our initial uncertainty about the scope of the case. The 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution recognizes nature as a rights holder, so any person or community can request a court or public authority to protect the rights of nature or Pachamama, the Quechua word for Mother Earth. [...]the Constitutional Court’s ruling in Estrellita’s case, the rights of nature had only referred to the protection of animals considered as species, not as individuals. [...]we may be killing animals belonging to different families, destroying the group’s genetic diversity, and leaving only siblings who may not mate. [...]we argued that if the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court decided to exclude individual animals from the protection of the rights of nature, then it would be forced to answer an impossible question: