Rough justice

Two neighbouring dog owners accidentally or otherwise allowed their dogs to roam freely, not on a leash. The dogs attacked and killed a pet cat on our urbanisation. This was witnessed by another neighbour. It shocked many of us here who also own pet cats, including my wife and myself. The mourning owners of the dead cat filed a complaint with the police against these dog owners. The guardia civil did not remove one of the dogs because they said it wasn't classed as a dangerous breed. When the owners of the dead cat filed a case in the local court against the dog owners, the case was dismissed. The court accepted without reserve the defendants' statements that the dogs had escaped accidentally from locked premises (two separate households at the same time?). I have read the text of the judgement which does not refer at all to the statement of the witness to the killing. This statement was also filed to the guardia civil and should have been a key part of the petition and the evidence reviewed by the court. The lawyer for the owners of the dead cat say the witness's statement was reviewed!

I am confused. I find it hard to understand either the decision of the court or the assessment of the results by the lawyer who apparently says that there is no point in pursuing it further.

In the meantime, I as also a cat owner in the neoghbourhood feel that my pet is still in danger from one of the dogs which occasionally runs about on its own without being restrained, chasing the cats. It seems that despite the law, in practice dogs are allowed quite easily to be left unleashed without any liability on the part of the owner if they can find some excuse since it is reasonable to suppose in the light of the preceding that r not such incidents may not be taken seriously by the courts.

Also, ss it true, what I have heard, that Spanish courts do not acknowledge mental distress as an aspect of legal liability, as courts in some other countries do, and also that pet controls is rather casually handled by the court systems?

Also, is it true that the appeal system does not allow review of new evidence or unconsidered evidence in the first judgement, only a review of the existng judgement that has not given satisfaction to the plaintiff? This is what I have heard but I find it hard to believe as if it were true, it would make the appeals system virtually worthless and some element of cynicism about due legal process is bound to enter the public mind if this were true.

Thanks in advance for your reply on these general points.