The mere presence of such an animal in court, the lawyers believe, would raise tough legal questions. An increasing number of lawyers say they are full or part-time law specialists interested in testing the boundaries of established legal principles. There are conferences, legal books and bar committees on animal law. The problem with this approach to law is that the law generally requires proof that a witness knows the difference between right and wrong. There is not yet proof that a court would likely accept that apes understand what humans mean by these concepts.
Rights are part of a social contract that makes no sense without responsibilities.
The issue is really stewardship. We teach children to respect a tree by mentioning its age, so we should teach children to respect animals and share insights into animals' mental life to foster an ethic of caring and stewardship over animals. We cannot wantonly destroy or harm animals. But animals are not humans. What is really generating this approach to animals rights is a quasi-pantheism fed by Darwinian evolution that sees all parts of the physical world as equal.