Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Chile, Arica Appel Court, 23 April 2021, No. 127.2020

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Chile
Case ID
No. 127.2020
Decision date
23 April 2021
Deciding body (English)
Arica Appel Court
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Health law, detention and prison law
Vulnerability groups
Persons deprived of liberty
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld

Case analisys

General Summary

The head of Regional Studies of the Public Criminal Defense Office filed a constitutional action on behalf of an inmate against the National Director of the Gendarmerie, for the inhuman acts that the man suffered, as he was handcuffed while unconscious due to being ill from Covid-19. The Court considered that, despite the crisis generated by the pandemic, the National Gendarmerie cannot use such security measures against inmates.

Facts of the case

The head of Regional Studies of the Public Criminal Defense Office filed an “Amparo” action on behalf of an inmate and against the National Director of the Gendarmerie to protect the rights of freedom, security, and decent treatment. The inmate was a prisoner at the Acha prison complex, and was infected with Covid-19. He was then hospitalized at the Arica Regional Hospital where his health deteriorated. During the process his daughter could demonstrate that, while he was unconscious in the intensive care unit he was handcuffed, clearly suffering cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Therefore, the claimant argued that a violation of the constitutional rights and international obligations had occurred, in particular the Nelson Mandela Rules and American Convention on Human Rights.

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
The applicant sought relief and the Court to order the Gendarmerie to immediately lift the security measure of shackling hospitalized inmates in unconscious states and to avoid applying this measure in the future
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Public
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Special / extraordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court accepted the arguments presented by the claimant and determined that the security measure of handcuffing hospitalized inmates constituted a violation of rule 47 of the United Nations Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules). According to the evidence, the Court stated that the inmate was effectively handcuffed while he was unconscious and connected to a ventilator. The Regional Gendarmerie Director argued that the medical staff had reported a reduction in sedation levels that justified the stricter safety measure but the Court found that the measure was clearly not supported in the clinical reports, but was also a violation of constitutional rights (right to life and integrity) and international obligations (the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment). The Court also considered that the action by the Regional Gendarmerie was a violation of Resolution No. 15.00.00.559/21 of the National Gendarmerie which, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, was ordered to lift all coercive measures for people hospitalized in intensive care units.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court upheld the claim and ordered the National Gendarmerie to immediately lift the security measure of shackling hospitalized inmates in unconscious states and to avoid applying the measure in the future.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Prisoners’ rights
  • Right to bodily integrity
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • Right to life and integrity, Art. 1, Chilean Constitution
  • Prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, Art. 5.2, American Convention on Human Rights
  • Prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, Rule 47, UN Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. freedom of movement of persons
General principle applied
Rule of law
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court did not use an explicit technique to balance fundamental rights. However, the Court tacitly applied the principle of the Rule of law, as it founded its decision on the obligation of regional authorities to apply strictly constitutional and international human rights obligations, as well as resolutions established by their superiors.

Additional notes

Other notes

On the type of procedure: “Amparo” action to protect right to freedom and security art. 21, Chilean Constitution.

Author of the case note
Valentina del Sol Salazar Rivera, Instructor, Externado University, Colombia
Case identified by
Violeta Purán Rosas
Published by Marco Nicolò on 13 November 2022

More cases from Chile

  • Chile, Supreme Court of Justice, 17 October 2020, Rol No. 134.251-2020
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Chile, Supreme Court of Chile, 27 September 2022, Rol No. 77.522-2021
    Area: Freedom of movement of people
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Chile, La Serena Appeals Court. First Chamber, 27 September 2022, Rol No. 6079-2022
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to data protection; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Chile, Supreme Court, Third Chamber, 28 February 2022, No. 95.899-2021
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Right to life)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Chile, Supreme Court, First Chamber, 28 July 2022, No. 85.755-2021
    Area: Freedom to conduct a business
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (Tenant Rights)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Chile, Supreme Court of Justice, 21 April 2022, Causa No. 10516-2022
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Chile

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Chile, Arica Appel Court, 23 April 2021, No. 127.2020
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies