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
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Chile, Constitutional Tribunal, 12 January 2022, Rol. 11.647-2021‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Chile
Case ID
Rol. 11.647-2021‎
Decision date
12 January 2022
Deciding body (English)
Constitutional Tribunal
Deciding body (Original)
Tribunal Constitucional‎
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Instance
Single Instance
Area
Procedural law (fair trial)
Vulnerability groups
Inmate Population
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_ES available on www.tribunalconstitucional.cl

Case analisys

General Summary

A person subject to criminal procedures before a Criminal Court ‎resorted to the Constitutional Tribunal in order for this institution to ‎declare that an expression contained in Law 21.226 was contrary to ‎the constitution.‎

The aforementioned law provided that, during the pandemic, ‎criminal procedures against the inmate population might only ‎have been suspended upon “absolute impossibility” of one of the ‎parties to exercise its rights. ‎

The Court concluded that the rule was contrary to the Constitution, and ‎declared that it was inapplicable to the instant case. However, it ‎sustained that this did not mean that carrying out criminal procedures ‎through virtual means was contrary to due process, as claimed by the ‎plaintiff. The Ordinary Courts in each case should have ‎determined whether virtual means were the proper ones to ‎conduct a trial. ‎

Facts of the case

Chilean congress enacted Law No. 21.226, setting forth a special legal ‎regime for judicial procedures in the context of the pandemic. ‎ A person subject to criminal procedures before a Criminal Court ‎resorted to the Constitutional Tribunal in order for the aforementioned ‎institution to state that an expression contained in Law 21.226 was ‎contrary to the Constitution.‎

This Law provided that, during the pandemic, criminal procedures ‎against the inmate population may only be suspended upon the ‎‎“absolute impossibility” of one of the parties to exercise its rights. ‎ According to the plaintiff, the expression “absolute impossibility” was ‎contrary to the Constitution, since it obliged the inmate ‎population to act in the context of criminal procedures by virtual ‎means, jeopardizing its right to due process and depriving them from ‎the advantages of a proper trial.‎

In the opinion of the plaintiff, if an inmate part of criminal ‎proceedings had limitations to exercise its rights, but those limitations ‎were not tantamount to an “absolute impossibility”, it would not have ‎the right to obtain the suspension of the procedures. ‎

Therefore, the Law imposed a burden on the inmate population ‎that violated their rights to due process and a proper trial. ‎

Type of measure challenged
National government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
The rule to be declared was contrary to the Constitution and ‎inapplicable to the instant case‎
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)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Inapplicability for unconstitutionality request
Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the rule was contrary to the Constitution and ‎declared it was inapplicable to the instant case. However, it sustained ‎that this did not mean that carrying out criminal proceedings through ‎virtual means was contrary to due process, as claimed by the plaintiff. ‎The Ordinary Courts in each case should have determined if ‎virtual means were the proper ones to conduct a trial.‎

Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court stated that the Law No. 21.226 allowed the presence of ‎mechanisms in order to continue with judicial proceedings within the ‎pandemic, taking into consideration the restrictions to mobility ‎imposed by the National Government. ‎

Therefore, it considered that the need to act by virtual means within ‎judicial proceedings per se may not be considered against the ‎Constitution. On the contrary, it was seen as a proper measure to ‎balance the right to health and the need to continue with the activity by ‎the judiciary. ‎

Thus, according to the Court, it was not possible to declare, in ‎general terms, that the fact of judicial proceedings being carried out ‎by virtual means was contrary to the Constitution and inapplicable to ‎all criminal procedures. It had to examine the instant case, in ‎order to determine whether it was an excessive burden on a specific ‎person.‎

Nevertheless, the Court clarified that the expression “absolute ‎impediment” was indeed a degradation of the right to due process, ‎given that it was validating violations to due process that were not ‎tantamount to an absolute impossibility.‎

In other words, the rule under question did not allow the Court to ‎suspend procedures in order to preserve the procedural rights of the ‎parties, in case the impossibility was absolute, which was contrary ‎to the foundations of Chilean procedural law.‎

The Court concluded that the rule was contrary to the Constitution and ‎declared that it was inapplicable to the instant case. However, it ‎sustained that this did not mean that carrying out criminal procedures ‎through virtual means was contrary to due process, as claimed by the ‎plaintiff. The Ordinary Courts in each case should have ‎determined whether virtual means were the proper ones to ‎conduct a trial. ‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Right to access to justice, to a fair trial and to jury trial
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Right to due process, art. 19, Constitution of Chile
Author of the case note
Camilo Valenzuela Bernal, Researcher, Externado University, Colombia
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 29 March 2022

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Chile, Constitutional Tribunal, 12 January 2022, Rol. 11.647-2021‎
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