Chile, Constitutional Tribunal, 12 January 2022, Rol. 11.647-2021
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
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
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
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.