Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Outcome of the decision
The plaintiff filed a protective action (Amparo) against the Ministry of Health alleging a violation of her fundamental freedoms to bodily and psychic integrity, personal autonomy, security, and protection of the home, as well as those of all unvaccinated people. The plaintiff challenged statements made by the minister of health broadcasted on national TV: “we have identified the 1,743,812 [unvaccinated] people; we know who they are, where they live, where they work.” The plaintiff stated that the Minister made threatening and fascist statements and implied that she knew the private, constitutionally protected, information of many citizens. The Court rejected the claim, stating that no threat to fundamental rights had been violated. According to the Court, the minister was only stating her strategy of continuing the vaccination plan, which entailed identifying vulnerable people. Furthermore, it stressed that vaccination was voluntary. These actions, the court found, were not arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, or disproportionate. Rather they followed the constitutional and legal duties borne by the Ministry, especially during the national emergency of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Facts of the case
On February 8, 2022 the National Government of Chile declared a national emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This national emergency was renewed until December 2022. Chile implemented its national vaccination plan but stated that it was voluntary. On August 16, 2022 the Minister of Health made the following statement on national TV: “we have identified the 1,743,812 [unvaccinated] people; we know who they are, where they live, where they work.” On September 1, 2022 the plaintiff filed a protective action alleging a violation of her fundamental freedoms to bodily and psychic integrity, personal autonomy, security, and protection of the home, as well as that of all unvaccinated people against Covid-19. On September 27, 2022, the Court rejected the claims, finding the government’s action to be legal and constitutional.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court reasoned that, when making the aforementioned statements, the minister was only indicating her strategy to continue with the vaccination plan, which entailed identifying vulnerable people. Hence, it did not find any evidence of illegal action, as the statements were not unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate. To the contrary, according to the Court, they were made in keeping with the constitutional duties of the Ministry to protect public health, especially during a national emergency such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, as vaccination was voluntary the Court found that the fundamental rights of the plaintiff and of unvaccinated people were not violated in any way.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that the statements of the Minister were constitutional and legal and found no violation of fundamental rights.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Right to bodily integrity
- Right to data protection
- 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 bodily integrity, Art. 19.1, Chilean Constitution
- Protection for the home and any private communication, Art. 19.5, Chilean Constitution
- Right to personal freedom and individual security, Art. 19.7, Chilean Constitution
- Right to health, Art. 19.9, Chilean Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court analyzed whether the statements made by the Minister of Health were reasonable, i.e., whether they followed an equitable standard or they were illegal or arbitrary. The Court found these statements to be part of the vaccination plan of the Ministry, which was implemented in accordance to its constitutional and legal duties to protect public health, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. They were therefore found to be reasonable.
On the instance: Amparo action (protection of fundamental rights – art. 20 of the Constitution)
On the type of procedure: Special procedures (Amparo action. Protection of fundamental rights – art. 20 of the Constitution)