Chile, Supreme Court, 24 January 2023, Rol No. 102533-2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The plaintiff, representing her daughter (minor), filed a protective action against the Ministry of Health, alleging that the defendant acted arbitrarily and illegally and, thus, violated the fundamental rights of her daughter. The plaintiff argued that her daughter was excluded without any reason from the national vaccination plan because she had an age below 3. She argued that there was no scientific argument that could justify the exclusion of children below three from the plan, considering that they were not immune to the virus and could suffer dangerous symptoms. The Court granted the protection, arguing that, since August 2022, the Technical Committee for the Evaluation of Vaccines recommended the inclusion of children from 6 months old to 3 years old in the vaccination plan, based on scientific evidence. Hence, for the Court, the defendant acted arbitrarily as it did not duly justify why it still excluded this age group from the vaccination plan, despite having recommendations and authorization to include it.
Facts of the case
In 2021, Chile started its vaccination plan. Before tests were conducted, children below 3 were excluded. On August 22nd, 2022, the Technical Committee for the Evaluation of Vaccines recommended the inclusion of children from 6 months old to 3 years old in the vaccination plan, based on scientific evidence. The plaintiff had a daughter, who had an age below 3. She wanted her daughter to be vaccinated but was still excluded from the plan. The plaintiff filed a protective action against the Ministry of Health requesting the inclusion of her daughter in the plan. On January 24th, 2023, the Court granted the protection.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court reasoned that there was no justification or legitimacy in the decision of excluding children below 3 from the vaccination plan. For the Court, scientific consensus, verified through the recommendation of a Chilean technical committee, stated that some vaccines were safe for children in that age group. According to the Court, as this recommendation was issued several months before, the Ministry of Health had omitted (without reason) the inclusion of this age group, arbitrarily affecting the fundamental rights of this population.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by public authorities, and ordered the inclusion of the child in the plan.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
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 implicitly argued that the Ministry of Health failed to act reasonably in the present case. For the Court, the omission of the Ministry had no justification; hence, it was arbitrary because it did not follow any equitable standard related to it. In fact, it contravened the recommendation of a technical committee that advised the inclusion of this age group.
