Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Further areas addressed
Outcome of the decision
CSJ presented an amparo action against the International Police’s Health and Immigration Authority requiring authorization for entering Chile without the mobility pass demanded by Exempt Resolution 672 of 2021. The court concluded that a violation of personal freedom had occurred , as the strict application of the mobility pass requirement was disproportionate and unreasonable in this case, given the difficulties of advancing the vaccination schedule in the country of origin. Therefore, the Court authorized entry into the country.
Facts of the case
CSJ, a Haitian citizen, requested entry to Chile. He presented a negative PCR test to the Immigration Checkpoint , a certification of his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and a temporary visa. CSJ affirmed his need to enter the country in order to regularize his migratory situation through the administrative process established by law. However, the International Police’s Health and Immigration Authority denied him entry into the country, for not having the mobility pass required by Exempt Resolution 672 of 2021.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court declared that the decision by the International Police’s Health and Immigration Authority to deny entry into the country was a violation of Mr. CSJ’s right to freedom. Therefore, it ordered the Authority to approve Mr. CSJ’s entry without the mobility pass required by Exempt Resolution 672 of 2021. It also stated that the health authority can require the applicant to undergo a mandatory quarantine after entering the country.
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court accepted the arguments presented by the claimant and revoked the Appeals Court decision of Santiago. It established that the precarious conditions in Haiti are a notorious fact especially considering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, it pointed out that the personal mobility restrictions implemented in several countries of the region, such as those established in Haiti, generated multiple difficulties in accessing the complete vaccination schedule.
Regarding the specific case, the Court found that a strict interpretation of the mobility pass requirement of Exempt Resolution 672 of 2021 could generate unjustified violations of the right to liberty. Such is the case of Mr. CSJ, who was denied entry into the country for not having a complete COVID-19 vaccination schedule, despite the fact that he was not generating risks for public health, as he had a negative PCR test and one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
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 applied the principle of proportionality to resolve the case. It implicitly considered that, although the purpose of protecting public health with the mobility pass requirement is legitimate, there were less restrictive measures for guaranteeing it. Mandatory isolation after entering the country was one of such measures that could protect public health without excessively affecting the applicant’s right to freedom.