Guatemala, Constitutional Court, 18 May 2022, Exp. 5128-2021

Case overview

Country
Guatemala
Case ID
Exp. 5128-2021
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Constitutional Court
Deciding body (Original)
Corte de Constitucionalidad
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Amparo (protective action) decision
Area
Vaccination
Vulnerability groups
  • Children
  • People with chronic diseases
General Summary

The Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala filed an amparo action against the President of the Republic of Guatemala and the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance for the omission of these authorities to include adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age in the country's vaccination plan and to acquire and provide them with the vaccine against COVID-19. He considered that this omission by the government violated this population's rights to health and life.

The Court found that at the time of the case study, the omission indicated by the Claimant no longer existed since people between 12 and 17 years of age were already part of the vaccination group. In addition, it indicated that the authorities had made the vaccination process accessible to this age group since it was public knowledge. Therefore, it did not accede to the Claimant's requests.

Facts of the case

On September 21, 2021, the Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala filed an amparo action against the President of the Republic of Guatemala and the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance for the omission of these authorities to include teenagers between 12 and 17 years of age in the country's vaccination plan and to acquire and provide them with the vaccine against COVID-19. He also requeseted for the prioritizing of those with chronic diseases or co-morbidities to reduce mortality due to COVID-19 and to mitigate the human and socioeconomic consequences derived from the pandemic.

The Ombudsman considered that this omission by the government violated this population's rights to health and life.

Type of measure challenged
National government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
The Ombudsman requested that the government include persons between 12 and 17 years of age in the country's vaccination plan, prioritizing those with chronic diseases or co-morbidities
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a qualified entity in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Public
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Expedited procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

First, the Court indicated that in December 2019, the pandemic began and caused the death of many people due to its high level of contagion. It added that currently, one of the fundamental tools to counteract its effects was the application of different approved vaccines, which were to be provided by the government to the entire population.

The Court noted that the Ministry of Health had issued on September 22, 2021, technical guidelines for the vaccination against COVID-19 for teenagers aged 12 to 17 years and that this vaccination plan provided for the prioritization of minors with chronic or congenital diseases, and that subsequently the vaccine would be applied to the rest of the children in that age range.

In addition, the Ministry said that this information had been made known to the population through the media and the entity's social networks, since September 30, 2021. Thus, by February 2022, 41.54% of this age group had been vaccinated.

Due to the above, the Court found that by the time of the case study, the omission pointed out by the Claimant no longer existed, since the group of persons between 12 and 17 years of age was already part of the vaccination group. In addition, it indicated that the authorities had made the vaccination process accessible for this age group and it was public knowledge, as it had been published in the media, and the Ministry had provided this information on its website.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court pointed out that since the omission alleged by the Claimant had already disappeared, there was no need to grant the Claimant's request.

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Right to good administration
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
  • Children's rights
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • Right to life, Art. 3, Guatemalan Constitution
  • Right to health, Art. 94, Guatemalan Constitution
  • Children’s rights, Art. 51, Guatemalan Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. right to good administration
General principle applied
Equality
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court implicitly applied the principle of equality to determine whether Guatemalan teenagers were being treated differently by not being included in the country's vaccination plan.

Other notes

On "Claimant": action brought by a qualified entity: The Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala.

Author of the case note
Laura González Rozo, Researcher, Externado University of Colombia