Norma relacionada
Chile
Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial Guarantees
In its judgment in the Videla case in 1994, which concerned the abduction, torture and murder of Lumi Videla in 1974, Chile’s Appeal Court of Santiago held that the 1949 Geneva Conventions “protect the human rights of the contestants in the event of external war or a conflict between organized armed forces within the State, which latter situation effectively prevailed in the country in 1974”. The Court stated that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions obliged parties to non-international armed conflicts “to extend humanitarian treatment to persons taking no active part in the hostilities or who have placed themselves hors de combat for various reasons, and prohibits at any time and in any place … the passing of summary sentences”. The Court found that the acts charged constituted grave breaches under Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and upheld the prison order issued against the accused.
Chile, Appeal Court of Santiago (Third Criminal Chamber), Videla case, Judgment, 26 September 1994, §§ 6–20.
In its judgment in the Pedro Poblete Córdova case in 1998, Chile’s Supreme Court stated that “at all times, the accused persons shall be entitled to fair trial guarantees and a free defence, which shall be no less than what is provided by Article 105 et seq. of the Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949”.
Chile, Supreme Court, Pedro Poblete Córdova case, Judgment, 9 September 1998, § 9.
In its judgment in the Contreras Sepúlveda case in 2004, Chile’s Supreme Court stated that “at all times, the accused persons shall be entitled to fair trial guarantees and a free defence, which shall be no less than what is provided by Article 105 et seq. of the Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949”.
Chile, Supreme Court, Second Chamber, Contreras Sepúlveda case, Judgment, 17 November 2004, § 34.
In its judgment in the Víctor Raúl Pinto case in 2007, Chile’s Supreme Court stated: that “at all times, the accused persons shall be entitled to fair trial guarantees and a free defence, which shall be no less than what is provided by Article 105 et seq. of the Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949”.
Chile, Supreme Court, Criminal Law Chamber, Víctor Raúl Pinto case, Decision on Annulment, 13 March 2007, § 16.
In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile refers to “the guarantees of due process which, under the Constitution and the former Code of Criminal Procedure, are enjoyed by any persons charged with an offence, namely: presumption of innocence”.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 211.
In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated: “According to the new Code [of Criminal Procedure], accused persons have the following rights: to be informed of the charges against them”.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 149; see also §§ 211 and 215.
Chile’s Code of Criminal Procedure (1906), as amended in 2007, states:
Any accused person, irrespective of whether they have been charged, and before the commencement of a criminal trial, may claim the rights accorded to him or her by the laws and those which the tribunal deems necessary for his or her defence.
In particular, he or she may:
1. Designate a lawyer and a representative in court.
Chile, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1906, as amended in 2007, Article 67(1).
In its judgment in the Pedro Poblete Córdova case in 1998, Chile’s Supreme Court stated that “at all times, the accused persons shall be entitled to fair trial guarantees and a free defence, which shall be no less than what is provided by Article 105 et seq. of the Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949”.
Chile, Supreme Court, Pedro Poblete Córdova case, Judgment, 9 September 1998, § 9.
In its judgment in the Contreras Sepúlveda case in 2004, Chile’s Supreme Court stated that “at all times, the accused persons shall be entitled to fair trial guarantees and a free defence, which shall be no less than what is provided by Article 105 et seq. of the Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949”.
Chile, Supreme Court, Second Chamber, Contreras Sepúlveda case, Judgment, 17 November 2004, § 34.
In its judgment in the Víctor Raúl Pinto case in 2007, Chile’s Supreme Court stated that “at all times, the accused shall be entitled to fair trial guarantees and a free defence, which shall be no less than what is provided by Article 105 et seq. of the Geneva Convention relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949”.
Chile, Supreme Court, Criminal Law Chamber, Víctor Raúl Pinto case, Decision on Annulment, 13 March 2007, § 16.
In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated: “According to the new Code [of Criminal Procedure], accused persons have the following rights: … to be assisted by a lawyer from the start of the investigation”.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 149.
(footnote in original omitted)Chile also stated:
Right to qualified and free defence: persons charged with offences have the right to assistance from a lawyer from the moment the investigation is initiated. That right notwithstanding, if they prefer to defend themselves in person, the court shall only authorize such action if it does not compromise the effectiveness of the defence, failing which, the court shall appoint qualified counsel, without prejudice to the right of the accused to submit views and claims themselves. If the defendants do not themselves designate lawyers, public criminal defence lawyers are assigned to them. This service is always free and, in exceptional cases, may be extended for part or all of the defence of persons standing trial who have their own means.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 149; see also § 211.
[footnote omitted]In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated: “The new Code [of Criminal Procedure] also enshrines the rights of persons charged with offences … to have the services of an interpreter”.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 215.
(footnote in original omitted)In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated: “According to the new Code [of Criminal Procedure], accused persons have the following rights: … not to be tried in absentia, without prejudice to situations where an accused person is in default”.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 149; see also § 215.
(footnote in original omitted)In 2002, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Chile stated:
[There is an] obligation to display in a clearly visible place in every detention centre a separate placard showing the rights of the detainee … The placard must mention the following rights [including]: … (2) To remain silent in order to avoid incriminating himself.
Chile, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, § 34.
In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated: “The new Code [of Criminal Procedure] also enshrines the rights of persons charged with offences not to testify against themselves”.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 215; see also § 211.
(footnote in original omitted)Chile’s Code of Criminal Procedure (1906), as amended in 2007, states: “In general, any person affected by a judicial decision has the right to appeal against this decision.”
Chile, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1906, as amended in 2007, Article 39.
The Code also states: “Any definite sentence may be appealed by any of the parties within five days following the respective notification.”
Chile, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1906, as amended in 2007, Article 510.
In 2006, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chile stated:
According to the new Code [of Criminal Procedure], accused persons have the following rights: … to request that the case be dismissed and to appeal against any decision refusing the dismissal.
Chile, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 5 July 2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/5, submitted 7 February 2006, § 149; see also § 211.
[footnote in original omitted]