| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| 05. 11. 2021 | No. 0856/2021-S3 | Plurinational Constitutional Court | Health law, Prison law | Claim partially upheld | The Plaintiffs were accused of a crime, illegal assembly, and they were detained pretrial. They filed a protective action, but the lower Court denied it. Then the Plaintiffs reguested the review before the Constitutional Court. The Plurinational Constitutional Court revoked the decision, finding that their rights to health and life were violated, as authorities failed to assess whether the pre-trial detention was necessary. For the Court, authorities disregarded that the COVID-19 pandemic posed a great threat to people deprived of their freedom and that many national and international technical documents advised authorities to seek alternative measures to pretrial detention. Hence, they violated the Plaintiffs’ rights. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-no-08562021-s3-2021-11-05 | |||
| 27. 08. 2021 | 0482/2021-S2 | Plurinational Constitutional Court | Health law, Prison law, Detention | Claim upheld | In this case there was a liberty action to order the immediate release of the accused. Bolivia’s interim government filed a criminal complaint against former President Evo Morales for alleged sedition and terrorism. The Court concluded that the judges, focused on the fact that the plaintiff did not belong to any at-risk group that would allow her to be released to avoid prison overcrowding during the pandemic, violated her rights. They preferred to make a superficial analysis of the evidence and the norms to support not applying the Covid-19 exception. According to the court, what should have been done, following the recommendations to avoid overcrowding in order not to worsen public health conditions, was to make a substantial analysis of the facts and evidence, to show why, despite the crisis, the accused had to be stopped preventively. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-04822021-s2-2021-08-27 |
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/22/bolivia-evo-morales-terrorism-sedition-interim-government; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/bolivian-prosecutors-order-arrest-ousted-president-evo-morales-n1104211; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50520906; https://www.reuters.com/article/bolivia-politics-idUKL2N2820Z5; https://www.france24.com/en/20191218-bolivia-prosecutors-order-arrest-of-ex-president-evo-morales-in-exile-in-argentina; https://spectrumnews1.com/ap-top-news/2019/11/22/evo-morales-accused-of-terrorism-and-sedition; |
||
| 10. 08. 2021 | No 0419/2021-S3 (reg no. Exp: 35760-2020-72-AAC) | Constitutional Court | Labor law, Right to work | Claim rejected | In March 2020, the claimant was dismissed from his job. He therefore brought an "amparo action" to defend his right to work and work stability. On the one hand, he argued that he was the father of a newborn child. On the other hand, he argued that the national government had imposed a strict lockdown to prevent COVID-19 contagion. In both cases, the law prohibits employers from removing workers. The Court interpreted relevant legislation and found that the law contains an exception to this general stability regime: only employees whose positions are freely appointable or exempt may be dismissed even during the COVID-19 lockout. As the claimant's position was freely appointable or removable, his case was not covered by the prohibition on removal. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-no-04192021-s3-reg-no-exp-35760-2020-72-aac | |||
| 28. 07. 2021 | No. 0381/2021-S3 (reg no. Exp: 35145-2020-71-AL) | Constitutional Court | Health law, Prison law | Claim rejected | The applicant was in pretrial detention on charges of sexual assault. The applicant filed a request for a hearing before a court in order to have his remand in custody suspended. The applicant's argument was that his right to health and life were at risk due to the high prevalence of COVID-19 in prison. The time limit foreseen by law was 24 hours, and as his application was not resolved within 24 hours, the applicant filed a liberty action. Then the case was reviewed by the Constitutional Court, which found that the applicant had not been denied access to justice and that his health was not in major danger. According to the Constitutional Court, the petitioner did not provide the necessary information as to why his health was at greater risk in prison due to pandemic COVID-19, nor did he prove that he belonged to one of the vulnerable groups mentioned. | https://jurisprudenciaconstitucional.com/resolucion/115036-sentencia-constitucional-plurinacional-0381-2021-s3 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-no-03812021-s3-reg-no-exp-35145-2020-71-al | ||
| 28. 07. 2021 | Decision n. 0416/2021-S3, Exp: 35339-2020-71-AL | Constitutional Court | Health law, Prison law | Claim rejected | The applicant brought an action to defend his right to life, health, physical integrity and his right to petition. At the time the action was brought, he had been suffering from symptoms corresponding to COVID-19 for 15 days and sought medical treatment. The applicant brought liberty action because he felt that his life was in danger in prison due to the lack of medical care. The Constitutional Court has decided to annul the first instance decision upholding the petitioner's action on the grounds that the petitioner's state of health was never proven. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/boliviaplurinational-constitutional-court-28-july-2021.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-decision-n-04162021-s3-exp-35339-2020-71-al | ||
| 13. 07. 2021 | No. 0314/2021-S4 (Reg no 34963-2020-70-AL) | Constitutional Court | Health law, Prison law | Claim upheld | The applicant had been in pretrial detention since February 2018 on charges of attempted sexual assault. The applicant then filed a petition in 2020 requesting the suspension of his pretrial detention. The applicant's arguments for the suspension of the pretrial detention were as follows: the victim desisted from the charges; he is in charge of his 5-year-old son; the prison doctor certified that he was symptomatic with COVID-19, he had to be isolated and therefore his stay in prison posed a high risk to his health. The petition was not resolved within the time limit set by law. The applicant therefore filed a liberty action. The judge at first instance upheld the applicant's action. According to the first instance judge the delay in considering the applicant's action was unjustified and infringed his right to a speedy trial and to liberty. The case thenefore the Plurinational Constitutional Court, who confirmed that decision. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-no-03142021-s4-reg-no-34963-2020-70-al-2021 | |||
| 04. 05. 2021 | Decision n. 0146/2021-S3 | Constitutional Court | Health law, Prison law | Claim partially upheld | The petitioner was a breastfeeding woman on pretrial detention. She requested house arrest under the special provisions introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which require alternative measures to detention to be taken in favour of vulnerable groups, such as breastfeeding women. The application was rejected both at first and second instance on the grounds that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of his place of residence and therefore remained at risk of absconding. The petitioner then filed a liberty action and the decision was reviewed by the Constitutional Court. The Court pointed to the lack of reasoning of the above-mentioned decisions, which took into account the standards of the Procedural Code but failed to take into account the special circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Constitutional Court found that the petitioner's right to due process had been infringed and annulled the original decision and ordered a new decision. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/boliviaplurinational-constitutional-court4-may-2021.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-decision-n-01462021-s3-2021-05-04 | ||
| 29. 03. 2021 | Exp: 33880-2020-68-ACU | Constitutional Court | Right to work, Consumer protection, Right to health | Claim rejected. | The Financial System Supervisory Authority instructed to proceed with the automatic deferral of the payment of capital instalments, interest, and other types of burdens. Therefore a compliance action has been filed against this authority. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of Act No. 1294 of April 1, 2020, but failed to prove compliance with all of the procedural requirements of the compliance action. The Constitutional Court allowed the Cooperatives to stop service in the event of two or more late payments. The Court held that the cooperatives' operation depended on payments from users, and that failure to do so indefinitely would result in the cut-off of electricity and water supplies, which would not only infringe the rights of the cooperatives but also the rights of all users, even those who had tried to pay their bills despite the crisis caused by the epidemic. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-exp-33880-2020-68-acu-2021-03-29 | |||
| 22. 03. 2021 | Decision n. 0012/2021-S4, reg. n. 36010-2020-73-AP | Constitutional Court | Rights to water, drinkable water and electricity supply | Claim rejected | The Electrification Rural Cooperative announced that they were cutting off water and electricity services to people with two or more missed payments. A class action was therefore brought against this Cooperative. According to the Petitioners cutting off the water and electricity supply during the closure is a violation of their rights to life, water, drinking water, food, electricity and dignity, which will be even more serious during the pandemic, when access to water and improved sanitation will be even more important. The Plurinational Constitutional Court has assessed the weight of the Petitioners’ and the Cooperatives’ rights to know whose protection would imply a greater good for the community in terms of ensuring the general population access to these essential services. Court has concluded that, in this case, the Cooperatives’ rights weighted more than the Petitioners’ rights, as their operation depends on the users’ contributions and an indefinite default would cause the electricity and water supply to be stopped, affecting not only the Cooperatives’ rights, but those of all the users, even those of who, despite the crisis caused by the pandemic, made the effort to comply with their payments. Therefore, it has permitted the Cooperatives to cut off the services in cases where two or more payments have been missed. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-22-march-2021.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-decision-n-00122021-s4-reg-n-36010-2020-73-ap | ||
| 11. 03. 2021 | Sentencia 0011/2021 (33762-2020-68-AIA) | Constitutional Court | Scope of powers of public authorities; Political rights; general elections | Claim rejected | A group of senators challenged a provision which established a maximum period of 90 days starting from May 3, 2020, for the holding of general elections in Bolivia. The Constitutional Court thus examined the constitutionality of this provision. The applicants argued that the law was contrary to fundamental rights, such as the right to life and health, and provisions relating to constitutional electoral powers (including international provisions). The Constitutional Court ruled that the provision was ineffective because a subsequent law had implicitly repealed it. This ineffectivity deemed the constitutional complaint inadmissible. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/boliviaplurinational-constitutional-court11-march-2021_0.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-sentencia-00112021-33762-2020-68-aia-2021-03 | ||
| 26. 02. 2021 | No. 0028/2021-S3 (reg no. Exp: 34811-2020-70-AP) | Constitutional Court | Right to public service | Claim rejected | The offices of the General Service of Personal Identification (SEGIP) were closed, making it impossible to obtain identity documents and driving licences. Therefore a Petitioner filed a popular action. This action has been filed with the objective of getting the offices to reopen. Court assessed that the substance of the popular action actually targeted individual rights, not collective or diffuse rights, therefore the claim has no constitutional standing in this context. |
https://jurisprudenciaconstitucional.com/resolucion/113973-sentencia-constitucional-plurinacional-0028-2021-s3;
https://bolivia.vlex.com/vid/sentencia-n-0028-2021-866709060 |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-no-00282021-s3-reg-no-exp-34811-2020-70-ap |
https://correodelsur.com/local/20200817_chuquisaca-interponen-una-accion-popular-contra-el-segip-por-no-restituir-sus-servicios.html; https://www.reduno.com.bo/noticias/chuquisaca-interponen-accion-popular-contra-el-segip--2020817115848; https://www.comunidad.org.bo/index.php/noticia/detalle/cod_noticia/9464; https://notibol.com/noticia/bo/5f3dceacc7173/accion-popular-sobre-el-segip-se-definira-este-jueves |
|
| 19. 11. 2020 | 0705/2020-S2 | Constitutional Court | Health law, Prison law, Detention, Right to access to justice | Claim partially upheld | Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the judges of a court in the department of Potosí did not send the competent judicial authority the necessary copies of the case file to allow it to decide on an appeal against a court decision refusing to terminate the pretrial detention of a detainee. The judges considered that the COVID-19 emergency had suspended the procedural deadlines and justified their failure to send copies of the file to allow the appeal to be decided and also they were unable to make the photocopies necessary. Then the detainee filed an action of translative freedom and swiftness, claiming the protection of his rights to liberty, health, life, and access to prompt and timely justice. The applicant asked the Court to order the defendant judges to send the documents necessary for the appeal to the competent judicial authorities without delay, so that they could rule on the appeal. The Constitutional Court upheld the application concerning the right to liberty and access to a speedy and timely administration of justice for failure to send copies for appeal, but refused to protect the right to life and health, finding that the applicant had not proved that these rights had been infringed. | https://jurisprudenciaconstitucional.com/resolucion/113394-sentencia-constitucional-plurinacional-0705-2020-s2 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bolivia-plurinational-constitutional-court-07052020-s2-2020-11-19 | ||
