| 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 |
| 23 August 2021 | No. 17-2021 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Right to life and integrity, Right to health | Claim upheld | A citizen presented an action against the refusal of the Health’s Ministry to provide him adequate treatment for the terminal chronic renal failure that he suffers. He exposed that due to his medical condition, he should be treated with priority, otherwise a COVID-19 infection could be lethal. The Court considered that the citizen’s life was at risk, therefore on February 17th it ordered a precautionary measure compelling the Ministry to provide treatment, despite the crisis that the pandemic generated in the health system. Finally, on August 23rd the decision was confirmed as definitive. |
https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/busqueda/busquedaLibre.php?id=1
|
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-supreme-court-constitutional-chamber-no-17-2021-2021-08-23 | ||
| 28 April 2021 | No. 2-2021 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to good administration, Separation of powers | Claim upheld | The Legislative Assembly of El Salvador wanted to approve a loan aggrement through Legislative Decree 800 of 2020. The money was intended for municipal purposes. This Decree's aim was to modify Legislative Decree 608 of 2020, which had compensatory goals for the duration of the quarantine. The Assembly pointed out that the Decree 800 of 2020 was in line with this goal. The Court determined that it was unconstitutional, because the Decree 800 of 2020 wasn't the result of the democratic debate that should take place in the Legislative Assembly. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-supreme-court-justice-no-2-2021-2021-04-28 | |||
| 1 April 2021 | No. 16/2020 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Right to bodily integrity and judicial protection Freedom of movement Habeas corpus | Claim partially upheld | At their arrival from Panama, the petitioner and another four members of his family were indefinitely confined at a hotel where they were required to quarantine without being tested for COVID-19. The petitioner then filed a habeas corpus action and considered that they were illegally detained. The Court admitted the action and ordered the responsible authorities to provide information related to the case. Meanwhile, the Court decided to order a precautionary measure by which the petitioner and his family’s health condition be assessed by a physician. COVID-19 tests were also to be given them as well. If they resulted positive, they were to be sent to a hospital in which COVID-19 patients were being treated. If they were negative, a consideration was to be made whether their stay at the hotel was absolutely necessary or whether it was possible for them to quarantine at home. The Court admitted the action considering that rights to health, bodily integrity, and personal liberty might have been violated and ordered a precautionary measure in order to assess whether their retention at the hotel was proportional and necessary. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-supreme-court-justice-chamber-agreements-no-162020-2021-04-01 | |||
| 8 February 2021 | 171/2021 | Supreme Court of Justice | Public health, access to health services | Claim upheld | The petitioner was a patient who needed hemodialysis and a kidney transplant. The petitioner filed an amparo action, because all treatments were suspended for the duration of the pandemic. The Court admitted the action and ordered a measure by which the treatment must be provided. The Court reasoned that the fact that an emergency was declared due to COVID-19, was not a reason for the authorities to stop providing the medical care needed for other patients, especially if the patient was a high-risk, such as the petitioner of this particular case. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-supreme-court-justice-1712021-2021-02-08 | |||
| 7 October 2020 | Controversia 5 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Claim upheld | The President of the Republic requested that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declare the unconstitutionality of Legislative Decree 630 in full on the basis of formal defects, specifically the violation of the democratic principles of contradiction, free debate, and discussion. According to the President, Legislative Decree 630 was approved without following all the procedural steps established and failing to provide a justification or explanation for doing so, thus assuming that the urgency of passing the legislative decree was evident because the state of emergency had already been declared and no discussion was needed. The President also requested the unconstitutionality, for substantive reasons, of Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Legislative Decree (access to adequate protection according to OMS recommendations; proper training on the treatment of patients with highly transmissible diseases, such as COVID-19, and a full salary for the spouse that stayed at home to take care of children when both spouses work directly with COVID-19 patients), arguing that those provisions violated the right to health of the population and the principle of separation of powers. The consequence of the Court’s decision is the shelving of the Legislative Decree that it has declared unconstitutional. To seek approval of the benefits contained in the Legislative Decree, the Court has found that a new legislative proceeding must be initiated. In this case, the President cannot veto the new decree based on the same arguments that the Court has rejected in this judgement. If the Legislative Assembly or the President do not comply with this judgement, the Supreme Court can ensure that the President and the Assembly do not disregard the sentence. | https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/pdf/C_5-2020.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-constitutional-chamber-supreme-court-justice-controversia-5-2020-2020-10-07 | |||
| 14 September 2020 | Controversia 7-2020 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Right to health, Separation of powers, Freedom of movement of people | Claim inadmissible or rejected | The President of the Republic promoted a constitutional dispute before the constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice arguing that Congress (Legislative Assembly) adopted Legislative Decree 648 (May 30, 2020) containing the Special Transitory Emergency Law regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic, Comprehensive Attention to Life, Health, and Economic Reopening, which had been previously vetoed by the President. The President considered that Legislative Decree 648 violated the principle of separation of powers, the understanding of health as a public good, and the right to equality. Normally, when a constitutional dispute is declared inadmissible, the President must enact and publish the law; but in this case, that decision is unacceptable because the entry into force of Legislative Decree 648 could affect legal certainty and cause the loss of efficacy of a binding precedent contained in a previous constitutional dispute decision. Therefore, in this case, the Court has found that the consequence of the inadmissibility is the shelving of the documents. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-constitutional-chamber-supreme-court-justice-controversia-7-2020-2020-09-14 | |||
| 11 September 2020 | Controversia 6 2020 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Right to food, Separation of powers, Due law-making process | Claim rejected | The President of the Republic filed a constitutional dispute before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice arguing that the Congress (Legislative Assembly) adopted Legislative Decree 642-2020 (May 7, 2020) containing the Special Transitory Law of Measures for the Agricultural Sector to Guarantee Food Security in Response to the National Emergency and Effects of Same in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic, which had been previously vetoed by the President. The President asked the Supreme Court of Justice to declare Legislative Decree 642-2020 unconstitutional on the basis that it, in full, violates the Constitution as a result of formal defects, specifically, the violation of the principles of contradiction, free debate, and discussion. The Court has declared inadmissible the arguments presented by the President to support the unconstitutionality of the vetoed decree due to formal defects. The Court's decision has established that the President of the Republic must enact and publish Legislative Decree 642-2020, and if not, then the President of the Legislative Assembly must do so. | https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/pdf/C_6-2020.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-constitutional-chamber-supreme-court-justice-controversia-6-2020-2020-09-11 | ||
| 8 June 2020 | Inconstitucionalidad 21 2020 AC | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health) Freedom to choose residence and domicile and right not to be forced to change it | Claim upheld | Several citizens brought up an unconstitutionality action before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice challenging the compatibility with the Constitution a Legislative Decree containing the Law for the Temporary Restriction of Specific Constitutional Rights to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic, which limited the rights to freedom of movement and to peaceful assembly, as well as the freedom to choose residence and domicile, which includes the right not to be forced to change one's domicile. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has rejected the request of the Legislative Assembly to dismiss the proceeding and has found that in the case of decrees adopting the state of exception, dismissal is not adequate because the state of exception constitutes the most intense limitation of fundamental rights. Considering that Legislative Decree was no longer in force at the time it has been analyzed and that its effectiveness was prolonged by a subsequent decree with the same content. The Court has declared Legislative Decree unconstitutional due to formal defects related to the lack of justification of the suspension of constitutional rights as an adequate, necessary, and proportional measure to guarantee the right to health of the Salvadorian people in the context of the pandemic. The Court has taken into consideration that at the time the challenged decree was in force, there was no official data reporting a single COVID-19 case in El Salvador. The unconstitutionality of Legislative Decree has been declared with general and binding effects. | https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/pdf/I_21-2020.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-constitutional-chamber-supreme-court-justice-inconstitucionalidad-21-2020-ac | ||
| 1 June 2020 | 401/2020 | Supreme Court of Justice | Bodily integrity, Health v. access to justice, Right to access to justice, to a fair trial | Claim upheld | The petitioner filed a habeas corpus action. The petitoner was caught by the army because he violated the lockdown measure. He was deprived of his liberty for 53 days without a judicial order. During this period he lived some days without water and food. His Covid-19 tests were negative. A similar incident happened to 59 other peaople. The Court ordered a precautionary measure by which the petitioner must be set free. The Court considered that despite the habeas corpus action not being one in which a precautionary measure can be ordered, in this case it was necessary to grant the rights to health, bodily integrity, and freedom of the petitioner and the other cases combined with his in a timely manner. The Court insisted that neither the Police nor the Army were authorized to capture someone because of a violation of the lockdown measure, and that such a violation should not be, in any case, considered to have criminal relevance. It reasoned that arbitrary detentions should not be promoted by the authorities and that the “centros de contención" have a health purpose, not a punitive one. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-supreme-court-justice-4012020-2020-06-01 | |||
| 29 April 2020 | No. 29-2020 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health) | Claim inadmissible | The Court heard a claim of unconstitutionality (judicial review) against Article 5, paragraph 3 of Decree No. 593 of March 14, 2020, which declared a state of national emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Plaintiff sued due to the norms that granted the same treatment of a temporary disability for common illness to the quarantines ordered by the pandemic. For the Plaintiff, there was an affectation to legal certainty since the decree's provisions did not establish the type of quarantines to which it referred. In other words, there was no harmony between the length of time of quarantines and the temporary disability due to common illness set by the Social Security Law. The Court analyzed the claim on the electronic filing of the unconstitutionality claims and the object of the rule. The Court recognized the exceptionality imposed by the pandemic and the lack of compliance with the requirements of the unconstitutionality lawsuit. In these terms, it declared the claim inadmissible. It determined that there was an irremediable flaw in the unconstitutionality claim. Additionally, it established that the financial stability of the Salvadoran Institute of Social Security was not at risk when it gave the same treatment to the temporary incapacities due to common illness and to the quarantines ordered by the pandemic. Specifically, the budget to cover the totality of the subsidies claimed before the institution would not be at risk. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-constitutional-chamber-supreme-court-justice-no-29-2020-2020-04-29 | |||
| 8 April 2020 | No. 148-2020 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Habeas corpus | Claim upheld | In a second ruling, on April 8, the Supreme Court ruled again that “the President, the National Police, the Armed Forces, and any other authorities are constitutionally forbidden” from holding people in a containment center solely for violating the lockdown rules. They underlined that Congress would need to pass a law to specifically allow and regulate such detention. The decree only gave the police the authority to confine someone in such a center when there was good reason to believe they had been exposed to the virus. | https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/17/el-salvador-president-defies-supreme-court | |||
| 26 March 2020. | Habeas corpus | Claim upheld | On March 26, the Supreme Court ruled that existing law did not allow security forces to detain people in quarantine centers solely for violating the government’s lockdown rules, and that such detentions could not be constitutionally authorized via executive decree. The court also held that “under no circumstance should police stations be used for detention, not even for a short period. | https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/17/el-salvador-president-defies-supreme-court | |||||
| 13 March 2020 | case no. 133-2020 | Supreme Court of El Salvador | Habeas corpus | Claim upheld | A habeas corpus was filed against the Presidency of the Republic and several other public institutions arguing that 56 persons who entered the country were put under quarantine in a military facility, without providing them the appropriate sanitary conditions in the place set by the government. The Supreme Court of Justice has established that a measure imposing a quarantine, as a measure that restricts personal freedom, may be challenged by means of an habeas corpus. Additionally, it has found that the right to personal integrity is linked to the right to freedom. Therefore, within habeas corpus, it is possible for a Court to request the authority to provide information as to the sanitary conditions of the persons suffering the restriction. According to the above, the Court has ordered the government to provide information as to the conditions of the people under quarantine, if they have been tested for COVID-19, food supply and any other condition imposed on the migrants. The Court has also granted interim relief, ordering the government to provide certain conditions for the protection of the rights of the persons in quarantine. | https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/busqueda/showFile.php?bd=1&data=DocumentosBoveda/D/1/2020-2029/2020/03/DBF49.PDF&number=900937&fecha=13/03/2020&numero=133-2020&cesta=0&singlePage=false%27 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/el-salvador-constitutional-chamber-supreme-court-justice-case-no-133-2020-2020-03-13 | ||
