-28inadmissibility “introduced a violation of the provisions of Article 5(2) of the Constitution,
in relation to Article 25 of the American Convention.”
57(28) On July 31, 1998, the alleged victims’ lawyer filed a remedy of complaint before
the Supreme Court of Chile against the Justices of the Santiago Court of Appeal who
signed the ruling of July 29, 1998 (supra para. 57(25)) and asked the Supreme Court to
order “the parties against whom the appeal was made to reconsider the ruling as soon as
possible and, in brief, admit [the application for protection], immediately repairing the
harm that gave rise to it, modifying the wrongfully adopted ruling in accordance with the
law, and adopting any other relevant measures pursuant to the law.”41
57(29) Article 545 of the Basic Court Code establishes that the purpose of the remedy of
complaint is “to correct serious shortcomings or abuses committed when issuing rulings
of a jurisdictional nature.” It shall only be admissible when the abuse or shortcoming is
committed in an interlocutory judgment that ends the proceedings or makes it impossible
to continue and that is not eligible for any regular or special recourse.”42
57(30) On August 6, 1998, the Santiago Court of Appeal declared that “the requested
reconsideration is inadmissible”43 (supra para. 57(27)).
57(31) On August 18, 1998, the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the remedy of
complaint filed by the alleged victims’ lawyer (supra para. 57(28)), on the basis that “the
grounds for admissibility are not present in the case,” because the ruling that declared
the application for protection inadmissible (supra para. 57(25)), pursuant to the
unanimous judicial decision on the processing of and ruling on this application, could be
appealed by an appeal for reconsideration of judgment.44
Concerning the legal framework of the right of access to State-held information
and the confidentiality or secrecy of acts and documents in Chile
57(32) Article 19(12) of the Chilean Constitution ensures to all persons “the freedom to
issue an opinion and to provide information, without any prior censorship of any kind and
by any means, without prejudice to responding to any offenses or abuses committed in
the exercise of these freedoms pursuant to laws enacted by a special quorum.”45 This
Article also establishes “the right to file petitions before the authorities on any matter of
public or private interest, with the sole restriction that this should be done in respectful
and appropriate language.”46
57(33) Constitutional Organic Law on General Principles of State Administration No.
18,575 of 1986, in force at the time of the facts, did not contain provisions concerning
41
Cf. Remedy of complaint filed by the alleged victims’ lawyer before the Supreme Court of Chile on July
31, 1998 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 7, folio 94).
42
Cf. Article 545 of the Basic Court Code (file before the Commission, volume II, folio 1054).
43
Cf. Decision of the Santiago Court of Appeal of August 6, 1998 (file of appendixes to the application,
appendix 6, folio 89).
44
Cf. Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Chile on August 18, 1998 (file of appendixes to the
application, appendix 8, folio 109).
45
Cf. Article 19(12) of the Chilean Constitution, supra note 36.
46
Cf. Article 19(14) of the Chilean Constitution, supra note 36.