South America

This judicial review concerned the issue of women’s military service. The court ruled that limits on the activities that women can perform during voluntary military service were unconstitutional, because they violated women’s constitutional right to be treated equally. The law stated that women in the military could only engage in assistant, administrative, or cultural tasks. The Court indicated that such limitations were based on stereotypes that imply that women are not suitable for other military activities.

This judicial review concerned domestic violence. The court ruled that there ought to be greater criminal sanctions for domestic violence offenses. The law provides for four to eight years of imprisonment in cases of domestic violence, irrespective of the magnitude of the injuries. The plaintiff claimed that the article went against the proportionality principle set forth by the Colombian Constitution.

The case concerned abortion, the right to life, the right to health, and the right to self-determination. The court ruled for the partial decriminalization of abortion and set circumstances under which voluntary termination of pregnancy would be permissible. The Criminal Code previously criminalized voluntary abortion with one to three years of imprisonment.

The Domestic Violence Act set forth the procedures for granting protection orders in situations involving domestic violence.  Under Part III of the Act, once a protection order has been granted, a police officer could, without a warrant, enter any premises “if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that a protection order is being violated.”  Section 42 of Part IV of the Act provided that, once a police officer has intervened in a case of domestic violence, “the police officer shall as soon as possible take all reasonable measures within his power to prevent the victim of domestic v

Charges were brought against defendant for allegedly sexually abusing his 14-year old daughter for a period of 30 days while they were in Argentina. The lower court found defendant guilty of aggravated rape, in violation of Article 308-2 and 310-2 of the Penal Code. Upon defendant's appeal, the Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that the victim's testimony coupled with that of the defendant's brother, who witnessed and first reported the rape, was sufficient evidence to convict the plaintiff.

The Equal Rights Act (the“Act”) expands upon and enforces Article 29 of the Constitution, with the purpose of ensuring that women are treated as equal to men in politics, employment, economics, and social life. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. The Act also permits women who are mothers to receive protective health benefits and paid maternity leave.

This case concerned issues of personal freedom and the discrimination against sex workers. The ruling resulted in the protection of two sex workers’ fundamental rights: to be treated equally and not be discriminated because of their profession. The events that triggered such protection concerned a police raid against sex workers in Bogotá under the excuse of regaining a public space.

The appellant brought a constitutional grievance appeal against the resolution issued by the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima regarding the prosecutorial decisions made in her underlying rape case. The Constitutional Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) concluded that the internal-control offices’ dispositions did not sufficiently explain why an investigation against the local prosecutor was not pursued.

A public defender challenged the constitutionality of Article 337 of the Civil Code, which stated that in domestic disputes, a judge could take into consideration the education, custom and conduct of both spouses when dealing with cases of cruelty, dishonest behavior or grave injury. He argued that such a law violated the constitutional right of equality before the law. The Constitutional Tribunal agreed in part and disagreed in part, holding that such considerations could only be examined when dealing with cases of grave injury.

In Exp. No. 03378-2019-PA/TC, the petitioner sought to annul a family court decision, upheld on appeal, which granted protective measures to the petitioner’s partner after she accused him of committing psychological violence against her. The Constitutional Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) explained that the petitioner’s fundamental rights to be heard and to defend himself were not absolute but were limited by the victim’s right to live a life free of violence.