South America

Case 12.046 arose when a pregnant teenager was expelled from her school on account of her pregnancy, an act deemed discriminatory. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) examined the petition and issued Report No. 33/02, finding that the expulsion violated the girl’s fundamental rights, including the right to education and equality. Chile reached a friendly settlement agreement, committing to cover the teenager’s educational expenses and to ensure that similar acts of discrimination would not recur within the school system.

In Case No. 38,238-2016, a resident of the Lampa community, who identified and was socially recognized as a woman, filed a discrimination claim against the local mayor, alleging that he failed to respect her gender identity in violation of Law No. 20,609 (the Zamudio Law).

In Case No. 187-2023, the Supreme Court of Chile ruled in a landmark gender justice case concerning the murder of a transgender woman. On May 16, 2023, the Oral Criminal Court of Iquique convicted the defendant of femicide. However, on October 4, 2023, the Iquique Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, holding that the victim did not legally qualify as a woman under the femicide statute because official records still listed her as male. After remand, the trial court once again convicted the defendant of femicide.

In Case No. 190096-2023, the Supreme Court of Chile reviewed an appeal filed by a foreign woman who had been held in pretrial detention since April 8, 2023, on drug trafficking charges. The appellant was experiencing a high-risk pregnancy, with an expected due date of October 4, 2023, and was receiving medical care at the Provincial Hospital of Huasco. The Court examined and amended the November 15, 2023, ruling of the Court of Appeals of Concepción.

In Case No. 44,823-2021 the plaintiffs, representing themselves and their minor children, filed a lawsuit against Hospital San José for inadequate medical care that led to the death of a woman on February 10, 2012, following an untreated incomplete abortion. The Second Civil Court of Santiago awarded 50,000,000 Chilean pesos in moral damages to each plaintiff. The Santiago Court of Appeals overturned the ruling and dismissed the claim.

In Case No. 465, challenging the constitutionality of a Ministry of Education directive setting minimum standards for preschool institutions, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed the right of children to receive at least a constitutionally guaranteed minimum level of education. The Court emphasized the State’s duty to ensure basic conditions that enable all children to access adequate early childhood education, in line with the principle of equality and the best interests of the child.

In Case No. 9886-2024, the Supreme Court reviewed the case of a woman, sentenced to four years in Iquique Prison for drug trafficking, who requested to substitute her prison term with full house arrest due to inhumane detention conditions and her caregiving responsibilities toward her newborn daughter.

Mr. M. R. committed successive acts of violence and made threats against his wife, Mrs. F.M.S.  Upon finding that the declarations made by Ms. F.M.S., photographs and medical reports constituted sufficient probative evidence, the court determined that Mr. M. R. committed simple aggravated assault based on the relationship between the parties and that the threats made against Mrs. F.M.S. were grave and imminent.  Accordingly, the court found sufficient cause to hold the defendant in preventative confinement.

Defendant Mr. H.R.A was convicted of aggravated homicide based on his prior ties and relationship with the victim, Ms. N.A. (his partner), whom he murdered with a gun.  Mr. H.RA. was sentenced to life in prison pursuant to Law No.

While the victim was sleeping, her partner Sebastian Javier Parra Godoy attacked her by striking her in the head. She suffered near-fatal head injuries as a result of the blow. On February 5, 2013, the criminal court in the province of Angol found Mr. Godoy guilty of the crime of attempted intimate femicide. In their ruling, the judges explicitly referenced the fact that the case presented a case of gender-based violence. It concluded that that Parra Godoy had acted as a result of traditional views considering women as subordinate perpetuating stereotypes of violence and coercion.