Skip to content

Dario Zabala Seas (on behalf of his son, D.A.Z.D) v. Cesar Luciano Ugarteche Vidal

  • by

Court/Judicial body: District Court of Santa Cruz
Date: 6 June 2011 CRC
Provisions: Article 37: Torture and deprivation of liberty
Domestic provisions:Children and Youth Act, Articles 100 and 238

Case summary

Background:D.A.Z.D., a child, was accused of homicide, arrested and detained in prison. He remained in prison for a longer period of time than permitted under Article 238 of the Children and Youth Act. D.A.Z.D. also argued that the evidence against him had not been adequately analysed or presented during the criminal investigation.

Issue and resolution: Juvenile justice; detention. The Court determined that D.A.Z.D.’s detention was a violation of his fundamental rights as a child and had had a severe impact on his well-being. Additionally, the Court found that there had not been sufficient evidence to detain D.A.Z.D. in a secured facility during the investigation of the crime, and ordered that D.A.Z.D. be released immediately.

Court reasoning: In finding D.A.Z.D.’s detention unlawful, the Court emphasised that Article 100 of the Children and Youth Act guarantees every child’s right to freedom and dignity. Here, this right was clearly violated. In addition, in reviewing the lower court’s evidentiary record, the District Court and determined that the available evidence had not been sufficient to detain a person accused of committing homicide.
Excerpt citing CRC and other relevant human rights as in full-text Spanish decision: III.4. Sobre la aplicación de medidas cautelares y su duraciónEl art. 231 del CNNA, señala que: “La libertad del adolescente y todos los derechos y garantías que le son reconocidos por la Constitución Política del Estado, por este Código y otros Instrumentos Internacionales, sólo podrán ser restringidos con carácter excepcional, cuando sean absolutamente indispensables para la averiguación de la verdad, el desarrollo del proceso y la aplicación de la Ley”. Las medidas cautelares consistentes en: a) Órdenes de orientación y supervisión en los términos previstos por el Código del Niño, Niña y Adolescente, b) Citación bajo apercibimiento de Ley; y, c) Detención preventiva (art. 232 del CNNA), deberán ser dispuestas con carácter restrictivo, mediante resolución judicial fundada por el juez de la niñez y adolescencia conforme la atribución que el art. 269.12 del CNNA le reconoce; medidas que sólo durarán mientras subsista la necesidad de su aplicación, debiendo ser ejecutadas de modo que perjudique lo menos posible a la persona y dignidad del adolescente. Criterio contemplado en la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, cuyo art. 37 incs. b) y d), señala que ningún niño será privado de su libertad ilegal o arbitrariamente y que su detención, encarcelamiento o prisión se llevará a cabo conforme a ley, como medida de último recurso y durante el período más breve que proceda; asistiéndole además en estos casos, derecho a un pronto acceso a la asistencia jurídica y a otra asistencia adecuada, a impugnar la legalidad de su privación de libertad ante tribunal o autoridad competente, independiente e imparcial y a una pronta decisión sobre dicha acción. Por otra parte, el art. 233 del CNNA, al regular la detención preventiva como una de las modalidades de medida cautelar señala: “Medida excepcional que puede ser determinada por el Juez de la Niñez y Adolescencia como una medida cautelar, a partir del momento en que recibe la acusación y cuando se presenten cualesquiera de las siguientes circunstancias: 1. Que el delito tenga prevista pena privativa de libertad, cuyo máximo legal sea de cinco años o más; 2. Exista el riesgo razonable de que el adolescente evada la acción de la justicia; 3. Exista peligro de destrucción u obstaculización de la prueba; y, 4. Exista peligro para terceros. En ningún caso se podrá imponer esta medida por más de cuarenta y cinco días, en todos los casos el Juez deberá analizar si es posible sustituir la detención preventiva por otra medida más favorable”. (Las negrillas son añadidas) Del análisis de las normas citadas se concluye que la única autoridad competente para conocer infracciones en conductas tipificadas como delitos en la Ley penal en la cual incurre como autor o participe un adolescente, es el Juez de la Niñez y Adolescencia, siendo éste el único competente para disponer las medidas cautelares, las cuales deben ser dispuestas con carácter restrictivo, mediante resolución judicial fundada y mientras subsista la necesidad de su aplicación, debiendo ser ejecutadas de modo que perjudique lo menos posible a la persona y dignidad del adolescente y no podrá exceder más del tiempo previsto por ley.
CRIN English translation: III.4. Regarding the implementation and duration of precautionary measures, Article 231 of the Children and Youth Act states: “The freedom, rights and guarantees of adolescents as recognised by the Political Constitution of the State, this Act and other international instruments, may only be restricted in exceptional circumstances, when absolutely necessary to establish the truth, to allow the procedure of process and the application of the law.” The following precautionary measures: a) guidance and supervision orders under the terms provided by the Children and Youth Act, b) summons under penalty of law, and c) preventive detention (under Article 232 of the Children and Youth Act) must be implemented restrictively by judicial decision of the Court for Children and Adolescents under the power vested in it by Article 269.12 of the Children and Youth Act. These measures must only be applied for the shortest period of time necessary and should be implemented in the least detrimental way for the adolescent’s health and dignity. These criteria have been laid down in the Convention on the Rights of the Child with Article 37 subparagraphs (b) and (d) stating that no child shall be deprived of his liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, and that his arrest, detention or imprisonment shall be carried out according to law, as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Children should also be assisted in these cases by the right to gain prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance; to challenge the legality of their detention before a court or other competent authority, which is independent and impartial; and to a prompt decision regarding any such action. Moreover, Article 233 of the Children and Youth Act regulating preventive detention as a precautionary measure states: “This is an exceptional measure which can be imposed by the Court for Children and Adolescents as a precautionary measure from the time the accused is charged, provided any of the following circumstances are present: 1. The offence carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence with a maximum term of five years or more; 2. There is a reasonable risk that the adolescent may evade justice; 3. There is danger of destruction or obstruction of evidence, and/or, 4. There is danger to third persons. Under no circumstances may this measure be imposed for more than forty-five days, and in all cases the Court must consider whether it is possible to replace preventive detention with a more favorable measure.” An analysis of the aforementioned instruments concludes that the only competent authority to make a judgment regarding offences which are defined as crimes under the Crimes Act and in which an adolescent is involved as a perpetrator or participant, is the Court for Children and Adolescents, which is the only court that has the authority to impose precautionary measures. These must be applied restrictively, by a reasoned judicial decision, applied for the shortest period of time necessary, implemented in the least detrimental way for the adolescent’s health and dignity, and may not exceed the duration provided by law.

CRIN comments:CRIN believes this decision is consistent with the CRC. Under Article 37 of the Convention, children should only be detained as a matter of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. As recognised by the Court, detaining a child on serious charges without adequate supporting evidence is a clear violation of children’s rights.
Citation:Constitutional resolution 0879/2011-R; File No: 2010-21415-43-AL Link to Full Judgment:http://www.tribunalconstitucional.gob.bo/resolucion23096.html This case summary is provided by the Child Rights International Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Related   Article 37: Torture and deprivation of liberty Countries Bolivia CRIN does not accredit or validate any of the organisations listed in our directory. The views and activities of the listed organisations do not necessarily reflect the views or activities of CRIN’s coordination team.