UN Experts Warn Against Criminal Case Targeting Chilean Judge

The UN experts said using criminal law to challenge a judge's legal reasoning risks interfering with judicial independence and could discourage judges from handling sensitive human rights cases.

United Nations independent experts have expressed concern over criminal proceedings brought against a Chilean judge, saying the case could threaten judicial independence and weaken efforts to ensure accountability for serious human rights violations committed during the country's military dictatorship.

Concerns over prosecution linked to judicial decisions

The experts raised the issue after criminal charges were filed against Judge Álvaro Mesa Latorre, President of the Court of Appeals of Temuco, who has spent many years handling cases involving enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture and other crimes against humanity.

According to the experts, the complaint was submitted by lawyers representing former State agents convicted over crimes committed in 1973. They said the allegations accuse the judge of misconduct because of his interpretation of evidence and his application of international human rights and international criminal law when reaching judicial decisions.

The experts argued that the legal principles relied upon by Judge Mesa Latorre have already been consistently applied by Chilean courts, including the country's Supreme Court, in cases involving grave human rights abuses.

Warning over pressure on judges and legal professionals

The UN experts said using criminal law to challenge a judge's legal reasoning risks interfering with judicial independence and could discourage judges from handling sensitive human rights cases.

They also expressed concern about what they described as a wider pattern of pressure directed at judges, prosecutors and lawyers involved in investigations linked to crimes committed during Chile's dictatorship. According to the statement, these actions have included threats of constitutional impeachment, criminal complaints and public criticism connected to judicial decisions.

The experts stressed that disagreements with court rulings should be resolved through established appeal procedures rather than criminal prosecutions against judges carrying out their duties.

Accountability depends on an independent judiciary

The experts said judicial immunity for actions performed in good faith while carrying out official duties is an essential safeguard that protects judges from external influence and allows courts to make impartial decisions.

They warned that attempts to discourage judges, prosecutors or lawyers from applying international human rights standards in cases involving serious human rights violations could undermine accountability efforts and limit access to justice for victims and their families.

The statement calls for respect for judicial independence and the rule of law, emphasising that courts must remain free from intimidation, retaliation or political pressure when dealing with cases involving crimes under international law.