Report No. 71 (2014) IACHR. Petition No. 537-03 (Chile)

• Year: 2014
• Petition Number: 537-03
• Report Number: 71
• Respondent State: Chile
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Mayra Espinoza Figueroa

REPORT No. 71/141

PETITION 537-03

INADMISSIBILITY

M.E.F...

.

C...

.

J. 25, 2014

I. SUMMARY

1. On July 21, 2003, the Inter-A.an C. on H.n Rights (hereinafter the

Commission or IACHR) received a petition filed by the La Morada Women’s D evelopment Corporation

(Corporación de Desarrollo de la Mujer La Morada) alleging that the Republic of Chile (hereinafter the S.,

the C.S. or Chile) had incurred responsibility for an alleged violation of the right to privacy and

intimacy and for discrimination to the detriment of M.E.F. (hereinafter the alleged

victim),a 19-year old female student who had supposedly been expell ed from a private high school for having

been seen kissing a woman. Subsequently her request for protection was allegedly turned down, as the S.

alleged that her request was filed after the time-limits set by law because the 15 calendar or consecutive days

provided for by domestic law had elapsed. In addition to La Morada Women’s Development Corporation, the

H.nas Corporation and the Regional Center for H.n Rights and Gender Justice (Centro Regional de

Derechos H.nos y Justicia de Géner o) (hereinafter the petitioners) participated in filing the petition.

2. The petitioners alleged that the State inc urred responsibility for the violation of the rights to

protection of honor and dignity, to equality before the law and to judicial protection, as set forth in Articles

11, 24 and 25 of the A.an Convention on H.n Rights (hereinafter the Convention or the A.an

Convention) in connection with Article 1(1) of said treaty. As for the S., it alleged that the petitioners’

claims are inadmissible because there was no intrusion into their private life or discriminatory treatment

and, furthermore, that the petitioners did not duly exhaust the remedies under domestic law as required by

Article 46(1)(a) of the A.an Convention.

3. After examining the positions of the parties, the C. concludes that it has the

jurisdiction to hear the petition being examined and that the petition is inadmiss ible in the light of Articles 46

and 47 of the A.an Convention because the pet itioners did not duly exhaust the remedi es under

domestic law as required by Article 46(1)(a) of the A.an Convention. The C.ssion also decided to

advise the parties of this decision, as well as to publish and include it in its A nnual Report to the General

Assembly of the Organization of A.an Sta tes.

II. PROCEEDINGS WITH THE COMMISSION

4. The IACHR recorded the petition under number 537-03 and, after a preliminary review, it

proceeded on December 3, 2003 to send a copy of its relevant parts to the S., with a two-month time-limit

for the S. to submit its observations.

5. The S. sent its observations on September 27, 2004, which were in turn duly forwarded

to the petitioners.

6. The petitioners sent their observations on March 16, 2005, which in turn were duly

forwarded to the C.S.. On July 7, 2006, the C. State requested an extension of the deadline to

send its additional observations, and this ext ension was granted to it by the C..

1 In accordance with the provisions of Article 17.2 of the C.ssion’s Rules of Procedure, C.er F.G., a

C. national, did not participate in the discussion or decision involved in the present case.

1