Previous 7 / 8 Next

LEOPOLDO ANDRES LLANOS SAGRISTA MINISTRO Fecha: 28/11/2023 14:58:07 MARIA TERESA DE JESUS LETELIER RAMIREZ MINISTRA Fecha: 28/11/2023 14:58:08 NRXFXJRLNLX

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

The Case of Chilean Journalist Mauricio Weibel

Case Law

Country

Chile

Country Location

Latitude: -33.37862595454361

Longitude: -70.68408456156871

Country Location (linked Case Law): Chile

Decision Date: 28 de nov. de 2023

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Affirmed Lower Court

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Digital Rights
Privacy
Surveillance

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Court Name: Supreme Court of Chile

Case Number: Rol N° 226.183-2023

Case Summary: The Supreme Court of Chile held that the prosecution and detention of former judge Juan Antonio Poblete Méndez (the appellant) was justified because there were serious indications that he had authorized the allegedly illegal wiretapping of investigative journalist Mauricio Weibel Barahona (the petitioner) and other alleged victims. Weibel filed a criminal complaint against those responsible for an illegal spying and wiretapping operation that he allegedly suffered due to his journalistic investigations regarding corruption in the Chilean army. Poblete Méndez argued that he had not been duly notified of the complaint, that he did not commit any crime, that there was no compelling evidence to detain him, and that he was not guilty of the alleged acts because he suffered from serious mental health problems that rendered him immune from any criminal liability. The Supreme Court of Chile held that Poblete Méndez was duly notified of the complaint on account of his own participation in the proceedings, as he made several requests during the criminal proceedings against him. The Court also held that the decision of the Chilean Court of Appeals confirming the continuation of the criminal proceedings and the preventive detention of Poblete Méndez was duly justified. For the Court, there were serious and grave indications regarding the commission of the crimes charged and of the accused party’s involvement in them. Finally, the Court held that the issue regarding Poblete Méndez’s lack of criminal responsibility should be determined further in the proceedings in accordance with Chilean law.

Case Significance: Although the Court did not explicitly discuss freedom of expression arguments in its decision, the case has significant implications for freedom of expression, particularly for investigative journalism on corruption issues. In connection with the case, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) expressed concern about allegations that investigative journalist Mauricio Weibel Barahona was the victim of illegal espionage by the Chilean military while conducting investigative reporting on irregularities and corruption in the armed forces. CPJ stated that the armed forces had no valid justification to spy on Mauricio Weibel Barahona or any other journalist, and called on the Chilean judiciary to investigate these possible abuses. Similarly, these events prompted a statement by the IACHR’s Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, who urged states to limit the use of any type of surveillance technology that could interfere with private communications. According to Weibel’s arguments in his complaint, this prominent investigative journalist was allegedly subjected to an illegal intelligence operation by the army to stifle his investigations into corruption in the army. The facts of this case point to the persecution of investigative journalism. Although the Chilean Supreme Court did not directly address these arguments in its decision, nor did it adopt a freedom of expression framework, upholding the decision to proceed with the prosecution and order the pre-trial detention of a former judge – a high-ranking judge in Chile’s judicial system – who allegedly had the authority to authorize wiretaps under Chile’s State Intelligence System Law could be seen as a positive step towards protecting press freedom.

Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction.

As the decision to proceed with the complaint and to keep the accused in pre-trial detention is a preliminary decision in the proceedings, it could eventually be modified in the decision on the merits.

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 18 de jul. de 2024

Primary Documents

Supreme Court's decision (in Spanish)
Spanish
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

The Case of Chilean Journalist Mauricio Weibel

Primary Documents

Notifications