Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article provides a critical analysis of the ruling issued by the Minister of Jurisdiction of the San Miguel Court of Appeals (Case No. 2-2022), which held the Chilean State liable for lack of service in the case of Fabiola Campillai, who suffered permanent eye damage after being struck by a tear gas canister fired by police during the 2019 social unrest. The objective is to assess the legal foundation of the ruling, the criteria used to determine the lack of service, and the duties breached by law enforcement officials. The article reviews the factual and procedural background of the case, as well as the national and international legal framework governing the use of force. It argues that state liability arises from the violation of duties of care and action, particularly due to the intentional shot and the omission of aid. The judgment resolves a normative conflict by broadly interpreting Article 4 of the LOCBGAE, in line with Supreme Court precedent, thereby allowing the application of the “lack of service” standard to police forces. Although the ruling lacks a detailed analysis of regulatory standards, it sets important precedents regarding the limits of the use of force and the police’s duty to assist injured civilians.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Allan Gallardo Gajardo (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: