Original article: Exconsejeros del INDH y proyecto de reforma de Kast: «Otra señal de retroceso en Derechos Humanos»

Former INDH Advisors Critique Kast’s Reform Bill: «A Step Backward for Human Rights»

This week, President Kast’s administration submitted a bill to the Chamber of Deputies aimed at reforming the National Institute for Human Rights (INDH), stripping it of many essential tools necessary for the promotion, protection, and defense of these rights.

Claiming modernization is needed, the bill severely restricts the INDH’s judicial powers, limits civil society’s involvement in its governance to essentially being determined by the President and Congress, and drastically reduces its staff while failing to include regional representation.

Specifically, the reform bill removes the INDH’s authority to initiate legal actions, restricting this vital function typical of national human rights institutions just to reporting incidents that may constitute a crime—thus preventing the INDH from being an active participant in such legal processes. It also mandates prior approval from the Council for protection actions and limits the Executive Director to having exclusive authority over amparo appeals.

This change, as stated in the bill’s message, reaffirms “its primarily consultative and technical character,” thereby depriving the INDH of its crucial tools for human rights protection, particularly in cases of violations by state agents or entities.

The bill proposes to replace the current eleven-member Council, five of whom are elected by civil society and academia, with a new five-member Council. This new composition includes two members appointed by the Senate upon the President’s proposal, requiring a quorum of 4/7 of current senators from a list of six candidates put forward by registered civil society organizations focused on human rights. Additionally, two members will be chosen by the Chamber of Deputies through the rights commission and one by the deans of Law Schools, as defined in their statutes.

Although the message claims that there will be “a majority of members from civil society,” unlike the current INDH Council election process, none of the proposed Council members will be directly elected by organizations in the INDH Registry; instead, four out of five will depend on the Executive and National Congress.

A more concerning aspect is a transitional provision allowing the President to propose five initial Council members to the Senate for approval by a simple majority once the law takes effect, entirely excluding civil society and academia from this process.

This new Council, with a two-year term, will be tasked with drafting the institution’s statutes, reshaping its structure and operation according to decisions made by those nominated by the President of the Republic.

These provisions blatantly contradict the Paris Principles, which require the appointment procedures of national human rights institution governing bodies to ensure independence and pluralism, thus guaranteeing autonomy.

Finally, regarding territorial organization, the bill maintains the INDH’s headquarters in Santiago, stating in its financial report that “regional headquarters are not contemplated.”

In practice, the proposal paves the way for dismantling the INDH’s regional offices, which have been essential for highlighting the human rights situation in regions, protecting victims of violations there, and promoting respect for these rights nationwide.

The proposed reform contradicts all efforts to decentralize state action and its agencies, even autonomous ones like the INDH, to facilitate a more equitable territorial country. What is the rationale behind dismantling regional presence?

The reform proposals contained in this bill starkly contrast the recommendations made by the Advisory Commission for Strengthening the INDH, which expressly suggested enhancing the INDH’s judicial action capability, reinforcing its regional offices, and ensuring that its Council includes a majority of representatives from human rights organizations and academia, with criteria of representation, parity, and pluralism.

Unlike the assessment presented in the presidential message on international human rights law, this proposal, like other legislative reform initiatives put forward by President Kast’s administration, reflects at least a disregard, if not ignorance, of the critical role that human rights play in constructing a democratic coexistence based on inclusion and justice.

Therefore, we find the reform bill unacceptable, and as former INDH advisors, we urge the National Congress to reject this initiative.

While we do not oppose the potential to review the legislation that created the INDH, we propose that such a review be grounded in the recommendations from the Advisory Commission for its Strengthening.

Additionally, we suggest that the debate on any legal initiative regarding this matter includes the participation of organizations linked to the promotion and defense of human rights.

Signed by:

José Aylwin
Lorena Fries
Claudio González
Debbie Guerra
Salvador Millaleo
Enrique Núñez
Margarita Romero
Francisco Ugás