Original article: Rabat decía tener las manos atadas, pero Justicia rechazó 22 rebajas tras su giro de criterio

Justice Minister Claims Constraints Amid Rejection of 22 Sentence Reductions After Policy Shift

Justice Minister Fernando Rabat told the Chamber of Deputies that he felt «handcuffed» and that his ministry could not oppose the sentence reductions approved by the respective commissions, arguing that once such bodies decide to grant a benefit, the government authority is restricted from reversing that decision. However, judicial records reviewed by CIPER reveal that, after implementing this interpretation—known as the «Rabat Doctrine»—the ministry rejected at least 22 reduction requests in cases of other crimes, such as homicide and drug trafficking, occurring between June and October.

In all these decrees, the ministry interpreted that it could oppose the previously agreed reduction by the commission, contradicting the narrative that the Secretary of State defended in Congress.

The revelation of these judicial records comes just as opposition lawmakers submitted a constitutional accusation against the Secretary of State, regarding his responsibility in reducing sentences for offenders, including some convicted of sexual crimes against minors and crimes against humanity.

Rabat Doctrine

During his appearance before the Chamber of Deputies on October 28, Rabat explained that only the Commissions for Sentence Reductions have the authority to analyze the backgrounds of inmates and that in them «the legal instance for assessing the merit of the request is exhausted«. According to his argument, requiring the minister to evaluate these backgrounds would mean violating Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution, as it would «require me to act outside of my powers«.

The administrative criterion of the so-called «Rabat Doctrine» is based on a 2018 ruling from the Santiago Court and two from the Supreme Court, which establish that the governmental body «is not authorized to deny the benefit of sentence reduction based on the severity of the crime and the protected legal interest».

This interpretation began to be applied in June of this year, and prior to it, the Justice Ministry did reject reductions for sexual offenders against minors, as previous governments did.

Justice Ministry Rejected 22 Sentence Reductions

The analysis of judicial documents carried out by CIPER shows that, after the date when the new doctrine was implemented, the ministry opposed the decisions made by the commissions and rejected granting the reduction in at least 22 cases involving other crimes.

Each of these cases led to a habeas corpus action filed by the inmate, and in nine of them, the court specifically ruled on the authority of the Justice Ministry to reject the reduction: in seven cases, the courts upheld the denial, in one the condemned person was favored, and the remaining is still pending.

However, none of these instances were mentioned by Rabat when he appeared before the Chamber at the end of October.

The regulation that establishes the parameters for sentence reductions is the Law No. 19,856. Its Article 17 explicitly states that reductions should not apply to those convicted of crimes punishable by life imprisonment, to inmates who commit a new crime while serving their sentence, and to sexual offenders against minors, among others. In the 22 decrees reviewed, the authority argued that the prisoners could not access the benefit because they met one of the exclusion criteria.

One of the cases in which the Supreme Court backed the ministry’s rejection involved an individual convicted of the homicide of a police officer, whose request was denied for being subject to life imprisonment. The commission had approved the benefit without addressing that cause, and the ministry resolved to reject it.

According to the cited medium, the majority of judges in the Second Chamber rejected the inmate’s appeal; the only dissent was from Minister Leopoldo Llanos, who argued that, since the crime was committed before the 2022 reform, the exclusion cause was not applicable as it did not explicitly include retroactivity.

The ministry also received judicial support in the denial of the benefit to a person convicted of femicide, despite already having the approval of the Sentence Reduction Commission and the backing of the Seremi of Justice. Rabat denied the request noting that femicide encompasses aggravated life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. Before the Court of Appeals, the ministry argued that it «has the duty to review the backgrounds in light of Article 17» and verify if any exclusion cause applies.

The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court determined that the ministry acted «in strict observance of the mandate contained in the law and its Regulations».

The regulation of Law No. 19,856 defines that the authority to review the exclusions lies both with the Sentence Reduction Commission and the Justice Ministry. Its Article 77 explicitly recognizes the ministry’s option to deny the benefit upon detecting any exclusion cause: «The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights must issue the decree denying the benefit only when the review of the application verifies any of the assumptions provided in Article 17».

The ministry used that very argument—before changing its doctrine—to deny the benefit in cases of those convicted of sexual offenses against minors, such as in Decree No. 1307, dated April 30, where Rabat cited the regulation to support his decision to reject the application of someone convicted of abuse and rape of a minor under 14 years old.

Featured image: Mediabanco.