Covid-19 Litigation in Latin America (Panel canceled)

This paper has the general objective of presenting the inter-American standard on actions for the protection of human rights and its development at the national level, in particular, presenting which were the rights whose protection was most requested. protection during the pandemic and the most repeated responses by judges. To do this, a distinction will be made between the simple generic resource that allows all rights to be protected and the specific resource that serves to exclusively protect the right to freedom. This is usually known as habeas corpus, widely used in all Latin American countries during the pandemic. Likewise, there are broader remedies, such as in Chile, where the amparo appeal of article 21 of the Chilean Constitution (the one that is going to be replaced) serves to protect liberty in general and is also used as a remedy by persons deprived of their liberty.

This paper has the general objective of presenting the Latin American panorama of litigation on issues of private and family life during the pandemic. With special emphasis on the increase in intra-family violence and especially gender-based violence during quarantines and the way in which the State responded to this problem, both to remedy and prevent violence against women.

This paper has the general objective of identifying and comparing how governments guaranteed continuity in access to education in Latin America. At first, the main challenges that the guarantee of the right to education has traditionally had will be identified, despite being recognized and protected as a fundamental right in most jurisdictions in Latin America. For later, review those sentences in which the judges have intervened to remedy the deficit in access to education that occurred during the pandemic coupled with the connectivity difficulties of entire areas of territories of some states.

This paper is partly a continuation of the previous one that dealt with the subject of education. But in this case, this paper will focus on the recognition of internet access as a fundamental right, in particular, the cases of Argentina and Colombia will be analyzed and compared. An analysis will also be made of how internet connectivity assumes an essential role in enabling the exercise of other rights and civil liberties during quarantine, such as the right to work, to association, to education, to political participation.

This paper pretends to be a development of the campaign to be launched at the congress “The Constitution in Action“. Thus, the solidarity tax will be exposed as an instrument based on the principle of constitutional solidarity. The research consists of four parts: 1. the historical paradigmatic cases of solidarity taxes (Zimbabwe and Germany) and the usefulness they have had will be exposed - 2. The Colombian case and the solidarity tax created by Legislative Decree (special state of emergency regulations) - 3. The Uruguayan case and the solidarity tax and 4. A comparison of the review will be presented of constitutionality to solidarity taxes, which despite having the same structure (comparable passive subjects and taxable economic fact) are interpreted and evaluated in a diametrically opposite way in Colombia and Uruguay.