“La Última Tentación de Cristo” v. Chile
- Mode of Expression
Audio / Visual Broadcasting
- Date of Decision
February 5, 2001
- Case Number
Serie C 73
- Region & Country
Chile, Latin-America and Caribbean
- Judicial Body
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)
Blasfemia, Constitución, Derechos Humanos, Honra y buen nombre, Libertad de expresión, Religión, Videos, Artistas, Censura judicial
Content Attribution Policy
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
- Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
- Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
This case is available in additional languages: View in: Español
Case Summary and Outcome
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) found that the prohibition by the Chilean State to show the film The Last Temptation of Christ constituted a violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression. The prohibition was based on Article 19, Number 12 of the Chilean Constitution, which established the possibility of prior censorship. According to the IACtHR, this measure conflicted with Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and the duty of States to adapt their domestic legal systems to guarantee the rights and freedoms recognized in the ACHR.
The Chilean Constitution, in its Article 19, Number 12, provided a “’system of censorship for the exhibition and advertising of cinematographic production’” [p. 21].
In November 1988 the Film Rating Council, an entity with the power to advise on film showcasing and rating, opposed the showing of The Last Temptation of Christ. This decision was then confirmed by an appellate court in March 1989.
A new permission to showcase the film was requested, and the Film Rating Council reviewed its prior decision and restricted the film for people over 18 years old. A group of people representing Jesuschrist, the Church and themselves reacted to this rating by presenting a complaint that was granted by the Appellate Court of Santiago in January 1997 and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Chile in June of that same year, resulting in the prohibition to showcase the film.
In November 1999 the House of Representatives had passed a bill to amend the Constitution tending to eliminate prior censorship to film exhibition and publicity. This amendment, however, was still under debate by the time the IACtHR decided on this case.
The Asociación de Abogados por las Libertades Públicas (Association of Lawyers for Public Liberties) submitted the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The IACHR concluded that Chile had violated the ACHR and presented the case before the IACtHR.
The IACtHR had to decide whether the norm that enshrined a “’system of censorship for the exhibition and advertising of cinematographic production’” [p. 21] and the decision to prohibit the showing of a film based on said rule was a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
After studying the case, the IACtHR ruled that the decision to prevent the screening of the film constituted an act of prior censorship that violated the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13 of the American ACHR.
To support its decision, the Court began by explaining the structural importance of the freedom of expression in a democratic society and cited important jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Likewise, the IACtHR explained that the right to freedom of expression comprises two dimensions of equal importance and that they must be guaranteed simultaneously: the individual dimension that protects the right to speak, write and to use any media to share ideas and information; and the social dimension that recognizes freedom of expression as a means for exchanging ideas and the right to receive opinions and news from others. The Court made clear that expressing and sharing thoughts and information are indivisible, in a way that any restriction to disseminate information entails a corresponding restriction to free speech [para. 147].
Taking into consideration the two dimensions of the right of freedom of expression, the Court indicated that the decision to prevent the projection of a film compromised not only the right of those who wanted to show it but the rights of the general public to decide whether or not they wanted to see it.
The Court stated that Article 13.4 of the ACHR establishes a single exception to prior censorship, referring to public performances with the sole purpose of protecting the morals of children and adolescents, and explained that any other measure of prior censorship implied the impairment of the right to freedom of expression.
The Court also concluded that Chile violated the Convention when it did not adapt its legal system to the rights recognized by the treaty, instead, keeping in effect Article 19, Number 12 of the Constitution and Executive Order 679 [p. 88]. Consequently, the Court ordered Chile to adapt its legislation in reasonable time to eliminate prior censorship and allow the showcasing of the film [p. 39].
Furthermore, the Court sustained that freedom of conscience and religion, recognized by Article 12 of the Convention, allows people to keep, change, exercise and share their religion and beliefs. However, it also stated that in this case there was no proof of a violation to that right. The Court explained that “the prohibition of the exhibition of the film The Last Temptation of Christ did not deprive or undermine any person of their right to conserve, change, profess or disclose, with absolute freedom, their religion or their beliefs” [p.32].
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
The decision adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights expanded freedom of expression by deciding against cinematographic censorship, eliminating barriers to the exchange of ideas and access to information. More broadly, the Court ordered the modification of Chile’s internal legal system and ratified the express prohibition of prior censorship in force in the inter-American legal system.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Table of Authorities
Related International and/or regional laws
- ACHR, art. 13
- ACHR, art. 12
- ECHR, art. 10
- ECtHR, Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72 (1976)
- ECtHR, The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6538/74 (1979)
- ECtHR, Barthold v. Germany, App. No. 8734/79 (1985)
- ECtHR, Lingens v. Austria, App. No. 9815/82 (1986)
- ECtHR, Müller and Others v. Switzerland, App. No. 10737 (May 24, 1988)
- ECtHR, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, App. No. 13470/87 (1994)
- IACtHR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, ser. A No. 5 (1985)
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.
The decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are binding on the respective State and establish standards that must be taken into account by the judicial bodies of all State Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights in applicable cases.
The decision was cited in:
- Editorial Río Negro S.A. v. Neuquén
- The Official Release of Advertising Campaigns Communication from Government Programs
- Claude Reyes v. Chile
- Luis Gonzálo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo v. Colombia
- Sujarchuk v. Warley
- Grupo Clarín S.A. v. Poder Ejecutivo Nacional
- Canicoba Corral v. Acevedo
- Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica
- Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú
- Norín Catrimán v. Chile
- The Case of Sugary Drinks
- Carvajal Carvajal v. Colombia
- I.V. v. Bolivia
- Lagos del Campo v. Peru
- Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela
- Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile
- Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador
- Indigenous People Maya Kaqchikel from Sumpango v. Guatemala
Official Case Documents
Official Case Documents:
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.