CHILE

The press has been able to carry out its activities without significant impediments, however, a consensus exists that some current statutes require amendment, but due to the protracted legislative process they remain on the books. This is true for the crime of insulting public officials contained in the Criminal Code, which the Senate voted to rescind in January 2005 following review in committee and allowing a period for revisions to the bill. The bill is to be sent back to the Chamber of Deputies, and differences between the Senate and the Chamber will likely be resolved in a conference committee. This bill also strikes down the crime of sedition ( sedición impropia ), which was the subject of inadequate technical amendments by the Chamber of Deputies, and substantial modifications by the Senate. The president and vice president of the Senate, representing two large national political coalitions, introduced an initiative seeking to facilitate freedom of information. However, no headway was made on the measure, which was sent to committee on December 14, 2004. The current law, which serves to regulate government administration and contains norms governing its transparency, is desperately in need of reform. This became apparent with the October 4, 2004 statement by the Comptroller General for Chile calling for the review of all decisions issued by various state bodies in compliance with said norms, since in practice they created new hurdles to freedom of information. The Senate president has stated that pursuant to the provision ?the bulk of public services declared virtually 80 percent of information to be confidential or secret.? The February 16, 2005 official gazette published Law 20,000 criminalizing illegal traffic in narcotics and psychotropic substances. Article 30 of the law authorizes the Office of the Prosecutor to mandate measures to protect witnesses, experts, informants, undercover or drug agents, as well as spouses, family members and others persons ?related by feelings of affection.? Once the protective order has been issued, Article 31 empowers the courts to protect the identity of persons as well as any background information that may lead to their identification. Second to first-degree transgressions by persons providing the information shall be punished under minimum sentencing guidelines. Should such information be broadcast or published by a media outlet, the editor is to be fined (the equivalent of 10 to 50 monthly tax units, or $500 to $2,500 dollars). Chile's unfortunate experience with restraining orders banning reporting of defendants' identities raises fundamental concerns regarding the impact these measures may have on journalism, particularly given the number and variety of persons that may be covered. Francisco Martorell, editor of El Periodista magazine, was tried last November by the Third Criminal Court for Santiago, in a suit brought by a businessman concerning an interview with his former accountant. Even though the statements deemed libelous were made by the accountant, the judge decided to try the magazine editor. The case is in trial. A bill is pending before the Senate that would oblige the media to report on daily ultraviolet radiation and associated risks. Noncompliance would be fined by $50 to $2,500 dollars (the equivalent of 1 to 50 monthly tax units). The bill was introduced over two years ago.