## Facts

- Chile’s Constitution and related rules allowed prior censorship of films through the Cinematographic Classification Council (CCC) and subsequent judicial review.
- The film *The Last Temptation of Christ* was subjected to Chile’s censorship/classification process, and Chilean authorities at one point prohibited its exhibition.
- The CCC later allowed the film to be shown, limiting access to viewers over 18 years old.
- A private group filed a constitutional “remedy of protection” (acción de protección) seeking to overturn the CCC’s authorization on religious and moral grounds.
- The Santiago Court of Appeals set aside the CCC authorization and reinstated a ban on exhibition; Chile’s Supreme Court of Justice affirmed the prohibition, resulting in a definitive domestic ban.
- The film’s distributors attempted to overturn the ban through domestic avenues but were unsuccessful.
- The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, alleging that Chile’s judicial censorship and the underlying domestic framework violated the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), including Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression), and related obligations in Articles 1(1) and 2; the Commission also alleged an Article 12 (freedom of conscience and religion) violation.

## Issues

1. Whether Chile violated ACHR Article 13 by imposing a judicially enforced prohibition on exhibiting *The Last Temptation of Christ* within a domestic legal regime allowing prior censorship of films.
2. Whether the prohibition also violated ACHR Article 12 (freedom of conscience and religion).
3. Whether Chile failed to comply with ACHR Articles 1(1) and 2 by maintaining and applying domestic norms that allowed prior censorship inconsistent with the Convention.

## Decision

- The Court held that Chile violated ACHR Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression) to the detriment of the named victims.
- The Court held that Chile did not violate ACHR Article 12 (freedom of conscience and religion) on the facts presented.
- The Court held that Chile breached ACHR Articles 1(1) and 2 in connection with the Article 13 violation by maintaining and enforcing domestic rules that permitted prior censorship of films beyond what the Convention allows.
- The Court ordered Chile to allow the normal exhibition and publicity of *The Last Temptation of Christ*.
- The Court ordered Chile to modify its domestic constitutional and legal framework to eliminate prior censorship of cinematographic works and their publicity, using a Convention-consistent approach that allows age-based regulation only for the moral protection of children and adolescents.
- The Court ordered Chile to pay costs and expenses, set on equitable grounds at US$4,290, to be paid through the Inter-American Commission.

## Legal Principles

- Article 13 protects both (i) the right to express and disseminate ideas and (ii) the public’s right to seek and receive information and ideas; interference with distribution channels can violate both dimensions.
- Prior censorship is generally prohibited by Article 13; the Convention recognizes only a narrow allowance for prior controls over public entertainments solely to regulate access for the moral protection of children and adolescents (Article 13(4)).
- A total ban on a film for adult audiences, imposed through a censorship regime, falls outside Article 13(4) and violates Article 13.
- Objections based on offense to religious beliefs or generalized morality are not, by themselves, a lawful basis for prior censorship under Article 13(4)’s limited allowance.
- States must respect and ensure Convention rights (Article 1(1)) and must bring domestic law into conformity with the Convention when internal rules authorize restrictions that the Convention does not permit (Article 2).
- An Article 12 violation requires a distinct interference with freedom of conscience or religion; a restriction on expression does not automatically establish an independent Article 12 breach.

## Conclusion

In *Bustos v. Chile*, the Inter-American Court held that Chile’s judicially enforced prohibition on exhibiting *The Last Temptation of Christ*, enabled by a domestic regime of prior censorship, violated Article 13 of the American Convention and Chile’s related duties under Articles 1(1) and 2, while finding no separate Article 12 violation; the Court ordered authorization of the film’s exhibition and publicity, legal change to end prior film censorship beyond the narrow child-protection allowance, and payment of costs.


Bustos v. Chile, Judgment of February 5, 2001 (Merits, Reparations, and Costs) (2001)