A., D. M. s/ Internación

The mother of the plaintiff filed a suit with the Public Defender of Minor and Disables n°6 for it to take the corresponding measures to protect the psychological and physical integrity of her son, who suffered from Schizophrenia and had been under physiological treatment during six years. The Public Defender of Minor and Disables N°6 requested the National First Instance Civil Court n°7 [Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Civil n° 7] to order a psychological evaluation to determine the patient should be admitted in a mental institution. After this evaluation, he was transferred to a mental institution in the City of Buenos Aires. In 2008,  the patient was transferred from the mental institution in the City of Buenos Aires to a mental institution in the Province of Buenos Aires so the National First Instance Civil Court n°7 [Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Civil n° 7] held that it was no longer competent in the case because the residency of the plaintiff had changed. The case was sent to the First Instance Civil and Commercial Court of the Department of Mercedes, Province of Buenos Aires [Juzgado de Primera Instancia en lo Civil y Comercial n° 10, del Departamento Judicial de Mercedes, Provincia de Buenos Aires] which determined that it was not competent because it was not proved that the plaintiff’s residency had changed.

The Supreme Court of Justice held that in cases where vulnerable people such as mental health disabled should have a fair trial guaranteed based on the international treaties rights that are granted with constitutional hierarchy. The principle of immediate and fair trial are the basis for the protection of their rights so until jurisdiction is solved the Court that was treating the case, even if it declare that it was incompetent should continue intervening to avoid leaving the plaintiff in a situation of helplessness. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the competent court was the First Instance Civil and Commercial Court of the Department of Mercedes, province of Buenos Aires [Juzgado de Primera Instancia en lo Civil y Comercial n° 10 de Mercedes, provincia de Buenos Aires] that should adopt urgently the corresponding measures to prompt the case safeguarding the psycho-physical and the assets of the plaintiff.  

"[...] Este Tribunal consideró con sustento en normas de tratados de derechos humanos con jerarquía constitucional y en las decisiones de sus órganos de
control que el respeto de la regla del debido proceso debe ser observado con mayor razón en el caso de personas sometidas a tratamientos de internación psiquiátrica coactiva debido al
estado de vulnerabilidad, fragilidad, impotencia y abandono en el que se encuentran frecuentemente estas personas. Asimismo, estos precedentes jerarquizan el principio constitucional de
la tutela judicial efectiva como fundamental y básico para la protección de los derechos de los pacientes con padecimientos mentales. Frente a tales consideraciones, el juez del lugar
donde se encuentra el centro de internación es quien debe adoptar las medidas urgentes necesarias para dar legalidad y controlar las condiciones en que el tratamiento de internación
se desarrolla. Sin perjuicio de ello, mientras se dirime la cuestión de competencia, el tribunal que esté conociendo en el caso aún si resolviere inhibirse , debe seguir interviniendo
en la causa a fin de no dejar a la persona en un estado de desamparo." Paragraph 6

"This Court considered based on human rights treaties with constitutional hierarchy that the right to a fair trial should be analysed more carefully in cases of people under psychiatry treatment that are involuntary confined given their vulnerable, fragile, abandonment state in which these persons are frequently found. These Supreme Court's precedent states the constitutional principle of fair trial as fundamental and basic for the protection of the rights of mentally disordered people. Therefore, judge of the place where the person is involuntary confined should be the one to adopt the urgent measures to control the conditions in which the involuntary confinement treatment is carried out. However, while the issue of competence is being decided, the Court that is dealing which the case even if it decides to declare that it is incompetent, should continue to intervene in the case in order to not to leave the person in a state of abandonment." Paragraph 6