RUF: clarity and protection for those who protect us

Law No. 21.849, which regulates the use of force by police and Armed Forces in internal security functions, provides legal certainty to a particularly relevant area. The initiative (Bill No. 15.805-07) arose from a political agreement during the legislative process of the critical infrastructure reform, with the objective, among others, of establishing "clear and fair rules to protect the proper exercise of the police function." Its relevance is evident in light of the security crisis, transnational organized crime, and the so-called "Chileanization" of crime. Consider, moreover, that our Armed Forces have been deployed for more than 1,613 days in the Southern Macrozone and 1,330 in the Northern Macrozone. Protecting them projects the state duty, enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution, to "safeguard national security and provide protection to the population." The reality is that the regulation was scattered across circulars, protocols, and decrees. Since people's lives and physical integrity could be affected, the legal reserve requirement was a necessity. Of course, none of this authorizes acting without limits under any circumstance. The law is founded on the principles of legality, necessity, responsibility, and rationality (art. 3), with the latter serving a guiding function. Force must be exercised according to the circumstances, the place, and the context, in relation to the assigned objective, with means suitable to achieve it and only to the extent necessary. Purpose, suitability, and necessity thus give content to rationality, in light of which all rules and exemptions must be interpreted. Its operational expression is the duty of graduality (art. 5 No. 4). Force may begin at the rationally necessary level and increase or decrease according to the danger and the resistance or aggression, without following a linear scale. Potentially lethal force, on the other hand, only proceeds when the previous levels prove insufficient (art. 7 No. 5). The legislation preserves the distinction that Article 101 of the Constitution establishes between police and Armed Forces. Title II regulates police action according to the degrees of resistance and aggression. Title III, in turn, sets special rules for the Armed Forces, whose internal deployment is exceptional, requires an enabling supreme decree, and may be specified by the military authority. Different is the situation of Directemar, a permanent maritime police force. Hence an interpretive warning: no provision can be read in isolation, as the law requires a logical and systematic reading. For years, decisions made in seconds could lead to criminal proceedings, removal from duties, or loss of pay before the facts were clarified. The law corrects that imbalance (art. 15). Whoever acts in accordance with the rules is covered by the exemption of compliance with duty, without prejudice to legitimate defense, state of necessity, and the other exemptions, including those of the Code of Military Justice. Their criminal liability requires proving a breach of the rules, and their civil liability for damage to property is limited to direct intent. These guarantees do not enshrine impunity: they provide certainty without preventing the punishment of illegal conduct. The task now is to implement the law, issuing the regulations, allocating resources, and adapting training and procedures. Protecting those who protect us is not a privilege. It is a condition for the State to fulfill its duty to provide security, with clear rules, effective limits, and backing for those who act legitimately. By Pablo Urquízar, Coordinator of the Observatory on Organized Crime and Terrorism at UNABNEWSLETTEROpinionSaturday, AMTensions of ideas, opposing views, and clear analysis: elements to reveal the issues that divide opinions and will shape the agenda. By subscribing, you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policies of La Tercera.