Preliminary Exercise of a Comparative Perspective. Different Approaches on How the Right to a Fair Trial Has Been Applied to Common Legal Needs

Lillo Lobos, Ricardo

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_4

Ricardo Lillo Lobos²⁶

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 97))

182 Accesses

Abstract

Based on the existing research on unmet legal needs and an hypothetical case scenario, this chapter compares two jurisdictions to show how different conceptions on the right to a fair trial might have an important impact on the design and functioning of a civil procedure, particularly from the point of view of access to justice. In this regard, the chapter begins by exploring the concept of unmet legal needs and the tradition of studies that have identified some common trends in this regard. Based on the findings of the first section, I have created a hypothetical scenario to compare two jurisdictions, the State of California and Chile. First I provide arguments to justify why this is a workable comparison, and then I analyze both from the point of view of the applicable substantive law, constitutional provisions on due process, and the legal procedure involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
According to Pleasence et al., in 1938 Clark and Corstvet’s published the first study of this kind in the United States. See: Pleasence et al. (2013), p. 3.
2.
Genn (1999), p. 5. For example, in Australia by the work done by Cass and Sackville in 1973. See: Curran and Noone (2007), p. 65. Regarding this type of studies in Latin-America, see: OCCA (2018), pp. 40–49.
3.
According to Pleasence et al, between 1994 and 2012, 26 large-scale national surveys were conducted in at least 15 separate jurisdictions. Pleasence et al. (2013), p. 3. The most updated repository of such studies may be found at the World Justice Project Atlas of Legal Needs Surveys, which includes more than 90 studies conducted in 108 countries and jurisdictions available at: https://worldjusticeproject.org/legal-needs-atlas.
4.
Sandefur (2015), p. 444.
5.
Genn (1999), p. 12.
6.
Sandefur (2015), p. 443.
7.
Sandefur (2015), p. 446; OECD and Open Society Foundations (2019), pp. 31–32.
8.
Pleasence et al. (2013), p. 28.
9.
Pleasence and Balmer (2012), pp. 36–40; Pleasence et al. (2013), p. 33.
10.
OECD and Open Society Foundations (2016), p. 2.
11.
Pleasence et al. (2013), p. 29; OECD and Open Society Foundations (2019), p. 31.
12.
Regarding California small claims courts system, see: Lillo (2016). Regarding Chilean civil courts, see: Lillo (2020).
13.
Clermont (2009), pp. 26, 27; Clark (1958), p. 435.
14.
The debates over the European conciliation court model in California are enlightening in this regard. See: Kessler (2017), pp. 233–236.
15.
Its current version date from 1990.
16.
Lillo (2016), p. 959.
17.
Damaška (1986), pp. 50–53.
18.
Cappalli (1990), p. 242.
19.
Cappalli (1990), p. 241.
20.
Cappalli describe how in 1986 the exports from the United States to Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela totaled US$11.8 billion while imports amounted to US$19.8 billion. See: Cappalli (1990), p. 214, footnote 2. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, U.S. goods exports solely to Chile in 2013 were US$17.6 billion while imports totaled US$10.4 billion. Available at: https://ustr.gov/map/countriesaz/cl.
21.
Exports from California to Chile in 2013 amounted US$2.2 billion, being the second State exporting to Chile. See: International Trade Administration, U.S.-Chile Bilateral Trade Analysis. Available at: https://build.export.gov/build/idcplg?IdcService=DOWNLOAD_PUBLIC_FILE&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest&dDocName=eg_main_017585.
22.
Dalam (2015), pp. 1–11.
23.
West’s Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1, § 1792, § 1792.2. See also: Unif. Commercial Code § 2-314.
24.
West’s Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1792.
25.
American Suzuki Motor Corp. V. Superior Court, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 526, 529, 37 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1296 (Cal.app. 2 Dist., 1995).
26.
Music Acceptance Copr. V. Lofing, 39 Cal.Rptr. 2d 159, 165, 32 Cal.App.4th 610, 621 (Cal. App. 3 Dist., 1995).
27.
West’s Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794.
28.
Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 65 Cal. Rptr.3d 695, 700, 155 Cal.App.4th 19, 27 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 2007); Pisano v. American Leasing, 194 Cal. Rptr. 77, 80, 146 Cal. App.3d 194, 198 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1983).
29.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 20. See, also: Barahona (2014), p. 394.
30.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 20 (c) and (f).
31.
Barrientos (2010), p. 116.
32.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 21.
33.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 50 H, 58 (f).
34.
Barahona (2014), p. 399.
35.
1 Witkin, Summary 11th Contracts § 872 (2018).
36.
Brawley v. J.C. Interiors, Inc., 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 832, 838, 161 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134 (Cal.App 5 Dist., 2008).
37.
CA CIVIL § 3300.
38.
CA CIVIL § 3302.
39.
Coles v. Glaser, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 922, 927, 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391 (Cal. App. 1 Dist., 2016); General Sec- Services Corp. v. County of Fresno, 815 F.Supp.2d 1123, 1134 (E.D. Cal., 2011); Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256, 263, 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 (Cal., 2011); Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of America, 442 P.2d 377, 381, 69 Cal. Rptr. 321, 325, 68 Cal.2d 822, 830 (Cal. 1968).
40.
Civil Code, Art. 1556.
41.
Civil Code, Art. 1551.
42.
Civil Code, Art. 1555.
43.
Urrejola (2011), p. 29.
44.
Civil Code, Art. 1547.
45.
Jersey v. Jhon Muir Medical Center, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 807, 812, 97 Cal.App. 4th 814, 821 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2002); Church of Sientology v. Wollersheim, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620, 631, 41 Cal. App. 4th 628, 647 (Cal. App. 2m Dist., 1996).
46.
Chang Doua Yang v. Kong Meng Lee, 2017 WL 4988174, at.*7 (Cal. App. 5 Dist., 2017).
47.
Article I, Section 3 (a): “The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.”
48.
Article I, Section 7 (a): “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation…”
49.
Payne v. Superior Court, 553 P.2d 565, 573, 132 Cal.Rptr. 405, 413, 17 Cal.3d 908, 919 (Cal. 1976). Regarding the right to access to the courts as part of the right of petition, see: Teachers Ass’n v. State of California, 975 P.2d 622, 632, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 425, 435, 20 Cal.4th 327, 339 (Cal.1999).
50.
As I’ll explain in subsequent chapters, early case law was centered in determining the importance of the interest while categorization between life, liberty, or property. It was fruit of the late twentieth century case law, which focused more on the nature of the interest at issue. Sullivan and Massaro (2013), p. 40.
51.
On the contrary, inaction or omission from public agencies (e.g., providing protection against private wrongdoings) is a much more debatable trigger of the clause. See: Strauss (1989), pp. 53–86.
52.
Galligan (1996), p. 190.
53.
Section 29 of the Constitution of the State of California, provides a speedy and public trial as other procedural guarantees such as the right to compel the attendance of witnesses, the assistance of a counsel, among others, but in such a language that refers only to in criminal cases.
54.
Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists, 526 P. 2d 253, 263, 116 Cal.Rptr. 245, 255, 12 Cal. 3d 541, 555 (Cal. 1974).
55.
Cruz (1986), pp. 74–75.
56.
García Contreras (2013), p. 247.
57.
Unofficial translation by the author on the basis of: Couso, Javier et al., Constitutional Law in Chile, Great Britain, Wolters Kluwer, 2011, p. 212.
58.
Unofficial translation by: Couso et al. (2011), p. 115.
59.
Couso et al. (2011), p. 171.
60.
Article 8.1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.
61.
Article 25. 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.
2. The States Parties undertake:
1. a.
  to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state;
2. b.
  to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and
3. c.
  to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
62.
Medina (2016), pp. 355–358. See, e.g.: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, Judgment of September 19, 2006, Series C No. 151, par. 127.
63.
Constitutional Court of Chile, Case N° 205-1195, January 31, 1995, c.9.
64.
Bordalí (2011), p. 312.
65.
Unofficial translation. Constitutional Court of Chile, Case N° 1470-2009, October 27, 2009, c. 9. See also: Constitutional Court of Chile, Case N° 1046-2008, June 22, 2008, c. 20; Constitutional Court of Chile, Case N° 1061-2008, August 28, 2011, c.15, and Constitutional Court of Chile, Case N° 2438-2013, April 10, 2014, c. 11.
66.
Official Acts of the Constitutional Committee, Session 101st, January 9th, 1975, p. 14.
67.
See: Official Acts of the Constitutional Committee, Session 100th, January 6th, 1975, p. 4; Official Acts of the Constitutional Committee, Session 101st, January 9th, 1975, pp. 6–8.
68.
Duce et al. (2008), p. 17.
69.
Duce et al. (2008), p. 85.
70.
Constitutional Court of Chile, Case N° 481-06, July 4th, 2006, c. 7.
71.
Couso et al. (2011), p. 201.
72.
Bordalí (2011), pp. 266–268.
73.
Different from the solution given by the European Convention of Human Rights, which in its article 6.1 provides basic guarantees for the determination of “…civil rights and obligations” and in consequence generating a fruitful but no less complex case law from the European Court of Human Rights but also from the highest courts of the member States interpreting the meaning of this expression. See, in this regard: Cross (2010), p. 366; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, par. 94; European Court of Human Rights, Case of König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, par. 89; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1983, par. 46–47; European Court of Human Rights, Case Elles and Others v. Switzerland, 16 March 2011, par. 20; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Shapovalov v. Ukraine, 31 July 2012, par. 43–45; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, 20 January 2016, par. 53–54.
74.
American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 8.2.
75.
Couso et al. (2011), p. 201.
76.
Cea (2012), p. 158.
77.
The Article 1 of the Act N° 18.120, provides for a general rule of a mandatory system of legal representation: The first presentation of each party or claimant in disputed or voluntary matters at any Court of the Republic, being a common jurisdiction court, arbitral or special, shall be sponsored by an attorney admitted to the bar (Unofficial translation).
78.
Merryman and Pérez (2007), pp. 120,121.
79.
Both, mandatory legal assistance and a right to appeal are part of the list of procedural guarantees exclusively provided for the accused in the article 8.2. of the American Convention of Human Rights.
80.
Astorga (2017), pp. 241–242. See, also: Palomo (2010), pp. 496–501.
81.
Constitutional Court of Chile, Case N° 205-1995, January 31, 1995, c.8.
82.
West’s Ann. Cal. C.C.P. § 395.5.
83.
Barton and Bibas (2017), pp. 46–57; 65–68. Similarly, see: Croley (2017), pp. 117–134.
84.
Kagan (2003), p. 100.
85.
It may also applies the Limited Civil Cases procedure regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies to cases not exceeding 25,000. Notwithstanding, because of the amount in Erick’s case is much lower, it would not make much sense to litigate under that regulation. No matter it has son some features which makes it less expensive or costly that the general civil procedure for unlimited civil cases, it still have other requirements in terms of the pleadings, motions, discovery, that are allowed and at the end makes it unfit for this specific case. See: West’s Ann. Cal. C.C.P. Pt. 1, T. 1, Ch. 5.1, Art. 2.
86.
West’s Ann. Cal. C.C.P. § 116.120.
87.
Pagter et al. (1964), p. 877.
88.
Best and Zalesne (1993), pp. 347–348.
89.
Lillo (2016), p. 957.
90.
Yngvesson and Henessey (1975), p. 222.
91.
Kosmin (1975), p. 936.
92.
Yngvesson and Henessey (1975), p. 221.
93.
Yngvesson and Henessey (1975), p. 222.
94.
1921 Cal. Stat. ch. 125.
95.
Lillo (2016), p. 962.
96.
Judicial Council of California (2018), p. 94.
97.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.221 (2006).
98.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.224 (2006).
99.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.220 (2006).
100.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.310 (2006).
101.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.320 (2006).
102.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.320 (2006).
103.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.330 (2006).
104.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.360 (2006).
105.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.520 (2006).
106.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.530 (2006).
107.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.550 (2006).
108.
Sanderson v. Niemann, 17 Cal. 2d 563, 110 P.2d 1025 (1941).
109.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.610 (2006).
110.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 116.710 (2006).
111.
The database used consisted of 200 cases randomly selected from the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the period 2010-2013 (25 cases each year). Lillo (2016), p. 966.
112.
Lillo (2016), pp. 967, 968.
113.
Lillo (2016), p. 969.
114.
Lillo (2016), p. 976.
115.
Lillo (2016), p. 975.
116.
Lillo (2016), pp. 975–976.
117.
Lillo (2016), p. 961.
118.
Moulton (1969), p. 1659.
119.
Graham and Snortum (1976), p. 264.
120.
Lillo (2016), p. 962.
121.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 50 H.
122.
Notwithstanding the Judiciary have the supervision of these courts, an attribution that is seldom used. Besides that, the Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear appeals from these courts in many cases. See: Act No 18.287, art. 32,33.
123.
See: Couso et al. (2011), p. 61.
124.
Act No 18.287, art. 1.
125.
Available at: http://www.ine.cl/estadisticas/sociales/justicia.
126.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 50 H.
127.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 50 B.
128.
Guerrero (2005), p. 180.
129.
Guerrero (2005), p. 178.
130.
Consumer Rights Protection Act N 19496, Art. 50 H.
131.
Nuñez (2005), p. 175.
132.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 698.
133.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 254. Regarding its similarities with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see: Cappalli (1990), pp. 259–260.
134.
Cappalli (1990), p. 260.
135.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 698.
136.
Act No 18.120, art. 1.
137.
See, e.g.: Romero (2017), p. 73.
138.
Based on the database gathered for a research I conducted in the civil courts of Santiago, I was able to identify that only 13.3% of the plaintiffs who were able to pro se litigate in landlord and tenant proceedings, decided to pursue their claim in this way.
139.
Cappalli (1990), p. 267.
140.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 698.
141.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 318.
142.
Cappalli (1990), p. 268.
143.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 372.
144.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 320.
145.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 366.
146.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 365.
147.
Cappalli (1990), p. 365.
148.
Cappalli (1990), p. 365.
149.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 370; Cappalli (1990), p. 365.
150.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 159.
151.
Cappalli (1990), p. 277; Code of Civil Procedure, art. 430, 680.
152.
Cappalli (1990), p. 277.
153.
Code of Civil Procedure, art. 162, 680.
154.
See, in this regard: Riego and Lillo (2015), pp. 30–48.
155.
Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2012), p. 46.
156.
Chilean Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 680.
157.
Lillo (2020), p. 126.
158.
In this section, I rely on the finding of an empirical study I conducted in the Civil Court of Santiago. The research was made on a base of a random sample of cases taken from the total list of filings between 2014 and 2016 in the Civil Courts of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Santiago, Chile. The cases were classified in four types of procedures to overrepresent, since as said, more than 92% were enforcement proceedings. In total, 1000 were selected. See: Lillo (2020).
159.
Lillo (2020), pp. 133–134.
160.
Lillo (2020), pp. 133–134.
161.
Lillo (2020), p. 136.
162.
Lillo (2020), p. 142.
163.
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso (2012), pp. 13–14.
164.
Notwithstanding, there are some Chilean authors who provide a description on this expansive phenomenon. See, e.g.: Leturia (2006), p. 266.
165.
Riego and Lillo (2015), pp. 12–17.

References

Astorga P (2017) Algunas consideraciones sobre la casación civil, fórmulas para su racionalización y su relación con el ius litigatoris. In: Palomo D (dir.) Recursos procesales. Problemas actuales. Ediciones DER, Santiago, pp 239–264
Google Scholar
Barahona J (2014) La regulación contenida en la ley 19.496 sobre protección de los derechos de los consumidores y las reglas del código civil y Comercial sobre contratos: un marco comparativo. RChD 41(2):381–408
Google Scholar
Barrientos F (2010) La responsabilidad civil del fabricante bajo el artículo 23 de la ley de protección de los derechos de los consumidores y su relación con la responsabilidad del vendedor. RChDP 14:109–158
Google Scholar
Barton B, Bibas S (2017) Rebooting justice. More technology, fewer lawyers, and the future of law. Encounter Books, New York
Google Scholar
Best A, Zalesne D (1993) Peace, wealth, happiness, and small claims courts: a case study. Fordham Urban Law J 21:343–379
Google Scholar
Bordalí A (2011) Análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional sobre el derecho a la tutela judicial. RChD 38(2):311–337
Google Scholar
Cappalli R (1990) Comparative south American civil procedure: the Chilean perspective. Univ Miami Inter-Am Law Rev 1990:239–310
Google Scholar
Cea J (2012) Derecho constitucional chileno, vol II. Ediciones UC, Santiago
Google Scholar
Clark C (1958) The feral rules of civil procedure: 1938-1958. Two decades of the Federal Civil Rules. Columbia Law Rev 58(4):435–451
Article Google Scholar
Clermont K (2009) Principles of civil procedure, 2nd edn. Thomson/Reuters, St. Paul
Google Scholar
Couso J, Coddou A, Lovera D, Guiloff M (2011) Constitutional law in Chile. Wolters Kluwer, Great Britain
Google Scholar
Croley S (2017) Civil justice reconsidered. Toward a less costly, more accessible litigation system. New York University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Cross T (2010) Is there a “Civil Right” under Article 6? Ten principles for public lawyers. Judicial Rev 15(4):366–376
Article Google Scholar
Cruz M (1986) The duty of fair procedure and the hospital medical staff: possible extension in order to protect private sector employees. Capital Univ Law Rev 16:59–86
Google Scholar
Curran L, Noone M (2007) The challenge of defining unmet legal need. J Law Soc Policy 21:63–89
Google Scholar
Dalam E (2015) Strangers on familiar soil. Rediscovering the Chile-California connection. Yale University Press, New Haven
Google Scholar
Damaška M (1986) The faces of Justice and State authority. Yale University Press, New Haven
Google Scholar
Duce M, Marín F, Riego C (2008) Reforma a los procesos civiles orales: consideraciones desde el debido proceso y calidad de la información. In: Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Justicia civil: perspectivas para una reforma en América Latina. Santiago, pp 13–94.
Google Scholar
Galligan D (1996) Due process and fair procedures. A study of administrative procedures. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Google Scholar
García G, Contreras P (2013) El derecho a la tutela judicial y al debido proceso en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional chileno. Estudios Constitucionales. 11(2):229–282
Article Google Scholar
Genn H (1999) Paths of justice: what people do and think about going to Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Google Scholar
Graham B, Snortum J (1976) Small claims court, where the little man has his day. Judicature 60:260–267
Google Scholar
Guerrero J (2005) Acciones de interés individual en protección al consumidor en la ley 19496 y la incorporación de mecanismos alternativos de resolución de conflictos. RDPUCV 26(2):165–185
Google Scholar
Judicial Council of California (2018) Court statistics report. Statewide caseload trends 2008-09 through 2017-18. Available at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/12941.htm#id7495
Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2012) Estudio de análisis de trayectoria de las causas civiles en los tribunales civiles de Santiago. Informe final. Ministerio de Justicia, Santiago
Google Scholar
Kagan R (2003) Adversarial legalism. The American way of law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Kessler A (2017) Inventing American exceptionalism. The origins of American adversarial legal culture, 1800–1877. Yale University Press, New Haven
Google Scholar
Kosmin L (1975) The small claims court dilemma. Houston Law Rev 13:934–982, p. 936
Google Scholar
Leturia F (2006) Ampliación del ámbito del arbitraje: una solución estructural para algunos de los problemas de la justicia civil. In: Silva J et al (ed) Justicia civil y comercial: una reforma pendiente. Bases para el diseño de la reforma procesal civil. Libertad y Desarrollo, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, pp 263–312
Google Scholar
Lillo R (2016) Access to justice and small claims courts: supporting Latin American civil reforms through empirical research in Los Angeles County, California. RChD 43(3):955–986
Google Scholar
Lillo R (2020) La justicia civil en crisis. Estudio empírico en la ciudad de Santiago para aportar a una reforma judicial orientada hacia el acceso a la justicia (formal). RChD 47(1):119–157
Google Scholar
Medina C (2016) The American Convention on Human Rights, crucial rights and their theory and practice, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Merryman J, Pérez R (2007) The civil law tradition, 3rd edn. Stanford University Press, California
Book Google Scholar
Moulton B (1969) The persecution and intimidation of the low-income litigant as performed by the small claims court in California. Stanford Law Rev 21(6):1657–1684
Article Google Scholar
Nuñez R (2005) Crónica sobre la reforma del sistema procesal civil chileno (fundamentos, historia y principios). REJ 6:175–189
Google Scholar
OCCA (2018) Conflictividad civil y barreras de acceso a la justicia en America Latina. Informe de vivienda y tierras. Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Santiago
Google Scholar
OECD, Open Society Foundations (2016) Understanding effective access to justice. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/understanding-effective-access-to-justice-workshop.htm
OECD, Open Society Foundations (2019) Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm
Pagter C, McCloskey R, Reinis M (1964) The California small claims court. California Law Rev 52(4):876–898
Article Google Scholar
Palomo D (2010) Apelación, doble instancia, y proceso civil oral. A propósito de la reforma en trámite. Estudios Constitucionales 8(2):465–524
Article Google Scholar
Pleasence P, Balmer N (2012) Justiciable problems and the use of lawyers. In: Trebilcock M, Duggan A, Sossin L (eds) Middle income access to justice. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 27–54
Chapter Google Scholar
Pleasence P, Balmer N, Sandefur R (2013) Paths to justice. A past, present and future road map. UCL Centre for Empirical Legal Studies, London
Google Scholar
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso (2012) Informe final. Diseño de un modelo de oficial de ejecución. Ministerio de Justicia, Valparaíso
Google Scholar
Riego C, Lillo R (2015) ¿Qué se ha dicho sobre el funcionamiento de la justicia civil en Chile? Aportes para la reforma. RChDP 25:9–54
Article Google Scholar
Romero A (2017) Curso de derecho procesal civil. Los presupuestos procesales relativos a las partes, vol III, 3rd edn. Editorial Jurídica de Chile, Santiago
Google Scholar
Sandefur R (2015) What we know and need to know about the legal needs of the public. South Carolina Law Rev 67:443–459
Google Scholar
Strauss D (1989) Due process, government inaction, and private wrongs. Supreme Court Rev 1989:53–86
Article Google Scholar
Sullivan T, Massaro T (2013) The arc of Due process in American constitutional law. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Urrejola S (2011) El hecho generador del incumplimiento contractual y el artículo 1547 del código civil. RChDP 17:27–69
Article Google Scholar
Yngvesson B, Henessey P (1975) Small claims, complex disputes: a review of the small claims literature. Law Society Rev 9(2):219–274
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Law, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago, Chile
Ricardo Lillo Lobos

Authors

Ricardo Lillo Lobos
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). Preliminary Exercise of a Comparative Perspective. Different Approaches on How the Right to a Fair Trial Has Been Applied to Common Legal Needs. In: Understanding Due Process in Non-Criminal Matters. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 97. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_4
Published: 18 June 2022
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-95533-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-95534-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics