IS IT LEGAL TO RECORD A HEARING WITHOUT JUDGE’S AUTHORIZATION IN BOLIVIA?

Author: LLM. Rigoberto Paredes Ayllón

Recording a judicial hearing can strengthen transparency and ensure due process rights are respected. However, in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, such action requires prior authorization from the judge or court, as established by criminal procedure law. The debate is not so much about the need for permission itself, but about whether a judge is obliged to justify a denial. Can a judicial authority prevent recording without legal reasoning? What happens if that denial is accompanied by unjustified disciplinary measures?

RECORDING HEARINGS AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN BOLIVIA

The relevant article in the criminal procedure code states that parties may request to record a hearing, provided it is done at their own expense and with prior authorization. Therefore, denying such a request is not inherently arbitrary, but the judge is required to justify the denial with objective and reasoned arguments.

JUDICIAL ARBITRARINESS IN DENYING RECORDINGS IN BOLIVIA

In Constitutional Ruling 0620/2014, the Plurinational Constitutional Court set an important precedent regarding the misuse of disciplinary powers by judges. In the case analyzed, a citizen was arrested for attempting to record a hearing with an MP4 device without judicial authorization. Instead of issuing a reasoned resolution to deny the request, the judge confiscated the device and ordered an eight-hour arrest—an action ruled disproportionate and unlawful.

The ruling emphasized that neither the Criminal Procedure Code nor the constitutional framework authorizes judges to impose arrest as a disciplinary measure, since it restricts personal freedom—something only permissible under strictly defined legal conditions.

JUDGES’ OBLIGATION TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF RECORDING REQUESTS

One of the key takeaways from the court’s decision is that when someone requests to record a hearing, the judge must issue a well-founded response. A simple rejection without a reasoned explanation violates constitutional principles. Additionally, the confiscation of personal property, such as a recording device, is not a valid or proportionate measure—unless it poses a concrete risk to the proceeding, which must also be demonstrably proven and argued.

RECORDING HEARINGS: TRANSPARENCY AND DUE PROCESS IN BOLIVIA

Recording a hearing can be a tool to ensure transparency and fairness in judicial proceedings. An unjustified refusal to allow recording not only violates these rights, but if coupled with coercive and disproportionate measures, may constitute a form of undue persecution.

Bolivian case law recognizes that the innovative writ of liberty (acción de libertad innovativa) can also be invoked after a restrictive measure has ended—if it was arbitrary. This means judicial authorities can be held accountable for their actions, even after the measure in question has ceased, as long as fundamental rights were affected.

CONCLUSIONS ON JUDICIAL RECORDINGS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

A judge’s refusal to allow recording of a hearing is not, in itself, a violation of rights—provided the denial is properly justified. However, when such refusal is enforced through actions like confiscating devices or unjustified arrests, it becomes a breach of due process and personal freedom. Judicial decisions must always be proportional, reasonable, and aligned with the principles of a constitutional rule of law.

If you have faced a similar situation or believe your rights were violated during a court hearing, our law firm offers specialized legal counsel and can assist you in defending your fundamental rights.