- Can that result be legally attributed to the author, or is it merely a causal coincidence?
Thus, criminal liability does not automatically arise whenever a harmful result occurs. In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, recent case law has reinforced that, in order to attribute a result-based offense—such as negligent homicide or bodily harm followed by death—it is essential to analyze objective criteria that limit punitive power. This is particularly relevant, for example, in medical cases where a fatal outcome does not always imply criminal liability.
Creation of a Legally Relevant Risk
The first element requires that the conduct must have created a real and relevant risk to a protected legal interest, such as life or health.
Not every harmful result amounts to a crime. From a constitutional perspective, only foreseeable risks may be considered legally relevant.
Exceeding the Permitted Risk
Life in society implies tolerating certain risks. Activities such as medicine, transportation, or sports involve inherent dangers that the legal system accepts within certain limits.
This threshold determines whether the conduct exceeded that permitted margin. If a person acts in accordance with technical rules and professional standards (such as medical lex artis), the risk remains within what is legally allowed.
By contrast, when someone acts without proper training, negligently, or under unsuitable conditions, that threshold is exceeded and the risk becomes legally disapproved.
Materialization of the Risk in the Result
This criterion requires a direct connection between the risk created and the result produced.
It is not enough that risky conduct exists; it is necessary for that very risk to have actually materialized in the harm. At this point, the doctrine of “lawful alternative conduct,” developed by contemporary criminal law scholarship such as that of Claus Roxin, becomes relevant.
In practical terms, if the result would have occurred anyway even if the author had acted correctly—for example, in cases involving terminal illnesses—this threshold is not met and imputation is excluded.
Protective Purpose of the Criminal Rule
This final threshold examines whether the result produced is precisely the one that the criminal rule sought to prevent.
Not every harmful result falls within the scope of protection of a legal rule. For example, conduct that causes a minor injury may lead to a much more serious result due to exceptional conditions of the victim, without that outcome being covered by the applicable criminal offense.
This analysis prevents overly expansive interpretations of criminal law and is linked to constitutional principles such as legality and legal certainty.
In summary, objective imputation operates as a control system made up of four cumulative thresholds: the creation of a relevant risk, the exceeding of permitted risk, the materialization of the risk in the result, and the correspondence with the protective purpose of the rule. If any of these elements fails, criminal liability is not established, thereby reinforcing a rights-based model consistent with the Political Constitution of the State and international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights.
If you are facing a situation related to criminal liability, professional negligence, or result-based offenses, our law firm is available to provide specialized legal advice and support at every stage of the proceedings. Contact us to receive specialized legal guidance and a confidential consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is objective imputation in criminal law?
It is a legal criterion used to determine whether a harmful result may be criminally attributed to a person, beyond a mere cause-and-effect relationship.
Is causing harm enough to incur criminal liability?
No. All thresholds of objective imputation must be satisfied; otherwise, criminal liability does not arise.
What does permitted risk mean?
It is the level of risk that the legal system tolerates in ordinary activities, such as medicine or driving.
How is it applied in medical cases?
It is assessed whether the professional acted in accordance with technical standards and whether the result was foreseeable and avoidable.
What happens if the result was unavoidable?
If the harm would have occurred anyway, even with proper conduct, criminal imputation does not exist.
The content of this article does not reflect the technical opinion of Rigoberto Paredes & Associates and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. The information presented herein corresponds to the date of publication and may be outdated at the time of reading. Rigoberto Paredes & Associates assumes no responsibility for keeping the information in this article up to date, as legal regulations may change over time.
