Fundamental right to mental health of persons subject to internment security measures in the Constitutional Court ruling and its effects on State policy

Abstract

Health in any of its forms or manifestations is a fundamental right. Its observance, promotion and defense correspond to the State. It is inadmissible in a constitutional state to promote an undignified life, either by action or omission. The Constitutional Court has ruled in different judgments on the need to protect the right to mental health of people in general, especially those deprived of liberty for the commission of crimes. In all of them, he has challenged the action of the State. Moreover, it has required him to meet certain standards in order to overcome such a state of affairs. The supreme interpreter of the Constitution, upon verifying that the right to mental health of the prisoner is violated, chose to declare a state of affairs unconstitutional. However, it should be noted that the State has not determined policies aimed at enervating or at least alleviating the effects of this violation, much less complying, despite the passage of time. There are the sentences and the reasons that have motivated the supreme interpreter of the constitution to issue such a pronouncement declaring the right to mental health as a fundamental right. But there is a common denominator that immediately stands out: The mental health of people deprived of liberty is not taken into account, especially those who have security measures of internment. It is concluded that the State is indifferent, lacking policies to address the mental health of Peruvians, despite the existence of mandatory provisions.