Intercultural balancing in the criminal jurisprudence of the plurinational constitutional court of Bolivia

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluates constitutional balancing in the criminal jurisprudence of Bolivia’s Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal (TCP) between 2012 and 2024 and proposes an intercultural balancing module incorporating legal pluralism and interculturality into proportionality analysis. Method: A descriptive quantitative analysis was conducted on 100 TCP criminal rulings issued between 2012 and 2024. Decisions were classified into four balancing-quality categories (P0–P3) and coded according to the application of suitability, necessity, and proportionality in the strict sense. Results: Substantial balancing was absent from 68.0% of the rulings, while the necessity sub-principle was absent from 80.0%. The deficit extended across the analyzed types of constitutional conflict, with 84.0% of cases lacking rigorous balancing. Over the study period, improvement amounted to only 13.2 percentage points, indicating limited methodological development in the application of proportionality. Conclusions: The findings support the development of four intercultural verification criteria: jurisdictional competence, cultural identity, community-based alternatives, and intercultural proportionality. These criteria integrate Buen Vivir (Living Well) and legal pluralism as constitutive elements of proportionality analysis. The proposed module addresses the identified methodological deficiencies through an explicit, culturally situated framework rather than relying exclusively on the gradual evolution of TCP jurisprudence.