The sample for this study consists of 40 adults with intellectual disability, selected through purposive sampling. The participants ranged in age from 25 to 55 years old (M = 40.3; SD = 8.5), a range that allows for the exploration of recent experiences in the judicial system across different stages of adulthood. This age span was chosen to ensure diversity in adult life trajectories and types of judicial involvement, thereby enriching the depth and variety of perspectives captured in the study. Most of the participants are male, unemployed, have a moderate intellectual disability, and their experience in the judicial system is mainly as defendants.

The inclusion criteria for selecting participants were as follows: a) Age: Participants between 25 and 55 years old were selected, an age range that allows for the exploration of recent experiences in the judicial system at different stages of adulthood; b) Diagnosis of intellectual disability: All participants had a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability, confirmed by health professionals following DSM-5 criteria; c) Experience in the judicial system: Participants had been involved in a judicial process in the last five years, whether as claimants, witnesses, or defendants, ensuring that their experiences were recent and relevant to the analysis; d) Verbal comprehension and expression ability: Participants were required to have an adequate level of comprehension and verbal expression to participate in in-depth interviews, thus allowing them to share their experiences directly. To operationalize this criterion, initial comprehension screening was conducted during the orientation interviews carried out by the research team and collaborating institutions. These interviews included simple verification strategies, such as asking participants to paraphrase key parts of the informed consent and to answer basic contextual questions (e.g., place, time, or topic of the interview). These checks ensured that participants possessed sufficient verbal comprehension and expression abilities to engage meaningfully in the interview and provide coherent, self-reported narratives; and (e) informed consent: informed consent was obtained from all participants, with support from family members or guardians where necessary, ensuring respect for their autonomy and adherence to the ethical principles of the study. The following table (Table 1) provides detailed sociodemographic data of the participants.

The data collection instrument used was a semi-structured in-depth interview, composed of 15 questions in total (Table 2). This type of interview allows for a flexible structure, facilitating adaptation to the communicative needs of individuals with intellectual disability and enabling in-depth exploration of specific topics while providing participants the space to freely and genuinely express their experiences (Magaldi and Berler, 2020). The semi-structured in-depth interview was designed to investigate three main thematic areas: a) Personal experiences within the judicial system: This area focuses on understanding the participants’ experiences within the judicial system and how they perceive the treatment received, the level of accessibility, and their understanding of the legal process; b) Specific barriers and challenges: This area explores the specific difficulties participants faced in their interaction with the judicial system, including communication barriers, accessibility of information, and possible stigmatizing attitudes; and c) Proposals for improving access to justice: This section aims to gather participants’ ideas and suggestions on how the judicial system could be adapted to be more inclusive and accessible for people with intellectual disability.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the qualitative interview guide, an exhaustive validation process was carried out in three stages: expert review, pilot testing, and final adjustments, using appropriate qualitative analyses and the Content Validity Index (CVI) to assess the relevance of the questions.

This study holds an ethical approval certificate (CEC_FE_2023006), guaranteeing adherence to ethical standards throughout the research process. To access the sample, strategic collaborations were established with five local entities specializing in the care of individuals with intellectual disability: two non-governmental organizations focused on advocacy and psychosocial support, a mental health and disability center within the public health system, an educational institution specializing in disability training, and a community-based legal support service. All entities were located in the Metropolitan Region and the Valparaíso Region (Chile). The selection of these entities was intentional, as each facilitated contact with individuals with intellectual disability and ensured diversity in terms of life experiences and levels of support.

These organizations identified individuals who met the inclusion criteria: adults aged 25 to 55, with a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability and recent experiences in the judicial system. After identification, the organizations made initial contact with potential participants, briefly explaining the study and its purpose. Then, an informative interview was organized between the research team and each individual, sometimes with the presence of family members or guardians, to detail the study objectives, data collection process, and participants’ rights. At this stage, informed consent was explained through a document adapted to easy language and easy reading, detailing each aspect of the study to ensure understanding of the ethical considerations. Participants were given the option to sign the consent form themselves or, if necessary, with the signature of a family member or guardian. This process was conducted exclusively by the principal investigator, ensuring that each participant fully understood their voluntary participation in the study.

The interviews were conducted in familiar and safe environments for the participants, such as their homes or community centers, with the aim of creating a comfortable and trusting atmosphere. Each session began with an introductory phase where the interviewer reiterated the study’s objectives and reminded participants of their right to withdraw at any time. The protocol also included language adaptations and presentation adjustments for the questions, using illustrative examples when necessary to ensure understanding. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, using a semi-structured guide that allowed the interviewer to explore key topics while adapting to the responses and pace of each participant. In some cases, pauses were made to accommodate the interviewees’ needs. Active listening and non-verbal communication techniques were used to foster open participation and reduce any anxiety or discomfort.

With the participants’ prior consent, the interviews were audio-recorded for later analysis. The recordings were transcribed verbatim to ensure fidelity to the original expressions and were thoroughly reviewed for accuracy. The transcriptions also incorporated relevant non-verbal details (such as gestures and intonations) recorded in field notes, enriching the interpretive analysis. During each interview, the interviewer took detailed field notes on contextual observations and participants’ emotional reactions, which were fundamental to capturing non-verbal dimensions of communication and providing an additional layer of understanding of the participants’ responses, thus enriching the subsequent analysis.

After each session, the interviewer reviewed the field notes and reflected on the development of the interview, documenting observations on potential biases and necessary adjustments in language or approach for future interviews. This process of reflection and adjustment enabled continuous adaptation, ensuring that the research team responded effectively to each participant’s needs. Data collection was carried out over a period of three months, allowing enough time to build a trusting relationship with participants, adapt the process to their pace and needs, and obtain detailed and genuine responses about their experiences in accessing justice. This careful and respectful approach ensured thorough and ethical data collection, providing valuable and relevant information for the study’s objective.

To ensure the reliability of the data collected —particularly from participants with severe intellectual disability or no formal education— several safeguards were implemented during the data collection process. All interviews were preceded by an initial comprehension check using adapted materials and plain-language explanations, ensuring that participants could engage meaningfully with the questions. Interviewers received training in inclusive communication techniques and were closely monitored for consistency and appropriateness of support strategies. In addition, field notes and non-verbal observations were used to triangulate verbal data, capturing emotional expressions, body language, and context that enriched the interpretative process. The trustworthiness of participants’ narratives was further reinforced by the consistency of their accounts across different interview moments and by the recurrence of key themes across participants with varying levels of support needs.

Data analysis was conducted using thematic analysis methodology (Braun and Clarke, 2006), which is suitable for identifying patterns and recurring themes in participants’ narratives. The process of coding and thematic analysis was carried out by the principal investigator and two independent coders, both experienced in qualitative research and working with individuals with intellectual disability. This collaborative coding approach allowed for consensus coding procedures and inter-coder reliability analysis to ensure the consistency and validity of the results.

In the first phase of analysis, a thorough reading of the transcripts and field notes was conducted to familiarize with the data. This intensive reading enabled the identification of initial concepts and provided an overview of emerging themes. During this stage, preliminary notes were taken, and segments of interest were marked. The process then moved to initial coding, where NVivo software was used to organize and manage the data. Each transcript was segmented into meaningful fragments or units, which were assigned descriptive codes. These codes included labels such as “communication difficulties,” “perception of unfair treatment,” “lack of support in court,” “necessary accommodations,” and “positive support experiences.”

Coding was both inductive and deductive: some codes emerged directly from the data, while others were based on predefined themes and the literature. To evaluate coder agreement, Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was calculated on a sample of 20 % of the transcripts, yielding a value of 0.83, indicating a high level of agreement and ensuring the reliability of the coding process. After initial coding, the three coders reviewed and refined the codes to merge those that shared similar meanings and split others into subcategories. For instance, the code “lack of support” was divided into “lack of support from lawyers” and “lack of support in court” to capture specific variations in participants’ experiences. This phase included eliminating redundant codes and developing subcodes for greater precision in representing the data.

From the refined codes, themes and subthemes were grouped, capturing relevant patterns in the data. This thematic development phase allowed for the identification of broad categories such as “Communication barriers,” “Stigmatization and differential treatment,” and “Need for judicial support.” Within each theme, specific subthemes were identified; for example, under “Communication barriers,” subthemes such as “use of complex terminology and technical language” and “lack of visual aids and adapted materials” emerged. The three coders worked on constructing the themes, which helped reduce bias and ensured a consensual and robust interpretation. During this phase, complementary analyses were also performed, providing quantitative support to the qualitative analysis:

After the identification and refinement of themes, interpretation was conducted based on the study’s objectives. Representative quotes from participants were selected to support and illustrate each theme, maintaining the participants’ voices and allowing a direct connection to their experiences. Triangulation of results and additional validation with a second investigator contributed to the robustness and validity of the analysis. The process of coding and thematic analysis, complemented by statistical analyses, provided a deep and structured understanding of participants’ experiences, identifying specific barriers, experiences of stigmatization, and support needs within the judicial system.

Communication barriers were a recurring theme in participants’ experiences, with many pointing out how a lack of clarity and accessibility in language affected their understanding of the judicial process and their sense of inclusion. The following sub-themes delve into specific areas where communication was particularly challenging.

The experience of condescending and stigmatising treatment by some judicial professionals was a critical and recurring barrier mentioned by participants. Most felt they were treated differently, perceiving that their ability to understand and make decisions was underestimated. This led to feelings of inferiority and a lack of recognition of their autonomy. The following sub-themes explore how these attitudes impacted their perception of the judicial system.

Most participants highlighted the importance of having specific, personalised support to understand the judicial process and adequately represent their interests. The following sub-themes detail areas where participants felt professional accompaniment would greatly facilitate their access to justice.

This research has several important limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. Firstly, the sample used is limited to a specific group of people in Chile, restricting the generalizability of the results to other national or international contexts. This means that the experiences described may not reflect the realities of people with intellectual disability in other judicial environments, which suggests the need for additional studies in different locations with more diverse samples. Furthermore, although the qualitative methodology allowed for an in-depth exploration of participants’ experiences, it does not allow for quantification of the identified barriers or statistical inferences. The inherent subjectivity of the qualitative approach may limit the perceived objectivity of the results, although it adds richness in detail and understanding of individual experiences. Finally, the study focuses exclusively on the perceptions and experiences of people with intellectual disability, without including the perspectives of judicial professionals, who could also provide valuable information for understanding barriers from within the system. Including these actors’ perspectives could offer a more balanced and comprehensive view of accessibility barriers within the judicial system.

Additionally, it is important to note that the research team did not independently verify the intellectual disability diagnoses of the participants, as this information was provided by the referring institutions based on existing clinical records. Likewise, no formal psycholinguistic assessments were conducted to evaluate participants’ language comprehension. Although initial comprehension checks were applied during recruitment —using plain language explanations and adaptive communication strategies— a standardized evaluation was not implemented. This may constitute a limitation in terms of fully assessing the range of communicative competencies present in the sample.

Despite these limitations, the study has several strengths that add value to its findings. Firstly, its specific focus on a vulnerable population gives voice to adults with intellectual disability, whose perspective is rarely addressed in studies on accessibility and human rights in the judicial system. This focus expands knowledge of the barriers and needs of this group, highlighting their right to fair and accessible treatment. Moreover, the contextual relevance of the study is significant, as it focuses on the Chilean judicial system, providing essential information that could guide future public policies in this country and potentially in other Latin American contexts facing similar challenges in judicial accessibility. Lastly, the qualitative methodology employed allowed for a detailed and in-depth analysis of participants’ experiences, facilitating the identification of concrete barriers and improvement opportunities that could have a real impact on the accessibility of the judicial system.

This study underscores the urgent need to develop and implement cognitive accessibility policies within the Chilean judicial system. The identified barriers reflect a lack of system adaptation to the needs of people with intellectual disability, leading to an experience of exclusion and rights violations. As other countries progress in implementing inclusive measures in their judicial systems, Chile faces the challenge of adapting and adopting these best practices to improve justice for all its citizens. The implications of these findings extend beyond the judicial system; they open a broader discussion on how Chilean society and its institutions value and respect the rights of people with intellectual disability. Implementing accessibility measures would not only benefit these individuals in the judicial sphere but would also represent significant progress towards a more inclusive, just, and respectful society.

The results of this study suggest several lines for future research to deepen judicial accessibility for people with intellectual disability. Comparative studies across different judicial systems internationally, particularly in countries that have successfully implemented cognitive accessibility strategies, would be valuable. A comparative analysis could identify effective practices that could be adapted to the Chilean context and contribute to the development of a more inclusive judicial system. Another relevant research direction would be the evaluation of specific interventions, such as the use of judicial facilitators, the implementation of materials in easy language, and inclusive treatment training for judicial system professionals. Studying the short- and long-term impact of these interventions would provide a solid evidence base to justify their adoption and offer data-based recommendations applicable to public policy.

Another interesting line of research would be to explore how the experience of barriers and facilitators varies depending on participants’ roles within the judicial process —such as claimants, witnesses, or defendants. Although this study did not stratify its analysis based on these categories, future research could examine whether specific needs or accessibility challenges differ according to the type of legal involvement. This role-based approach would allow for more tailored recommendations that better address the diverse ways in which people with intellectual disability interact with the justice system.

Including the perspectives of judges, lawyers, and other judicial professionals in future studies would allow for a broader understanding of the barriers and attitudes from the position of those interacting with people with intellectual disability. This inclusion could facilitate the design of more specific training programs that address both the needs of professionals and any biases that may affect their treatment of this group. Finally, longitudinal research that evaluates the impact of the barriers identified in this study on the quality of life and well-being of people with intellectual disability would be valuable. Long-term studies would help assess how barriers to accessing justice affect these individuals’ sense of autonomy and empowerment. Additionally, these longitudinal studies would allow for analysis of the sustained impact of any implemented intervention, providing a long-term view of progress towards a more accessible and equitable judicial system for people with intellectual disability.