In the last two months of 2024, Guatemala’s Prosecutor's Office for Human Rights suffered an internal earthquake threatening a series of cases of serious human rights violations against the country’s military elites. Since the beginning of November, Attorney General Consuelo Porras has transferred or fired many of the most senior prosecutors, including those for years working the current genocide trial against former general Benedicto Lucas García. The process, which in early November was on the verge of concluding, may now have to start from scratch, by court order, with new prosecutors and new judges.
The harassment within the Public Prosecutor's Office has reached such heights that those willing to speak on the record, with first and last name, about the dismantling of high-impact prosecutor units are beyond the country's borders, living in the exile that Porras has fed, in leaps and bounds, since mid-2021. “I don't trust the current Public Prosecutor’s Office, which absolutely lacks independence and any kind of rigor for its accusations to have the necessary evidence,” says Claudia Paz y Paz, attorney general from 2010 to 2014, in this interview. Paz y Paz is internationally known for bringing to trial the first charges of genocide in Guatemalan history, against former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt. Regarding the transfers in the Prosecutor's Office for Human Rights, she does not mince words: It is, she says, “a clear sign of the interest of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in ensuring impunity in these cases.”
Paz y Paz, exiled in Costa Rica, is now the director for Central America and Mexico of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). In Guatemala, a country that tends to speak between the lines, she is a serene woman who speaks with the same frankness that characterized her a decade ago, when she was still Guatemala’s first female attorney general. In her regional analysis, she puts the criminalization waged in the Guatemalan judicial system on the same level as the repression of the Nicaraguan dictatorship. “The pact for impunity and co-optation of the justice system is one of the reasons why Guatemala entered Chapter 4B (of the Inter-American Commission) alongside Nicaragua,” she observes. “As long as Consuelo Porras continues to serve as attorney general, and as long as there is no fully independent judiciary, and there are judges who contribute to her actions, (...) anyone against her interests, or the interests of the sectors that support her, is at risk of criminal prosecution,” she says.
You brought to court some of the most emblematic and controversial cases of corruption and human rights violations of the last two decades. Now the Public Prosecutor’s Office has been condemned as a corrupt actor by almost the entire hemisphere, as well as in Europe. It must be surreal to watch it all unfold from outside Guatemala.
Yes.
When you took office as attorney general, in what state did you find the institution? Is there any trace now of the office you led?
When I arrived at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in December 2010, my predecessor, [José Amilcar] Velásquez Zárate, was a career prosecutor who undertook very important changes: the Special Methods Unit had already been installed, allowing for judicially authorized wiretapping in organized crime cases. The Prosecutor’s Office for Human Rights had also been strengthened. In general, except in cases of great impact, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had very high levels of impunity, despite the efforts that had been initiated, such as the performance evaluation of the attorney general. All these criminal prosecution policies were reinforced with my mandate and with the subsequent mandate of Thelma Aldana.
Now the level of regression of the institution is terrible: the Public Prosecutor’s Office is misused to persecute political opponents, prosecutors who have only done their job, independent judges, journalists, and even people of this government. The criminalization of the Public Prosecutor's Office has been pointed out by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. It was one of the reasons why Consuelo Porras was included in the Engel List as an actor in favor of impunity and corruption.
Dozens of justice operators are in exile —your colleagues— and it seems that they have few avenues to return to Guatemala soon. Do you see a way back? What does the departure of these operators mean for the institution?
The attorney general’s actions generate national and international responsibility for Guatemala. All prosecutors —except for the attorney general— are not freely removable or appointed. They are competitively chosen based on merit, as a guarantee of labor rights and access to justice. They cannot be removed for their investigations or for the efficiency of their work; only for serious wrongdoing. By removing them without any administrative procedure, sooner or later Guatemala will have to pay thousands of quetzales in compensation. National courts have said that the prosecutors must be reinstated for having been removed arbitrarily and illegally.
It also generates international responsibility: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in cases of major human rights violations in Guatemala, has said that prosecutors must carry out their work free from interference and intimidation. On one hand, there is criminalization: They must not face charges for their work. On the other, they must have permanent positions. The Public Prosecutor's Office is in contempt of court for disobeying these orders.
Do you also consider yourself an exile?
Yes, I am a victim of unjust criminal prosecution. A totally spurious complaint against me was filed by the former rapporteur against torture. During my term I complied with orders from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to prevent Guatemala from incurring international responsibility. We issued an instruction that the crime of forced disappearance should be understood according to international standards: It is an ongoing crime as long as the disappeared person does not appear. Due to these instructions, this individual filed a complaint against me, supposedly for the crime of torture, because on these grounds several people were put on trial by judicial order. I don’t trust the current Public Prosecutor’s Office, which absolutely lacks independence and any kind of rigor to ensure that its accusations have the necessary evidence. I committed no crime. While there are some honest judges, others completely play into the attorney general’s game of criminalization.
Is there still a threat of a coup d'état “in slow motion”, passing through the justice system, as denounced by President Arévalo a little over a year ago?
There is, without a doubt, a threat to the country’s legal system. As long as Consuelo Porras continues to serve as attorney general, as long as there is no fully independent judiciary and there are judges who contribute to her actions, any person can be a victim of arbitrary persecution. The Inter-American Commission itself, in its recent visit to Guatemala, pointed out that an objective investigation of the Attorney General's Office and its effect on human rights must be carried out, because this is the third year that Guatemala is in Chapter 4B, precisely because of the deficient and illegal work of the Attorney General's Office. Any person against her interests, or the interests of the sectors that support her, is at risk of criminal prosecution.
Arévalo says that 2016 legal reforms prevent him from removing the prosecutor. Can he or can he not?
The reform sought to rectify a common practice: each incoming president appointed his own attorney general. The Constitution foresaw that the president and the prosecutor would have different terms of office, in order to guarantee autonomous investigations and that the victims could trust that prosecutors would act in the most depoliticized way possible. The 2016 reform arose within the framework of the rule of law, and not before a Constitutional Court like the current one, which protects the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office even though they are plainly unconstitutional. On many occasions the same Supreme Court or Constitutional Court could have ordered the immediate dismissal of this attorney general for disobeying orders, such as her actions against the Supreme Electoral Tribunal in 2023. Her protection from liability should be withdrawn, but she is protected by the highest court in the country. The president can file complaints against her, too. I took office on Dec. 10, 2010. On December 23 or 24, the Supreme Court gave me ten hours to comply with an order or I would be removed. I complied with the order. The Constitutional Court and Supreme Court have that power.
Both local actors in Guatemala and some Republican congressmen in the United States portray the pulse between Arévalo and Porras as a political battle between two sides with equal moral solvency. Some Republicans criticized Biden in 2023 for appearing to “pick sides.” Will Porras have Trump’s support?
I definitely hope she does not get it. She has been sanctioned by the United States and more than 40 countries; her record as a corrupt pro-impunity actor is well-documented. These are not two actors with equal moral solvency. During President Trump’s first administration, several actors of this pro-corruption and impunity alliance in Guatemala were sanctioned. This (policy of corruption sanctions) did not begin with Biden, but rather during Trump’s first term.
There seems to be a dispute for control of some offices within the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself. In recent weeks, the attorney general has made dozens of transfers across the institution. Is that normal? Does she feel she lacks control?
One of the changes was in the Prosecutor’s Office for Human Rights, an institution run by people with vast experience in cases of serious human rights violations, in the last stage of the current genocide trial. The changes violated international standards: The Inter-American Court ordered the supervision of 12 specific cases to be free of intimidation of justice system operators. The Court singled out transfers as a mechanism of intimidation. Another Inter-American standard is that these investigations must be adequately resourced. They involve people with investigative experience, many of whom have been removed, transferred, or have been forced to resign. Weakening a prosecutor's office that took so long to strengthen, and which had the professional capacity to investigate extremely complex cases, is a clear sign of the interest of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in ensuring impunity in these cases. But the cases have still moved forward because survivors and victims continue to demand truth and justice. If we see how the best prosecutors of the FECI [Special Prosecutor’s Office Against Impunity] left [for exile], that was reflected in high-stakes corruption cases: New pro-impunity judges were assigned and are closing the cases. Several of these judges are also in charge of cases of serious human rights violations, and the same thing is happening.
Is the prosecutorial career track at risk?
The prosecutorial career track was broken by the current attorney general the moment she started to dismiss prosecutors without proving that they had committed any serious misconduct.
When you were attorney general, what changes did you make in the Prosecutor’s Office for Human Rights to bring cases such as the genocide trial against Ríos Montt?
A liaison was created with the Directorate of Analysis, because there was a lot of evidence that might be useful for one case, involving, say, historical records of the National Police, and another case involving a contemporary disappearance, where the perpetrators are also police. This centralization of information facilitates investigations. We also gave several instructions on the investigation of serious human rights violations and gender-based violence in the armed conflict that helped prosecutors handle large investigations in the best possible way.
A court has just closed the CREOMPAZ forced disappearance case. The genocide case against Benedicto Lucas appears to be on the verge of having to start from scratch. The military officers accused by the Diario Militar received an apparently illegal release from jail. Is a pro-impunity effort in cases from the armed conflict gaining ground?
What the current attorney general seeks is impunity for all cases, especially those of major corruption, but also of gender violence. She cares very little about victims’ rights and her obligations to them. These human rights cases require a longer investigation and a lot of solid evidence. Adhesive plaintiffs have so far prevented many major corruption cases from ending in total impunity.
Who is behind this effort?
Much of the criminalization has been led by the Foundation Against Terrorism in Guatemala, but there are also organizations of ex-military personnel that advocate for impunity in these cases, such as the Association of Military Veterans of Guatemala (Avemilgua).
Who is the new head of the Prosecutor’s Office for Human Rights, Noé Rivera?
I don’t know him. But what I must reiterate is that the dismissals from the investigations violate the orders of the Inter-American Court.
What can Porras do with control of the Special Methods Unit, which intercepts communications? Is there a risk of illegal espionage against civil society?
There are many safeguards in the law. Wiretaps are joint actions between the Police and prosecutors that must receive judicial authorization. Once granted, the judges also ensure that these wiretaps are necessary and proportional to the seriousness of the crimes being investigated, because it is a major invasion of privacy. The law foresees that it cannot be done illegally and, if it were done, it would constitute a crime.
With a system as co-opted as you say it is, do you still have faith that these safeguards will work?
The wiretapping system is quite protected, but this does not prevent other structures from carrying out illegal actions. Last week, the Minister of Governance, the head of the Police, filed a complaint precisely for illegal surveillance. Hopefully the prosecutors will do their job to investigate this complaint, although it involves a criminal structure possibly linked to personnel from the Public Prosecutor's Office.
Others accused of major corruption —such as former president Alejandro Giammattei— are either not investigated or receive favorable treatment. Do public institutions no longer have an anti-corruption vocation?
The pact of impunity and co-optation of the Guatemalan justice system is one of the reasons why the country entered Chapter 4B along with Nicaragua and Venezuela. Impunity is systemic.
Who is part of this “pact”?
A visible expression of this are the judges who have issued rulings in favor of people who were charged in very serious cases. Also the current Constitutional Court, which protects and endorses the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The attorney general herself, who is included in the Engel List.
In Costa Rica, where you live, President Rodrigo Chaves has accused prosecutors —who are investigating his government in dozens of corruption cases— of political persecution. Does President Chaves have a score to settle with the justice system?
The president’s attacks on the judiciary undermine judicial independence. The judiciary and prosecutors must be able to exercise its functions with absolute independence. Any investigation must be carried out without interference. In Costa Rica, unlike many other countries in the region, there is an independent judiciary and a prosecutor’s office that will determine the criminal responsibility of any public official. Here we are not in Nicaragua, where there is no judicial independence, or in Guatemala, where there is a co-optation of the justice system in favor of corruption and impunity.
In Honduras, the official party chose the current attorney general despite rules prohibiting party affiliation. This is an election year. Do you see a risk for the Honduran electoral process of politicizing the registration of candidates or the work of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, as in Guatemala in 2023?
A recent reform in Honduras created an electoral tribunal that functioned quite independently in the last elections. Let’s hope that it can continue to function at that same level. This would calm these fears. The Supreme Court was elected in 2023 with new rules, too. The new court is a bit checkered, but in general has much more independence than the previous, which definitely was responsible for acts of criminalization. This Public Prosecutor’s Office, in important cases, has shown more diligence, for example, in cases of assassinations of human rights defenders. Even so, we can’t say that the Honduran justice system is totally independent and impartial.
Prosecutor's offices in the region have become fields of political dispute. Are we facing an era of politicized justice? Do you see any remedy?
In Nicaragua we have seen persecution, imprisonment, torture, banishment, dispossession, and denationalization of political opponents, journalists and human rights defenders. The Judicial Branch has become one more piece in the machinery of repression in the country, under total submission to the Executive Branch. It is very sad, and even more so with the recent constitutional reforms that are about to enter into effect. The judiciary in El Salvador was totally steamrolled by President Bukele: In one stroke of a pen in 2021, through the Legislative Assembly, he dismissed the judges of the Constitutional Chamber and the attorney general. In these two countries there is an absolute submission of the Judicial Branch to the Executive, except that in El Salvador there are still some independent judges, despite all the threats from the Legislative and Executive Branches. The Nicaraguan dictatorship is much more on the international radar than El Salvador. There are efforts to combine the actions of Inter-American bodies, such as economic sanctions and international pressure, to achieve the release of some political prisoners. However, there is still a long way to go to put internal and international pressure on the regime in El Salvador, in order to make visible the serious and pernicious effects of the state of exception on human rights.
