# Panama - United States Department of State

- Secretary Blinken’s Call with President-elect Mulino of Panama Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke with Panamanian President-elect José Raúl Mulino by phone today.  Secretary Blinken and the President-elect discussed the importance of working together to safely and humanely manage migration.  Secretary Blinken underscored strong U.S. support for Panama’s efforts to tackle corruption and organized crime and expressed the U.S. commitment to ensuring the continued success of the Panama Canal, including support for efforts to enhance the Canal’s resilience to climate change.  The Secretary and the President-elect affirmed that bilateral cooperation is essential to ensure economic development and the region’s future prosperity.
- Congratulations to Panama’s President-Elect Mulino Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateCongratulations to José Raúl Mulino on his victory as President-elect of the Republic of Panama.  I look forward to continuing our strategic partnership and advancing our shared goals of democratic governance and inclusive economic prosperity.The United States commends the people of Panama who exercised their free will and voice, as well as the work of the Organization of American States’ electoral observers. The United States deeply values its relationship with the Republic of Panama, which has flourished for over 100 years, underpinned by strong economic, educational, and familial ties.Looking ahead, the United States will continue to work with Panama on our common goals of inclusive, sustainable economic growth, bolstering citizen security, and cooperatively curbing irregular migration through the Darien.
- Panama HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Panama				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Panama																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																											c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Indigenous Peoples																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Panama during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:  serious government corruption; regulations prohibiting consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in some security forces; and crimes involving violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons.The government did not always take credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The constitution prohibited such practices, and there were no credible reports that government officials employed them.Impunity existed among security forces due to weak and decentralized internal conduct and enforcement mechanisms.  The lack of accountability from senior officials allowed impunity to continue in the police force.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh due to gross overcrowding, lack of potable water, inadequate medical services, poor sanitary conditions, and insufficient internal security.Abusive Physical Conditions:  According to the Ministry of Government’s National Directorate of the Penitentiary System (DGSP), as of September, the prison system held more than 23,000 prisoners in facilities with an intended capacity of 14,500 persons.  Pretrial detainees shared cells with convicted prisoners due to space constraints.Several facilities lacked potable water and basic supplies for personal hygiene.  Medical care was inadequate due to lack of personnel, transportation, and medical resources.  Authorities transferred patients with serious illnesses to public clinics, but arranging transportation was difficult due to limited availability of ambulances.  The only ambulance in the prison system remained unused for the second consecutive year due to lack of paramedics.Gang activity in prisons represented a daily threat to prisoner safety.  Civil society representatives stated prison security personnel and inmates’ relatives were likely complicit in smuggling weapons into prisons.  Interdicting contraband cell phones was a chronic problem due to a lack of staff and the corrupting of staff by gangs.Homosexual inmates in the Bocas del Toro prison requested to be grouped in separate cells to avoid harassment because of their sexual identity.Administration:  Authorities conducted investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment.Independent Monitoring:  The government permitted prison monitoring by independent nongovernmental observers and the Ombudsman’s Office.  In one case, the Ombudsman’s Office was denied access due to transportation problems.  Human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were required to send a written access request to the DGSP 15 days in advance, which NGO representatives believed was designed to limit access.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court.  The government generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law required arresting officers to inform detainees immediately of the reasons for arrest or detention and of the right to immediate legal counsel.  The system was vulnerable to corruption, inefficiencies, and bureaucratic obstacles.  Informality in judicial processes, such as sending documents through mobile messenger platforms instead of in official emails, was the norm for some lower-level court judges and jeopardized the integrity of the judicial process.Bail existed but was rarely granted because courts implemented a less costly provisional release system.  Detainees or their legal counsel could not initiate most bail proceedings; these proceedings occurred at the discretion of the Prosecutor’s Office.  Bail was often granted in high-profile corruption cases, which prompted civil society complaints that the Public Ministry (public prosecutors) administered “selective” justice.The law prohibited police from detaining adult suspects for more than 48 hours but allowed authorities to detain child suspects for 72 hours.  Arrests and detention decisions were based on probable cause.Arbitrary Arrest:  Transgender activists alleged instances of arbitrary detention of transgender women in Panama City.Pretrial Detention:  Lengthy pretrial detention was a problem.  According to official statistics, as of August, approximately 35 percent of inmates in prison had not been convicted.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.  The lack of criminal corruption convictions reinforced widespread public opinion that the judicial system was susceptible to internal and external corruption.  Most allegations of compromised judicial independence continued to be related to manipulation of the judiciary by political actors.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.Some judicial hearings were delayed by logistical and technical obstacles.  The judicial branch was by law the only entity that scheduled hearings, and the penitentiary system facilitated logistics for detainees’ attendance.  Detention centers faced problems with virtual hearings due to lack of sufficient equipment and reliable computer connections, which created delays.  Most prisons lacked the capacity to hold several hearings simultaneously due to a shortage of computers.The law stipulated that trials were to be completed in less than 12 months, but due to a lack of judges, some trials were delayed beyond this period.  Failure to hold a hearing resulted in the affected inmates having to wait months, on average, for a rescheduled hearing.  There were few, if any, simultaneous hearings.The Public Defender’s Office sometimes failed to initiate in a timely fashion the formal process for early release of inmates for good behavior, despite mandates from the judicial branch.  No disciplinary actions were taken.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports that the government failed to respect these prohibitions.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media.  The government generally respected this right, but journalists and media outlets noted a continuation of civil libel and slander lawsuits, some of which included the seizure of editors’ and journalists’ assets.  Local media considered these lawsuits as a threat to freedom of expression.Freedom of Expression:  The government generally respected freedom of expression.In October and November, tens of thousands of citizens protested, largely peacefully, against the approval of a controversial mining contract.  Police intervention was limited during the protests, although on several occasions, injuries were reported following clashes between protestors and security forces.  Criminal elements embedded within the peaceful protestors often contributed to or incited violence.  Four individuals died during the protests but not due to direct encounters with police.Violence and Harassment:  Journalists reported that officials and politicians harassed or threatened them in order to hinder reporting on sensitive topics linked to corruption or criminal activities.  Some journalists reported politicians called them “child molesters” as a way to retaliate against corruption-related reporting.During the October-November mining contract protests, members of the local press reported injuries from police clashes and attacks from protesters.  Freelance photographer Aubrey Baxter reported losing his right eye after he was hit with a rubber bullet fired by police on October 19.  On October 25, another journalist reported police threw tear gas directly at a group of 10 reporters during demonstrations.  Media associations issued three different joint statements calling for police and protesters to respect freedom of the press and the media’s responsibility to cover events.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media:  Media associations expressed concern that the government misused a data protection law to hinder the publication of information that was in the public interest.  In April, the National Transparency and Access to Information Authority fined the daily La Prensa $5,000 for its publication of a photograph of Deputy Benicio Robinson as part of its report on his alleged corruption with the Transportation Authority.  Media associations issued a joint press statement decrying the fine, calling it censorship, while media outlets and journalists published photographs of Robinson, expressing their solidarity with La Prensa.On October 6, the Electoral Tribunal (TE) issued a notice for journalist Alvaro Alvarado and digital outlets Foco and Claramente to take down publications on their X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram accounts related to former president and presidential candidate Ricardo Martinelli, without specifying which publications.  The decision came after Martinelli’s lawyers issued complaints against the outlets and the journalist for allegedly carrying out a “smear campaign” against Martinelli, breaching the campaign silence period and TE’s ethical pact.  The TE’s ruling also ordered its Communications and Digital Departments to monitor traditional and social media to confirm if there were other reports or posts related to the complaint.  Media associations and political candidates referred to this as censorship.Libel/Slander Laws:  The law criminalized defamation, and penalties included fines, imprisonment, or both.  Media associations and outlets report civil lawsuits kept being used to financially affect outlets in order to hinder them from reporting on certain topics, with filers claiming damages from media outlets and journalists’ publications.In libel and slander civil lawsuits, a plaintiff could pay a fee to seize a defendant’s assets while the legal process went forward; it generally took years before a final ruling was issued.  Media observers alleged powerful individuals increased their use of these types of lawsuits in recent years to intimidate and silence the press.In January, former President Ricardo Martinelli filed a slander lawsuit against digital outlet Foco after the outlet ran corruption-related reports about Martinelli.  A judge consequently ordered the seizure of assets belonging to the outlet’s director and one of its reporters.Nongovernmental Impact:  Threats against journalists by known criminal groups were common when journalists investigated certain cases or criminal activities.  In April, authorities provided temporary protection to a journalist who received a credible death threat.During the October-November mining contract demonstrations, one labor union exhibited a banner with the faces of influential television and radio news anchors, referring to the news anchors as “information mercenaries.”  Other reporters were mocked or yelled at by protesters when trying to report live from demonstrations.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.  During the October-November protests against the Minera Panama mining contract, the government was not always able to ensure the right to free movement, given sporadic demonstrator-led road closures across the country, which blocked the movement of individuals and goods.  Civil society groups and business sector associations requested government action on numerous occasions to ensure the right to free movement.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, asylum seekers, and other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had a system for providing protection to refugees.  UNHCR reported the National Refugee Office (ONPAR) had a backlog of more than 8,000 cases due to slow and complex processes.  As a result, thousands of persons in the country were unable to benefit from international protection and access basic rights, according to UNHCR and its nongovernmental partners.  This included asylum seekers waiting for a decision on their asylum claim, recognized refugees who had not yet been informed of the decision, and persons who did not apply for refugee status due to the complexity of the process.ONPAR did not have a permanent presence in any of the government-run migrant reception centers across the country.  Persons who wished to request asylum had to approach either the National Border Service, the National Migration Service, an international organization, or an NGO to request protection and then meet with an ONPAR representative.  This process created delays and barriers to access.Refoulement:  As of October, UNHCR documented two confirmed cases of refoulement (one to Colombia, one to Cameroon).Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers:  UNHCR and other NGOs reported local criminals and other armed actors often targeted persons transiting the Darien jungle, including refugees and asylum seekers.Freedom of Movement:  The National Migration Service required asylum seekers to wait in government-run migrant reception centers to initiate the refugee status determination process.Access to Basic Services:  If refugees could not present complete, certified school records from their country of origin, education authorities sometimes denied them access to education or refused to issue diplomas.Durable Solutions:  Naturalization was accessible to persons who complied with legal requirements, including persons recognized as refugees.  The main requirement was to have permanent residency for a certain period, which varied according to certain factors such as having Panamanian children and the nationality of the person.  According to UNHCR, the primary constraint was the high cost and requirements such as income tax returns and payment of taxes.Temporary Protection:  The government announced a new temporary protection program in July.  From August to November, approximately 9,500 undocumented migrants domiciled in the country received temporary protected status.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons										Not applicable.																																				g. Stateless Persons										According to the 2023 census, 939 persons self-declared as having no nationality.  Some of these persons may be stateless or at risk of statelessness.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  International election observers considered the 2019 elections to be free, fair, and transparent.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government generally did not implement the law effectively.  There were numerous reports of corruption throughout the government.  The few investigations that took place were protracted and rarely led to successful prosecutions.The law stipulated that only the Supreme Court could investigate members of the National Assembly for acts of corruption while, conversely, only the National Assembly could investigate Supreme Court members.  Additionally, there were procedural impediments to investigating minister-level and other high-level members of the executive branch.  Judicial observers alleged these arrangements inhibited action on corruption investigations of both the judicial and legislative branches.Corruption:  Corruption continued to hamper the judicial system.  In addition to widespread public suspicions regarding manipulation, some observers alleged that across all levels of the judiciary, judges accepted bribes that influenced their decisions.In July, a judge sentenced former President Ricardo Martinelli to 10 years in prison for money laundering in a case related to the purchase of Editora Panama America, S.A. with public funds.Instances of corruption and a lack of accountability continued in the police force.  Public security forces lacked an impartial investigative body for internal investigations.  The absence of clear and documented standard operating procedures allowed for officials’ discretion on a case-by-case basis.  To combat corruption, police renewed an initiative placing police officers in cities and regions away from their hometowns.For additional information about corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						Several domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings.  Officials were often cooperative and responsive to the views of these findings.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The ombudsperson, elected by the National Assembly, headed an office with legal but nonbinding authority.  The Ombudsman’s Office referred cases to the appropriate investigating authorities and filed cases with the Public Ministry.  Officials from an array of NGOs attested that the ombudsperson generally acted independently and efficiently.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law criminalized rape of women or men, including spousal rape and domestic or intimate partner rape, and stipulated prison terms of seven to 12 years and from 12 to 18 years if the perpetrator was aware of having HIV or a sexually transmitted disease.  The law stipulated stiff penalties for gender-based violence, including both physical and emotional abuse.  The sentence for femicide was 25 to 30 years in prison, whereas penalties for other forms of homicide ranged from 10 to 20 years in prison.  The law was not effectively enforced.  Officials and civil society organizations agreed that gender-based violence was a serious problem.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment:  The extent of the problem was difficult to determine because convictions for sexual harassment were rare, pre-employment sexual harassment was not actionable, and there were few formal reports.Discrimination:  The law prohibited discrimination based on gender.  The law recognized joint property in marriages.  Women enjoyed the same legal status and rights as men, but the law was not enforced.  Women faced discrimination in employment and occupation.In the workplace, the law prohibited discrimination based on sex.  As of October, the Ministry of Labor received 100 cases of discrimination or workplace harassment.  As of September, two companies were sanctioned for labor harassment and gender-based discrimination.  The government did not effectively enforce the law.NGOs noted that during job interviews, women were often asked if they were married, pregnant, or planned to have children.  It was common practice for human resources offices to terminate the applications of women who indicated a possibility of pregnancy soon.  A gender wage gap existed, and no law mandated equal pay for equal work.  The law placed restrictions on women working in jobs deemed hazardous.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.  For a low cost, emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis were available as part of clinical management for rape.  Contraception for adolescents required parental consent.  Rural areas, including Indigenous territories and semirural areas, lacked access to general health services, including sexual and reproductive health services.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										Minority groups were generally integrated into mainstream society.  Prejudice was directed, however, at recent legal immigrants, the Afro-Panamanian community, and Indigenous peoples.Areas where many Afro-Panamanians lived lagged in government services and social investment.  The government’s National Secretariat for the Development of Afro-Panamanians focused on the socioeconomic advancement of this community.As of August, the Ombudsman’s Office received seven complaints of racism.  All of the complaints involved bullying and racial discrimination at public schools.The law prohibited discrimination in access to public accommodations such as restaurants, stores, and other privately owned establishments.  Lighter-skinned individuals were overrepresented in management positions and jobs that required dealing with the public, such as bank tellers and receptionists.																																				Indigenous Peoples										The law afforded Indigenous persons the same political and legal rights as other citizens, protected their ethnic identity and native languages, and required the government to provide bilingual literacy programs in Indigenous communities.  Despite the law’s requirements, the government failed to assign the funds necessary for the bilingual literacy project.Indigenous persons had the legal right to take part in decisions affecting their lands, cultures, traditions, and the allocation and exploitation of natural resources.  Traditional community leaders governed comarcas (semiautonomous Indigenous territories) for six of the country’s seven Indigenous groups.  Nevertheless, they continued to face marginalization from mainstream society.Governance problems within the Indigenous comarcas complicated receipt of government and international funds destined for education, health, and infrastructure projects within the comarcas.The government unofficially recognized other traditional Indigenous government authorities on the basis that these regions were traditionally organized Indigenous settlements and territories that were excluded from the constitution when the original comarcas were designated in 1938.  The traditional Indigenous authorities were organized under the national coordinating body for Indigenous affairs, the National Coordinator of Indigenous Peoples.On several occasions during the year, the Ngäbe-Buglé people organized protests that closed sections of the Inter-American Highway at multiple locations to demand better transport infrastructure to and from their comarca.  Some Ngäbe-Buglé groups protested dam projects on or near their lands, including the AES Panama hydroelectric dam.  Dam operations continued uninterrupted.From September through November, Indigenous groups, including Ngäbe-Buglé and Guna activists, joined labor unions to protest a mining contract which President Laurentino Cortizo approved on October 20, leading to nationwide demonstrations.No collective land titles were granted during the year, and land disputes continued to be a problem.  The government had not fully delimited the comarca of the Naso Indigenous group.  Naso individuals complained the delay led to continued invasions of their lands.Many Indigenous individuals did not have sufficient information to understand their rights.  Additionally, due to the inadequate educational system available in the comarcas, many Indigenous individuals were unaware of or failed to use available legal channels to protect their rights.Societal and employment discrimination against Indigenous persons was widespread.  Employers frequently denied to Indigenous workers the basic rights provided by law, such as a minimum wage, social security benefits, termination pay, and job security.  Laborers on agricultural plantations, most of whom were Indigenous persons, often worked in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.  The Ministry of Labor conducted limited oversight of working conditions in remote areas.Access to health care was a significant problem for Indigenous communities, primarily due to poor infrastructure and lack of personnel and supplies.  Indigenous communities lacked access to education and justice due to the size and remoteness of their territories.  Service infrastructure was deficient, and there was little presence of government authorities, including teachers, police, and justices of the peace.																																				Children										Child Abuse:  Child abuse was illegal.  Penalties depended on the type of abuse and ranged from six months’ to 20 years’ imprisonment.  Investigations and prosecutions continued of alleged abuses committed against children in government-funded shelters.The Ministry of Social Development maintained a free hotline for children and adults to report child abuse; the hotline was advertised widely.  The ministry funded children’s shelters operated by NGOs.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The minimum legal age for marriage was 18, which the government effectively enforced.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited the commercial sexual exploitation, sale, and offering for prostitution of children, in addition to prohibiting child pornography.  The minimum age of consent was 14.  The Ministry for Public Security prosecuted cases of sexual abuse of children, including within Indigenous communities.  Ministry officials confirmed commercial sexual exploitation of children occurred, including along the country’s border with Colombia where irregular migration was prominent.																																				Antisemitism										Jewish community leaders estimated there were 15,000 Jewish individuals in the country.  There were no known reports of antisemitic incidents.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization:  The law did not criminalize consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults.  The National Police and firefighter’s disciplinary code, however, listed the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism as a “grave offense” and grounds for dismissal.  There were no known instances of this regulation’s enforcement.Violence and Harassment:  Civil society groups alleged police harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) individuals as well as high levels of violence against transgender persons by both state and nonstate actors.  In May, LGBTQI+ activists alleged that a homosexual individual died as a result of a fight with other members of the LGBTQI+ community due to police condoning the fight and urging others not to intervene.  In August, civil society protested a well-publicized attack against a transgender person.  The government provided no estimate of the number of cases of violence against LGBTQI+ individuals.Discrimination:  The law did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.  There was societal discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which often led to denial of employment opportunities.  The Supreme Court upheld in February a law prohibiting same-sex marriage; the court also upheld the prohibition against same-sex couples married abroad legally registering their marriages in the country.Regulations related to children’s names were different for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.  For example, it was impossible under the law to ensure that a child with two women parents would be given the same last name as both parents, even though unmarried opposite-sex parents had this option.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  The law had a narrow path to gender recognition that required invasive physical examinations.  The law did not recognize nonbinary status.  Civil society groups alleged that gender recognition was virtually impossible.  The law allowed for name changes, although barriers – including, in most cases, a five-year period of continued use – existed that impeded such legal changes.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  LGBTQI+ civil society leaders alleged that some churches used so-called conversion therapy and coordinated with the National Institute on Mental Health.  Leaders of the International Coalition of Women and Family alleged that instances of so-called conversion therapy occurred during the year.  There were no reports that medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.  There were no reports of government efforts to limit these practices.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  No laws explicitly restricted the freedom of expression, association, or peaceful assembly of LGBTQI+ individuals.  In August, the University of Panama cancelled an LGBTQI+ film festival.  LGBTQI+ civil society organizations publicly criticized the university’s action.  Civil society groups involved in the festival stated the cancellation was due to university concerns about the event’s political implications, according to press reports, although university officials did not provide further explanation regarding the cancellation.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law mandated that persons with disabilities have access without discrimination to education, health services including rehabilitation and therapy, public transportation, public and private buildings, sports and cultural events, and employment.  The government did not enforce the law effectively.Persons with disabilities faced difficulty accessing education, health services, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others.  There was discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment and occupation, specifically in hiring and in accessing the workspace.  Municipalities failed to enforce accessibility standards for new buildings, many of which lacked the mandated requirements for accessibility.  Government information and communications were not provided in accessible formats.Most of Panama City’s bus fleet was inaccessible to persons using wheelchairs.  Public buses in the rest of the country were small and not adapted for persons with disabilities.  Panama City Metro elevators were closed for most of the year, according to NGO representatives.  A lack of ramps further limited access to older Metro stations, although one of the Metro lines had ramp access.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										The law prohibited discrimination in employment and education against persons with HIV or AIDS.  Discrimination, however, continued to be common due to ignorance of the law and a lack of compliance mechanisms.  LGBTQI+ individuals with HIV or AIDS reported a deterioration in their rights amid rising social stigma and political opposition.  There were reports that applicants for jobs were required to undergo medical examinations, including testing for HIV and AIDS.  The law required all laboratories to inform applicants that an HIV test would be administered, but private-sector laboratories often did not inform the patient that HIV testing would occur.  It was common practice for private-sector human resources offices to terminate applications of citizens with HIV without informing applicants that they were denied employment because of their HIV status.Under the law, employees were not obligated to disclose their HIV or AIDS status to their employer, but if they did so, the employer had to keep the information confidential.  Employers could be fined for not keeping an employee’s medical condition confidential.  There were few reports of the government enforcing antidiscrimination laws.During the year, there was only one appointment available per patient each month for the HIV viral load test at the Ministry of Health’s facilities.  There were guidelines for appointment priorities that prioritized pregnant women and newly diagnosed patients at the expense of other patient groups, such as LGBTQI+ individuals.  Capacity limitations at the facilities meant delayed appointments for stable patients.  Private laboratories providing HIV tests to migrants often informed law enforcement of migrants with HIV.  There were no instances of the National Migration Service deporting a migrant based on the migrant’s HIV status.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of private-sector workers to form and join independent unions, bargain collectively, and conduct strikes.  The law prohibited antiunion discrimination and required reinstatement of workers terminated for union activity, but union leaders reported the government did not effectively enforce it.Government regulations on union membership placed some restrictions on freedom of association.  The constitution mandated that only citizens could serve on a union’s executive board.  In addition, the law required a minimum of 40 persons to form a private-sector union (either by a company across trades or by trade across companies) and allowed only one union per business establishment.  The International Labor Organization observed that the 40-person minimum was a potential impediment to the right to organize and bargain collectively.Unions were required to register with the Ministry of Labor.  If the ministry did not respond to a private-sector union registration application within 15 calendar days, the union automatically gained legal recognition, provided the request was submitted directly and with the required supporting documentation.  The Ministry of Labor received 11 new requests for unions in 2022; two were in the process of admission, two in the process of correction, and seven were ultimately not admitted.  One union was granted membership in 2022.Public-sector employees could organize to create professional associations to bargain collectively on behalf of their members, even though public institutions were not legally obliged to bargain with such associations.  Public-sector professional associations had to apply to the Ministry of Government for legal recognition.  Recognition was automatic if the government did not respond to the application within 30 days.  The law stipulated only one association could exist per public-sector institution and there could be no more than one chapter per province.  At least 50 public servants were required to form a professional association.  Members of the national police were the only workers prohibited from creating professional associations.There were 27 public-worker associations registered under the National Federation of Public Servants (FENASEP), an umbrella federation of public-sector worker associations.  Individual professional associations under the National Council of Organized Workers could negotiate on behalf of their members, but the Ministry of Labor could order compulsory arbitration.  Public-sector professional associations represented most public-sector workers.The labor code protected the right of private-sector workers to strike, with limitations.  A majority of employees in an enterprise had to join a strike to make it legal.  Strikes were permitted only if they were related to improving working conditions, a collective bargaining agreement, repeated violations of legal rights, or to support a strike by other workers on the same project, known as a solidarity strike.  In the event of a strike in essential sectors, 20 to 30 percent of the workforce had to continue working to provide minimal services.  Legally defined essential services included transportation, sanitation, mail delivery, hospital care, telecommunications, and provision of necessary food.  Strikes in essential transportation services involved only public transportation.  The law prohibited public-sector associations from calling strikes, and the law did not protect public-sector workers from losing their jobs if they participated in strikes.  Nonetheless, strikes in the public sector did occur.A 2021 law vindicated the right of public servants to the recognition and payment of their seniority bonus.  As of October, several autonomous government agencies, including the National Bank and the Colon Free Zone among others, retroactively paid public servants from 2014.  Other public servants organized demonstrations to claim their right to the seniority bonus.  The central government had not applied this right.The law prohibited strikes by Panama Canal Authority employees but allowed professional associations representing Panama Canal Authority employees to organize and bargain collectively on matters such as schedules and safety.  The Panama Canal Authority provided a legal framework for arbitration to resolve disputes.Less than 15 percent of the private-sector labor force was organized.  Sectors such as banking, retail, and most call centers did not have unions due to efforts by employers to prevent unions from organizing.FENASEP received complaints from publics servants that they were dismissed because of their support for the political opposition.  The administration generally dismissed public workers without citing a legal basis and always without paying negotiated employment benefits such as paid vacation leave or severance pay.The government did not consistently enforce the labor code in the private sector and was less likely to enforce the law in rural areas.  Penalties for violations were commensurate with those under other laws involving denials of civil rights.  Penalties were sometimes applied against violators.Although violence against labor unions was not common, two union teachers were killed by a bystander at a protestor-organized road closure on November 10.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings/&nbsp;.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  The law provided a national minimum wage only for private-sector employees.  The minimum wage was above the poverty line.  Most workers formally employed in urban areas earned the minimum wage or more.  The minimum wage for public workers was above the poverty line, although the wage was not revised biannually, unlike for private sector employees.The law established a standard workweek of 48 hours, provided at least one 24-hour rest period weekly, limited the number of hours worked per week, provided premium pay for overtime, and prohibited compulsory overtime.  There was no annual limit on the total number of overtime hours allowed.  If employees worked more than three hours of overtime in one day or more than nine overtime hours in a week, excess overtime hours had to be paid at an additional 75 percent above the normal wage.  In August, doctors threatened to go on strike due to abuse of working hours, which kept them on 36-hour shifts.Occupational Safety and Health:  The Ministry of Labor was responsible for setting occupational safety and health (OSH) standards.  Standards were generally current and appropriate for the industries in the country.  The law required employers to provide a safe workplace environment, including the provision of protective clothing and equipment for workers.  Workers could remove themselves from unsafe situation without jeopardizing their employment.Observers reported independent OSH experts had not visited sites to proactively identify unsafe conditions in recent years.  Equipment was often outdated, broken, or lacking safety devices, due in large part to fear that replacement costs would be prohibitive.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The Ministry of Labor generally enforced the law in the formal sector.  The number of inspectors and safety officers was insufficient to enforce wage, hour, and OSH regulations adequately in the formal sector, according to officials from the Ministry of Labor and from the Office of the Ombudsman.  Penalties were not commensurate with those for similar violations.  Penalties were regularly applied against violators.According to official sources, 48 percent of the working population worked in the informal sector.  The government did not enforce labor laws in the informal sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																						c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Indigenous Peoples																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Panama
- Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas Advances Through a Second Annual High-level Meeting in the Dominican Republic Office of the SpokespersonOn March 10, 2024, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, Jose W. Fernandez, kicked off the Second Annual High-Level Meetings of the Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas (EHA) alongside PAHO Deputy Director Mary Lou Valdez, Department of Commerce Deputy Under Secretary Diane Farrell, Executive Vice President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Mr. Jordan Schwartz, and Minister of Health for the Dominican Republic Víctor Atallah at the welcoming reception. Official government meetings were held the next day on March 11, where ministers and vice ministers from 17 countries across ministries of finance, economy, health, foreign affairs and social development were in attendance.Several countries were represented by ministries of health, as well as ministries of finance, economy, foreign affairs, and commerce given the whole-of-government approach the EHA takes through multisectoral workstreams. EHA co-chairs, the United States and Panama, made remarks at the event along with the country host of the meeting, the Dominican Republic. EHA members focused discussions on smart spending, prioritization of health-sector transformation, responsive social protections, technology and health, workforce development, and foundations of resilient supply chains.EHA co-lead countries Brazil, Paraguay, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, Chile and the United States affirmed leadership roles for 2024, and members approved the workplan for the coming year. Several USG agencies were in attendance, including USAID, CDC, USTDA and Commerce. USAID and the Department of State made several announcements along with several EHA members. For more information on those announcements please see the fact sheet: https://www.state.gov/economic-and-health-dialogue-of-the-americas-high-level-meeting-outcomes-for-2024/.Learn more about the EHA on the main webpage: https://www.iadb.org/en/home/economic-and-health-dialogue-americas .To stay up to date, follow Under Secretary Fernandez on X: @State_E, LinkedIn: @State-E, and Facebook: @StateDeptE.For further media information, please contact E_Communications@state.gov.
- Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas High-level Meeting Outcomes for 2024 Office of the SpokespersonThe Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas (EHA) was launched on the margins of the 9th Summit of the Americas in June 2022 by the U.S. Department of State. In 2023, the EHA held its first high-level meeting to establish the governance structure and approve scope of work. Since then, countries have organized 11 technical meetings and a first in person encounter in Uruguay at the end of 2023.On the 11th of March of 2024, the 2nd annual high-level meeting of the EHA was held in the Dominican Republic with representation from 17 countries. Ministers and Vice Ministers from health, finance, economy, foreign affairs, and commerce agencies participated to include Ministerial-level participation from of the United States, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Mexico, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Guyana, Guatemala, Suriname, Panama, Colombia, and Paraguay, in addition to high-level representatives from Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Ecuador. In addition to government representatives, leadership from regional technical organizations participated, including IDB Executive Vice President Jordan Schwartz and PAHO Deputy Director Mary Lou Valdez. Representatives from ECLAC, USAID, USTDA, U.S. Department of Commerce, and CDC were also in attendance.What were the main agreements and outcomes of the 2nd Annual EHA High-Level Meeting in the Dominican Republic?Countries reaffirmed EHA’s commitment to strengthen health systems and economic resilience to emergencies in the region. Paraguay, Uruguay, Bahamas, Argentina, Peru, Brazil, and Chile affirmed their commitment to co-lead EHA technical working groups. Panama was praised for their leadership as co-chair of EHA along with United States.PAHO announced the launch of their Public Finance Management tool. The tool will enable countries to conduct analysis of fiscal space for the health sector to support responsible spending as well as sustainable and equitable public health financing. PAHO has committed to the goal of two countries applying the tool in 2024-2025. Several countries expressed interest at the meeting. The work supports the “Smart Spending” workstream.PAHO committed to use the Essential Public Health Functions (EPHF) assessments from 14 countries to produce a policy document that would establish shared priorities and identify institutional capacity gaps across the region that will require future investment to fill, with a sub-regional focus on Caribbean countries. This work will support the workstream on Prioritization of Health Sector Transformation, which is led by the Bahamas. The Bahamas announced the completion of their EPHF assessment at the meeting.Brazil, Dominican Republic, and Chile committed to apply the IDB’s Maturity Assessment Tool (MAT) to measure the capacity of social protection systems to respond to emergencies. Countries like Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Paraguay outlined some of the best practices around social protection during COVID-19, as well as lessons learned from other sectors and emergency response scenarios. The goal for 2024 will be to explore potential regional agreements to coordinate increased preparedness and responsiveness to future crises in the region. This work supports workstream on Responsive Social Protection.EHA countries announced commitment to conduct a pharmaceutical mapping exercise and prepare a regional strategy for nearshoring of critical inputs and consumables. EHA members short-listed mRNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and antimicrobials, including for malaria and tuberculosis, as priority products for the 2024-2025 analysis. The United States committed to support this analysis in coordination with co-leads Argentina and Peru. Argentina affirmed their commitment to conduct a regional Private-Public Partnership analysis. This work supports the Resilient Supply Chain workstream.USAID shared progress on the Americas Health Corps initiative, announcing the training of 120,000 healthcare workers in the region thus far.USAID also announced funding for a market analysis of the current capacity within the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region to produce or manufacture vaccine countermeasures for emerging threats, endemic diseases, and local priorities relevant to the regional market. The EHA platform committed to supporting the implementation of recommendations from the analysis.EHA members approved the work plan for 2024-2025 and committed to a mid-year high-level meeting to review progress.EHA members recognized the importance of digital health and utilization of technology in the public health system and proposed establishing a new EHA workstream on technology and health. The EHA Executive Technical Working Group will develop a scope of work for this proposed workstream with the goal of launching it in 2024.For further information, please contact E_Commmunications@state.gov, or visit the EHA website: https://www.iadb.org/en/home/economic-and-health-dialogue-americas .
- Under Secretary Fernandez’s Travel to the Dominican Republic Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Jose W. Fernandez will travel to Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic, March 10-12, to deepen economic cooperation and strengthen strategic partnerships to advance more sustainable and resilient global supply chains and foster preparedness for future pandemics in the Western Hemisphere.The Under Secretary will co-host the second high-level meeting of the Economic and Health Dialogue of the Americas (EHA). The EHA is a regional, multilateral initiative that encourages governments to strengthen health systems and protect economies by assessing gaps in their public health sector, sharing best practices and tools to support sustainable and effective health financing, and build resilience into health supply chains. The meeting will convene ministers and vice ministers from the ministries of health, finance, economy, and foreign affairs across 19countries.  EHA members will be announcing commitments around health systems strengthening and supply chains.During the visit, he will also participate in the U.S.-Alliance for Development in Democracy (ADD) Joint Consultative Dialogue on Supply Chains between the United States, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Panama. The dialogue will advance our countries’ work together to strengthen supply chain resiliency in the health sector and deliver concrete action items for implementation.The Under Secretary intends to meet with senior leadership from the Dominican Republic to deepen economic cooperation, advance the Dominican Republic’s leadership in the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, and promote the Dominican Republic’s role in critical supply chains, including medical products, semiconductors, and apparel. He also plans to engage with private sector leaders to learn about opportunities and challenges for U.S. companies.To stay up to date, follow Under Secretary Fernandez on X: @State_E , LinkedIn: @State-E , and Facebook: @StateDeptE .For further media information, please contact E_Communications@state.gov.
- Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Richard Nephew’s Travel to Panama Office of the SpokespersonCoordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Richard Nephew will travel to Panama from March 5-6. During his visit, he will discuss current anti-corruption efforts and challenges and identify areas for further cooperation. &nbsp;Coordinator Nephew will meet with government officials, including justice sector, law enforcement, and legislative representatives, as well as civil society and the private sector. His travel will highlight the United States’ ongoing commitment to combatting corruption and strengthening the rule of law.Follow @StateCGAC on Twitter to learn more.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Office of the Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption																								Office of the Spokesperson																																Official International Travel																															Panama
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the Anti-Corruption Champions Award Ceremony Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateWashington, D.C.Burns AuditoriumASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Good morning, everybody.  Before we get started this morning, I’d like to acknowledge the tragedy in the Seychelles.  Commissioner De Silva, our thoughts are with you and your country, your people, at this time.It’s an honor to welcome this year’s Anti-Corruption Champions Award honorees.  Thank you for joining us here today and from across the globe.  My name is Todd Robinson, the assistant secretary of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, or INL as it’s better known.  And let me give you just a little bit of an overview of what we’re going to do this morning.We have, as you see, a high-powered lineup for you today – (laughter) – starting with Secretary Antony Blinken, who has made it his business since day one to place the fight against corruption at the center of our foreign policy.  We also have here from – we will also hear from Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya, a diplomat with three decades of experience around the world, and my boss.  (Laughter.)  And Richard Nephew, our global anti-corruption coordinator, is going to introduce our honorees today.  We will also have an opportunity to hear from one of our inspiring award recipients.As I mentioned, the fight against corruption is front and center in our U.S. foreign policy.  As I’m sure our honorees can attest, this fight is a difficult one, but from Europe to Africa to Central America, we have seen remarkable wins in 2023.In Guatemala, there was an election victory by a presidential candidate, Bernardo Arévalo from the Semilla party, who ran on a platform of weeding out corruption.In Ukraine, INL works closely with anti-corruption investigators and prosecutors, who this year alone have opened cases against over 20 high-level government officials, including the former chief justice of the supreme court.  Since the summer, Ukraine has advanced significant reform measures, including requiring government officials to declare their assets and adding judges to the High Anti-Corruption Court.In Liberia, our embassy’s stalwart support for action against corruption has put compromised officials on the defensive and is fueling the Liberian public’s desire for increased accountability and sanctions.As you’ll see shortly, the tenacious men and women with us here today are responsible for successes like these.  Tenacious, but also – let’s not forget – fearless.  Corruption is silent, secret, and corrosive.  People know it’s out there but it’s difficult to root out.  That has not deterred our honorees, who have joined this fight at great personal and professional risk, but not without recognition.  To today’s honorees, we see what you are doing and we applaud it.With that, I would like to invite Under Secretary Zeya.  (Applause.)UNDER SECRETARY ZEYA:  Thank you to my dear friend, Assistant Secretary Robinson.  Your leadership on this issue set has been indispensable.  Secretary Blinken, Coordinator Nephew, colleagues and friends, I am delighted to be here today to celebrate these courageous honorees.This weekend, we will commemorate the 20-year anniversary of the first and only global anti-corruption instrument, the UN Convention Against Corruption, or UNCAC.  This distinguished group, through their advocacy and actions, embodies the central message of that consequential document:  The betrayal of the public trust will no longer be tolerated.The drafters of UNCAC, which included the United States, understood the corrosive impact of corruption and recognized it as a transnational challenge.  It affects all countries, regardless of the level of development, political system, or history.  Thus, preventing and countering corruption is a shared responsibility among all countries.UNCAC responded to these threats by providing governments with the tools to counter this scourge at the global level.  The convention endures.  Its comprehensive set of standards, measures, and rules are even more relevant today than they were 20 years ago.  What we’ve learned since the UNCAC’s adoption is that while corruption is a cross-cutting global challenge, every country experiences it in different ways, which requires tailored solutions.For example, in Moldova, through the courageous work of President Sandu’s administration, the country is countering Russia’s interference and the actions of other corrupt actors by fortifying its democracy, modernizing its economy, and aligning its institutions with its European neighbors.  I myself had the privilege of visiting Moldova last week, and I was honored to meet with Minister of Justice Veronica Mihailov-Moraru, who is on the front lines of these efforts and is one of the champions that we are celebrating here today.For our part, President Biden has elevated anti-corruption as a core national security interest.  We’re actively implementing the first-ever U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption that the President issued two years ago.  Now, this strategy has domestic and international components, acknowledging that we must combat corruption here at home as well as prioritize it in our foreign policy.  We’re also committed to working with all of you, the honorees here today and all of those who stand with us across the globe, dedicated to shining a light on corrupt behavior.When Secretary Blinken launched the Anti-Corruption Champions Award in 2021, we not only wanted to celebrate you, but we also want to learn from your invaluable expertise and experience.  The fight against corruption is a collective effort, and thus we must foster critical engagement across public and private institutions and across borders.  This will bolster our policies and advance the unshakable principles of accountability and integrity ingrained in the UNCAC.So thank you all for joining us here today, and congratulations again to our honorees.I now have the immense honor of introducing an admired friend and a phenomenal boss, Secretary of State Antony Blinken.  (Applause.)SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  Good morning, everyone.AUDIENCE:  Good morning.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So this is a day, a moment I’ve been looking forward to.  And we’ll share the reasons why in just a minute.  But first, let me say to Under Secretary Zeya, to Assistant Secretary Robinson, to our Coordinator Nephew:  Thank you not just for today, but for the extraordinary work you’re doing every day, including and notably on taking the fight to corruption.In public service – whether in government or in civil society – I know it can feel at times like the challenges are just too big; the forces arrayed against change too strong, too entrenched to make meaningful progress.One of the things that I love most about this ceremony each year is that every one of our awardees has proved that idea wrong.  There is no force against progress that is actually immovable.  You’ve demonstrated with your work, with your courage, with your commitment that it can be done.  Even in places where impunity is the rule, you’ve shown how determined individuals can tip the balance, make the difference toward justice.Today, we gather not only to honor these extraordinary champions, but to learn from them.  Corrupt officials and their partners are constantly borrowing from each other’s playbooks.  Well, governments, organizations, citizens committed to fighting corruption need to do the same thing, because in so many different ways, in so many different places, each of you has found a particular angle, a particular way of being effective in combatting corruption.  And so the more we’re talking to each other, the more we’re listening and learning from you, the more effective we are going to be.Now, before speaking to the accomplishments of the awardees, let me underscore that no matter who they are or where they work, none of them does this alone – and I know you would be the first to say that.Indeed, one of the reasons that these leaders are so effective is because they inspire others to join them.  So today, we’re honoring not only these 11 champions, but all of their partners.Including their teammates here at the State Department.  Every awardee was nominated by American diplomats around the world, most of whom work side-by-side with all of our champions to advance our shared priorities.Take any goal of our foreign policy, anything that we really care about – expanding economic opportunity, empowering underserved communities, enhancing security, defending human rights – all of them are served by building more accountable institutions, more accountable societies, more transparency.So we have an abiding interest in rooting out corruption – both to improve lives in local communities and to build more prosperous, more secure, more rights-respecting partners for the American people.As we were looking at the awardees and learning from their stories, I think what’s powerful is you can really draw lessons from each of their work.  And I’ve seen, as we’ve been talking about this together, maybe five things that really jump out.  So let me share those with you in talking about the awardees.First, a key part of combatting corruption is working to reform corrupt institutions from within wherever possible.  That’s a very powerful thing.You heard reference to Veronica Mihailov-Moraru and what she’s done in the Republic of Moldova.  Having worked as a public defender, she knew firsthand how broken her country’s justice system was, but that didn’t stop her from working to overhaul the justice ministry when offered the chance to lead it.  That’s change from within.  Veronica designed and implemented a rigorous vetting process to root out corrupt judges, corrupt prosecutors; she helped reform the country’s anticorruption agencies.  She’s made a point of pursuing these reforms out in the open, not a secret, modeling the transparency she’s trying to foster, and that in turn has allowed her to build broad public support for this work.Vladimir Novovic made a similar leap when he left his post as a judge to become Montenegro’s chief prosecutor for organized crime, corruption, war crimes, terrorism, and money laundering.  That’s a portfolio.  He inherited an ineffective and an infiltrated institution, in a country where citizens were disillusioned by graft that they were experiencing every single day in their institutions.  By pursuing investigations of corrupt judges, of national security officials, senior police, Vladimir showed citizens that even the most powerful people are not above the law.  Since he took office, public trust in the corruption prosecutor’s office has doubled.As Liberia’s anti-corruption commissioner, Marc Kollie led a series of investigations that uncovered bribery of powerful politicians in exchange for favors.  Despite being threatened, Marc pursued his work.  He testified in the case, and then went on to lead other groundbreaking investigations, including one in which he froze bank accounts being used by organized crime to launder money.  His efforts demonstrated how a few committed individuals can turn government institutions from sources of corruption into sources of accountability.Second broad lesson that I’m drawing from our awardees:  When they’re informed, when they’re empowered, citizens – citizens – are our most effective anti-corruption allies.So Nikhil Dey has spent more than four decades in India working with and for those harmed by corruption, and those particularly who are harmed most by it: underserved, marginalized populations.  Nikhil has helped communities in Rajasthan demand access to essential services and rights – education, health care, fair wages, better working conditions.  His organization pioneered the practice of public audits, in which local officials have to report to communities how and where they spend the resources, and citizens have a chance themselves to ask probing questions of these officials.  As these public audits spread across India, more citizens started taking the lead in holding officials to account.  And that, at its heart, is how democracy needs to work.After decades of writing about corruption and organized crime for Ecuador’s newspapers, Arturo Torres founded an independent media site to report on these issues.  In a series of articles, Arturo and his team combined rigorous analysis of publicly available information with deep investigations to uncover the corrupt ties of candidates for judges, for mayors, and other important public offices.  In a country of 16 million people, the website’s reporting garnered 18 million views in just a couple of months – 16 million people in the country, 18 million views in a couple of months.  That showed the public hunger for this information and for the incredibly powerful role it can play in informing voters.Third, more than ever, if we’re going to address corruption effectively, we also have to address forces outside our countries that are looking to weaponize corruption for their gain.In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Jean-Claude Mputu has helped lead “Congo is Not for Sale.”  That’s a civil society coalition that uncovers the way mining deals have benefitted foreign companies, governments, and corrupt officials at the expense of the people.  By exposing the bribes that were used to win these contracts and the billions in lost revenue to the state, the investigations led the DRC Government to try to recover funds for the Congolese people, and has resulted in international sanctions against corrupt businesses and corrupt investors.In Timor-Leste, reporting by Francisco Belo Simoes da Costa showed the way a Beijing-based company used bribes to win a contract to digitize the country’s national television broadcast corporation.  Francisco uncovered the way a corrupt official profited by awarding the contract with no competition.  His reporting also showed the way the agreement would have allowed the Chinese Government to disseminate propaganda throughout the Timorese nation.  Francisco’s reporting prevented the tainted deal from going forward, it sparked an investigation by Timor-Leste’s anti-corruption commission, which is ongoing.For advocate Stanislau Ivashekvich, fighting for accountability, for transparency, for space for civil society in Belarus has long meant taking on the country – excuse me, he’s taking on the country working with Belarus’s dictator to try to quash it, and that is Russia.  Stanislau’s organization, the Belarus Investigative Center, has shone a spotlight on the ways that Russia and Belarus collaborate to try to evade sanctions, to enrich oligarchs, to fuel Moscow’s war of aggression against Ukraine.  His organization’s reporting has been critical to closing sanctions loopholes, seizing the illicit assets of Russian officials and oligarchs.Fourth broad lesson:  Every individual that we’re honoring today has made educating, inspiring, and mentoring young people a key part of their work.With Anette Plannells leading civil society campaigns resulting in the first-ever prosecution of high-ranking officials in Panama – even as she was doing that, she also helped build a youth wing of the nation’s anti-corruption movement.  Thanks to her trainings, thanks to her workshops, not only are countless Panamanians more engaged citizens, but scores of young people have now been inspired to pursue careers in advocacy and in elective office.  And so a whole new generation is coming up at the same time thanks to her work that she was engaged in, the work of the of the moment.As the Seychelles anti-corruption commissioner, May De Silva – you already heard reference to her before – has built an unprecedented case against businesses and former officials for international tax evasion.  At the same time, she’s designed and implemented seminars, conferences, workshops, an anti-corruption curriculum – all of this for students in schools and for colleges across the country.  She says her goal is to show how corruption eats away at societies, but also what every citizen can do to fight it.In Kyrgyzstan, Ali Toktakunov leads MediaHub.  This is an independent news outlet that exposes corruption and shows corrupt actors and how they’re using social media to try to hide, to obfuscate their crimes.  A key part of MediaHub’s efforts is building greater digital literacy among young people, something that they’re doing by holding workshops across the country’s universities, so that individuals are better prepared, better equipped to detect and call out online disinformation.Fifth and finally, every one of these champions – every one – has in some fashion been subject to repression, to threats, to persecution for their work.  Several had been forced into exile.  Many are subject to ongoing legal proceedings.  Some had been locked up.  Their families have also been threatened.  One of our awardees said that his small children can no longer play in public playgrounds and parks because of targeted threats.And yet, each and every one of them persists.  They continue to do the work.  As awardee Arturo Torres said, “It’s part of the job.”To all of today’s awardees, your bravery, your commitment to truth, to justice – it humbles us, it inspires us to do more, and it adds even greater urgency to the enduring effort to strengthen protections for advocates, for human rights defenders, for journalists, for educators around the world who are threatened and attacked for the work they’re doing to fight corruption and to better their societies.As you’ve heard from Under Secretary Zeya, Assistant Secretary Robinson, this has been a top priority for President Biden, for this administration, for this department from day one.  We’ll keep working to build effective ways to have the backs of those who are at risk and to hold perpetrators to account.I know that there are folks watching today who are leading hard fights for transparency and good governance in hard places.  And I know there have to be days when you feel disillusioned, when you feel isolated, when you feel fearful.So I hope, if nothing else, you’ll take heart from today, you’ll take heart from the stories of your colleagues around the world who are doing such remarkable work in the ways that you are – doing it a great cost, at great risk, but doing it.And I hope that today’s ceremony reminds us that, again, the actions of determined individuals can make a difference, are making a difference.  They can puncture the seemingly impenetrable walls of impunity.  They can rekindle citizens’ faith in their own capacity to make governments and institutions work for them.Indeed, they and you are often the only way that change effectively happens.To all the anti-corruption champions far beyond this room, please know you have a partner in the United States.With that, it is my honor to give the floor to one of our awardees so deserving who can speak most effectively for all of our awardees, Minister Mihailov-Moraru.Minister, congratulations.  The floor is yours.  (Applause.)JUSTICE MINISTER MIHAILOV-MORARU:  Good morning.  Honorable Secretary Blinken, colleagues and new friends, ladies and gentlemen, I am very honored to be with you here and be among of this group of all about – with all remarkable activists, journalists, and public officials you have brought together from all around the world.  Thank you very much for all the appreciation.  I am not sure I actually deserve this recognition or to be in the company of this inspiring group of people, but I am very grateful for the honor and I will use it as a reminder and motivation when I need it to persist and to press forward against the resistance we encounter every day in fighting corruption in Moldova and around all the world.The Republic of Moldova is currently undergoing broad reform in its justice sector, addressing challenges relating to integrity, accessibility, efficiency, and widespread lack of trust.  Corruption remains, unfortunately, a central obstacle to the formation of trust in government in Moldova.  But one of our main goals in my country is to improve living standards, to change society’s perception of the independence of the judicial system in order to ensure transparency, but also their responsibility, and ultimately to increase trust in the acts of justice.  And this can only be happen by fighting everywhere and with increasing success against corruption.Corruption, of course, is not unique to Moldova.  It is a global problem that affects us all.  Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gains, and it undermines the rule of law, the legitimacy of government, and the trust of citizens.  Corruption is a threat to the realization of the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals, which aim to create a better and more sustainable future for all.But I am sure that corruption is not inevitable.  It can be prevented and combated through effective anti-corruption policies, practices, and a lot of courage.  Anti-corruption efforts vary in scope and strategy and include both preventive and reactive measures – preventive measures to reduce the opportunities for – of corruption actions, but reactive measures – detect, investigate, prosecute, and sanction corruption and return stolen assets.In Moldova, we have committed to implement de-oligarchization measures to eliminate excessive influence of powerful and at times dangerous vested interest in economic, political, and public life.  We have taken action to fortify our agencies charged with responsibility for investigation and prosecution of high corruption act cases.  We have modernized our legislation for combating money laundering and terrorism financing, and also we are in the process to improve our asset recovery mechanism.But this is only the beginning, and we in Moldova cannot do this alone, of course.  None of us can.  So we are committed to increasing our mutual legal cooperation, including on financial investigations, international and organized crime cases, to identify and to recover criminal assets.  But we also need, as do anti-corruption fighters in every country, the commitment and collaboration of all stakeholders, including the international community, the private sector, civil society, journalists, and academia.So I really believe that every effort counts.  Only together we can make a difference and create a more transparent, accountable, and inclusive society for ourselves and for future generations.During IVLP meetings throughout this week, I was inspired by some quotes.  Finding and fighting corruption – your anti-corruption fight is our fight.  And I want to thank to the American people for the inspiration and all the support toward rule of law.Let me please on behalf of all the IVLP group to receive our gratitude to all of you for your attention, and for the honor you bestow, and the kindness, and the continuing support you have shown to all of us.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)
- Recognizing the 2023 Anti-Corruption Champions   Todd D.  Robinson, Assistant SecretaryBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsIn a world faced with myriad challenges, including terrorism, health epidemics, and strategic competition to shape the future of the international order, corruption may not always seem to be at the top of the list of threats.   But that is changing, for the U.S. government and partners around the world.  Left unchecked, corruption steals from a country’s citizens and can sell out a country’s future &#8212; giving a foothold to hostile, criminal actors in the process. Corruption keeps unaccountable officials in power, slows the pace of development, facilitates crime, and ensures unequal distribution of resources – which can affect underrepresented and underserved populations disproportionally.  For all these reasons, the Biden-Harris Administration released and is now implementing the first-ever U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption.   Our strategy recognizes that preventing, uncovering, and combatting corruption takes a mix of courage, intelligence, and doggedness by many stakeholders, and each year the Department seeks out examples to highlight.  And each year, we find many examples of individuals who are committed to pushing back on corruption.  Recently, Department leadership, including Secretary Blinken, gathered to recognize 11 exemplary corruption fighters. They include reporters, government practitioners, and civil society activists.   We hope you will join us in celebrating our 11 State Department International Anti-Corruption Champions for 2023, and in recognizing all those who fight for accountability, the rule of law, and press freedom.   More information on each of our 2023 honorees can be found below. Moldovan Justice Minister Veronica Mihailov-Moraru advanced countless transparency initiatives as part of a broader effort to cleanse Moldova’s judiciary and prosecution services of corrupt actors.  She now leads the ministry she helped reform. For the past 35 years, activist Nikhil Dey has championed policy reforms to empower workers in India.  He and his counterparts have brought to light official corruption, such as the underpayment of workers on official projects, and built peasant and worker empowerment campaigns targeting corruption in the delivery of government services.    Stanislau Ivaskhevich not only took huge personal risks by engaging in independent media reporting in Belarus, but he and his team also tackled government and business corruption despite intense government pressure – all while building a 50-person organization that serves as a resource to civil society and journalists alike.   Marc N. Kollie fearlessly took on high-level bribery and corruption among Liberia’s powerful political elites as part of his tireless work at the Liberian Financial Intelligence Agency.  His commitment to uncovering corruption cost him his job, exposed him and his family to harassment and threats, and forced him to relocate his family for safety.   In Timor-Leste, Francisco Belo Simoes da Costa exposed a corrupt deal for a Beijing-funded project to digitalize the country’s largest broadcaster.  The deal, involving a company majority-owned by a PRC-based businessperson, ultimately led to charges being filed against a sitting minister.  Jean-Claude Mputu is a leading anti-corruption activist in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and spokesperson for the NGO “The Congo is Not for Sale,” which focuses on extractive industries, and has called attention to billion-dollar losses due to mining sector corruption.    Montenegro has long struggled to stem transnational organized crime.  In an effort to turn the tide and root out corruption within the government, Chief Special Prosecutor Vladimir Novovic has aggressively targeted high-profile individuals, indicting the former president of the Supreme Court, among others. Panamanian civil society leader Annette Planells is a tireless advocate of transparency in government and a leading figure of anti-corruption efforts in her country.  She has experienced retaliatory lawsuits and government intimidation, but wins more than she loses, including joining a successful suit against the former Chief Justice of Panama’s Supreme Court, who was sentenced to five years in prison.    Seychelles anti-corruption commissioner May De Silva has 35 staff but – like many successful public servants – is extending her reach by leveraging external allies, to include FBI agents and investigators from the United Kingdom.  She also shaped the outlook of young people around her country and their civic engagement.  Ecuadoran investigative journalist Arturo Torres published research into drug trafficking, corruption, and exploitation of his country’s natural resources.  A judge sued him for $15M for defamation, a case that Mr. Torres ultimately won.    Journalist “Ali” Totakunov is known as one of the most effective and visible anti-corruption advocates in his native Kyrgyz Republic.  Ali’s reporting initially as a correspondent for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – and his MediaHub team’s independent journalism &#8212; have resulted in legal victories, but they have come at a price including lawsuits, cyber attacks, harassment, and even credible death threats.  This award demonstrates our support for anticorruption leaders who put their lives on the line to spur lasting change.  Secretary of State Antony Blinken was pleased to honor these 11 honorees, who inspire us all to stand up firmly to champion more equitable societies, in a December 7 event at the Department of State. For more from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, you can follow us on Twitter @StateINL, Facebook @StateINL, and Instagram @StateINL.   
- Panama HomeReportsBureau of CounterterrorismCountry Reports on Terrorism 2022&#8230;Panama				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Panama																																					Bureau of Counterterrorism																																																																																																				 In this section																																												Panama																																												Panama				Overview:  Because Panama is a transit country for both licit and illicit goods, money, and migrants, the Government of Panama’s (GoP’s) willingness to engage in bilateral and multilateral CT initiatives is critically important for regional security.  Under President Cortizo, the GoP continued to cooperate on CT, especially through maritime sanctions and migration policy.  Panama is a key partner in the implementation and enforcement of sanctions on entities and individuals designated by U.S. and UN sanctions regimes, including sanctions relating to Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela.In support of various U.S. sanctions regimes — including those related to countering terrorist financing and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing — Panama cancelled the registration of 235 Panamanian-flagged vessels in 2022.  Panama cooperated with U.S. authorities on several CT-related cases this year through the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Transnational Criminal Investigations Unit in Panama and additional interagency partnerships with other U.S. security and law enforcement agencies.  The country continued to lead the region in BITMAP enrollments.  Panama has been on the FATF “gray list” for deficiencies in its anti-money laundering regime since 2019.The GoP must address deficiencies in its judicial system’s ability to prosecute white-collar criminals and improve the transparency of beneficial ownership or face the risk of FATF encouraging enhanced due diligence in business relations and transactions with the country.2022 Terrorist Incidents:  There were no incidents related to international terrorism in Panama in 2022.Legislation, Law Enforcement, and Border Security:  Although Panama does not have comprehensive CT legislation or a robust CT legal framework, it has an executive decree to control dual-use goods and has adopted a national control list for dual-use goods in accordance with its UNSCR 1540 obligations.  Panama also has an executive decree to address chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents.  While the country does not have a formal coordinating authority on migration below cabinet level, officials from the GoP’s National Security Council, National Border Service, National Migration Service, and National Police met frequently among themselves and with U.S. officials to efficiently coordinate and act on migration alerts and detain and deport travelers who represented a security risk.  Panama fully complied with its UNSCR 2396 obligations for the collection of biographic and biometric data, information sharing with regional partners, sharing of API, and participation in INTERPOL.The Special Interest Aliens (SIAs) Joint Task Force — a bilateral mechanism to share information on SIAs and Known or Suspected Terrorists and detain and/or deport them as needed — cooperated on several CT-related cases.  The SIAs Joint Task Force continues to process Panama’s BITMAP data and provide intelligence information, analytical products, and migration trends to Panamanian officers.  The GoP’s biometric enrollments provide U.S. agencies with information on foreign partners’ law enforcement and border encounters with SIAs, gang members, and other persons of interest.While Panama’s own intelligence capacity was limited, the GoP acted as a willing partner in responding to U.S. CT-related alerts.  Lack of diplomatic relationships with some migrants’ countries of origin and logistical challenges such as arranging flights continued to limit the GoP’s ability to deport.The Ministry of Security and the National Customs Authority made progress in a bidding process to address the country’s lack of cargo scanners.  In May, three GoP-purchased scanners arrived in Panama; four additional U.S. government-procured scanners are set to arrive in 2023.  This will help the GoP analyze cargo transiting the country, including at Tocumen International Airport — which has the highest number of passenger transits in the region — and entry to and exit from the Colón Free Trade Zone.  Limited scanner capabilities, along with a lack of proper institutional and interagency protocols at ports, had greatly increased the risk of illicit cargo transiting undetected to and through Panama.  Current GoP efforts, supported by Embassy Panama City, will continue to increase interagency information sharing and expand situational awareness in the land, air, and maritime border security environments.Panama continued to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement on ongoing CT cases this year.  However, the GoP’s ability to investigate financial support to terrorist-related organizations remained limited.Countering the Financing of Terrorism:  Panama is a member of GAFILAT (the Financial Action Task Force of Latin America), and its FIU, the Financial Analysis Unit-Panama, is a member of the Egmont Group.  Panama remained on the FATF “gray list” in 2022.  Panama’s action plan to address strategic deficiencies expired in January 2021.  FATF has repeatedly called on Panama to swiftly complete all measures on its expired action plan or it would consider calling on its members and urging all jurisdictions to apply enhanced due diligence to business relations and transactions with Panama.In 2022, FATF reported that Panama took steps toward improving its AML/CFT.  Panama did so by strengthening its understanding of the ML and terrorist financing risk of legal persons and improving the monitoring of the corporate sector.  It also focused on ML investigations in relation to high-risk areas (particularly those investigations involving foreign predicates and the seizing and confiscation of proceeds of crime), and ensured effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions in response to AML/CFT violations.Panama is a key partner in the implementation and enforcement of sanctions on entities and individuals designated by U.S. and UN sanctions regimes.  In 2022, Panama’s Maritime Authority reported canceling the registration of 235 Panamanian-flagged vessels to comply with various sanctions regimes, including those related to countering terrorist financing and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.For further information on money laundering and financial crimes, see the 2022 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Volume 2, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes.Countering Violent Extremism:  There were no changes in 2022.International and Regional Cooperation:  Panama continued working to strengthen its implementation of UN resolutions that promote the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  The OAS Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism received funding from the Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) program in 2022 to strengthen Panama’s implementation of UNSCR 1540 and contribute to increasing the effectiveness of customs administration in Panama.  The project focuses on providing legislative assistance to help Panama comply with international instruments and obligations; promoting outreach to the private sector, industry, and academia to increase awareness of potential proliferation risks; and building capacity to strengthen national capabilities to mitigate and combat potential risks.  OAS is also engaging academia as part of this initiative.Panama continued its active participation in regional security initiatives.  The U.S. Department of State’s Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction and the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory hosted virtual workshops on countering the financing of terrorism in Panama, focusing on proliferation financing and sanctions evasion.  The workshops included detailed overviews of best practices for risk assessment and mitigation strategies for government regulators and representatives from the judicial sector.  EXBS also is providing funding to help Panama draft its National Action Plan for Proliferation Financing, a new FATF requirement that all countries must complete by 2024.  In 2022, Embassy Panama City carried out training for Panamanian prosecutors, judges, police, forensic experts, bank supervisors, stock market personnel, and Financial Analysis Unit staff on money-laundering investigation techniques, trade-based money laundering, and cryptocurrency as a method of money-laundering.																												    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Argentina											Australia											Austria											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Belgium											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Brazil											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Cameroon											Canada											Chad											Colombia											Côte d’Ivoire											Cyprus											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Egypt											Ethiopia											France											Georgia											Germany											Greece											India											Indonesia											Iraq											Israel, West Bank, and Gaza											Italy											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kingdom of Saudi Arabia											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Lebanon											Libya											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Mauritania											Mexico											Morocco											Mozambique											Niger											Nigeria											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Panama											Paraguay											People&#8217;s Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macau)											Peru											Philippines											Qatar											Russia											Senegal											Serbia											Singapore											Somalia											South Africa											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Sweden											Sweden											Sweden											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Netherlands											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Türkiye											Turkmenistan											Uganda											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)											Uzbekistan											Venezuela											Yemen																										On This Page				search													>																										Panama																	Tags																					Bureau of Counterterrorism																								Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																																														Countering Terrorism																																							Countering Violent Extremism																																							Counterterrorism																															Panama																																Terrorism