# Guatemala - United States Department of State

- VACS Guatemala 1st Strategic Dialogue Office of Global Food SecurityThe Guatemalan government through the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food; the Inter-American Institute of Cooperation for Agriculture (IICA); and the U.S. government (Department of State,  USAID, USDA) convened a broad group of local and international stakeholder organizations to solicit feedback on priorities for investments to advance the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils (VACS). VACS seeks to build a resilient food system grounded in diverse, nutritious, and climate adapted crops grown in healthy, fertile soils.The Vision for Adapted Crops and Soil (VACS) Guatemala 1st Strategic Dialogue took place on May 29, 2024, in Guatemala City, with the participation of 63 attendees including government officials, Indigenous and farming groups, private sector representatives, and members of the international community. Participants included representatives from the Asociación Cedro del Ocidente, the Federación de Cooperativas Agrícolas de las Verapaces (Fedecovera), the Cámara del Agro, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Speakers identified opportunities to make progress in several areas, including: prioritization by municipality for VACS; the inclusion of climate data in project planning; the inclusion of soil research data; producer access to both qualitative and quantitative data; access to land, especially for women; accessibility to financial and technical resources and modern technology; infrastructure; and crop diversification and the prioritization of successful and underserved crops, along with climate-resilient crop varieties.Participants recommended an exchange of best practices and lessons learned, including experiences adapting to climate change such as severe drought; working on different traditional and local crops simultaneously; using technology and traditional practices to best respond to producers’ needs; improving coordination among different sectors on skills and projects; taking steps to avoid duplicative efforts; and conducting formal impact analyses.Speakers noted the important roles that Indigenous people, youth, and women play in agriculture, and encouraged their input and collaboration.The dialogue concluded with agreement to focus on crops important to Guatemala – starting with beans and strengthening seed systems and soil conservation practices. The group recognized the importance of food systems that emphasize the core principle of VACS. Stakeholders committed to refining ideas addressed in the workshop over the next months.VACS offers a framework for Guatemala to mobilize resources to build a resilient food system grounded in diverse, nutritious, and climate adapted crops grown in healthy, fertile soils. Following the Strategic Dialogue to establish initial priorities, the second phase will continue through October, with the third implementing phase expected to last through the end of 2024.
- Targeting Human Smuggling and Trafficking in the Northern Triangle and Mexico Ian Hanna, Co-Director of Joint Task Force Alpha, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of TexasJames Hepburn, Co-Director of Joint Task Force Alpha, Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions SectionWashington, D.C.Wednesday, June 5, 2024, 1:00 p.m. ETTHE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.MODERATOR:  Okay, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center.  My name is Leah Knobel, and I am the moderator for today’s briefing.   Today it is my pleasure to introduce Ian Hanna, co-director of Joint Task Force Alpha with the U.S.  Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas; and Jim Hepburn, co-director of Joint Task Force Alpha with the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecution Section.  They will provide an overview of the task force’s accomplishments since its establishment three years ago and discuss efforts to target leaders, organizers, and facilitators of human smuggling and trafficking networks operating in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico.A reminder that this discussion is on the record, and the briefing transcript and video will be posted to our website, fpc.state.gov, later today.  Today’s briefing is being shared with our U.S.-based foreign journalists credentialed here at the Foreign Press Center and also journalists based in Latin America via the State Department’s Media Hub of the Americas.  This briefing will be conducted in English with Spanish interpretation available for those joining virtually.  And with that, I will turn it over to our briefers for their opening remarks.  MR HEPBURN:  Thank you, Leah.  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Jim Hepburn, and I’m a co-director on Joint Task Force Alpha out of Washington, D.C.  Before coming to – well, in Washington, D.C., I work out of the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section with the Department of Justice.  Before coming to D.C. about 10 years ago, I was down on the border in Laredo, Texas as a federal prosecutor.  And before that, I was a local prosecutor in Philadelphia.  Very excited to be here today and to tell you all about some of the great work we’ve been doing with Joint Task Force Alpha.  I’m going to turn it over to Ian to introduce himself.  MR HANNA:  Good afternoon, everybody.  As an initial matter, I want to say thank you for being here today and participating and showing an interest in this important area of discussion.  My name is Ian Hanna.  I am the other co-director of Joint Task Force Alpha.  I’m also an assistant United States attorney sitting in El Paso, Texas, my hometown.  And I’m thrilled to be here and talk with you all today.  Thank you.So we’d like to start off talking a little bit about what the task force is and how it became to be.  And three years ago, Attorney General Garland, together with the Department of Homeland Security, stood this project up to be a joint – a dedicated task force to focus on the emerging threat of globalized human trafficking and smuggling.  To encourage a whole-of-government approach, the way it was organized was asking for dedicated resources in terms of human capital from the five southern federal border districts, to include the Southern District of California, the District of Arizona, the District of New Mexico, the Western District of Texas, and the Southern District of Texas.  Each one of those districts has contributed lawyers as detailees, so federal prosecutors assigned to the task force to work specifically cases that involve human trafficking and human smuggling.Aside from that dedicated contribution of prosecutors at the local federal district level, there have also been contribution of human capital and resources from a whole host of organizations within the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security.  A few of those include the Office of Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training; Office of International Affairs Violent Crimes and Racketeering Section; Office of Enforcement Operations Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Section, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section – all of which are nested underneath the auspices – the leadership in this case – of the joint task force through HRSP, which is the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Office.MR HEPBURN:  Even though we’re still very much in the nascent stages, the early stages for JTFA – and these are long-term investigations – I think we’ve shown some great results.  As you can see here, we have over 305 domestic and international arrests, 242 convictions within the United States, and 175 defendants sentenced – and here we are just about at our three – or almost up to our fourth year.  And you can see through this slide that the growth has really been exponential.  From June 2022, we go from 85 arrests to March of 2023 – 179 arrests – through December of 2023 – 260 arrests – and as you saw a moment ago, today, 305 arrests.  If this were a business, who would say that the growth is exceptional.  We’re doing really good work at JTFA.  But we’re not in it just for the numbers and to look up and to build stats for these convictions.  We want these convictions to matter.  We are aimed at specific deterrence.  We are taking people out of the smuggling realm.  But we’re also looking for a general deterrence to send the message that human smuggling will not be accepted and will not be tolerated, and smugglers will not operate with impunity.  You can see in this slide how we’ve delineated a standard smuggling case versus one that is carefully targeted and focused for JTFA purposes.  In the first case, we see a standard smuggler under the guidelines might receive a sentencing guideline range of four to ten months’ federal custody.  For the JTFA-targeted smuggler, we find ways to get up to, as you can see, 324 months to 405 months.  And how do we do that?  Well, we’re very careful about our case selection, so I want to tell you a little bit about one of the investigations that was the first investigation out of JTFA that started out of Odessa, Texas.  Back in May of 2021, we learned of the death of an indigenous Guatemalan woman whose lifeless body was discarded on the side of the road in the desert in Texas.  We worked backwards – with all of our resources, we are able to go back and rely on the relationships that have been built over the years in Guatemala, and we were able to build a case against the smugglers operating in Guatemala and the United States.  Through that great work, the Guatemalans were able to arrest 15 smugglers in Guatemala, and at the same time we were able to arrest four of the leaders of this organization.  After that arrest, it took less than two years to bring those individuals to justice in the United States.  That’s very, very fast.  We were able to arrest, extradite, prosecute, and see all four plead guilty to the lead charges in those cases, and all four received sentencing between 10 and 30 years.  This is exactly the kind of specific deterrence and general deterrence that I’m talking about.  And we get there, again, through target selection.  We have what we have to work with with sentencing guidelines.  We don’t have the harsh penalties that we might see in the drug context, but we can get to a deterrent message.  You see, if we build the case where we look at leaders who have moved more than 100 or more aliens, we got a nice enhancement.  If it’s a case that results in death, we get a nice enhancement.  If an individual is moving a minor, an unaccompanied minor, we get another extra push.  So we need to be careful in our selection and make sure that we focus our resources to go after the most egregious targets.Ian.  MR HANNA:  There’s a lot going on in this slide.  It’s a hard – hard to read, a lot of math.  But the fundamental takeaway is this:  There is a distinction between routine alien smuggling – migrant smuggling cases and trafficking cases – and JTFA cases.  And the takeaway from this slide is exactly what Mr. Hepburn said – the real innovation is targeting the leadership of these organizations both in the United States and overseas.  There is a misconception amongst certain criminal elements that if you are outside of the borders of the United States, you can engage in this type of illicit business without fear of prosecution, with some degree of impunity.  And it is our mission to let those people know that that is not the case.  If your illicit activity has ties to the United States, we are going to investigate it, we are going to build cases, and together with our foreign partners, we are going to come to you and extradite you to the United States when appropriate and share information with our overseas partners also where appropriate to support prosecutions in our host – in our partner nation countries.  So how do we get to a JTFA case?  There’s only two types of JTFA cases.  The first are what we call reactive cases, and examples of those cases are where there’s a tragedy – a semitrailer filled with people is abandoned, resulting in a mass casualty event.  We have cases where there are 50 or more people that have – that have tragically lost their lives.  That is one type of case.  That is a reactive case where we start at the end and we work backwards to try to find out where those people were coming from, what organization sponsored that illicit movement, and what organization is responsible for those deaths, and try to reach out and grab those people.  The second type of case is what’s called a proactive case.  That case – those types of cases typically originate through the sharing of law enforcement information from our partner nations, from our law enforcement agents on the ground, and also from our detailees that each of the southern federal districts have contributed.  So where does that take us today and beyond?  Well, our focus now in 2024 and forward are on three primary areas, right.  The first is bringing folks to account for those mass casualty events that we talked about.  The second is focusing – following the trend lines and focusing on the connection to organized crime.  In this case, that most typically means cartels.  And then thirdly, to expand our footprint out to other areas of the nation where the business of migrant smuggling is beginning to have really palpable impacts on local communities.  MR HEPBURN:  Never is it more clear how important this work is than when we – when we look at the tragic events that we’ve seen over the last few years.  This slide illustrates two of those most tragic events: in Chiapas, Mexico in December 2021, when we lost more than 56 migrants in an overturned tractor trailer – more than a hundred with serious injury as well; and then in San Antonio, Texas less than a year later in June 2022, where 53 were dead and many more injured.  It’s these sorts of events that give us the drive to push these cases, to work tirelessly to go after the smugglers operating south of our borders, and that’s what we’ll strive to do each and every day.  MR HANNA:  And with that, we’re happy to take any questions anybody may have.  MODERATOR:  Thank you both.  So yeah, we’ll turn to the Q&amp;A portion of our briefing today.  So for those of you in the room, if you have a question, please raise your hand.  And when you’re called on, state your name, media outlet, and please speak up.  And for those joining us on Zoom, please be sure your screenname includes your name, media outlet, and country.  And if you would like to ask a question, please submit it via the chat function of Zoom.  So we’ll start with questions from journalists in the room.  Okay, Macarena.  QUESTION:  Macarena Vidal with El Pais in Spain.  Well, congratulations on your figures, but I was wondering – because usually detentions are only the tip of the iceberg.  So if detentions are increasing, that – does that mean that the problem is increasing as well, that there is more smuggling and more trafficking?  MR HANNA:  I think it is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario.  So historically there has always been movement of people through the southern border.  Depending on geopolitical issues around the world, usually informs – effects the nationalities of the individuals that we encounter on our southern borders.  I would say that the number of interdictions increasing is a function of many things that are coming together, some of which include increased migration, some of which include increased enforcement.  Our role, though, is to target the leaders of the organizations.  So we don’t – the joint task force itself is not focused so much on interdicting people entering the country without permission, but rather focused on the criminal organizations that are profiting from this illicit movement.  QUESTION:  And do you, now – with the recent measures that – yesterday, there was a new measure announced to close the border.  Do you foresee that the efforts for smuggling and trafficking may have a – that it may impact on the smuggling and trafficking, this new law?  MR HANNA:  Unknown, because that’s not really our area, right.  Again, our area is not enforcing or interdicting people coming south to north.  What we’re focused on are the leaders.  So from that perspective, these organizations – criminal organizations that have built these logistical ties and these pathways and have put in this infrastructure to support this illicit business, they’re here right now.  And they continue to be here in the weeks and months later.  So that’s our area, and because that’s our area, that’s what we’re going to continue to focus on.  MODERATOR:  Okay.  Maria.  QUESTION:  (Inaudible) 24.  Following up what she is doing – she is saying, with this new executed border, unaccompanied minors are one of the exceptions that are going to be able to cross the border if the border is crossed.  Does it concern you that maybe the smugglers are going to be sending more unaccompanied minors?  And I would like to know the figures right now, if they have been rising or lowering, of minors traveling by themselves in the last years?MR HANNA:  So for figures on that, we wouldn’t have that information.  I think the best course of action would be to refer you to the Department of Homeland Security that could provide you with the concrete facts and figures on that.  And are we concerned about unaccompanied minors being used as pawns by transnational criminal organizations?  Of course, absolutely.  And that’s why this work is so important.  We found that once you can take out the top echelons of these leadership organizations, there’s a ripple effect that comes down the chain.  And that – this is – goes to the heart of what I think what we’re trying to do.  Our effort, the joint task force, its not an anti-immigrant or anti-migration effort.  It is an anti-criminal and anti-organized crime mission.  And so we’re concerned anytime an – any innocent human is used to generate a profit illicitly.  These cartels, one of their hallmarks is using people as things to be discarded at any stage along the journey.  So that’s something that we feel very strongly about, of course.    QUESTION:  (Inaudible) there – it might rise, like more smugglers are going to try to bring these accompanied minors because it’s one of the exceptions?  MR HANNA:  I don’t know.  Don’t have a good answer for you.  MR HEPBURN:  But just to add to that, one of the things that the sentencing guidelines does very well is it addresses the unaccompanied minor issue.  You’ll see on one of our slides that it’s a four-level enhancement when a smuggler moves an unaccompanied minor.  That’s a big deal.  That equates to years in prison.  So the guidelines do contemplate the dangers involved there.  And when we hear about cases where unaccompanied minors are a part of it, it definitely gets our focus and gets our attention.  MODERATOR:  Okay, go ahead. QUESTION:  Yes, thank you.  Sara Canals for Cadena Ser, Spain.  I know you guys say that you are focused on the top echelons and the leadership, but I’m working on a story on how smugglers, cartels, use misinformation and social media to recruit.  I’m not sure if you – or I was wondering if this is something that you monitor.  And also, what channel is the most efficient one to recruit potential victims of human trafficking?  And also, if – what’s the channel that – where they are more efficient?  And if you have ever got to, like, the top echelons and leaders through social media, or through WhatsApp and these channels.  MR HEPBURN:  Thank you for the question.  I’ll try to unpack a little bit of that.  First off, we do use social media as we can to conduct our investigations.  We’re able to use it – just as smugglers are able to use it to their benefit, we can use it to build our cases against those smugglers. To go back to the other questions that you were getting out about – and I’m sorry &#8212;MR HANNA:  Recruiting.QUESTION:  (Inaudible.) MR HEPBURN:  Yes.  No, no. QUESTION:  (Inaudible) channel that the cartels use.MR HEPBURN:  Yes.  And we’re not going to be able to comment on that.  We just can’t talk about the successes that they’re having there.  But there was another topic that you raised – yeah. MR HANNA:  Well, I’ll talk a little bit about some of the methods from a historical perspective.  But I think it’s important to draw a distinction between human trafficking and human smuggling.  So not every legal system sees a distinction between those two things; our legal system in the United States does.  So when we’re talking about human smuggling, primarily what we’re talking about, in general terms, is the movement from – people from one country to another without permission, illegally, right?  Whereas human trafficking is the movement of people from one country to another for a follow-on illicit purpose.  Oftentimes that’s sex work, work at factories, what have you.  So those are two different things in our system. But I’ll tell you, historically, in terms of using social media, it – the Facebook scams – and this is to recruit people for moving drugs as well as people where there’ll be an advertisement for work at an exorbitant amount; one of the requirements is that you have a visa or some kind of legal status to cross a port of entry, and a lot of times that’s the job.  And people are recruited surreptitiously, unbeknownst to them sometimes to move any commodity, whether it be a drug, some other contraband, or people.  That’s a very common scheme that’s used by a lot of organizations to recruit on the southern border, through Facebook. QUESTION:  Do you think these things will decrease now, with this changes of law, the new executive order? MR HANNA:  Well, we certainly hope so.  But I think that one thing we can count on is any time there is a profit to be made through illicit business schemes like this is that the scenarios that you’re talking about will always exist in one shape or another.  And so part of our task is to try to get in front of those. MODERATOR:  Okay.  We’re going to move to Zoom for some questions now.  So the first one is from Daniel Collin from TN23, Guatemala.  He asks:  “What actions will be implemented in Guatemala, considering some trafficker groups known as coyotes started to raise their offered services to take migrants to the U.S. borders to avoid the new migration policies announced by President Biden?” MR HEPBURN:  So I think we’re going to continue to do the great work that we have done already.  We have relationships with prosecutors in Guatemala that we work with on a regular basis, and we will continue to pursue those organizations with the Guatemalans and with our partners.  I don’t think that any action that was taken by the President or otherwise would impact the work that we’re doing down there. MODERATOR:  Okay.  And then another one from Zoom.  This comes from Lesli Almonte; she’s with Diario Libre in the Dominican Republic.  She asks:  “Has the U.S. received trafficked persons originating from Haiti and the Dominican Republic?  How many Dominicans did the U.S. receive in 2024?” MR HEPBURN:  This is a question that we’re going to have to defer to our DHS partners, as they would have the latest statistics on those numbers. MODERATOR:  Okay.  I have one submitted advance question that I can go to now.  This one’s from Joel Cano with Infobae in Mexico:  “How many and which criminal groups are involved in human trafficking in Mexico?” MR HANNA:  I think – so keeping in mind the legal distinction between human trafficking and human smuggling, I’ll speak, I guess, as to both.  I think it’s fair to say that every major cartel in Mexico has its hand in some way, shape, or form in the illicit business of human smuggling, and that is – there is no question about that.  Human trafficking, as we define it, probably to a lesser extent; the money seems to be – the vast amount of money seems to be generated right now via human smuggling. MR HEPBURN:  Just add to that through the course of history, the cartels have always profited from human smuggling, whether it’s the charging of a piso to operate in their territory or a tax to operate in their territory, or by being actually hands-on with the smuggling itself.  I think we are seeing a shift where the – where the cartels have seen how profitable it can be to move humans, just as they have always moved drugs, and they have decided to not only charge a piso but to actually be more hands-on with smuggling itself. MODERATOR:  Thank you.  The next question comes from Ernesto Cornejo with Channel 12 in El Salvador.  He asks:  “How will the State Department work with Northern Triangle countries to combat human trafficking, and what are the results obtained to date?” MR HEPBURN:  Well, we certainly don’t speak for the State Department.  But I can tell you from the perspective of Joint Task Force Alpha, we will continue to work with our foreign partners in the Northern Triangle countries and Mexico, as we have for the past three years.  And that is dedicating time and resources to building meaningful partnerships with our partner nations, training joint – not necessarily joint investigations but investigations that yield results on both sides of our respective borders, and certainly the facts and figures that speak for themselves that you’ve seen on the previous slide. MODERATOR:  And then Ernesto asks another question:  “How will the United States work with Panama and Colombia in trafficking in the Darién?” MR HANNA:  I think it’s a similar answer.  As routes that organized crime, transnational criminal organizations, use to move people, we will certainly strive to adjust our efforts to address those routes.  They are continuing to evolve, not just through the Darién Gap but through all sorts of places.  So as new threats emerge, we will try to be agile and responsive to those threats and apply our time and effort and resources as long as those threats may emerge. MR HEPBURN:  And just to add to that, it’s a very important question.  Because remember, when we’re talking about international smuggling, we’re often talking about migrants who are starting their journey in far-away lands and come flying into, say, for example, Sao Paolo, Brazil.  And they’re working overland up through South America, through Colombia, through Central America, through Mexico, and into the United States.  And remember, that includes some very treacherous territory, including through the Darién.  So while our focus is currently to look at smugglers who are operating in Mexico and in the Northern Triangle, we also are keenly aware of the dangers that occur south of those regions as well.  And so we do have that on our radar.MODERATOR:  Okay, I’ll turn back to the room to see if there are any additional questions.  Go ahead, Macarena.QUESTION:  Hi.  Macarena Vidal from El Pais, again.  Since you mentioned that one of your targets for this year and the future is increasing your footprint in the communities where smuggling has an impact, I wonder if you could describe a bit what the impact is that – and where are those communities.  MR HANNA:  So the – again, I’ll use quotation marks – the “business model” of human smuggling is one that is based on – almost always on suffering.  It’s human suffering that is prompting people to try to migrate, and these organizations take advantage of that to gain profit, and then further traumatize people as they’re on their journeys to points onward.  Our mission is to try to in many ways save lives and alleviate that suffering by taking down these organizations.  These organizations typically use well-worn paths of ingress and egress and movement, both to the United States and then once in the United States to points east, west, and north.  So when we’re talking about expanding our footprint, really in a – in many ways what we’re talking about is following those paths, the logistics trails, to places, to major commercial centers and population centers that are used as hubs for transport; and beginning to look at cases that originate in those localities, build up those cases, and target higher levels of organizations in those specific municipalities – with ties, of course, to our partner nations.  MODERATOR:  Okay, we’ll go back to one final question on Zoom.  Lesli Almonte with Diario Libre, she’s asked another question:  “Has the United States received Dominican traffickers?”MR HEPBURN:  I’m not sure if I follow the question.  Are they asking if we’ve extradited Dominican traffickers?MODERATOR:  I’m going to – I’m honestly not sure.  Perhaps we’ll get some more clarification from Lesli in a moment.  Yes, yes, I think that’s what they’re asking.MR HEPBURN:  Okay.  So Dominican Republic is not one of the mandated countries under JTFA.  However, we have other programs, like ECT, the Extraterritorial Criminal Travel nework, which focuses on other countries that might have smugglers who move migrants that perhaps present a danger to the United States or where the migrants would be in danger themselves.  It’s possible that under the ECT program, that some of those smugglers and/or traffickers have been pursued, but I’m not able to comment on much more than that at this point.MODERATOR:  Okay, we actually have one more question on Zoom if we can take one more.  So this one comes from Andres Fidanza with El Observador.  Andres asks:  “Is it true 30 percent of Mexican territory is controlled by narco groups, principally the Sinaloa and New Jalisco Generation cartels?”MR HANNA:  So we can’t comment on that because we don’t have those statistics.  But what I would say that is generally true is that Mexican cartels operate on Mexican territory, just as they operate in other countries.  So from that perspective, they are active participants all over the place, and that in some ways brings us back full circle to where we began, because those are types of organizations that we’re looking to target, that we have targeted.  But in 2024 and moving forwards it’s those organizations – the ones that are truly transnational, who are generating massive amounts of money every day in this illicit business – those are the groups that we’re looking to target and take down.  MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you both.  I’d like to turn it back to you briefly if you have any final remarks.MR HANNA:  Again, thank you for your interest in reporting on this area.  It’s one that is – it is of interest, obviously, to the United States, but I would respectfully submit to each of you that it is of interest globally, and certainly of particular interest here in the Western Hemisphere.  We are laser-focused in building meaningful relationships with our partners overseas.  This is not just the United States trying to act.  This is the United States trying to act in partnership with our partner nations in this project of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.MR HEPBURN:  Just briefly to thank you all for being here today, and to echo the fact that without these partnerships, we would not get anywhere.  We could not extradite these smugglers, we could not pursue these smugglers, and there would be no justice for individuals like those that I discussed earlier today.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you both.  I want to give a special thank you again, and also to those who participated today.  Thanks so much.  This concludes our briefing.
- Remarks at the VACS-Guatemala DC Launch Event Jose W. Fernandez, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the EnvironmentWashington, D.C.As preparedGood evening, and welcome friends, colleagues, and current and future partners. I’d like to start by thanking the Guatemalan government, ADM , and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture for bringing us together.We&#8217;re here today because we are facing a global food crisis, a crisis that extends into the Americas. The food crisis is profound on many levels. Prolonged droughts and ever-increasing erratic weather conditions make it difficult for farmers to plan, plant, and harvest nutritious crops. Food systems are disrupted and will be for the foreseeable future.&nbsp;Populations are growing, meanwhile climate change and land degradation are decreasing some staple crop yields. By 2050, population in Central America, the Caribbean, and South America will grow by almost 100 million. Food demand will increase, and we need long-term solutions to ensure our communities in the Americas have sustainable agricultural capacity with nutritious food.&nbsp;This food crisis impacts the most vulnerable:&nbsp; over eleven percent of children in Latin America and the Caribbean are facing chronic malnutrition, and at a country level these numbers are even more concerning with approximately 46 percent of children under 5 years in Guatemala suffering from stunting. In Guatemala, twenty one percent of people face severe food insecurity, which is much higher than the already concerning thirteen percent of people facing severe food insecurity throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.&nbsp;You know this, but it’s worth repeating:&nbsp; when children are stunted, that’s a condition that will last the rest of their lives. It’s fundamentally a humanitarian crisis. It’s also an economic and developmental crisis, because no country can prosper if its population cannot realize its full potential.Which is why we are teaming up across governments and with the private sector to tackle this challenge. Almost three months ago in Guatemala, President Arevalo, Minister Estrada, Minister Menkos, Minister Garcia, and IICA joined me in announcing the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils in the Americas, beginning in Guatemala.The Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils, also known as VACS, seeks to build a resilient food system grounded in diverse, nutritious, and climate adapted crops grown in healthy, fertile soils. VACS focuses on the fundamentals of agricultural production, promoting sustainable land use and building supply and demand for a diverse range of crops.We know that for crops to be productive they need healthy, fertile soils – and it&#8217;s also important to stress that for soils to be productive, they need the right crops. The two are related. We cannot parse out these concepts and address them separately. We need to tackle them together; choosing the right crop that is most appropriate for the soil, both in being productive and in improving the health and fertility of the soil. Through the VACS approach, we can do that.The United States has contributed to VACS efforts in Africa through our flagship global hunger initiative, Feed the Future. Along with other governments, NGOs , research centers, and the private sector, we are mobilizing investments, technical assistance, and resources to realize VACS goals. We aim to replicate the same interest and commitment here in the Americas, first in Guatemala.&nbsp;With the Guatemalan government and IICA, we are reaching out to leaders across governments, the private sector, civil society, and indigenous and agricultural communities to crowd-source and coordinate funding, resources, and technical assistance. Last week in Guatemala City, we held a workshop to solicit vital feedback from key stakeholders on potential priorities for VACS in Guatemala. Through this and future collaboration, we will mobilize an impactful, sustainable effort.&nbsp;&nbsp;Partnership in VACS can take a variety of forms and we welcome the collaboration from you in the room and those who could not be here today. VACS in many ways is a potluck dinner. There are many ways to contribute.For example, the private sector company Cargill is partnering with CIGAR, through IFPRI-Harvest Plus and CIMMYT, to integrate nutritious indigenous crops into school feeding programs, leading to more than two hundred thousand sustainable and nutritious school meals for Guatemalan children. Efforts like this show the potential and reach of VACS when partnered and multiplied by a collective effort.&nbsp;I hope you all will join us in this call to action in the Americas and collaborate with us on the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils. Thank you.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Guatemala																								Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment
- U.S. Humanitarian Assistance for the Western Hemisphere Office of the SpokespersonOn May 7, 2024, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken announced $578 million in humanitarian, development, and economic assistance to support partner countries and help communities to respond to urgent humanitarian needs, expand lawful pathways, and support the regularization and integration of migrants during the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection Ministerial in Guatemala City.Of that, nearly $459 million in additional humanitarian assistance responds to the needs of refugees, vulnerable migrants, and other displaced persons across the Western Hemisphere, as well as support for the Safe Mobility Initiative (SMOs).  This life-saving assistance from the American people includes more than $376 million through the Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and nearly $83 million through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  This brings the total U.S. humanitarian assistance for the Western Hemisphere to more than $3.9 billion since fiscal year 2021.   The United States is proud to be the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance for the Western Hemisphere and strongly supports engagement with international organizations, civil society, the private sector, multilateral development banks, and think tanks in the important work under the Declaration.  Through collaborative efforts with partners, we are reducing irregular migration and improving the lives of millions of people throughout the Western Hemisphere.The assistance announced in Guatemala advances the goals of the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection and will address humanitarian needs arising from historic levels of displacement, with more than 22 million people displaced across the region, including more than 7.7 million Venezuelans.Humanitarian assistance announced at the Ministerial includes:Assistance provided through international organization partners to support the most vulnerable refugees and migrants and their host communities’ critical needs, including emergency shelter; food assistance; access to health care and education; water, sanitation, and hygiene supplies; support for livelihoods; assisted voluntary returns; and protection for those in situations of vulnerability, including women, children and youth, LGBTQI+ individuals, persons with disabilities, and Indigenous persons.Support through international organization partners as they work with governments around the region to regularize and integrate migrants and refugees, build and strengthen their asylum systems, expand and increase access to lawful pathways as an alternative to irregular migration, and provide life-saving support and protection to refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, and vulnerable migrants.Funding for the Safe Mobility Initiative to expand access to lawful pathways for refugees and migrants across the region. Since the launch of the initiative in June 2023, 8,200 refugees have already completed the full security vetting process and arrived in the United States.  This funding will ensure that this important initiative can continue.Capacity building programs to help governments in the region adopt, manage, and sustain immigration systems, laws, policies, and practices that promote safe, orderly, and humane migration, while also seeking to reduce migrant vulnerabilities, counter the efforts of human traffickers and smugglers, and discourage irregular migration.This humanitarian assistance complements the efforts of generous host communities in Argentina, Aruba, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  Examples of hemispheric achievements through the Los Angeles Declaration to date include:In Colombia, U.S. assistance helped register more than 2.5 million Venezuelans for Temporary Protected Status in the last three years, which allows them to work and access health and education services in Colombia.In Peru, U.S. assistance provides shelter, water, and sanitation to more than one million displaced Venezuelans in Lima, Peru, one of the largest urban refugee and migrant hosting cities in the world.In Panama and Costa Rica, U.S. assistance facilitates access to clean water for more than 800,000 people, which benefits host communities and helps save lives.Inside Venezuela, U.S. humanitarian assistance supports a multi-sectoral response for vulnerable Venezuelans, including emergency food assistance; access to primary healthcare services and basic medicines and medical supplies; provision of safe drinking water and distribution of hygiene kits; and programs that help safeguard vulnerable Venezuelans, especially vulnerable women and children, from violence and exploitation; among other critical support services.In Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, U.S. humanitarian assistance provides emergency food assistance to migrants, refugees, and host communities.Emergency food assistance for migrants and refugees and their host communities in the region.Through this assistance the United States is making it possible for millions of refugees, migrants, and other vulnerable displaced persons in the region to meet their basic needs, safely remain in, integrate in, contribute to the local economy, and rebuild their lives where they are.The United States implements rigorous safeguards against diversion of funds and other risks and works through trusted organizations that ensure assistance reaches those who need it.
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo Before Their Meeting Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateGuatemala City, GuatemalaNational Palace of CulturePRESIDENT ARÉVALO:  (Via translation) Well, good morning. Mr. Secretary, it’s an honor to have you and your (inaudible) delegation here. We are pleased to have you here, especially in the context of the meeting that we are about to have. A meeting where we will be able to explore collaborative options to shared problems and shared challenges, but particularly as part of the bilateral relationships that we have been building and developing based on our belief in the common principles of respect for democratic values, for democratic institutions and our shared goals as governments, which are goals related to the well-being of the people.It is a great pleasure to be with you and, in this way, to welcome a series of meetings that we have been holding over all these months. Certainly, since the 15th... the 14th of January, so welcome.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Mr. President, thank you so much for your incredibly warm welcome, and first and most important is to share greetings from President Biden, Vice President Harris, who remember well the very good meetings that you had in Washington with them.I think it can be summarized in three words:  security, dignity, opportunity – working together to build that security, to do it so that people live lives of dignity and have genuine opportunity.  We’re partners in those efforts, and I think together Guatemala and the United States are really key partners in building a hemisphere that is genuinely secure, full of opportunity, in which all of its citizens are treated with dignity.  And we’re grateful to be working with you, and admire the leadership that you and your team are showing.We just had the High-Level Economic Dialogue with our countries, and I think that Guatemala can be an economic motor for the region, but also starting with its own people and the opportunities to advance the country both with the work that the government’s doing but also the private sector.  We see those as being very significant, very real, and we want to be strong partners in that.There is no prosperity – or at least it’s more difficult to get to prosperity – in the absence of security – and security in every realm, including in the economic realm.  And in that regard, we strongly support the efforts that you’re leading to combat corruption, because absent that, it’s very hard to attract the investment necessary to really move the country forward.  Absent that it’s hard to have the confidence and faith of the citizens in government and in the institutions.  And so that fight we know is so, so critical.And finally, I would say that for both of us, for the United States and Guatemala, the challenge we have as democracies is to stick together, to stand together, and to demonstrate that we can deliver results.  And here again, the United States wants to be Guatemala’s partner in showing your people, as well as showing our people, that we can effectively deliver results.There’s so much more that we’re doing together, and I want to thank you and thank the foreign minister for bringing so many of our colleagues together from around the hemisphere to work together on migration.  We’re living in a time of extraordinary challenge when it comes to migration; we have more people on the move around the world and in our own hemisphere than ever before.  And I think what came out of the Los Angeles Declaration is a shared of – a sense of shared responsibility when it comes to dealing with the challenges posed by migration.  And I’m grateful to Guatemala for hosting us today to carry that effort forward.But at the same time, our countries are so closely linked together.  So many Guatemalans are key people in our own communities helping to drive them forward because of their hard work, their determination, their energy.  And of course, we want to make sure that that continues in an orderly, legal fashion even as we deal with some of the other challenges of migration.So in all these ways, thank you.  Thank you for the partnership.  We’re grateful for it and grateful for your leadership.
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Guatemalan President Arévalo Office of the Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Guatemalan President Arévalo				hide		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();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Guatemalan President Arévalo																																		Readout																														May 7, 2024																																							The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today with Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo.  The Secretary thanked President Arévalo for hosting the third Ministerial meeting of the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection. The Secretary and President Arévalo emphasized the importance of lawful pathways, robust border enforcement, and safe, orderly, and humane migration options.  Expanding options and pathways benefits regional competitiveness and complements U.S. efforts under the Root Causes Strategy.  The Secretary and President Arévalo also reinforced their shared commitment to enhance democracy, inclusive economic prosperity, and security in Guatemala and the region.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																								Guatemala																																Migration																															Office of the Spokesperson																																Secretary Trip																															The Secretary of State
- Secretary Blinken’s Trip to San Francisco for RSA Conference and Guatemala for the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection Ministerial Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonSecretary of State Antony J. Blinken will travel to San Francisco, California for RSA Conference on May 6 and to Guatemala, where he will lead the U.S. delegation to the third Ministerial meeting of the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection on May 7.While in San Francisco he will engage with technology industry stakeholders at RSA Conference (RSAC) and, on the margins, emerging technology experts in the areas of biotechnology and quantum information science and technology.  He will detail U.S. efforts to foster a more inclusive, secure, prosperous, rights-respecting, safe, and equitable world through the United States’s affirmative and proactive vision for key technology areas including cyberspace, digital, AI, quantum, and biotechnology.In Guatemala, Secretary Blinken will underscore our advances over the past two years and look ahead to next joint steps to bolster humane migration management and robust enforcement, lawful pathways and access to protection, and increasing refugee and migrant integration in the Americas.The Secretary will meet with President Bernardo Arévalo and other leaders from the Western Hemisphere to discuss building a more secure and prosperous hemisphere.
- Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Arizona, California, and Guatemala May 3-7, 2024 HomeTravels with the Secretary of State &#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Arizona, California, and Guatemala May 3-7, 2024				hide		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();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Arizona, California, and Guatemala May 3-7, 2024																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																																															Close																																																Tags																					Arizona																								California																								Guatemala																								The Secretary of State
- Creative Writers Imagine Solutions to Climate Challenges Aubrey R. Paris, Ph.D., Ilinca Drondoe, and Laura GambleOffice of Global Women&#8217;s IssuesThe urgency of the climate crisis demands a collective response that is reflective of different backgrounds and areas of expertise, and it requires elevating voices and perspectives that may not usually be heard. This includes members of the creative industries, who not only play a role in imagining innovative solutions, but also in developing narratives that enhance our understanding of climate-related challenges and opportunities. On this World Creativity and Innovation Day, we are highlighting an international collective of writers that aims to do just that.Through its Innovation Station initiative, the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI) collaborated with Syllble, an organization empowering global cohorts of speculative fiction writers, to form the “One Humanity Writing Collective.” Since 2021, One Humanity has asked women and non-binary creative writers to imagine futuristic worlds impacted by — and devising solutions to — pressing climate challenges, ranging from drought to floods to wildfires. According to Paulinette J. Quirindongo, an author from Puerto Rico, the collective’s work makes the climate crisis feel more human. She explained that “words can be used to transform minds ... Words are power.&#8221;Crafting Futuristic WorldsOne Humanity connects writers from diverse U.S. and international locations, particularly locations that may face similar climate challenges, to craft their futuristic worlds. The collective’s writers have hailed from California, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico, as well as Australia, Brazil, Guatemala, and New Zealand. Their collaborative writing — an exercise in cultural diplomacy — has demonstrated the value in having conversations about and theorizing solutions to climate and environmental challenges that transcend borders.For Ligia Anjos, a designer from Brazil, the project allowed her to play an active role in changing the narrative around climate action. “When I see some climate solutions , I think, ‘this will not work in Latin America.’” She emphasized that the collective’s diversity “helped us to learn ... not only about writing, but about the world,” allowing participants to co-create a vision for a more equitable future.  A few authors from the One Humanity Writing Collective (left to right): Ligia Anjos, C.B. Calsing, Elyse Hauser, Paulinette J. Quirindongo, and Caylee Tierney. (Courtesy Photos)To inform the writing process, S/GWI introduced One Humanity writers to women subject matter experts from the Innovation Station network to share their work on climate science and action. Each month, the authors met virtually for a workshop on an environmental issue that would provide inspiration for the next chapter of their story.“One writer  volunteer to write a story on that issue,” shared Elyse Hauser, a Seattle-area author. “Then we would meet again to talk about their draft.” She added that their writing process was strengthened by open discussions about how climate change affects each author’s community.“Some of us are making our own main character that reflects our personal knowledge,” Hauser mentioned, noting that she contributed a personally inspired chapter written from the perspective of the daughter of refugees. Similarly, Quirindongo created a character representative of Puerto Rico’s native Taino culture, bringing her unique ancestry into the collective’s stories.Including Marginalized VoicesCelebrating characters from underrepresented communities and incorporating culturally significant themes were important goals of the writers. Caylee Tierney, an Australian author, emphasized that “marginalized voices are some of the more resilient ones in climate change discussions. Women and non-binary people are often used to the feeling of not being heard ... and if you can gather together more people, then you can have a richer understanding.” Participating in the collective has inspired Tierney to “channel activism through writing,” and as she pursues a career in creative writing, she emphasized her desire to create similarly collaborative, motivating spaces.Projects like One Humanity enable women and non-binary individuals to be a mouthpiece for climate storytelling, an important aspect of facilitating their climate leadership, as emphasized in the U.S. Strategy to Respond to the Effects of Climate Change on Women.When asked about the experience of writing across borders of identity and geography, the authors underscored the importance of listening carefully to one another. Writer C.B. Calsing shared her impression that “the most challenging part  setting aside the assumption about how you think things are elsewhere.” She believes it is important to feature women and non-binary authors because of the need for balance and representation in all spaces, ranging from decision-making bodies to written anthologies. Learning about each other increases cultural literacy and creates stories featuring inclusive solutions.At SYLLBLECON 2023, Syllble’s annual virtual convention for speculative fiction writers, the One Humanity Writing Collective joined other creative writers in pitching  their futuristic world to Hollywood judges. Those judges crowned One Humanity the winner of the World of the Year Award  based on “visionary potential, immersive storytelling, cultural significance, and overall market appeal.”Their project explores a world set in 2060 and follows an autonomous and self-aware ship that sails across the world, assisting climate refugees and navigating climate change impacts. Concerns like ocean acidification and shoreline erosion feature prominently in the collective’s stories, but so do possible solutions, however futuristic they may seem. “When you go into a fictional world,” Hauser shared, “you really can explore more systemic approaches to change or dig deeper into the systemic nature of the issues that we face.”Life-changing ExperienceA resounding theme echoes through the wisdom of these five gifted writers: hope. Hope illuminates their voices and work, bridging divides and forging connections; hope brightens our world through learning, collaboration, and unity; and hope creates a vision for our planet, as the stories penned today ignite the solutions of tomorrow.For Anjos, participating in One Humanity has been a life-changing experience allowing her to connect her technology skills with her passion for storytelling. In her words, “we are what we listen to; we are what we watch. When we create, we open doors for women to share their opinions, to build the future. We are able to make something different.”Aubrey R. Paris, Ph.D., is the Senior Policy Advisor for Gender, Climate Change, and Innovation in the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI), where she leads the Innovation Station initiative. Ilinca Drondoe and Laura Gamble are VSFS interns with the Innovation Station.
- Guatemala HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Guatemala				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: Guatemala																																																																																												 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																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of 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 (IDPs)																																																																																	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 Guatemala during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:  cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; transnational repression against individuals in another country; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including threats of violence against journalists and unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists; serious government corruption; serious government harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; extensive gender-based violence, including femicide and other forms of such violence; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of Indigenous groups; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting persons with disabilities; and significant restrictions on workers’ freedom of association, including violence and threats against union leaders.The government did not 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 that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year, but there were killings of activists under suspicious circumstances, and corrupt police were involved with violent criminal organizations responsible for killings.A national human rights organization alleged that several members of rural and Indigenous activist groups were killed or died in disputed circumstances between January and November.  For example, on May 6, in a rural community of San Luis Jilotepeque, Jalapa, two activists were killed in what appeared to be a politically motivated incident.  The victims, Nicolasa López Méndez and Victoria Méndez, were members of the Indigenous activist group Committee for Rural Development and also members of the Movement for the Liberation of Peoples political party.  As of November, this case as well as others remained under investigation.On October 4, Doris Aldana, a trade union leader at a banana packing facility and member of the national banana workers union, was killed.  The Public Ministry’s Special Unit for Crimes against Unionists opened an investigation.Regarding cases of human rights abuses from the internal armed conflict era, on November 7, the High Risk Tribunal E acquitted military officers Gilberto Jordán, Alfonso Bulux, and Mardoqueo Ortiz, accused of war crimes in the Dos Erres massacre.The Public Ministry continued investigation of the genocide case involving high-ranking military officers Manuel Callejas y Callejas and Benedicto Lucas Garcia.  A trial scheduled to begin on January 9 was suspended due to appeals presented by the defense lawyers.A trial was scheduled to begin in June 2024 in the genocide case of Luis Enrique Mendoza Garcia, operations commander under then President Rios Montt.  As of November, no new date had been scheduled to begin the public trial of retired colonel Jacobo Esdras Salan Sánchez, accused of war crimes in the enforced disappearance and execution of political dissidents.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances during the year by or on behalf of government authorities.The Public Ministry continued to investigate and prosecute cases of enforced disappearances from the internal armed conflict period, although at times Attorney General María Consuelo Porras stalled progress in cases of genocide and disappearances from that period.The CREOMPAZ case, named after a mass burial site of disappeared persons, continued against former military officers.  The officers were indicted in 2017 on charges of enforced disappearance and crimes against humanity during the internal armed conflict.  In May, the Constitutional Court granted an injunction for one of the victims’ organizations, the Coordinating Group of Victims of Alta Verapaz, whose participation in the process was previously denied, and ordered Judge Claudette Domínguez to admit the group as a civil party to the case.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, but cases of prison officials’ negligence that exposed prisoners to violence and degrading conditions were reported.  For example, prior to his June conviction, José Rubén Zamora, president of daily newspaper El Periódico, was held in isolation for more than 10 months in “appalling conditions,” according to Reporters Without Borders.  According to media reports, Zamora lost 35 pounds during his pretrial detention and said he was subjected to psychological torture on several occasions.The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) noted that documentation and reporting mechanisms for torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment remained weak, hindering a full understanding of the prevalence of the problem.  International human rights organizations also noted many official complaints cited unsafe and cramped conditions at Federico Mora National Hospital for Mental Health, including cases of sexual and physical abuse of patients and the reported use of solitary confinement and coercive sterilization of women with disabilities.  Most of these complaints remained unresolved.There were no confirmed reports of impunity in the military; however, public perception was that impunity within the National Civil Police (PNC) was widespread.  The PNC removed dozens of officers for various disciplinary reasons, including bribery allegations.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh and could be life threatening.  Gross overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, poor medical care, failure of authorities to maintain control, and prisoner-on-prisoner violence and gang activity placed prisoners at significant risk.Abusive Physical Conditions:  Prison overcrowding was a problem.  As of September, according to prison authorities, there were approximately 21,000 male inmates held in facilities designed to hold 7,045 persons, and almost 2,900 female inmates in facilities designed to hold 937 persons.Sanitation facilities, medical care, ventilation, temperature control, and lighting were often inadequate.  Prisoners had difficulty obtaining potable water, complained of inadequate food, and often had to pay for additional food.  Illegal drug sales and use were widespread.During the year, five inmates were killed in adult detention centers and six prison officials were killed.  Four individuals were killed in a juvenile detention facility.  Prison officials acknowledged safety and control problems, including escape attempts, gang fights, inability to control the flow of contraband goods into prisons, inmate possession of firearms and grenades, and the fabrication of weapons.  Prisoners conducted criminal activity both inside and outside of prisons.Media reported transnational criminal gangs and drug trafficking groups controlled major prisons.  Despite efforts to separate gang leaders, the continuation of gang-related and coordinated killings in Fraijanes II prison suggested gang members were able to communicate across prisons and organize killings.Media and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported women inmates faced physical and sexual abuse.  Women inmates reported unnecessary body searches and verbal abuse by prison guards.  Children younger than age four could live in prison with their mothers, but the penitentiary system provided inadequate food for young children, and many suffered from illness.  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) rights groups stated other prisoners often sexually assaulted LGBTQI+ individuals and noted there were insufficient facilities to protect LGBTQI+ individuals in custody.  NGOs claimed admittance procedures for LGBTQI+ prisoners were not implemented, citing particular concern regarding procedures for transgender individuals.Administration:  Authorities failed to investigate most credible allegations of mistreatment.  Reports from inmates indicated complaints were rarely submitted due to threats by corrections officials.Independent Monitoring:  The government permitted visits by independent nongovernment observers.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention, but there were credible reports of politically motivated arrests and deliberate denial of timely access to a magistrate and hearing.  The law provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in court.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law required presentation of a court-issued warrant to a suspect prior to arrest unless police apprehended a suspect in the act of committing a crime.  By law, police could not detain a suspect for more than six hours without bringing the case before a judge.  Authorities did not regularly respect this right.  After arraigning suspects, the prosecutor generally had three months to complete the investigation if the defendant was in pretrial detention and six months to complete the investigation if the defendant was granted house arrest.  The law prohibited the execution of warrants between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless the government had declared a state of siege.  The law provided for access to lawyers and for accused individuals and their attorneys to be granted access to evidence and to review the accusation before the first hearing; however, in certain cases, prosecutors denied access to the accused’s file.  The government provided legal representation for indigent detainees.  A judge had the discretion to determine whether bail or other mechanisms, such as monitoring via ankle bracelets, were permissible for pretrial detainees.Arbitrary Arrest:  The number of illegal, or even legal, detentions was difficult to determine, as many lesser arrests ended with detainees bribing police to release them, even after being detained.  Reports indicated police sometimes ignored writs of habeas corpus in cases of illegal detention, particularly during neighborhood antigang operations.On April 20, authorities arrested attorneys Juan Francisco Solorzano Foppa and Justino Brito and charged them with obstructing criminal justice and unfaithful sponsorship.  They were representing the president of El Periódico, José Rubén Zamora, in his criminal trial for money laundering, a charge Reporters Without Borders and human rights groups stated was politically motivated.  Both attorneys were held for two months before pleading guilty to the charges against them.  Zamora subsequently relied on legal representation from the Public Criminal Defense Institute and was fined and sentenced to six years in prison in June.On August 28, authorities arrested Claudia González, a former head of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), on charges of abuse of authority by a public servant.  She was defending former prosecutors Juan Francisco Sandoval, Xiomara Sosa, and other former Special Prosecution’s Office against Impunity (FECI) officials who had collaborated with CICIG and were facing charges related to their anti-corruption efforts.  On September 22, Judge Jimy Bremer decided at the initial appearance hearing that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case against González and to send her to provisional detention.  A subsequent hearing was repeatedly postponed, and González remained in detention until she was released to house arrest on November 14.Pretrial Detention:  Lengthy pretrial detention was a problem.  The law established a one-year maximum for pretrial detention, regardless of the stage of the criminal proceeding, but the court had the legal authority to extend pretrial detention without limits as necessary.  Authorities regularly held detainees past their legal trial-or-release date.  Lengthy investigations and frequent procedural motions by both defense and prosecution often delayed trials for months or years.  Former President Otto Pérez Molina was in pretrial detention from 2015 due to indictments in two corruption cases until his December 2022 conviction.  On August 22, a judge authorized house arrest for Pérez in exchange for paying a fine of approximately 10.2 million quetzales ($1.3 million).  On September 6, Pérez accepted the charges, including accusations of corruption in one case.  On October 30, he was sentenced to pay 4.1 million quetzales ($523,000) in reparations in one of the cases.  As of November, Pérez had not paid the original fine or reparations and remained in detention.Observers noted the slow pace of investigations and lack of judicial resources hampered efforts to reduce pretrial detention and illegal incarceration.  Authorities did not release some prisoners even after the prisoners completed their full sentences, due to the failure of judges to issue the necessary court order or other bureaucratic delays.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The law provided for an independent judiciary, but the government generally did not respect judicial independence and impartiality.  The judicial system generally failed to provide fair or timely trials due to inefficiency, corruption, and intimidation of judges.  The Public Ministry, however, rapidly obtained warrants for the arrest of former and sitting anti-corruption prosecutors, just days after receiving legal complaints against them.  Some of these complaints were filed by individuals and organizations with a history of threatening justice officials.  Judges delayed proceedings so that the same anti-corruption prosecutors were held in pretrial detention beyond what the law allowed.  Civil society representatives cited these actions as evidence of inconsistent application of legal proceedings and political manipulation of the justice system.Plaintiffs, witnesses, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, civil society representatives, and politicians continued to report threats, intimidation, and surveillance.Hector Hugo Pérez Aguilera, whose appointment was confirmed by a decree law, assumed the presidency of the Constitutional Court in April 2022, even though a different magistrate had been elected as the president.  Rule of law organizations alleged the Constitutional Court systematically attempted to undermine the 2023 electoral process through legally suspect decisions.The selection process for the election by congress of 13 Supreme Court and 135 appellate court magistrates remained unresolved until November, with sitting magistrates continuing for the fourth consecutive year beyond their term of office.  A November 7 Constitutional Court decision ordered congress to elect new judges no later than December 15, and on November 15, congress elected a new slate of Supreme Court and appellate court magistrates who were to serve out the remainder of the 2019-24 term.  According to experts, the decision removed problematic Supreme Court magistrates; in addition, experts believed congress and the Constitutional Court did not collude on this decision.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right, but at times, criminal defendants were denied this right.  International and domestic observers considered the number of judges insufficient.  Lack of personnel, training, and evidence hampered Public Ministry prosecutors’ ability to bring cases to trial.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were reports of political prisoners or detainees.  For example, in 2022, police arrested Virginia Laparra, former chief anti-corruption prosecutor in Quetzaltenango, for alleged crimes related to her filing an administrative complaint against a judge for leaking confidential information from a case.  Laparra was later indicted and held in pretrial detention in a security facility under inhuman conditions.  Laparra was subsequently convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.  Her case was pending an appeal.  She remained at the security facility at year’s end.  Domestic human rights and anti-corruption activists cited this as an example of the Public Ministry’s pattern of harassing anti-corruption advocates.  Amnesty International declared Laparra a “prisoner of conscience.”  On December 26, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered that Laparra be released to house arrest within five days since she had already completed 45 percent of her commutable sentence.																										f. Transnational Repression										The Public Ministry reportedly continued legal proceedings against former high-level officials who were located outside of the country, including former FECI Head Prosecutor Juan Francisco Sandoval, fellow prosecutors and attorneys, former judges, human rights defenders, and other officials, and continued to harass and repress the former officials and their families.Threats, Harassment, Surveillance, and Coercion:  Former Attorney General Thelma Aldana and her husband, an appellate court magistrate, were under investigation for money laundering in a case that anti-corruption organizations characterized as politically motivated.  Thelma Aldana left the country in 2019 after authorities issued an arrest warrant for her.  Aldana cooperated and worked closely with the UN-backed CICIG during her term as attorney general in 2014-18.According to reports, friends, family, and associates of Sandoval and Aldana who remained in the country suffered from harassment designed to exert pressure on the two individuals.  On January 16, the FECI brought criminal charges against former CICIG judicial representative Luis David Gaitán Arana for obstruction of justice, and in March, a court issued arrest warrants for former Public Ministry secretaries Rootman Estivens Pérez Alvarado and Mayra Véliz for influence peddling and abuse of authority.  Pérez Alvarado and Gaitán Arana subsequently fled the country.Misuse of International Law Enforcement Tools:  The Public Ministry announced in 2022 that it had initiated extradition requests for Sandoval and for Aldana; observers considered these requests to be politically motivated.  Sandoval received asylum in the United States in September.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Negotiations between the government and families affected by the construction of the Chixoy hydroelectric dam continued but were characterized by NGOs as being conducted in bad faith.  No progress was made in the collective reparations.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The law prohibited such actions, and the government sometimes respected these prohibitions, but there were credible reports of harassment of the families of sitting and former officials.As of September 15, the Unit for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders – Guatemala (UDEFEGUA) registered at least 25 reports of digital harassment against families, including children, of sitting and former high-level officials.  These officials were also the subjects of surveillance and threats of violence.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but the government did not always respect this right.  Intimidation of journalists increased during the year and resulted in significant self-censorship.Violence and Harassment:  Pressure on leading independent outlets, journalists, and justice defenders increased sharply, especially on those who were outspoken on high-level corruption, as well as actions by malign actors, the military, criminal organizations, and regional and national authorities who regained power during the Giammattei administration.  Many journalists reported being harassed, prosecuted, or having to flee the country after publishing work that was critical of influential citizens.  Members of the press reported receiving pressure, threats, and retribution from public officials and criminal organizations regarding the content of their reporting.  Online attacks against independent journalists and media outlets continued throughout the year.  These included hacking journalists’ private social media accounts, publishing stolen or falsified personal information, and conducting apparently coordinated attempts to undermine specific journalists and media.During the first seven months of the year, the Journalists Observatory of the Association of Journalists of Guatemala registered 120 abuses of freedom of expression, including violence and restrictions against journalists.  UDEFEGUA registered 393 attacks against journalists and communicators during the same period, compared with 51 attacks during the first six months of 2022.Observers and public complaints noted increased activity by netcenters, which were collections of social media accounts organized to appear as independent individual users but were in fact centrally controlled.  Goals of netcenters were to manipulate discussions, spread misinformation, and threaten persons on the internet.  Netcenters created fake social media accounts, including on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, to criticize and defame journalists, judges, prosecutors, and citizens who reported on corruption.According to media rights advocates, attempts to limit freedom of expression undertaken by the Public Ministry and the FECI included spurious lawsuits, subpoenas, telephone confiscations, and the execution of search warrants and home searches of media members and justice defenders.  These actions prompted at least 30 journalists to flee the country as of September 10, half of them in the last week of March.On June 17-18, Vamos Party supporters allegedly forced two journalists from the daily newspaper Prensa Libre and the Guatevision television station to stop recording the rallies of their presidential candidates in separate incidents in Santa Lucia Cotzumalguapa, Escuintla Department, and in Barberena, Santa Rosa Department.In July 2022, police arrested José Rubén Zamora, president of El Periódico, on charges of money laundering, influence peddling, and extortion.  In August 2022, the Public Ministry and PNC agents arrested Flora Silva, El Periódico’s financial manager, alleging that Silva conspired with Zamora to launder money.  In June, Zamora was fined and sentenced to six years in prison for money laundering.  Two days before his sentencing, the FECI brought new charges against Zamora alleging he falsified documents related to a sworn customs-declaration ticket with an allegedly false signature to enter and leave the country in February and March 2015.  As of September, the new case remained open.  On October 13, an appeals court annulled the money laundering conviction and announced Zamora would be retried for all charges.  The Solicitor General’s Office filed the appeal that prompted this decision on grounds that Zamora was convicted only for money laundering but should have also been convicted for blackmail and influence peddling.  A new trial was scheduled for February 5, 2024.  Zamora remained in prison pending the new trial.According to media advocates, the June national elections witnessed violent incidents and intimidation against members of the press.  The civil society organization Red Rompe El Miedo (Break the Fear Network) monitored the conditions under which journalists and communicators carried out their work on election day.  It recorded 27 incidents, which affected 38 journalists and communicators.  The most frequently reported incident was obstruction of journalistic work (19 incidents).In August, a journalist reported that after asking “difficult” questions to a presidential candidate during an interview, the candidate began intimidating the journalist, including invading the journalist’s workspace.  The journalist also reported that on a separate occasion a person with possible links to the military confronted the journalist’s family and, in a veiled threat, reminded the family there were precedents of violence against journalists when they asked too many questions.  As of September, the journalist’s media outlet continued receiving threats.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media:  According to media advocates, tactics used by the government to pressure media included denying registration or licensing of service providers to independent media, cutting off public advertising revenue, deterring private-sector advertising contracts, and carrying out coordinated character attacks on and intimidation of journalists via “name and threaten” messaging by antidemocratic online trolls.  In addition, the government banned the sale of two books written by journalists that advocates said exposed government corruption.  The Association of Journalists of Guatemala stated the intention of the government was to suppress social auditing, public criticism, and journalistic investigations that exposed acts of corruption, nepotism, and payment of favors.  Some companies decreased their media advertising to exert pressure on media against reporting corruption, resulting in media outlets becoming less independent.El Periódico, a major newspaper that was outspoken against corruption and published more than 100 articles regarding corruption in the Giammattei administration from 2020 until the July 2022 arrest of José Rubén Zamora, shut down on May 15 due to financial pressure from the government and other private interest groups, according to media advocates.  Prior to its closing, El Periódico journalists faced online discrediting campaigns and intimidation, legal threats and accusations, and court bans on coverage, allegedly led by the government, according to media rights advocates.  In a February criminal hearing investigating allegations of blackmail against Zamora, the paper’s founder and editor, the Public Ministry requested six reporters and three columnists of the newspaper be investigated for obstruction of justice based on the publication of antigovernment articles.  The Public Ministry failed to share the case dossier with journalists’ defense attorneys as required by law.  Subsequently, eight of the nine journalists under investigation fled the country.  The Public Ministry also requested that the Supreme Court revoke a presidential candidate’s immunity after the candidate spoke out against the investigation.Nongovernmental Impact:  Criminal groups exerted influence over media outlets and reporters by frequently threatening individuals for reporting on criminal activities.  Reporters covering criminal groups, including their links to corrupt public officials, acknowledged practicing self-censorship due to the danger that investigative journalism created for them and their families.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.Human rights defenders, journalists, as well as judges and lawyers on high-profile cases, reported social media attacks, including the hacking of their private social media accounts, publishing of stolen or falsified personal information, publishing of photographic surveillance of them and family members, and use of online defamation and hate speech.  UDEFEGUA stated online trolls were the most common perpetrators of online abuses against human rights defenders, journalists, judges, and prosecutors.  The government took little action to protect the victims of online attacks.Disinformation campaigns generated or supported by antidemocratic actors increased to silence or intimidate significant voices for the country’s democracy, according to journalists and digital media experts.  Most attacks were directed towards defenders of justice, journalists, activists, or civil society members who denounced corruption and called for government accountability.  Messages of intimidation, harassment, surveillance, and direct threats from anonymous accounts intensified, mostly during the election season, ultimately silencing dissenting voices.Journalists and digital media experts reported government institutions, private-sector representatives, and other far-right political groups were responsible for funding or managing internet troll handles.  These reportedly antidemocratic online actors published personal information, such as identification documents, travel tickets, and photographs of relatives.  They also published judicial rulings, complaints, and legal filings from the Public Ministry before the ministry officially filed such actions.  The online actions created disinformation and intimidated the targeted individuals, according to experts.Journalists, human rights defenders, and activists also reported receiving direct attacks via text message or being targets of hacking attempts from internet trolls.Exiled former Human Rights Ombudsman Jordán Rodas continued to be attacked during the year by anonymous accounts reportedly orchestrated by antidemocratic actors.  Most of the content Rodas published on his X (formerly Twitter) account was used by online trolls to create memes or mockery to discredit him.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, but the government did not always respect these rights.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						From October 2 to October 22, activists affiliated with Indigenous and political opposition groups carried out a nationwide campaign of demonstrations and roadblocks demanding the resignation of Attorney General Consuelo Porras and other officials after the Public Ministry seized general election vote tallies from the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) on September 29.  One person was killed during the protests on October 16, which prompted the Constitutional Court to issue a resolution on October 18 ordering the Ministry of Government to remove the protesters from the Public Ministry’s headquarters and authorizing the clearing of roads.  This resolution also authorized the use of force, if necessary, although force was not used.						Freedom of Association						Some NGOs claimed the government used the law to create large, sudden costs for NGOs, such as by requesting surprise audits.  These organizations reported such government actions increased their operation costs, especially regarding administrative fees for financial reports.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/international-religious-freedom-reports/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation.  The government generally respected these rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international organizations in providing protection and humanitarian assistance to refugees, returning refugees, and asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had established a system for receiving and adjudicating asylum claims to grant refugee status to qualifying individuals.  There were gaps and shortcomings in the procedures for implementing the legal framework.  Recommendations on recognition were formulated by an interministerial process, whose complexity contributed to major delays on final case decisions and an increased backlog.  Identification and referral mechanisms for potential asylum seekers were inadequate, and requirements to travel to Guatemala City for the initial asylum interview limited access.Access to Basic Services:  The validity of documentation for asylum seekers and refugees, issued by the Civil Registry, was not fully recognized, hampering their access to public and private services.  Access to health care was limited due to capacity or availability of health-service providers, and barriers persisted in the education system as school administrators continued to request academic documentation from the country of origin, despite legal provisions stating this was not required.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										The government did not officially recognize the existence of IDPs within its borders, except for those displaced by climate change and natural disasters.  Organizations that monitored and supported IDPs stated this lack of recognition stifled efforts to manage and address the movement of IDPs displaced due to violence, among other factors, because official statistics did not exist for IDPs.  The government indicated a more open posture to discussing the issue, framed as a matter of vulnerable or “at-risk” communities, but critics claimed this definition did not address the full range of causes and effects of the movement of IDPs.  Women, youth, and LGBTQI+ individuals, as well as Indigenous populations, were at heightened risk of displacement.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on nearly universal and equal suffrage for those age 18 and older.  Members of the armed forces, police, and incarcerated individuals were not eligible to vote.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  The European Union Election Observation Mission, the Organization of American States, and other international observers described the most recent national elections, held during the year, as peaceful and credible, despite actions to exclude candidates before the election and politically motivated judicial actions against electoral authorities and the winning party after the elections.  Observers found minor irregularities in the electoral process, but none significant enough to discredit the legitimacy and validity of the elections.Following the first round of voting in the June elections, the government accused opposition parties of various crimes and irregularities.  On July 12, minutes before the press conference called by the TSE to certify the results of the first round of voting in June, the Public Ministry announced the initiation of a criminal investigation against the Semilla party for alleged signature forgery and money laundering related to the formation of the party in 2018.  In addition, criminal judge Fredy Orellana ordered the TSE’s Citizen Registry to suspend the legal status of the party within 24 hours.  On July 13, the Constitutional Court issued a provisional injunction in favor of the Semilla party and ordered a stay in the judicial order, alleging that complying with the order at that stage of the election would undermine the natural course of the electoral process.  In September, the Public Ministry announced that in addition to its investigation of the Semilla party, it had opened investigations against seven other political parties due to alleged irregularities in their formation.On September 12, the Public Ministry conducted a raid on the TSE’s Citizen Registry facilities and the Operations Center of the Electoral Process.  During the raid, Public Ministry officials opened ballot boxes and examined ballots from the June 25 election’s first round.  Civil society and political leaders strongly criticized these actions as a violation of the law, under which the TSE and the Departmental Electoral Boards were the only bodies competent to verify electoral documentation.  On September 29, an additional Public Ministry raid on the TSE offices and warehouse seized the actual ballot materials, also an apparent violation of electoral law, leading to widespread national protests and road blockades led by Indigenous communities that lasted nearly one month.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups:  Discrimination, institutional bias, and difficulty traveling to polling places in rural areas limited participation of women and members of Indigenous groups.  Cultural practices and beliefs, such as Indigenous perspectives regarding state institutions, decision-making processes at the community versus national level, and language barriers and lack of translation services from Spanish to Indigenous languages also limited participation of Indigenous groups.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, but the government did not implement the law effectively.  Despite numerous allegations of corruption in all branches of the government, few high-level cases were investigated, and anti-corruption efforts within the judiciary stalled.  Prominent anti-corruption prosecutors were arrested, fired, or removed from significant cases, and corrupt actors threatened independent judges by filing complaints based on spurious charges to strip the judges of immunity to prosecution.For example, between February and May, Attorney General Porras and the Public Ministry issued arrest warrants for at least eight sitting and former anti-corruption prosecutors for alleged crimes, including abuse of authority, during their time as prosecutors.  The prosecutors were held in provisional and pretrial detention for weeks and faced multiple delays in their arraignment hearings.  After the 2021 firing of Juan Francisco Sandoval, the former FECI head, at least 20 FECI prosecutors were removed or transferred.  Some prosecutors resigned due to fear of reprisal, while several went into exile.Corruption:  CICIG brought many corruption cases to the Public Ministry for prosecution that had been dismantled in recent years, including through various actions.  For example, an appellate court authorized house arrest for former Minister of Communications Alejandro Sinibaldi in the “Transurbano” corruption case, and the FECI declined to appeal the decision.  In the other two cases against him, “Odebrecht” and “Cooptation of the State,” a judge dismissed the previous convictions in the cases for lack of evidence in one case and granted house arrest in the other.In some areas of law enforcement, corruption was a significant problem.  Within the PNC, impunity from corruption was evident regarding personnel stationed at the land border ports of entry, airports, and specifically within the ranks of the Border Police Division, which investigated crimes such as drug trafficking, smuggling of contraband, and tax evasion by transporting money outside the country.  There were persistent allegations of corruption with the PNC academy’s hiring procedures, officer promotions, and transfers to favorable positions that affected the credibility of the academy and the PNC overall.  The PNC General Inspectorate announced 11 police officers had been arrested for various crimes as of September.  The crimes included corruption, abuse of authority, conspiracy to traffic persons, and breach of duty.Public procurement processes remained a frequent mechanism for corruption.  In March, the Presidential Commission Against Corruption, acting on an anonymous tip, referred a corruption case for prosecution by the Public Ministry.  Gerardo David Hernández García, former Vice Minister at the Ministry of Health, was indicted for fraud for his alleged involvement in fraudulent equipment purchases for the recently inaugurated National Hospital in Chimaltenango.  Authorities also arrested the hospital director, Gerardo Arturo Fuentes Rubio, and a representative of the company Voltar Intermedia.Despite these relatively rare investigations into government corruption, Attorney General Porras actively undermined efforts to combat corruption by intimidating or arresting prominent persons engaged in anti-corruption activities.  For example, in May, authorities arrested former anti-corruption prosecutor Stuardo Campo, who previously investigated the infamous “Chimaltenango Bypass” highway project during the Morales administration, which resulted in numerous prosecutions of government officials and business officials for allegations related to poor construction that allegedly contributed to repeated landslides.  Campo’s deputy prosecutor Eduardo Pantaleon was previously arrested in May 2022 for allegedly mishandling the same case and remained in house arrest awaiting a pretrial hearing.  As the Public Ministry cracked down on those who investigated corruption, those who were implicated avoided justice.  A former judge, Mynor Moto, whom Campo and Pantaleon investigated for accepting bribes in exchange for favorable rulings in the Chimaltenango case, reappeared after nearly two years following a judge’s revocation of arrest warrants that had been issued against Moto.  In November, the Supreme Court dismissed the remaining cases against him and ordered his reinstatement as a criminal court judge.Threats against independent judges, meanwhile, weakened anti-corruption efforts.  Throughout the year, 2021 Anti-Corruption Champion award winner Judge Carlos Ruano faced an investigation to remove his immunity from prosecution at the request of a Supreme Court magistrate whom Judge Ruano had accused of corruption.  The same justice had been suspended from the court for five years but was reinstated in 2022 when another judge dismissed the case against her.  Judge Ruano resigned his post in September after facing multiple threats and fled the country to avoid imminent arrest.For additional information concerning 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												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings.  Many of these groups, however, were the subject of harassment and threats, and they faced pressure and attacks from political actors.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders:  Several NGOs, human rights workers, and trade unionists reported being targets of intimidation, threats, and violence.  An international human rights organization reported two killings of human rights defenders, while UDEFEGUA reported 2,595 threatening messages and other harassment, including instances of violence and threats of violence, against human rights defenders from January to June, compared with 589 attacks in the same period in 2022.  More than half of the attacks were against prosecutors and defense lawyers.  NGOs asserted the government did little to investigate the reports or prevent further incidents.In 2020, authorities began prosecuting Indigenous Kaqchikel activist Nancy Sinto for destruction of cultural property after participating in a demonstration against cuts to public spending for health and education.  Human rights organizations alleged government authorities used Sinto’s prosecution to intimidate other human rights activists, particularly Indigenous persons.  On May 16, the Constitutional Court denied a motion to bring Sinto’s case to public trial and she remained under house arrest.NGOs reported the government, political groups, and private entities used threats of legal action as a form of intimidation.  Members of the Foundation against Terrorism, an NGO known to target anti-corruption and human rights defenders, filed civil and criminal complaints against human rights NGOs that sought to create government accountability for human rights abuses during the internal armed conflict.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The congressionally appointed director of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman (PDH) monitored human rights and reported to congress.  In August 2022, a new director, Jose Alejandro Cordova Herrera, took office.  NGOs generally considered the PDH was no longer independent and stated it was more effective under former director Jordan Rodas.The Congressional Committee on Human Rights drafted and provided guidance on legislation regarding human rights.  Some NGOs did not consider the committee to be an effective forum for human rights promotion and protection.The Secretariat Against Sexual Violence, Exploitation, and Trafficking in Persons was a government body under the authority of the Office of the Vice President.  The secretariat monitored and informed vulnerable populations and government entities on sexual violence, exploitation of children, and trafficking in persons.  The secretariat reported congress withheld some of its funds by exercising line-item approval for all its projects.The Presidential Commission for Peace and Human Rights, created in 2020 by President Giammattei, replaced and unified three institutions:  the President’s Commission on Human Rights, the Secretariat for Peace, and the Secretariat of Agricultural Affairs.  The commission’s main function was to provide advice on human rights to the executive branch and its dependencies.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law criminalized rape of women and men, including spousal rape and domestic or intimate partner rape.  The law did not specifically criminalize so-called corrective rape of LGBTQI+ persons.  The law set penalties between eight and 12 years, and up to 50 years in prison if the victim died because of rape.  The law established penalties for femicide at 25 to 50 years in prison without the possibility of reducing the sentence.  Observers noted femicide remained a significant problem.  The law established penalties of five to 12 years in prison for gender-based violence, including physical, economic, and psychological violence.Police had minimal training and capacity to investigate sexual crimes or assist survivors of such crimes, and the government did not enforce the law effectively.  Rape, other sexual offenses, and other forms of gender-based violence were widespread and serious problems.The government took steps to combat femicide and other forms of gender-based violence.  The judiciary operated a 24-hour court in Guatemala City to offer services related to gender-based violence, including sexual assault, exploitation, and trafficking of women and children.  The judiciary operated specialized courts for gender-based violence throughout the country, although not in every department.  The Public Ministry maintained a 24-hour center to provide medical, psychosocial, and legal support to survivors, including issuing restraining orders for their immediate protection.  The ministry also maintained a national alert system for finding missing women.  The Public Ministry previously maintained a public website titled “the Women’s Observatory,” with statistics regarding crimes against women and children.  As of November, the website was inoperative.Women with disabilities and members of the LGBTQI+ community with disabilities remained at greater risk of being victims of continued sexual violence.  Most persons with disabilities, especially women, did not report violence and abuse because the reporting processes were complex and discriminated against them.  State and local agencies did not receive specialized training for law enforcement personnel working with vulnerable groups.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment:  Although several laws referred to sexual harassment, no single law, including laws against sexual violence, addressed sexual harassment directly.  Human rights organizations reported sexual harassment was widespread.Discrimination:  The constitution established the principle of gender equality, stating that all individuals were equal and had the same rights and that men and women enjoyed the same opportunities and responsibilities.  The law established equal pay for women and men in government offices by prohibiting differences in pay based on “personal identity,” but the law did not prohibit discrimination based on gender in the private sector.  There were laws that restricted women from working in certain sectors, including in jobs deemed morally inappropriate.  Women were less likely to hold management positions.  The labor code stipulated that women or children who performed agricultural work should be guaranteed the same rights as men; however, it remained a common practice for men to bring their spouse and children to participate in agricultural work, with the employer paying a single salary to the male head-of-household for the family’s work.  Employment discrimination was common both in hiring and employment practices.  The law did not prohibit gender discrimination in access to credit.  The government did little to enforce gender equality laws effectively.The law provided for and effectively implemented equality between men and women during and after divorce with respect to child care and financial and housing assistance to the children’s caretakers, who were often women.Reproductive Rights:  There were no official reports during the year of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.  Forced sterilization, such as those performed by government personnel at the Federico Mora psychiatric hospital, was purportedly common for persons with disabilities, but reporting on this was rare, according to the OHCHR.Cultural, geographic, and linguistic barriers hampered access to reproductive health care, including contraceptives, particularly for Indigenous women in rural areas, where contraceptives were also least likely to be available locally.  The prevalence of modern contraceptive use remained low among Indigenous women compared with other women, and a lack of culturally sensitive reproductive and maternal health-care service providers deterred some Indigenous women from accessing reproductive health-care services.  Indigenous women did not have access to reproductive and maternal health information in Indigenous languages, which led to misconceptions that these health-care services disregarded religious norms of Indigenous peoples.  Very few health centers acknowledged the work of traditional midwives, who were often the primary maternal and reproductive health providers for Indigenous women.  Many communities also lacked access to basic health-care services due to limited infrastructure, including a lack of roads connecting rural and Indigenous communities to providers.The government provided medical services through the Ministry of Health for survivors of sexual violence.  The services afforded victims access to emergency contraceptives and postexposure prophylaxis.  The ministry also provided some justice services.  Many survivors did not seek medical care due to cultural and geographic barriers, including a lack of road infrastructure.  Authorities in the justice system commented that on occasion some hospital clinics did not have the required medication in stock to protect survivors of rape against sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy.According to a 2020 report by the Ministry of Health, the maternal mortality rate in Indigenous communities was 156 per 100,000 live births, compared with the national average of 108 per 100,000 live births.  As of May, one-half of maternal deaths occurred in four departments (Huehuetenango, Guatemala, Quiche, and Alta Verapaz), most of them in rural and dispersed areas with high rates of malnutrition, poverty, and concentrated populations of Indigenous persons.  From January to May, the Ministry of Health reported 109 maternal deaths and noted areas with high concentrations of Indigenous persons had the highest proportion, nearly half, of maternal deaths nationwide.  Factors such as the lack of medical services available in their native language for speakers of Indigenous languages and the lack of providers and equipment in remote areas played a role in these deaths.The Reproductive and Sexual Health Observatory reported that as of September, there were 48,242 births to adolescent mothers, including 1,779 to mothers ages 10-14, and 46,463 to mothers ages 15-19.  One half of the births occurred in five departments (Alta Verapaz, Guatemala, Huehuetenango, Quiche, and San Marcos), most of them with high rates of malnutrition, poverty, and concentrated populations of Indigenous persons.  In departments with large Indigenous populations, poverty and chronic malnutrition rose to nearly 80 percent, where public spending and access to social services was half that of non-Indigenous areas.  According to the observatory, many pregnancies were a result of rape by a relative, which survivors were reluctant to report.A lack of access to menstrual products and the lack of separate boys’ and girls’ bathrooms in some rural schools continued to negatively affect adolescent girls’ access to education in rural areas of the country.The National Movement of Midwives, Nim Alaxik, reported midwives were victims of institutional violence, especially from the Ministry of Health, and said women in labor were victims of obstetric violence, including not receiving timely services while in labor.  Midwives were the main maternity health-service providers in rural areas.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The constitution provided for protections against discrimination based on race or ethnic group, and the law provided for a penalty of one to three years’ imprisonment and a fine for acts of discrimination.  Other efforts to combat discrimination included litigation instructions from the Public Ministry for discrimination crimes.  The government generally did not effectively enforce laws against discrimination.There were no laws, policies, or state programs that specifically contributed to the reduction of racism, according to international human rights organizations.  The executive branch lacked a coordinated approach to address poverty and unemployment concentrated mainly in Afro-descendant and Indigenous communities, although there were some government programs directed at the needs of these populations.																																				Indigenous Peoples										The law granted equal rights for Indigenous persons and obliged the government to recognize, respect, and promote the ways of life, customs, traditions, social organizations, and manner of dress of Indigenous persons.  The government did not, however, recognize particular Indigenous groups as having a special legal status provided by national law.  The law stipulated the government was required to consult with Indigenous groups prior to implementing large infrastructure projects in Indigenous territories.  Observers indicated the government did not always consult with all affected parties and Indigenous leaders, and activists regularly reported being harassed and threatened for their work.On December 15, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that Guatemala violated the rights of the Indigenous Q’eqchi’ people to property and consultation by permitting mining on Indigenous land where the community had lived at least since the 1800s.  The delineation of the land was to be part of the process for the government in complying with the court’s decision, according to one of the lawyers representing the community.Indigenous lands were not effectively demarcated, making the legal recognition of titles to the land problematic.  Indigenous representatives claimed business and other actors in several regional development projects failed to consult meaningfully with local communities.  In some cases, Indigenous communities were not able to participate in decisions affecting the exploitation of resources in their communities or areas considered sacred according to Indigenous ancestral beliefs.  They also lacked effective mechanisms for dialogue with the state to resolve conflicts.According to the OHCHR, there was a significant increase in attacks and incidents of defamation and intimidation against Indigenous defenders of Indigenous land, territory rights, and natural resources.Indigenous communities were underrepresented in national politics and remained largely outside the political, economic, social, and cultural mainstream.  This was mainly due to limited educational opportunities (contrary to law), limited communication regarding Indigenous rights, and pervasive discrimination.  Government agencies dedicated to supporting Indigenous rights lacked political support.  These factors contributed to disproportionate poverty and malnutrition among most Indigenous populations.																																				Children										Birth Registration:  Birth registration discriminated against rural populations, where there were few government registry offices or modern health-care facilities.  The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported problems in registering births were especially acute in Indigenous communities due to inadequate government registration and documentation systems.  Midwives reported registry offices refused to register some births when it was attended by a midwife.  Lack of registration restricted children’s access to some public services and created conditions that could lead to statelessness.Education:  International observers noted that in rural communities, boys were prioritized for high school education due to the problems of traveling long distances to school and the perceived value of girls in the home.Child Abuse:  The law prohibited child abuse.  The government enforced the law effectively.  Child abuse remained a serious problem.  A unit under the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes against Children and Adolescents handled child abuse cases.  The Public Ministry had an integrated 24-hour care model providing medical, psychosocial, and legal support to children and adolescent victims of violence.  According to NGOs, a consequence of high rates of abuse was an increasing number of adolescent pregnancies.Former Secretary of Social Welfare Carlos Rodas and former Deputy Secretary for Protection and Shelter Services Anahi Keller faced criminal charges for murder, abuse of authority, breach of duty, and abuse against minors following the deaths of 41 girls in the 2017 fire at the Hogar Seguro orphanage, which was under the authority of the secretariat.  On April 3, an appellate court closed the case against Keller.  The case remained open for Carlos Rodas, but as of November, a new date for public arguments had not been scheduled.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The legal age for marriage was 18.  The government did not enforce the law effectively.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited the sale, grooming, or use of children for commercial sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking, and stipulated sentences ranging from 13 to 24 years in prison, depending on the victim’s age, for engaging in sex with a child.  The government did not always enforce the law.  The minimum age of consensual sex was 18.  The law defined sexual relations with a person younger than 14 as rape.The law prohibited child pornography and established penalties of six to 10 years in prison for producing, promoting, and selling child pornography, and two to four years’ imprisonment for possessing it.  The commercial sexual exploitation of children, including child sex tourism, remained a problem, including in privately operated orphanages.																																				Antisemitism										The Jewish population was approximately 1,500 persons.  Jewish community representatives reported no antisemitic incidents as of November.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s annual 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:  There were no laws or de facto discrimination against consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults.Violence and Harassment:  Violence against LGBTQI+ persons remained a persistent issue.  According to the 2022 annual report from the human rights NGO Lambda Association, there were 147 cases of violence against LGBTQI+ persons in which the violence could plausibly be linked to the victims’ sexual orientation or gender identity.  According to the report, LGBTQI+ activists and gay and transgender individuals often experienced police abuse.  For example, LGBTQI+ human rights groups stated police regularly extorted and harassed male and transgender individuals who they alleged were sex workers.  Lambda and other LGBTQI+ rights organizations reported police did not fully investigate hate crimes and violence against LGBTQI+ persons.Discrimination:  The constitution declared all persons equal under the law and prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on gender, marital status, or political opinion.  The law did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender expression, or sex characteristics and did not recognize LGBTQI+ individuals, couples, or their families.According to the PDH, the most frequently reported violations were employment discrimination and harassment.  The PDH also reported LGBTQI+ prisoners faced discrimination accessing justice or receiving visits based on their sexual identity.LGBTQI+ individuals faced substantial obstacles in fully exercising their political and civic rights.  In the rural Western Highlands, discrimination intersected with high levels of poverty and lack of opportunities.  In the context of the elections, these problems increased due to increased anti-LGBTQI+ commentary by some political leaders and electoral candidates.  Local NGOs reported that during the first and second round of elections, voting station officials sometimes requested electoral observers representing LGBTQI+ civil society organizations to provide additional credentials beyond the ones granted by the TSE.  PDH officials successfully intervened in favor of the observers.LGBTQI+ advocates pointed to structural problems, such as gender-identity document requirements and general societal discrimination, that created internal displacement, discrimination, sexual exploitation, and child abuse among members of the LGBTQI+ community.There was general societal discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons in access to education, health care, employment, and housing.  The government made minimal efforts to address this discrimination.  Local experts on sexual diversity issues said the government did not publish official medical guidance or standards on hormone therapy for gender transition therapies.  Hence, these therapies were unregulated in the private sector and posed risks for transgender persons considering physiological transition therapies.  There were also no publicly provided gender transition therapies in government medical facilities.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  Individuals could not self-identify gender for official documents.  Their gender assigned at birth and showing on their birth certificate was their gender on their official documents.  Government-issued national identification cards used to access basic services and education resources did not allow transgender persons to receive identification cards with their chosen names or gender identification.  Without identification that reflected the name and gender under which they lived, transgender persons were denied many government services.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  LGBTQI+ activists and investigative journalists reported there was an active network of “conversion therapy” centers, mostly located in the interior of the country in rural areas but organized and funded in conjunction with evangelical churches in the capital.  Reports mentioned electroshock therapy for gay men, “corrective” rape for lesbian women, and coerced sex acts for transgender women.  LGBTQI+ groups also claimed lesbian, bisexual, and queer women experienced forced marriages and “corrective” rape intended to cause pregnancy, although these incidents were rarely, if ever, reported to authorities.Gente Positiva, a HIV-positive advocacy and awareness group, reported that when lesbians who were victims of “corrective” rape tried to file a legal complaint, the Public Ministry officials receiving the complaint often refused to record the incident if the woman reporting the rape knew the attackers or had consumed alcohol the same day as the rape.  Gente Positiva also reported the government did not recognize “corrective” rape of lesbians as an aggravated version of sexual assault or a hate crime, but rather considered it the same as rape.There were no reports that medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  There were no laws or restrictions on freedom of expression, association, or peaceful assembly regarding LGBTQI+ matters.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities were unable to access education, health services, employment, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others.  No law required such access, nor did the law mandate that persons with disabilities have access to information or communications.Discrimination against persons with disabilities continued to be a problem; they experienced discrimination based on their specific disability, gender, age, place of residency, and sexual orientation, among other factors.  In addition, persons with disabilities experienced violence, harassment, intimidation, and abuse, including incidents incited, perpetrated, or condoned by attendants and staff at institutions.  Persons with disabilities, especially women, also experienced high levels of violence and abuse, including sexual assault.Children with disabilities attended school at all levels at a significantly lower rate than other children; most did not attend school.  NGOs that advocated for persons with disabilities reported the government violated the right to education for students with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities.  Reports indicated that online learning resources made available to students with disabilities were focused on students with low vision or who were hard of hearing and that few solutions were provided for students with other disabilities.A report by the NGO Women Enabled International described multiple discriminations faced by Indigenous persons with disabilities.  Discriminatory cultural norms against persons with disabilities were intensified against Indigenous women with disabilities, increasing the possibility they would be separated from their children or be forcibly sterilized.Observers noted little progress was made in access to voting for persons with disabilities, although the government distributed a guide for electoral officials on facilitating voting for persons with disabilities.  Voting mechanisms for persons with intellectual disabilities did not exist.  Voting in braille existed, but it did not guarantee secret voting.  Electoral observers noted the lack of ramps and sign language translators to facilitate the voting process for persons with disabilities.Institutionalized Children:  International human rights organizations pointed to the institutionalization of persons with disabilities as a source of harassment and abuse.  They stated that because there was no national strategy for deinstitutionalizing children with disabilities from publicly supported residences and facilities, these children would most likely remain institutionalized.  Children with disabilities with high support requirements were essentially forced to live in institutions due to the lack of policies or funding that would enable them to live in a family household.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										On several occasions, vigilante mobs attacked and killed persons suspected of crimes such as rape, kidnapping, theft, or extortion.  The NGO Mutual Support Group reported four persons were killed and 52 injured by vigilante groups from January through August.  The NGO stated these attacks took place mostly in departments in the interior of the country with weak law enforcement.Several international human rights organizations reported the continued problem of extralegal forced removal of local Indigenous groups from land and the lack of proper government involvement to ensure that removals were conducted legally.  Removals were sometimes conducted by security guards hired by private landowners and sometimes by groups of other local individuals that wanted to take the land.The law prohibited discrimination based on HIV or AIDS status.  Social discrimination and stigma related to AIDS and HIV continued to be problematic and contributed not only to the spread of the disease but also mortality rates.  Some government authorities required citizens to reveal HIV and AIDS test results to receive certain public benefits, and some employers required similar disclosure to be hired.Discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons with HIV or AIDS was particularly common and affected access to HIV-prevention programs, especially for transgender individuals.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of workers, except for security force members, to form and join trade unions, conduct legal strikes, and bargain collectively.  The law, however, placed some restrictions on these rights.  For example, legal recognition of an industrywide union required that the membership constitute a majority of the workers in an industry.  The law restricted union leadership to citizens.  Ministries and businesses were required to negotiate only with the largest union, as determined by annual membership.  The law prohibited antiunion discrimination and employer interference in union activities and required employers to reinstate workers dismissed for organizing union activities.  A strike had to have the support of the majority of a company’s workforce.  Workers were not restricted to membership in one union or one industry.The president and cabinet could suspend any strike deemed gravely prejudicial to the country’s essential activities and public services.  The government defined essential services more broadly than international standards, thus denying the right to strike to many public workers, such as those in postal services, transport, and the production, transportation, and distribution of energy.  Public employees could address grievances by means of conciliation for collective disputes and arbitration directly through the labor courts.  For sectors considered essential, arbitration was compulsory if there was no agreement after 30 days of conciliation efforts.The law prohibited employer retaliation against workers engaged in legal strikes.  If authorities did not recognize a strike as legal, employers could suspend or terminate workers for absence without leave.  A factory or business owner was not obligated to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement unless at least 25 percent of workers in the factory or business were union members and requested negotiations.  Once a strike occurred, companies were required to close during negotiations.  Strikes were extremely rare, but work stoppages were more common.The government did not effectively enforce the law; threats and violence against trade unionists continued.  The Ministry of Labor had the authority to sanction employers for violating union and collective bargaining rights, but government institutions, such as the Ministry of Labor and the labor courts, did not effectively investigate, prosecute, or punish employers who violated freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.  Procedural hurdles, restrictions on and delays in the registration of new unions, and impunity for employers rejecting or ignoring court orders severely limited freedom of association and collective bargaining.  Penalties were less than those for other laws involving denials of civil rights, such as discrimination.  Labor courts also failed to compel compliance with reinstatement orders, including payment of back wages, for workers illegally dismissed for engaging in union activities, especially in rural areas.There was a substantial backlog of cases in the labor courts that caused delays of up to five years.  Employers used the delays as a tactic to discourage workers from pursuing their cases in exchange for reduced economic payments.  For example, employers commonly used tactics such as failing to attend hearings, falsely claiming the employer needed language interpretation, or making frivolous challenges to workers’ claims to ensure the case took many years to process.The Public Ministry was ineffective in responding to labor court referrals for criminal prosecution in cases where employers refused to comply with labor court orders.  In the labor inspection system and labor courts, employers routinely influenced authorities to favor their interests or simply refused to comply.  According to the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes Against Unionists, 70 percent of complaints in 2020 (most recent data available) involved persistent employer refusal to comply with judicial orders.  Penalties were rarely successfully applied against violators.Worker’s rights organizations reported a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms was evident in the 2022-23 case of the Winners S.A. apparel production company’s abrupt closure and failure to comply with court orders.  In 2022, Winners S.A. closed with no prior notice to the two unions representing factory workers.  At the time of the closure, the company was under a court-ordered injunction that prohibited it from terminating workers.  To circumvent the injunction, the company reportedly coerced nearly 600 workers to sign resignation letters and relinquish all rights to future claims.  The workers signed the documents believing it necessary to avoid forfeiting their severance payments.  Following the closure, the Ministry of Labor convened a multiagency response and filed a case for reinstatement and backpay for all 600 workers.  The court ordered reinstatement and back pay.  Workers who attempted to return to the factory to obtain reinstatement were consistently turned away.  After several failed attempts to notify the company, the court notifier refused to make further attempts.  The 600 reinstatements were never executed, and the company was never sanctioned for the illegal closure.  By leveraging the external pressure from international organizations and buyers, the unions reached a private agreement with a multinational company that sourced from the factory to secure payments to the dismissed workers.Worker representatives reported no significant improvement in compliance with the law despite the Labor Ministry’s authority to sanction employers directly.  These representatives noted the inspectorate emphasized the collection of fines, which went to the labor inspectorate, over remediation of the underlying violations.  Lack of information regarding the law’s implementation made it difficult to assess its impact on improving enforcement.As of August, the Trade Union Permanent Commission for Protection, which was supposed to be convened by the Public Ministry to address problems of antiunion violence, held no meetings.  The commission had not held regular meetings since 2018.The Labor Ministry reported registering eight new unions from January to August.  According to NGOs, the General Inspectorate of Labor failed to ensure that workers who formed new unions were protected from termination.  The directorate also failed to register unions within the prescribed timeframe.  According to a worker’s rights organization, workers’ efforts to form a union at Hanah Trading S.A. represented an emblematic case of union registration delays.  The workers submitted their registration to the ministry in September 2021 but did not receive a response from the ministry on the status of the registration until mid-2022.  The ministry identified minor errors, which the union corrected, but the ministry then found additional errors not identified in the first review, which the union corrected.  Although the application was complete by September 2022, the union did not receive its registration until January or its credentials until February.The Unit for Crimes against Unionists within the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights in the Public Ministry was responsible for investigating attacks and threats against union members as well as for noncompliance with judicial orders in labor cases.  Staffing for the unit was inadequate.The Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Judicial Workers and Unionists received 53 complaints in 2022.  From January to August, an NGO registered four cases of employer threats and intimidation against trade unionists and labor activists.  One union leader was threatened with assault if he did not leave the union.  On October 4, Doris Lisseth Aldana Calderón, a trade union leader at a banana packing facility, was killed.  The government initiated an investigation, but no one had been charged as of year’s end.  Union members of an apparel production facility reported gender-based violence and harassment by supervisors.  Union members of an apparel production facility reported gender-based violence and harassment by supervisors.Employers routinely resisted attempts to form unions, delayed or only partially complied with agreements from direct negotiations, and ignored judicial rulings requiring the employer to negotiate with recognized unions.  There continued to be credible reports of employers retaliating against workers who tried to exercise their rights.  There were numerous complaints regarding firings or suspensions alleging employer retaliation for union activity, according to an NGO.  Authorities failed to enforce labor laws and let complaints of retaliation against union members languish.In January, a group of 15 workers at a sugar mill expressed interest in joining a union at the mill and requested their employer begin deducting union dues from their pay.  The employer declined to deduct the union dues, saying the workers could not join the union because they were technically employed by a different company than the workers who had formed the union.  Over a period of two months, the company systematically reassigned or terminated all 15 workers who had expressed interest in joining the union.  The union contacted the Labor Ministry’s departmental delegate regarding the case, but no inspection was carried out.																																				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 set national minimum wages for agricultural and nonagricultural work and for work in garment factories.  The minimum wages did not meet the minimum food budget for a family of five.The legal workweek was 48 hours, with at least one paid 24-hour rest period.  The law prohibited workers from working more than 12 hours a day, except for domestic workers, who could work up to 14 hours per day and were not subject to the same weekly hour limits.  The law provided for 12 paid annual holidays and paid vacation of 15 working days after one year’s work.  Time-and-a-half pay was required for overtime work, and the law prohibited excessive compulsory overtime.Occupational Safety and Health:  The government set occupational safety and health (OSH) standards that were inadequate.  The Ministry of Labor responded only to workers’ OSH complaints and did not proactively identify unsafe conditions.  According to the most recent reports (2018), the ministry reported occupational accidents were a frequent occurrence in Guatemala City, particularly in the construction and food distribution sectors.  Agricultural workers reported being exposed to a range of hazards, including excessive heat exposure, dehydration, exposure to pesticides, and inadequate protective equipment.  Textile and garment workers reported inadequate fire safety measures, poor ventilation, and nonergonomic conditions.The law did not provide for the right of workers to remove themselves from situations that endangered health or safety.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The government did not effectively enforce wage, hour, and OSH laws.  The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare was responsible for enforcement.  The number of labor inspectors was not sufficient to enforce compliance.  Effective enforcement of overtime abuse by employers was undermined by inadequate fines and the reluctance of labor courts to use compulsory measures such as increased fines and referrals to the criminal courts.  Penalties for wage, hour, and OSH violations were less than those for analogous crimes such as negligence.  Penalties were rarely applied against violators.Inspectors had the right to make unannounced inspections.  In some cases, inspectors failed to take effective action to gain access to worksites when employers refused to permit access.  Inspectors were encouraged to seek police assistance as required.  Inspectors had the right to initiate sanctions; any fines collected went to the ministry.Approximately 48 percent of the labor inspectorate’s inspections carried out from January to August were complaint driven.  Inspections were generally not comprehensive, and if complaint driven, focused on investigating the alleged violation rather than attempting to determine compliance beyond the individual complaint.Many inspectors performed reviews on paper or administrative duties rather than doing on-site inspections.  The number of inspectors was insufficient to enforce compliance.Due to inefficient and lengthy court proceedings, the resolution of labor court cases was often delayed, in many instances for several years.  Employers failing to provide a safe workplace were rarely punished, and a law requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide onsite medical facilities for their workers was not enforced.According to National Statistics Institute data, approximately 71 percent of the workforce was employed in the informal sector.  The government did not enforce wage, hour, or OSH laws in this 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											Tonga											The Bahamas											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																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of 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 (IDPs)																																																			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																								Guatemala