Current political situation November 2025

Government presents its Public Policy on Human Rights Defenders

On November 13, the Public Policy on Human Rights Defenders was presented in the Peace Courtyard of the National Palace of Culture. At the ceremony, Guatemalan government authorities unveiled this protection tool, which includes mechanisms to prevent risks and threats, as well as a protection system and investigative protocols for when a human rights defender’s life and safety are under threat. The protection instrument aims to cover activists, authorities, indigenous leaders, justice operators, women, journalists, community media professionals, and public officials, provided that their actions are peaceful and promote human rights.1

This policy seeks to address the historical context of violence against human rights defenders, which includes murders, criminalization, harassment, and hate speech against those who defend human rights in Guatemala. It also represents a victory for the family of Florentín Gudiel Ramos, a human rights defender and community leader in Petén, whose murder in 2004 has gone unpunished as a result of irregularities committed at the beginning of the investigation. In 2012, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) brought the Gudiel case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR) because the State of Guatemala failed to comply with the recommendations contained in its Merits Report on the case. Two years later, in 2014, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a ruling that included recommendations, one of which was the creation of a public policy.

In the words of Elvyn Díaz, director of the Presidential Commission for Peace and Human Rights (COPADEH), this public policy recognizes the essential role played by human rights defenders, a role has historically been undermined. That is why it is crucial that this policy has been implemented through a participatory process involving human rights defenders in Guatemala and in exile, indigenous ancestral authorities, social and academic organizations, and human rights experts. For Marco Antonio Villeda Sandoval, Minister of the Interior, the policy launch was not just a symbolic act, but an official act of state marking a decisive step towards a more just, secure, and humane country. In his speech during the ceremony, Villeda Sandoval said that the public policy represents a change in the state’s mindset, recognizing that human rights defenders are not enemies of democracy, but allies.2

The Ministry of the Interior (MinGob) and COPADEH will be responsible for implementation, with COPADEH assuming the role of technical secretariat for the Coordinating Council.

25N: struggles and resistances for the elimination of violence against women

November 25 marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, with the aim of raising public awareness and consciousness about this global injustice. Some of the most prevalent forms of violence against women include domestic violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, digital violence, and the most extreme form of violence: femicide.

In Guatemala, civil society organizations, international organizations, communities, and indigenous peoples held various events to show their solidarity and commitment to the struggle against violence against women. One event that stood out was the campaign “We pray, but we also speak out: No more violence against women!” promoted by the Forum for Joint Church Action (ACT). The campaign sought to raise awareness of violence in churches and other spaces, promoting violence prevention and eradication by developing informational materials.3

Furthermore, Q’eqchi’ women from El Estor and Poqomchi’ women from Alta Verapaz spoke out against state violence and territorial dispossession. One of the slogans they chanted was, “Alert, alert, alert, the struggle of indigenous and peasant women is on the move.” They denounced the psychological, moral, and physical violence they suffer at the hands of government institutions acting in alliance with extractive companies, monoculture plantations, and landowners. This violence is used against those who defend their territory and human rights.4

In the capital, in front of Congress, members of the Guatemalan Muslim Women’s Organization unfurled a huge Palestinian flag in solidarity with the women killed in Gaza. They called on the Guatemalan government to take a different stance on Israel’s actions and expressed their support for Guatemalan women who have faced genocide. Over the course of the day, the protesters remembered the 376 women who have died violent deaths in Guatemala this year. 5

According to the Observatory on Sexual and Reproductive Health (OSAR Guatemala), as of October 31 this year, 47,864 girls and teenagers had given birth in the country. 1,803 of the girls were between 10 and 14 years old and were forced to become mothers as a result of rape.6

This November 25, the protests focused on demanding an end to violence and impunity and State compliance with human rights. The protests highlighted the struggle, weariness, and demands of Guatemalan women who have been silenced, murdered, or disappeared.

Former mayor of El Chol charged with alleged involvement in the Rancho Bejuco massacre

On November 20, Nicolás Orrego y Orrego, former military commissioner and former mayor of El Chol (Baja Verapaz), appeared at his initial arraignment hearing and was charged with murder and crimes against humanity. Judge Abelina Cruz, of High Risk Court “D,” ruled that Orrego must be investigated for his alleged involvement in the Rancho Bejuco massacre, which took place on July 29, 1982, during the de facto government of General José Efraín Ríos Montt.

The massacre was committed during the Internal Armed Conflict when men from the Maya Achí community of Rancho Bejuco, in Santa Cruz El Chol, refused to join the Civil Defense Patrols (PAC). As a result of their refusal, a military contingent entered the village and killed a total of 25 people, including children. In the indictment, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) stated that Orrego was not only a military commissioner at the time, but also actively participated in the massacre. According to the investigation, the former mayor hid village residents’ bodies to cover up for the PAC members who had committed the murders.7 Just one year later, Orrego became mayor of the town, a position he held from 1983 to 1984.

Of the nine individuals initially charged with crimes against humanity in this case, only retired colonel Juan Ovalle Salazar was sentenced to 20 years in prison, while the rest were acquitted.8 In Orrego’s case, the judge ruled that there is sufficient evidence against him to justify continuing the investigation. Since the crime of murder does not allow for alternative measures, the judge ordered him to be held in preventive detention at the Mariscal Zavala military prison while the investigation phase of the proceedings is carried out. The judge gave the MP three months to conduct the necessary investigations. The intermediate phase hearing was scheduled for March 2026.

Updates on the USAC “Political Looting” Case 

On November 18, University of San Carlos (USAC) students Christopher Morales and Pedro Ros were charged with the crimes of continuous trespass and destruction of cultural property. Both remained in prison for 22 days after voluntarily turning themselves in on October 27, in the midst of proceedings that have been delayed and suspended for more than a year and a half. The Tenth Criminal Court Judge, Víctor Cruz, granted them alternative measures with a bail of Q10. They must return to court on May 11, 2026, to hear the MP’s conclusions.9

That same day, the arraignment hearing began for lawyer and human rights defender Ramón Cadena, who was charged in the same case for providing legal assistance to students who opposed the election of Rector Walter Mazariegos. Despite voluntarily appearing in court to resolve his legal situation, he spent 11 days in pretrial detention due to repeated postponements of the hearings. He was finally charged with aggravated trespass and continuous destruction of cultural property but was released on bail. The next phase of the trial was scheduled for May 11, 2026. The lawyer stated that he was forced to turn himself in because Judge Cruz had postponed the arraignment hearing twice. The IACHR interpreted these postponements as “malicious delay and a form of psychological torture.”10

This criminal case involves 27 other individuals.