Report on the State of the Rule of Law and Human Rights in El Salvador

An Analysis in the Context of the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

This report details the deterioration of the rule of law in El Salvador, stemming from the government’s extended state of exception and significant reforms to the penal system. These actions have established a repressive state apparatus that undermines fundamental human rights and contravenes key principles of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Undermining SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The ongoing state of exception, extended over 42 times, has systematically eroded legal and judicial safeguards, directly conflicting with the objectives of SDG 16, which calls for promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice for all.

Erosion of Judicial Guarantees (Target 16.3)

The government’s model has created a facade of legality for actions that violate international standards and obstruct progress towards SDG Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice). Key issues include:

• Mass detentions conducted without sufficient evidence.
• Systematic suspension of judicial guarantees for detainees.
• Imposition of disproportionate terms of administrative detention, extending up to 15 days.
• The transformation of pretrial detention from an exceptional measure into a form of early punishment.

Legislative Reforms Contravening Institutional Accountability (Target 16.6)

Reforms to criminal law have introduced measures that weaken institutional transparency and accountability, in direct opposition to SDG Target 16.6 (Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions). These reforms include:

• Concealment of the identity of judges presiding over cases.
• Automatic application of pretrial detention.
• Implementation of harsher punishments for children and adolescents.

Suppression of Civil Society and Fundamental Freedoms (SDG 16.10)

The state’s repressive apparatus is being utilized to criminalize dissent and silence critical voices, representing a severe violation of SDG Target 16.10 (Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms).

Criminalization of Human Rights Defenders

Authorities have instrumentalized broad and ambiguous criminal classifications, such as “illegal groups” or “terrorist organizations,” to target individuals and groups essential for a functioning civil society. This practice undermines multiple SDGs:

• Community Leaders and Environmental Defenders: Targeting these individuals stifles local development and environmental protection efforts, impacting SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Trade Unionists: The criminalization of labor organizers is a direct assault on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), specifically Target 8.8 (Protect labour rights).

Case Studies: Prisoners of Conscience

Amnesty International has documented numerous cases of arbitrary detention. In July 2025, the organization declared three individuals prisoners of conscience, imprisoned solely for their human rights work.

1. Ruth López
2. Alejandro Henríquez
3. José Ángel Pérez

In these cases, authorities applied procedures from the state of exception, including extended detention and suspension of procedural guarantees, despite the charges being unrelated to gang activity. This arbitrary application of law violates the principle of equality central to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Violation of Human Rights in Detention Facilities

The prison system in El Salvador is characterized by conditions that constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, failing to meet international standards and undermining SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Inhumane Conditions and Impact on SDG 3

The prison environment is marked by opacity and an absence of external controls, leading to severe human rights violations. These conditions are a deliberate strategy to instill fear and suppress dissent.

• Prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement.
• Extreme overcrowding.
• Lack of timely and adequate medical care, directly contravening SDG 3. The deteriorating health of detainees like constitutional lawyer Enrique Anaya exemplifies this failure.
• A high risk of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

International Response

On September 23, 2025, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) granted precautionary measures to Ruth López and Enrique Anaya, recognizing the serious risk to their lives, health, and integrity posed by their detention conditions.

Recommendations for Upholding Sustainable Development Goals

To realign with international human rights obligations and commitments to the SDGs, Amnesty International issues the following urgent calls to the Salvadoran authorities and the international community:

1. Immediately and unconditionally release all persons detained solely for peacefully exercising their human rights.
2. Fully comply with the precautionary measures issued by the IACHR for Ruth López and Enrique Anaya, ceasing their isolation and ensuring detention conditions meet international standards.
3. The international community must intensify its scrutiny of Salvadoran authorities to halt the misuse of the justice system as a tool of repression and restore its function as a pillar of SDG 16.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) addressed in the article is SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. The article’s core focus is on the erosion of the rule of law, the weakening of the justice system, and the violation of fundamental human rights in El Salvador, which are all central themes of SDG 16.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions is directly relevant as the article details the breakdown of impartial justice, the rise of a “repressive apparatus,” arbitrary detentions, inhumane prison conditions, and the persecution of human rights defenders. The text describes a state where institutions, particularly the criminal justice system, are used to “punish dissent and stifle civic space” rather than uphold peace and justice.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Several specific targets under SDG 16 are clearly identifiable from the issues discussed in the article:

   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article extensively documents the undermining of this target. It mentions the “suspension of judicial guarantees,” “mass detention without evidence,” the use of pretrial detention as an “early punishment” rather than an exceptional measure, and judicial processes conducted in “total secrecy.” These actions directly contradict the principles of the rule of law and equal access to justice.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. This target is addressed through the article’s focus on the criminalization of human rights defenders, community leaders, and trade unionists. The text states that “defending human rights or protesting peacefully can cost you your freedom” and highlights the cases of individuals imprisoned “exclusively for their work defending human rights and for peacefully exercising their freedom of expression.” This represents a direct attack on fundamental freedoms.
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. While often associated with conflict, this target also encompasses state-sanctioned violence and torture. The article describes prison conditions characterized by “prolonged solitary confinement, extreme overcrowding, lack of timely medical care and the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” These conditions constitute a form of violence perpetrated by the state against detainees.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article portrays El Salvador’s justice system as the opposite of this target. It is described as a “repressive apparatus” that does not “impartially deliver justice.” Measures like the “concealment of judges’ identity” and a prison environment marked by “opacity, impunity and the absence of external controls” are clear examples of a lack of accountability and transparency in state institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article contains information that directly relates to or implies several official SDG indicators used to measure progress.

   Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

   • For Target 16.3 (Rule of Law), an implied indicator is the proportion of prisoners held in detention without sentencing (Indicator 16.3.2). The article’s emphasis on the “automatic application of pretrial detention,” its transformation into an “early punishment,” and the extension of the investigation phase without new evidence directly points to a high and potentially rising proportion of unsentenced detainees.
   • For Target 16.10 (Protect Fundamental Freedoms), the article provides data directly relevant to Indicator 16.10.1: “Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates.” The text explicitly mentions that local organizations have “identified more than 70 cases of this type in which people have been victims of arbitrary detentions” and details the specific cases of three prisoners of conscience (Ruth López, Alejandro Henríquez, and José Ángel Pérez) who were arbitrarily detained for their work.
   • For Target 16.1 (Reduce Violence), the descriptions of prison conditions serve as qualitative evidence for indicators related to violence and safety. The mention of “prolonged solitary confinement,” “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” and the IACHR’s warning of “serious risk” to the lives and integrity of detainees can be used as a measure of state-inflicted violence, which is a component of this target.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators (Identified or Implied in the Article)
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.	Implied Indicator 16.3.2: Proportion of prisoners held in detention without sentencing. (The article highlights the routine use of pretrial detention as a form of “early punishment” and the extension of administrative detention periods.)
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.	Indicator 16.10.1: Number of verified cases of… arbitrary detention… of… trade unionists and human rights advocates. (The article explicitly cites “more than 70 cases” of arbitrary detentions of defenders and details three specific cases.)
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.	Qualitative Evidence for Violence: The article describes prison conditions including “prolonged solitary confinement,” “extreme overcrowding,” and the “risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” which are forms of state-perpetrated violence.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	Qualitative Evidence of Lack of Accountability: The article points to a lack of institutional integrity through mentions of the “concealment of judges’ identity,” a justice system used as a “repressive apparatus,” and a prison system with “opacity, impunity and the absence of external controls.”

Source: amnesty.org