5. Country Analysis: Guatemala

5.1 Political and Legal System

Guatemala maintains a presidential system of government, and the functioning of the political system is articulated around the three classical powers: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, along with several autonomous and control bodies with specific constitutional functions.

The President is elected by popular vote for a four-year term and immediate reelection is prohibited; the Executive is made up of Ministries and Secretariats that administer public policies, while the Congress of the Republic, which is unicameral, has exclusive constitutional authority over the presentation and processing of laws. For its part, the Constitutional Court exercises diffuse and concentrated control of constitutionality and the Public Ministry is recognized as having the power to direct public criminal prosecution.

Electoral processes are held every four years for the Presidential and Legislative elections, whose administration is the responsibility of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), which regulates the registration of candidates, the organization of voting and the count; confidence and efficiency of the electoral system have been subject to debate and reforms in different periods, as will be seen later.

Territorial organization is decentralized through departments and municipalities, made up of Mayoralties and Municipal Councils elected by popular vote, which manage municipal affairs, although effective decentralization faces financial and institutional limitations. Overall, Guatemala has formal frameworks and institutions designed to guarantee democracy and the rule of law, but a set of challenges common to the region persists, related to judicial independence, transparency, accountability, and citizen trust in public institutions.

5.2 Freedom of Expression and Human Rights

Guatemala expressly recognizes freedom of thought and freedom of expression in its Political Constitution,⁷⁶ provided for in articles 35 and 36, which establish not only the capacity of every person to disseminate their ideas without prior censorship, but also the prohibition of all indirect restrictions on the exercise of this right.

These provisions are complemented by a regulatory framework that incorporates international human rights treaties into the constitutional framework, in accordance with the interpretation upheld by the Constitutional Court, which has repeatedly affirmed the prevalence of international instruments in matters of freedom of expression, information and press, by virtue of constitutional articles 44 and 46.⁷⁷ The country has adopted relevant norms such as the Public Information Access Law (Decree 57-2008),⁷⁸ which establishes active transparency obligations and procedures to guarantee the right of citizens to know about public management, as well as electoral and media communication legislation, which regulate informational pluralism and equity in the use of media spaces during electoral processes.

However, various academic studies and international organizations have noted that the practical effectiveness of these guarantees faces institutional and contextual challenges.⁷⁹ Among them are mentioned limitations in the application of information access rules, difficulties for the economic sustainability of independent media, and tensions between state actors and communicators that, at times, lead to a climate of mistrust or controversial legal proceedings. These situations do not represent a structural denial of those rights, guarantees and freedoms, but do reflect that the country has needs to strengthen protection mechanisms.

In Guatemala, judicial protection of freedom of expression and the right of access to public information is articulated primarily through the Constitutional Court, through the exercise of constitutional amparo, which proceeds in the face of acts or omissions that threaten or harm fundamental rights. Procedural regulations and constitutional doctrine regulate the Court's jurisdiction to hear amparos in sole instance or on appeal depending on the specific case, in accordance with what is established in the Amparo Law, Habeas Corpus and Constitutionality (Decree 1-86)⁸⁰ and the case law of the Constitutional Court itself.

The Supreme Court of Justice also participates in the protection of guarantees through the processing of amparos in first instance or in its corresponding chambers; its decisions can be appealed before the Constitutional Court. In practice, the distribution of competencies between both jurisdictions has been clarified through auto-agreements and interpretive resolutions of the Constitutional Court.

In the electoral sphere, the authority to protect rights related to freedom of expression in campaigns, access to media, and political advertising corresponds to the TSE. This body exercises jurisdictional functions in matters of political rights, electoral financing and advertising, as provided for in the Electoral and Political Parties Law⁸¹ and its Regulations.⁸²

At the administrative level, the Human Rights Ombudsman's Office (PDH) acts as a body for supervision and defense against acts or omissions by the State that restrict freedom of expression or access to information. Within its structure, the PDH has the Ombudsman's Office for the Right to Freedom of Expression, responsible for handling complaints, issuing recommendations and promoting protection measures for journalists and social communicators.

The practical implementation of the right of access to public information is governed by the Public Information Access Law (Decree 57-2008),⁸³ which establishes the obligated subjects, the procedures for requests and appeals, and active transparency obligations. Each public institution has a Public Information Unit (UIP) responsible for receiving and processing requests. General oversight of compliance falls on the PDH, through its Directorate for Access to Public Information.

Regarding personal data protection, Guatemala lacks comprehensive legislation and a specialized supervisory authority. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court has recognized the protection of privacy and misuse of data under constitutional protection of honor and private life (article 24 of the Political Constitution of the Republic). This regulatory situation places Guatemala in a position of regional lag in matters of informational self-determination.

In the field of telecommunications and the digital environment, the Telecommunications Superintendency (SIT), a decentralized entity of the Ministry of Communications, Infrastructure and Housing, is responsible for administering the radio spectrum, technical and economic regulation of the sector and promoting free competition in telecommunications services, pursuant to the General Telecommunications Law.⁸⁴ The SIT does not exercise content moderation functions; its role is predominantly technical and oversight with respect to the digital ecosystem infrastructure.

Guatemala does not have a specific tax regime for digital services, but the study identified that the Tax Administration Superintendency (SAT) has implemented measures to tax with the Value Added Tax (VAT) electronic operations and services provided by digital means under the terms of the Value Added Tax Law,⁸⁵ and administrative provisions issued since 2021 on electronic invoicing and digital commerce.

Regarding the current state of freedoms in this area, it was identified that Guatemala has a multi-level regulatory framework for protection, since protection is normatively supported from the Constitution, the Amparo Law, Habeas Corpus and Constitutionality, as well as standards derived from the Inter-American Human Rights System. The Constitutional Court usually integrates in its reasoning the guidelines of the IAHRS, especially in relation to legitimate restrictions, democratic necessity and accountability for abuses of the right to inform. However, unlike other countries like Costa Rica, Guatemala does not have a legal response for the protection of the right to be forgotten.

In matters of freedom of expression, the Guatemalan legal order recognizes both the individual and collective dimensions of the right and the modalities of protected expression or subject to legal protection are established by law.

In practice, in 2023 a joint mission led by Freedom House together with ARTICLE 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Fundamedios,

Free Press Unlimited, IFEX-ALC and Voces del Sur, conducted interviews with 67 journalists, including several in exile, to analyze the conditions under which they exercise their work in different regions of the country.⁸⁶ In its findings report, the mission points to patterns of intimidation, judicial prosecution and digital violence that affect both the personal security of communicators and the ability of citizens to receive information freely.

According to the report, systematic harassment was observed on social networks, through coordinated campaigns of delegitimization or surveillance, which contributes to a climate that causes self-censorship among those who cover high-risk issues such as corruption or abuse of power.⁸⁶ In this document, emphasis was also placed on the fact that State bodies, such as the Human Rights Ombudsman's Office, face difficulties in providing a sufficient or effective response to threats to journalism; and, in general, to foster a safe space for fluid information flow.

Additionally, the Guatemala chapter prepared by Human Rights Watch also reported at least 120 incidents of aggression, harassment and use of criminal proceedings against journalists during the first seven months of 2023.⁸⁷ Among these incidents is the case of José Rubén Zamora, director of the newspaper elPeriódico, convicted of money laundering amid questions about the use of the criminal system to suppress the press.

Furthermore, a specific report on community journalism published by Freedom House in 2025 documents how journalists from indigenous and local media face other types of difficulties associated with inequality factors, such as structural discrimination, gender-based violence, legal threats and limited access to institutional protection mechanisms. These conditions seem to make the implementation of the rights provided for in the constitutional framework somewhat more complex, but also reduce the ability of these people to report in communities with less traditional media coverage, which could be weakening informational plurality at local levels.

The reports diagnose that, while there are guarantees and freedom in a formal sense and they are channeled through amparo procedures, a part of what occurs in reality visibilizes the barriers for concrete issues, such as journalism. In this way, the available inputs point to some challenges persisting for the right to communicate and the right to be informed to be effectively exercised in the environment.

5.3 Digital Environment

According to the most recent DataReportal report, at the beginning of 2025, Guatemala had approximately 11.3 million Internet users, which equals a penetration of 60.8% of the total population.⁸⁸

At the level of mobile subscriptions, consolidated data show that in 2024 there were about 20.65 million active cellular connections, equivalent to 113.3 connections per 100 inhabitants (this reflects the existence of multiple lines per user and a high degree of mobile connectivity).⁸⁹ Records from technical and market observatories also indicate a sustained process of 5G deployment: the Telecommunications Superintendency (SIT) held spectrum auctions aimed at 5G implementation (including blocks in the 700 MHz band and other ranges intended for mobile services), and operators who obtained rights in those processes have begun offering commercial 5G services or tests in urban areas, although commercial availability is still increasing gradually.⁹⁰

Mobile user experience reports (OpenSignal) show that dominant operators offer widespread 4G coverage and 5G experience is beginning to appear in coverage and availability indicators; in the most recent analyses Claro and other operators are among the providers with highest network availability in user measurements.⁹¹

Regarding the use of social networks, the Guatemalan digital ecosystem shows transversal adoption but with differentiated demographic profiles. DataReportal reported 10.4 million active identities on social networks in 2025 (≈56.1% of the population),⁹² and their technical files show that platforms like TikTok reach massive audiences among users over 18 years old;⁹³ the advertising planning tools of the platforms allow observing that TikTok and Instagram concentrate higher participation among young users (under 35 years old), while Facebook maintains a strong presence among older groups.⁹⁴

From the sociodemographic perspective relevant for interpreting the digital ecosystem, around 53% of the population lives in urban areas (projected data January 2024), which explains the concentration of most of the traffic and active users in the main urban centers of the country (Guatemala City, neighboring metropolitan areas and departments with higher density).⁹⁵

In fiscal and administrative matters related to platforms and digital services, Guatemala maintains a tax structure where Value Added Tax (VAT) is applied at a general rate of 12% and the tax administration has promoted electronic invoicing (FEL) and normative reforms (Decree 4-2019 and related rules) to modernize collection. While SAT has strengthened control instruments and electronic transaction recording, unlike other countries in the region Guatemala does not have such an explicit and differentiated regime (in legal and operational form) to require all non-domiciled providers of cross-border digital services to collect VAT from the final consumer through standardized mechanisms.

5.4 Digital Platforms Available in the Country

Guatemala has no public, legally binding registry establishing legal domicile for digital platforms in the country; the fiscal and administrative obligations affecting them have been built sectorally through actions by the Tax Administration Superintendency (SAT) and other competent authorities, rather than through a unified registration system.⁹⁶

5.5 Legislative and Regulatory Context in Guatemala

5.5.1 Constitutional Framework

The Guatemalan constitutional framework expressly establishes principles and rights relating to freedoms and guarantees for expression, information, and communications. In structural terms, the constitutional system provides for concentrated constitutional review through the Constitutional Court (Corte de Constitucionalidad), an institution that acts as the centralized body for the protection of these fundamental rights and before which amparo proceedings relating to violations of access to information and freedom of expression are usually filed.

Likewise, the constitutional design assigns differentiated competencies to state bodies with respect to communications and telecommunications. The ordinary legislature retains broad scope to develop the content of freedom of expression and the media regime, while the Executive Branch retains administrative powers over the radio spectrum.

This normative framework conditions any intervention regarding digital content or platform dynamics, requiring compatibility with the constitutional limits developed in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. That Court has repeatedly affirmed the standards of the Inter-American human rights framework, particularly regarding proportionality and the prohibition of indirect restrictions.

5.5.2 Telecommunications and Media Legislation

Guatemala’s legal framework for telecommunications rests primarily on the General Telecommunications Law (Decree 94-96), which establishes a technical-economic regime for the exploitation of the radio spectrum and the provision of communications services, similar to how this currently operates in other countries in the region.⁹⁸

With this law, the country established the Telecommunications Superintendency (SIT) as a technical body with functional independence attached to the Ministry of Communications, endowed with competencies to administer the telecommunications registry, oversee spectrum use, plan the national numbering system, and resolve disputes between operators over access to essential resources.⁹⁹ By legal mandate, the SIT intervenes in the oversight of operators, but its main focus is technical and operational rather than the regulation of online content or speech.

Additionally, the Law on Freedom of Expression (Ley de Emisión del Pensamiento)¹⁰⁰ prohibits prior censorship, as well as the imposition of a security deposit as a condition for publishing, and it also establishes subsequent liability for libel or defamation.¹⁰⁰ A particular feature is that this law created a Court of Honor (Tribunal de Honor) as a mechanism for resolving disputes between public officials and the media.

Initiatives have been put forward to regulate other aspects, such as the draft Personal Data Protection Law,¹⁰¹ which in 2025 remained pending in the legislative process, with the purpose of protecting personal data to standards inspired by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as the creation of an independent authority with sanctioning powers.

5.5.3 Specific Regulation on Platforms and/or Content Regulation

Like other countries covered in this study, Guatemala lacks a legal regime that regulates digital platforms as service providers or as content intermediaries. Platform activity falls within the general scope of commercial and civil law, with no specific provisions addressing liability for user-generated content, transparent content moderation, or platform-specific due process obligations.

In the electoral sphere, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) has issued administrative provisions to limit or channel political advertising on social media during specific periods, but these rules have varied across electoral processes, and their basis lies in the interpretation of Article 223 of the Electoral and Political Parties Law (LEPP).¹⁰² The absence of specialized legislation appears to produce a scenario in which decisions about digital content are made through regulatory or administrative powers, subject to constitutional review, as is also the case with the taxation of digital platforms under VAT.

5.5.4 Data Protection and Privacy Legislation

Guatemala has not adopted a general personal data protection law. Existing regulation is dispersed across sectoral norms such as the Law on Access to Public Information (Decree 57-2008),¹⁰³ which defines categories of sensitive personal information and establishes the obligation to safeguard data held by public entities. Isolated provisions also exist in banking, financial, and health legislation that regulate the handling of information under specific regimes.

The absence of a national data protection authority limits the institutional capacity to supervise digital operators, platforms, or private entities that manage personal information. As a result, the privacy framework operates in a fragmented manner, with the courts and the Constitutional Court assuming a role in protecting privacy rights through constitutional and amparo proceedings in the absence of a specialized administrative body.

5.5.5 Specific Regulation for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups

The protection of vulnerable populations in the digital environment is distributed across different sectoral norms without a unified statute, so their protection is provided in provisions such as the Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents Law (Decree 27-2003),¹⁰⁴ which establishes obligations for prevention and sanction in cases of exploitation, abuse, or improper use of minors’ images and data — provisions that clearly extend to the treatment of digital content. On violence against women, the Law against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence against Women (Ley contra el Femicidio y otras Formas de Violencia contra la Mujer) also incorporated provisions that can extend to conduct carried out through information technologies or digital media.

In the absence of a specific regime for digital risks, the application of these norms depends on the individual case and on the institutional capacity to identify harms arising from the platform ecosystem. The regulatory approach remains predominantly reactive — addressing specific harms after they occur — rather than preventive, and there are no direct obligations requiring platforms to implement age verification systems or content filtering adapted to the needs of these vulnerable groups.

5.5.6 Digital Electoral Regulation

Guatemala’s electoral regulatory framework is governed by the Electoral and Political Parties Law (LEPP), which currently regulates public and private financing of traditional political parties,¹⁰⁵ as well as the obligations for electoral advertising in the media. In particular, Article 222 of the law provides that during electoral periods, political organizations may not contract advertising directly with media outlets; instead, the TSE must centralize that media space and set the rates.¹⁰⁶ Likewise, Article 223 establishes prohibitions on electoral advertising, although it does not explicitly classify paid digital advertising as part of those restrictions.

Given that the current legislation did not offer a clear specific framework for the contracting of paid advertising on digital platforms, the TSE has resorted to internal agreements and regulations to fill that gap. For example, the Regulation of the Specialized Unit on Media and Opinion Studies (Acuerdo 15-2018)¹⁰⁶ extended the definition of “media” to include “social networks and digital media via the internet” for purposes of monitoring and political advertising. This regulation requires that anyone planning to advertise on social media must first register their political accounts with the TSE, which allows for a degree of institutional control over paid advertisements. However, this measure may be leaving unaddressed the content published from other, unreported accounts.

The TSE has clarified that parties may only advertise on certain networks (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) and always subject to formal registration and verification requirements by the electoral body.

The challenge the country faces in this area is the tension between traditional media regulation and the need to adapt to electoral campaigns deployed in the digital environment. It is true that the LEPP did not formally incorporate digital advertising regulations from the outset, but the TSE has built a body of administrative interpretation and regulatory practice that seeks to extend the principles of transparency and accountability to social media — though without the binding force of a legislative norm specifically designed for that purpose.

5.6 Alignment with UNESCO Guidelines: Guatemala

Guatemala’s constitutional framework establishes a guarantee base oriented toward the protection of freedom of expression, the prohibition of prior censorship, and the inviolability of correspondence and communications. Although this normative design is consistent with the UNESCO Guidelines’ emphasis on the protection of fundamental rights as the backbone of digital governance, its practical application faces structural limitations arising from the absence of a legislative framework specifically addressing digital platforms and intermediaries.

Despite having normative tools such as the Law on Access to Public Information and the Law on Freedom of Expression, the legal system lacks specific legal mechanisms to require transparency from digital platforms, to establish conditioned liability regimes, or to ensure due process in content moderation decisions. This results in a misalignment with the UNESCO Guidelines’ provisions regarding co-regulation, platform accountability, and the protection of civic space in the digital environment.

This lack of a preventive and unified approach is reflected in a markedly fragmented regulatory landscape. Current legislation separately distinguishes telecommunications, access to information, traditional media, and specific areas such as electoral regulation, without a transversal framework that addresses digital platforms as entities with differentiated responsibilities and capabilities that affect all of these dimensions simultaneously.

State interventions in this area tend to be purely sectoral, dispersing controls across multiple public entities with dissimilar procedures. For example, while solid administrative regulations exist for the allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum, in the digital sphere it is the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) that has had to resort to agreements and regulatory provisions to monitor social media, manage political advertising, and combat disinformation during elections. However, these valuable electoral efforts lack the backing of higher-ranking legislation and fail to impose mandatory structural processes on platforms, such as independent audits or internal appeal systems.

In practice, the absence of a systemic model directly impacts the protection of specific population segments and the free exercise of journalism. While the Constitution expressly prohibits arbitrary state interventions against communicators and the press, the absence of a specific regulatory framework for platforms leaves media workers, civil society organizations, and citizens exposed to digital risks — such as coordinated harassment campaigns or the manipulation of information environments — without effective legal remedies specific to these new forms of harm.

On the other hand, regarding populations in situations of vulnerability, Guatemala has protective laws focused on children, adolescents, and women that are applicable to behaviors in the online environment; however, these norms do not impose direct obligations on platforms to implement preventive measures, content filters, or rapid response mechanisms adapted to the specificities of the digital ecosystem. This gap limits the preventive capacity of the regulatory framework in the face of risks that affect these groups disproportionately and daily.

Finally, regarding citizen empowerment, the country has taken enabling steps such as the legal recognition of digital identity through electronic signatures and the promotion of a culture of transparency. However, a significant gap remains between these enabling frameworks and the practical capacity of citizens — particularly those from rural populations or with lower levels of digital literacy — to effectively exercise their rights in digital environments and to hold platforms accountable for decisions that affect them daily.