9. Country Analysis: Dominican Republic

9.1 Political and Legal System

The regulatory and political framework of the Dominican Republic is structured under a democratic and presidential system of government, grounded in the classical division of three independent powers: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, which coexist with various autonomous constitutional control bodies. All of this is established in its Constitution.

The Executive Power is headed by the Presidency of the Republic and operates through a network of ministries and government dependencies. For its part, the legislative function falls on the National Congress, a bicameral body composed of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, which holds exclusive competence for the initiative, debate, and approval of the country's legal system.

In the sphere of justice administration and defense of the Rule of Law, the system is articulated mainly around the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court. The latter, established following the constitutional reform of 2010, acts as the highest interpreter and ultimate guarantor of constitutional supremacy. In parallel, the power of public criminal action and strategic direction of criminal policy rest with the General Prosecutor's Office.

In electoral matters, the administration and logistics of elections is the responsibility of the Central Electoral Board (JCE), whose operational functions were recently strengthened through the entry into force of a new Electoral Code Law in 2024. In turn, jurisdictional review and the resolution of controversies in this sphere correspond to the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), thus ensuring a system of checks and balances in the electoral cycle.

At the level of territorial division, the Dominican State is administratively organized into provinces, the National District, and municipal demarcations—which include municipal districts—operating under local governments made up of elected mayors and municipal councils through direct popular suffrage. However, despite this normative design, the formal decentralization model faces significant operational and structural challenges. As observed in other nations in the region, territorial autonomy clashes in practice with marked limitations in the financial and administrative capacity of municipalities to effectively exercise their competencies and meet citizen demands.

9.2 Freedom of Expression and Human Rights

In the constitutional framework of the Dominican Republic, freedom of expression and access to information are expressly recognized as fundamental rights, and the norm provides procedural instruments for their protection. In practice, however, the effective status of these rights is assessed through the confluence of normative, institutional, and contextual factors: press protection, independence of control bodies, and public power accountability.

The Dominican Republic presents a multilevel protection scenario, sustained in Article 49 of the Constitution and the General Law on Free Access to Public Information (Law 200-04). Unlike other contexts, the Constitutional Court has developed jurisprudence on Habeas Data, allowing citizens to control the use of their personal data, although the application of a right to be forgotten remains a matter of doctrinal and jurisprudential debate against the public interest in information.

International measurements show that the Dominican Republic maintains relatively favorable parameters in regional comparison. Independent reports such as those from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) place the country in an intermediate-high range of the World Press Freedom Index. In this type of report, the issue of economic pressures affecting journalistic practice has been mentioned. Between 2024-2025, a slight decline in the national score was recorded. However, for the 2023-2024 period, reports from RSF and the Inter-American Press Society (SIP) have warned of deterioration in guarantees for journalistic practice. Although the country has remained in relatively high positions in global indexes, situations related to the digital security of these persons have been documented.

Table 9. Scores and Positions of the Dominican Republic in Freedom of Expression Indices

Report or Index	Score	Rank	Year
Reporters Without Borders	69.87	43	2025
V-Dem	0.9	28	2024

Source: Own elaboration based on RSF (2025), V-Dem (2024).

Human rights organizations and international reports agree in identifying specific problems: some events of threats to journalists, episodes of interference in access to information, and risks stemming from media concentration and economic fragility of the media.

In the case of reports from Human Rights Watch and the United States State Department, it has been mentioned that there could be some indirect restrictions and about certain state practices that may reduce the space for investigation and criticism. Likewise, relevant public episodes (for example, controversial legislative projects and journalist mobilizations in 2025) have revived the debate about the risk of normative instrumentalization that could imply censorship or undue control of digital content. These facts do not necessarily imply a widespread censorship policy, but they demonstrate the contingency of freedom of expression facing regulatory measures that require special attention.

A recent turning point was Amnesty International's finding, in collaboration with the Security Lab, which confirmed the use of Pegasus spyware against investigative journalist Nuria Piera. This incident revealed the vulnerability of communications of those investigating corruption and exposed the lack of effective controls over the State's intelligence agencies.

Likewise, the regulatory climate tensioned significantly with the enactment of Law 1-24, which created the National Intelligence Directorate (DNI) in early 2024. Both civil society and the Dominican Journalists Association (CDP) denounced that the ambiguity of said regulation could force journalists and private companies to deliver confidential information to the State without prior judicial order, violating professional secrecy and source protection.

According to RSF's analysis, the majority of traditional media are in the hands of few business groups, which fosters self-censorship on issues that could affect the economic interests of said conglomerates. Unlike the direct physical violence observed in other Central American countries, in the Dominican Republic what are presented are situations linked to threats from civil litigation and digital harassment events. Unlike the conclusions reached by these reports on other Central American countries, in the case of the Dominican Republic concern has been raised about possible situations of state digital surveillance and the use of high-technology crime legislation (Law 53-07) to investigate criticism on social networks.

In institutional terms, the protection of this block of rights depends on several bodies: the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court for jurisdictional defense, the Central Electoral Board for aspects related to propaganda in electoral processes, and administrative entities that regulate media and infrastructure (INDOTEL). As occurs in other Central American countries, constitutional jurisprudence in matters of access to information and expression has also represented a legal avenue that makes visible the essential character of these rights and that sets limits to administrative actions.

9.3 Digital Environment

The Dominican digital environment has experienced sustained growth in recent years, which translates into high rates of Internet penetration and massive adoption of social networks. Data from 2025 shows that at least 90% of the population is connected to the Internet, with figures in different reports ranging between 88.6% to 91%, placing the Dominican Republic among the countries with the highest connectivity in the region.

This degree of connection is accompanied by broad availability of mobile subscriptions: active cellular connections exceed 90% of the population, which explains the centrality of the mobile channel in the distribution and consumption of information. All of this reality has direct implications for the governance of digital platforms and the spread of content (including the disinformation phenomenon), since high penetration levels also imply a high degree of susceptibility or exposure to information disorders through digital means.

Regarding social media use, 2025 data indicates that between 60% and 70% of the population maintains active identities on social platforms, with variations by platform and age.

From the perspective of public policy, the growth in connectivity has driven state and private initiatives aimed at digital inclusion, but also poses infrastructure challenges (quality and speed), media literacy, and platform regulation. Available data suggests that the physical availability of connectivity is no longer the primary limitation; rather, attention seems necessary on other factors such as quality of service, affordable access, data protection, and strengthening of critical capacities in citizenship for addressing information disorders.

9.4 Digital Platforms Available in the Country

The Dominican market features the usual availability of social platforms and digital services that dominate the region: Facebook (and Messenger), Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter), along with local news services and aggregators. The usage structure shows that Meta platforms (Facebook/Instagram/Messenger/WhatsApp) maintain a leadership position in reach and usage time, with Instagram and Facebook reporting several million active users and significant advertising coverage; YouTube remains as the main repository of long-form audiovisual content, and TikTok has increased mainly through use in young populations.

From the commercial dimension, the digital advertising ecosystem in the Dominican Republic depends greatly on the infrastructure of global intermediaries (platforms that act as advertising markets), which hinders the traceability of political spending and fiscal supervision over cross-border advertising. Market reports and technical sheets show that there is concentration of audiences in a few platforms.

9.5 Legislative and Regulatory Context in the Dominican Republic

9.5.1 Constitutional Framework

Like other examples of recent Latin American constitutionalism, the Dominican constitutional framework establishes principles and fundamental rights linked to freedom of expression, access to public information, and communications secrecy.

The Dominican constitutional design grants a higher hierarchical rank to international human rights treaties in the constitutional block (article 74.3), which obligates public powers to interpret national laws in accordance with the American Convention and other international instruments. The legislature maintains competence to regulate the exercise of these rights, while the Executive Power, through the Dominican Institute of Telecommunications (INDOTEL), administers the radio spectrum, which is recognized by article 14 of the Constitution as an inalienable patrimony of the Nation.

Regarding freedom of expression and press, the Dominican Constitution enshrines in its article 49 the fundamental right of every person to freely express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions, by any means, expressly prohibiting the establishment of any form of prior censorship. This article spells out the prerogatives inherent to press freedom and information: it guarantees the right to seek, investigate, receive, and disseminate information of a public nature, and assures the media of free access to official and private news sources of public interest. As a vital safeguard for the free exercise of journalism, the Dominican Constitution explicitly protects journalistic professional secrecy and conscience clause, while simultaneously recognizing the right to reply and citizen correction.

These freedoms, however, are not absolute; their exercise finds constitutional limits in respect for the right to honor, privacy, dignity, and morality, with particular emphasis on the protection of youth and childhood.

In the sphere of digital rights, communications secrecy, and privacy, the 2010 Constitution represents significant progress in incorporating modern technological language. Article 44, devoted to the right to privacy and personal honor, formally recognizes the inviolability of correspondence, documents, or private messages expressly in "physical, digital, electronic, or any other format." It also directly shields communications secrecy "electronic, telematic, or that established in another means," determining that these communications and metadata can only be seized, intercepted, or recorded through a motivated order from a competent judicial authority, and must always preserve the secrecy of what is private that has no bearing on the investigation.

Alongside communications privacy, the Dominican Constitution establishes guarantees for information protection in the information age. The same article 44 recognizes the right of persons to access data concerning them in official or private registers, requiring that the treatment of said personal information respects the principles of "quality, lawfulness, loyalty, security, and purpose." This protection is materialized procedurally through the Habeas Data guarantee (article 70), empowering citizens to know their data and to demand suspension, correction, updating, and confidentiality of the same in case of falseness or discrimination.

It is especially relevant the cross-protection in favor of the press in this sphere: in instituting the Habeas Data remedy, the Constitution establishes a categorical prohibition in stating that "The secrecy of journalistic sources of information cannot be affected," thereby achieving a balanced coexistence between privacy protection in the digital environment and the indispensable safeguard for investigative journalism.

Additionally, the constitutional text does not limit itself to passive protection of these rights, but imposes active obligations on the State to democratize the public sphere and information environment. Numeral 5 of article 49 requires that the law guarantee "equitable and plural access of all social and political sectors to media owned by the State." This integrative vision is reinforced in article 63, regarding the right to education, where media are given the responsibility to contribute to citizen formation, and it is underlined that the State must guarantee public services of radio, television, and "library and computer networks," with the explicit purpose of permitting "universal access to information."

However, the exercise of freedom of expression—and by extension, that of the press and civic activity in digital environments—faces an extraordinary limitation dictated by the Dominican Republic's own Constitution: article 266 authorizes the temporary suspension of the right to freedom of expression and the inviolability of correspondence and communications during the declaration of states of interior commotion and emergency. This suspension, nevertheless, seeks to maintain a floor of guarantees, since states of exception must be properly motivated, authorized by the National Congress, and the acts adopted during them are expressly subjected to constitutional control.

9.5.2 Telecommunications and Media Legislation

The Dominican legal framework for telecommunications is primarily based on the General Telecommunications Law (153-98), which establishes specific provisions on the provision of radio-electric services and spectrum management.²⁰³ This regulation created the Dominican Institute of Telecommunications (Indotel) as the state regulatory body, endowed with functional, jurisdictional, and financial autonomy. Indotel has competencies to regulate the market, ensure universal service, administer the spectrum, and resolve disputes between service providers. Unlike a purely technical approach, Indotel has also assumed roles in defining cybersecurity strategies and the national digital agenda.

The Law No. 6132 on Expression and Dissemination of Thought, promulgated in 1962, has specific implications for the exercise of journalism in the country.²⁰⁴ Although this law prohibits prior censorship and establishes a regime of formal freedoms, which corresponds with constitutional provisions, it has been criticized for maintaining criminal sanctions for so-called crimes of speech (defamation and libel). Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court has issued rulings that nullify certain articles of this law that imposed prison sentences for defamation against public officials,²⁰⁵ thus strengthening the protection of critical discourse. This demonstrates that case law has adequately fulfilled its control role, ensuring that legal provisions do not contravene the constitutional order or exceed such limits that rights and freedoms are affected.

In the sphere of digital security and protection of online users, the Dominican Republic has Law No. 53-07 on Crimes and High-Tech Offenses.²⁰⁶ This legislation has the main purpose of comprehensive protection of information systems and the punishment of computer, cybernetic, and telecommunications crimes. The norm typifies and severely punishes conduct such as illicit access to systems, sabotage, data alteration, and interception or espionage of communications without prior authorization from a competent judge. To make its application and prosecution effective, the law provided for the creation of specialized departments, such as the Department of Investigation of Crimes and High-Tech Offenses (DICAT) within the National Police, and the Division of Computer Crime Investigations (DIDI) attached to the National Investigation Department.

Another fundamental pillar of the regulatory framework is Law No. 172-13 on Protection of Personal Data,²⁰⁷ which guarantees respect for the privacy and dignity of persons against the treatment of their information in public and private files or databases. This law procedurally regulates the exercise of the Habeas Data action, granting citizens the inalienable right to access, rectify, update, or cancel their personal data in case of error or inaccuracy. Furthermore, it establishes strict operational control over Credit Information Companies (SIC) and strictly prohibits the collection of "sensitive data"—such as political opinions, religious beliefs, health status, or sexual preferences—without the free, express, and written consent of the information holder.

Finally, and as mentioned before, the country recently approved Law 1-24, which created the National Intelligence Directorate (DNI). This regulation has been strongly questioned by various civil society and press sectors for containing provisions that, in their original wording, could force the delivery of private information without the need for a prior court order,²⁰⁸ potentially affecting communications secrecy and privacy guarantees.

In addition to the typification of computer crimes, the Dominican Republic has developed public policies aimed at prevention and risk management in cyberspace. The National Cybersecurity Strategy 2030²⁰⁹ establishes strategic objectives to protect critical national infrastructures, promote a national cybersecurity culture and education, and develop the legal and institutional framework in this matter. As part of this sectoral regulatory evolution, INDOTEL issued Resolution No. 126-2021, which enacts the Cybersecurity Regulation for the Provision of Internet Access Service.²¹⁰ This resolution imposes essential obligations on public service providers to safeguard the integrity of networks and protect users against vulnerabilities and digital threats.

In parallel, the country has driven the modernization of its commercial and judicial infrastructures to adapt them to the digital ecosystem. Law No. 126-02 on Electronic Commerce, Digital Documents and Digital Signatures²¹¹ laid the early foundations to grant legal validity and evidentiary force to electronic transactions, democratizing access to global markets and revolutionizing the way Dominican society produces and safeguards information.

The Dominican State has begun to outline regulatory guidelines for the adoption of frontier tools. Through Decree 498-23, the Executive Power promulgated the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (ENIA),²¹² with the purpose of democratizing the use of ICT, increasing the competitiveness of the productive sector, and modernizing the State under the coordination of the Cabinet for Innovation and Digital Development.

9.5.3 Specific Regulation on Platforms and/or Content Regulation

Like other countries in the region, in the case of the Dominican Republic there is currently no specific law in force that regulates digital social media platforms under the figure of internet intermediaries, nor does it establish a limited liability regime similar to Section 230 of the U.S. or the European Digital Services Act (DSA).

In the fiscal sphere, the General Directorate of Internal Taxes (DGII) implemented General Norm 07-2023, which establishes the mechanism for collecting the Tax on the Transfer of Industrialized Goods and Services (ITBIS) on digital services provided from abroad (such as Netflix or Spotify), although this is purely tax-related and does not imply regulation of the content moderation that these platforms offer.²¹³

Facing this sectoral regulatory void, discourse control in the digital environment is carried out de facto through Law No. 53-07 on Crimes and High-Tech Offenses.²¹⁴ This regulation transfers traditional criminal responsibilities to cyberspace, directly typifying "content crimes." For example, articles 21 and 22 punish defamation and public libel committed through electronic, computer, or telematic means with prison sentences and fines. It also severely punishes the distribution of child pornography (Art. 24) and the illicit trade of goods and services on the internet (Art. 20). Although this law does not directly regulate technology companies as intermediaries, it does impose collaboration obligations on them; for example, it requires service providers to preserve user traffic and connection data for a minimum period of 90 days to facilitate criminal investigations (Art. 56).

To remedy this lag and establish a modern governance framework, the country is currently debating the Organic Law Project on Freedom of Expression and Audiovisual Media,²¹⁵ which dedicates an entire chapter (Chapter IV) to the regulation of "Internet Content Platforms" and also establishes as a specific objective ensuring universal access to the internet. As of January 2026, this Organic Law Project had not obtained a favorable report from the Senate.

This proposal, applicable to social networks and commercial search engines whose community exceeds 10% of internet users in the country (excluding private messaging services that moderate content), requires that these companies' community standards be compatible with international human rights standards. It introduces robust transparency obligations, requiring platforms to publish their terms of service clearly in Spanish, to make transparent the functioning of their recommendation algorithms, and to provide detailed semi-annual reports on content restrictions or removals they execute.

The bill establishes due process guarantees for users facing algorithmic moderation. The initiative proposes that persons affected by account suspension or publication deletion be notified beforehand, giving them detailed reasons and a quick, accessible, and free appeal mechanism. Additionally, in article 24, it defines a conditional civil liability regime for intermediaries (similar to the "safe harbor" model), establishing that platforms will only be responsible for damages resulting from third-party publications if, after receiving a specific court order, they fail to take necessary measures to disable such content (Art. 24).

However, there are evident gaps. There is no reference to automated content moderation or artificial intelligence in general, and it does not contain sufficiently developed regulations on microsegmentation or the use of bots, which will not be sufficient to strengthen electoral regulation of the country.²¹⁶ Nor does it include or promote media literacy initiatives among the population.

And although the legislative proposal seeks modernization of legislation in the digital age, it also contains provisions related to journalistic work, seeking to protect it from prior censorship. The proposal seeks to shield the exercise of journalism through absolute protection of professional secrecy and the incorporation of the conscience clause for communicators, but it has not been exempt from criticism, given concerns that it could also serve to criminalize journalistic practice. A reading of its articles 16 to 18 reveals that it could criminalize the practice of pseudonymity and may end up giving preeminence to the right to honor of public figures even above the right of society to be properly informed, which can undermine journalistic work due to fear of reprisals.

Another notable innovation is the creation of the National Communication Institute (INACOM), a decentralized regulatory body with functional autonomy that would replace the former National Commission of Public Spectacles and Broadcasting and would have powers to supervise accessibility and promote local culture. But one of the biggest criticisms focuses on the concentration of excessive technical and punitive power of INACOM, as it is considered that it does not have adequate external checks.²¹⁷

9.5.4 Legislation on Data Protection and Privacy

The Dominican Republic has a specific legal regulation on this matter: Law No. 172-13 on Protection of Personal Character Data.²¹⁸ This legislation has as its main purpose the comprehensive protection of personal data contained in files, public records, or databases, whether under public or private ownership, with the firm purpose of guaranteeing the right to honor and privacy. The regulation operationally materializes the exercise of the constitutional action of Habeas Data, granting citizens direct legal tools to know the existence of their data and demand the rectification, updating, deletion, or blocking of information that is inaccurate, erroneous, discriminatory, or that has been collected illicitly.

The treatment of information under this legal framework must be governed by a catalog of inescapable guiding principles, such as data quality, lawfulness, loyalty, security, and purpose limitation; ensuring that information collected is not used for purposes other than those that motivated its original acquisition. One of the pillars of the law is the requirement of free, express, and conscious consent of the holder for the treatment and cession of their data, except in very specific exceptions provided for for public access sources or national security purposes.

The law establishes a reinforced protection regime for so-called "sensitive data"—those that reveal racial origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, union affiliation, as well as information about health and sexual life—, categorically prohibiting the formation of files that store them without the explicit and written consent of the natural person. The legislation also addresses the cross-border movement of information, allowing international data transfer only when the user's authorization is obtained or under strict legal assumptions, such as judicial cooperation and the execution of international treaties.

Despite the establishment of this broad range of rights, in practice, the design of Law 172-13 presents an approach markedly inclined toward regulation of the financial sector and credit histories. A large part of its provisions are designed to dictate the operating rules of Credit Information Companies (SIC) or credit bureaus. To ensure compliance in this specific sector, the law grants inspection, surveillance, and administrative sanctioning powers to the Superintendence of Banks, consolidating this entity as the sole control body for databases intended to provide credit reports.

Perhaps because of this specialized approach, the Dominican Republic lacks an independent control authority with general competence in data protection matters, such as a National Data Protection Agency. As administrative supervision falls solely on the Superintendence of Banks for credit matters, the protection of rights against abuses committed by digital platforms, social networks, telecommunications companies, or mobile applications remains in an administrative void.

Consequently, to defend itself against abusive collection, algorithmic profiling, or unauthorized commercialization of their information by large technology companies, the common citizen is forced to bring their claim through Habeas Data before civil courts of first instance. This absence of an agile, preventive, and specialized institutional avenue creates barriers to access to justice and may limit the capacity of the Dominican State to audit or sanction ex officio the massive treatment of data in digital environments.

9.5.5 Specific Regulation for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups

The protection of vulnerable groups in the Dominican digital ecosystem does not have a unified legal framework but is instead scattered across a regulatory amalgamation that justice operators must integrate to respond to current challenges.

The guiding standard regarding childhood is Law No. 136-03, which creates the Code for the System of Protection and the Fundamental Rights of Children and Adolescents.²¹⁹ Its article 26 establishes the absolute right to protection of image and privacy, categorically prohibiting the dissemination of any data, information, or image that could affect the comprehensive development of minors or expose them to public ridicule. Although this provision is fully applicable to digital media and social networks, its enforcement mechanism is designed for traditional media, lacking agile tools to require international platforms to remove harmful content immediately. Institutions such as the National Council for Childhood and Adolescence (CONANI) and the National Directorate of Children, Adolescents, and Families (DINNAF) play an active role in monitoring, although their capacity to respond is limited by the speed of propagation in the digital environment.

Regarding gender violence, there is a significant gap between the legal framework in force and virtual reality. Law 24-97 on Intrafamily Violence,²²⁰ promulgated before the rise of social networks, does not typify digital violence. Facing this void, prosecutors and judges resort, in a supplementary manner, to Law 53-07 on Crimes and High-Tech Offenses²²¹ to prosecute serious conduct such as sexual coercion, extortion, or non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. However, this technical approach often makes invisible the gender component of the aggression, treating these acts as crimes against honor or generic computer infractions.

Another crucial layer of protection for vulnerable groups comes from Law No. 172-13 on Protection of Personal Character Data.²²² This regulation provides crucial protection against digital discrimination by defining and protecting with greater rigor "sensitive data." The law prohibits the treatment, without express written consent, of information that reveals racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, union membership, as well as data relating to the health or sexual life of persons. This provision is vital to protect minorities and stigmatized groups from the creation of discriminatory profiles or undue exposure on digital platforms and databases, although, as we have said, the law has a specific focus on financial matters, an area where discrimination certainly can exist, but it also makes clear that it would be better to have a law with a broader focus.

Despite these legal tools, the Dominican State recognizes the insufficiency of the current framework to exercise preventive and effective protection. The Ministry for Women has driven the need for reforms, including a draft law on violence against women.²²³ Initiatives such as the reform to the Penal Code²²⁴ that typifies in an autonomous manner crimes such as cyberbullying and gender-based digital violence have moved forward. Undoubtedly, these reforms are relevant advances in equipping the justice system with clear criminal types that recognize the gravity of virtual aggressions and establish expeditious protection mechanisms for victims through a more robust and preventive framework.²²⁵ However, for the Ministry for Women itself²²⁶ and for international organizations, these reforms are still insufficient to adequately guarantee the rights of women and girls.²²⁷

9.5.6 Digital Electoral Regulation

The regulations that govern democratic processes in the Dominican Republic are based on the Organic Law of the Electoral System (Law No. 20-23)²²⁸ and the Law of Political Parties, Groupings, and Political Movements (Law No. 33-18).²²⁹ This legal framework grants the Central Electoral Board (JCE) supreme authority to organize and supervise elections, endowing it with the ruling power to regulate campaign times, manage the use of communication media, and guarantee constitutional principles such as equity and transparency of the contest.

The eruption of social networks as the main stage for public debate has generated tensions between electoral control and fundamental rights. The electoral authority makes administrative efforts to preserve the rules of the game. Through official proclamations, the JCE urges political organizations and the public to respect the "electoral silence" or "veda" in all dissemination spaces, explicitly extending this call to the digital environment. The coercive application of these measures in the globalized cyberspace proves extremely complex at the operational level.

Originally, furthermore, Law 33-18 attempted to establish strict control over the internet by penalizing the dissemination of "false news" or "negative messages" against candidates. However, through Constitutional Court ruling TC/0092/19,²³⁰ the Constitutional Court dismantled those articles for violating freedom of expression, ruling that political criticism on social networks enjoys enhanced protection and prohibiting the State from acting as a censor of discourse under electoral justifications. This is further proof that Dominican constitutional control has functioned where legislation has exceeded its bounds.

Finally, the greatest challenge for the Dominican electoral system currently lies in the oversight of political financing in the web environment. In online environments, propaganda has migrated toward hyper-personalized and micro-segmented digital advertising. Although parties have the obligation to report campaign expenses, the technical capacity of the JCE was designed to audit traditional media and is still limited in monitoring digital advertising in real time. Such asymmetry makes it very difficult to trace the origin of funds and control the proliferation of covert campaigns on the internet.

9.6 Alignment with UNESCO Guidelines: Dominican Republic

The analysis of the normative and institutional framework of the Dominican Republic, in light of UNESCO's Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms, reveals a scenario of contrasts: a protective constitutional design that coexists with sectoral regulatory gaps and practical challenges in the digital ecosystem.

At its base, the country exhibits solid conceptual alignment with international human rights standards. The Constitution not only prohibits prior censorship and enshrines the right to reply but also grants constitutional rank to data protection through the habeas data figure and elevates international treaties to the constitutional block. This robust framework has enabled the Constitutional Court to act as an effective counterbalance; evidence of this is the already-mentioned ruling TC/0092/19, which dismantled legislative attempts to penalize "false news" or "negative messages" during electoral campaigns, setting the precedent that political criticism on social networks enjoys enhanced protection against the censoring temptations of the State.

However, with respect to the specific regulation of internet intermediaries, the country currently lacks a systemic governance model. In the absence of a "safe harbor"-type limited liability regime, the control of online discourse falls de facto on Law No. 53-07 on Crimes and High-Tech Offenses. The dependence on criminal law to address "content crimes" (such as electronic defamation) poses risks of disproportionality and asymmetry with respect to UNESCO's guidelines, which promote a civil and preventive approach rather than a punitive one.

In an attempt to remedy this lag, the Dominican State has submitted to debate an Organic Law Project on Freedom of Expression and Audiovisual Media, which incorporates requirements that align with what the UNESCO guidelines propose. The proposal requires large platforms to adapt their community standards to human rights, make transparent the functioning of recommendation algorithms, issue semi-annual moderation reports, and establish quick and free appeal channels, also instituting a scheme of conditional liability.

Nevertheless, the project presents omissions and critical risks: it does not address automated moderation, artificial intelligence, bot armies, or microsegmentation, essential elements to protect electoral integrity in an environment where the authority (the JCE) already recognizes technical limitations to audit digital advertising. Additionally, the intention to criminalize the use of pseudonyms in the project directly conflicts with the protection of online anonymity, a pillar defended internationally to safeguard critical and dissident voices and which enters into direct tension with the will of the Guidelines to propose a framework for robust regulation of human rights. In any case, as of January 2026, the bill still lacked a favorable report from the national Senate, so its processing has not moved forward.

Finally, institutional design and the protection of vulnerable populations show fragmentation that hinders the application of due diligence. Although laws such as Personal Data Protection (Law 172-13) shield the treatment of "sensitive data" (such as sexual orientation or political affiliation), the absence of an independent National Data Protection Authority forces citizens to take any abuse by large technology companies to court, erecting enormous barriers to access to justice.

Similarly, the protection of children and women against cyberbullying and digital violence lacks agile mechanisms to demand the immediate removal of harmful content from platforms, forcing justice operators to force the application of analog laws or generic computer crimes that end up making invisible the severity of these aggressions. This fragmentation, combined with the proposal to concentrate sanctioning powers in a possible new National Communication Institute (INACOM), as it appears in the aforementioned Organic Law on Freedom of Expression and Audiovisual Media without clear checks, underscores the Dominican challenge of transitioning toward a digital ecosystem that not only connects its population but protects it structurally under an approach in which all relevant stakeholders are incorporated.