OAS Special Mission for the Strengthening of Democratic Institutions in Guatemala Concludes Its Second Official Visit

Press Release

OAS Special Mission for the Strengthening of Democratic Institutions in Guatemala Concludes Its Second Official Visit

The Special Mission of the Organization of American States (OAS) for the Strengthening of Democratic Institutions in Guatemala concluded its second official visit to the country, conducted from February 16 to 20, 2026, within the framework of its mandate to provide technical accompaniment to the second-degree selection processes for the appointment of magistrates to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Attorney General, and the Comptroller General of Accounts scheduled for 2026.

The purpose of this second visit was to deepen dialogue with institutions and relevant stakeholders; follow up on critical milestones in the nomination and appointment processes; identify strengths and risks that may affect integrity, public trust, and institutional continuity; and formulate technical, preventive, and actionable recommendations grounded in inter-American standards and comparative good practices.

Meetings and Engagement Spaces

The Mission held working meetings with authorities from the three branches of government - the President of the Republic and the Minister of the Interior, the Congressional Board of Directors and Heads of Caucus, and the Supreme Court of Justice - as well as with the Constitutional Court and key actors in the democratic process.


Consistent with its mandate to promote inclusive and participatory dialogue, the Mission also engaged with representatives from the private sector, civil society, faith-based organizations, media, and other relevant stakeholders, recognizing that their participation contributes to oversight, social accountability, and the strengthening of public confidence at a time of particular institutional sensitivity.

Follow-up on Institutional Milestones During the Visit

Within the framework of this second visit, the Mission closely monitored key moments in the ongoing selection processes, including:

• Supreme Electoral Tribunal: The Mission attended the public session of the Nominating Commission to follow the closing phase of its work. In particular, on February 17 it took note of the formation of the shortlist of 20 candidates, from which the plenary of the Congress of the Republic must elect five principal magistrates and five alternates for the 2026-2032 term.
The Mission also sent a letter to the Congressional Board of Directors and the Heads of Caucus conveying observations regarding weaknesses identified during the TSE nomination stage - including insufficient evaluation tools, lack of public interviews, traceability gaps, and questioned candidacies - and called for corrective measures during the congressional phase. In this regard, it recommended mandatory public hearings for candidate interviews, proactive disclosure of candidate files, enhanced integrity screening, and publicly reasoned decisions, with the aim of strengthening the legitimacy and independence of the electoral authority.
• Attorney General and Head of the Public Ministry: The Mission visited the document-submission module at the headquarters of the Supreme Court of Justice and held technical exchanges regarding the Nominating Commission process for Attorney General and Head of the Public Ministry, coinciding with a decisive phase of the process - the receipt of applications from February 16 to 20 - in accordance with the timeline and call issued by the Commission.

Key Elements Identified by the Mission Following Its Second Visit

Based on the information received, meetings held, and follow-up to the milestones described above, the Mission highlights the following:

• A cross-cutting demand for greater transparency, traceability, and proactive disclosure at every stage of nomination and appointment processes, ensuring timely and accessible information for public scrutiny.
• The need for evaluations that go beyond formal requirements and incorporate a substantive assessment of suitability, independence, integrity, and impartiality, supported by clear and verifiable methodologies.
• Concerns regarding conflicts of interest and practices that could compromise institutional independence, underscoring the importance of explicit rules on incompatibilities, disclosure of interests, and effective recusal mechanisms.
• The need to prevent opaque negotiations, undue influence, or predetermined arrangements that replace merit-based criteria with quota-driven or extra-constitutional agreements.
• The importance of public hearings and interviews, with clear rules, comparable criteria, and accessible records as tools to enhance transparency and democratic legitimacy.
• The need to ensure that appointments exclude candidates linked to criminal structures, serious substantiated allegations of corruption, or backgrounds that compromise independence and impartiality, applying enhanced due diligence and integrity verification standards.

The Mission reiterates its institutional concern regarding any form of undue interference, intimidation, or actions that may affect the freedom of the vote, the independence of the processes, or public trust. In this regard, it recalls that the integrity of these processes requires all State action to adhere strictly to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, thereby avoiding disruptive impacts on ongoing selection processes.

Recommendations for Upcoming Stages

Considering that decisive phases remain pending in several processes, the Mission issues the following technical and preventive recommendations, grounded in inter-American standards:

A. Selection of Magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Congressional phase and potential review of the Commission phase)

1. Conduct the final selection under public and predictable rules, including timely publication of agendas, relevant documentation, decision criteria, and deliberation mechanisms, ensuring that the congressional process does not become a mere formal ratification of the shortlist but fully exercises its constitutional function of substantive evaluation.
2. Strengthen public scrutiny through standardized public hearings or equivalent mechanisms to assess suitability, independence, and integrity using comparable criteria, including critical analysis of concerns raised by civil society.
3. Where substantive deficiencies affecting integrity, independence, or legitimacy are identified, consider corrective measures within the constitutional and legal framework, including mechanisms that ensure the final composition of the TSE meets enhanced merit-based standards.
4. Guarantee public voting and reasoned decisions, with accessible records of the individual grounds supporting each selection.
5. Facilitate adequate conditions for observation and oversight in accordance with the law, ensuring access to information, records, and results, and promoting a public debate free from stigmatization.

B. Attorney General and Head of the Public Ministry (Commission phase and Executive phase)

6. Ensure that each stage - eligibility review, evaluation, interviews, handling of objections, and integration of the shortlist - is governed by transparent, auditable, and verifiable procedures, with proactive disclosure of instruments, minutes, and reasoning.
7. Implement interviews under a standardized methodology that allows assessment of independence, integrity, leadership capacity, and institutional vision.
8. Protect the participation of applicants and commissioners from pressure or intimidation, avoiding the instrumental use of criminal tools or coercive measures as mechanisms of inhibition.
9. Ensure public and reasoned decisions, with access to their supporting grounds.
10. In the final phase, once the President receives the shortlist, prioritize a duly reasoned decision grounded in merit, independence, and integrity, with the aim of restoring public confidence in the institution.

C. Appointments to the Constitutional Court

11. In appointing bodies that have yet to designate magistrates, ensure procedures with maximum transparency, objective evaluation, and duly reasoned decisions, consistent with the constitutional centrality of the Constitutional Court (CC) as guarantor of the constitutional order and of conventionality control. This entails not only formal transparency, but also the application of enhanced standards of suitability, independence, and integrity.
12. The Mission takes note of the concerns expressed by different sectors regarding the possible abusive use of criminal tools or actions by the Public Ministry that could be interpreted as forms of pressure or criminalization in the context of selection processes, including recent precedents related to the election within the Guatemalan Bar Association (CANG). In this regard, it reiterates that all State action must be conducted in strict adherence to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, avoiding any inhibiting or intimidating effect on electing bodies, candidacies, or duly issued results.
13. Ensure full publicity of procedures, avoiding appointments of individuals with serious substantiated concerns, grave conflicts of interest, or backgrounds that compromise independence. The legitimacy of the Constitutional Court depends not only on the process but also on the ethical and professional integrity of those appointed.
14. Avoid delays that may affect the timely renewal of the Constitutional Court and generate institutional uncertainty, guaranteeing continuity, stability, and predictability in the functioning of the Constitution's highest interpreter.

D. Cross-cutting Recommendation: Democratic Integrity Conditions

15. Ensure that candidates demonstrate a non-negotiable commitment to democratic principles, the constitutional rule of law, and human rights.
16. Guarantee that observation and oversight by civil society, academia, media, and the international community can take place without obstacles, and that public debate occurs free from stigmatization, threats, or reprisals.

The Mission expresses its appreciation to the authorities and all sectors with whom it met during this second visit. It also reiterates its readiness to continue providing technical accompaniment in accordance with its mandate under inter-American standards, and to share good practices that contribute to legality, transparency, predictability, and legitimacy in appointment processes, as well as to the strengthening of democratic institutions in Guatemala.

Reference: E-024/26