LA PREEMINENCIA DEL CONTROL DE CONVENCIONALIDAD SOBRE EL ARBITRIO JUDICIAL EN LA FIJACIÓN DE LA PRISIÓN PROVISIONAL EN GUATEMALA (The Preeminence of Conventionality Control over Judicial Discretion in the Determination of Pretrial Detention in Guatemala)

Description

SPA. El artículo sostiene que, durante el estado de sitio decretado en Guatemala en enero de 2026, la prisión provisional debe someterse prioritariamente al control de convencionalidad y no al arbitrio judicial, pues la emergencia derivada de motines penitenciarios y ataques contra la Policía Nacional Civil —ratificada por el Congreso— no habilita automatismos cautelares ni decisiones basadas en “peligrosidad”, sino un control judicial reforzado conforme a la Constitución (arts. 6, 13 y 46) y a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (arts. 7, 8 y 27); desde un enfoque jurídico-dogmático y jurisprudencial, el trabajo integra el bloque de constitucionalidad y el bloque de convencionalidad y, con apoyo en la doctrina de la Corte Interamericana en Almonacid Arellano y otros vs. Chile (2006), fundamenta el deber judicial de verificar la compatibilidad de las medidas cautelares con estándares interamericanos, sistematizando ocho criterios de evaluación —legalidad, finalidad cautelar, necesidad, proporcionalidad, alternativas menos gravosas, individualización del riesgo, revisión periódica y motivación reforzada— y concluyendo que la prisión provisional solo es admisible ante riesgos procesales concretos, con límites temporales y revisión continua para impedir su conversión en pena anticipada, además de proponer recomendaciones institucionales para el Organismo Judicial, el Ministerio Público y el Congreso orientadas a protocolos de motivación reforzada, supervisión del uso de la prisión preventiva y fortalecimiento de la defensa pública. ENG. The article argues that, during the state of siege declared in Guatemala in January 2026, pretrial detention must be governed by conventionality control and enhanced judicial scrutiny—not by automatic rules or “dangerousness” criteria—in accordance with the Constitution (arts. 6, 13, and 46) and the American Convention on Human Rights (arts. 7, 8, and 27). From a legal-dogmatic and jurisprudential approach, it integrates the constitutional and conventionality blocks and, drawing on Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, grounds the judicial duty to verify the compatibility of precautionary measures with Inter-American standards. It systematizes eight criteria (legality, legitimate precautionary purpose, necessity, proportionality, less burdensome alternatives, individualized assessment of procedural risk, periodic review, and enhanced reasoning) and concludes that the measure is admissible only in the presence of specific procedural risks, with temporal limits and continuous review to prevent it from becoming an anticipatory punishment. It also proposes recommendations for the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and Congress regarding reasoning protocols, oversight of the use of pretrial detention, and strengthening public defense.

Steps to reproduce

The study adopts a qualitative legal-dogmatic design, supported by jurisprudential and documentary analysis, to delineate—on the basis of the constitutional bloc and the conventionality bloc—the standards governing the imposition and continuation of pretrial detention in Guatemala in the context of the state of siege decreed on 18 January 2026 and ratified on 19 January 2026. It proceeds from the constitutional premises of legality and judicial control over deprivation of liberty (art. 6), the requirement of sufficient rational grounds for precautionary judicial decisions (art. 13), and the primacy of human rights treaties in the domestic order (art. 46), integrating as its normative corpus the Constitution, the Public Order Act (which confines restrictions to what is “strictly necessary”), and the American Convention on Human Rights (which permits exceptional measures only “to the extent and for the period strictly limited” to the exigencies of the situation, art. 27). As its central jurisprudential axis, it relies on the Inter-American Court’s doctrine in Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile regarding the judicial duty to exercise conventionality control. The identification of standards is further complemented by specialized scholarship and by contemporary public sources (official communiqués and the international press) to describe the factual and normative context, and the assessment is operationalized through an eight-dimension conventionality matrix (legality, legitimate precautionary purpose, necessity, proportionality, less restrictive alternatives, individualization of procedural risk, periodic review, and enhanced reasoning), with the aim of setting out normative parameters and describing the emergency-driven incentives to expand pretrial detention, without quantifying judicial decisions (Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, 1985, arts. 6, 13, and 46; Public Order Act, 1965, recitals; American Convention on Human Rights, 1969/1978, art. 27; IACtHR, Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, 2006, para. 124; Gudiel & Véliz Arriaga, 2016; Sepúlveda, 2008).

Institutions

• Gobierno de Guatemala

  Guatemala, Guatemala

Categories

Licence