The Public Ministry (MP) coordinated the capture of Luis Pacheco, Vice Minister of Sustainable Development, indicated by Illicit Association, sedition, terrorism, hindering criminal action and obstacle of justice.
The administration of the administration of President Bernardo Arévalo does not enjoy the rights of prejudice in accordance with the legal interpretation of two lawyers experts in criminal and constitutional issues.
Pacheco, before being appointed Vice Minister, was president of the 48 cantons of Totonicapán, an indigenous movement that led part of the social protests of 2023 to guarantee the taking of possession of the elected authorities.
At a press conference, the MP reported that the occupation of the protesters in front of the headquarters of the institution constituted a blockade in access to justice for people who needed to carry out some management or require any service in that building.
Francisco Quezada, from the National Economic Research Center (one hundred), explained that a vice minister does not enjoy the right of immunity, which allows the authorities to proceed freely against the officials described in this category, except with an exception.
“Only that he was exercising the position of Minister had the right to prejudice. Being a deputy minister of Minister, temporarily, he would have had the right of prejudice,” scenario in which he was not Pacheco, according to the explanation of Quezada.
The lawyer added saying that this benefit, which can sometimes be misused, seeks not to harm the public function by political attacks.
“To protect the position of officials, so that they are not besieged by political rivalries to weaken them in a criminal process, there is the possibility that another authority resolves if the accusations are legitimate,” he said.
Unconstitutionality of 2003
The lawyer Edgar Ortiz, also an independent analyst, agrees that Pacheco did not enjoy the right of immunity at the time of his capture. “The short answer is not, and it is very simple: the right of prejudice is an exception to the norm, the general norm is that we are all the same before the law.”
Ortiz recalled that at the beginning of 2000 he tried to expand the list of people who could enjoy the protection of immunity, but the Constitutional Court (CC) refused to expand the number of officials who could enjoy the legal benefit.
“Article 165 of the Constitution says that vice ministers enjoy prejudice when they are responsible for dispatch, that is, interim (…) those attempts to extend the right of prejudice to officials who are not mentioned in the Constitution, it is unconstitutional,” he said.