The Government’s decision to extend another 15 days the prevention status in four departments it occurs in a context of four consecutive extensions since December 2025, when the measure was initially implemented as a state of Siege after the crisis in prisons, and then became prevention status.
This Tuesday, April 21, 2026 will remain in force in Guatemala, Escuintla, Izabal, San Marcos and Huehuetenango, and no longer in Petén or Sacatepéquez.
In this framework, analysts point out that the reported results must be evaluated in greater depth. Carmen Rosa de León, researcher at the Institute of Teaching for Sustainable Development (Iepades)recognizes that, in the early stages, the Government reported improvements. “Extortions decreased and homicides also decreased… they achieved more arrests and confiscation of weapons.”
However, he clarifies that “these are data that come from the Ministry of the Interior and are not necessarily endorsed by other organizations,” and warns of a disconnection with perceived reality. “The perception in some neighborhoods continues to be that there is high crime,” he indicated.
In addition, he questions the lack of clarity about the added value of the measure. “It would be interesting to know what difference a state of Prevention can provide to obtain these results,” and he warns about its prolongation by saying that “it is not correct to be in a state of permanent Prevention,” he added.
It also highlights limitations in the indicators. “The data depends on people reporting. There is a dark figure that is not known what it is,” which is why it insists on evaluating the real impact and differentiating by territory, instead of maintaining a generalized application.
For its part, Pedro Cruzfrom the program Crime Stopperswarns that the continuity of these measures reflects unresolved structural problems. “The extension of states of emergency cannot become a permanent security policy” and, he says, it shows that “the country continues to react to the symptoms, without having managed to resolve the structural causes of the problem.”
Cruz adds that measuring effectiveness only by immediate results is insufficient. “It would be a mistake to measure effectiveness solely by the immediate reduction of incidents”since “true effectiveness is to recover territorial control, strengthen institutions and reduce violence without depending on extraordinary mechanisms,” he expressed.
Likewise, it warns that its normalization “progressively erodes citizen guarantees” and “generates an operational dependence on the State on restrictive measures.”
Both agree that, although there is progress in containment, the repeated extension of the state of prevention raises doubts about its real effectiveness and reinforces the need for more rigorous evaluations and focused strategies.
Also read: Routes for illegal transportation cross the disputed area between Nahualá and Ixtahuacán