A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884 (E) 130526 140526

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its 105th session, 23 March–1 April 2026

Opinion No. 5/2026 concerning Ernesto Luis Muyshondt García Prieto

(El Salvador)

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and

clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251

and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the

Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a

three-year period in its resolution 60/8.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 12 December 2024 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of El Salvador a communication concerning Ernesto Luis

Muyshondt García Prieto. The Government replied to the communication on 11 March 2025.

The State is a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her

sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or

freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,

26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to

the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the

relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to

give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

(d)

When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy

(category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on

the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,

religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability

or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings

(category V).

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

General Assembly

Distr.: General

5 May 2026

English

Original: Spanish

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

2

GE.26-05884

1.

Submissions

(a)

Communication from the source

4.

Ernesto Luis Muyshondt García Prieto, born on 30 August 1975, is a citizen of

Belgium and El Salvador. He served as mayor of San Salvador from 2018 to 2021.

(i)

Context

5.

The source alleges two instances of interference with judicial independence and

violations of due process in the case of Mr. Muyshondt. First, in June 2020, the Minister of

Labour publicly labelled him a “terrorist financier” on social media and demanded his

detention, putting pressure on the judge presiding over the case. Second, in June 2021,

following Mr. Muyshondt’s appointment as an adviser to the Organization of American

States, government officials repeated their accusations on social media, prompting the

Attorney General to terminate the agreement with the International Commission against

Impunity in El Salvador. The source maintains that both actions violated the presumption of

innocence and undermined due process.

(ii)

Arrest, detention and trial proceedings

6.

The source states that, during the legal proceedings concerning election fraud and

criminal conspiracy (first case), Mr. Muyshondt remained free without any restrictions on his

movements; the only requirement was for him to appear before the court every 30 days. He

was subject to alternative measures to detention. However, on 4 June 2021, he was

summoned to appear at a court hearing to review the precautionary measures.

7.

In the days prior, the Minister of Labour had been provoking and pressuring the

judicial system. Moreover, the Minister shared on social media the call to march and strike

issued by the union of San Salvador City Hall, demanding the arrest of Mr. Muyshondt.

8.

At that review hearing, the judge of the Second Investigating Court ordered house

arrest as a precautionary measure. Just as the court officials were set to escort Mr. Muyshondt

to his home, members of the National Civil Police entered the judge’s chambers and claimed

that Mr. Muyshondt was going to be charged with another offence. In the face of this

situation, Mr. Muyshondt posted for the last time on Twitter, calling himself a political

prisoner.

9.

Following the hearing, Mr. Muyshondt was immediately arrested, without being

informed of the charges against him or of his rights, in what he describes as a staged police

operation designed to generate media attention, given that he was detained by at least ten

officers and escorted by five patrol cars. This conduct violates due process in that he was not

informed immediately and in a manner he could understand of the reasons for his arrest or

provided with legal counsel; furthermore, being separated from his lawyers undermined his

right to a defence.

10.

Mr. Muyshondt’s lawyers only learned of the new charge of misappropriation of

withholdings, as defined in article 250 of the Criminal Code, through a post on Twitter by

the National Civil Police (later deleted), in violation of due process and the right to be

notified.

11.

At the time of the arrest, the President announced that he would deliver a nationwide

radio and television address at 8 p.m. (three hours after Mr. Muyshondt’s arrest). During the

broadcast, Mr. Muyshondt was frequently referred to as a “delinquent” and a “criminal”, and

his appointment to the Organization of American States was cited as grounds for terminating

the State’s agreement with the Organization. This statement constitutes a violation of the

principle of the presumption of innocence.

12.

On 7 June 2021, Mr. Muyshondt was brought before the Tenth Municipal Court of

San Salvador for the reading of the indictment, in which he was charged with withholding

more than US$21,000 in income tax. The source notes that he was transported wearing a

bulletproof vest and that the judge set the initial hearing for 9 June 2021. In addition, the

source claims that, at the hearing of 9 June, the National Civil Police subjected

Mr. Muyshondt to degrading treatment by forcing him to wear an oversized helmet that

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884

3

prevented him from seeing and walking normally. Mr. Muyshondt was acquitted after settling

his debt with the Ministry of Finance. Immediately afterward, court officials arrived to escort

him to his home, pursuant to the house arrest order in effect in another case. However, at that

very moment, National Civil Police officers interrupted the transfer and informed him of a

third criminal case against him, in his capacity as mayor of San Salvador, for the offence of

withholding social security contributions (Criminal Code, art. 245) in relation to

non-payment that had been attributed to financial blockades imposed by the Government on

municipal governments. The initial hearing in this third case was set for 15 June 2021.

13.

A day before the hearing, on 14 June 2021, the Minister of Labour threatened the

judicial system, stating: “As Minister of Labour, I am thoroughly reviewing each of these

cases, and any judge who fails to adhere to the law and attempts to show favouritism will

find the Judicial Investigation Department waiting for them. We will take action against those

judges who continue protecting in any way criminals who have stolen from the public

treasury and from workers.”

14.

On 15 June 2021, the Third Municipal Court ordered Mr. Muyshondt placed in pretrial

detention, despite the defence’s argument that he posed no flight risk and without sufficient

grounds, in violation, according to the defence, of articles 331 and 144 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

15.

On 18 June 2021, after being transferred to the La Esperanza de Mariona Prison,

pro-Government media were granted access to film his admission, including footage of his

cell. The media’s access to the prison was illegal under prison regulations. The images were

posted on the social media accounts of the Director of Prisons, amounting to media exposure

that violates human dignity.

16.

On 19 June 2021, the defence lodged an appeal against the pretrial detention measures

with the Third Criminal Court, which ordered that the pretrial detention be replaced with

house arrest.

17.

Mr. Muyshondt’s defence team requested the Eighth Investigating Court to authorize

a medical evaluation, which found that he should undergo surgery on 9 July 2021.

Consequently, the necessary authorization was obtained to undergo the procedure at a private

hospital, where it was ultimately carried out on the scheduled date.

18.

On 26 July 2021, the Eighth Investigating Court, in accordance with the ruling of the

Criminal Court, ordered the Director of Prisons to conduct feasibility studies for the

implementation of house arrest and the installation of surveillance equipment.

19.

The source reports that, on 29 July 2021, Mr. Muyshondt was removed from a clinic

where he was recovering from surgery on the grounds that he had to return to the Mariona

Prison to make the arrangements for the house arrest ordered by the Criminal Court. His

attending physician, under pressure from “higher-ups”, discharged him against his medical

judgment, warning that the prison would be responsible for any post-surgical or psychiatric

complications. That same day, an officer assured a relative that the transfer was part of the

process to ensure that Mr. Muyshondt would be home the next day.

20.

On the afternoon of 30 July 2021, news of the changes to the court-ordered measures

began to circulate in newspapers and on social media. Government officials and institutions

responded, stating on the Twitter account of the Directorate General of Prisons that they had

not been notified of the court’s ruling, that, even had they been notified, it would be

impossible to comply with the order for lack of electronic ankle monitors and that

Mr. Muyshondt would therefore remain at the Mariona Prison.

21.

The source submits that the failure of the Directorate General of Prisons to comply

cannot be attributed to a shortage of electronic ankle monitors, especially given the donation

by the Government of the United States of America. The source adds that the explanation is

contradictory, since Mr. Muyshondt was fitted with an ankle monitor on one occasion, but it

was removed before house arrest could be enforced, due to a new detention. The source points

out that alternative security measures could have been implemented, suggesting that the

situation reflects a lack of willingness or commitment on the part of the Directorate General

of Prisons to protect Mr. Muyshondt’s rights.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

4

GE.26-05884

22.

The position taken by the Director of Prisons was supported by the President and the

Minister of Security. The President posted the following on Twitter: “How difficult it is to

achieve justice when a system is designed precisely to protect corrupt criminals.” Such

statements demonstrate the executive’s lack of respect for judicial independence.

23.

On 3 September 2021, the Third Criminal Court ordered the Directorate General of

Prisons to immediately comply with the precautionary measures and to place Mr. Muyshondt

under house arrest with police supervision. Despite this order, the measures remained

unenforced until 10 September 2021.

24.

On 10 September 2021, the National Civil Police announced that a new charge (fourth

case) had been filed against Mr. Muyshondt, for the offence of dereliction of duty, as defined

in article 321 of the Criminal Code, in connection with the non-payment of more than

US$5 million in social insurance contributions for employees of San Salvador City Hall. The

police and the prosecutor’s office released photos taken when Mr. Muyshondt was notified

of the new charges, in which his physical deterioration was evident. The release of

photographs of him in a precarious condition was a violation of his fundamental rights. This

new charge would appear to be an attempt to use State institutions to keep him in prison.

25.

On 13 September 2021, Mr. Muyshondt appeared before the Seventh Municipal Court

for the scheduling of the initial hearing. On 16 September 2021, the judge ruled that

Mr. Muyshondt should be placed under house arrest during the trial. The prosecution

immediately filed an appeal against the ruling, which was dismissed. As of 18 September

2021, the Seventh Municipal Court had not received any notification of Mr. Muyshondt’s

transfer to his residence despite the fact that he should have been placed under immediate

house arrest.

26.

On 1 October 2021, the Third Criminal Court overturned its decision of 19 June 2021

ordering the replacement of pretrial detention with house arrest. The overturning of that

decision, which, under Salvadoran law, was no longer subject to appeal, was in response to

a request by the prosecution service. The Court’s decision of 19 June was final and therefore

no appeal of any kind should have been allowed. The prosecution service’s request was

accepted under the right of petition, but it should have been dismissed because all legal

remedies had been exhausted. The source claims that the modification of the precautionary

measures lacked factual and legal basis and was made without the defence’s involvement,

thereby violating due process and rendering the modification null and void.

27.

The source claims that the decision was issued by illegitimate judges, following an

unconstitutional judicial reform and arbitrary transfers that undermined judicial

independence.

28.

On 15 October 2021, Mr. Muyshondt met with his lawyers at the Mariona Prison in

the presence of representatives of the Directorate General of Prisons, in alleged violation of

his right to meet privately with his defence counsel.

29.

At the preliminary hearing on 26 November 2021, Mr. Muyshondt reported that he

had been subjected to ill-treatment, that his rights had been violated and that his medical

records had disappeared; the judge referred the matter to the Office of the Human Rights

Advocate and the Public Prosecution Service.

30.

On 20 January 2022, the Eighth Investigating Court authorized Mr. Muyshondt to

leave the prison to undergo surgery to his lip, scheduled for 24 or 25 January. The transfer to

a private clinic was scheduled for 24 January 2022 but did not take place. That same day, his

lawyers informed the judge of that failing. The transfer did not take place on 25 January 2022,

either. That night, a relative received a call from Mr. Muyshondt, who reported that he had

been taken to Zacamil National Hospital under false pretences, even though that facility did

not have the necessary resources to perform the procedure. This constitutes a breach of the

court order and an act of psychological torture, as Mr. Muyshondt was repeatedly told that

his relative had arranged for the transfer, which was not the case.

31.

On 6 June 2022, the Eighth Investigating Court denied the request for a modification

of measures and upheld the pretrial detention order. As he left the courthouse, Mr. Muyshondt

spoke to the press, denouncing the inhumane conditions in prisons and the torture committed

there. He stated: “I have been on the brink of death three times; I was rushed out of the prison

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884

5

and, by the grace of God, my life was saved at a private hospital.” He also stated: “I am being

severely mistreated and harassed in prison, they have even entered my cell and taken photos

of me while I was sleeping; they have tied me up, beaten me and photographed me partially

naked.” He took the opportunity to denounce the human rights violations and overcrowding

in prisons, stating: “I saw dead people every day.”

32.

Between January and February 2023, the Directorate General of Prisons repeatedly

and systematically failed to comply with court orders requiring Mr. Muyshondt be allowed

to leave prison for medical treatment and examinations. On 26 January 2023, he was taken

from a private medical facility and returned to prison by at least six armed officers, even

though the medical professionals had indicated that more time was needed to complete the

examinations.

33.

On 13 February 2023, the preliminary hearing was adjourned at the prosecution’s

request. Mr. Muyshondt appeared via videoconference at a hearing during which his fragile

health was noted and the delayed notification of court rulings was denounced.

Mr. Muyshondt stated: “It is standard practice for prisons to call us about five or ten minutes

beforehand, when we do not know what the hearing is about, which is compounded by a

series of procedural violations, violations of my human rights and violations of my rights as

an inmate, which are being systematically infringed.”

34.

On 19 August 2023, the Sixth Trial Court acquitted Mr. Muyshondt of all charges in

the case involving the improper withholding of social security contributions (third case). The

reason for the acquittal was that no crime had been committed and there were no grounds for

criminal prosecution, since the obligation had been fulfilled by the Municipality of San

Salvador, which has always been the institution responsible for paying taxes and social

security contributions, not the mayor. On 20 September 2023, the prosecution service filed

an appeal against the decision of the Sixth Trial Court with the Third Criminal Court, which

overturned the decision and ordered that the case be combined with the case involving

dereliction of duty (in other words, the third case with the fourth).

35.

Upon learning of the previous rulings, the prosecution service filed a request for a

review hearing with the Second Investigating Court of San Salvador with the aim of having

the alternatives to detention ordered by that Court on 4 June 2021 rescinded. On 18 October

2023, at the hearing requested by the prosecution, on the basis of weak arguments, the Second

Investigating Court ordered Mr. Muyshondt’s house arrest (imposed during the first case)

replaced with pretrial detention. The hearing took place without Mr. Muyshondt present. An

appeal was filed against the decision of the Second Investigating Court, but the Second

Criminal Court simply upheld it.

36.

Since October 2023, the trial before the Fifth Trial Court in connection with the charge

of dereliction of duty has been rescheduled several times, which the source characterizes as

a delay in the administration of justice designed to keep Mr. Muyshondt in custody.

37.

On 18 June 2024, the defence informed the Second Investigating Court that

Mr. Muyshondt had been detained for an excessive length of time, in accordance with

article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judge replied that the period of detention

should be calculated starting from 18 October 2023, not from 2021. According to the source,

this is an absurd, biased and abusive interpretation of article 8 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. By 4 June 2024, Mr. Muyshondt had been in pretrial detention for three years.

Under articles 8 and 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the maximum period that a person

may be detained is three years, where a 12-month extension is granted after two years of

pretrial detention have elapsed.

(iii)

Conditions of detention

38.

The source indicates that Mr. Muyshondt has been held in police cells, at the Mariona

Prison as of 18 June 2021, at the La Occidental Prison as of 7 June 2022 and, unofficially, at

the National Psychiatric Hospital as of 2 September 2023, without official notification or a

court order.

39.

The source claims that photographs were taken of Mr. Muyshondt while he was naked,

in violation of his dignity. The source adds that Mr. Muyshondt has been subjected to insults

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

6

GE.26-05884

and taunts by staff and that he has been under 24-hour video surveillance, even in the

bathroom, both at the prison and at the hospital. Furthermore, the source notes that

Mr. Muyshondt has been harassed by prison staff and by inmates chosen by guards, that he

has on a few occasions been led to believe he would be released only to be laughed at and

that his transfers are subject to excessive security measures, including helicopters and

helmets. At the National Psychiatric Hospital, he was kept in isolation, without contact with

his family and lawyers. Mr. Muyshondt has been barred from all contact with his family for

over a year and three months, on “orders from higher-ups”.

40.

The source notes that Mr. Muyshondt has been on the verge of death on several

occasions and that, early in his detention, he resorted to hunger strikes in order to be allowed

to communicate with his wife. On one occasion, the guards threw pieces of chicken at his

face, mocking his hunger strike. He was sedated without medical justification and, while in

the psychiatric hospital, was exposed to the screams of other patients. His family was

unaware of the reasons for his transfer, underscoring the serious and inhumane nature of his

situation.

(iv)

Legal analysis

41.

According to the source, the detention of Mr. Muyshondt is arbitrary under the

Working Group’s categories I and III.

a.

Category I

42.

According to the source, when Mr. Muyshondt was arrested on 4 June 2021, the

authorities stated that the arrest was for administrative reasons and did not provide him or his

lawyers with details of the charges against him. Since then, there has been a pattern of

repeated arrests designed to prevent his release.

43.

Despite having been acquitted twice, Mr. Muyshondt has continued to face new trials

and detention measures, which the source cites as evidence of the misuse of the judicial

system to maintain him in custody. The source adds that Mr. Muyshondt’s case is evidence

of political persecution.

44.

The source claims that the Directorate General of Prisons has systematically

disregarded the orders for Mr. Muyshondt to be held under house arrest, in effect keeping

him in pretrial detention since 4 June 2021, without legal basis and beyond the maximum

period permitted under article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (36 months). The source

adds that the failure of the General Directorate of Prisons to comply cannot be justified by

the lack of electronic ankle monitors, since alternative measures, including police custody,

were available, and that its refusal demonstrates a lack of willingness to protect

Mr. Muyshondt’s rights.

45.

Regarding the pretrial detention, the source notes that, in 2021, the defence appealed

the ruling of the Third Municipal Court of 15 June 202 ordering pretrial detention to the Third

Criminal Court of San Salvador. Initially, that Court granted the request to modify the

measures on the basis of a correct interpretation of article 331 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Surprisingly, and in a prejudicial manner, after the original judges in the case

were replaced, the Court overturned its own ruling on the basis of a legal concept that does

not exist in Salvadoran law and without having heard the arguments presented by

Mr. Muyshondt’s defence.

46.

The source claims that the new interpretation of article 331 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure led the Third Criminal Court to conclude that, since house arrest had already been

imposed in the first case, the only available option was to place Mr. Muyshondt in pretrial

detention. The source adds that this was a literal and mechanical application of the law,

whereby deprivation of liberty resulted from a mere accumulation of factors, without its

purpose, necessity or proportionality having been considered.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884

7

b.

Category III

47.

The source states that Mr. Muyshondt has been in detention for over 1,000 days and

has not seen his family in over 500 days or his lawyers in nearly 300 days, which has severely

undermined his right to a defence and respect for his fundamental rights.

48.

The source claims that Mr. Muyshondt has not had regular or private access to his

lawyers, seriously undermining his right to mount a defence, as, under Directorate General

of Prisons directives, he was not allowed to communicate with or meet privately with them

prior to the hearings. Since June 2022, communication with his lawyers has been limited to

telephone calls on hearing days, as Mr. Muyshondt has not appeared in person but has

participated solely via videoconference. During the few virtual hearings that have taken

place, he has not been authorized to take notes and his microphone and audio feed have been

muted, preventing him from following the proceedings, and he has had to endure harassment

and jostling by guards of the Directorate General of Prisons.

49.

The review hearing held on 18 October 2023 took place without Mr. Muyshondt being

present, either in person or virtually, thereby preventing him from following the proceedings

and exercising his right to a defence.

50.

Mr. Muyshondt was also denied access to his lawyers while he was in the psychiatric

hospital. Mr. Muyshondt is not allowed to receive visits from his family or his lawyers. It

was a family member who had to make decisions regarding the replacement of lawyers.

(b)

Response from the Government

51.

On 12 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source

to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information by 10 February 2025. The

Government requested an extension, which was granted. The Working Group received the

Government’s response on 11 March 2025, within the established time limit.

52.

At the outset, the Government invokes the principle of non-interference and respect

for State sovereignty that governs the activities of the special procedures of the Human Rights

Council. It points out that the communication addresses not only Mr. Muyshondt’s case, but

also internal decisions of the justice system, such as reforms to the Judicial Service Act. The

above-mentioned principle precludes intervention in matters of domestic jurisdiction and

requires the Council’s mechanisms to operate on the basis of cooperation and respect for

national jurisdiction. Consequently, the Government requests the Working Group to exclude

from its analysis those aspects not directly related to Mr. Muyshondt’s case.

53.

In its response, the Government informs the Working Group that Mr. Muyshondt is

currently facing three separate criminal proceedings, which are described below:

(a)

A trial for offences related to criminal conspiracy and election fraud. The

Government states that Mr. Muyshondt, then a member of the political party Alianza

Republicana Nacionalista, engaged in negotiations with criminal organizations (MS-13 and

Pandilla 18) in exchange for electoral support in the 2014 presidential election. It notes that

this charge is supported by witness testimony, documentary evidence and expert opinions. It

also provides a detailed account of the facts and the course of the trial, in which the public

hearing is pending;

(b)

A trial for the offence of dereliction of duty and misappropriation or

withholding of social security contributions. The Government states that Mr. Muyshondt,

during his tenure as mayor of San Salvador (2018–2021), failed to pay social security

contributions (to the Salvadoran Social Security Institute, pension fund administrators, trade

unions and creditors), affecting 93 people and causing losses in excess of US$5.2 million. It

notes that, despite a Municipal Council order dated 5 February 2020 to pay arrears, he failed

to comply. The indictment is supported by 411 pieces of documentary evidence, witness

statements and expert opinions. The ruling of the Fifth Trial Court of San Salvador in the

case is pending;

(c)

A trial for the offence of dereliction of duty and misappropriation of tax

withholdings. After the prosecution service gathered evidence regarding the commission of

the offence and Mr. Muyshondt’s probable involvement, it issued an administrative arrest

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

8

GE.26-05884

warrant for him on 8 June 2021. The case was brought to the Third Municipal Court of San

Salvador, which held an initial hearing on 15 June 2021 and ordered a formal investigation

and Mr. Muyshondt’s placement in pretrial detention. That measure was subsequently

changed to house arrest with electronic monitoring, a decision that was later reversed. The

judge overturned the order to open the investigation on the grounds that there was no legal

basis and, following the public hearing, issued a final dismissal. However, the prosecution

service appealed that decision, and the Second Criminal Court ordered the case to be

combined with the case before the Fifth Trial Court described in subsection (b).

54.

The Government rejects allegations of pressure on or interference with the judiciary

and maintains that comments made by officials, including the Minister of Labour, do not

constitute government interference, as they are not official statements and are protected by

freedom of expression. It adds that there is no hierarchical relationship between the Ministry

of Labour and judges and that some court decisions favoured Mr. Muyshondt, which rules

out any actual pressure on the judiciary. It submits that the independence of the judiciary and

the separation of powers are respected in El Salvador.

55.

The Government submits that pretrial detention in El Salvador is a decision made

exclusively by a judge, based on evidence of the defendant’s involvement in an offence,

following a hearing in which the prosecution, the defence and the defendant participate, and

that both arrest warrants and release orders are issued by the judicial authority and carried

out by the Directorate General of Prisons. However, these orders apply only to the relevant

case; if there are other active cases involving detention measures, release cannot be granted.

In the case of Mr. Muyshondt, he remained in custody because other legal cases were under

way. Therefore, the Directorate General of Prisons did not deny release due to inaction but,

rather, due to there being other valid court orders. In addition, the decision to place a person

in police custody rather than under electronic monitoring rests solely with the judge presiding

over the case.

56.

With regard to Mr. Muyshondt’s detention conditions and healthcare, he has been

guaranteed medical care through the national public health system and has access to private

hospitals by scheduled appointment, not for emergencies. His most recent medical check-up

(on 29 January 2025) showed stable results. He receives medication, psychiatric care and

vitamin supplements, he engages in physical activity and he is provided with reading

materials and meals in coordination with his family.

57.

With regard to Mr. Muyshondt’s personal integrity, the Government reports that he is

being held in an individual cell at the La Esperanza prison complex, separately from the rest

of the prison population owing to his status as a former government official. It notes that

there is no record of any order from the Directorate General of Prisons authorizing the taking

or dissemination of photographs or posts related to Mr. Muyshondt.

58.

Mr. Muyshondt’s meetings with his lawyers take place in the legal services area, with

a guard present solely for security purposes, not to listen into conversations. Privacy

standards are upheld. In addition, virtual hearings have been organized, in accordance with

article 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

59.

Visits by family members and professionals were lawfully suspended as of 13 March

2020 owing to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic (Executive Decree No. 13)

and again from 27 March 2022, owing to the state of emergency (Decree No. 333), both

instruments having been adopted by the legislature and implemented by the Ministry of

Justice and Public Safety. Nevertheless, on 19 August 2024, Mr. Muyshondt received a visit

from the Consul of Belgium in Panama for the purposes of ensuring consular protection.

60.

The Government notes that Mr. Muyshondt’s case has already been reviewed by the

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights following a request for precautionary

measures, which was subsequently dismissed.

(c)

Additional comments from the source

61.

The source condemns the manipulation of the judicial system through the initiation

of multiple legal proceedings with the aim of illegally prolonging Mr. Muyshondt’s

detention, in what amounts to political persecution.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884

9

62.

The source submits that the Government has not justified the extension of

Mr. Muyshondt’s pretrial detention beyond the statutory maximum of 24 months, which may

be extended to 36 months only by means of a reasoned decision, and that this period must be

counted from the first day of detention, regardless of the number of proceedings initiated.

63.

The source rejects the Government’s accusations as baseless and maintains that

Mr. Muyshondt was held responsible for issues that were not within his remit as mayor. The

source notes that San Salvador City Hall settled its tax debt in July 2022, but that the criminal

proceedings continued and were combined with other cases. The source adds that, despite

having been acquitted by the lower courts in two cases, on 28 February 2025, Mr. Muyshondt

was sentenced to 4 years in prison for dereliction of duty, a sentence that was used to justify

his being held in pretrial detention without a verdict for longer than the maximum legal

period.

64.

The source claims that the judges who ordered measures favourable to Mr. Muyshondt

(such as house arrest or acquittal) were removed from their posts, harassed or suspended,

thus demonstrating that institutional reprisals were taken.

65.

The source emphasizes the inhumane conditions of detention and the harm done to

Mr. Muyshondt’s health, who was illegally transferred to the Dr. José Molina Martínez

National Psychiatric Hospital on 2 September 2023, without a court order or medical

diagnosis, and remained there until December 2024, while his whereabouts were concealed

from his family. Mr. Muyshondt was located thanks to the efforts of a relative. The Consul

of Belgium in Panama confirmed that she went to the Hospital. Such detention constitutes a

form of psychological torture and amounts to a de facto enforced disappearance.

Furthermore, despite court orders (communications No. 7046, No. 7047, No. 7145 and

No. 7146), prison authorities have systematically denied him access to independent medical

and psychiatric experts.

66.

In addition to these violations, Mr. Muyshondt has lacked legal assistance, having had

only one meeting in 2021, with lawyers who no longer represented him, and subsequent court

orders authorizing him to meet with his defence team were disregarded by the Directorate

General of Prisons. The situation was exacerbated by the arbitrary restriction of visits with

family members.

2.

Discussion

67.

The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.

68.

The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals

with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of

international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be

understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions

that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.2

Preliminary issues

69.

With regard to the Government’s objection concerning the Working Group’s

jurisdiction, it should be noted that El Salvador is a founding Member State of the

United Nations and a Party to the Covenant, which it voluntarily signed and ratified, and that

it has voluntarily accepted the reviews conducted by international human rights mechanisms

of its compliance with its international obligations. The Working Group received its mandate

from the Human Rights Council,3 authorizing it to examine cases of arbitrary detention in

any Member State, including El Salvador, which officially invited it to conduct a visit in

2012.4 Therefore, the Working Group’s intervention does not violate sovereignty or the

principle of non-interference, and the Working Group has full authority to issue an opinion

on the case.

2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

3 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8.

4 See A/HRC/22/44/Add.2.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

10

GE.26-05884

(a)

Category I

70.

The Working Group received information from the source regarding Mr. Muyshondt,

who was initially detained on 4 June 2021, without being clearly informed of the offence

with which he was charged, without an arrest warrant or any explanation for the arrest and

without any judicial decision having been issued ordering his detention.

71.

The Working Group notes that the authorities did not provide any legal basis to justify

the detention when Mr. Muyshondt appeared in court for a hearing to review precautionary

measures in the context of the trial for criminal conspiracy and election fraud related to the

2014 presidential election. According to the source, at that time, Mr. Muyshondt was free

without any restrictions; however, house arrest was imposed at that hearing. Just as the court

officials were set to escort Mr. Muyshondt to his home, members of the National Civil Police

entered the judge’s chambers and claimed that Mr. Muyshondt was to be charged with

another offence. When Mr. Muyshondt was arrested on 4 June 2021, the authorities stated

that the arrest was for administrative reasons and did not provide him or his lawyers with

details of the charges against him.

72.

The Working Group notes that there has since been a pattern of repeated arrests

preventing Mr. Muyshondt from being released. Two additional cases have been brought

against him which, having been consolidated, prevented him from continuing to exercise his

right to liberty, as had been decided in the first trial. These cases are in connection with the

charge of dereliction of duty and improper withholding of social security contributions during

his tenure as mayor (2018–2021), and improper withholding of tax revenues.

73.

The Working Group notes that, although Mr. Muyshondt had been acquitted in two

of the aforementioned cases, he was immediately arrested on new charges, resulting in a

chain of arrests with no real legal basis. It also notes that, on 19 June 2021, the Third Criminal

Chamber ordered that pretrial detention be replaced with house arrest. However, the

Directorate General of Prisons publicly announced on Twitter that it had not been notified of

the ruling, that it lacked electronic ankle monitors and it would therefore keep Mr. Muyshondt

at the Mariona Prison, in defiance of the judicial decision.

74.

In its response, the Government claims that the three criminal proceedings are

legitimate, are based on solid evidence and fully respect due process. They were initiated by

the prosecution service and subsequently admitted by the competent judges.

75.

Furthermore, the Working Group notes the source’s statement that Mr. Muyshondt

was not brought before a judge within the 48-hour period stipulated by the Human Rights

Committee for bringing a detainee before a judicial authority. He was taken into custody on

4 June 2021 and was not brought before a judge to review his detention until 9 June 2021.

According to information provided by the Government, pretrial detention was not ordered

until 15 June. In addition, the source submits that Mr. Muyshondt is being held in complete

isolation from the outside world, with the exception of visits from his doctor, in accordance

with government instructions.

76.

In the light of these circumstances, the Working Group recalls that, under article 9 (1)

of the Covenant, no one shall be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance

with such procedures as are established by law. The Working Group has previously stated

that in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there be

a law that authorizes the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to

the case.5 This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent

document).6 The reasons for the arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest and must

include not only the general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough factual specifics to

indicate the substance of the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged

victim.7

5 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.

6 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests

made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.

7 Opinions No. 85/2021, para. 69; and No. 25/2018, para. 36. See also Human Rights Committee,

general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 25.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884

11

77.

In addition, Mr. Muyshondt was detained at the request and by action of the Public

Prosecution Service, despite the fact that the Working Group has established in its

jurisprudence that the prosecution service cannot be considered a judicial authority for the

purposes of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.8

78.

Mr. Muyshondt was placed in pretrial detention, in violation of article 9 (3) of the

Covenant and of Salvadoran law, which stipulates that the maximum period of pretrial

detention is 24 months, extendable to 36 months only by means of a duly substantiated

decision. The Working Group reiterates that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial

detention must be the exception rather than the general rule, be ordered for as short a time as

possible9 and be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary

for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of an

offence. 10 Courts must consider whether alternatives to pretrial detention would render

detention unnecessary.11 In order to meet these conditions, regular review by a court or other

body possessing the same attributes as a judicial body is necessary.12

79.

The Working Group notes that pretrial detention was imposed on Mr. Muyshondt

without justification and that the Government has merely stated that, in his case, detention

continued owing to other legal proceedings being under way, without explaining the relevant

circumstances justifying his detention from June 2021 to 28 February 2025, the date of his

first conviction. Nor has it been demonstrated that reviews of this measure have determined

its continued necessity. The Working Group concludes that articles 3 and 9 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (3) of the Covenant have been violated.

80.

The source claims that, from 2 September 2023 to December 2024, Mr. Muyshondt

was held incommunicado at the Dr. José Molina Martínez National Psychiatric Hospital,

without a court order or medical diagnosis, during which time his family were unaware of

his whereabouts. The source adds that his whereabouts were discovered thanks to the efforts

of a relative and that this detention amounted to psychological torture and a de facto enforced

disappearance. The Government does not refer to these allegations in its response.

Furthermore, despite court orders (communications No. 7046, No. 7047, No. 7145 and

No. 7146), prison authorities have systematically denied him access to independent medical

and psychiatric experts.

81.

The Working Group emphasizes that incommunicado detention in an unknown

location amounts to prima facie enforced disappearance. 13 The detention is inherently

arbitrary, as it places the person outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 16 of

the Covenant and article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 14 Enforced

disappearances are prohibited by international law and constitute an aggravated form of

arbitrary detention.15

82.

Based on the information received, and given that the Government failed to refute the

source’s allegations, the Working Group considers that, during the period where he was held

at the psychiatric hospital without his family being informed of his whereabouts,

Mr. Muyshondt was subjected to enforced disappearance, in violation of article 9 (1) of the

Covenant. In addition, it notes that he was held in isolation and denied contact with his family

and lawyers for over a year and three months, pursuant to “orders from higher-ups,” in

violation of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant and articles 3, 6 and 9 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights.

8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32; Opinions No. 41/2020,

para. 60; and No. 6/2020, para. 47; Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any

Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 4.

9 Opinion No. 64/2020, para. 58. See also A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.

10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., para. 15.

13 Opinions No. 76/2017, para. 59; No. 19/2019, para. 34; and No. 20/2020, para. 81.

14 Opinions No. 13/2020, para. 51; and No. 56/2023, para. 92.

15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

12

GE.26-05884

83.

These circumstances render Mr. Muyshondt’s detention arbitrary under the Working

Group’s category I.

(b)

Category III

84.

The right to a fair trial was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

as one of the fundamental pillars of international law to protect individuals against arbitrary

treatment. The Working Group will proceed to determine whether, in the course of the

judicial proceedings, the key components of a fair, independent and impartial trial were

respected.

85.

Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the

Covenant recognize the right of all persons charged with a criminal offence to be presumed

innocent. This right places an obligation on State institutions to treat the accused person as

innocent until their guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

86.

The source claims that three hours after Mr. Muyshondt’s arrest, the President

declared on a nationwide radio and television broadcast that he was a “delinquent” and a

“criminal.” In addition, the President used Mr. Muyshondt’s appointment as adviser to the

Secretary-General of the Organization of American States as a pretext to terminate the

agreement with that Organization. Both the President and the Minister of Labour used the

Government’s media outlets to pressure judges, noting that those who ordered measures

favourable to Mr. Muyshondt (such as house arrest or acquittal) were removed from their

posts, harassed or suspended, thus demonstrating that institutional reprisals were taken. The

Government maintains that comments made by officials, including the Minister of Labour,

do not constitute government interference, as they are not official statements and are

protected by freedom of expression. The Government adds that there is no hierarchical

relationship between the Ministry of Labour and the judges, so there can be no question of

undue pressure.

87.

The Working Group has determined that statements publicly condemning the accused

person before a sentence has been passed violate the principle of presumption of innocence

and constitute undue interference that undermines the independence and impartiality of the

court.16 The right to presumption of innocence requires that the authorities refrain from

prejudging the outcome of a trial, which entails abstaining from making public statements

affirming the guilt of the accused person.

88.

In the present case, the Working Group notes that some statements made by public

officials amounted to a declaration of Mr. Muyshondt’s guilt and a prejudgment of the

assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority, encouraging the public to believe

that he was guilty before his case had been examined by the trial court. For this reason, the

Working Group considers that Mr. Muyshondt’s right to presumption of innocence under

article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the Covenant

was violated.

89.

The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to

legal assistance by counsel of their choice, including immediately after their apprehension,

and that such access is to be provided without delay.17 The right to prompt legal assistance is

an essential element of the right to a fair trial, as it ensures that the principle of equality of

arms is duly observed.18 In the present case, as a result of directives of the Directorate General

of Prisons, Mr. Muyshondt has never been allowed to communicate with his lawyers

privately. Since June 2022, all of his communications with his lawyers have taken place on

hearing days, via telephone. In its response, the Government states that visits were suspended

16 Opinions No. 90/2017, No. 76/2018 and No. 89/2018.

17 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51 and 52; A/HRC/30/37, annex (United Nations Basic Principles and

Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring

Proceedings Before a Court), principle 9 and guideline 8; see also the Basic Principles on the Role of

Lawyers, paras. 16–22.

18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and

tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 32–34.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884

13

in accordance with the state of emergency established by Decree No. 333 and that these

measures remain in effect.

90.

The Working Group notes that the Human Rights Committee has stated that the

safeguards provided for in article 4 of the Covenant are based on the principles of legality

and the rule of law, inherent in the Covenant as a whole, and that these principles require that

fundamental requirements of a fair trial be respected, even during a state of emergency.19 In

this regard, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in reference to the state of

emergency in El Salvador, has repeatedly stated that the right to a defence, which includes

adequate resources and time to mount and present a defence, is among the core elements of

due process, which cannot be suspended under any circumstances, including during states of

emergency.20 In the light of the forgoing, the Working Group concludes that, in the present

case, articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b)

and (d) of the Covenant have been violated.

91.

The source alleges that Mr. Muyshondt was subjected to inhuman and degrading

treatment, even torture. The source claims that, following Mr. Muyshondt’s transfer to the

Mariona Prison, pro-Government media outlets were allowed to film his admission and

broadcast images of his cell, and that he was under constant video surveillance, including in

the bathroom, that photographs were taken while he was sleeping or partially undressed and

that he was subjected to verbal abuse, physical assaults, sedation without medical justification

and harassment. The source adds that Mr. Muyshondt was transferred to a psychiatric hospital

without a court order or medical diagnosis, where he remained until December 2024, hidden

from his family, a situation the source describes as psychological torture. The Government

reports that Mr. Muyshondt is being held in an individual cell at the La Esperanza prison

complex, separately from the rest of the prison population owing to his status as a former

government official. It adds that there is no record of any order from the Directorate General

of Prisons authorizing the taking or dissemination of photographs or posts related to him.

92.

Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are prohibited under article 7 of

the Covenant and article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other

instruments. The Working Group has consistently maintained that the inability of a person

subjected to torture or ill-treatment to adequately prepare his or her defence in a trial where

the principle of equality of arms is respected also constitutes a violation of the right to a fair

trial.21 The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment has stated that psychological torture includes all methods, techniques and

circumstances which are intended or designed to purposefully inflict severe mental pain or

suffering without using the conduit or effect of severe physical pain or suffering.22 Torture

and ill-treatment not only constitute a serious violation of human rights, but also gravely

undermine fundamental due process guarantees, particularly the right against

self-incrimination and the right not to confess guilt.23 In addition, the Working Group recalls

that, as a jus cogens norm, the prohibition against torture is non-derogable and that it includes

the obligation to promptly investigate allegations, punish those responsible and exclude from

judicial proceedings any evidence obtained through torture.24

93.

In the specific circumstances of this case, the Working Group considers that, based

on the information received and the Government’s insufficient rebuttal of the source’s

allegations, Mr. Muyshondt was subjected to ill-treatment, even torture, which compromised

his ability to mount a defence. Consequently, it finds that his right to a fair trial under

article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was

violated.

19 General comment No. 29 (2001) on derogations from provisions of the Covenant during a state of

emergency, para. 16. See also CCPR/CO/78/ISR, para. 12.

20 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, State of Emergency and Human Rights in El Salvador

(2024), paras. 208 and 209. See also the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation

Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

21 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 42.

22 A/HRC/43/49, para. 19.

23 Opinions No. 22/2019, para. 78; No. 26/2019, para. 104; and No. 56/2019, para. 88.

24 Opinion No. 66/2022, para. 99.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

14

GE.26-05884

94.

Article 14 (1) of the Covenant establishes that everyone is entitled to a fair and public

hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of any

criminal charge against him or her. Judges must not allow their decisions to be influenced by

personal bias or prejudice, harbour preconceptions about the particular case before them or

act in ways that improperly promote the interests of one of the parties.25 This has not occurred

in the present case, as described in paragraphs 87 to 90 of this opinion.

95.

Mr. Muyshondt did not appear in person; the hearings were conducted via

videoconference and he communicated with his lawyers solely by telephone. During the

virtual hearings, he was not authorized to take notes or listen in, as his audio feed was muted,

and he endured harassment and jostling by guards of the Directorate General of Prisons. The

Working Group notes that the review hearing held on 18 October 2023 took place without

Mr. Muyshondt present, either in person or virtually, and that, as a result, he did not have the

opportunity to follow the proceedings or properly exercise his right to a defence.

96.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group believes that Mr. Muyshondt’s

deprivation of liberty was enforced in breach of fundamental guarantees of due process and

a fair trial by a competent and impartial tribunal with an adequate defence, in contravention

of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the

Covenant, and that the breach is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an

arbitrary character under category III.

3.

Disposition

97.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Ernesto Luis Muyshondt García Prieto, being in

contravention of articles 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and articles 9, 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.

98.

The Working Group requests the Government of El Salvador to take the steps

necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Muyshondt without delay and bring it into

conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

99.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Muyshondt immediately and accord

him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with

international law.

100.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of

Mr. Muyshondt and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation

of his rights.

101.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

4.

Follow-up procedure

102.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests

the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up

to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:

(a)

Whether Mr. Muyshondt has been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to

Mr. Muyshondt;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of

Mr. Muyshondt’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;

25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 21.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/5

GE.26-05884

15

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of El Salvador with its international obligations in line with

the present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

103.

The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may

have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and

whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working

Group.

104.

The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the

above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present

opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up

to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action

would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in

implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.

105.

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States

to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views

and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily

deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.26

[Adopted on 24 March 2026]

26 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.