El Salvador Reform Reignites Debate: Can Anti-Terrorism Law Be Used Against Social Protests?

While media attention focuses on the approval of life imprisonment, a parallel and perhaps more consequential debate is gaining force in El Salvador: the implications of expanding the concept of terrorism in the penal code and its potential use to criminalize social protest. Civil society organizations, legal scholars, and international bodies have expressed growing concern.

The Letter of the Law

Penal reforms approved in recent months have expanded the definition of "terrorist acts" to include actions that "gravely alter public order" or "generate terror in the population." Critics point out that this wording is broad enough to encompass demonstrations, road blockades, or other forms of protest that, while disruptive, are legitimate expressions of the right to free assembly.

The most cited precedent is from 2023, when environmental activists protesting a mining project were briefly detained on charges of "disturbing public order." Although the charges were dropped, the episode illustrated the risks of ambiguous legislation in the hands of an executive with broad power.

Voices in the Debate

The Salvadoran Foundation for Economic and Social Development (FUSADES) has published a legal analysis arguing that the reforms need explicit clauses protecting the right to peaceful protest. The Central American University (UCA) has issued a similar statement. For its part, the government has dismissed these concerns, stating that the reforms are directed exclusively against organized crime and gang activity.

Internationally, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has requested clarifications from the Salvadoran government on the scope of the reforms and their compatibility with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Our Take

This is a debate every democracy should take seriously, regardless of the declared intent of those legislating. Latin American history is full of examples where laws designed to combat terrorism ended up being used to silence opponents, journalists, and activists. El Salvador is no potential exception. This is not about questioning the need to fight organized crime — no one disputes that. It's about demanding that legal tools be precise, not vague; and that independent judicial oversight mechanisms exist to prevent their arbitrary use. An anti-terrorism law that can be interpreted to criminalize a peaceful march is not a law against terrorism: it's a law against dissent.

Key Takeaways

• Penal reforms expand the definition of terrorism to include acts that "gravely alter public order"
• Organizations including FUSADES and UCA warn the wording could criminalize social protest
• In 2023, environmental activists were briefly detained on similar charges, setting a worrying precedent
• The government states the reforms are directed exclusively against organized crime
• The UN has requested clarifications on the reforms' compatibility with international law
• The debate is framed within the broader context of executive power concentration under the state of emergency