Maribel Espinoza denounces impact of state of emergency on rights

In Honduras, the state of emergency has sparked significant debate in recent months. Congresswoman Maribel Espinoza, an opposition representative, has voiced worries regarding the manner in which this measure is being implemented, initially intended to fight crime. She argues that the current approach raises concerns about constitutional protections and might act as a tool to target government critics.

Espinoza denounced that certain actions carried out under the state of emergency violate citizens’ rights. As an example, she cited the search without a warrant of the residence of retired General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, an act that, she said, highlights the discretionary use of power and the lack of institutional controls. For the legislator, this type of action could become a dangerous normalization of authoritarian practices if the scope of the current decree is not defined.

Arguments against the Public Prosecutor’s Office and potential legal challenges

The representative also criticized the performance of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, arguing that it fails to ensure fairness or adherence to due process in enacting the exceptional measures. She believes this fosters a climate of legal instability impacting not just prominent individuals but any citizen subject to unpredictable rulings.

Considering the circumstances, Espinoza called upon the National Congress to thoroughly evaluate the necessity of upholding the state of emergency, using their elected duties as the only standard of judgment, rather than their political connections. He cautioned that prolonging this measure might be driven by political motives aimed at enhancing government authority by curtailing civil freedoms. He further emphasized that ensuring public security should not be employed as a pretext to undermine the rule of law or to circumscribe democratic engagement.

Responses in the National Congress and discussion on ongoing processes

The criticism from Espinoza echoes the concerns of different groups advocating for more openness in how this measure is implemented. Despite being introduced as a counter to violence, there is an increasing belief that it serves to suppress opposition. The ongoing discussion about its future persists within Congress and among members of civil society, with appeals for a harmony between safety and the preservation of basic rights.