Man goes to trial for cyber espionage and child pornography against ex-partner in Paraguay

Judge Yoan Paul López ordered the opening of oral and public trial against a man accused of installing GPS, microphones and hidden cameras to surveil his ex-partner, in addition to illegally accessing her devices and storing pornographic material involving a 17-year-old adolescent.

Criminal guarantees judge Yoan Paul López, through Interlocutory Order No. 374, ordered the opening of oral and public trial against a man investigated for cyber espionage and pornography involving children and adolescents. The decision, made on May 18, 2026, confirmed the solidity of the evidence gathered by prosecutor Irma Llano, of the Specialized Unit in Computer Crimes, and by the private prosecution.

According to the complaint accepted by the court, the accused set up a scheme of physical and virtual surveillance against his ex-partner. He allegedly made unauthorized copies of the victim's car keys and installed geolocation devices (GPS) and hidden microphones in the air filter and trunk of the vehicle. In addition, he invaded the woman's cell phone, email accounts and digital platforms, extracting intimate photos, videos and conversations. Hidden cameras were placed in the victim's bedroom.

During the forensic examination of the seized devices, experts found explicit audiovisual material involving a 17-year-old adolescent, dated 2021. This finding led to the inclusion of the crime of pornography involving children and adolescents in the proceedings.

At the preliminary hearing, the defense tried to prevent the case from moving forward, arguing that the crime of child pornography was time-barred and that the Computer Crimes Unit lacked jurisdiction, suggesting that the case should be handled by the Human Trafficking Unit. Judge Yoan Paul López rejected all arguments, stating that the division of functions among the units of the Public Prosecutor's Office is merely organizational and does not invalidate the investigations. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court found that the legal deadlines are still in effect and that the accusation meets the requirements of clarity and precision required by the Criminal Procedure Code.

The case now proceeds to trial before a Sentencing Court.