The conviction of Hernán Rivas has renewed debate over the validity of decisions by the Jurado de Enjuiciamiento de Magistrados (JEM), Paraguay’s body that judges and may remove magistrates. A former justice minister argues that each act should undergo legal review, taking into account whether the former senator’s vote was decisive; the judgment convicting him, however, is not yet final and does not automatically invalidate the panel’s decisions.
On September 24, Rivas was sentenced to eight years in prison for the mediated production and use of public documents containing false information related to his law degree. At trial, the court found that he had not studied law at Universidad Sudamericana. The conviction was issued at first instance, and its legal effects differ from those of a final ruling.
Daniel Benítez Romero, a former justice minister, points out that Article 253 of the Constitution requires the Legislature’s representatives on the JEM to be lawyers. Law No. 6,814/2021, which regulates the body, sets rules for quorums and voting. Benítez Romero says an audit should examine decisions individually: the outcome may depend on whether the required majority would have been reached without Rivas’s vote. It is also necessary to distinguish plenary resolutions, final judgments, and administrative acts he signed as president.
A possible review could cover disciplinary proceedings involving magistrates, prosecutors, and public defenders. Lawyer Manuel Riera Domínguez proposed that the Office of the Ombudsman investigate public officials’ responsibilities and gather information, using powers granted by law. Rafael Ávila is the institution’s current head. The initiative adds to the possibility of legal action by people directly affected.
One such case involves the family of former prosecutor Jorge Eduardo López Lohman, who was removed by the JEM in November 2021 with Rivas’s participation. His daughter, Emita López, links his removal to the indictment of three judicial employees for document forgery. She says the family’s requests for a review were rejected by the body, also with Rivas’s vote. The family is seeking the posthumous annulment of the removal as moral redress and to establish a precedent; it has not ruled out appealing to international bodies.
The Senate approved a motion to prioritize debate on October 7, after the October 4 municipal elections, on a bill imposing a two-year moratorium on the creation of private universities and higher institutes. Introduced on September 9 by senators Yolanda Paredes, Rafael Filizzola, Esperanza Martínez, Ignacio Iramain, and Lucía Mendoza, the proposal would suspend the creation of new institutions without ordering the closure of those already operating. Its sponsors say the pause would allow time to review and strengthen existing controls and the higher-education regulatory framework.
In explaining her motion, Senator Esperanza Martínez linked the proposal to new allegations that, she said, involve a private university in Pedro Juan Caballero. In her remarks to the Senate, she cited an operation in Brazil in which a woman was detained and had 800,000 reais in her possession; Martínez said the woman was reportedly linked to Universidad Interamericana. The senator said the case should be investigated and that private universities require legislative review.
This legislative moratorium is separate from Eduardo Nakayama’s personal suggestion, made in an interview with ABC Color, that there be a two-to-five-year pause before discussions resume on opening new universities. The Senate proposal sets a two-year period and also covers private higher institutes.
Business, academic, and civil society organizations called for explanations of oversight failures that, they said, allowed Rivas’s degree to be validated and his rise to the JEM presidency. They also highlighted problems with records, notifications, and oversight mechanisms, with possible direct effects on workers and families, including cases involving asset freezes and judicial acts carried out without the affected people’s effective knowledge. Their statement calls for political, administrative, and judicial accountability where appropriate; stricter controls for positions of high responsibility; complete, traceable public records; and greater independence, professionalism, and accountability in the justice system.