* Category includes ratification, accession, or succession to the treaty

El Salvador is a unitary state that follows the civil law tradition. The Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, regulates the rights and duties of all of the country’s inhabitants. It protects the rights to freedom of expression and thought, as well as the freedom of association.

Article 7 of the Constitution states that:

The inhabitants of El Salvador have the right to associate freely and to meet peacefully, without arms, for any lawful purpose. Nobody shall be obligated to belong to an association.

A person shall not be limited or impeded from the exercise of any licit activity because he does not belong to an association.

The existence of armed groups of a political, religious or guild character is prohibited.

Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Article 6 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right to express and disseminate thoughts, provided that public order is not subverted and the rights of third parties are not infringed.

In accordance with Article 240 (5) of the Constitution, municipalities can approve the formation of community associations through the authority that has been conferred on them to promulgate local ordinances and regulations. Secondary legislation regulates the scope of the rights articulated in the Constitution. The Vice President of El Salvador, Felix Ulloa, together with a team of lawyers, has prepared a list of constitutional reforms that would represent a modification of 85% of the 1983 Constitution. Article 7 is included among the anticipated reforms.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) in El Salvador are governed by (1) the 1996 national-level Law for Not-for-Profit Associations and Foundations [Ley de Asociaciones y Fundaciones sin Fines de Lucro] (LAFSFL), which regulates the establishment, operation, and dissolution of CSOs; and (2) the Municipal Code and municipal ordinances issued by each of the country’s 262 municipalities. The goal of the local-level regulation is to promote effective CSO engagement at the local level to address public policy priorities. According to Article 118 of Title IX of the Municipal Code, “Municipal governments are obligated to promote citizen participation, provide public information on municipal management, address matters that residents may request, and those that the Council considers convenient.”

Additional laws that may affect civil society include:

1. Código Municipal (Municipal Code)
2. Código Penal (Penal Code)
3. Ley de Proscripción de maras, pandillas, agrupaciones, asociaciones y organizaciones de naturaleza criminal (Prohibition Act of maras, gangs, groups, associations and organizations of a criminal nature)
4. Ley Especial contra actos de terrorismo (Special Law against Acts of Terrorism)
5. Ley General de Juventud (General Law of Youth)
6. Ley Marco para la Convivencia Ciudadana y Contravenciones Administrativas (Framework Law for Coexistence and Administrative Violations)
7. Ley Penitenciaria (Penitentiary Act)
8. Ley de Firma Electronica (Electronic Signature Law)
9. Reformas de Ley de Telecomunicaciones (Reforms of Telecommunications Law)
10. Ley Contra el Lavado de Dinero y de Activos (Anti-Money Laundering Act)
11. Ley de Desarrollo y Protección Social
12. Reglamento de la Ley de Acceso a la Información Pública
13. Reglamento General de la Ley del Medio Ambiente
14. Instructivo de la Unidad de Investigación Financiera – Fiscalía General de la República de El Salvador
15. Ley de Agentes extranjeros
16. Reglamento General de la Ley de Agentes Extranjeros
17. Ley de Acceso a la Información Pública
18. Guía para la Prevención del Lavado de Dinero y Financiamiento del Terrorismo dirigida a las Organizaciones Sin Fines de Lucro
19. Reglamento de la Ley de Desarrollo y Protección Social
20. Ley del Medio Ambiente
21. Ley Especial para la Prevención, Control y Sanción del Lavado de Activos, Financiamiento del Terrorismo y Financiamiento de la Proliferación de Armas de Destrucción Masiva

1. In March 2026, the Legislative Assembly approved an amendment to Article 27 of the Constitution to permit the imposition of life imprisonment for crimes such as homicide, rape, and terrorism. The amendment is currently pending ratification and is being considered within the context of a State of Exception that has been in effect since March 2022, in which more than 91,000 detentions have been reported. This has raised concerns regarding respect for due process.
2. In 2025, legislative initiatives were advanced, including the Law on the Registration of Legal Entities, alongside amendments to the Municipal Code, which are aimed at modifying the framework for the recognition and registration of community development associations. These proposals envision the establishment of the Registry of Community Associations (RAC), administered at the national level, as a mechanism to centralize the registration and oversight of such associations. Under this framework, the legal personality of community associations would be formally established through their registration in the national registry, thereby reducing the role of municipalities to functions of endorsement or supervision. These initiatives are currently under discussion and form part of a broader trend toward the centralization of the registration system.

Please help keep us informed; if you are aware of other pending initiatives, write to ICNL at ngomonitor@icnl.org.

The Law on Non-Profit Associations and Foundations recognizes associations and foundations as the primary organizational forms of civil society. These entities may be either domestic or foreign. Associations are private, non-profit entities composed of members, whereas foundations are asset-based organizations—devoid of membership—and established to serve purposes of general interest or public service. Both types of entities acquire legal personality upon their registration with the Registry of Non-Profit Associations and Foundations, administered by the Ministry of Governance and Territorial Development.
At the local level, the Municipal Code recognizes associative forms linked to community organization—specifically communal associations—which are established to address the common needs or interests of a given community. Under the currently applicable regulatory framework, these associations must be formed with a minimum of 25 members, and their legal personality is granted by the respective municipal council.
Furthermore, there exist other organizational forms subject to special regulatory regimes—such as religious institutions and labor unions—which are governed by distinct regulations.

The most recent publicly available figures indicate a total of 4,484 registered organizations as of July 14, 2021.

Associations and foundations may be declared public interest entities, upon certification by the General Directorate of Internal Taxes under the Ministry of the Treasury. This designation, which is sought by nearly all CSOs, grants exemption from income tax. This benefit is regulated by the LAFSFL (Articles 6 and 7) and the Income Tax Act (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) (Article 6).

To qualify, CSOs must be established for the purposes of social assistance, promotion of road building, charity, education and instruction, cultural, scientific, literary, artistic, political, or sports activities; business associations and trade unions are also eligible. In addition, their income and assets must be used exclusively to advance the organization’s purposes and may not be distributed among their members (Income Tax Act, Article 6). In practice, however, the process of obtaining this status is long and bureaucratic.

The law does not establish explicit criteria for certifying public interest status, leaving significant room for arbitrary interpretation. In addition, the regulations provide no appeals procedure for organizations whose applications are denied. As a result, CSOs that are refused public interest status have no recourse other than initiating lengthy and costly legal proceedings.

Public interest status is granted for one year and renews automatically absent a notice of revocation from the tax authorities. The designation may be revoked if the conditions under which it was granted are no longer met (LAFSFL, Article 7). Neither the LAFSFL nor tax laws establish a clear procedure for revoking eligibility, and there are no known cases of revocation.

Designation as a public interest entity does not exempt the CSO from fulfilling other formal obligations, such as submitting reports and other documentation requested by the tax authorities.

Article 18 of the Constitution recognizes the right of every person to submit written petitions to legally established authorities and to receive a response. Various regulations elaborate upon this right and establish mechanisms for citizen participation in public administration.
The Municipal Code establishes an obligation for local governments to promote citizen participation (Art. 115) and incorporates mechanisms such as open town meetings, public consultations, neighborhood and sectoral consultations, participatory investment plans, local development committees, and citizen security councils (Art. 116). Furthermore, it permits the formation of community associations to address local needs, requiring a minimum of 25 members for their establishment (Arts. 118–120).
The Framework Law for Citizen Coexistence and Administrative Contraventions (2011) also promotes citizen participation at the municipal level and establishes an obligation for local governments to foster participatory spaces (Art. 15). This regulation establishes a minimum requirement of 25 individuals for the establishment of community associations, in alignment with the Municipal Code.
The Internal Regulations of the Legislative Assembly (2005) provide for participation mechanisms within the legislative process, including hearings and consultations held by legislative committees. Additionally, they allow citizens to submit written petitions to address the legislative plenary (Art. 78), subject to prior authorization from the Assembly.
The Law on Access to Public Information (2011) establishes transparency obligations for public institutions, including the publication of information regarding participation and accountability mechanisms (Art. 10). Furthermore, it promotes citizen access to information as a prerequisite for informed participation in public affairs.
The Environmental Law (1998) recognizes the population’s right to be informed and consulted on environmental matters, and incorporates participation mechanisms into decision-making processes regarding projects that may generate environmental impacts. Finally, the Law of the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women (ISDEMU) promotes women’s participation on equal terms in decision-making processes and in public life, thereby strengthening the inclusive approach to citizen participation.

Although Salvadoran legislation does not prohibit the existence of unregistered groups acting for lawful purposes, CSOs face various barriers during the stages of formation and the acquisition of legal personality. These barriers consist of a combination of formal legal requirements, administrative burdens, and institutional practices that can delay or hinder the registration process.
To obtain legal personality, associations and foundations must submit an application to the Registry of Non-Profit Associations and Foundations under the Ministry of Governance and Territorial Development. This application must be accompanied by the public deed of incorporation, bylaws, documentation regarding the election of the initial Board of Directors, a membership list, and any other documents required by law and current administrative guidelines. In practice, the Ministry itself requires the simultaneous submission of both legal and accounting documentation, as well as various ledgers and supplementary certifications.
Historically, one of the primary regulatory issues was the reliance on vague grounds—linked to “morality,” “public order,” and “good customs”—which granted broad discretionary powers to administrative authorities. In its ruling Inc. 8-97Ac (2001), the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice warned that such open-ended formulations allowed for arbitrary interference with the freedom of association. Consequently, any current assessment of the legal framework governing the formation of such entities must take this jurisprudential precedent into account.
In addition to legal requirements, organizations face formation costs that can prove significant for small or community-based groups. Although the official registration fee is $34.29, the process typically entails additional expenses for notary services, public notices, legal ledgers, and accounting documentation, thereby substantially increasing the actual cost of formalization. This financial burden can be particularly onerous for grassroots organizations and collectives with limited resources.
While the regulations do provide for specific timeframes and mechanisms for rectifying deficiencies, CSOs have reported—in practice—facing additional requirements, repetitive requests for clarification, and administrative delays that extend far beyond what would be expected for a purely administrative registration procedure. The Ministry, for instance, has published additional guidelines regarding information control, financial statements, the identification of directors, and the documentation of donors and beneficiaries—developments that underscore a trend toward increasingly stringent administrative requirements.
In the event of disagreement with an administrative decision, the law provides for avenues of recourse; indeed, the Ministry itself currently directs parties to the challenge mechanisms established under the Administrative Procedures Law. However, the confluence of administrative discretion, financial costs, and procedural delays may discourage the formal establishment of new organizations—particularly those dedicated to human rights advocacy or community-based work. Within the broader context of a shrinking civic space, these administrative barriers can exert a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of association, even during its nascent stages.
Furthermore, the Foreign Agents Law (2025) imposes registration obligations with the Registry of Foreign Agents (RAEX) upon organizations that receive funding from abroad. Although registration with this body is not a prerequisite for acquiring legal personality, it does impose additional operational conditions on such organizations—including reporting requirements, oversight measures, and exposure to potential sanctions.
The implementation of this regulatory regime may generate uncertainty among organizations currently in the process of formation that anticipate accessing international funding, given that non-compliance with these obligations could result in operational restrictions. In this regard, the RAEX may function as an indirect barrier, influencing the decision to establish and formally register new organizations—particularly those that rely on international cooperation.

CSOs in El Salvador face various operational barriers stemming from legal provisions, administrative practices, and the prevailing security context.
Article 345 of El Salvador’s Penal Code criminalizes certain groups deemed to be intended for the commission of crimes, while the Special Law Against Acts of Terrorism establishes sanctions for those participating in organizations designated as terrorist entities. The broad scope of these concepts—combined with their application within the current context—creates a risk of wide interpretation that could adversely affect various organizations and social collectives.
Since March 2022, the implementation of the State of Exception has entailed the suspension of constitutional guarantees, including rights related to personal liberty and due process. This context has facilitated mass detentions and the expanded use of criminal categories—such as “illicit associations”—which may have a chilling effect on collective organizing and the work of social actors.
The Law on Non-Profit Associations and Foundations recognizes the right of foreign organizations to operate within the country, but it prohibits their participation in political activities without clearly defining what constitutes such activity. In addition to this, the Law on Foreign Agents (2025), which mandates that organizations receiving international funding register with the Registry of Foreign Agents (RAEX), imposed requirements regarding reporting, oversight, and potential sanctions. Furthermore, this law introduces a fiscal regime applicable to such funds, including the possibility of levying a 30% tax on financing received from abroad. Although the regulatory framework provides for authorization or exemption mechanisms, these remain subject to the approval of the competent authority, potentially creating financial uncertainty and undermining the operational sustainability of organizations that rely on international cooperation.
Additionally, the regulatory framework concerning money laundering prevention—including directives issued by the Financial Investigation Unit (UIF)—imposes compliance obligations that may entail significant administrative burdens for these organizations. These requirements include financial reporting, due diligence, and internal controls, which can prove complex for organizations with limited operational capacity.
Finally, international cooperation is coordinated at the governmental level by the Agency of El Salvador for International Cooperation (ESCO)—an entity attached to the Executive Branch responsible for articulating and channeling external cooperation. This model centralizes the management of cooperation within government structures, which may impact organizations’ access to resources and their opportunities for engagement with international actors, based on administrative criteria defined by the state.
Taken together, these provisions not only introduce additional administrative controls but may also structurally affect the sustainability and operational autonomy of civil society organizations. The combination of registration requirements, reporting obligations, state oversight, and tax burdens linked to international funding creates an environment in which institutional planning, program continuity, and resource management are conditioned by regulatory and discretionary factors.

CSOs in El Salvador may engage in lawful economic or commercial activities linked to their institutional objectives. However, any income generated must be allocated exclusively toward fulfilling these objectives and cannot result in direct financial gain for their members, founders, or administrators.
The primary current barrier to accessing and utilizing resources—particularly those of international origin—stems from the Foreign Agents Law (2025). This law mandates that individuals and organizations receiving foreign funding register with RAEX and also establishes reporting and oversight obligations, as well as a sanctions regime that may entail disproportionate fines of up to $250,000, among other administrative measures. Furthermore, the law introduces a 30% tax on funds, goods, and services originating from abroad, with exemptions contingent upon authorization from the competent authority.
The broad scope of the definitions contained within the law—coupled with restrictions applicable to activities deemed political in nature, or those perceived as capable of disrupting public order or social and political stability—creates an environment of profound uncertainty for organizations reliant on international cooperation. In May 2025, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that the law employs vague language and could unduly restrict the freedoms of association and expression. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) also voiced its concerns in 2025. Subsequently, in March 2026, the Commission gathered information from organizations reporting disproportionate administrative and tax burdens, staff reductions, the suspension of operations, and even organizational closures and forced exile.
Compounding these challenges is the regulatory framework for preventing money laundering and terrorist financing. A Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) directive—amended in September 2023—mandates that CSOs register with the UIF, maintain up-to-date records, identify ultimate beneficial owners, adopt a risk-based approach, and report suspicious transactions. The Guide for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing for Non-Profit Organizations expressly states that CSOs are obligated by FATF Recommendations 1 and 8—particularly regarding risk assessment, transparency, and the prevention of fund diversion.
In October 2025, the Legislative Assembly further enacted Legislative Decree No. 426—titled the Special Law for the Prevention, Control, and Sanction of Asset Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and the Financing of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction—which reinforced the national system for prevention, control, and sanctions. Although this framework seeks to strengthen the integrity of the financial system and ensure compliance with international standards, its interaction with obligations already imposed on CSOs increases the compliance burden, particularly for small organizations or those with limited administrative capacity.
Regarding public funding, there is no stable or institutionalized system of state support for civil society organizations. Furthermore, the establishment in 2021 of a legislative commission to investigate funds granted to CSOs contributed to an environment of heightened scrutiny and stigmatization directed at the sector—particularly toward organizations dedicated to human rights and accountability. Taken together, these factors create a restrictive environment for the acquisition, management, and sustainability of resources.
Additionally, the application of measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing can have indirect effects on CSOs’ access to financial services. In line with trends observed internationally, financial institutions may adopt restrictive or risk-mitigation approaches regarding organizations that receive international funding, which can translate into increased due diligence requirements, transaction delays, or limitations on access to banking services. These factors can impact organizations’ operational capacity and their ability to manage resources in a timely manner as well as the sustainability of the sector and its capacity to operate independently.

Article 6 of the Constitution recognizes the right of every individual to express and disseminate their thoughts without prior censorship, establishing only subsequent liability in cases involving harm to public order, morality, honor, or private life. However, the exercise of this right faces various limitations in practice.
According to recent reports from the Association of Journalists of El Salvador (APES), the environment for freedom of expression has undergone significant deterioration. In its 2024 Press Freedom Report, APES documented 789 attacks against journalists and media outlets, marking the highest level recorded since 2018.
Furthermore, APES has documented a growing phenomenon of forced displacement and exile among journalists, reporting at least 43 cases in 2025—most of which were driven by fear of detention, harassment, or potential criminal proceedings linked to their journalistic work. Taken together, these factors reflect an environment in which the exercise of freedom of expression is constrained by pressures, risks, and limitations that disproportionately affect critical voices and civil society organizations.
For its part, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has warned of a severe deterioration in press freedom in El Salvador, characterized by restrictions on access to information, pressure exerted against critical media outlets, and an environment that fosters self-censorship. Additionally, the organization has documented an increase in threats, judicial harassment, and smear campaigns directed at journalists.
RSF has also highlighted the use of pressure tactics—including legal proceedings and mechanisms of financial strangulation—within a broader context that has forced dozens of media professionals into exile. In this context, the closure or forced exile of organizations dedicated to defending freedom of expression has even been documented. For example, APES itself, operates from exile.
Furthermore, the prolonged State of Exception, in effect since 2022, has impacted the exercise of fundamental freedoms by expanding the use of security measures and curtailing guarantees associated with due process. Against this backdrop, human rights organizations have warned of heightened risks of reprisals and criminalization facing individuals who express critical opinions or speak out regarding matters of public interest.
Broadly speaking, international bodies concur that the current environment is characterized by stigmatization, self-censorship, and a shrinking civic space. These factors directly undermine the capacity of journalists, organizations, and human rights defenders to express critical views and participate in public debate.

Article 7 of the Constitution recognizes the right of individuals to assemble peacefully and without arms for any lawful purpose. However, the use of the phrase “lawful purpose” leaves room for restrictive interpretations, particularly when authorities link specific forms of protest to disturbances of public order or to broad criminal offenses.
At the regulatory level, the Electoral Code establishes requirements for prior notice or authorization regarding assemblies and demonstrations held for the purpose of electoral campaigning. These rules do not constitute a general authorization regime applicable to all public assemblies, but they do demonstrate that, in certain contexts, the exercise of this right may be subject to prior oversight by municipal and electoral authorities. Furthermore, the regulations themselves restrict the simultaneous occurrence of events at the same time and location—a limitation that, in practice, may hinder the possibility of counter-demonstrations.
Constitutional jurisprudence has recognized that freedom of assembly is a fundamental right and cannot be nullified by disproportionate administrative requirements. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has reiterated—citing Judgment 4-94 of June 13, 1995—that this right protects peaceful assembly for lawful purposes and that any limitation thereof must be justified and must not become an undue obstacle to its exercise.
Moreover, risks of criminalization persist due to the broad scope of certain criminal provisions. The Special Law Against Acts of Terrorism, along with other criminal statutes, has historically been singled out for its potential for expansive application against protesters—particularly when authorities associate blockades, occupations, or collective actions with threats to public order. At the inter-American level, the IACHR has warned that restrictions on protest must be strictly defined and must not be used to discourage or unduly penalize social mobilization.
The primary current barrier to the exercise of the right of assembly stems from the State of Exception, established via Legislative Decree No. 333 in March 2022 and subsequently extended on a continuous basis. Since its implementation, the detention of more than 91,000 individuals has been reported within the framework of this measure. This regime has entailed the suspension of constitutional guarantees, including rights related to personal liberty, due process, and—indirectly—the exercise of the freedoms of assembly and association.
The broad scope of the powers granted to authorities, coupled with the prolonged duration of the regime, has created an environment that may have a chilling effect on participation in public demonstrations and collective organizing. Furthermore, human rights organizations have warned that, in certain instances, measures adopted under the regime have been applied beyond the scope of combating criminal structures, impacting human rights defenders and critical voices.
More recently, national and international organizations have documented a growing trend of criminalization and repression in response to expressions of social discontent. In May 2025, Amnesty International reported the use of excessive force, undue militarization, and the criminalization of protest in the context of social conflicts. Subsequently, the organization issued a warning regarding the abusive use of criminal law against human rights defenders and community leaders linked to peaceful protests. These patterns demonstrate that, although the right to assembly remains formally recognized, its exercise faces increasingly severe restrictions.

El Salvador Approves Constitutional Amendment to Allow Life Imprisonment (March 2026) (Spanish)
The Legislative Assembly approved an amendment to Article 27 of the Constitution, allowing for the imposition of life imprisonment for crimes such as homicide, rape, and terrorism. The measure lifts the constitutional ban on life sentences and forms part of the government’s security strategy.

El Salvador Under Scrutiny Over Mass Detentions Under State of Exception (March 2026) (Spanish)
A recent analysis has highlighted the scale of detentions carried out under the state of exception—in effect since 2022—as well as concerns regarding potential arbitrary detentions and their impact on fundamental rights. Official data indicate that a significant proportion of those detained did not previously appear in police records as gang members; this has heightened concerns regarding respect for due process and transparency in official reporting.

Organizations Denounce Impact of Foreign Agents Law on Civil Society (March 2026) (Spanish)
National and international organizations have raised alarm regarding the effects of the Foreign Agents Law on the functioning of civil society, noting that the 30% tax on international funding and the associated registration requirements create operational restrictions, curtail activities, and pose a risk of closure for these organizations.

El Salvador scraps term limits (August 2025)
El Salvador’s congress has approved constitutional reforms to abolish presidential term limits, allowing President Nayib Bukele to run an unlimited number of times. The reform, reviewed under an expedited procedure, will also extend term times to from five to six years, while the next election will be brought forward to 2027.

President Bukele’s foreign agents law is fueling democratic concerns (May 2025)
Human rights organizations, politicians and experts have sharply criticized a law approved by El Salvador’s Congress as a censorship tool designed to silence and criminalize dissent in the Central American nation by targeting NGOs that have long been critical of President Nayib Bukele. The law proposed by Bukele was passed by a Congress under firm control of his New Ideas party, and bypassed normal legislative procedures. Bukele first tried to introduce a similar law in 2021, but after strong international backlash it was never brought for a vote by the full Congress.

Human rights commission calls on El Salvador to end state of emergency (September 2024)
El Salvador should end a long-running state of emergency and reinstate suspended constitutional rights after achieving significant security gains due to its anti-gang crackdown, a prominent human rights commission said. The Washington-based Organization of American States’ human rights commission said in a report it had seen the government’s data on the improved crime rate and it no longer justified the suspension of rights. President Nayib Bukele declared the initial month-long state of emergency following a wave of murders over a single weekend in March 2022.

Statement in Solidarity with Human Rights Defenders in El Salvador (May 2024)
At a joint press conference on April 18, the Movement of Victims of the Regime (MOVIR), the Committee of Families of Political Prisoners in El Salvador (COFAPPES), Humanitarian Legal Aid (Socorro Jurídico Humanitario), the “Herbert Anaya Sanabria” Human Rights Collective, and the Committee of Relatives of Victims of the State of Exception of the Bajo Lempa detailed an alarming pattern of surveillance and police interference into their participation in street marches, protests, and rallies, as well as online harassment.

As free press withers in El Salvador, pro-government social media influencers grow (August 2023)
Rights groups, civil society and even some officials criticized El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele for violating human rights in his crackdown on criminal gangs, and said that his unconstitutional bid for re-election would corrode the country’s democracy…. There is now an expanding network of social media personalities acting as a megaphone for the millennial leader. At the same time Bukele has cracked down on the press, his government has embraced those influencers.

El Salvador Extends the ‘State of Exception’ for the Ninth Time (December 2022)
El Salvador’s Congress approved another 30-day “state of exception”, which involves the suspension of various constitutional rights. The Ombudsman for the Defense of Human Rights, Raquel Caballero, stated that she had met with Security Minister Gustavo Villatoro, who acknowledged that 59,600 people have been detained since the state of exception began. As a result, on September 27, three humanitarian organizations denounced the State of El Salvador before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for the arbitrary detention of at least 152 people during the emergency regime.

10,000 police to seal off a town and search for gang members (December 2022)

El Salvador Extends State of Emergency to Curb Gang Violence (April 2022)

Nayib Bukele’s Recipe for Limiting Human Rights (July 2021)

El Salvador Defends Firing Attorney General, Top Judges (May 2021)

Bukele May Tighten Grip in Elections (February 2021)

Salvadorean President Hostile towards Independent Media (October 2020)

Sending aid is key to solving the Central American migrant crisis (November 2018)

Supreme Electoral Tribunal Announces 2019 Presidential Elections (October 2018)

Salvadoreans March Against Water Privatization (June 2018)

Investigate private agents released pepper spray on students (June 2018) (Spanish)

First Transparency Monitoring Report of the Electoral Process (January 2018) (Spanish)

Pension Law Amendments with broad citizen participation (October 2017) (Spanish)

New changes to the Electoral Code (May 2016) (Spanish)

Extraordinary Security Measures Approved (April 2016) (Spanish)

Government and civil society launch Alliance for Open Government (January 2016) (Spanish)

New contributions in the process of electoral reforms (November 2015) (Spanish)

Assembly approves law on electronic signatures (October 2015) (Spanish)

Una ley contra los delitos informáticos que respete la libertad de expresión (September 2015) (Spanish)

CSO director victim of threats (May 2015)

Organization promotes more transparency (May 2015)

Private media called to recognize international standards of freedom of expression (November 2014)

President receives Draft Law of Citizen Participation in Public Management (September 2014)

Former guerrilla wins El Salvador vote (April 2014)

U.S./El Salvador: A common ground for partnership (June 2013)

El Salvador one of only ten states to have ratified the Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (January 2013)

Dr. Tillemann travels to Peru and El Salvador (October 2012)

CSOs petition to halt REDD program (August 2012)

Civil society speaks out on constitutional crisis (July 2012)

Trade unionists denounce persecution in El Salvador (June 2012)

Progress can prevail in El Salvador (May 2012)

Legislative blunders and expectations in El Salvador (May 2012)

The origins of civil society in El Salvador can be traced to the 1960s, when early initiatives focused primarily on humanitarian aid. The sector grew significantly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the civil war and subsequent post-war reconstruction. Many CSOs at that time provided emergency support to marginalized populations while others emerged to address broader social welfare issues. The 1992 Peace Accords created further opportunities for expansion, both in the number of organizations and in the scope of their work.

Over subsequent decades, CSOs established mechanisms for international cooperation and financing and began to organize collectively through unions, alliances, networks, federations, and partnerships. These structures allowed them to engage in the public sphere more effectively, including by formulating policy proposals, legislative initiatives, and agreements with state agencies.

The election of a government led by Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in 2009 created new channels for citizen participation. However, CSOs were unable to coalesce around a unified national development agenda. Institutional weaknesses persisted, particularly in the government body responsible for overseeing CSOs, which has long been criticized for bureaucratic inefficiency.

During the administration of President Salvador Sánchez Cerén (2014–2019), the Five-Year Development Plan envisaged the creation of a new legal framework for CSOs. In 2019, the government presented a Not-for-Profit Social Organizations Act, which aimed to modernize procedures, streamline services, and address gaps in the existing legislation.

Following the 2021 legislative elections, the Nuevas Ideas party led by President Nayib Bukele gained a supermajority in the Legislative Assembly. This enabled the government to remove and replace officials, including the attorney general and magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice, and consolidate control over state institutions. Within this context, the government signaled its intention to introduce measures that could restrict civic space and the activities of human rights organizations, rather than moving forward with the Not-for-Profit Social Organizations Act.