Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

One Year After Arrest, Pressure Mounts on El Salvador to Free Ruth López

News

Human rights organizations across the Americas are intensifying pressure on the Salvadoran government to immediately release Ruth Eleonora López, a prominent anti‑corruption attorney who has now spent more than a year in pretrial detention under what advocates describe as arbitrary, retaliatory, and rights‑violating conditions. López, who leads the Anti‑Corruption and Justice Unit at Cristosal, was detained on May 18, 2025, and has remained behind bars ever since. Her case has become a flashpoint in the region’s debate over democratic backsliding and the criminalization of civil society under President Nayib Bukele.

According to Amnesty International, López’s first hours in custody amounted to a short‑term enforced disappearance, as authorities refused to reveal her whereabouts to her family or legal team. The organization reports that she has since been held under an incommunicado regime, with sharply restricted access to counsel and relatives, while her case remains sealed under judicial secrecy — preventing any public examination of the evidence against her. Over the past year, the charges have shifted without explanation, moving from alleged embezzlement tied to advisory work more than a decade ago to illicit enrichment. Human Rights Watch notes that no evidence has been presented in open court, and a judge extended her pretrial detention in December 2025, with the current order set to expire this month. The Human Rights Research Center adds that López’s imprisonment reflects a broader pattern in El Salvador of criminalizing human rights defenders, journalists, and anti‑corruption advocates.


The circumstances of her arrest were equally alarming. Luis Benavides, López’s husband, told Latino News Network that police arrived at their home under false pretenses. “The police came to our house with some story about our car having been in an accident,” he said. “She was in her pajamas. They had her change into other clothes on the street, with a photographer documenting her humiliation.” For Benavides, the spectacle was not only degrading but a clear signal that authorities intended to criminalize López before any legal process had even begun.

Luis Benavides on the Night Ruth López Was Taken

Luis Benavides on the Night Ruth López Was Taken open.spotify.com

Noah Bullock, Executive Director of Cristosal, told LNN that the year‑long detention of López is a politically motivated act of repression designed to silence dissent and punish her for exposing high‑level corruption within the Bukele administration. “Ruth was arrested without an order from the attorney general and accused of a crime that she couldn’t have committed because she never managed public funds,” Bullock said.

Noah Bullock on Ruth López’s Case

Noah Bullock on Ruth López’s Case open.spotify.com

Bullock has emphasized that as the head of Cristosal’s Anti‑Corruption Unit, López led investigations and formally submitted more than 15 credible cases of government corruption. He argued that her continued imprisonment is a deliberate state tactic to silence civil society and deter anyone who seeks to expose wrongdoing. In his view, the message is unmistakable: challenging power comes at a cost.

Cristosal has repeatedly condemned the Salvadoran government for cloaking López’s legal proceedings in total secrecy. “Her case has been declared a secret. She’s being tried in secret,” Bullock said, stressing that such opacity violates fundamental due‑process guarantees. The organization argues that this enforced secrecy is one of the most arbitrary and unlawful aspects of her detention — a deliberate effort by the state to shield the case from public scrutiny and prevent accountability.

As López’s detention enters its second year, advocates warn that her case is no longer just about one attorney — it has become a barometer for the state of democratic institutions in El Salvador. International human rights organizations argue that if a lawyer of López’s stature can be detained in secrecy, denied due process, and prosecuted without evidence, the risks for ordinary citizens, activists, and journalists are even greater. For them, her imprisonment signals a deliberate effort to dismantle the checks and balances that once constrained executive power.

Across the region, López’s case has galvanized civil society groups who see in her treatment a troubling precedent: a government willing to criminalize those who expose corruption or challenge official narratives. They warn that unless the international community maintains pressure, El Salvador’s slide toward authoritarianism will accelerate, with López’s fate serving as a stark warning to others who dare to speak out.

For her family, colleagues, and supporters, the demand remains simple and urgent: Ruth López must be released. Until then, they say, her case will stand as a symbol of the profound human cost of repression — and of the courage required to confront it.

One Year After Arrest, Pressure Mounts on El Salvador to Free Ruth López was first published on Latino News Network and republished with permission.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.


Read More

Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less