AI-generated illustrative image.
A new form of indirect censorship is emerging in Paraguay, where figures with significant economic and political power use judicial tools to obstruct press work. This pattern manifests through injunction appeals that seek to prevent the State from releasing information considered public. Investigative journalist Alfredo Guachiré has documented how these mechanisms are transforming into a systematic barrier against transparency.
The most recent case involves civil judge Marcelo Rocholl, who granted an injunction filed by the company Laser Import S.A. The judicial resolution orders the Ministry of Economy and Finance to refrain from disclosing any document or record concerning said firm. This measure directly affects a public information access request made by Guachiré regarding shareholders Antonio Juan Bautista Vierci and Ana María Yakisich de Vierci.
The communicator’s request was limited to requiring public data about companies integrated by the mentioned businesspeople, without including private information or financial statements. However, by accepting the injunction, the Judiciary validates a restriction contrary to the transparency principle established by Law 5282/14, a regulation that guarantees citizen access to public information.
The judicial action promoted by business groups violates fundamental constitutional guarantees. Article 28 of the National Constitution, which enshrines the right to seek and receive information, and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, of supralegal hierarchy, are transgressed. This judicialization of basic requests forces journalists and citizens to litigate to access data that should be public.
Far from being an isolated incident, this trend is consolidating as a recurring practice. Guachiré himself confirmed facing multiple similar judicial processes. Influential figures like Horacio Cartes and Miguel Vázquez also resorted to constitutional injunctions to block information requests, extending the use of the judicial system as a shielding instrument against public scrutiny.
Judicial Pressure and Professional Secrecy Violation
Simultaneously, journalistic practice faces direct pressures against source protection. In a separate case, the Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation that resulted in the communicator’s summons for the leak of voice forensics in the “Mafia de los Pagarés” case. During the hearing, investigators allegedly attempted to learn the information’s origin, violating the right to source confidentiality.
Follow us on Instagram.
This attempt to reveal journalistic sources constitutes a violation of Article 29 of the National Constitution and Article 13 of the American Convention, which protect professional secrecy. Judicial intrusion in this area generates an intimidating effect for sources and a structural risk for investigative journalism, which depends on confidentiality as an essential tool to expose matters of public interest.
Systematic Censorship and Judicial Paralysis
The scenario worsens due to the Supreme Court of Justice’s inaction, which since February 2025 has kept paralyzed an unconstitutionality action against the ruling of the Magistrates’ Impeachment Jury (JEM). Said ruling absolved judge Gloria Machuca, responsible for ordering prior censorship of the RDN media outlet and businessman Christian Chena. The stagnation of the case has been qualified by press organizations as a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression, since the file hasn’t even surpassed the admissibility stage.
In September 2025, the Paraguayan Journalists’ Union (SPP) denounced a new episode of restriction on journalistic work. During Argentine President Javier Milei’s visit to Asunción, within the framework of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), reporters were prohibited from recording his speech, and security personnel attempted to confiscate journalists’ phones. The incident was interpreted as an act of direct censorship and information control at a public and international event.
Transparency Under Threat
The discussion about press restrictions is not new. Since 2019, various organizations have warned about administrative obstacles, strategic litigation, and institutional pressures affecting coverage of sensitive topics. The accumulation of injunctions, judicial summons, and criminal cases generates material and psychological exhaustion in investigative journalism. This practice of judicializing information access has become a form of indirect censorship, forcing journalists to divert time and resources from their informative work.
Guachiré continues his defense with support from a public defender, while analyzing injunctions filed by Cartes and Vázquez. The journalistic community and human rights organizations observe with growing concern the advancement of these judicial measures, which could consolidate a regressive precedent for freedom of expression and citizens’ right to information in Paraguay.
El artículo en español aquí.
Esta web usa cookies.