Lawyers for Lawyers welcomes the opinion of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) concerning Guatemalan lawyer Claudia González Orellana. The Working Group concluded that Ms. González’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary and formed part of a broader pattern of retaliation against justice officials and lawyers for the legitimate exercise of their professional activities.
Case against Claudia González Orellana
Ms. González is a lawyer and a former representative of International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). In recognition of her work and dedication, she received the Lawyers for Lawyers award in 2023. Following the termination of CICIG’s mandate in 2019, she acted as defence counsel for several former justice officials who were under investigation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
In August 2023, Ms. González herself became the target of criminal proceedings. She was arrested and charged with abuse of authority in connection with her previous work at CICIG. The charges relate to events in January 2017, when Ms. González, in her capacity at CICIG, participated in a request to lift the judicial immunity of a magistrate of the former Guatemalan Supreme Court. The request followed evidence presented by a judge concerning alleged attempts by the magistrate to unlawfully influence judicial proceedings. In February 2017, the Guatemalan Congress formally lifted the magistrate’s judicial immunity, subsequently leading to the magistrate’s arrest.
However, on 28 August 2023, Ms. González was arrested following a complaint filed by the former magistrate. The criminal proceedings against Ms. González were marked by serious procedural irregularities and violations of international legal standards. These included procedural delays, unjustified restrictions on public access to the hearings, and the withholding of the case file.
After 82 days of detention, Ms. González was released and placed under house arrest. She subsequently remained subject to alternative measures for more than two years, including periodic reporting requirements and travel restrictions. In January 2026, the court lifted these measures. However, the criminal proceedings against Ms. González remain ongoing and continue to be marked by repeated delays and procedural irregularities.
Amicus curiae brief by Lawyers for Lawyers and International Observatory for Lawyers at Risk
Together with the International Observatory for Lawyers at Risk (OIAD), Lawyers for Lawyers submitted an amicus curiae brief to the WGAD, an independent expert body mandated to investigate cases of arbitrary arrest and detention on November 4, 2025.
The brief argued that Ms. González’s detention and subsequent alternative measures amounted to arbitrary deprivation of liberty under Categories I, II, III and V of the WGAD framework. Specifically, it argued that her detention lacked a valid legal basis (Category I), resulted from the legitimate exercise of her professional activities and fundamental freedoms (Category II), was accompanied by serious violations of her fair-trial and due-process rights (Category III), and was discriminatory, targeting her because of her professional activities and associations (Category V). The brief further urged the Working Group to consider her case within the broader pattern of pressure, intimidation and retaliation faced by lawyers and other justice officials in Guatemala.
???WGAD’s Opinion
In its Opinion 28/2026, the WGAD concluded that Ms. González’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary under Categories I, II, III, and V of its framework. Under Category I, the Working Group had applied an offence concerning public officials to Ms. González despite her not being a public official, failed to promptly inform her of the charges, delayed her initial hearing, and imposed unjustified pretrial detention without adequate justification. Under Category II, it observed that Ms. González’s prosecution and deprivation of liberty served as systematic retaliation against her legitimate work as a defense attorney and anti-corruption advocate, thereby producing a chilling effect on human rights defense. Under Category III, the Working Group found that judicial authorities compromised her right to a fair trial by arbitrarily sealing court proceedings without reasonable justification. Finally, under Category V, it concluded that her deprivation of liberty was discriminatory and linked to her professional activities and involvement in anti-corruption work.
