Search results

AbstractCentral America's Northern Triangle is infamous for high levels of violent crime and human rights abuses, producing "impunity states" in which violence typically goes unpunished. That violence reflects the broader impunity or "transitional injustice" that has persisted since the peace accords and transitions to democracy of the 1980s and 1990s. Several "posttransitional" trials for past human rights violations in recent years in Guatemala were made possible by institutional strengthening efforts in the prosecutorial agency, led by a unique United Nations commission. Significant progress away from broad impunity may also be seen in the 2015 "Guatemalan Spring," in which a sitting president was forced to resign and submit to prosecution in connection with a corruption scandal. Comparisons of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras suggest that institutional strengthening is necessary before "posttransitional justice," or an end to impunity more generally, can be possible.

Judicial autonomy from societal actors is argued herein to be a critical aspect of the rule of law and to have been overlooked by the dominance within comparative judicial politics of the role of interbranch judicial independence. These distinct concepts are parsed and then interrelated to form a typology of four "judicial regime types": liberal regimes, partisan control regimes, clandestine control regimes, and government control regimes. These regime types are then traced in five Central American countries.