Irma Landaverde didn’t dare wrap her son’s shoes in plastic, fold up his clothes, or store his colognes and sheets in a drawer until October 2024, eight months after she last saw him.
“I didn’t think this would last so long,” she sighs.
Irma has been torn apart over the arrest of Gerson, her 14-year-old son, for his alleged links to the Mara Salvatrucha gang — or MS-13 — in El Salvador. He’s one of 10 detained minors who are victims of Nayib Bukele’s war against the gangs, which has been waged at all costs. Irma is trying to draw attention to her son’s case.
Since Valentine’s Day last year, Gerson’s bedroom has become his mother’s prayer room. She constantly asks God that her son’s scent not leave his shirts, at least not until he leaves the juvenile detention facility where he’s being held. At least until the authorities realize that he’s innocent.
The main evidence in the case is a 10-second-long video recorded by Roberto, one of the detainees, who was 15-year-old at the time. It shows four teenagers in the courtyard of a public school — Centro Escolar Héroes del 11 de Enero — in Chalatenango, a town in the north of the country. Roberto films the group a few minutes after the end of a physical education class. One of the boys gestures to the camera — movements that the prosecution describes as typical MS-13 signs — and laughs shyly. Another one covers his face, while the others don’t even realize that they’re being filmed.
According to his lawyers’ testimony, Roberto accidentally sent this video to a muted WhatsApp group and deleted it minutes later. But someone managed to download it, add music that’s associated with gangs and upload it to social media. Hours later, it went viral. Comments abounded: they called for a heavy hand, extremely harsh sentences, and even death. The accused minors range in age from 12 to 17.
Neither Gerson nor Roberto appeared in the video, but they’ve both been locked up in a juvenile detention center for over a year now. Their case — known as that of the “children from Chalatenango” — symbolizes what goes on in the shadows of the state of emergency that Bukele declared in March 2022. The emergency measures were introduced three years ago, in response to a gang massacre. Since then, the president’s administration has imprisoned 84,000 people, drawing criticism from human rights defenders who have documented arbitrary arrests, police abuse and nearly 300 violent deaths in the country’s prisons.
After more than two weeks in detention and an initial hearing held on March 7, the Second Court against Organized Crime in San Salvador ordered the release of seven of these youths, due to lack of evidence. Gerson, Roberto and Guillermo, however, continued their detention. The Attorney General’s Office appealed and — by the end of the year — the 10 were ordered to attend a final hearing, which only included documentary evidence and witnesses provided by the prosecutors. According to the defense attorneys, the boys’ cases were rejected. Even so, they managed to get seven of the young people acquitted again, but the rest were sentenced to between three and five years in prison, along with five years of probation.
“To date, we’re still waiting for the [official] verdict to appeal on their behalf,” explains Jayme Magaña, a defense attorney who has presented the case to the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
A high-profile case
The viral spread of the recording of the teenagers from Chalatenango gave legitimacy to a government obsessed with the idea that the country’s violence can only be addressed with an iron fist. Many comments on social media condemned the young people. One user asked that they be sent “to the hotel that Uncle Nayib Bukele built for them.”
By early-2024, Bukele’s government was embroiled in a Bitcoin crisis, over the plummeting value of the cryptocurrency, which was putting it “in a very bad position.” This is according to Ingrid Escobar, director of Humanitarian Legal Aid (SJH). “This was their smokescreen,” she affirms. “With the arrests, they send a message of fear to the people and put their prison policy back on the agenda. This is how they divert attention.”
Minister of Security Gustavo Villatoro was particularly vocal about this case. He even requested 20 years in prison for the young people before the preliminary hearing, despite knowing that the law only provides a maximum of 10 years in prison for minors accused of associating with gangs. “We won’t allow this cancer to once again spread in our communities and among our youth, threatening the peace and security that we’ve restored to our people,” he wrote on social media.
The photo of the Chalatenango children’s arrest also illustrates the Legislative Assembly’s recent reforms to criminal law. For defense attorneys Otto Flores and Jayme Magaña, the youths are Bukele’s “false positives.” This term refers to the Colombian civilians who were presented as combat casualties during president Álvaro Uribe’s administration (2002-2010): the victims were accused of being guerrillas.
“Bukele wants to reach 120,000 detainees; he assumes that there are this many people when you add up gang members, their family members and collaborators,” Magaña explains. “The government ordered six arrests per day, per police station. And, from the beginning [of the state of emergency], they began doing raids in areas with extreme poverty, where the residents were victims of the gangs. Now, they’re victims of the government. It’s locking up impoverished populations,” she insists.
“The regime has ensured that evidentiary material is no longer required to sentence people,” Flores concludes.
The video was the “strongest evidence” in court. After searching the cell phones of the boys, they found no gang-related phone numbers, photos, or incriminating chats. In Roberto’s case, a red T-shirt from the Italian brand MSGM was recovered as “evidence.” The first two letters were enough to link him to MS-13. In other cases, it was enough to have the number 13 on their Instagram handles, or to find conversations in which the boys called other friends “dawg” or “dumbasses.”
“Is that a big deal?” asks Roberto’s 83-year-old grandmother, Maria Adela Alfaro. “Maybe I’m wrong, but how can they keep him in prison for a year for that?” The Ministry of Justice and Public Security did not respond to questions from EL PAÍS.
A brigade of mothers
The arrest of these classmates was a turning point at the school. Since the entire grade saw some of their friends being taken away, several mothers decided to stop sending them to school. Others — like the mother of one of the freed children — have been taking turns watching the school hallways for a year, so as to prevent any police officers from entering.
“They scare us now,” one of the mothers notes. The creation of a “brigade of mothers” turned the act of resistance into a collective process. “They left them in a state of shock; my son is scared to death, but we can’t keep letting them take them away,” says another of the volunteer guards.
Guillermo was snatched from his bed at 6:00 a.m. Roberto was picked up from school. Gerson was summoned from the soccer field in his municipality, after a dozen uniformed officers forced their way into his home. In some cases, their mothers were not present. And, in other cases, they were forced to obey the authorities, who promised that they only wanted to ask their sons a few questions, only to then go ahead and lock them up.
For Magaña, the root of the problem is that the case was handled with an adult-centric approach. “[The authorities] analyzed the video without understanding the context of the children’s everyday relationships and their way of playing or joking around,” she explains. “We can’t analyze an action without understanding what’s happening in the context of the moment, but that’s what the Attorney General’s Office did.”
Failure to distinguish between adults and minors is at the heart of the numerous reforms that have been made to criminal laws during Bukele’s term. Amendments to the Penitentiary Law, the Juvenile Criminal Law, as well as the Law against Organized Crime have harshened sentences and made reintegration far from the ultimate goal of incarceration. And, since February of 2025, the Central American country has allowed for the transfer of children and adolescents — who have been detained or convicted for offences related to organized crime — to adult prisons.
Furthermore, access to prison benefits — such as parole — has been eliminated, whether the detainees are minors or adults. According to Human Rights Watch, as of December 2023, at least 3,319 minors had been imprisoned at some point during the state of emergency.
Amnesty International has criticized this as undermining the possibility of resocialization, while also violating international law, which requires that children receive differentiated treatment geared toward rehabilitation — not simply punitive confinement. UNICEF has called El Salvador’s actions a “major setback” and expressed its concerns in a joint statement alongside other U.N. bodies.
Escobar, from Humanitarian Legal Aid, insists that even if one of the Chalatenango minors is linked to a gang, the response should be different. “The punitive power of an entire state cannot be directed against a child. We cannot forget that they are children. What is the purpose of putting them in adult prisons? Or sending them to a facility for criminals?” he asks.
Attorney Flores also finds this to be a dangerous path forward, as well as a form of exploitation for the president to be able to gain popularity: “There are no technical or moral criteria for exposing these children to violence and rape alongside adults in prisons.”
The possibility of their children ending up in Bukele’s mega-prison — the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) — is a fear that mothers had long before the reform was approved. And, for the mothers interviewed by EL PAÍS, it’s no secret that, in the juvenile detention centers where their children now live, there are young people who have reached adult age and are still inside.
Ana Daisy Chávez Guevara, 35, began having nightmares about this situation when one of the judges in charge of her son’s case told her that Guillermo had been the target of a rape attempt at the juvenile detention center. “This is torture. Who’s looking after him?” she exclaims.
Chávez Guevara has had a pit in her stomach ever since they took her son away. The entire family’s dynamic has changed: Guillermo’s room remains untouched, with his notebooks and markers stored in a drawer. And she isn’t the only one whose sleep has been disrupted: her youngest son, at six-years-old, doesn’t sleep well, either.
“He’s become very hyperactive; he looks for him [Guillermo] everywhere. And, when we come back from somewhere, he expects us to come back with him. He asks us why we don’t bring him back… I don’t even know what to say anymore. How long am I going to lie to him?” she laments from her living room.
For Pamela Rodríguez — a psychologist at Humanitarian Legal Aid — this collateral damage is the norm in arbitrary or violent arrests, especially when minors experience it.
“It’s a form of post-traumatic stress disorder,” she emphasizes. “Being detained — without family members being able to see them or know if they’re alive or when they’ll be released — manifests itself in the body, as if a person has a missing relative. Many children develop a feeling of persecution, nightmares, insomnia and drastic personality changes. But the constant is a permanent state of alert, for fear of being next.”
While psychological support is recommended during these processes, most families affected by the state of emergency cannot afford it.
Ana, Irma and María Adela aren’t angry. Rather, they remain frightened by what the state is capable of doing to their children, whether this means locking them up without evidence or falsely accusing them.
Still, the mothers have found the strength to continue bringing their children clothes and food to the juvenile detention center. They’re fighting to deal with the constant absence: a feeling of emptiness in their houses. When they count the members of their family, someone is always missing. They’ve already accepted that this trauma — which has so devastated Irma — will be long-lasting.
If the mothers don’t achieve justice in El Salvador, they’ll wait for the U.N.’s precautionary measures. But they will keep returning to the prison. And, when Gerson comes home, Irma will take his shoes out of plastic and unfold his clothes, so that, once again, they’ll have the scent of her child, even though he’s now had the experiences of a man.
Translated by Avik Jain Chatlani.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
El caso por la extradición de un bolsonarista, que se instaló en España en 2023 para eludir al Tribunal Supremo de Brasil, ha empañado la fluida relación entre ambos países. La decisión de la Audiencia Nacional española de rechazar, el lunes pasado, la entrega de Oswaldo Eustaquio Filho, reclamado por participar en la conspiración golpista, fue respondida a las pocas horas por el juez que instruye el caso en Brasil, Alexandre de Moraes, con dos decisiones en represalia: dejó en suspenso un proceso de extradición solicitado por España y pidió públicamente explicaciones a la embajadora en Brasilia en un plazo de cinco días. Mientras, el Gobierno de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva prepara el recurso que presentará ante la Audiencia Nacional en Madrid y el Ejecutivo español mantiene silencio.
Oswaldo Eustaquio Filho, un periodista de 46 años, es un activista bolsonarista al que el Supremo de Brasil procesó por golpismo y por difundir noticias falsas. Brasil lo reclama por incitar a los seguidores del expresidente Jair Bolsonaro a perpetrar actos antidemocráticos contra el Tribunal Supremo y por exponer públicamente a comisarios de la policía que han investigado casos de golpismo para intimidarlos. En 2023, llegó a Madrid y presentó una petición de asilo porque se considera víctima de una persecución política.
Para el juez de Moraes, el rechazo de la Audiencia Nacional a la petición de entrega supone “una falta de respeto a la reciprocidad” contemplada en el tratado de extradición bilateral vigente hace más de tres décadas. Por eso, en cuanto tuvo noticia del fallo de los magistrados españoles, difundió una nota pública en la que pedía explicaciones a la embajadora española en Brasilia, Mar Fernandez-Palacios, en un plazo de cinco días y anunciaba que dejaba en suspenso la entrega de un búlgaro al que España busca por tráfico de drogas llamado Vasil Georgiev Vasilev. El juez ordenó además su excarcelación para mantenerlo en prisión domiciliaria con tobillera electrónica.
Mientras, el Ministerio de Justicia del Gobierno de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva prepara un recurso contra el rechazo de la entrega. Considera el ministerio que los delitos imputados a Eustáquio por el Supremo brasileño (“obstrucción a una investigación, incitación al crimen, asociación para delinquir, corrupción de menores y divulgación de datos confidenciales”) “son punibles tanto por la legislación brasileña como por el Código Penal español, con penas de prisión superiores a un año, por lo que son objeto de extradición”, según una nota difundida por el departamento brasileño de Justicia y citada por Efe.
La Audiencia Nacional española rechazó extraditar a Eustaquio Filho a Brasil con el argumento de que las acciones que se le imputan tienen “una evidente conexión y motivación política” y, por tanto, quedan excluidas del tratado bilateral de extradición que sí la contempla en casos excepcionales, como atentados contra los jefes de Estado y de Gobierno, actos de terrorismo o crímenes de guerra, contra la paz o la seguridad de la humanidad.
En una resolución de 11 páginas, los magistrados españoles de la Audiencia Nacional sostienen que autorizar la extradición se traduciría en “un riesgo elevado de que la situación del reclamado pueda verse agravada por causa de sus opiniones políticas y su adscripción a determinada ideología”. De todos modos, añaden que las publicaciones en redes sociales contra el comisario que encabeza las investigaciones sobre los casos de golpismo rebasan “el ámbito de los derechos de libertad de expresión e información”, en contra de la tesis defendida por los abogados del activista bolsonarista.
Un tiroteo ocurrido el jueves en el campus de la Universidad Estatal de Florida ha dejado por lo menos dos muertos y varios heridos. Las autoridades han detenido al tirador, el hijo de 20 años de un agente de alguacil, cuya arma de servicio fue la utilizada en el ataque. Cinco personas y el atacante han sido trasladadas al hospital Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare y están recibiendo tratamiento, de acuerdo a una portavoz del centro médico.
Ambulancias, camiones de bomberos y vehículos patrulla de múltiples agencias policiales se dirigieron rápidamente hacia el campus, situado al oeste de la capital del estado de Florida, después de que la universidad emitiera una alerta de tirador activo el jueves al mediodía, indicando que la policía estaba respondiendo cerca del centro de estudiantes.
Cientos de estudiantes huyeron en dirección contraria al centro de estudiantes. Los estudiantes estaban pegados a sus teléfonos, algunos visiblemente emocionados, mientras otros se abrazaban. Decenas de personas se reunieron cerca de la escuela de música a la espera de noticias.
Joshua Sirmans, de 20 años, estaba en la biblioteca principal de la universidad cuando, según dijo, comenzaron a sonar las alarmas que advertían de un tirador activo. Los agentes de las fuerzas del orden lo escoltaron a él y a otros estudiantes fuera de la biblioteca con las manos sobre la cabeza, según contó.
La fiscal general Pam Bondi dijo en una publicación en las redes sociales que el Departamento de Justicia está en contacto con los agentes del FBI que se encuentran en el lugar. “El FBI está en el lugar de los hechos en Florida State y estamos en comunicación con los agentes sobre el terreno. Nuestra prioridad es la seguridad de todos los involucrados. Seguiremos informando a medida que sepamos más. Rezamos por todos”, escribió.
Se ordenó a los estudiantes y al personal docente que buscaran refugio y esperaran nuevas instrucciones. “Cierren y manténganse alejados de todas las puertas y ventanas y estén preparados para tomar medidas de protección adicionales”, decía la alerta.
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has abruptly revoked visas for hundreds of international students from across the United States, triggering a wave of confusion, legal challenges and growing fear on college campuses. While U.S. officials have cited national security concerns and violations of immigration laws, many students and advocacy groups say the revocations are being carried out without due process and appear to disproportionately target those involved in political activism, especially pro-Palestine protests.
According to the State Department, at least 300 visas have been revoked, a number that may be even higher as more reports emerge. Universities such as Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, the University of California or Ohio State University have reported that students and recent graduates have lost their legal residency without notice. In several cases, students have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sometimes by agents in civilian clothes near their homes or campuses.
Why are student visas being revoked?
Students and immigration attorneys claim that the visa revocations have largely occurred without advance notice, interviews or clear justification. Some revocations appear to be related to minor infractions, such as speeding tickets or the dropping of criminal charges, while others appear to be based solely on students’ participation in protests or political speeches, particularly those who have shown support for Palestine, and who are against Israel’s war actions in Gaza.
Legal experts point out that international students on F-1 visas enjoy First Amendment protection, just like U.S. citizens. However, because their visas are temporary, any perceived violation — even vague or unfounded — can lead to their removal from the country.
In many cases, revocations have been termed “prudential,” meaning they are based on suspicion rather than proven violations. Under immigration law, a visa can be revoked if the holder is deemed inadmissible on security, medical, financial or criminal grounds; if he or she is ineligible for the visa category; or if any information emerges that may present a future risk.
However, critics argue that the Trump administration is using this authority to effectively carry out mass removals of students who have not been charged with any crime. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called it an unconstitutional ideological test.
Legal challenges
Students from states such as New Hampshire, California and Georgia have filed lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that their legal rights have been violated. One case that has attracted national attention is that of Xiaotian Liu, a Chinese doctoral student at Dartmouth College. Liu’s visa was cancelled without explanation, and he has not been charged with any crime or misconduct.
Similarly, Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested at his home in March. His lawyers allege that the arrest was politically motivated and related to his activism on Palestinian issues. Rumeysa Ozturk, a student at Tufts University, was detained by six ICE agents on her way to a Ramadan event, despite having no criminal record.
Revocation process and precedents
Revoking a visa usually requires an interview at a U.S. consulate and an explanation of the reasons for the action. In practice, however, the process is often opaque. The State Department may notify the visa holder of the revocation by email or, as is increasingly common, not notify the visa holder at all, merely entering the revocation into government systems. If a student is already in the United States, his or her status may technically remain valid unless an immigration judge rules otherwise. However, their ability to travel, change status, or remain in the country becomes uncertain.
Historically, student visa revocations have been infrequent and linked to specific, verifiable reasons. The scale and apparent political targeting of the current wave has drawn comparisons to the Trump-era “Muslim Ban,” which led to more than 60,000 visa cancellations.
The uncertainty could severely impact the U.S. higher education system, as it could lose a generation of global talent if foreign students no longer feel safe traveling to the United States.
Responses from institutions
Universities are rushing to provide legal assistance and reassurance to their international students. Many urge students to carry immigration documents at all times and seek clarification from federal agencies.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition