Guest blog – June 2025
Donaldo velasquez and lucas valderas
On June 13, 2018, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Honduras, with the support from the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH), filed charges in what became known as the “Pandora case”. The case revealed a complex network that, between 2011 and 2013, allegedly diverted nearly 12 million USD from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock—funds meant to alleviate extreme poverty in rural Honduras. Instead, these resources appeared to have been misappropriated through embezzlement, abuse of power, and money laundering.
When these resources never reached their intended recipients, the rights to food, health and a dignified life for rural communities were directly impacted. In response, the campesino organizations Council for the Integral Development of Rural Women (CODIMCA) y la Central Nacional de Trabajadores del Campo (CNTC), mobilized to demand justice. Their voices became integral to the public debate, placing human rights and victims at the forefront of a national anti-corruption scandal, giving them rare visibility and access to the legal process. However, more than seven years have passed since the indictment and no sentence has yet been served, with only an oral trial of three defendants taking place which was subsequently dismissed. The case has been frozen since 2021, due to the Supreme Court’s delay in ruling on appeals against the dismissal of the accused.
The Pandora case has been hampered by the enactment of laws seemingly designed to protect those prosecuted, with the support of MACCIH. Such obstacles are not unique, as similar challenges have hindered other MACCIH cases. But the Pandora case generated immense public interest, and maintains its momentum and level of visibility, including in the procedural criminal process. There are a combination of factors to consider when analyzing how it remained unique: the destination of diverted funds, the evidence of a human rights impact and the persistent contribution of civil society.
The role of society
Joint action from NGOs and legal groups specialized in human rights, has been key to the investigation of the Pandora case in promoting public discussion and preventing the case from being closed. The diversity of actors involved brought together legal expertise, grassroots mobilization, and strategic communication. For example, the injunction against the dismissal of defendants, legally led by the Justice for the People’s Law Firm (BJP), was bolstered by citizen oversight into judicial decisions carried out by the Center for the Study of Democracy (CESPAD).
From a strategic perspective, the presence of these actors contributed to breaking the perception that corruption is a victimless crime. More importantly, the case overcame one of the major barriers observed in the region’s access to justice for victims of corruption: their recognition as procedural actors.
The human rights impact
In 2013, a severe drought devastated Honduras’s peasant economy. In municipalities like Victoria and Sulaco—regions prioritized by the diverted development projects—60% of the population fell into extreme poverty. These conditions placed residents at high social risk, reinforcing the state’s obligation to protect the right to life and social security, as recognized by international human rights mechanisms.
In response to these needs, the government of Honduras signed agreements with a private foundation to implement programs in priority geographic areas. Such agreements were aimed at “improving the quality of life of all beneficiaries”, “alleviating poverty in the area” or “improving the availability, access and consumption of food for the most vulnerable families”.
When funds never reached the affected communities, citizen frustration boiled over, with one settler stating:
“They deceived us, they told us that we needed some documents that would accredit us, that would give us legality to enter funds of that type, we gave them the documents and the funds came out, but we did not see any of that money, I believe that this was a crime, even the document was taken from us”.
The translation of citizen frustration from the social to the legal sphere, required finding answers that were essential to showcasing that corruption reduces the resources available for guaranteeing social rights. This included answers to legal questions about the reasonableness of citizen expectations, and whether they should be legally protected.
Conclusion
The diverse capacities of social actors involved made it possible to establish an alliance with the National Autonomous University of Mexico for the preparation of a study that looked at the impact of corruption in the communities. This study linked the projected positive impacts of such projects with the impact on human rights, such as the right to food, life and work.
The work of civil society in this case demonstrates the potential of civil society’s contribution to documenting and investigating complex forms of corruption. As the case illustrates, the interaction of capacities and approaches of different actors in the social and legal world directly impacts the regional discussion on how to ensure victims are put at the centre of anti-corruption judicial processes.