July 2012 
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. 
It was prepared by Tetra Tech DPK 
PROGRAM AGAINST VIOLENCE 
AND IMPUNITY IN GUATEMALA 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
FINAL REPORT 
JUNE 2009 - JUNE 2012 
PROGRAM AGAINST VIOLENCE AND 
IMPUNITY IN GUATEMALA 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
FINAL REPORT 
JUNE 2009 - JUNE 2012 
PROGRAM: PROGRAMA DE USAID JUSTICIA CONTRA LA VIOLENCIA 
USAID OFFICE: USAID/GUATEMALA 
TASK ORDER: AID-DFD-I-08-04-00173 
CONTRACTOR: TETRA TECH DPK 
DATE: JULY 2012 
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United 
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
July 2012
. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 2
A. The Program Against Violence and Impunity (PAVI) ...................................................................... 2 
B. PAVI’S Approach to Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 3 
C. Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................... 4
D. M&E Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................................ 6
II. ANALYIS OF M&E RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 8
A. Overall Project Results .......................................................................................................................... 8
B. Results by Sub-IR and Indicators ........................................................................................................14 
 Sub-IR1: Improve Justice System Capacity to Prosecute and Try Serious Crimes ...............14 
 Sub-IR2: Mobilize Justice Sector and Civil Society to Reduce and Prevent Violence ..........19 
 Sub-IR3: Increased Internal Accountability and Oversight Within the Justice Sector .........24 
 Special Activities ...................................................................................................................................29 
III. LESSONS LEARNED........................................................................................................................32
A. Activities in Petén ..................................................................................................................................32 
B. Grants Programs ....................................................................................................................................33 
ANNEXES 
A. SUCCESS STORIES/CASE STUDIES 
- Developing Teamwork in the Justice System’s Performance Assessment Unit
- Fostering Emotional Resilience in Petén’s Office of Victims Attention
- Bringing Environmental Justice to the Mayan Biosphere Reserve 
- Helping At-Risk Youth Create a Better Life 
- Providing 24-Hour Judicial Services to Mixco, Guatemala 
- Training Guatemala’s Criminal Prosecutors
- Reducing Gender-based Violence in Izabal 
B. FEMICIDE CASE STUDIES 
C. 2011 M&E PLAN (Revised and Final Version) 
D. 2010 M&E ANNUAL REPORT (Attached Separately) 
E. 2011 M&E ANNUAL REPORT (Attached Separately)
1 
LIST OF ACRONYMS
COR
CSO
IDPP
Contracting Officer’s Representative
Civil Society Organization 
Instituto de la Defensa Pública Penal- Public Defense Institute
IIM Institutional Integrity Model
MP Ministerio Público – Public Ministry 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
OAV Oficina de Atención a la Víctima del Ministerio Público – Public Ministry’s Office 
of Victims Assistance 
OJ Organismo Judicial – Judiciary 
PAVI Program Against Violence and Impunity
PDC Partners for Democratic Change 
SICOMP Sistema de Información y Control del Ministerio Público – Public Ministry’s 
Control and Information System 
Sub IR Sub-Intermediate Result 
 Tt DPK Tetra Tech DPK 
TTC Information Technology and Telecommunications Center 
USAID United States Agency for International Development
2 
I. INTRODUCTION 
The following Final Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report covers all the M&E activities of the 
Program Against Violence and Impunity (PAVI or Project). PAVI is a USAID-funded initiative in 
Guatemala, implemented by contractor Tetra Tech DPK (Tt DPK) from September 1st 2009 
through June 28th 2012. The project aimed to strengthen the rule of law by improving the 
delivery of judicial and prosecutorial services, heightening coordination among justice sector 
institutions, and building civil society’s capacity to monitor and report on the performance of 
the justice operators. 
In order to produce this Final M&E Report, the Tt DPK team gathered and consolidated data 
on performance and impact indicators documented in two Annual M&E Reports and six 
quarterly reports produced throughout the life of the Project, interviewed key PAVI 
counterparts, and met with USAID/Guatemala and PAVI’s staff.
1
 This final report provides an 
overview of the implementation of the M&E strategy, an analysis of the overall Project results 
(based on performance and impact indicators consolidated data) and lessons learned for future 
interventions. 
A. THE PROGRAM AGAINST VIOLENCE AND IMPUNITY IN GUATEMALA 
(PAVI) 
The Project combined five integrated Sub-Intermediate Results (Sub-IRs) and Special Activities2
: 
a) Sub-IR 1: Improved Justice System Capacity to Prosecute and Try Serious Crime 
b) Sub-IR 2: Mobilize Justice Sector and Civil Society to Reduce and Prevent Violence 
c) Sub-IR 3: Increased Internal Accountability and Oversight within the Justice Sector 
d) Special Activity 1: Supporting High-Impact Courts 
e) Special Activity 2: Strengthen Justice Sector Capacity to Combat Illegal Activities in Petén 
1. Sub Intermediate Result 1(Sub IR 1) – Improved Justice System Capacity to 
Prosecute and Try Serious Crimes: Using newly passed laws on prosecution and working 
with already established crime prevention units, activities under this component sought to aid in 
setting up unified criteria for how to investigate and prosecute serious crimes. Key activities 
included helping to develop effective information management methodologies and tools within 
the Public Ministry and helping to implement key legislation to improve the prosecution of 
serious crimes. 
 
1
 Meetings conducted by Partners for Democratic Change (PDC) Director Lelia Mooney and PDC Manager Jessica 
Varat included USAID/Guatemala Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Cassandra Wheeler, President of 
the High Impact Court ―A‖ Justice Jazmin Gálvez Barrios, Chief Justice of the High Impact Court ―B‖ Justice Miguel 
Angel Galvez, Director of Guatemaltecos Extraordinarios Juan Carlos Molina, Prosecutor Ingrid Xuc from the 
Public Ministry’s Analysis Unit, Chief of the Judicial Section of Villa Nueva, Saul Estuardo Pensamiento and 
Prosecutor Hugo Rosales from the Litigation Unit of the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life, and the PAVI team. 
2
 On February 3rd, 2011, USAID informed Tt DPK about the cancellation of Special Activity 3 ―Millennium 
Challenge Indicators Promoted‖, which was included in the original Task Order scope of work. 
3 
2. Sub IR2 – Mobilize Justice Sector and Civil Society to Reduce and Prevent 
Violence: The Project helped increase availability of effective governmental and non￾governmental legal aid services for victims while also helped to improve coordination among 
these services. 
3. Sub IR3 – Increase Internal Accountability and Oversight within the Justice 
Sector: By setting up the Institutional Integrity Model, the Project contributed to the 
continued improvement of accountability and transparency in justice sector institutions. Other 
key activities included helping to complete the Public Defender Institute’s evaluation system, 
working with judiciary staff to analyze recruitment, selection, and promotion systems, and 
assisting in creating a network of positive leadership within the institutions. 
4. Special Activity 1 – Support High Impact Courts: The Project helped judicial and 
prosecutorial leadership to design and establish high impact courts that focus on combating 
organized crime, kidnapping, and drug and human trafficking cases. This included providing 
guidance and support for the implementation of successful court models and their 
infrastructure with clear definitions to what falls into their jurisdictions. 
5. Special Activity 2 – Strengthen Justice Sector Capacity in Petén: The Project 
assisted in conducting gap analysis of court and prosecutorial current practices for the 
investigation and preparation of cases. The caseload in Petén was linked to other project￾supported activities, such as the high-impact courts, for effective handling of the more serious 
crime cases. 
B. PAVI’S APPROACH TO MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
PAVI’s approach to M&E was a combination of internal or self-evaluations (conducted by 
the implementing project team), external (conducted by Partners for Democratic Change, an 
outside organization not directly associated with the project activities3
), and participatory
evaluations (conducted with the participation of key Guatemalan government institutions, civil 
society organizations, and other key stakeholders). 
PAVI had two dedicated staff personnel working on M&E: the Deputy Project Director and the 
Planning and Supervision Assistant. They were in charge of supporting M&E activities 
(management, data collection, and information processing) in Guatemala and collaborating with 
the external evaluator on the development of PAVI’s M&E reports. Tt DPK engaged PDC to 
support with the development of PAVI’s M&E Plan, design of data collection methodology and 
instruments, and drafting of PAVI’s M&E reports on a quarterly and annual basis. 
The following chart summarizes the Project’s M&E approach: 
 
3
 Tt DPK executed a subcontract with PDC for the provision of M&E technical support to the PAVI team and to 
act as an external evaluator (not independent) of the Program. 
4 
PAVI’S MONITORING AND EVALUATION APPROACH 
C. MONITORING AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
Conceptual Framework 
Although the terms ―Monitoring‖ and ―Evaluation‖ are used together, these are two different 
functions, with different conceptual and operational implications. Performance monitoring is an 
on-going process intended to provide information to managers about the progress of specific 
project outputs according to fixed objectives and targets. PAVI’s M&E Plan set a series of 
indicators to monitor the performance of project activities against agreed targets. 
 
Evaluation is a more comprehensive concept. It looks at the effects and impact of activities to 
help establish lessons learned and prioritize development strategies. PAVI’s M&E Plan also set a 
Data Evaluation
Responsible parties: 
 External = PDC 
 Internal = PAVI
Coordination and 
Technical Support 
Responsible party: Tt DPK 
Home Office 
Data Collection
Responsible party: PAVI
Data Reporting and Analysis
Responsible parties: PDC & PAVI
Report Evaluation
Responsible party: USAID
5 
series of indicators and targets to measure, to a limited extent4
, the impact of Project activities. 
Indicator Selection 
Determining adequate and appropriate indicators is not an exact science and the precision of a 
laboratory experiment is not required, especially when operating in a data-poor development 
setting such as Guatemala. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the indicators were carefully 
selected to reflect USAID’s criteria of integrity, accuracy, reliability, and timeliness in its M&E 
exercises. The indicators used in the PAVI M&E Plan were crafted to reflect objectivity, 
practicality, validity, and attribution to the Project. 
The objective of the M&E Plan was to specify a full set of indicators from the outset, 
acknowledging that some would need to be adjusted, revised, or eliminated as the Project 
activities unfolded. Over the life-cycle of the Project, different types of indicators proved more 
useful than others. In the first six months of the Project, process (output) indicators were the 
primary source of performance information, while during the second and third years the impact 
indicators became more revealing. 
Indicator Measurement Schedules 
The two sets of performance and impact indicators required separate data reporting schedules. 
The performance indicators were measured on a project-year basis in order to encompass as 
much of the project activities as possible.5
 
Impact indicators were measured using data that was collected primarily from the Public 
Ministry’s SICOMP database, which issues reports at the end of the calendar year. As a result, 
progress on the impact indicators was reported on a calendar-year basis. Due to this fact, the 
information collected for 2012 was partial (through April or May) and could not be equated 
with previous, complete impact indicator reporting periods. For this reason, general data 
projections have been estimated for the remainder of 2012, based on previous years’ project 
experience, to suggest possible trends that could be comparable with 2010 and 2011 figures. 
Data Collection 
Many of the quantitative indicators required Project staff to obtain official data from the 
government institutions with whom they were working. Data collection methods within the judicial 
branch and legal system in Guatemala are less than perfect, and in fact, the Project offered technical 
assistance to improve justice system internal information systems. Monitoring activities assisted
PAVI staff in conducting brief spot checks to verify data reporting within a sampling of the Public 
Ministry units whose data was used for the Project’s indicators (and other institutions offering 
victim’s assistance as well). As the project progressed and data collection and reporting systems 
became more reliable and routine, these activities became less necessary. 
 
4 The monitoring and reporting of impact indicators were intended to provide general information about the 
potential impact of the Project and inform the implementation of activities. This work did not follow nor constitute 
an in-depth impact evaluation effort as defined by USAID’s 2011 Evaluation Policy. 
5
 The Project Year 1 corresponds to the period from July 29, 2009 to September 30, 2010. The Project Year 2 
corresponds to the period from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011. The Project Year 3 corresponds to the 
period from October 1, 2011 to June 28, 2012. 
6 
Other data was collected directly through internal Project documentation and records, including 
participant surveys applied by the PAVI staff, personal interviews conducted with project 
stakeholders, and information to build case studies and success stories. The following articles of the 
Guatemalan Criminal Code define the crimes that were tracked by the PAVI staff under the 
different indicators:
 Crimes against life: (a) Homicide: Articles 123 and 124, (b) Infanticide: Article 129, (c) 
Parricide: Article 131, (d) Murder: Article 132; and Femicides: Article 6, Law Against 
Femicides and Other Forms of Violence Against Women (Decree 22.2008)
 Crimes against cultural patrimony: Articles 332 A, B, and C. 
 Crimes against the environment: Articles 346 and 347.
M&E Plan Revisions 
The data and analysis presented in this final project report reflect the final iteration of an M&E 
system that has evolved over the course of the project. At various points, the M&E Plan –
originally approved in March 2010- was revised and adjusted to respond to changing realities 
and lessons learned throughout Project implementation. Any and all amendments to the M&E 
plan were made by the PAVI project team and approved by the USAID COR. These 
adjustments included the following: 
 In September 2011, the original M&E Plan was revised to set 2008 as the baseline for all 
Project indicators—replacing the previously established baseline of 20096
, eliminate certain 
indicators7
, and adjust several of the targets 
 Certain indicators are measured by percentage increases. Previous M&E plans and reports 
calculated these increases relative to the baseline. Upon USAID COR’s request on July 11, 
2012, this report measures target rates of improvement or change relative to the previous 
year, as opposed to the project baseline. 
The cut-off date to prepare this Final Report was May 31, 2011. Hence the report presents data 
through that date. For certain impact indicators that measure progress through percentage rate 
changes related to previous calendar years, the report uses the January-May data to estimate 
projections through the end of 2012. This facilitates the analysis of impact indicators. 
D. M&E LESSONS LEARNED 
As previously noted, Tt DPK has offered a unique evaluation strategy by bringing in an external 
team of evaluation specialists early in the execution of the Project in order to ensure an 
objective yet collaborative approach to M&E that involved PAVI’s technical staff and 
counterparts in all phases of monitoring performance and evaluation of this Project. 
 
6
 Data for 2009 have been presented in previous reports. Due to the fact that they previously served as the 
Project baseline, targets were not established for this year 
7
 Upon discussions with USAID, the following indicators were eliminated: Indicator 1, Number of Institutional 
Improvement Plans developed; Indicator 10, Number of Institutional Plans of Action to implement the Institutional Integrity 
Model; Indicator 12, Level of progress in the implementation of the Institutional Plans of Action within target justice sector 
units that result from the Institutional Integrity Model workshops; and Indicator 16, Number of MCC stakeholders who 
receive outreach and training in data generation and their reporting on Rule of Law indicators. 
7 
The lessons learned from this approach to evaluation are the following: 
• Involvement of field office personnel in M&E efforts ensures accurate readings and reporting of 
project activities and results. A collaborative process whereby the external evaluation 
specialists elicited the PAVI technical staff’s input on the revision of the M&E Plan ensured 
that indicators accurately reflected project outputs. This allowed the external evaluation 
specialists to account for changing realities on the ground and avoid a cookie-cutter 
approach to monitoring and evaluation 
• Regular visits to the field guarantee a more integral and richer M&E analysis. Quarterly 
monitoring trips and close communication with the PAVI technical staff in charge of data 
collection allowed the external evaluation specialists to not only focus on project outputs, 
but also on the processes that led to these outputs. As a result, the external evaluation 
team was able to capture additional outcomes and produce a richer analysis of the data. For 
example, on-site interviews with PAVI’s grantee organizations in Peten were fundamental to 
understanding the linkages between the Project’s grants program and its overall project 
objectives. This allowed for a better assessment of the Project’s impact. 
• M&E collaborative approaches require close and constant communication among the involved 
parties to ensure an effective and efficient work. Tt DPK HO played a relevant role 
coordinating the communication and collaboration between PDC and PAVI staff. Thanks to 
this support, clarifications from the field were promptly provided and observations to draft 
reports adequately addressed 
8 
II. ANALYSIS OF M&E 
RESULTS 
A. OVERALL PROJECT RESULTS 
PAVI showed overall strong results in performance indicators. Its training activities across Sub￾IRs met demonstrated needs for capacity development, reached a wide range of participants 
from the target sectors and institutions, and generated high levels of satisfaction among training 
participants. Impact indicators demonstrated more varied progress over the lifetime of the 
project. Results in impact indicators can be characterized as generally positive, particularly in 
PAVI’s early gains over baseline levels, while the impact of external conditions and prevailing 
trends in Guatemala’s challenging setting were apparent in some indicators. 
The analysis of certain impact indicator results and accompanying qualitative data demonstrated 
the extent to which successful PAVI interventions in developing justice system capacity 
complicated the task of measuring certain impact indicators. For example, PAVI’s intervention 
improving Guatemalan prosecutors’ strategic development of cases and complex litigation skills 
could not be measured simply by the number of discrete cases brought to trial. As the 
prosecutors’ skills improved, individual cases were linked under more complex ones—thus 
reducing the total number of cases brought to trial—that sought to dismantle criminal 
organizations. These trends and nuances of PAVI’s monitoring and evaluation are further 
elaborated later in the report. 
The following sections provide a general analysis of key areas of PAVI’s activity. These 
syntheses and conclusions emerge from the quantitative data represented by the indicators and 
are further refined by the qualitative data gathered over the course of the project. Specific, data 
breakdowns of each indicator follow in the analysis by Sub-IR and Indicator section. 
Advancing Investigative and Prosecutorial Capacity 
Monitoring and evaluation of PAVI’s work under Sub-IR1, ―Improve Justice System Capacity to 
Prosecute and Try Serious Crimes,‖ focused on PAVI’s prosecutorial training programs. 
Following a participatory needs assessment conducted in collaboration with justice system 
prosecutors and administrators, PAVI designed and conducted a series of workshops and 
trainings relating to strategic litigation of complex cases involving analysis, organization and 
systematization of information, establishing connections between distinct cases, and 
collaborative case development. PAVI exceeded performance indicator targets in the 
implementation of these trainings, workshops, and coordination meetings, in the number of 
participants in these events, and in the level of participant satisfaction with these events. 
Participant feedback was overwhelmingly positive, noting that the content responded directly to 
weaknesses in participants’ skill sets and the presentation was clear. The most frequently 
9 
registered suggestion was that more trainings be held and with greater regularity, integrating 
them into the work life of Guatemalan prosecutors. PAVI responded to this high demand by 
increasing training activities, presenting more than double the target number of trainings in 
project years 2 and 3. 
A series of post-training interviews with Hugo Rosales, prosecutor for the Litigation Unit of the 
Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Life, provided specific examples of the trainings’ impact on 
his prosecutorial skills. Lic. Rosales explained that over the course of his 3-day training he 
learned concrete litigation skills and legal techniques that allowed him to successfully manage 
the increasingly complex cases that were being assigned to him. He noted that the need for 
complex litigation training is widespread, as laws concerning organized crime and related 
investigative techniques have not been in place for long in Guatemala so justice sector 
professionals have had little time to respond to their new demands. PAVI trainings effectively 
responded to this issue, not only by addressing case theory, evidence preparation, and litigation 
skills, but also through briefings on the use of illicit association charges in cases involving 
organized crime and multiple defendants. 
Lic. Rosales has been successful in the use of these skills and techniques, noting that in one case 
involving conspiracy to commit murder, international trafficking, money laundering, and illicit 
association, he successfully secured guilty verdicts and maximum sentences for 48 defendants. 
As a result of these efforts, impact indicators generally demonstrated significant increases in 
crimes brought to trial and guilty verdicts issued in the Department of Guatemala. It is worth 
noting that following initially robust growth in these indicators in 2009 and 2010, this rate of 
growth began to slow and even decrease in 2011 and 2012. The reason for this pattern can be 
partly attributed to the nature of PAVI’s trainings, as prosecutors gained new skills and 
capacities in handling complex cases involving multiple defendants, cases were consolidated and 
more selectively prepared for greatest impact, leading to a lower number of cases even as cases 
began to yield stronger results. 
A related and essential PAVI intervention in this area was its work to upgrade and implement 
the Sistema de Información y Control del Ministerio Público (SICOMP), a nation-wide database used 
by justice system officials to store, monitor, exchange, and analyze data. Over the course of the 
project, SICOMP has become increasingly integral to daily justice system operations, in addition 
to broader internal monitoring and evaluation efforts. 
PAVI’s specific activities in this area focused on the upgrade from SICOMP I to SICOMP II, as 
well as supporting the transfer of SICOMP II to the Petén region. According to a member of 
the technical expert team involved in the SICOMP II upgrade, the SICOMP II program surpasses 
the technical capabilities of SICOMP I on many levels. Since its inception, the system has 
constantly undergone upgrades and improvements. The technical team designed these 
improvements in response to the needs of various users with the goal of making the program 
more user-friendly. New features include photo albums for images of crime scenes, the use of 
an internet server so that information can be accessed in real time, and access to audio files 
recorded from court hearings. There have also been improvements in the search function, the 
ability to cross-reference cases, and in system security. Another important improvement in 
10
SICOMP II is that the centralized server allows updates to be made to the program from the 
main server; in the previous system, updates were made to individual computers. 
On the other hand, the process of upgrading the system within the MP has been slowed down 
by the computers’ insufficient memory to fully implement the upgrades. To address this 
situation, PAVI procured a significant number of RAM memories for the SICOMP, though not 
all computers were able to be upgraded in this manner, leading some prosecutors to continue 
to report challenges with their computers’ processing speed.
Lic. Rosales illustrated the concrete value of the SICOMP upgrades, reporting that his 
colleagues in the Analysis Unit have begun to use SICOMP’s cross-referencing capability to link 
cases, thereby performing better analysis. 
In Petén, PAVI struggled to meet impact indicator targets due to a number of challenging 
conditions in the remote department. While the PAVI project made some early progress, 
meeting targets for crimes against life brought to trial in Petén, indicators reflected a general 
downward trend following a highly publicized massacre committed by an illicit criminal group in 
May of 2011. In addition to terrorizing residents and solidifying perceptions of rampant criminal 
activity and impunity in the region, it precipitated the government’s declaration of a state of 
siege that lasted through January of 2012. These challenges were further compounded by a 
change in leadership of the prosecutor’s office in Petén and the resulting period of re￾orientation and adjustment. 
Impact indicators relating to femicide in Petén illustrated the added difficulty of addressing a 
social and legal challenge that has been growing at an alarming rate in recent years. Numerous 
recent studies and the government’s recent launching of a dedicated taskforce to combat 
femicide have reinforce PAVI’s experience in this area: the issue of femicide is one of the most 
challenging citizen security issues confronting Guatemala due to the combination of criminal, 
social, economic, and institutional factors involved. 
Victims Assistance: An Inter-institutional Analysis 
Monitoring and evaluation of PAVI’s work under Sub-IR2, ―Mobilize Justice Sector and Civil 
Society to Reduce and Prevent Violence,‖ focused on improving victim assistance services and 
promoting coordination between institutions working with victims and witnesses of serious 
crimes. In collaboration with justice sector officials, PAVI developed the Protocol for Persons 
Involved as Witnesses in Criminal Trials (the Protocol), a uniform set of procedures and standards 
meant to define performance standards for personnel working with victims and establish 
standards and procedures for the safe and secure provision of services to victims and witnesses
throughout all stages of a case. 
Performance indicator targets relating to this activity included number of workshops, 
coordination meetings, and trainings for institutions offering victims assistance, number of 
participants in these events, and participant satisfaction rates. PAVI exceeded all targets in these 
performance indicators, providing extensive trainings that generated strong levels of participant 
satisfaction. Participants reported that the trainings offered concrete examples and strategies 
11
for their work and recommended more comprehensive trainings at all levels and throughout 
the various institutions of the justice sector. 
PAVI met all targets in its performance indicator measuring levels of improved coordination 
between organizations offering victim assistance through the implementation of the Protocol. 
This reflected PAVI’s effective involvement of all relevant institutions and stakeholders in the 
development of the Protocol, ensuring local ownership of the process and investment in its 
success. Nonetheless, results in indicator 7, which measured increases in numbers of victims 
assisted by four participating institutions, were more varied. While the total number of people 
assisted rose over the course of the project, demonstrating progress in extending services to a 
larger population of victims, differences in service provision within the institutions led to 
missing some of the targets while others continued to see large increases in victims served. 
Specifically, trends over the project reporting periods revealed diminishing numbers of victims 
served by the Public Ministry Office of Victims Attention while the Public Defender’s Office of 
Free Legal Aid made strong strides in increasing service provision. Users reported preferring 
the Public Defender’s Office because it provided more efficient and immediate service. So while 
some institutions missed targets, overall the numbers indicate a natural movement of users 
between different institutions as they pursue optimal services. 
Uneven Implementation of the Protocol for Persons Involved as Witnesses in Criminal 
Trials: 4 Femicide Case Studies 
As was mentioned previously, the prevalence of femicide in Guatemala has been rising in recent 
years due to a number of factors, with public security and justice sector institutions struggling 
to address the issue. As a result, the number of femicide cases brought to trial and receiving 
guilty verdicts is significantly lower than crimes against life in both the departments of 
Guatemala and Petén. The Protocol was designed with particular attention paid to the challenge 
of protecting victims and witnesses while prosecuting crimes under the Law Against Femicide, a 
law passed in 2008 that was the first to codify into law femicide and other forms of violence 
against women. 
In light of this, PAVI selected four cases to study the implementation of the Protocol. These are 
presented in greater detail in Annex B. Generally speaking, the case studies reveal a significant 
amount of work that remains to be done in fully implementing the Protocol in cases of femicide. 
Even in those cases that have successfully advanced through the investigation and trial 
preparation phases—a significant achievement given the developing nature of the judicial 
organism’s capacities in this area—various steps of the Protocol are not fully implemented. The 
connection between implementation of the Protocol and effective prosecution of femicides is 
most acutely demonstrated in Case Study 2, in which two family members of the victim and 
presumed witnesses to the crime have refused to cooperate with the investigation, highlighting 
the issue of witness fear and intimidation. 
The other cases reported in the case studies, however, demonstrated better progress: as of 
July 2012, Case Study 1 had concluded with a guilty verdict for attempted femicide; Case Study 
3 resulted in Petén’s first guilty verdict for Femicide; and the trial for Case Study 4 was 
12
scheduled to begin in early August, with the prosecution in possession of strong, scientific 
evidence. 
Approach to Institutional Coordination and Culture 
Monitoring and Evaluation of PAVI’s work under Sub-IR3, ―Increase Internal Accountability and 
Oversight within the Justice Sector,‖ focused on PAVI’s promotion of the Institutional Integrity 
Model (IIM), a transversal strategy meant to reinforce human capital, develop identity among 
justice sector personnel, and develop professional capacities that contribute to increased 
efficacy, efficiency, and morale. PAVI exceeded performance indicator targets in this respect, 
holding a number of trainings addressing components of the IIM that involved hundreds of 
justice sector personnel and met with high levels of participant satisfaction. Participants 
particularly appreciated the unique nature of IIM trainings, addressing such issues as emotional 
resilience and mental health that are usually neglected in justice sector training programs. 
Furthermore, they found that these less technical, more participatory trainings provided a 
valuable opportunity for staff bonding and teamwork development, which directly translated 
into improved workplace communication and interpersonal dynamics following the trainings. 
PAVI met all impact indicator targets, demonstrating high degrees of approval from beneficiary 
institutions and participants in PAVI’s IIM promotion activities. Focus groups held with the 
Evaluation Unit of the Judiciary and personnel from the Public Ministry further detailed the 
results of IIM training activities, with participants noting that they were better equipped to 
manage stress, worked together more effectively as a team, had developed techniques for 
emotional resilience and psychological well-being and were better able to perform their jobs 
and serve members of the public. In another focus group session with prosecutors and Public 
Ministry personnel, participants discussed the extent to which the IIM trainings had empowered 
them to work effectively within challenging office environments defined by hierarchy and 
unbalanced power dynamics. Participants felt that the mental health and inter-personal office 
dynamics trainings had helped them to take ownership of their duty to provide necessary 
services to beneficiaries of the justice system, even when adverse conditions made it more 
difficult. 
Supporting High Impact Courts: Re-Building the Physical Infrastructure of Guatemala’s 
Justice System 
In addition to its broader work under the aforementioned Sub-IRs, PAVI focused on Special 
Activities of strategic value to its overall mission. Specifically, PAVI’s work to support high 
impact courts in Guatemala consisted of contributing to the design and remodeling of the 14th
floor of Guatemala’s Judiciary headquarters, allowing for the integration of needed security and 
technological features that ensure the safety of all participants in high impact trials and help 
protect witnesses testifying in dangerous cases. PAVI met its targets in this indicator, supporting 
and monitoring the remodeling effort over the course of the project. 
It is worth noting that this upgrade in justice sector facilities and infrastructure runs parallel to 
PAVI’s work to advance prosecutorial capacity in complex litigation and high impact case 
development. As a result of PAVI’s efforts in this area, numbers of high impact cases increased 
throughout the project and made the remodeling effort even more necessary than at the 
beginning of the project. Furthermore, the technological and security features installed in the 
13
remodeled court represent essential components of the Protocol for Persons Involved as Witnesses 
in Criminal Trials, as they help protect witnesses’ identities through the provision of remote, 
video-conferencing testimony and other security measures. 
Combating Illegal Activities in Petén: The Unique Challenge of the Mayan Biosphere 
Reserve 
PAVI’s other Special Activity focus related to strengthening justice capacity to combat illegal 
activities in Petén. As mentioned previously, PAVI activities in Petén struggled to overcome high 
levels of illicit criminal group activity, an extended state of siege, reduced levels of justice sector 
capacity, and an administrative transition in a key prosecutor’s office. Nonetheless, PAVI was 
able to make a certain degree of progress in its efforts to increase prosecution of crimes against 
the environment and crimes against cultural patrimony in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve. These 
successes reflect PAVI’s effective leveraging of the Sub-Grants Program to engage local civil 
society in these efforts, as well as its pro-active engagement of local justice sector officials, as 
detailed in the Balam Association success story included in Annex A. 
Engaging Guatemalan Civil Society through the Sub-Grants Program 
PAVI’s grants program administered over $300,000 in sub-grants to 12 Guatemalan civil society 
organizations working in a variety of fields related to PAVI’s work. Due to its engagement of 
civil society organizations, these sub-grants most directly fell under Sub-IR2, ―Mobilize Justice 
Sector and Civil Society to Reduce and Prevent Violence,‖ though the diverse nature of grantee 
activities supported PAVI objectives and activities across all sub-IRs and special activities. 
Furthermore, the sub-grants allowed PAVI to extend its programmatic reach to regions such as 
the departments of Izabal and Quiche, where it would not have been cost effective or efficient 
to station PAVI personnel and infrastructure. 
M&E efforts in this area focused on a selection of sub-grants with particularly strategic 
relevance to other PAVI monitored activities. Ongoing focus groups and interviews with 
representatives of the Balam Association, a Petén-based sub-grantee working to reduce criminal 
activity in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve (MBR), provided feedback on the collaboration 
between PAVI and Association Balam personnel. The most relevant inputs were the following: 
 Over the course of this partnership, the Balam Association provided an effective, local 
conduit for PAVI’s interventions in the MBR 
 PAVI’s legal expertise and technical assistance allowed the Balam Association to make 
significant strides in its organizational development 
 Leveraging PAVI’s support and training assistance were pivotal to establish the Forum 
for Environmental Justice, a multi-sectorial network of stakeholders working to 
promote greater rule of law in the MBR. Through this Forum, the Balam Association 
and PAVI were able to organize a series of orientation sessions and guided aerial tours 
of the MBR for local and national justice system officials, leading to significantly improved 
results in crimes against the environment and crime against cultural patrimony brought 
to trial. 
In Izabal, another sub-grantee, the Guatemala Foundation, approached crime prevention, 
violence reduction, and advocacy from a different perspective: It engaged local women’s leaders 
throughout the department in the development of mobile human rights units and 
14
implementation of citizen safety audits within their own municipalities. This training program 
and advocacy method developed local women’s capacity in citizen security analysis and 
advocacy, helping to address structural social issues that contribute to rising rates of femicide 
throughout the country. Guatemalan Foundation’s institutional strength and political capital 
helped to cultivate local governmental support for grant activities, securing meetings with local 
officials and generating letters of support from the Governor of Izabal. Annex A provides more 
information, in a case-study format, about this intervention. 
PAVI’s use of sub-grants also allowed it to extend its programmatic reach into the areas of at￾risk youth outreach, a crucial area of intervention given Guatemala’s increasing struggles with 
youth gangs. The Extraordinary Guatemalans Foundation (EGF) is a social service and youth 
outreach organization working with the marginalized communities in Guatemala City’s Zone 3.
EGF’s sub-grant supported over 30 educational and artistic projects with 15 at-risk youth. 
Focus groups with EGF beneficiaries and case studies of particular interventions proved the 
potential for radical change in at-risk youths’ behavior and outlook, while also demonstrating 
the need for sustained, local commitment to the provision of social services and youth 
engagement. 
B. RESULTS BY SUB-IR AND INDICATORS 
The following analysis presents quantitative data concerning the 18 performance and impact 
indicators by which the evaluation team has monitored and evaluated PAVI. This data has been 
collected from official sources and databases, interviews with justice officials, surveys of training 
participants, and focus groups with project stakeholders. The evaluation team has supplemented 
a basic statistical analysis of the data with qualitative analysis in order to explain trends and 
patterns. The precise nature of the data and its collection method is further detailed alongside 
its respective indicator. 
Sub-IR 1: Improve Justice System Capacity to Prosecute and Try Serious Crimes 
This Sub-IR addressed: (i) poor treatment and attention to victims and witnesses; (ii) inadequate 
management of information resources; (iii) inadequate inter-institutional coordination; (iv) lack 
of institutional planning and development; (v) lack of compliance with key legislation, such as the 
Law Against Organized Crime; and (vi) inadequate management causing undue delays in case 
processing. 
Sub-IR 1 Performance Indicators 
INDICATOR 2.
Number of 
trainings/workshops/coordination 
meetings with justice sector 
professionals that are related to the 
prosecution and charge of guilty 
verdicts of high impact cases (F)8
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3: 
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET TOTAL TARGET TOTAL TARGET TOTAL 
Number of 
trainings/workshops/coordination 
meetings
0 30 35 50 111 20 44
 
8 The reference ―(F)‖ indicates that the reported information feeds into the USAID Guatemala Mission’s 
monitoring and evaluation indicators. The F indicator includes judges, magistrates, prosecutors, advocates, 
inspectors and court staff. Training refers to all training or education events whether short-term or long- term. 
15
Indicator two was measured by the number of trainings, workshops, and coordination meetings 
with justice sector professionals working on prosecution and conviction of crimes against life. 
The numbers of trainings/workshops/coordination meetings targeted for each of the project 
years were 30, 50, and 20 respectively. PAVI consistently met annual targets in indicator 2, 
surpassing the number of trainings/workshops/coordination meetings by 5, 61, and 24 in project 
years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 
Strong demand from justice sector institutions such as the Public Ministry, Judiciary, and 
National Institute for Forensic Sciences (INACIF) drove the increase in workshops. According 
to PAVI staff, these institutions requested more trainings and workshops over the course of the 
project to improve investigative capacity and coordination between prosecutors, and in the 
case of the INACIF, between prosecutors and forensic experts. The trainings for the Public 
Ministry were also held in Petén and Cobán, which could serve to explain the high number of 
trainings. 
INDICATOR 2(a).
Number of participants in the 
trainings/workshops/coordina
tion meetings (F)
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3 
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET TOTAL TARGET TOTAL TARGET TOTAL
Number of participants 0 80 321 250 497 100 240
Men None 
set
None 
set
238 None 
set
276 None 
set 145
Women None 
set
None 
set
83 None 
set
221 None 
set 95
The 2011 revision of the M&E plan set targets for project years 1, 2, and 3 at 80, 250, and 100 
respectively. PAVI consistently met its annual targets in indicator 2(a), surpassing the number 
of participants by 241, 247, and 140 in project years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 
Training participants were disaggregated by gender for illustrative purposes, but no targets 
were set. Overall, men comprised 75%, 56%, and 60% of the participants in project years 1, 2, 
and 3. These strong male participation rates may reflect the fact that there are more male 
prosecutors working in the area of crimes against life, which involves a high level of exposure to 
violence. 
INDICATOR 2(b).
Level of participant 
satisfaction in trainings and 
workshops (F)
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET TOTAL TARGET TOTAL TARGET TOTAL
Participant Satisfaction (%) 0 80% 89% 80% 95.73% 80% 98.11%
This indicator tracks participants’ positive evaluation of the trainer, the content and length of 
the workshop, and knowledge acquired by the participants. The 2011 revisions to the M&E Plan 
16
clarified that this percentage represents a cumulative of all evaluations conducted during the 
project’s years. The target for level of participants’ satisfaction was established at 80% for each 
project year. 
PAVI consistently met its annual targets in indicator 2(b), surpassing the targeted level of 
participant satisfaction by 9%, 15.73%, and 18.11%. Participants lauded the trainings in the 
satisfaction surveys, noting that the themes were relevant to their work, that they were 
dynamic, and that subject areas were well-presented. Participants also requested longer 
trainings that could cover more themes and that the trainings be conducted on a regular basis. 
Lic. Hugo Rosales, prosecutor for the Litigation Unit of the Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Life,
who participated in a training concerning litigation, accusations, and evidence management, 
confirmed that the skills he learned in PAVI trainings continue to impact his work litigating 
cases of increasing complexity. He pointed to two cases in particular that involved organized 
criminal structures—one of which included 40 defendants. Prior to this, the largest case he had 
prosecuted involved six people. The technical skills he learned in the trainings now facilitate his 
work on cases of complex criminal structures that are brought to the high impact courts. Lic. 
Rosales commented that, following the PAVI trainings, numerous judges have complimented 
him on the improved and organized way his cases are being developed and litigated. 
Sub-IR 1 Impact Indicators 
INDICATOR 3.
Increase in Crimes 
against Life and 
Femicide brought 
to trial
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘129
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Cases)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
CRIMES AGAINST 
LIFE
Dept. of Guatemala
131 None 
set 320 5% 330
(3%) 7% 311
(-6%) 10% 204
(-35%)
Dept. of Petén 0
None 
set
9 5% 11
(22%) 7% 9
(-19%) 10% 2
(-73%)
FEMICIDES
Dept. of Guatemala 0
None 
set
3 5% 10
(233%) 7% 21
(110%) 10% 22
(3%)
Dept. of Petén 0
None 
set
1 5% 0 7% 1 10% 0
(0%)
 
9
 The number of cases for 2012 is an estimate based on the actual figures for the period January–May. The estimate 
was determined by calculating the monthly average of reported cases and then multiplying that average number by 
12 months. In cases where the estimate provided fractions, the number was rounded up or down as appropriate. 
The actual number of reported cases of Crimes against Life for the January–May period was 85 in the Department 
of Guatemala and one in the Department of Petén. For Femicides the actual number was nine in Guatemala and 
zero in Petén. 
17
This indicator measures the change in Crimes against Life and Femicide cases brought to trial 
over the life of the project, based on data from the SICOMP system. In the 2011 M&E Plan 
revision, the target for calendar year 2012 was reduced from 12% to 10% as part of a broader 
decision to standardize targets and reporting across all indicators relating to Crimes against Life 
and Femicides in the Departments of Guatemala and Petén. The 2008 baseline for Crimes 
against Life in the department of Guatemala was 131 cases and in Petén was 0. Baseline data 
for femicides in both departments is zero, as to reflect the impact of the Law against Femicides, 
approved in 2008. Data from the Department of Guatemala includes the municipalities of 
Villanueva and Mixco. 
In Crimes against Life brought to trial in the Department of Guatemala, though no target was 
set for the January-December ’09 period, the increase of 189 over the baseline set in 2008 was 
noteworthy. As a result, of this strong initial progress, PAVI found it more difficult to maintain 
the same rate of improvement over subsequent reporting periods. The 2010 reporting period 
achieved 330 cases, or a 3% increase over the previous year. The 2011 reporting period 
witnessed a 6% decrease in the overall cases brought to trial, while early 2012 data is on pace 
for a 35% decrease over the entire year. PAVI staff noted that this decrease could in fact be the 
result of PAVI’s interventions, as improvements in prosecutors’ investigative capacity has led to 
the development of more complex cases that involve/link a greater number of discrete cases, 
thereby increasing their efficiency and impact without an accompanying increase in the total 
number of cases brought to trial. 
During a final interview, Lic. Jazmin Gálvez Barrios, President of the High Impact Court ―A‖, 
reinforced PAVI’s assertion that measuring project impact by number of cases brought to trial 
does not necessarily reflect changes in justice sector capacity to prosecute crimes. Many cases 
tried in Lic. Gálvez Barrios’ high impact court involve multiple defendants and inter-related 
crimes, implying that the impact of the project may be better measured by the quality and 
complexity of the cases brought to trial, in addition to the number. In light of this fact, a slight 
reductions in cases brought to trial should not necessarily be regarded as a lack of progress in 
improving justice system capacity to prosecute and try serious crimes. 
In the Department of Petén, cases of Crimes against Life brought to trial met the target 
increase of 5% for the January-December ’10 period after a significant increase from the 
baseline. In 2011 and the beginning of 2012, Crimes against Life brought to trial failed to meet 
project targets. Difficulties in Petén can be partially attributed to a persistent lack of capacity. 
Beginning in 2011, this challenge was further exacerbated by the Los Cocos Massacre of 27 
people and the resulting State of Siege that was declared in May, 2011 and continued as a State 
of Alarm until January, 2012. While this heavy police and military presence reduced overt illicit 
criminal group activity in the area, lingering perceptions of insecurity and rampant criminal 
activity combined with the declaration of martial law and suspension of civil contributed to a 
climate that reduced citizens’ reporting of crimes and interaction with justice system officials. 
In the Department of Guatemala, PAVI successfully met targets for femicide cases brought to 
trial. In 2010, femicides brought to trial surpassed the target 5% increase, with the total of 10 
cases brought to trial representing a 233% increase over the previous year. In 2011, PAVI 
surpassed the 7% target increase for the reporting period, with its 21 cases representing a 
18
110% increase over the previous year. Preliminary 2012 data is on pace for a 3% increase over 
the course of the entire year. 
In the Department of Petén, cases of femicide brought to trial over the course of the project 
never exceeded one case in a reporting period, making the statistical significance of tracking this 
small sample size in terms of 5, 7 and 10 percent increases unhelpful. This low number is not 
only a result of the justice sector’s limited capacity. Interviews with PAVI staff also suggested 
high levels of fear associated with filing claims because there are little to no means of protecting 
victims and witnesses from retaliation. This issue is further complicated by rampant levels of 
organized criminal activity and impunity in the region. Observers have noted the sharp rise in 
rates of femicides in recent years has run parallel to the rise of drug trafficking activities in the 
region. With Petén having been particularly affected by the destabilizing and violent influence of 
these criminal groups, progress in any one indicator is likely to be difficult without broader 
advances in rule of law. 
INDICATOR 4.
Increase in the 
number of 
guilty verdicts 
for Crimes 
against Life
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘1210
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Verdicts)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Verdicts) 
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Verdicts) 
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Verdicts) 
(% Change)
CRIMES 
AGAINST 
LIFE
Dept. of 
Guatemala
100 None 
set
157 5% 195
(24%) 7% 208
(6.6%) 10%
256
(23%)
Dept. of Petén 0
None 
set
0 5% 0 7% 1 10% 2
(100%)
This indicator measures the number of guilty verdicts in the departments of Guatemala and 
Petén. The 2008 baseline values are based on SICOMP data. In the 2011 M&E Plan revision, the 
target for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012 were set at 5%, 7%, and 10% as part of the 
aforementioned decision to standardize targets and reporting across all indicators relating to 
Crimes against Life and Femicides in the departments of Guatemala and Petén. 
Following a strong increase in 2009, guilty verdicts for Crimes against Life exceeded the target 
5% increase in 2010 by achieving 195 guilty verdicts, or an increase of 24%. In 2011, PAVI 
virtually achieved the 7% target increase, with an increase of 6.6%. Estimates for 2012, based 
on January – May actual figures, show that the number of guilty verdicts could be on track for a 
23% increase. However, given the reduction in cases brought to trial during the same period 
(see indicator 3), it is likely that the rate of convictions will slow down as well. 
 
10 The number of guilty verdicts for 2012 is an estimate based on the actual figures for the period January–May. 
The estimate was determined by calculating the monthly average of reported cases and then multiplying that 
average number by 12 months. In cases where the estimate provided fractions, the number was rounded up or 
down as appropriate. The actual number of reported guilty verdicts of Crimes against Life for the January–May 
period was 107 in the Department of Guatemala and one in the Department of Petén. 
19
Further cross-referencing of indicators 3 (crimes against life cases brought to trial) and 4 (guilty 
verdicts in crimes against life) provides further insight into the impact of PAVI’s prosecutorial 
trainings. While there is not a direct, one-to-one relationship between cases brought to trial 
and guilty verdicts issued in a given calendar year—variable trial durations and circumstances 
can lead to cases being brought to trial and concluded in different years—dividing the numbers 
of guilty verdicts by the numbers of cases brought to trial in each reporting period 
demonstrates a promising upward trajectory in these estimated conviction rates throughout 
the project life. For crimes against life in Guatemala in 2009, 2010, and 2011, the conviction 
rates were 49%, 59%, and 67%. In the first five months of 2012, guilty verdicts outpaced cases 
brought to trial, with 107 guilty verdicts issued and only 85 cases brought to trial. This reflects 
the somewhat counterintuitive effect of improved prosecutorial efficiency: As prosecutors are 
more effectively investigating, consolidating, and strategically litigating cases, they are presenting 
a fewer number of cases, usually involving a greater number of defendants, but with a greater 
chance of obtaining convictions.
Interviews with two PAVI prosecutorial training participants, Lic. Rosales and Lic. Ingris Xuc, 
head of the Public Ministry’s Analysis Unit, reported that the cases they have tried since 
receiving their trainings have resulted in guilty verdicts and maximum sentences. By contrast, 
Lic. Gálvez Barrios, president of the High Impact Court ―A‖, argued that there is still a need for 
greater prosecutorial training. Lic. Gálvez Barrios illustrated this point by showing the 
evaluation team the records of a 2011 case in which the quality of evidence and charges 
presented by the prosecution precluded the issuing of a guilty verdict, despite otherwise strong 
indications of the defendant’s guilt. 
Guilty verdicts in the Department of Petén never exceeded one case in any reporting period, 
making statistical analysis of the percentage increase insignificant. The PAVI team suggested that 
the low capacity of the justice and security sectors in Petén makes building a case and bringing 
it to trial, and therefore obtaining a guilty verdict, extremely difficult. While Petén showed a 
measure of progress in cases brought to trial prior to the declaration of a state of siege, 
Indicator 4 demonstrates the particularly low capacity of Petén’s justice system, as even in 2010 
and 2011, when Petén registered relatively high numbers of cases brought to trial (11 and 9, 
respectively), conviction numbers remained exceptionally low, at zero and one. PAVI staff 
attributed this to continuing challenges to rule of law, as investigation and witness participation 
are hampered by intimidation and fear of reprisals in a justice system that cannot provide 
adequate protection to citizens. 
Sub-IR 2: Mobilize Justice Sector and Civil Society to Reduce and Prevent Violence 
This Sub-IR seeks to improve: (i) inadequate or insufficient governmental and non-governmental 
legal services for victims of violent crime, including domestic violence; (ii) insufficient 
coordination amongst government and non-governmental institutions that provide attention to 
victims of violent crime: and (iii) insufficient violence prevention measures for the most 
vulnerable groups, such as women and children. 
20
Sub-IR 2 Performance Indicators 
INDICATOR 5.
Number of 
Workshops/Coordination 
Meetings/Trainings for institutions 
offering victims assistance that are 
participating in the prevention and 
reduction of violence (F)
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3 
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Number of 
trainings/workshops/coordination 
meetings
0 0 9 10 19 5 11
This indicator corresponds to the number of workshops, trainings, and coordination meetings 
with justice sector professionals and civil society advocates that participate in the prevention 
and reduction of violence. The 2011 M&E plan revision set Project year 1, 2, and 3 targets at 0, 
10, and 5, respectively. 
PAVI consistently met targets in this indicator. It exceeded annual targets for number of 
workshops/coordination meetings/trainings by nine in Project years 1 and 2, and six in Project 
year 3. It should be noted that since October 2011, the trainings carried out under this 
indicator were complemented by PAVI’s sub-grants to the Barbara Ford Foundation and the 
Asociación de Justicia Alta Verapaz (ASOJAV). In total, these organizations either coordinated 
or facilitated training for 66 and 57 participants, respectively. This was an important example of 
PAVI strategically collaborating with sub-grant recipients’ in support of the overall project goals.
INDICATOR 5(a).
Number of participants from 
the justice sector and civil 
society organizations that 
provide assistance to victims 
attending Coordination 
meetings, workshops and 
trainings (F)
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Number of participants 0 80 132 40 330 20 123
Men None 
set
None
set
34 None 
set
104 None 
set
30
Women None 
set
None 
set
98 None 
set
226 None 
set
93
This indicator corresponds to the number of participants from the justice sector, civil society, 
and non-governmental organizations offering assistance to victims that are attending 
workshops, trainings, and coordination meetings. 
PAVI consistently met its annual targets in indicator 5(a), with participant numbers surpassing 
targets by 52, 290, and 103 participants in Project years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 
Over the course of the project, 168 men and 417 women participated in 
workshops/coordination meetings/trainings, yielding a male/female ratio of 29/71. The large 
21
number of female participants is due in part to the fact that many of trainings were aimed 
specifically at female victims and women leaders. 
INDICATOR 5(b).
Level of participant 
satisfaction in coordination
meetings, workshops and 
trainings (F)
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3 
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Participant Satisfaction (%) 0 80% 89% 80% 97.74% 80% 98.38%
The percentage listed in indicator 5(b) corresponds to the participants’ level of satisfaction of 
the trainer, the content and length of the workshop, and knowledge acquired by the 
participants. This percentage is a cumulative of all evaluations conducted during the Project’s 
fiscal year. 
PAVI exceeded the 80% participants’ satisfaction target by 9%, 17.74%, and 18.38% in Project 
years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Participants noted that they gained new knowledge from the 
trainings, and expressed a strong desire for the activities to be replicated in all justice sector 
institutions. Female participants, in particular, indicated strong levels of satisfaction with the 
content of the trainings. 
While not directly involved in the trainings listed above, PAVI sub-grantee the Guatemalan 
Foundation contributed to its impact by organizing 150 women leaders from five municipalities 
in Izabal into informal ―Mobile Human Rights Units.‖ These units served as a vehicle for women 
in each municipality to learn about their rights from trained women leaders, some of whom 
were also victims of violence. These mobile human rights units subsequently taught women 
how to advocate for greater security within their communities through the use of ―citizen 
safety audits‖ which were then presented to local government officials. 
Sub-IR 2 Impact Indicators 
INDICATOR 6.
Improved coordination between 
organizations offering victim’s 
assistance through 
implementation of
Protocol for Persons Involved as 
Witnesses in Criminal Trials
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Protocol Implementation (%) 0
11 0% 0% 30% 58% 70% 95%
 
11 The baseline for this indicator is zero as the Nation-wide Diagnostic Assessment of Institutional Coordination 
and Services for Victims’ Assistance (August 2010) showed that no formal mechanisms were in place (or had not 
been effectively used) to improve coordination among the public and non-governmental service providers. The 
Nation-wide Diagnostic identified the services and legal assistance offered to crime victims in 15 departments of 
the country. Regarding inter and intra-institutional coordination, the Diagnostic revealed that although service 
providers participated in social networks, their levels of organization, communication, and coordination were 
based on daily needs and practices, rather than on articulated and standardized practices. 
22
The percentage in this indicator refers to the progress in implementing the Protocol for 
Persons Involved as Witnesses in Criminal Trials, approved in March 2011. It is based on a 
survey that was given to prosecutors at the end of 2011. The 2011 M&E Plan revision set 
targets for Project years 1, 2, and 3 at 0%, 30%, and 70%, respectively. 
PAVI consistently met its targets in indicator 6. After conducting a nation-wide diagnostic 
assessment of institutional coordination and services for victim’s assistance in Project year 1, 
PAVI successfully implemented an integrated and inter-agency coordination strategy to provide 
assistance to victims and exceeded annual targets for Protocol implementation by 28% and 15% 
in Project years 2 and 3. In collaboration with PAVI, the evaluation team developed four case 
studies of femicide to illustrate the application of the Protocol and the types of coordination 
that take place between institutions (Annex B). 
INDICATOR 7.
Increase in the 
number of victims 
who receive free legal 
and other assistance
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘1212
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Assisted 
Victims)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of 
Assisted 
Victims) 
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of 
Assisted 
Victims) 
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of 
Assisted 
Victims) 
(% Change)
Police Victims 
Attention Division 7,577 None
set
10,678 10% 11,832
(11%)
15% 11,778
(-0.5%) 20% 12,477
(5%)
Public Ministry Office 
of Victims Attention 12,335 None
set
15,355 10% 13,331
(-13%) 15% 12,517
(-6%) 20% 10,056
(-20%)
Public Defender’s 
Office of Free Legal 
Aid
11,422 None 
set
13,375 10% 12,641
(-4%) 15% 19,723
(56%) 20% 30,885
(56%)
Fundación 
Sobreviventes 2,207 None
set
3,041 10% 3,155
(4%) 15% 4,496
(43%) 20% 3,453
(-23%)
This indicator corresponds to the number of victims who receive assistance services from the 
four institutions monitored by PAVI. The 2011 revisions to the M&E Plan changed the 2010, 
2011, and 2012 targets from 10%, 20%, and 30% to 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively. 
Based on the nationwide diagnostic, PAVI developed the Protocol for Persons Involved as 
Witnesses in Criminal Trials. This protocol outlines the protection measures for victims who 
act as witnesses in criminal proceedings. The protocol establishes mechanisms for coordination 
between the public ministry, its constituent offices like the Office of Victims Assistance and 
Office of Witness Protection, and independent government institutions like the National Civil 
 
12 The number of victims receiving free legal and other assistance for 2012 is an estimate based on the actual 
figures for the January–May period. The estimate was determined by calculating the monthly average of reported 
cases and then multiplying that average number by 12 months. The actual reported number of victims assisted by 
the Police Victims Attention Division (Jan-April period only) was 4,159; by the Public Ministry Office of Victims 
Attention was 4,190; by the Public Defender’s Office of Free Legal Aid (Jan-April period only) was 10,295; and by 
Fundacion Sobreviventes was 1,439. 
23
Police. It also guides external coordination with organizations like the Fundacion Sobreviventes
and other local networks. The specific structure, sequencing, and content of the Protocol are 
illustrated in the four annexed case studies included in Annex B. The PAVI project successfully 
developed a database of victim information from each of the above institutions which is used to 
report on this indicator. 
Results under indicator 7 varied across different institutions, though all four institutions 
providing assistance to victims initially demonstrated substantial progress in 2009 over the 2008 
baseline figures. In 2010, the Police Victims Attention Division (PVAD) surpassed its annual 10% 
increase target by assisting 11,832 victims, which represented an increase of 11%. In 2011, the 
PVAD served 11,778 victims, a decrease of 0.5%. While data for May 2012 was not yet 
available, estimates based on the numbers for the period January – April indicated that PVAD’s 
number of victims assisted in 2012 could experience an increase of 5%, which would still fall 
short of the 20% increase targeted for 2012. 
After a large increase in the number of victims receiving assistance from 2008 to 2009 (from 
12,335 to 15,355), the Public Ministry’s Office of Victims Attention failed to meet all annual 
targets, demonstrating diminishing numbers of victims assisted throughout the Project, with 
decreases of 13% and 6% in 2010 and 2011, and figures on pace for a decrease of 20% in 2012. 
The PAVI team suggested that the OAV’s difficulties in meeting project targets may be due to 
the slower response times victims confront within the Public Ministry. Further, because of the 
large jump in 2008 and 2009, sustaining high rates of improvement over this greater base 
number proved more challenging. 
The Public Defender’s Office of Free Legal Aid experienced strong increases in numbers of 
victims assisted throughout most of the Project life. The number of victims receiving assistance 
increased from 11,422 in 2008 to 13,395 in 2009. Following a slight decrease of 4% (12,641 
victims) in 2010, the Public Defender’s Office experienced an increase of 56% (19,723 victims 
seeking assistance) in 2011 and is on its pace for another 56% increase in 2012. The PAVI team 
attributed this rate of increase to victims finding less bureaucratic and more stream-lined 
services at the Public Defender’s Office, leading many to prefer it to the other institutions 
providing victims assistance. 
Fundacion Sobrevivientes increased the overall number of victims assisted throughout the life of 
the Project, though it did not meet all annual targets, falling short of the 10% target increase in 
2010: It assisted 3,155 victims, which only represented a 4% increase. In 2011, it successfully 
surpassed the 15% target annual increase with an increase of 43%. Based on the actual numbers 
for the period January – May, it was estimated that the number of victims receiving assistance is 
likely to suffer a 23% decrease. 
The results across institutions providing assistance to victims demonstrate varying levels of 
success in implementing PAVI’s recommendations and strategy within different institutional 
contexts. As has already been mentioned, the PAVI team noted that diminishing numbers for 
certain institutions and increasing numbers for others could be understood in terms of victims’ 
pursuit of the most efficient and effective assistance among the available options. While this 
reveals the effect of institutional conditions on the implementation of the protocol, it also 
24
indicates the value of a holistic analysis of numbers of victims assisted by all institutions 
monitored by PAVI. Aggregating these numbers of victims assisted, the overall trend 
demonstrates a strong increase in the number of victims assisted from 2008 to 2009, followed 
by a slight decrease of 4% in 2010, and an increase of 18% in 2011. Estimates for 2012 show 
that the institutions on the whole are on pace for a further 10% increase. These numbers 
indicate that while the overall trend is toward increasing numbers of victims assisted, results 
could be optimized by organization-specific interventions to improve efficiency of service 
provision in under-performing institutions or by directing resources and victims to increasing 
those institutions already performing at a high level. 
INDICATOR 8.
Increase in the 
number of guilty 
verdicts under the 
Law Against 
Femicide
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘1213
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of 
Verdicts)
TARGET
TOTAL 
(# of 
Verdicts)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Verdicts)
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Verdicts)
(% Change)
Dept. of Guatemala 0
None 
set
3 0% 10 10% 7
(-30%) 10% 10
(42%)
Dept. of Petén 0
None 
set
0 0% 0 10% 0
(0%) 10% 0
(0%)
Indicator 8 tracks increases in the number of guilty verdicts for femicides in the departments of 
Guatemala and Petén over the life of the project. The 2011 revisions to the M&E Plan adjusted 
the targets to zero percent for 2010, 10% for 2011; and 10% for 2012. As the Law Against 
Femicide was passed in 2008, the baseline for this indicator was set at zero. 
In the Department of Guatemala, guilty verdicts made gradual progress over the course of the 
Project, advancing from three in 2009 to 10 in 2010, followed by a 30% decline in 2011. In 
2012, guilty verdicts are on pace for a 37% increase by the conclusion of the year. This 
measured progress should be noted in light of the myriad challenges confronting the successful 
prosecution of femicides in Guatemala, as noted in the discussion of indicator 3. 
In the Department of Petén, there were no guilty verdicts throughout the Project, and none of 
the targets were met. This is not surprising, giving that over the course of the Project, only 
two femicide cases were actually brought to trial. The PAVI staff suggested that the challenge to 
getting guilty verdicts in Petén is related to a widespread culture of silence; witnesses believe 
they will not be protected. 
Sub-IR3: Increased Internal Accountability and Oversight within the Justice Sector 
This Sub-IR addresses: (i) lack of consolidation of financial management, lack of internal 
controls, teams that have little managerial capacity/experience; (ii) the inexistence, incomplete 
 
13 The number of guilty verdicts for 2012 is an estimate based on the actual figures for the period January–May. 
The estimate was determined by calculating the monthly average of reported guilty verdicts and then multiplying 
that average number by 12 months. In cases where the estimate provided fractions, the number was rounded up 
or down as appropriate. The actual number of reported guilty verdicts of Femicides for the January–May period 
was four in the Department of Guatemala and zero in the Department of Petén. 
25
implementation, or inadequate enforcement of job descriptions, hierarchies, and 
responsibilities; (iii) the lack of implementation of performance evaluation systems; and (iv) 
inadequate statistical reporting and analysis. 
Sub-IR 3 Performance Indicators 
INDICATOR 9.
Number of units 
(judicial, technical, 
and administrative) 
from the different 
institutions that are 
currently 
implementing the 
Institutional 
Integrity Model 
(IIM)
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Number of units 0 3 7 10 13 10 17
The IIM is a transversal strategy that PAVI is implementing throughout all Sub-IRs of the 
Project; therefore, there were not separate Institutional Plans or workshops specifically 
oriented toward implementing the IIM. As part of this strategy, PAVI worked with the Judiciary, 
Public Ministry, Institute of the Public Defenders, and the National Civil Police’s Office of 
Victim’s Assistance to implement elements of the IIM. This indicator tracks justice sector 
institutions attending trainings on institutional strengthening processes to implement the 
Institutional Integrity Model within their organizations. Targets are cumulative starting from 
Project year 1 and include the different institutions implementing the IIM. 
PAVI consistently met targets in this indicator. It exceeded annual targets for number of units 
implementing the IIM by 4, 3, and 7 in Project Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. As this indicator 
represents cumulative progress, the total number of institutions implementing elements of the 
IIM at the conclusion of the project was 17. 
The PAVI approach to promoting the IIM changed in 2011 from a purely top-down approach to 
an approach that was both bottom-up and transversal. It began to target technical staff, as well 
as top-level officials, to create a leadership group that would champion the model within their 
institutions. According to PAVI staff, most of the training participants viewed the process as 
innovative because it was distinct from the technical trainings they were used to. These 
trainings, which focused primarily on mental health and leadership, were especially necessary 
because many of the prosecutors and judicial professionals had been provided with no training 
in these areas, despite the challenging nature of their work. 
To ensure sustainability for the IIM model, PAVI created the Positive Leadership Network, 
made up of 30 training participants specially selected because of their leadership qualities. These 
leaders were given additional training focusing on leading effective teams within their 
organizations. In focus group interviews, these leaders noted the importance of continuing to 
advocate for this methodology in their institutions and communicating with other members of 
26
the network. In order to do so, they have committed to generating proposals for change in 
their own institutions. 
INDICATOR 9(a). 
Number of participants in the 
trainings and workshops; 
Prosecutors, judges, 
administrative personnel of 
justice sector institutions 
participating in PAVI training 
events on IIM (F)
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Number of participants 0 80 374 100 148 100 351
Men 0 Not set 221 Not set 73 Not 
set
170
Women 0 Not set 153 Not set 75 Not 
set
181
This indicator corresponds to the number of prosecutors, judges, and administrative personnel 
of the justice sector institutions who attend PAVI training events on the Institutional Integrity 
Model (IIM). The 2011 revisions to the M&E Plan revision set the targets for project years 1, 2, 
and 3 at 80, 100, and 100 participants, respectively. 
PAVI consistently met its annual targets in indicator 9(a), with participant numbers exceeding 
targets by 294, 48, and 251 in Project years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Over the course of the 
project, 464 men and 409 women participated, yielding a nearly equal male/female ratio of 
53/47. 
INDICATOR 9(b). 
Level of participant 
satisfaction in 
trainings and 
workshops (F) 
BASELINE
2008
PROJECT YEAR 1
JUN ‘09 – SEPT ‘10
PROJECT YEAR 2
OCT ‘10 – SEPT ‘11
PROJECT YEAR 3
OCT '11- MAY '12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Participant 
Satisfaction (%) 0 80% 95% 80% 98.05% 80% 95.81%
Indicator 9(b) tracks participants’ evaluation of the trainer, the content and length of the 
workshop, and knowledge acquired by the participants on the IIM activities. The percentage 
presented is an average of all the evaluations conducted during the project year. 
PAVI consistently met its annual targets in indicator 9(b), surpassing the target 80% participant 
satisfaction by 15%, 18.05%, and 15.81% in Project years 1, 2, and 3. Training participants in 
addition pointed to the strength of the training facilitator, the participatory and active nature of 
the trainings, and the uniqueness of the training model in their satisfaction surveys. 
27
Sub IR 3 Impact Indicators 
INDICATOR 11.
The Institutional 
Integrity Model 
(IIM) has an 
impact on 
improving 
internal ethics 
and 
management 
within target 
justice system 
institutions
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD
JAN - MAY ‘12
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL
Participants’ 
Positive 
Perception (%)
0
None 
set
0
None 
set
0 70% 79% 80% 81.33%
The institutional integrity model contributes to the development of leadership abilities of justice 
sector professionals in their everyday functions and fosters a better institutional climate. This 
indicator measured the impact of the IIM as perceived by the justice sector professionals 
participating in the project activities. The percentage corresponds to the number of justice 
sector professionals attending the leadership development trainings, and is further informed by 
pre- and post-perception surveys, personal interviews with project participants, and focus 
groups interviewing. The 2011 M&E Plan revision set the targets for 2011 and 2012 at 70% and 
80% respectively. 
PAVI met its annual targets in indicator 11, exceeding the 2011 annual target by 9% and the 
2012 annual target by 1.33%. Participant perception surveys and focus groups discussions with 
the staff of the Judiciary Performance Evaluation Unit, the Villa Nueva, Escuintla, and Mixco 24-
hour Courts, the Crimes against Life Prosecutor’s Office, and the Public Ministry’s Investigation, 
Analysis, and Litigation Units, showed that while the participants in the IIM trainings were 
initially resistant or lacked knowledge of the nature of the trainings, they were extremely 
pleased following the trainings. They were particularly pleased with the facilitation of the 
trainings and suggested that these types of active and participatory trainings were necessary to 
disrupt the monotony of their daily work lives. 
Over the course of the final year of the project, PAVI interviewed prosecutors and judicial 
professionals who received trainings under the implementation of the IIM. A key element to 
promoting the IIM’s sustainability was the creation of the Positive Leadership Network, 
described in the discussion of indicator 9. During the final evaluation, the evaluation team 
interviewed two of the Positive Leadership Network members to evaluate whether their 
training helped to improve internal management within their institutions. 
Lic. Xuc, head of the Analysis Unit of the MP, was selected to be part of the network. 
According to Lic. Xuc, the positive leadership training helped her to form a highly integrated 
team in which all staff members were involved in the development of cases and in which each 
individual’s strengths were employed in order to achieve excellent results. She reported 
employing these skills and strategies in her day-to-day work and in her role as a leader. When 
complex cases are assigned to the unit, she is better able to organize her team to work 
28
efficiently and provide support throughout the process. According to Lic. Xuc, the improved 
quality of the Analysis Unit’s work has been affirmed by the judges, especially in high risk/high 
impact cases. 
Lic. Saul Pensamiento, an administrator at the 24 court of Villanueva, was also selected as a 
member of the Positive Leadership Network. He first participated in a training on mental health 
with some of his colleagues. The training was significant for the group because it represented 
the first time the court staff had met outside of their workplace. Lic. Pensamiento noted that 
this gave staff members the opportunity to communicate in different ways and generated 
improved daily communication and collaboration among those staff members who participated 
in the training. However, he noted that his colleagues who did not participate in the trainings 
were somewhat marginalized by this smaller group’s improved dynamic. Lic. Pensamiento 
suggested that his court would benefit from further workshops on teamwork, empathy, and 
tolerance. 
In accordance with the 2011 Revised M&E Plan, PAVI developed two additional success stories 
on the implementation of the IIM model. They can be found in Annex A. 
INDICATOR 13.
Number of High 
Impact Courts 
established
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD 
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD 
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD 
JAN - MAY ‘12
TOTAL
TARGET
TOTAL 
TARGET
TOTAL 
TARGET
TOTAL 
Number of High 
Impact Courts
that is 
functionally and 
operating in the 
Dept. of 
Guatemala
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
The 2011 revisions to the M&E Plan set targets for 2010, 2011, and 2012 at one High Impact 
Court that is functionally and operating over the life of the project. 
PAVI met its targets in the establishment of a high impact court under indicator 13. The high 
impact court located on the 14th floor of the Torre de Tribunales in Guatemala City, together 
with the high impact court on the 15th floor, now constitutes the judicial headquarters for high 
risk cases, housing first instance courts, sentencing courts, and administrative staff. This effort 
entailed remodeling the courtrooms on the 14th floor to better reflect the security and 
operational needs of these types of courts, particularly the need to protect victims and 
witnesses testifying in front of the court. The remodeled court rooms include a secure and 
concealed room for protected witnesses in which they are able to give their testimony via 
video-conference. 
PAVI visited the new courtrooms and spoke with both a judge of first instance court and a 
sentencing judge about the impact of the newly remodeled spaces. Lic. Gálvez Barrios, President 
of the High Impact Court ―A‖, who has presided over numerous high profile and high risk cases, 
29
noted that the secure, enclosed space designed for defendants was crucial to ensuring the 
safety of judicial personnel, particularly judges. 
Lic. Galvez, President of the High Impact Court ―B‖, currently presides over cases in the 
remodeled 14th floor courtrooms. He noted that the remodeling and added courtroom 
capacity has allowed them to use the space more efficiently and that the additional courtrooms 
increases judges’ efficiency in processing cases and has made the schedule more predictable. 
Prior to the remodeling, trials would often start late while personnel waited for a court room 
to become available. Further, he noted that the new courtrooms reflect the need for larger 
facilities as a result of increasingly complicated cases involving that involve complex criminal 
structures and numerous defendants under one case. 
Special Activities 
Special Activity 1: Supporting High Impact Courts 
INDICATOR 14.
Number of cases 
referred to the 
High Impact 
Courts
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘1214
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Cases)
TARGET
TOTAL
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL 
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL 
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
Number of cases 0
None 
set
0 5%
31
(N/A, 
previous 
value 0)
7% 36
(16%) 10% 60
(66%)
This indicator corresponds to the number of cases referred to and processed in the High 
Impact Courts. Following two years, 2008 and 2009, with no cases referred to the High Impact 
Courts, 2010 witnessed a significant increase to 31 cases. In 2011, PAVI surpassed the 7% 
target, increasing cases referred to the High Impact Courts by 16%. Based on the 25 cases 
referred to the High Impact Courts during the period January-May 2012, PAVI projects a 66% 
increase on the number of cases referred to a High Impact Court by the end of the year. 
The increased number of cases referred to the High Impact Courts may be the result of 
prosecutors’ improved investigative capacity following PAVI’s trainings in complex case 
development and strategic litigation. According to Lic. Galvez, Chief Justice of the High Impact 
Court ―B‖, prosecutors’ cases following PAVI trainings demonstrate better investigative skills 
and use of more formal, scientific evidence. Lic. Galvez also reported that prosecutors have 
benefitted from the use of new technologies, such as phone-tapping, that have allowed 
prosecutors to uncover complex criminal structures. This has resulted in a particular increase 
in the number of extortion cases brought to trial. 
With the current administration launching a special force of high impact case investigators, 
increasing numbers of cases are likely to be referred to these courts. However, Lic. Gálvez 
 
14 The number of cases for 2012 is an estimate based on the actual figures for the period January–May. The 
estimate was determined by calculating the monthly average of reported cases and then multiplying that average 
number by 12 months. The actual number of reported cases referred to the High Impact Courts during the 
January–May reporting period was 25. 
30
Barrios cautioned against measuring success by sheer number of cases referred to High Impact 
courts, due to the risk of overwhelming the system. Lic. Gálvez Barrios asserted that judicial 
authorities should be selective in deciding which cases truly require the additional security and 
capacity of the High Impact Courts. 
Special Activity 2: Strengthen Justices Capacity to Combat Illegal Activities in Petén 
INDICATOR 15.
Increase in 
Serious Crimes 
brought to trial in 
Petén (See 
indicators for 
Sub-IR1and Sub￾IR2)
BASELINE
2008
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘09
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘10
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘11
PERIOD
JAN - DEC ‘1215
TARGET
TOTAL 
(# of Cases)
TARGET
TOTAL 
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL 
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
TARGET
TOTAL 
(# of Cases)
(% Change)
Crimes
against the 
Environment
56 None 
set
19 5% 25
(31%) 7% 68
(172%) 10% 43
(-37%)
Crimes
against Cultural 
Patrimony
25 None 
set
91 5% 187
(105%) 7% 20
(-90%) 10% 14
(-28%)
Crimes
against Life 10 None 
set
9 5% 11
(22%) 7% 9
(-19%) 10% 2
(-78%)
This indicator tracks the number of serious crimes brought to trial in the Department of Petén. 
Success in increasing cases of Serious Crimes brought to trial varied, though the overall trends 
matched those of other Petén indicators in which the impact of the Los Cocos massacre and 
State of Siege were apparent. Crimes against the Environment surpassed annual targets, 
achieving increases of 31%, and 172% in 2010 and 2011, respectively, while only surpassing the 
2008 baseline in 2011. Early results of 2012 progress suggest the possibility of a 38% decrease 
in Crimes against the Environment brought to trial over the year. 
Following a sharp rise in cases brought to trial in 2009, Crimes against the Cultural Patrimony 
surpassed the 2010 target with a 105% increase before experiencing a significant decrease of 
90% in 2011. Early 2012 data point in the direction of a continued decrease of 28% for 2012. 
In Crimes against Life, PAVI surpassed the annual target in 2010, achieving a 22% increase. In 
2011, it failed to meet the annual target increase of 7% and experienced a 19% decrease over 
the previous year. Early data from 2012 points in the direction of a further decrease in 2012. 
As was previously mentioned, the overall prosecutorial capacity in Petén is notably less than in 
the Department of Guatemala while the conditions it confronted over the course of the project 
were more challenging. However, project success in improving the numbers of Crimes against 
the Environment brought to trial should be highlighted, as it is closely connected with one of 
PAVI’s sub-grant organizations, the Asociacion Balam. PAVI’s support allowed Asociacion Balam to 
establish the inter-institutional Environmental Justice Forum, providing government officials, 
international donors, and local civil society representatives with a mechanism for coordination 
 
15 The number of cases for 2012 is an estimate based on the actual figures for the period January–May. The 
estimate was determined by calculating the monthly average of reported cases and then multiplying that average 
number by 12 months. The actual number of reported cases brought to trial in Petén for the January–May period 
was 18 Crimes against the Environment, six Crimes against Cultural Patrimony, and one Crime against Life. 
31
and advocacy in issues relating to environmental crime and management in the Mayan 
Biosphere Reserve. This initiative was integral to improvements in the local government’s 
capacity and political will to take aggressive action in opposition to environmental crime in the 
region. 
It is also important to note that PAVI supported the transfer of the SICOMP information 
system from the Department of Guatemala to Petén in 2011. By August 2011, all jurisdictions 
in Petén had been trained in the new technology and SICOMP users reported satisfaction with 
the ongoing support they received from PAVI following their initial training. Nonetheless, 
deficiencies in hardware capacity made use of the SICOMP difficult in some circumstances, as 
users reported delays in uploading and downloading SICOMP data. 
32
III. LESSONS LEARNED 
This section presents lessons learned around PAVI’s interventions in Petén and those emerging 
from the Sub-Grants Program. 
A. ACTIVITIES IN PETEN 
PAVI’s approach to the activities in Petén heavily relied on strategic coordination and local 
capacity development aiming at changing traditional cultural patterns in the region. 
1. Coordination with local actors creates synergies that multiply efforts and helps achieve desired 
results: For over two decades, the Mayan Biosphere Reserve has benefited from 
substantial investment from USAID and other U.S. agencies and international support. 
To ensure optimal program impact, PAVI promoted interventions between the U.S. 
agencies and local institutions. For example, it promoted coordination between the US 
Office of Economic Development and its local partners in Petén (Wildlife Conservation 
Society, Rainforest Alliance, and Balam Association), the US Department of the Interior 
of the United States, and the Governance Office of USAID. 
Ultimately, this coordination effort took the form of the Environmental Justice Forum, a 
space for dialogue, discussion and analysis aimed at promoting a common agenda to 
strengthen law enforcement and compliance in issues relating to protected areas, 
environment, and natural and cultural resources. The Forum successfully facilitated 
discussion of proposals to restore governance and improve implementation of 
environmental and cultural laws, the signing of institutional agreements between the 
Public Ministry and the National Council on Protected Areas for the prosecution of high 
profile environmental criminal cases in the MBR, and the development of an outreach 
strategy on legal protection of the environment in Petén. 
Future interventions should take advantage of the Environmental Justice Forum 
established by the PAVI project before, during, and after committing funds to activities 
in Petén. Doing so will prevent program replication and facilitate leveraging of previous 
and ongoing projects. 
2. Interventions in Petén must account for particularly low levels of capacity and the need for 
targeted awareness-raising activities among judicial and law enforcement officials: For years it 
has been a policy of the justice sector and public security institutions to station judges, 
prosecutors, and police in Petén as a disciplinary measure. Due to its remote location, 
difficult living conditions, and high levels of violence and corruption, judicial officials have 
come to regard the posting as a punishment, as opposed to a call to action. This pattern 
has led to a tendency toward "foreign officials" in Petén who are disdainful in their 
attitude, negligent in their administration of justice, and indifferent to the needs of the 
population and the local social reality in Petén. 
Following initially weak results in its work with officials in Petén, the PAVI project’s 
targeted awareness-raising interventions met with marked success and helped facilitate 
33
local officials’ buy-in and support for project activities. Future interventions should be 
aware of the problematic local culture of civil service and design project interventions 
accordingly, allocating additional resources to counteract low capacity and the 
challenges of collaborating with counterparts in local government. 
B. SUB-GRANTS 
PAVI’s sub-grants program was designed to advance project objectives while developing the 
capacity of local organizations. The PAVI team has identified the following lessons learned: 
1. Grants manuals need to be flexible and consider the CSOs’ different capacity levels: 
Administering a number of small grants to a range of organizations with varying 
capacities and structures presented challenges to PAVI staff. Projects administering a 
sub-grants program should be equipped with a simple and functional grants manual 
providing administrative guidance that can be adapted to fit the type of organization and 
activities supported.
2. Sub-grants programs provide a valuable opportunity to develop local capacity: The sub-grants 
program was designed to advance PAVI goals by complementing project activities in the 
field. In order to meet acceptable standards of program and financial management, PAVI 
provided ongoing audits and technical assistance to these organizations. In the process, 
PAVI observed increased capacity within grantee organizations. In light of USAID 
FORWARD’s objective of reform in the areas of procurement and implementation, future 
interventions stand to benefit from increased focus on training grantees in financial 
management and data collection in order to more fully integrate them into the 
monitoring process on a quarterly and annual basis. This assistance should take into 
account the varying levels of grantees’ institutional development, providing differentiated 
technical assistance tailored to the size and history of the grantee organization. PAVI 
found that support in this area for small or recently established grantees demonstrated 
the greatest returns, as they were able to absorb and integrate this guidance into their 
own institutional development processes.
ANNEX A 
SUCCESS STORIES/CASE STUDIES 
- Developing Teamwork in the Justice System’s Performance 
Assessment Unit 
- Fostering Emotional Resilience in Petén’s Office of Victims 
Attention 
- Bringing Environmental Justice to the Mayan Biosphere Reserve 
- Helping At-Risk Youth Create a Better Life 
- Providing 24-Hour Judicial Services to Mixco, Guatemala 
- Training Guatemala’s Criminal Prosecutors
- Reducing Gender-based Violence in Izabal 
With USAID support, the Evaluation 
Unit of the Guatemalan Justice System 
has developed new capacities, 
improved its efficiency, and is now 
better able to manage its tremendous 
workload.
Developing Teamwork in the Justice System’s Performance 
Assessment Unit
The 16-person staff of the 
Justice System’s 
Performance Assessment 
Unit is responsible for 
monitoring and evaluating 
all judges and justices of 
the peace throughout 
Guatemala
Photo by: PAVI Team
Challenge 
The Judicial System’s Performance Assessment Unit (PAU) is 
responsible for the design and implementation of monitoring 
and evaluation (M&E) systems for judges and magistrates’ 
technical performance and professional conduct. The PAU is 
also responsible for submitting evaluation reports to authorities 
as prescribed by law. Despite its extensive responsibilities 
encompassing all judges and justices of the peace in Guatemala, 
the PAU has only a limited budget providing for 16 staff 
members to design and implement the nationwide M&E 
systems, presenting a serious obstacle to fulfilling its duties as 
one of the most important technical units of the Guatemalan 
Judiciary. The strain of limited resources and overwhelming 
workloads had contributed to an office environment in which 
staff members were unable to optimize performance, and team 
leaders felt unprepared to proactively address these problems. 
Initiative 
Given the demonstrated need of the PAU, the USAID Program 
Against Violence and Impunity provided targeted intervention 
through the Institutional Integrity Model and offered training 
and consultation to staff members on issues of interpersonal 
relationships and power dynamics. By addressing areas for 
improvement such as management style, communication, 
teamwork, and opportunities for innovation, the training and 
consultation helped strengthen workplace relations in the PAU. 
Results 
PAU managers are now cultivating a better working 
environment for staff members, improving confidence levels 
and promoting positive interpersonal relationships. Staff 
members reflect enhanced teamwork and communication skills, 
allowing the team to more easily address areas for 
improvement and manage staff workloads. The PAU team has 
successfully demonstrated the value of teamwork in achieving 
workplace efficiency and effectiveness. 
With USAID support, the Office of 
Victims’ Attention in Petén has 
improved morale and implemented new 
programs to address the needs of its 
particularly vulnerable beneficiaries.
Fostering Emotional Resilience in Petén’s Office of Victims Attention
The Office of Victims’ 
Attention provides legal 
and social support 
services to victims of 
crime in Guatemala’s most 
remote region 
Photo by: PAVI Team
Challenge 
The Office of Victims’ Attention (OVA) in Petén is responsible 
for providing victims of crime with urgently needed information 
and assistance, including access to psychological, medical, social, 
and legal services. These services are meant to provide 
immediate solutions to crime-related problems and prevent 
long-term trauma-related issues. In addition to working with 
limited resources, OVA staff members in Petén are subject to 
significant emotional burdens resulting from the traumatic 
nature of the cases they address, particularly those relating to 
violence against women. 
Initiative 
The Institutional Integrity Model (IIM) implemented by the 
USAID Program Against Vionelnce and Impunity (PAVI) in 
Petén was the first human resources development program at 
the OVA to focus on improving the staff’s emotional resilience, 
mental health, and interpersonal relationships. PAVI identified 
these issues as essential to the personal motivation and 
effective performance of the OVA staff, including in technical 
areas more commonly targeted for external assistance. 
Results 
Any doubts that Lucia, the head of the OVA, initially had about 
the value of the IIM, are now gone after she participated in the 
trainings. The skills that Lucia gained at the training sessions 
have helped her deal with the many challenges presented by 
her work at the OVA in Petén. 
Notably, Lucia has initiated an awareness campaign with users 
of the OVA aimed at challenging the acceptance of abusive and 
co-dependent domestic relationships and providing support for 
victims to end unhealthy relationships in their lives. Lucia states 
that she would not have been able to proactively develop a 
campaign to confront such challenging issues without PAVI’s 
training and recognizes that human resources development is a 
fundamental aspect in fostering active and successful public 
service institutions. 
With USAID support, local community 
members organized a guided tour and 
fly-over of the Mayan Biosphere 
Reserve for justice system officials from 
Guatemala City.
Bringing Environmental Justice to the Mayan Biosphere Reserve
Civil society and justice 
sector officials coordinate 
efforts to promote the rule 
of law in the Mayan 
Biosphere Reserve
Photo by: Asociación Balam
Challenge 
The problem of environmental justice in Guatemala’s Mayan 
Biosphere Reserve (MBR) has long been a focus of national and 
international attention. Recently, as Guatemala’s remote department 
of Petén has become a focal point for international drug, weapons, 
and contraband trafficking, issues of governability in the MBR have 
spilled over from the environmental realm to broadly challenge 
government capacities and the rule of law in Petén. The increasing 
presence and activities of illicit criminal groups have increased the 
risk of conflicts over the environment, including crimes against 
cultural patrimony and plundering of natural resources. As a result, 
conflicts in the MBR frequently turn violent, with clashes between 
criminals and government authorities, intimidation of public officials 
and civil society representatives, and threats to the legitimate 
inhabitants of the MBR. 
Initiative
The USAID Program Against Violence and Impunity worked with the 
Balam Association, a local environmental conservation organization, 
to organize a coordinated response to the increasingly complex and 
serious challenges to justice in the MBR and its surrounding areas. 
The result of the collaboration was the creation of the Forum for 
Environmental Justice, a multi-stakeholder initiative that convenes 
environmental, cultural, and ecological organizations to coordinate 
environmental, justice, and governance promotion projects in the 
region. Through the Forum for Environmental Justice, PAVI, the 
Balam Association, and other allied organizations sponsored a series 
of guided visits and helicopter flights over the MBR to raise 
awareness among public prosecutors and judges within the Public 
Ministry and Supreme Court. 
Results 
Following these guided visits to the MBR, the Forum for 
Environmental Justice was able to sign cooperation agreements and 
develop close relationships with judges and prosecutors to facilitate 
joint work on criminal investigations, training, and the allocation of 
technical resources to respond to the challenges facing the MBR. 
With USAID support, Gutemaltecos 
Extraordinarios has been working with 
at-risk youth in one of Guatemala City’s 
most impoverished areas and providing 
social and emotional support services to 
keep them in school away from a life of 
crime.
Helping At-Risk Youth Create a Better Life
Guatemaltecos 
Extraordinarios empowers 
at-risk youth to choose 
school and community 
instead of crime and 
gangs
Photo by: Asociación Balam
Challenge 
Drugs, alcohol, gangs, graffiti, police chases, juvenile courts, robbery, 
arrogance, indifference to others, domestic violence, and the deaths 
of close friends and family describe only a little of the suffering that 
Josué has experienced in his short life. 
Josué was referred to Guatemaltecos Extraordinarios, a non-profit 
funded by the USAID Program Against Violence and Impunity, as a 
lost cause following a series of fights with his mother and school 
principal. Two months later, he was expelled from school for failing 
grades, poor behavior, and smoking marihuana. 
Initiative 
The first months that Josué spent working with Guatemaltecos 
Extraordinarios, were challenging. He attracted negative attention, 
laughed at his peers, and dismissed the program as meaningless. He 
arrived to trainings under the influence of drugs before leaving early 
to paint graffiti. He was nearly expelled from the program three 
times. After three months of a variety of treatments, one-on-one 
conversations, home visits, and interventions, he seemed to be an 
impossible, untreatable case. 
But the Gutemaltecos Extraordinarios team continued to care, express 
genuine interest in his life, celebrate his birthday, take him on 
community service trips, and develop a friendship with him, gradually 
creating a breakthrough opportunity. When he was invited to a 
spiritual support group where he heard the testimony of an ex-drug 
addict and felt the support of a caring father-figure, Josué confided 
that it was the first time he felt at peace. 
Results 
Following his breakthrough, Josué has committed to the program and 
enrolled in a new school. His mother recently reported that, for the 
first time in her life, she has not received a complaint about her son, 
saying, "My heart is where it belongs... I'm happy." Josué is giving back 
to his community by providing free tutoring to new participants in 
the Gutemaltecos Extraordinarios program, attending a church youth 
group, and giving talks to at-risk youth about his experiences. He has 
focused on his academic studies, winning 2nd place in his school’s 
science fair, and is a more thoughtful son, helping his mother cook 
corn for sale and taking his mother to church every Sunday. 
Carlos Mazariegos has 
played an instrumental role 
in overseeing the 
implementation of a new 
24-hour court in 
Guatemala, allowing minor 
offenders immediate 
access to judges for 
hearings
Providing 24-Hour Judicial Services to Mixco, Guatemala
New leadership provides 
Guatemalan citizens 
immediate access to an
efficient and effective court 
system
For years, Carlos Ernesto Mazariegos, better known as “Neto” 
in his home town of Mixco, served as one of five secretaries in
Mixco’s 24-hour court. The round-the-clock court is a recent 
innovation in Guatemala’s justice system that streamlines 
arraignments, first declarations, and pre-trial motions by 
providing 24-hour access to a judge, prosecutor, public 
defender, and police personnel. While the model has helped to 
reduce congestion and caseloads in Guatemala’s justice system, 
a USAID funded diagnostic and needs assessment found that 
the Mixco court had grown inefficient and expensive to 
administer. 
When Neto attended his first meeting concerning a newly 
approved reform plan for his own 24-hour court, he was 
immediately skeptical. Nonetheless, he familiarized himself with 
the changes to judicial procedures and administration that he 
would be responsible for implementing as the newly appointed 
chief administrator of the reformed court. 
The first several weeks in this new position were a struggle as 
Neto faced strong opposition to the reform plan from other 
staff members. With dedication and the technical assistance of 
the USAID Program Against Violence and Impunity, over time 
he was able to gain his staff’s buy-in and support as they 
acclimated to the procedures and workloads. 
Since then, Neto has exceeded expectations in his competent 
and efficient administration of the busy Mixco court. He has 
assisted in training new court staff members, monitored daily 
proceedings and legal decisions, and led regularly scheduled 
coordination meetings for the complex 24-hour operation 
involving five judges and 26 assistants. 
Neto’s strong resolve and leadership throughout the entire 
process have provided the people of Mixco with access to 
reliable and efficient legal services, making their community 
safer. 
With USAID support, international 
specialists trained Guatemalan
prosecutors on development and linking 
of cases, strategic litigation techniques, 
and other international best practices to 
analyze and prosecute complex criminal 
activities. and organizations
Training Guatemala’s Criminal Prosecutors
International specialists 
trained Guatemala’s 
prosecutors to more 
effectively combat crime
Photo by: PAVI Team
Challenge
In recent years, the organized crime has pushed the Guatemalan 
justice system to its limits. While all aspects of the justice system 
have been strained, many of its newer and less experienced 
prosecutors, like Hugo Rosales, were unprepared for the 
increasing complexity and seriousness of the cases being 
presented to them. Mr. Rosales’ traditional legal training had 
taught him to analyze and address each case and suspect as an 
isolated event or individual. The rapid emergence of organized 
crime and illicit criminal groups required a new set of skills and 
techniques that Mr. Rosales and his colleagues never learned.
Initiative
The USAID Program Against Violence and Impunity (PAVI) 
organized specialized trainings for junior prosecutors from the 
Guatemalan Public Ministry and various units of the Attorney 
General’s Office. These trainings, led by international specialists in 
the prosecution of organized crime, introduced international best 
practices in issues such as the filing of charges and presentation of 
evidence in complex, multi-defendant cases. Additionally, PAVI 
helped coordinate communication and collaboration between key 
justice sector institutions, bringing together the National Civil 
Police, the National Institute of Forensic Sciences, the Public 
Ministry’s Analysis Unit, and the Public Prosecutor’s offices.
Results
Guatemalan prosecutors are better equipped to address the high 
rates of crime throughout the country, using more complex 
methods of analysis that identify connections between criminal 
activities. Since his training in September, Mr. Rosales has 
consistently received praise for his prosecutorial skills, presented 
cases to Guatemala’s high impact courts dedicated to organized 
crime, and successfully litigated an organized crime case against 48 
people, receiving convictions for illicit association, money
laundering, illegal possession of firearms, and international drug 
trafficking. The defendants in this organized crime case were 
sentenced to a total of 434 years for their crimes.
The Fundacion Guatemala team trains
Izabal’s women leaders to create mobile 
human rights units and develop citizen 
safety audits strategies for women in 
their own communities.
Reducing Gender-based Violence in Izabal
Municipalities reduce 
gender-based violence 
through training and 
advocacy
Photo by PAVI Staff
Challenge 
Communities in Guatemala’s northeastern department of Izabal 
suffer from exceptionally high rates of violence against women. 
While gender-based violence and discrimination have 
increasingly impacted women in the region in recent years, 
women’s rights and gender equality have not been adequately 
addressed, leaving communities in search of a strategy to 
resolve the issue. 
Initiative
With support from the USAID Program Against Violence and 
Impunity (PAVI), Fundación Guatemala (FUNGUA), a civil 
society organization founded by women, initiated a project 
called “Women’s Participation in the Development of Safe 
Cities and Citizenship Development.” This project increased
awareness of women’s rights and gender equality in Izabal by 
training local women leaders to conduct human rights and 
citizen safety audits in their communities. These audits were 
then used to help communities develop strategies to create 
safe spaces for women, advocate for local government actions 
to address violence against women, and develop local land-use 
plans with a focus on gender issues and equality. 
Results 
Thanks to PAVI’s support, the FUNGUA-led project 
established three mobile human rights monitoring units in 
Izabal, conducted three citizen safety audits in municipalities 
throughout this department, and trained a cadre of 30 women 
in each municipality. With these tools, the women of Izabal are 
better prepared to identify human rights violations and safety 
needs, develop strategies to address them, and engage their 
local governments to work towards the goal of having safe and 
violence-free communities for women. 
ANNEX B 
FEMICIDE CASE STUDIES 
METHODOLOGY OF FEMICIDE CASE STUDIES 
The PAVI team worked directly with the prosecutors from the Office of the Prosecutor for 
Crimes against Life. PAVI identified 4 cases falling under jurisdiction of Guatemala’s recently 
passed Law Against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence Against Women and provided ongoing 
consultation and support to prosecutors. 
PAVI offered recommendations for the development of case theories and the formulation of 
investigation plans, reviewed the processing of crime scenes, helped with the incorporation of 
gender and human rights considerations into the process, and contributed to the development 
of evidence for presentation at trial. 
PAVI’s accompaniment and case study methodology was based on the Protocol for Persons 
Involved as Witnesses in Criminal Trials, which sets out the actions to be performed by personnel 
from the prosecutor’s office in the investigation and development of the case as well as the 
development of the plan for attention to the victim. In these cases studies, PAVI supported the 
application of this methodology in the development of the charges brought, placing particular 
emphasis on the participation and rights of the surviving victim/witness in one case and the 
secondary victims/witnesses in the others. 
The case studies often refer interchangeably to victims and witnesses, due to the fact that the 
protocol can be applied to both types of individuals. 
While PAVI initially planned to present case studies in a story format, the complex nature of 
the process and the numerous actions entailed in the Protocol necessitated a more highly 
structured presentation. For the sake of clarity, each case study has been presented in a matrix 
format. 
The four case studies have progressed to varying stages of the process and involve different 
aspects of its procedures and steps. As a result, matrices include different parts of the protocol 
and conclude at the point in the process at which each respective case remained on June 30, 
2012.
Case Study 1: Attempted Femicide
Description: 
The case was brought by the Metropolitan Public Prosecutor’s office. The crime occurred on the night of June 17th, 2010, in a bedroom located in the interior of a bar in 
Zone 4 of Guatemala City. The victim is Mrs. Elvira Chinchilla Godoy, 45. The accused is Mr. Oscar de Jesús Nájera. 
On July 17th, 2010, Oscar Jesús Nájera entered the bar in which Elvira worked as a waitress and where she was dining with a friend in a bedroom. After threatening the 
owner with a machete, he was directed to the room in which Elvira could be found. Oscar de Jesus attacked Elvira with the machete, completely severing her right hand and 
wounding her in the skull, face, and arms. He then attacked Elvira’s friend, before fleeing from the scene.
 
The investigation found that the accused had an extensive criminal history of domestic violence and had attacked Elvira seven times since 2004. Following the investigation 
and issuance of an arrest warrant for Oscar de Jesus, he was captured on February 17th, 2011, seven months after the attack. The testimony of the witnesses was the primary 
evidence against Oscar de Jesús Nájera. 
The intermediate hearing was held on June 28th, 2011 in the 5th Criminal Court. The judge admitted the charge brought against Oscar de Jesús Nájera by the MP. The court 
date was scheduled for February 8, 2012 and a final guilty verdict was rendered. 
PROGRESS IN APPLICATION OF THE COORDINATED “ASSISTANCE PROTOCOL FOR WITNESSES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS”
SELECTED CASE: PROCEDURAL STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION 
OF MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Case No. 1– Attempted 
Femicide
Municipality: Guatemala
Elvira Godoy Chinchilla
5th Criminal Court, 
Narcoactivity and Crimes 
KNOWLEDGE OF 
FACTS
Report– Direct, from victim
1. OAP receives report/complaint in written or verbal form (if the 
victim’s state requires it) with the support of a professional from 
the OAV.
NO
2. Victim is referred to a forensic and medical examination. NO
3. OAV personnel provide crisis intervention support before and 
during the presentation of the report/complaint. NO
Crime Scene (direct victim or 
collateral or witnesses) 
1. Security and transfer to the appropriate prosecutor’s office is 
coordinated with the National Civil Police. NO
SELECTED CASE: PROCEDURAL STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION 
OF MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
against the Environment 
(Guatemala) 
9
th Criminal Sentencing 
Court
Complied with 2 of 2 
applicable actions. 
Compliance: 100% 
2. Medical attention and transfer to hospital is coordinated. NO
3. Awaited physician’s authorization to conduct first interview. YES 50 % YES
4. In the case of children or adolescent victims without legal 
representation, coordinate presence of the Procuraduria 
General de la Nacion for the interview and protection. 
NO
5. If the prosecutor determines that there is a high risk of danger 
to the victim or witness, coordinate support with the Office of 
Witness Protection. 
YES 50 % YES
Police Complaint or 
Prevention
1. Locate the victim. NO
2. Develop Investigation and Victim’s Attention Plan. NO
RECORDING OF 
STATEMENTS
In Prosecutor’s headquarters 
Complied with 2 of 3 
applicable actions. 
Compliance: 66%
1. Protect identity. YES 33 % NO
2. When working with a protected witness, coordinate with the 
Office of Witness Protection. YES 33 % YES
3. Arrange transfer of victim from their home or workplace to the 
judicial headquarters either through PNC or referral network. YES 33 % YES
Before Judicial Authority
1. Request for protective, security, or emergency measures, as 
appropriate. YES 0 % NO
2. Use of video-conferencing, victim or witness proxies, screens, 
voice distortion, Gesell Dome, or other measures that prevent 
direct visual and auditory contact with the suspect.
NO
3. Inform the judge or court comptroller if there are protection 
measures for the victim that must be taken into account in the 
judicial headquarters.
NO
4. When there are safety reasons (art. 217 CPP), request that the 
judge receives witness testimony in a place other than the 
court. 
NO
Procedure for hearings 
relating to especially 
vulnerable victims (FEMALE 
VICTIMS) 
1. Provide immediate emotional support and kindness; avoid 
sexist judgments against the victim or placing blame on them 
for what occurred. 
YES 25 % YES
2. Provide a private space in which the victim can be heard. YES 25 % YES
3. Allow the victim access to the evidence file. NO
4. Inform the victim of their right to serve as a concurring plaintiff 
or as a plaintiff in a civil action. YES 25 % NO
SELECTED CASE: PROCEDURAL STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION 
OF MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Complied with 3 of 4 
applicable actions. 
Compliance:
75%
5. Facilitate the conduct of psychological and psychiatric 
assessments to establish the moral, psychological, and 
psychiatric harm caused. YES 25 % YES
Evidence Produced Before 
Trial 
1. Request the statement of the victim/witness as pre-trial 
evidence once appropriate laws are verified. YES 0 % NO
2. When the judicial authority does not approve submission of 
victim/witness statements as pre-trial evidence and the 
prosecutor is not in agreement with the judicial authority’s 
judgment, appropriate legal remedies are used.
NO
PREPARATION OF 
VICTIMS SERVING AS 
WITNESSES
Strengthening Actions for the 
victim or witness
Complied with 4 of 4 
applicable actions. 
Compliance:
100%
1. Coordinate with Office of Victims’ Attention, welfare office, or 
administrative units of the Public Ministry, as appropriate. YES 25% YES
2. Prepare and empower the victim by explain the dynamics and 
scope of the hearing, develop interpersonal confidence with the 
victim, explain the content of potential questions and answers, 
and teach the victim anxiety management techniques when 
under interrogation.
YES 25% YES
3. Following hearings explain their results and verify 
comprehension. YES 25% YES
4. Provide emotional support, address bereavement, and set an 
appointment for follow up YES 25 % YES
Accompaniment in the 
hearing
(design) 
Complied with 2 of 2 
applicable actions. 
Compliance:
100%
1. Explain the procedure for the progression of the hearing and 
the location of the parties in the court room. YES 50 % YES
2. Explain how the interrogation will be supported with visual aids. 
NO
3. Presence of an accompanying family member or professional 
providing psycho-emotional support. YES 50 % YES
Logistical Aspects
Complied with 2 of 2 
applicable actions.
1. Coordinate transportation, accompaniment, lodging, and food 
for victims or witnesses with five days of advance notice. YES
50 %
YES
2. Provide letters necessary to being excused from work, school, NO
SELECTED CASE: PROCEDURAL STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION 
OF MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Compliance:
100%
or any other responsibility affected by appearance in court.
3. Maintain constant communication with the victim or witness to
ensure their appearance in court. YES 50 % YES
Action in the debate
Complied with 2 of 2 
applicable actions. 
Compliance:
100%
1. Initiate action for compensation of damages as a result of 
crime. YES 50 % YES
2. Use simple and accessible language that is appropriate for the 
age and particular conditions of the victim or witness. YES 50 % YES
3. Use, when appropriate, the Gesell Dome, anatomical models, 
or other tools that help facilitate the trial statement. NO
4. Request from the judges the support of specialized consultants 
or advice in providing emotional support during the trial process 
in order to reduce the risk of secondary victimization of the 
victim or witness. 
NO
Case Study 2: Femicide 
Description: 
The case was brought by the Metropolitan Public Prosecutor’s office. The crime occurred the morning of November 27th, 2010 in the living room of a condominium located in 
Zone 13. The victim was Diana Michelle Bueso Recinos. The investigation identified Marco Vinicio Barrundia, an ex-boyfriend of the victim, as the primary suspect, though it also 
called for further investigation of Carlos Marroquín, the victim’s fiancé at the time of the crime.
On November 27th, 2010, around 7:30 am, the perpetrator arrived at the victim’s home, where she was with her mother and a friend. Diana's mother allowed the perpetrator to 
enter and then went to the second floor of the house to tell her daughter that he was waiting in the foyer. As soon as the victim arrived to greet the perpetrator he shot and 
killed her, then immediately fled the scene. 
During the course of the investigation, no evidence was found linking Marco to the killing of Diana. Although both the victim’s mother and friend have valuable information 
relating to the case, neither has been willing to collaborate with authorities. Analysis of the record has given investigators reason to believe that the boyfriend of the victim at the 
time of her death, Carlos, could also be involved in the incident. However, the prosecution has not explored this possibility, nor has it practiced key, recommended investigation 
steps. Currently, there is insufficient evidence for a conviction of femicide. 
PROGRESS IN APPLICATION OF THE COORDINATED “ASSISTANCE PROTOCOL FOR WITNESSES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS”
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Case No. 2 –
Femicide
Municipality: 
Guatemala
Diana Bueso
Crimes Against Life 
Prosecutor 
KNOWLEDGE OF 
FACTS
Report– Direct, from victim
1. OAP receives report/complaint in written or verbal form (if the victim’s 
state requires it) with the support of a professional from the OAV. NO
2. Victim is referred to a forensic and medical examination. NO
3. OAV personnel provide crisis intervention support before and during the 
presentation of the report/complaint. NO
Crime Scene (direct victim or 
collateral or witnesses)
1. Security and transfer to the appropriate prosecutor’s office is 
coordinated with the National Civil Police. YES 100 % NO
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
(Guatemala)
Complied with 0 of 1 
applicable actions. 
Compliance: 0 %
2. Medical attention and transfer to hospital is coordinated. NO
3. Awaited physician’s authorization to conduct first interview. NO
4. In the case of children or adolescent victims without legal 
representation, coordinate presence of the Procuraduria General de la 
Nacion for the interview and protection.
NO
5. If the prosecutor determines that there is a high risk of danger to the 
victim or witness, coordinate support with the Office of Witness 
Protection.
NO
Police Complaint or 
Prevention
1. Locate the victim. NO
2. Develop Investigation and Victim’s Attention Plan. NO
RECORDING OF 
STATEMENTS
In Prosecutor’s headquarters 
Complied with 2 of 3 
applicable actions. 
Compliance: 66%
1. Protect identity. YES 33 % NO
2. When working with a protected witness, coordinate with the Office of 
Witness Protection. YES 33 % YES
3. Arrange transfer of victim from their home or workplace to the judicial 
headquarters either through PNC or referral network. YES
33 % YES
Before Judicial Authority 
Complied with 0 of 1 
applicable actions. 
Compliance: 0 %
1. Request for protective, security, or emergency measures, as 
appropriate. YES 100 % NO
2. Use of video-conferencing, victim or witness proxies, screens, voice 
distortion, Gesell Dome, or other measures that prevent direct visual 
and auditory contact with the suspect.
NO
3. Inform the judge or court comptroller if there are protection measures for 
the victim that must be taken into account in the judicial headquarters.
NO
4. When there are safety reasons (art. 217 CPP), request that the judge 
receives witness testimony in a place other than the court.
NO
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Procedure for hearings 
relating to especially 
vulnerable victims 
(FEMALE VICTIMS)
1. Provide immediate emotional support and kindness; avoid sexist 
judgments against the victim or placing blame on them for what 
occurred.
2. Provide a private space in which the victim can be heard.
3. Allow the victim access to the evidence file.
4. Inform the victim of their right to serve as a concurring plaintiff or as a 
plaintiff in a civil action.
5. Facilitate the conduct of psychological and psychiatric assessments to 
establish the moral, psychological, and psychiatric harm caused.
Evidence Produced Before 
Trial
1. Request the statement of the victim/witness as pre-trial evidence once 
appropriate laws are verified
2. When the judicial authority does not approve submission of 
victim/witness statements as pre-trial evidence and the prosecutor is 
not in agreement with the judicial authority’s judgment, appropriate legal 
remedies are used.
NOTE: PAVI measured the knowledge of facts and investigation stages. Current Stage: Investigation continues.
Case Study 3: Femicide 
Description: 
The case was brought by the District Attorney’s Office of Petén. The crime occurred on July 13th, 2011 in the house the victim shared with her brother in San Benito, a few 
blocks from the headquarters of the District Attorney. The victim was Tanya Chacón Góngora, 20. The accused is her uncle, Maynor Góngora Cruz, 21. 
At 2:30 pm on July 13th, Maynor entered Tanya's house. After an argument and physical struggle, Maynor suffocated and beat to death. He then fled the scene but later returned, 
at which point the police apprehended him. 
The investigation discovered that prior to the crime Maynor had lived with Tanya and her brother, but was kicked out of the residence after trying to film her with his cell phone 
when she was alone in her room. The investigation also found that Maynor used alcohol and drugs and had emotional problems. The investigation also conducted a series of 
scientific tests, including of the tissue sample found underneath Tanya's finger nails. 
The preliminary hearing was held on November 3rd, 2011 in the Petén Magistrate’s Court of Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes. The judge admitted the 
charge and began the trial process for the crime of femicide, scheduling the trial for June 19, 2012 in the Sentencing Court for Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes in 
Petén.
PROGRESS IN APPLICATION OF THE COORDINATED “ASSISTANCE PROTOCOL FOR WITNESSES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS”
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Case No. 3 – Femicide
Municipality: San Benito, 
Petén
Tanya Sofía Yolanda 
Chacón
Court of Criminal, Narco￾activity, and Environmental 
Crimes in Petén
KNOWLEDGE OF 
FACTS
Report– Direct, from victim
1. OAP receives report/complaint in written or verbal form (if the 
victim’s state requires it) with the support of a professional from 
the OAV.
NO
2. Victim is referred to a forensic and medical examination. NO
3. OAV personnel provide crisis intervention support before and 
during the presentation of the report/complaint. NO
Crime Scene (direct victim or 
collateral or witnesses)
1. Security and transfer to the appropriate prosecutor’s office is 
coordinated with the National Civil Police. YES 100% NO
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Complied with 0 of 1 applicable 
actions. Compliance: 0%
2. Medical attention and transfer to hospital is coordinated. NO
3. Awaited physician’s authorization to conduct first interview. NO
4. In the case of children or adolescent victims without legal 
representation, coordinate presence of the Procuraduria 
General de la Nacion for the interview and protection. 
NO
5. If the prosecutor determines that there is a high risk of danger 
to the victim or witness, coordinate support with the Office of 
Witness Protection. 
NO
Police Complaint or Prevention
1. Locate the victim. NO
2. Develop Investigation and Victim’s Attention Plan. NO
RECORDING OF 
STATEMENTS
In Prosecutor’s headquarters 
Complied with 0 of 1 applicable 
actions. Compliance: 0%
1. Protect identity. YES 100 % NO
2. When working with a protected witness, coordinate with the 
Office of Witness Protection. NO
3. Arrange transfer of victim from their home or workplace to the 
judicial headquarters either through PNC or referral network. NO
Before Judicial Authority
1. Request for protective, security, or emergency measures, as 
appropriate.
2. Use of video-conferencing, victim or witness proxies, screens, 
voice distortion, Gesell Dome, or other measures that prevent 
direct visual and auditory contact with the suspect.
3. Inform the judge or court comptroller if there are protection 
measures for the victim that must be taken into account in the 
judicial headquarters.
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
4. When there are safety reasons (art. 217 CPP), request that the 
judge receives witness testimony in a place other than the 
court. 
Procedure for hearings relating 
to especially vulnerable victims 
(FEMALE VICTIMS) 
1. Provide immediate emotional support and kindness; avoid 
sexist judgments against the victim or placing blame on them 
for what occurred. 
2. Provide a private space in which the victim can be heard. 
3. Allow the victim access to the evidence file.
4. Inform the victim of their right to serve as a concurring plaintiff 
or as a plaintiff in a civil action.
5. Facilitate the conduct of psychological and psychiatric 
assessments to establish the moral, psychological, and 
psychiatric harm caused.
Evidence Produced Before Trial
1. Request the statement of the victim/witness as pre-trial 
evidence once appropriate laws are verified. 
2. When the judicial authority does not approve submission of 
victim/witness statements as pre-trial evidence and the 
prosecutor is not in agreement with the judicial authority’s 
judgment, appropriate legal remedies are used.
NOTE: PAVI measured from the Knowledge of Facts stage up to the first statement of the suspect. Current stage: Debate begins 6-19-12. 
Case Study 4: Femicide 
Description: 
The case was brought by the Mixco Municipality public prosecutor’s office. The crime occurred during the early morning of July 19th, 2011 in Zone 7 of Mixco. The victim was 
Mrs. Evlin Tellería, 27. The suspect is Levin García, 23.
At 4:45 am on July 19, following a heated argument, the suspect stabbed Evlin approximately 20 times, killing her. The cohabitants had gone to a nightclub that night with a friend 
of Evlin, who observed the two arguing. When leaving the nightclub, the same friend reported witnessing Levin striking Evlin in the face and then left. Shortly after the victim’s 
murder, police captured Levin at the scene of the crime. 
During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that prior to the femicide, Levin had beaten Evlin on multiple occasions and had even been imprisoned on charges of 
violence against women a few months earlier. The negligence of the MP in failing to provide protection to a victim whose life was in danger was compounded by the fact that the 
court had applied for the provisional dismissal of the violence against women charges against Levin. Two months after regaining his freedom, he killed Evlin. The investigation 
employed important methods of scientific evidence collection (DNA testing and fingerprints) that are not usually used in this type of process.
On November 2nd, 2011, a preliminary hearing was held in the Special Court for Femicides in the capital city. The judge admitted the charge and began the trial process for the 
crime of femicide, scheduling the trial for August 3, 2012 in the Special Sentencing Court for Femicide in Guatemala City.
PROGRESS IN APPLICATION OF THE COORDINATED “ASSISTANCE PROTOCOL FOR WITNESSES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS”
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
Case No. 4 –
Femicide
Municipality: Mixco
Evlin Tellería
Crimes Against 
Life Prosecutor
(Mixco)
KNOWLEDGE OF 
FACTS
Report– Direct, from victim
1. OAP receives report/complaint in written or verbal form (if the victim’s 
state requires it) with the support of a professional from the OAV.
2. Victim is referred to a forensic and medical examination.
3. OAV personnel provide crisis intervention support before and during 
the presentation of the report/complaint.
Crime Scene (direct victim or 
collateral or witnesses)
Complied with 2 of 2 applicable 
1. Security and transfer to the appropriate prosecutor’s office is 
coordinated with the National Civil Police. YES 50% YES
2. Medical attention and transfer to hospital is coordinated. NO
SELECTED CASE PROCEDURAL 
STEP
STEP
COMPLIANCE
PROCEEDINGS ACTIONS
APPLICATION OF 
MEASURE
YES/NO % YES/NO
actions. Compliance: 100% 3. Awaited physician’s authorization to conduct first interview. NO
4. In the case of children or adolescent victims without legal 
representation, coordinate presence of the Procuraduria General de la 
Nacion for the interview and protection.
YES 50% YES
5. If the prosecutor determines that there is a high risk of danger to the 
victim or witness, coordinate support with the Office of Witness 
Protection.
NO
Police Complaint or Prevention
3. Locate the victim.
4. Develop Investigation and Victim’s Attention Plan.
NOTE: PAVI measured the knowledge of facts stage, investigation procedures performed, and preparation for the trial. Current Status: Debate, scheduled for August 3rd, 2012.
ANNEX C 
M&E PLAN (REVISED AND FINAL VERSION) 
PROGRAM AGAINST VIOLENCE 
AND IMPUNITY IN GUATEMALA 
REVISED MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 
SEPTEMBER 2011 
September 2011
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. 
It was prepared by Partners for Democratic Change, a subcontractor of Tetra Tech DPK. 
PROGRAM AGAINST VIOLENCE AND 
IMPUNITY IN GUATEMALA 
REVISED MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 
SEPTEMBER 2011 
PROGRAM: PROGRAMA DE USAID JUSTICIA CONTRA LA VIOLENCIA 
USAID OFFICE: USAID/GUATEMALA 
TASK ORDER: DFD-I-08-04-00173-00
CONTRACTOR: TETRA TECH DPK 
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2011
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 2 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... 2 
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3 
II. APPROACH .................................................................................................................. 4 
III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 4 
IV. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING QUALITY INDICATORS ........................................ 5 
V. DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................. 6 
VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION MATRIX ....................................................... 7 
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 18
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 3 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 
CENADOJ: Centro Nacional de Documentación del Organismo Judicial. Judiciary’s National Archive 
Center. 
DAV: División de atención a la víctima de la PNC. Division of assistance to victims (PNC)
ETI: Equipo técnico interinstitucional (MP, INACIF, PNC). Inter-institutional Technical Team
IDPP: Instituto de Defensa Púbica Penal. Institute of Criminal Public Defense 
INACIF: Instituto Nacional Forense. National Forensic Institute
JAI: Juzgados de Alto Impacto. High Impact Courts
LDO: Ley Delincuencia Organizada .Law Against Organized Crime
MCC: Corporación Retos del Milenio. Millennium Challenge Corporation
MP: Ministerio Público. Public Ministry 
OAV: Oficina Atención a la Víctima del MP. Public Minstry’s Office of Assistance to Victims
OJ: Organismo Judicial. Judiciary
PNC: Policía Nacional Civil. National Civil Police 
SICOMP: Sistema Informático de Casos del Ministerio Público. Public Ministry’s Integrated Computer 
System
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 4 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
I. INTRODUCTION 
The Program Against Violence and Impunity (PAVI) is a USAID-funded initiative in Guatemala, 
implemented by Contractor Tetra Tech DPK (Tt DPK) which aims to strengthen the rule of law by 
improving the delivery of judicial and prosecutorial services, heightening coordination among justice 
sector institutions, and building civil society’s capacity to monitor and report on the performance of 
the justice operators.Subcontractor Partners for Democratic Change (PDC) is currently executing a 
subcontract from Tt DPK to provide Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) technical support to the 
PAVI and act as an external evaluator of the Program.Under this subcontract, PDC developed the 
M&E Plan, designed the data collection methodology and instruments, and reports on the progress of 
PAVI’s performance and impact indicators on a quarterly and annual basis. Tt DPK has offered this 
unique evaluation strategy to bring in an external team of evaluation specialists early in the execution 
of the Project and thus ensure an external yet collaborative approach to M&E that involves PAVI’s 
technical staff and counterparts in all phases of monitoring performance and evaluation of this 
Project.PAVI has two dedicated staff personnelthat work on M&E: the Deputy Project Director and 
the Planning and Supervision Assistant. They are in charge of implementing all M&E activities 
(management, data collection, and information processing) under each Project Sub Intermediate 
Result. PDC works directly with these two staffers and the rest of the PAVI team to gather all the 
required information to conduct the quarterly and annual M&E reports. 
Data Evaluation
Responsible parties: 
 External = PDC 
 Internal = PAVI 
 Participatory = PDC-PAVI-Counterparts
Coordination and 
Technical Support 
Responsible party: Tt DPK 
Home Office 
Data Collection
Responsible party: PAVI
Data Reporting and Analysis
Responsible parties: PDC & PAVI
Report Evaluation
Responsible party: USAID
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 5 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
II. APPROACH 
Many different types of evaluation exist, including internal or self-evaluations (those conducted by 
the implementing project team), external evaluations (conducted by an outside expert or 
organization not directly associated with the project activities), and participatory evaluations
(conducted with participation from multiple stakeholders.) The following M&E Plan is a 
combination of all three types of evaluation methods, due to the innovative strategy of bringing in an 
outside evaluation team to work closely with the Project team and local counterparts throughout the 
Project implementation. During each evaluation visit the evaluator will apply them together or 
independently based on each indicator. The PDC team has crafted an M&E Plan that will involve the 
PAVI team, key Guatemalan government institutions and CSOs, as well as the external evaluators 
(PDC) to collaborate during all phases of the evaluation, including planning, data collection, analysis, 
reporting, dissemination, and any follow-up activities. 
The advantages of this combined approach are that the Project staff and Guatemalan institutions are 
the most suitable to analyze information and to come up with new ideas for solving problems and 
improving performance because of their deep understanding of the organizations in which they work 
and the reality “on the ground.” This allows managers in the counterpart institutions to use the 
resulting information and recommendations and assess the effect of their reform strategies. A 
recognized disadvantage of a participatory evaluation, however, is that it can be less objective 
because participants may have a vested interest or may defend current strategies, and the credibility 
of data collection can be questioned. The Partners team, as a subcontractor that is not directly 
involved in the day-to-day implementation of the Project, will assume key aspects of the M&E Plan 
methodology to assuage these disadvantages of a more participatory approach. 
III. METHODOLOGY 
Although the terms “Monitoring” and “Evaluation” are used together when determining a “M&E 
Plan,” these are two different functions, with different conceptual and operational 
implications.Performance monitoring is an on-going process intended to provide information to 
managers about the progress of specific project outputs according to fixed objectives and 
targets.Monitoring is intended to tell what is happening or how it is happening in a project, in order 
to assess if the project is on track to meet its objectives.The M&E Plan presents a series of indicators 
to monitor the performance of project activities against agreed targets. The performance indicators 
will be measured on a project-year base1
and will be reported on a quarterly basis. Since the PAVI 
Project is scheduled to finish on June 28, 2012, the data for 2012 to complete the Final M&E Report 
will be collected through the month of May of that same year as a cut date. 
Evaluation is a more comprehensive concept. It looks at the effects and impacts of the project’s 
activities, intended to help establish lessons learned and prioritize development strategiesin the 
 
1
 The Project Year 1 corresponds to the period from July 29, 2000 to September 30, 2010. The Project Year 2 
corresponds to the period from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011. The Project Year 3 corresponds to the 
period from October 1, 2011 to June 28, 2012 
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 6 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
future.Evaluation takes place at a specific moment in time, usually mid-term or at the end of a project 
life-cycle, using a range of quantitative and qualitative measures. The M&E Plan also sets a series of 
indicators and targets to measure the impact of project activities. The data to report on these 
indicators will be collected mostly from selected public sources such as the Public Ministry’s 
SICOMP. Since these sources issue their reports at the end of the calendar year, the complete 
progress on the impact indicators will be reported on a calendar-year basis2
. The evaluation of the 
PAVI Project will take place at the end of the project life-cycle and will be included in PAVI’s M&E 
Final Report. The final monitoring and evaluation will be comprised of an analysis of the overall 
progress of the impact indicators (through May 2012) and the development of case studies that look 
for changes in outcome that are directly attributable to the PAVI Project. 
The goal in providing the PAVI Project with a complete M&E Planis to generate credible and useful 
information that contributes to improved performance, accountability, and learning from 
experiencein order to inform decision-making. 
The baseline data for the M&E of the Project will be collected according to the 2008 calendar year. 
IV. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING QUALITY 
INDICATORS
The following M&E Plan includes a set of indicators to accomplish both the Monitoring and 
Evaluation functions mentioned above. PAVI is a three year project (June 2009-June 2012) operating 
under complex development environments where the Project’s interventions andinstitutional-level 
changes are often not apparent for many years. 
It is expected that over the life-cycle of the Project, different types of indicators will be more useful 
at different times.Over the first six months of the Project, process (output) indicators will be the 
primary source of performance information, while during the second and third years the impact 
indicators will become more revealing.The intention of the following M&E Plan is to specify a full 
set of indicators from the outset, acknowledging that some might need to be added as the project 
activities unfold, or further revised or dropped because they are unsatisfactory or no longer needed 
because their targets have been met. 
Determining adequate and appropriate indicators is not an exact science and the precision of a 
laboratory experiment is not required, especially when operating in a data-poor development setting 
such as Guatemala. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the indicators were carefully selected to 
reflect USAID’s criteria of integrity, accuracy, reliability, and timeliness in its M&E exercises. The 
Tt DPK approach to determining appropriate indicators is to acknowledge the trade-offs between 
what might be considered the “best” indicators (but ones that are prohibitive because they are too 
costly to implement, or require too much lag time to be able to measure) and what are “reasonable” 
 
2
 The complete progress of the impact indicators will be reported in PAVI’s M&E Quarterly Report for the period 
October – December of each year. 
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 7 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
indicators that reflect what is realistic to measure with a focus on how the information gathered will 
be used.A healthy dose of common sense helps to streamline the process, so that the Project is only 
collecting and reporting on information that is most directly useful to measure performance and 
manage for results.More information is not necessarily better, especially if it increases the burden on 
the Project staff and involves excessive costs to collect and analyze.The indicators that have been 
recommended within the M&E Plan below have been crafted to reflect objectivity, practicality, 
validity, and attribution to the Project. 
V. DATA COLLECTION
Many of the quantitative indicators will require the Project staff to obtain official data from the 
government institutions with whom they are working.We know that the data collection methods 
within the judicial branch and legal system in Guatemala are less than perfect, and in fact one of the 
priority areas of the Project is to offer technical assistance to improve their internal information 
systems.As the Project implements its activities, therefore, one of the effects will be that the quality 
of the official data will surely improve.The external evaluator will assist PAVI staff in conducting 
brief spot checks to verify data reporting within a sampling of the Public Ministry (PM) units whose 
data is being used for the Project’s indicators (and other institutions offering victim’s assistance as 
well).On an annual basis,the external evaluator will verify the cases reported during a particular 
month and compare to the data officially used by the institution.This external verification will not 
only serve to report on the level of error within the PM and others’ statistics, but will also assist the 
Project in identifying areas within the record keeping system that needtechnical assistance for 
improvement. 
Other data will be collected directly through internal Project documentation and records, including 
participant surveys applied by the PAVI staff, personal interviews conducted by the external 
evaluator and information to build case studies and success stories (that will be reported as part of the 
Final M&E Report). The following articles of the Guatemalan Criminal Code define the crimes that 
will be tracked by the PAVI staff under the different indicators: 
 Crimes against life: (a) Homicide: Articles 123 and 124, (b) Infanticide: Article 129, (c) 
Parricide: Article 131, (d) Murder: Article 132; and Femicides: Article 6, Law Against 
Femicides and Other Forms of Violence Against Women (Decree 22.2008) 
 Crimes against cultural patrimony: Articles 332 A, B, and C. 
 Crimes against the environment: Articles 346 and 347.
VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION MATRIX 
The PAVI Project fits within USAID’s broad goal of Ruling Justly: More Responsive, Transparent Governance, and will seek to 
address USAID’s IR 1: Greater State and Society Capacity to Prevent and Combat Violence and Serious Crime.The following 
indicator matrix includes performance indicators and impact indicators. It also includes a breakdown of both quantitative measurements and 
supporting qualitative analysis depending on each indicator. Following the matrix for each Sub-Intermediate Result (Sub-IR), there is a 
descriptionin narrative form of the methodology that will be used to collect, analyze, and report on the data. 
Critical Assumption: It is assumed that there will be sufficient political will and institutional cooperation in support of the Project and in delivery of information (at both the technical 
and institutional level), and that the current transition in institutional leadership within key counterparts does not hinder the Project’s ability to continue with planned activities.
Sub-IR1: Improve Justice System Capacity to Prosecute 
andTry Serious Crime.
Disaggregate Baseline value Data source Timing
(Data 
collection 
and 
reporting 
period)
Responsible 
persons
Targets
This Sub-IR will address:(i) poor treatment and attention to victims and witnesses; (ii) inadequate management of information resources; (iii) inadequate inter-institutional coordination; 
(iv) lack of institutional planning and development; (v) lack of compliance with key legislation, such as the Law Against Organized Crime; and (vi) inadequate management causing 
undue delays in case processing.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
2. Number of Trainings/Workshops/Coordination 
Meetings for justice sector professionals (F) 
Explanation: This indicator applies to number of trainings, 
workshops and coordination meetings with justice sector 
professionals working on prosecution and conviction of crimes 
against life.
- Per institution or 
unit
- Per jurisdiction
2008
0
Project reports Quarterly PAVI 
technical 
Staff
PY13
30
PY24
50
PY35
20
(a) Number of participants (justice sector professionals) 
in the trainings and workshops (F)
Explanation: Prosecutors, judges, and administrative personnel 
- Gender of 
participant
2008
0
Participant 
sign-in sheets
Quarterly PAVI Staff PY1
80
PY2
250
PY3
100
 
3
 The Project Year 1 comprises the period from July 29, 2009 – September 30, 2010 
4
 The Project Year 2 comprises the period from October 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011 
5
 The Project Year 3 comprises the period from October 1, 2011 – June 28, 2012
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 9 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
from Justice Sector institutions participating in PAVI’s training 
events. 
(b) Level of participant satisfaction (justice sector 
professionals) in trainings and workshops 
(usefulness of information and quality of 
presentation/facilitation) (F)
Explanation: The percentage corresponds to the participants’
evaluation of the trainer, the content and length of the 
workshop, and knowledge acquired by the participants. The 
percentage is an average of all the evaluations conducted during 
the project year
- N/A 2008
0
Post-event 
survey
Quarterly PAVI Staff 80% satisfaction in 
each project year
Sub-IR1: Improve Justice System Capacity to Prosecute 
andTry Serious Crime (cont.)
Disaggregate Baseline value Data source Timing
(data 
collection 
and 
reporting)
Responsible 
persons
Targets
IMPACT INDICATORS: 
3. Increase in Crimes Against Life and Femicide 
brought to trial
Explanation: Increase in the number of crimes against life and 
femicides that are brought to trial over the life of the project. 
This indicator will be measured in incremental percentages over 
the life of the project. Targets are cumulative in accordance to 
the baseline.
- Per crime
- Per target 
jurisdiction 
(Guatemala 
Department and 
Petén)
Guat.
2008
Petén
2008
SICOMP Annual PAVI Staff 2010
5%
2011
7%
2012
10%
Cal
131
Fe
0
Cal
0
Fe
0
4. Increase in the number of guilty verdicts for Crimes 
Against Life 
Explanation: Increase in the number of guilty verdicts for 
Crimes Against Life to be measured over the life of the project.
- Per target 
jurisdictions 
- (Guatemala 
Department and 
Petén)
Guat.
2008
Petén
2008
SICOMP Annual PAVI Staff 2010
5% 
2011
7% 
2012
10%
100 0
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 10 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
NARRATIVE EXPLANATION OF METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT INDICATORS FOR SUB-IR1: Improved Justice 
System Capacity to Prosecute and Try Serious Crime 
1. Increase in number of Crimes Against Life and Femicide brought to trial 
This impact indicator will be measured by looking at the official statistics from the PM for criminal charges filed for crimes against life 
and crimes under the Law against Femicide within the target jurisdictions: Guatemala Department (that includes Villanueva and Mixco) 
and Petén. The PAVI M&E staff person will be responsible for gathering the statistics from the SICOMP on an annual basis.The Project 
will actively workwith SICOMP to improve their information systems and the validity of the data.Acknowledging that the official data 
reported by the PM is less than perfect, a comparative model will be used to look at the increase in the number of criminal charges 
annually, making the level of error acceptable to determine whether an increase has been achieved. 
2. Increase in the number of guilty verdicts for Crimes against Life 
Baseline information from 2008 will be collected by the PAVI M&E staff personfrom SICOMP6
. This information will be compared 
with the official data on an annual basis. A comparison between the baseline and 2012 data will enable us to determinewhether the 
Project has had an impact on the rise in guilty verdicts. 
On an annual basis, the external evaluator will conduct interviews with criminal court judges to discuss with them the quality of 
prosecutors’ charges, improvements that have been made in the target courts to handle this increase in charges, and their perception of 
this impact on an increase in convictions. 
 
6
The information will not be collected from CENADOJ to avoid discrepancies in the form of data reporting between these sources
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 11 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
Sub-IR2: Mobilize Justice Sector and Civil Society to 
Reduce and Prevent Violence.
Disaggregate Baseline value Data source Timing
(data 
collection 
and 
reporting)
Responsible 
persons
Targets
This sub-IR seeks to improve:(i) inadequate or insufficient governmental and non-governmental legal services for victims of violent crime, including domestic violence; (ii) 
insufficient coordination amongst government and non-governmental institutions that provide attention to victims of violent crime; and (iii) insufficient violence prevention measures 
for the most vulnerable groups, such as women and children.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
5. Number of /Workshops/Coordination Meetings/Trainings 
for institutions offering victims assistance (F)
Explanation: This indicator corresponds to the number of 
workshops, trainings, and coordination meetings with justice 
sector professionals and civil society advocates that participate 
in the prevention and reduction of violence. 
- Per institution 
orunit
- Per jurisdiction
2008
0
Project reports Quarterly PAVI 
technical staff
PY1
0
PY2
10
PY3
5
(a) Number of participants in the Coordination Meetings, 
Workshops and Trainings (F)
Explanation: This indicator corresponds to the number of 
participants from the justice sector, civil society, and non￾governmental organizations that provide assistance attending 
coordination meetings, workshops, and trainings
- Gender of 
participant
2008
0
Participant 
sign-in sheets
Quarterly PAVI 
technical staff
PY1
80
PY2
40
PY3
20
(b) Level of participant satisfaction in Coordination 
Meetings ,workshops and trainings (utility of 
information and quality of facilitation) (F)
Explanation: The percentage corresponds to the participants’ 
evaluation of the trainer, the content and length of the 
workshop, and knowledge acquired by the participants. The 
percentage is an average of all the evaluations conducted during 
the project year)
- N/A 2008
0
Post-event 
survey
Quarterly PAVI 
technical staff 
80% satisfaction in 
each project year
6. Improved coordination between organizations offering 
victims’ assistance
Explanation: Organizations using the Protocol will coordinate 
better the provision of integral assistance to victims acting as 
- Phases of the 
criminal procedure
National level 
diagnostic on the 
provision of 
services to victims 
administered in 16 
Surveys 
(Guatemala) 
and analysis of 
4 selected cases 
(Guatemala, 
Quarterly PAVI 
technical staff
PY1
0%
PY2
30%
PY3
70%
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 12 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
witnessed during criminal proceedings. The use of the Protocol
by the Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes Against Life will help this 
unit improve in-house and external coordination. This indicator 
will be measured based on surveys applied to prosecutors on the 
use of the Protocol by the Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes 
Against Life and information drawn from 4 cases that are using 
the Protocol
departments) 
completed by 
August 2010. 
Mixco and 
Petén).
IMPACT INDICATORS: 
7. Increase in the number of victims who receive free legal 
and other assistance (medical, psychological, etc)(see 
methodology section below for quality measurements of 
victims’ assistance.)
Explanation: Percentage of victims who receive free legal 
counsel and other assistance. This indicator will be measured 
incrementally over the life of the project. 
- Per type of crime
- Gender of victim
- Services offered 
- Per institution 
selected
2008 
Data for number 
of victims that 
receive integral 
assistance services 
from the Office of 
Free Legal 
Assistance of the 
Institute of the 
Public Defender
(IDPP), Office of 
Victim’s 
Assistance of the 
Public Ministry
(OAV), Division 
of Assistance to 
Victims of the 
National Police, 
FundacionSobrevi
vientes.(See 
Annex A)
Counterpart 
institutions: 
DAV-PNC, 
OAV/MP, , 
Sobrevivientes,
Public Defense 
Institute and 
PAVI’s sub￾grants 
recipients
Annual PAVI 
technical staff 
2010 
10%
2011
15%
2012
20%
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 13 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
Sub-IR2: Mobilize Justice Sector and Civil Society to 
Reduce and Prevent Violence (cont.)
Disaggregate Baseline value Data source Timing
(data 
collection 
and 
reporting)
Responsible 
persons
Targets
8. Increase in the number of guilty verdicts for Crimes 
Against Femicides
Explanation: Increase in the number of guilty verdicts for 
Femicides over the life of the project. 
- Per type of crime
- Per target 
jurisdictions
(Departments of 
Guatemala and 
Petén)
Guat.
2008
0
Petén
2008
0
SICOMP Annual PAVI 
technical staff
2010
0%
2011
10%
2012
10%
NARRATIVE EXPLANATION OF METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT INDICATORS FOR SUB-IR2: Mobilize Justice 
Sector and Civil Society to Reduce and Prevent Violence 
1. Increase in the number of victims who receive free legal and other integral assistance. 
The goal of this Sub IR is to improve the attention to victims.The Project technical staff and the M&E staff person will work with the 
various publicinstitutions and CSOs to collect their statistics on the number of victims that receive assistance.This includes the Police 
Victim’s Attention Division, the Office of Victim’s Attention at the PM, the Public Defender’s Office of Free Legal Aid, and Fundacion 
Sobrevivientes. A standard format will be developed by the PAVI staff so these institutions can submit their statistical information. 
These statistics will be gathered every year and captured in a database developed by PAVI for this purpose: 
- number of victims receiving assistance (disaggregated by gender) 
- type of case
- service offered 
- per selected institution 
The Project will provide technical assistance to public institutions and non-government service providers (recipients of the sub-grants 
program) to develop protocols of victim’s assistance.In addition to the overall analysis of this impact indicator, the Final M&E Report 
will evaluate the project by presenting four case studies from the Guatemala Department and Peten that demonstrate the use of the 
protocols as a vehicle to improve the assistance to victims. The case studies will be presented in story form. 
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 14 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
2. Increase in the number of guilty verdicts under the Law Against Femicides 
Because the Law Against Femicides is a new Law, many counterparts are not sure how to determine which crimes fall under it and how 
to report their cases.This indicator will also be used at the end of the Project to look at the official statistics that SICOMP reports on the 
number of criminal convictions under the Law Against Femicides.Baseline information for 2008 (year in which the law was passed) will 
be collected by the PAVI M&E staff from the SICOMPand compared with the official statistics on an annual basis.A comparison 
between the baseline and 2012 data will demonstrate whether the work of the Project has resulted in a higher number of criminal 
convictions. 
On an annual basis, criminal court judges will be interviewed to discuss their perception of the Law and its application, and their 
perception of any impact on an increase in convictions. The Final M&E Report should also include final interviews and document any 
changes in the judges’ perception. 
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 15 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
Sub-IR3: Increased Internal Accountability and Oversight 
within the Justice Sector.
Disaggregate Baseline value Data source Timing
(data 
collection 
and 
reporting)
Responsible 
persons
Targets
This Sub-IR addresses: (i) lack of consolidation of financial management, lack of internal controls, teams that have little managerial capacity/experience; (ii) the inexistence, 
incomplete implementation, or inadequate enforcement of job descriptions, hierarchies, and responsibilities; (iii) the lack of implementation of performance evaluation systems; and 
(iv) inadequate statistical reporting and analysis.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
9. Number of units (judicial, technical, and 
administrative) from the different institutions that are 
currently implementing the Institutional Integrity 
Model (IIM) (F)
Explanation: Justice sector institutions attending trainings on 
institutional strengthening processes to implement the 
Institutional Training Model within their organizations.Targets 
are cumulative starting from Year 1 of the project and include 
the different institutions implementing the IIM.
- N/A 2008
0
Project reports Quarterly PAVI 
technical staff
PY1
3
PY2
10
PY3
10
(a) Number of participants in the trainings and 
workshop
Explanation: Number of Prosecutors, judges, administrative 
personnel of the justice sector institutions that attend PAVI 
training events on the IIM.
- Gender of 
participant
2008
0
Participant 
sign-in sheets
Quarterly PAVI 
technical staff
PY1
80
PY2
100
PY3
100
(b) Level of participant satisfaction in trainings and 
workshops (utility of information and quality of 
presentation)
Explanation: Percentage of people who give a positive feedback 
regarding the quality and implementation of the training event. 
The percentage corresponds to the participants’ evaluation of 
the trainer, the content and length of the workshop, and 
knowledge acquired by the participants. The percentage is an 
average of all the evaluations conducted during the project year
- N/A 2008
0
Post-event 
survey
Quarterly PAVI 
technical staff 
80% satisfaction in 
each project year
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 16 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
IMPACT INDICATORS: 
11. The Institutional Integrity Model has an impact on 
improving internal ethics and management within 
target justice system institutions 
Explanation: The institutional integrity strategy contributes to 
the development of leadership abilities of justice sector 
professionals in their everyday functions and fosters a better 
institutional climate. This indicator measured the impact of the 
IIM as perceived by the justice sector professionals participating 
in the project activities. The percentage corresponds to the 
number of justice sector professionals attending the leadership 
development trainings.
- Per institution
- Per gender
2008
0
-Pre- and post￾perception 
surveys.
-Personal 
interviews with 
project 
participants,
-Focus groups 
interviewing. 
Annual PAVI 
technical staff
2011
70%
2012
80%
NARRATIVE EXPLANATION OF METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT INDICATORS FOR SUB-IR3:Increased Internal 
Accountability and Oversight within the Justice Sector 
1. The Institutional Integrity Model has an impact on improving internal ethics and management within target justice system 
institutions. 
The Institutional Integrity Model (IIM) is a transversal strategy that PAVI is implementing throughout all Sub-IRs of the Project; 
therefore, it is not contemplated that there will be separate Institutional Plans or workshops specifically to implement the IIM. As part of 
this strategy, PAVI is working with the judiciary, the Public Ministry, the Institute of the Public Defenders and the National Civil 
Police’s Office of Victim’s AssistanceTheIIM is at its heart a process that capitalizes on individual leaders working within their 
institutions to effectuate change.This positive approach fosters greater ownership of participants and supports true change agents and 
champions of reform who want to bring more accountability and oversight into the judicial institutions in Guatemala.The impact 
indicator for this Sub-IR, therefore, is more focused on the process and its perceived impact on the individuals participating in the PAVI 
activities. This indicator will be measured through a perception survey (pre and post) and personal interviews during year II and III of 
the Project. The Final M&E Reportwill include focus groups interviews to capture the process and results. As a result, PAVI expects to 
be able to develop two success stories that will tell the story of two participants and their perception on the impact of the IIM activities. 
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 17 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 1: Supporting High Impact Courts Disaggregate Baseline value Data source Timing
(data 
collection 
and 
reporting)
Responsible 
persons
Targets
The goal of these courts is to focus on combating serious crimes such as organized crime, kidnapping, and drug and human trafficking cases, in a secure environment for judges, 
prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses, forensic experts, victims, defendants, evidence, etc.
IMPACT INDICATORS: 
13. Number of High-Impact Courts established
Explanation: Number of High-Impact Courts that are functional 
and operating.
- Guatemala 
department 
2008
0
- Criminal 
Tribunal
ofthe 
Supreme 
Court
Annual PAVI 
technical staff
2010
1
2011
1
2012
1
14. Number of Cases referred to the High Impact Courts
Explanation: Number of cases referred to and processed at the 
High Impact Courts.
- N/A 2008
0
- Administrativ
e Center of 
Criminal 
Courts 
Annual PAVI 
technical staff
2010
5%
2011
7%
2012
10%
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 2: Strengthen Justice Capacity to 
Combat Illegal Activities in Petén *.
Disaggregate Baseline value Data source Timing
(data 
collection 
and 
reporting)
Responsible 
persons
Targets
Petén is one of the main organized crime trafficking routes for drugs, money, arms, and persons. The activities under this special activity are intended to improve the ability of local 
prosecutors and criminal courts to process serious crimesin the region.
IMPACT INDICATORS: 
15. Increase in Serious Crimes brought to trial in Petén (See 
indicators for Sub-IR1and Sub-IR2)
Explanation: Number of serious crimes brought to trial. This 
indicator will be measured incrementally over the project’s life 
- Per crime as 
defined by the 
Project’s target 
laws
CAL
2008
EC
2008
CP
2008
SICOMP Annual PAVI 
technical staff
2010
5%
2011
7%
2012
10%
10 56 25
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 18 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
The indicator for special activity 2 is closely tied with the data that will be reported within Sub-IR1 as Petén will be one of the jurisdictions 
included in the data collection for the increase in criminal prosecutions and sentences of Crimes Against Life and Femicide.To measure the 
additional results under this special activity, the PAVI technical staff and M&E staff person will also work with the SICOMP to attain 
additional information on specific crimes that are more pertinent to the Petén region (e.g., environmental crimes, crimes against cultural 
patrimony).The Project will provide technical assistance for the implementation of SICOMP II in Petén. To measure the results of this 
activity, the external evaluator will conduct interviews with users of the new platform on an annual basis. 
ANNEXES 
A. 2008 Baseline Indicator # 7 
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 20 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
ANNEX A 
2008 Baseline for Indicator # 7 
Institución OAV-Ministerio Público IDPP Fundación 
Sobrevivientes OAV-PNC
Número de 
víctimas que 
reciben 
servicios de 
Asistencia 
Legal 
gratuita y 
otra 
asistencia 
(médica, 
psicológica, 
etc.)
Actividades y tipos de asistencia Asistencia Legal 
Gratuita
Servicios ofrecidos
(Social, Psicológica y 
Legal)
Tipo de delito
(Violencia Sexual e 
Intrafamiliar)
Casos nuevos 12,335
11,422 2,207 7,557
Re-consultas 25,114
Referencias y 
acompañamientos 10,060
Referencias 7,334
Acompañamientos 2,736
Visitas 744
Oficina de Atención a la Víctima, Ministerio Público: 
Actividades y Tipo de Asistencia Total
I. CASOS NUEVOS 12,335
Atención psicológica 10,448
Atención médica 217
Atención social 1,494
Atención jurídica 176
II. ACTIVIDADES DE SEGUIMIENTO Y 
APOYO (RECONSULTAS)
 25,114
Psicológica 20,744
Médica 54
Social 4,199
Jurídica 117
Referencias y acompañamientos 10,060
Referencias 7,334
PNC 231
Juzgados 427
Bufetes 3,169
Red de Derivación 3,507
Acompañamiento 2,726
AOP 582
PNC 26
Juzgados 188
Program Against Violence and Impunity Page 21 
Revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan September 26, 2011 
Bufetes 110
Otros 1,820
Visitas 744
Visitas domiciliares 565
Visitas institucionales 179
Instituto de la Defensa Pública Penal (Asistencia Legal Gratuita): 
Oficina de Atención a la Víctima-Policía Nacional Civil: 
Tipo de asistencia Total: 7,557
Violencia Sexual 74
Violencia Intrafamiliar 7,483
Fundación Sobrevivientes: 
Tipo de asistencia Total: 2,207
Área Social 293
Área Psicológica 1,705
Área Legal 502
Tipo de asistencia Total: 11,422
Asesorías verbales 6,351
Pensión alimenticia 1,350
Medidas de seguridad 1,337
Asesorías documentadas 757
Ejecutivo 380
Ejecutivo en la vía de apremio 135
Modificación de pensión alimenticia 133
Oposición a medidas 99
Casos penales 88
Juicios ordinarios de afiliación de paternidad 79
Otros casos 713
ANNEX D 
2010 M&E ANNUAL REPORT 
(Attached Separately) 
ANNEX E 
2011 M&E ANNUAL REPORT 
(Attached Separately)