What is the purpose of the State when organized crime takes over the justice system?

By: Fernando Untoja - 05/10/2026

Guest columnist.
Share:     

The Mariaca case and the challenge of rebuilding state authority in Bolivia.

The most serious problem with drug trafficking is not limited to the production and distribution of drugs. Its true threat emerges when criminal organizations manage to infiltrate the institutions tasked with combating them. If those who should be investigating and prosecuting crime end up protecting criminal interests, society faces a crisis that goes beyond individual corruption: the effective capacity of the State to enforce the law is called into question.

The arrest of Attorney General Roger Mariaca and other officials, on charges of alleged ties to a network supporting drug trafficker Sebastián Marset, has placed this issue at the center of national debate. The accusations must be investigated and proven; pretrial detention is not equivalent to a conviction. However, the institutional gravity of the case compels us to ask: what happens when the very body responsible for prosecuting crime is suspected of having served to protect it?

The problem isn't just who is responsible, but how that structure was able to operate. If the existence of a protection network within the Public Prosecutor's Office is confirmed, it will be necessary to understand its mechanisms, its beneficiaries, and the period during which it operated. Replacing officials or arresting a few people won't be enough if the relationships that enabled this institutional infiltration remain intact.

It is also necessary to examine the actions of Rodrigo Paz's government. For months, the public wondered why more profound changes were not being made to the justice system. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the government waited to gather sufficient information before acting, thus avoiding alerting those potentially involved. However, this explanation still needs to be proven. To evaluate it, it is essential to know what information the Executive Branch possessed, how long it had it, and what circumstances triggered the operation.

Other explanations should not be ruled out: institutional weakness, lack of sufficient evidence, political obstacles, or delays in the investigation. The difference between a strategic decision and a belated reaction cannot be established through conjecture, but rather through verifiable facts.

The case also raises a fundamental question about the Bolivian state. A state can retain its laws, authorities, and buildings, but lose its effective capacity to enforce the law when its institutions are used by networks of special or criminal interests. This does not mean that the entire state has been captured; it means that it is necessary to investigate the extent of this infiltration and what mechanisms enabled its operation.

The response, therefore, cannot be reduced to a police operation. It requires investigating the entire networks, protecting evidence, guaranteeing the independence of prosecutors and judges, and establishing controls to prevent the recurrence of these practices. International cooperation can contribute, but the reconstruction of state authority must be based on Bolivian institutions capable of acting autonomously and responsibly.

The true test of Rodrigo Paz's government will not be merely the arrest of high-ranking officials. It will be demonstrating that the investigation reaches all those responsible, without exception or political persecution, and that institutions can be reformed in a lasting way.

The initial question thus takes on its full meaning: what value does the State have if those who are supposed to guarantee justice can become instruments of organized crime? Restoring state authority means re-establishing a fundamental principle of the Republic: that no one is above the law and that no one is condemned without evidence or due process.

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».