Paraguay Recording Laws: All-Party Consent, Penalties & 2026 Updates

Quick Answer: Is Paraguay All-Party Consent?

Paraguay requires the consent of every participant before any private conversation may be recorded. Under Article 144 of the Codigo Penal (Ley 1160/1997, as amended by Ley 3440/2008), recording or listening to a private communication without the knowledge and agreement of all parties is a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison or a fine. Being a participant in the conversation does not exempt you from this requirement. The same consent standard applies to audio calls, in-person conversations, VoIP calls, and instant-messaging voice features. Paraguay's Constitution reinforces this standard through Article 36, which declares all private communications inviolable regardless of the technology used to carry them.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording consent law in the Republic of Paraguay under the Constitucion Nacional (1992), the Codigo Penal (Ley 1160/1997, as amended), the Codigo Procesal Penal (Ley 1286/1998), and Ley 7593/2025 on Personal Data Protection. It does not address the laws of neighboring countries except where cross-border recording scenarios are discussed. For US recording law, see our US recording laws hub.

Constitutional Protections for Privacy and Communications

Paraguay's 1992 Constitution establishes three separate provisions that together form a strong foundation for communications privacy. These articles sit above ordinary legislation and cannot be overridden by lower-ranking laws.

Article 33: The Right to Intimacy

Article 33 declares that personal and family intimacy, as well as respect for private life, are inviolable. It guarantees the right to protection of intimacy, dignity, and the private image of persons.

The article also establishes that personal conduct, so long as it does not affect public order or the rights of third parties, is exempt from public authority. This language sets a constitutional floor: the government cannot intrude on private life absent a clear legal basis.

Article 34: Inviolability of Private Premises

Article 34 provides that all private premises are inviolable. Entry or closure of private premises requires a judicial order issued in accordance with law. The sole exception permits warrantless entry in cases of a crime being committed in the moment, to prevent an imminent crime, or to avoid damage to persons or property.

This provision reinforces the idea that what happens inside private spaces carries the highest level of legal protection. A recording made inside a private home without consent implicates both Article 34 and the Codigo Penal.

Article 36: Inviolability of Communications

Article 36 is the most directly relevant constitutional provision for recording law. It states that the documentary patrimony of individuals is inviolable. Records of any kind, regardless of the technique used to create them, along with printed materials, correspondence, writings, telephone communications, telegraphic communications, and communications of any other type, may not be examined, reproduced, intercepted, or seized except by judicial order for cases specifically provided by law.

The breadth of this article is notable. It covers every communication technology that exists or will exist. The phrase "cualquiera sea su tecnica" (whatever the technique) means that digital messaging, email, voice-over-IP calls, and any future technology fall within the constitutional protection.

Civil Code Personality Rights

Paraguay's Civil Code (Ley 1183/1985) provides supplementary civil-law protections for personal rights. Article 44 establishes that anyone harmed by the improper use of their name has the right to require cessation and to claim indemnification for damages. Paraguayan legal doctrine treats voice, image, and personal communications as attributes of personality with both moral and patrimonial value. This means that an unauthorized recording of someone's voice or image may give rise to a civil damages claim independent of any criminal prosecution under the Codigo Penal.

Codigo Penal Articles 143 to 147: The Privacy-Crime Framework

Paraguay's Codigo Penal (Ley 1160/1997) contains a cluster of privacy offenses in Articles 143 through 147. Together they cover the full range of privacy violations from exposing intimate life, to recording communications, to disclosing professional secrets.

Article 143: Lesion de la Intimidad de la Persona (Injury to Personal Intimacy)

Article 143 punishes whoever exposes another person's intimacy before a crowd or through publication. The statute defines intimacy broadly to encompass the intimate personal sphere of life, especially family life, sexual life, or health status. The current penalty is a fine.

Two statutory exceptions limit the offense. First, when the content does not exceed the limits of rational criticism, no penalty applies. Second, when the statement is an adequate means for pursuing legitimate public or private interests, weighing the interests involved and the author's duty of verification, no penalty applies.

Article 143 is directly relevant to non-consensual intimate image (NCII) distribution and to the exposure of private health or relationship information. Paraguay has no dedicated NCII statute as of May 2026. Victims typically rely on Article 143 (fine) or Article 144 (up to two years) depending on whether the offense involved an image recording or a disclosure of intimate information.

Article 144: Lesion del Derecho a la Comunicacion y a la Imagen (Injury to the Right of Communication and Image)

Article 144 is the primary statute governing unauthorized recording in Paraguay. It is titled "Injury to the right of communication and image" and establishes three distinct prohibited acts, all of which require the absence of consent from the affected person.

Listening through technical instruments. Using any device to eavesdrop on another person's words that were not intended for the listener and were not stated publicly. This covers hidden microphones, listening devices, and remote interception technology.

Recording or technically storing communications. Capturing and saving someone's words through any technical means. This includes phone recording apps, voice recorders, computer software, and any other device capable of storing audio.

Making communications accessible to a third party. Using technical installations to make another person's non-public words immediately available to someone else. This covers real-time transmission to a third party, such as having someone listen in on a phone call through a speaker or forwarding a live audio feed.

A separate subsection addresses image recording. It prohibits producing or transmitting images of another person within their private premises, images of another person's private premises, or images of another person outside their premises that violate their right to respect for the scope of their intimate life.

The article also criminalizes making previously obtained recordings or reproductions available to third parties, even if the original capture was lawful.

The penalty for each of these offenses is imprisonment of up to two years or a fine. Attempted violations are also punishable.

The Public Interest Exception

Article 144, subsection 5 provides that criminal prosecution depends on the initiative of the victim, unless the public interest requires prosecution by the state.

In most cases, only the person whose communications were recorded can file a criminal complaint and trigger prosecution. Police and prosecutors do not act on their own initiative.

The exception is significant. When a recording involves matters of genuine public concern, the state can pursue charges regardless of the victim's wishes. Courts have interpreted this to include recordings that expose corruption, criminal activity affecting the public, or misconduct by government officials.

Judicial Interpretation of Participant Recordings

Paraguayan courts have addressed a critical question: what happens when a participant in a conversation records it without telling the other party?

Paraguayan judges and prosecutors have recognized that when a person is the victim of a crime, they may record their own experience, including their own voice and the voice of the perpetrator, without judicial authorization. That recording can serve as the basis for criminal charges.

This reasoning aligns with Article 20 of the Codigo Penal, which addresses the justification defense known as "estado de necesidad" (state of necessity). When a recording is the only practical way to document criminal conduct, and the harm prevented outweighs the privacy intrusion, the recording may be considered justified.

This is not a blanket exception. It does not mean that any participant may freely record any conversation. The justification applies in specific circumstances, typically involving the documentation of criminal acts, and the burden of establishing justification falls on the person who made the recording.

Article 145: Violacion de la Confidencialidad de la Palabra (Violation of Speech Confidentiality)

Article 145 addresses a scenario distinct from Article 144: it targets whoever, without authorization, records or stores the spoken word of another person who did not intend their words to be recorded, even in circumstances that do not involve the technical interception of a communication channel. The penalty is imprisonment of up to one year or a fine. This article closes the gap between Article 144's focus on technical surveillance and the act of recording face-to-face speech without using an interception device.

Article 146: Violacion del Secreto de la Comunicacion (Violation of Communication Secrecy)

Article 146 punishes whoever, without authorization, opens or inspects another person's correspondence, letters, or packages, or who discloses to others the content of communications that they have lawfully received but that were not intended to be made public. The penalty is imprisonment of up to one year or a fine.

Although Article 146 predates widespread digital messaging, Paraguayan courts and legal commentators have applied its principles to electronic communications. Reading and forwarding someone else's private emails, messages, or letters without their consent can fall within this article's scope.

Article 147: Revelacion de un Secreto de Caracter Privado (Disclosure of a Private Secret)

Article 147 targets a specific professional context. It punishes whoever reveals a secret that they have a professional obligation to keep or to which they are bound by law to maintain silence. The penalty is imprisonment of up to one year or a fine.

This provision applies to lawyers, doctors, accountants, therapists, and other professionals who are required by their professional rules to maintain client or patient confidentiality. Recording a confidential professional communication and disclosing it without authorization could engage both Article 144 and Article 147 simultaneously.

The 2024 Proposed Amendment: Stricter Penalties

In July 2024, four Paraguayan senators, Jose Daniel Oviedo Antunez, Antonio Ruben Velazquez Chamorro, Ever Federico Villalba Benitez, and Oscar Ruben Salomon Fernandez, introduced a bill to substantially modify Articles 143 and 144 of the Codigo Penal. As of May 2026, the bill had not completed the full legislative process.

Key Changes in the Bill

The proposed legislation would replace the current penalty structure for both articles. For Article 143, the current fine-only penalty would be replaced with imprisonment of two to five years. For Article 144, the current maximum of two years or a fine would become mandatory imprisonment of two to five years, eliminating the fine-only option.

The bill explicitly incorporates digital media and social networks into the statutory language. Under the current code, the text refers to "technical installations" without naming specific technologies. The amendment would add references to digital platforms, social media, and the production, transmission, and dissemination of images, videos, audios, or any other content affecting privacy.

Aggravated Penalties for Vulnerable Victims

When the victim is a person under 18 years of age, a person over 65 years of age, or a person with a disability, the penalty under the proposed bill would increase to up to 10 years of imprisonment.

Platform Accountability

The bill also proposes obligations for digital platforms and internet service providers. These entities would be required to act quickly in response to privacy violation complaints and to implement prevention and protection mechanisms. Sanctions would apply to platforms that fail to exercise due diligence after being notified of harmful content.

Readers should monitor bacn.gov.py for updates on the bill's progress.

Recording Phone Calls in Paraguay

Mobile and Landline Calls

Recording a telephone conversation in Paraguay without the consent of all parties to the call violates Article 144. This applies equally to mobile phones, landlines, and internet-based calling services.

The person initiating the recording does not receive an exemption simply because they are a participant in the call. Under the all-party consent framework, being part of the conversation does not, on its own, grant the legal right to record it.

Business Call Recording

Companies that record calls for quality assurance, training, or compliance purposes must obtain consent from all parties before recording begins. The standard approach is to play an automated message at the start of the call informing the other party that the call may be recorded and giving them the option to continue or disconnect.

Consent must be genuine. Businesses should document their notification procedures and maintain records demonstrating that consent was obtained. Under Ley 7593/2025, organizations processing voice recordings as personal data will also need a documented legal basis for that processing when enforcement begins in November 2027.

VoIP and Messaging Apps

Calls made through WhatsApp, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or other digital platforms fall under the same legal framework. The technology used to carry the conversation does not change the consent requirement. International calls that originate from or terminate in Paraguay bring the Paraguayan recording rules into play for the portion of the call within Paraguay's jurisdiction.

In-Person Recording

Private Conversations

Recording a face-to-face conversation in a private setting without the knowledge and consent of the other participants is prohibited under Article 144. This includes conversations in homes, offices, hotel rooms, private vehicles, and any other non-public space.

The prohibition covers both audio and video recording. Placing a hidden camera or voice recorder in a private setting to capture a conversation you are part of still requires the consent of the other parties under the strict reading of the statute.

The Justification Defense

As noted above, Paraguayan courts have carved out a narrow path for participant recordings made to document criminal conduct. A person who records their own conversation with someone who is threatening, extorting, or otherwise victimizing them may be able to invoke the justification defense under Article 20 of the Codigo Penal. This is a case-by-case determination, not a broad exception.

Recording in Public Spaces

Paraguay does not have a general prohibition on recording in public spaces where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Streets, parks, plazas, and other open areas are generally understood to be spaces where people may be filmed or recorded.

Article 144 specifically targets words "not publicly stated" and images taken in contexts that violate the "right to respect for the scope of intimate life." Statements made in a genuinely public setting, where anyone present could hear them, are not protected by the statute.

That said, even in public spaces, targeted recording of a specific individual's private conversation (for example, using a directional microphone to capture a quiet exchange between two people on a park bench) could still violate Article 144 if the words were not intended to be public.

Government Buildings and Courts

Recording inside government buildings, courthouses, and similar facilities may be subject to internal rules and regulations separate from the criminal code. Security cameras operated by the government are governed by their own legal framework, including Ley 6757, which requires body cameras for state officials conducting official procedures such as inspections, raids, and detentions.

Recording Police and Public Officials

Citizens in Paraguay have no explicit statutory prohibition on recording police officers or other public officials while they are performing their public duties in publicly accessible spaces. The constitutional protection in Article 36 and the criminal prohibition in Article 144 both target private communications. A police officer conducting a traffic stop, making an arrest, or carrying out a public inspection is not engaging in a private communication that Article 144 protects.

The practical framework draws from three sources. First, Article 36 of the Constitution protects communications of individuals, not the official conduct of government agents acting in their public capacity. Second, Article 144 requires the targeted words to be "not publicly stated," a standard that official commands and statements made in the course of public enforcement actions do not meet. Third, Ley 6757 itself mandates that state officials use body cameras during procedures, signaling a legislative acceptance of recording official conduct as a transparency tool rather than a privacy violation.

The practical limit is interference. Recording police is broadly understood to be permitted so long as the recording does not obstruct or interfere with the police procedure itself. Blocking an arrest, approaching within a restricted perimeter, or physically impeding an officer while filming would go beyond mere recording and could constitute obstruction under separate provisions of the Codigo Penal.

Ley 7280/2024 (Reform and Modernization of the National Police) establishes an internal affairs system and disciplinary framework for the police but does not contain specific provisions addressing the right of citizens to record police or the use of body cameras by officers. Ley 6757 remains the governing instrument for government-operated recording during official procedures.

Watch out: Recording inside a courtroom during a hearing is subject to specific judicial discretion. Paraguayan courts may restrict recording inside courtrooms. Contact the relevant court's administration before recording any judicial proceeding.

Workplace Recording

Employee Monitoring

Paraguay does not have a standalone workplace surveillance statute. Employer monitoring is governed by the interplay of constitutional privacy rights, the Codigo Penal, labor law principles, and the incoming data protection framework.

Employers may install security cameras in common work areas for security and safety purposes, subject to several conditions drawn from constitutional privacy protections and practical guidance published by Paraguayan security and legal professionals:

• Employees must be informed that video monitoring is in place. Visible signage is the standard method.
• Cameras may not be placed in bathrooms, changing rooms, or other spaces where employees have a heightened expectation of privacy.
• Camera systems designed for private property should not capture public spaces beyond what is strictly necessary (such as a building entrance).
• Recorded footage should be stored for a limited period, generally no more than 30 days.

Audio recording in the workplace carries greater legal risk than video monitoring. Installing hidden microphones to capture employee conversations would likely violate Article 144, particularly if the employer is not a participant in the conversations being recorded.

Remote Work

Paraguay's telework regulations recognize the employee's right to privacy in their home environment. Employers monitoring remote workers must limit surveillance to work-related activities and must respect the employee's right to digital disconnection, which includes a minimum of 12 continuous hours per work day during which the employee is not obligated to respond to work communications.

Ley 7593/2025 Workplace Implications

When Ley 7593/2025 takes full effect in November 2027, systematic employee monitoring will qualify as high-risk processing requiring a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Organizations that use video analytics, keystroke logging, GPS tracking of remote workers, or continuous audio monitoring must conduct a DPIA before deploying those systems. Processing records must be maintained, and employees must be informed of the processing purposes and legal bases.

Law Enforcement Interception

Codigo Procesal Penal Articles 198-200

The interception of communications by law enforcement is governed by the Codigo Procesal Penal (Law 1286/1998), not by the Codigo Penal's Article 144. The procedural code treats interception as an exceptional investigative tool.

Article 200 provides that a judge may order, by reasoned resolution and under penalty of nullity, the interception of the communications of an accused person, regardless of the technical means used. The key requirements are:

• A judge with jurisdiction must issue a written, reasoned order.
• The interception must target a specific accused individual.
• The authorization must be justified by the needs of the criminal investigation.
• Any interception conducted without judicial authorization is null and cannot be used as evidence.

The constitutional standard in Article 36 reinforces this framework. Communications may only be intercepted by judicial order for cases specifically provided by law.

National Intelligence System: Law 5241/2014

Ley 5241/2014 governs intelligence-agency interception of communications for national security purposes. The law permits interception only when open-source intelligence has been exhausted, the information is strictly necessary for national security or terrorism prevention, a judicial authorization has been obtained, the authorization targets specific individuals, and the authorization period does not exceed 90 days (renewable). Mass interception is prohibited.

Metadata and the Supreme Court

Paraguay's Supreme Court of Justice, in Ruling 674/2010 (Cecilia Cubas case), drew a distinction between the content of communications (protected by Article 36 of the Constitution and requiring judicial authorization to access) and metadata such as call logs, timing, and frequency. The Court permitted access to metadata without a judicial order under Articles 228 and 316 of the Codigo Procesal Penal. Digital rights organizations, including TEDIC, have noted that this position conflicts with international human rights standards on communications privacy, which do not treat metadata as categorically less sensitive than content.

Penalties Summary

Violation	Legal Basis	Current Penalty
Exposing another person's intimacy (intimate life, health, sexuality)	Codigo Penal Art. 143	Fine
Recording private communications without consent	Codigo Penal Art. 144, subsection 1	Up to 2 years prison or fine
Recording images in private settings without consent	Codigo Penal Art. 144, subsection 2	Up to 2 years prison or fine
Sharing a recording with third parties without consent	Codigo Penal Art. 144, subsection 3	Up to 2 years prison or fine
Attempted recording offense	Codigo Penal Art. 144, subsection 4	Punishable (reduced sentence)
Violation of speech confidentiality (recording spoken word without authorization)	Codigo Penal Art. 145	Up to 1 year prison or fine
Violation of communication secrecy (opening or disclosing correspondence)	Codigo Penal Art. 146	Up to 1 year prison or fine
Disclosure of a professional secret	Codigo Penal Art. 147	Up to 1 year prison or fine
Law enforcement interception without judicial order	Codigo Procesal Penal Art. 200	Evidence nullity; potential criminal liability
Proposed penalty if 2024 bill passes (Arts. 143 and 144)	Pending amendment	2 to 5 years prison; up to 10 years for vulnerable victims

Non-Consensual Intimate Images and Voyeurism

Paraguay does not have a dedicated statute addressing non-consensual intimate images (NCII), revenge pornography, or voyeurism as a distinct criminal category as of May 2026.

Victims who have had intimate images recorded without consent or distributed without consent must rely on the general privacy offense framework. Article 143 (intimacy injury) covers the disclosure of sexual life information and carries a fine as its penalty. Article 144 covers the act of recording or transmitting images taken in private settings without consent and carries up to two years in prison.

Research by TEDIC, Paraguay's leading digital rights organization, identified significant gaps in the current framework as of 2021. Key problems include: victims must initiate private prosecution because the state does not act automatically; civil and criminal processes are slow and costly; and victims must expose the intimate content itself to judicial review in order to advance a case. Victims seeking interim protection have used Law 5777/2016 (domestic and family violence protection) to seek court orders requiring platforms to remove content, though this route is limited to situations involving an intimate-partner relationship.

The 2024 Senate bill (Arts. 143 and 144 amendment), if enacted, would introduce imprisonment of two to five years for intimacy-exposure and image-recording offenses, substantially increasing deterrence. If passed, the aggravated-penalty clause (up to 10 years) would apply when the victim is a minor, elderly, or a person with a disability.

Deepfakes and AI-Generated Content

On March 12, 2026, Senator Lizarella Valiente introduced a bill in the Paraguayan Senate titled "Regimen de Proteccion de la Imagen, Voz y Cuerpo Frente a Imitaciones Digitales Generadas por Inteligencia Artificial" (Protection Regime for Image, Voice, and Body Against Digital Imitations Generated by Artificial Intelligence). As of May 2026, the bill had not completed the legislative process.

The proposed law contains 13 articles. It targets digital recreations of a person's voice, image, and physical characteristics created through artificial intelligence without their consent. The bill recognizes voice, image, and body as attributes of personality with both moral and patrimonial value.

Key provisions of the proposed bill:

Platform obligations. Social media networks and digital platforms would be required to establish reporting and removal protocols for deepfake content. Platforms that fail to exercise due diligence after receiving a complaint would face sanctions.

Exceptions. The bill carves out exceptions for caricature, parody, satire, educational or scientific use, and legitimate journalism that meets truthfulness standards.

Enforcement. The National Personal Data Protection Agency, created by Ley 7593/2025 and housed within MITIC, would serve as the primary enforcement body.

Penalties. The bill applies the sanctions already established in Paraguay's Penal Code and Civil Code, rather than creating a new standalone penalty structure.

Education. The Ministry of Education would be required to develop school programs addressing rights to image and voice and the dangers of creating and spreading deepfake content.

Until this bill or another deepfake-specific statute passes, AI-generated deepfakes that violate a person's image or voice rights must be addressed through the existing framework. Article 144 covers unauthorized reproduction of images in private settings. Article 143 covers exposure of intimate life. Civil Code personality rights provide a civil-damages route. Ley 7593/2025, once in force, will also require a legal basis for any processing of biometric data, which the law expressly classifies as sensitive data.

Cross-Border Recording: Paraguay and Neighboring Countries

The Conflict-of-Laws Problem

When a recording involves parties in different countries, the laws of each jurisdiction may apply simultaneously. Paraguay's all-party consent requirement does not disappear simply because the other party to the call is in a one-party consent country.

Paraguay and Brazil

Brazil generally permits one-party consent recording under its constitutional framework. Paraguay requires all-party consent under Article 144. For a call between a person in Paraguay and a person in Brazil:

• The person in Paraguay who records without notifying the Brazilian party may violate Paraguayan law, regardless of whether the recording would be lawful in Brazil.
• The Brazilian party who records without notifying the Paraguayan party may not violate Brazilian law but may violate Paraguayan law if the call is found to have sufficient connection to Paraguay.
• The safest practice for any party is to apply the stricter jurisdiction's rule, which in this pairing is Paraguay's all-party consent standard.

Paraguay and Argentina

Argentina's recording-consent framework is closer to Paraguay's approach than Brazil's. Argentina's Codigo Penal also restricts unauthorized interception and recording of private communications. Parties to cross-border calls between Paraguay and Argentina should obtain consent from all participants.

Ley 7593/2025 and Extraterritorial Scope

Ley 7593/2025 applies not only to entities established in Paraguay but also to foreign entities that offer goods or services to Paraguayan residents or that monitor the behavior of Paraguayan residents. This extraterritorial scope means that multinational companies processing voice recordings of Paraguayan customers must comply with the law's consent and legal-basis requirements when enforcement begins in November 2027.

International Journalists

Foreign journalists operating in Paraguay are subject to Paraguayan law during their time in the country. Recording sources in Paraguay without their consent risks criminal liability under Article 144. The existing public interest exception (Art. 144, subsection 5) may apply to journalism investigating matters of genuine public concern, but this determination is made by a Paraguayan court, not the journalist. RSF (Reporters Without Borders) reported in 2025 that four investigative journalists were attacked in Paraguay in a three-month period, reflecting a difficult operating environment for press freedom, separate from the recording-consent rules.

Paraguay's Data Protection Framework

Ley 1682/2001: First-Generation Data Law

Paraguay's first general data protection statute, Ley 1682/2001 (amended by Ley 1969/2002), established foundational protections for personal information. Article 4 prohibits the publicity or dissemination of sensitive data of explicitly identified individuals, including health status, racial or ethnic belonging, political preferences, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual intimacy, and data that could promote discrimination or affect dignity or private image. This law remains in force but is substantially superseded in scope by Ley 7593/2025.

Ley 6534/2020: Credit Data Protection

Ley 6534/2020 focused narrowly on credit data. It established basic principles for the collection, storage, and processing of personal information in credit-related contexts, supervised by the Central Bank of Paraguay and the consumer protection agency SEDECO. This remains in force for credit-sector entities.

Ley 7593/2025: Comprehensive Personal Data Protection

On November 27, 2025, Paraguay's executive branch promulgated Ley 7593/2025, the country's first comprehensive personal data protection law. This legislation represents a major shift from the narrow credit-data approach to a broad framework covering all types of personal data.

Scope. The law applies to all personal data processing, automated or manual, by controllers or processors established in Paraguay, and extraterritorially to non-established entities offering goods or services to Paraguayan residents or monitoring their behavior.

Voice recordings as personal data. Under the law's broad definition, voice recordings that identify or could identify an individual qualify as personal data. Biometric data and health data are classified as sensitive data subject to enhanced protections.

Legal basis required. Processing personal data requires one of seven lawful bases: consent, legal obligation, public function performance, contract execution, judicial or administrative rights exercise, legitimate interests (balanced against individual rights), or vital interests. Companies cannot record calls or capture voice data without a documented legal basis.

Videovigilance. Article 22 of the law specifically addresses video surveillance. Public-space recordings are permitted only to the extent strictly necessary for legitimate security purposes. Recordings that may constitute evidence of crimes must be provided to authorities within 72 hours of the relevant event.

Data subject rights. Individuals have the right to access, rectify, oppose, delete, and port their personal data, with a 30-day response requirement. A person whose voice was recorded may exercise these rights against the entity holding the recording.

Penalties. Mild infractions carry fines of 20 to 2,500 minimum wages. Serious infractions carry fines of up to 2,500 minimum wages and processing suspension. Infractions involving children's sensitive data carry fines of up to 10,000 minimum wages.

National Data Protection Agency. The law creates an autonomous agency within MITIC, with exclusive authority for regulation, supervision, sanctioning, and enforcement.

Implementation timeline. Full enforcement begins in November 2027 (24 months after promulgation). The agency is not included in Paraguay's 2026 national budget, confirming that 2026 is a preparation period. Regulations must be issued by November 2027.

Business Compliance Checklist

Organizations operating in Paraguay that record any form of communication should implement the following measures.

Obtain consent before recording. Paraguay requires all-party consent. For phone calls, play an automated notification and obtain affirmative consent before the recording begins. For in-person meetings, inform all participants and obtain their agreement.

Document consent procedures. Maintain written records of how consent is obtained, including the text of automated messages, the timing of notifications, and logs showing that consent was given.

Post visible signage for video monitoring. If your workplace uses security cameras, place clearly visible signs informing employees and visitors that video recording is in place. Use conspicuous colors and legible text.

Restrict camera placement. Never install cameras in bathrooms, changing rooms, or other private spaces. Limit exterior cameras to capture only what is necessary, minimizing recording of public areas.

Limit audio recording. Avoid installing hidden audio recording equipment in the workplace. If audio monitoring is necessary for a specific, documented purpose, obtain consent from all persons whose conversations may be captured.

Prepare for Ley 7593/2025. The law takes full effect in November 2027 but compliance preparation should begin now. Steps to take during the 2026 preparation period include: mapping all voice and video data your organization collects; identifying the legal basis for each recording or monitoring activity; drafting or updating privacy notices; establishing 72-hour breach notification procedures; and assessing whether a Data Protection Impact Assessment is required for high-risk monitoring activities.

Conduct DPIAs for high-risk monitoring. Systematic employee monitoring, biometric surveillance, and continuous audio recording are high-risk processing activities under Ley 7593/2025. A DPIA must be completed before deploying these systems.

Retain recordings for limited periods. Follow the general guidance of retaining recorded footage for no more than 30 days unless a specific legal requirement dictates otherwise.

Train personnel. Staff who handle recordings must understand the consent requirements, storage limitations, and restrictions on sharing recorded material.

Designate a Data Protection Officer where required. Ley 7593/2025 requires a DPO for certain categories of processing. Determine whether your organization meets the threshold and designate accordingly before the November 2027 enforcement date.

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording consent law in the Republic of Paraguay as of May 2026. It is not legal advice. The law described here is based on the Constitucion Nacional (1992), the Codigo Penal (Ley 1160/1997, as amended by Ley 3440/2008), the Codigo Procesal Penal (Ley 1286/1998), Ley 7593/2025, and related legislation. Laws change. The pending legislation described in this article has not been enacted as of the date of publication. Readers should consult a lawyer licensed in Paraguay for advice on their specific situation. Nothing in this article creates an attorney-client relationship.

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER: Author name, credentials, jurisdiction, and bio pending. Information last verified May 2026.]