Paraguay Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Overview of Paraguay's Recording Consent Standard

Paraguay operates under an all-party consent standard for audio recording. Under the country's criminal code, capturing someone's private words through any technical device without that person's consent is a punishable offense. The same rule applies to recording images of a person in private settings.

The law does not draw a sharp line between phone calls and face-to-face conversations. Whether you are recording a mobile call, a landline conversation, or a discussion across the table at a restaurant, the legal framework is the same: everyone involved must agree to the recording, or the person doing the recording faces criminal liability.

This standard places Paraguay among the stricter countries in Latin America on recording consent. Neighboring Brazil, by contrast, allows one-party consent. Argentina's framework is closer to Paraguay's approach. Understanding where Paraguay stands matters for anyone doing business in the country, reporting from its territory, or communicating across its borders.

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 matters for recording because it reinforces the idea that what happens inside private spaces carries the highest level of legal protection.

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.

Codigo Penal Article 144: The Core Criminal Prohibition

Article 144 of Paraguay's Criminal Code (Ley 1160/1997) is titled "Lesion del derecho a la comunicacion y a la imagen" (Injury to the right of communication and image). It is the primary statute governing unauthorized recording in Paraguay.

What Article 144 Prohibits

The article 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.

Current Penalties

Under the existing text of Article 144, 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 contains a provision that shapes how the law works in practice. It states that criminal prosecution of offenses under this article depends on the initiative of the victim, unless the public interest requires prosecution by the state.

In most cases, this means that 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?

The legal analysis here is more nuanced than the statutory text might suggest. 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.

However, 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.

The 2024 Proposed Amendment: Stricter Penalties

In July 2024, four Paraguayan senators introduced a bill to substantially modify Articles 143 and 144 of the Codigo Penal. The proposal, if enacted, would transform the penalty structure for privacy and recording offenses.

Key Changes in the Bill

The proposed legislation would replace the current penalty of up to two years in prison or a fine with imprisonment of two to five years for violations of communication and image rights. The fine-only option would be eliminated.

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

The most striking aspect of the proposal is the enhanced penalty for offenses committed against vulnerable populations. 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 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.

Legislative Status

As of early 2026, this bill has been presented to the Senate but has not completed the full legislative process. Readers should monitor bacn.gov.py for updates on its progress. If enacted, the penalties discussed in this article would change substantially.

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. Simply proceeding with a call after hearing a notification may or may not constitute valid consent depending on the circumstances. Businesses should document their notification procedures and maintain records demonstrating that consent was obtained.

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. 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.

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.

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. Prosecutors who access communication data without a judicial order may violate this constitutional protection, a concern raised by Paraguayan digital rights organizations.

Penalties Summary

Violation	Legal Basis	Current Penalty
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)
Law enforcement interception without judicial order	Codigo Procesal Penal Art. 200	Evidence nullity; potential criminal liability
Proposed penalty if 2024 bill passes	Pending amendment	2 to 5 years prison; up to 10 years for vulnerable victims

Paraguay's Data Protection Framework

Ley 6534/2020: Credit Data Protection

Paraguay's first data protection law, 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.

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.

Key provisions relevant to recording:

Scope. The law applies to all personal data of natural persons, whether processed manually or through automated means, in public or private records.

Voice recordings as personal data. Under the law's broad definition, voice recordings that identify or could identify an individual qualify as personal data. Organizations that collect, store, or process such recordings must comply with the law's requirements.

Legal basis required. Processing personal data requires a valid legal basis. Companies cannot record calls or capture voice data without one.

Reinforced protection for vulnerable groups. Children, adolescents, and young people receive enhanced protections.

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

National Data Protection Agency. The law creates an autonomous agency to supervise compliance, handle complaints, and issue regulatory guidelines.

Implementation timeline. The law takes full effect in November 2027, giving organizations a two-year adjustment period.

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. Although the comprehensive data protection law does not take full effect until November 2027, the adjustment period is the time to design internal policies. Map what voice and video data your organization collects, establish retention periods, define legal bases for processing, and prepare procedures for responding to data subject rights requests.

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.