Skip to content
OpenCells

SV · Quoted clause attached

El Salvador

Yes — Ley especial contra actos de terrorismo art. 8 public apología of terrorism, or inciting another to commit an offence under that Law.

Back to atlas

Civic layer on Watch

    Independent-praise crime?
    Yes — Ley especial contra actos de terrorismo art. 8 public apología of terrorism, or inciting another to commit an offence under that Law.
    Live statuteSupportedSVListed-speech offence

    art. 8

    Ley Especial contra Actos de Terrorismo, Decreto Legislativo n° 108 of 21 September 2006, as substituted

    Target
    Public apología of terrorism, or inciting another to commit an offence under that Law
    Test
    Public. Two charged forms in one article: apología of terrorism, and incitement to an offence under the Law. The 25 August 2015 inconstitutionality judgment struck the original penalty as disproportionate; Decreto 200 substituted 4 to 8 years. The charged forms did not change.
    Max
    Prison of 4 to 8 years (as substituted)
    El que públicamente hiciere apología del terrorismo o incitare a otro u otros a cometer cualquiera de los delitos previstos en la presente Ley, será sancionado con prisión de cuatro a ocho años.

    Official Spanish, Ley Especial contra Actos de Terrorismo art. 8 as substituted (D.L. 200, after Corte Suprema de Justicia, inconstitucionalidad 22-2007 and joined files, 25 August 2015). Original D.L. 108 published Diario Oficial n° 193, Tomo 373, 17 October 2006. Working English: whoever publicly makes the apology of terrorism or incites another to commit any of the offences provided in this Law — 4 to 8 years.

    Cite · Ley Especial contra Actos de Terrorismo, art. 8 (D.L. 108/2006, as substituted) · as of 2026-09-05

    • Do not cite the pre-substitution penalty as live. Do not treat the incitement limb as the whole of art. 8.
    • Apología del terrorismo is independent praise on the face of the statute. Incitement is a distinct charged form in the same sentence. Do not collapse those two limbs.
    • The 2015 judgment went to the original penalty, not to the existence of the offence.
    Primary source