CUBA: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF 17 PEACEFUL PROTESTORS

The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Cuba to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 13/2024 concerning Ángel Serrano Hernández, Carlos Paul Michelena Valdés, Denis Ojeda Álvarez, Felipe Almirall, Fredy Beirut Matos, Katia Beirut Rodríguez, Luis Frómeta Compte, Odet Hernández Cruzata, Oscar Luis Ortiz Arrovsmeth, Reynier Reinosa Cabrera, Robert Orlando Cairo Díaz, Roberto Pérez Ortega, Rolando Vázquez Fleita, Walnier Luis Aguilar Rivera, Wilmer Moreno Suárez, Yerandis Rillos Pao, and Yoandry Reinier Sayu Silva, asking the Government of Cuba to immediately and unconditionally release them and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion concerning the 17 detainees (Cuba): Opinion No. 13/2024.

ARREST AND DETENTION OF 17 CUBAN PROTESTERS

The 17 individuals concerned are Cuban nationals of diverse professional backgrounds residing in different provinces of Cuba. They were arrested between 12 and 26 July 2021 in connection with the nationwide demonstrations. Most of them were apprehended without a warrant and were not informed of the reasons for their arrest. Several were taken from their homes or workplaces by uniformed officers without any judicial authorisation. 

They were all tried under fabricated stories and sentenced to 15 to 26 years’ imprisonment. After a year of international pressure and numerous appeals for judicial reviews, the custodial sentences were all reduced between 8 and 18 years. 

The Working Group transmitted the allegations to the Government of Uzbekistan, which chose to respond after the extended deadline and therefore was not considered by the Working Group.

ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT AND DEPRIVED OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

According to the source, most of the 17 individuals were detained without an arrest warrant and were not informed of the reasons for their arrest. Several were taken from their homes or workplaces without judicial authorisation, and none of them were brought promptly before a judge or other authority empowered by law to exercise judicial power. The Government affirmed that records of arrest were issued and signed by the individuals. The Working Group observed there is a difference between detention orders and records of arrest, as the latter did not require judicial approval. Furthermore, none a them was arrested in flagrante delicto. Hence, the Working Group found a violation of their right to know the reason for their arrest on the day of it, protected by article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Furthermore, the source stated that none of the detainees were presented before a judicial authority within 48 hours and that the “investigators” and the prosecutor were in charge of carrying out judicial functions, as they were the ones who extended the custody of the individuals. Therefore, the Working Group found a violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as their detention was not subject to judicial oversight and lacked legal basis.

Lastly, 16 of the individuals, all expected Mr. Almirall, were subjected to pretrial detention. The Working Group recalled its own jurisprudence and the ones of other UN bodies about the exceptional status of pre-trial detention and that it must be based on an individualized determination. The government failed to justify the 16 individuals’ pre-trial detention. As a result, their pre-trial detention lacked an individualized determination in violation of article 9 of the Covenant.

Hence, the Working Group found that the arrests and detentions of the 17 individuals lacked a legal basis, thus, their deprivation of liberty was arbitrary under category I.

DETENTION FOR EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

According to the source, the 17 individuals were detained solely for participating in the peaceful demonstrations of 11 July 2021. They reportedly took part in gatherings that called for democratic reforms, freedom of expression, and improved social and economic conditions. The Government, in its late reply, responded that the demonstrations were violent and that the arrests were justified to maintain public order. The Working Group, however, noted that the Government had not provided evidence to substantiate these allegations. Referring to articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it recalled that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly protect the right to voice political opinions, even when critical of the Government, and that holding a demonstration is not a criminal act by itself. The Working Group concluded that the deprivation of liberty of the 17 individuals was therefore contrary to articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Lastly, lengthy prison sentences can have a chilling effect on the exercise of human rights. The source also argued that all the individuals were charged with sedition, punishable by up to 30 years’ imprisonment. The Working Group considered that the offence of sedition is too subjective and vague.

Hence, their detention resulted from their peaceful exercise of these fundamental rights and was therefore arbitrary under Category II.

INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION AND DENIED FAIR TRIAL GUARANTEES

According to the source, the 17 individuals were held in incommunicado pretrial detention for prolonged periods, during which they were denied access to lawyers and family members. During that time, they were questioned without the presence of their lawyer, and at least two of them were subjected to torture and ill-treatment. At trial, counsel did not have access to the evidence. The Government affirmed that the dates of the arrests of 6 of the 17 cases were wrong and did not provide clear justifications regarding the other allegations. The Working Group first raised some concerns regarding this discrepancy and stated that no matter the dates of arrests, all the individuals, except for Mr. Serrano Hernández, who saw his lawyer on the day of his arrest, according to the Government. were held incommunicado for several days, which resulted in a violation of their right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court, as provided for in articles 8, 9, and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The source added that the court did not respect their rights to be presumed innocent, as they were depicted as criminals during the trial. Moreover, Mr. Serrano Hernández, Mr. Sayu Silva and Mr. Cairo Díaz, were held with inmates serving custodial sentences and Mr. Almirall and Mr. Michelena Valdés were subjected to aggression and violence while in detention. Hence, the Working Group found that all those elements amounted to a violation of the individuals’ right to the presumption of innocence recognized in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Their detention was therefore arbitrary under Category III.

DETENTION ON DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS FOR POLITICAL OPINIONS

According to the source, the 17 individuals were targeted because of their political opinions and their participation in the July 2021 demonstrations. The Government denied any discriminatory motive, asserting that the arrests were based on criminal conduct rather than political activity. The Working Group considered that the context of the arrests and the authorities’ language demonstrated a discriminatory intent against those expressing dissenting political views. It recalled that discrimination based on political opinion is prohibited under articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

The Working Group concluded that the detention of the 17 individuals constituted discrimination based on political opinion and was therefore arbitrary under Category V.

CONCLUSION OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION

In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Ángel Serrano Hernández, Carlos Paul Michelena Valdés, Denis Ojeda Álvarez, Felipe Almirall, Fredy Beirut Matos, Katia Beirut Rodríguez, Luis Frómeta Compte, Odet Hernández Cruzata, Oscar Luis Ortiz Arrovsmeth, Reynier Reinosa Cabrera, Robert Orlando Cairo Díaz, Roberto Pérez Ortega, Rolando Vázquez Fleita, Walnier Luis Aguilar Rivera, Wilmer Moreno Suárez, Yerandis Rillos Pao and Yoandry Reinier Sayu Silva was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III, and V because their deprivation of liberty was in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Working Group recommended that the Government of Cuba take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of the 17 persons without delay and bring it into conformity with relevant international norms, including those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release them immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other forms of reparation, in accordance with international law. 

Furthermore, the Working Group urged the Government to conduct a thorough and independent investigation into the 17 persons’ arbitrary detention and take appropriate measures against those responsible for violating their rights.