Country Reports on Human Rights practices, 2004
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

Cuba (part 2 of 3)

1. Respect for Human Rights: Freedom from —

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no reports of the arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life committed by the Government or its agents. Unlike in 2003, there were no reports during the year of the Government summarily executing its citizens.

b. Disappearance
There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.

c. Torture, Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The Constitution prohibits abusive treatment of detainees and prisoners; however, members of the security forces sometimes beat and otherwise abused human rights advocates, detainees, and prisoners. The Government took no steps to curb these abuses. There continued to be numerous reports of disproportionate police harassment of black youths.

On August 2, Nivaldo Diaz Castello, a Varela Project leader, was detained by State Security agents, threatened, and stripped of all his belongings before being released.

The Government continued to subject persons who disagreed with it to what it called acts of repudiation. At government instigation, members of state controlled mass organizations, fellow workers, or neighbors of intended victims were obliged to stage public protests against those who dissented from the Government's policies, shouting obscenities and often causing damage to the homes and property of those targeted; physical attacks on the victims sometimes occurred. Police and State Security agents often were present but took no action to prevent or end the attacks. Those who refused to participate in these actions faced disciplinary action, including loss of employment.

On March 5 and March 17, an unknown group stoned the house of activists Tomás González-Coya Rodríguez and Beatriz Pacheco Núñez, of Santa Clara , breaking down the front door. The stones were wrapped in paper on which obscenities were written. The family also received anonymous death threats via phone.

On April 19, assailants pelted the Havana home of Henry Samuel, President of the Republican Alternative Movement, with jars of human excrement. Samuel reported the incident to the National Revolutionary Police (PNR), which took no action.

On September 8, Elsa Morejón reported that on several occasions during the year, large groups of people had gathered around her home to yell profanities and insult her husband, human rights activist Dr. Oscar Elías Biscet, who was arrested in 2002 for "acts against the independence or the territorial integrity of the State."

Prison conditions continued to be harsh and life threatening, and conditions in detention facilities also were harsh. The Government claimed that prisoners enjoyed rights such as family visitation, adequate nutrition, pay for work, the right to request parole, and the right to petition the prison director. Police and prison officials, however, often denied these rights in practice, and beat, neglected, isolated, and denied medical treatment to detainees and prisoners, including those convicted of political crimes or those who persisted in expressing their views. Political prisoners in particular often were held at facilities hundreds of miles from their families, placing an undue hardship on many families' time and financial resources.

The Penal Code prohibits the use of corporal punishment on prisoners and the use of any means to humiliate prisoners or to lessen their dignity; however, the Code fails to establish penalties for committing such acts, and they continued to occur in practice. Detainees and prisoners, both common and political, often were subjected to repeated, vigorous interrogations designed to coerce them into signing incriminating statements, to force collaboration with authorities, or to intimidate victims. Some endured physical and sexual abuse, typically by other inmates with the acquiescence of guards, or long periods in punitive isolation cells. Pretrial detainees were generally held separately from convicted prisoners, although some long term detainees, including political detainees, were held with convicted prisoners. In Havana , there were two detention centers; once sentenced, persons were transferred to a prison.

Fabio Prieto Llorente, one of the 75 activists arrested in March 2003, reported he was held in a small cell with leaky walls and a cement slab for a bed. The cell was infested with rats, frogs, and insects. Prieto was serving a 20 year sentence for "acts against the independence or the territorial integrity of the State."

Prisoners sometimes were held in "punishment cells," which usually were located in the basement of a prison, with continuous semi dark conditions, no available water, and a hole for a toilet. Reading materials, including Bibles, were not allowed, and unlike in previous years, authorities denied visits to families of political prisoners while they were held in these cells. Prisoners in punishment cells had no access to lawyers.

On January 1, José Daniel Ferrer García, a Varela Project leader and one of the 75 activists arrested in March 2003, reported serving 45 days in a punishment cell for protesting the suspension of correspondence and the delivery of food and medical supplies from his family. He did not receive food or water during the first 3 days of his confinement and slept on a cement floor. Authorities confiscated his Bible and prohibited any contact with other prisoners. Ferrer was serving a 25 year sentence for "acts against the independence or the territorial integrity of the State."

On July 5, Elsa Morejón reported that her husband, Dr. Biscet, was sent to a punishment cell for refusing to eat in the prison cafeteria, wear the uniform of common prisoners, and stand at attention when guards entered his cell. He was not permitted to read, write, or leave his cell to get exercise. In addition, prison authorities refused to accept food and medical supplies brought by Morejón or permit anyone to bring him food. As a result, Biscet found himself on a virtual hunger strike.

Prison guards and State Security officials subjected human rights and pro democracy activists to threats of physical violence, to systematic psychological intimidation, and to detention or imprisonment in cells with common and violent criminals, sexually aggressive inmates, or State Security agents posing as prisoners.

On January 21, Yeni Veloz Oquendo, wife of common prisoner Estany Rodríguez Preval, reported that jailers at Valle Grande prison had sexually abused her husband.

On June 17, Ana Aguililla, wife of political prisoner Francisco Chaviano, arrested in May 1994 for "revealing state security secrets," reported that prison authorities forced Chaviano from his cell, stripped him, and publicly beat him.

On July 6, family members of political prisoner Jorge Luis García Pérez, arrested in 1990 for articulating "enemy propaganda," reported being beaten along with García during a prison visit. Authorities handcuffed and beat García and later punched his sister and kicked his girlfriend's 9 year old son after the visitors protested the harsh treatment.

On August 3, Yarai Reyes, wife of Normando Hernández González, 1 of the 75 political prisoners arrested in March 2003, reported that prison authorities incited common prisoners to beat her husband. Hernández was serving a 25 year sentence for "acts against the independence or the territorial integrity of the State."

The Government regularly failed to provide adequate nutrition and medical attention, and approximately 10 to 20 prisoners reportedly died due to lack of medical attention. Both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Representative for Cuba of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as other human rights monitoring organizations, have reported the widespread incidence in prisons of tuberculosis, scabies, hepatitis, parasitic infections, and malnutrition. In April, Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued reports expressing concern regarding the poor health of numerous political prisoners, the limitations on family visits for some political prisoners, and the incarceration of many political prisoners far from their home provinces. The Government did not respond to AI or HRW.

Oscar Espinosa Chepe, a political prisoner released during the year, reported that prison officials regularly denied him adequate medical treatment during his 20-month incarceration.

On April 13, Jorge Luis García Pérez reported the deaths of three common prisoners, Vidal Caerencio de la Hoz Ávila , Félix Hernández Soa, and Didier Marrero Pereira, because they had not received emergency medical attention.

On June 14, Masiel Gutiérrez, wife of Rolando Jiménez Posada, a human rights activist arrested in April 2003 without any formal charges, reported that her husband had been beaten and placed in a punishment cell for demanding his asthma medication.

On August 29, Barbara Rojo Arias, wife of Omar Ruiz Hernández, an independent journalist and 1 of the 75 human rights activists arrested in March 2003, reported that her husband was denied access to required medications for his heart condition and stomach problems. Ruiz was serving an 18 year sentence for "acts against the independence or the territorial integrity of the State."

During the year, the Government released 18 political prisoners, reportedly for medical reasons.

Prison officials regularly denied prisoners other rights, such as the right to correspondence, and continued to confiscate medications and food brought by family members for political prisoners. Some prison directors routinely denied religious workers access to detainees and prisoners.

On March 11, in a letter to his wife Gisela Sánchez Verdecia, Antonio Díaz Sánchez complained that prison authorities confiscated and censored his correspondence.

Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, a political prisoner released during the year, reported that prison authorities denied her access to religious workers during her entire 16 month incarceration. She also stated that prison authorities offered religious services to common prisoners but threatened prisoners who exercised this right with denial of privileges, such as visits and correspondence.

There were separate prison facilities for women and for minors. Human rights activists believed that conditions in these facilities were poor. The law provides that pretrial detainees are held separately from convicted prisoners; however, the law was seldom enforced in practice, often because of a lack of facilities.

The Government did not permit independent monitoring of prison conditions by international or national human rights monitoring groups. The Government has refused to allow prison visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since 1989. In April, for the first time in 15 years, the Government invited a group of international journalists to visit two selected prison hospital wards. Many participants dismissed the visits as staged propaganda.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
Arbitrary arrest and detention continued to be problems, and they remained the Government's most effective and commonly used tactics for harassing opponents. The Law of Penal Procedures requires police to file formal charges and either release a detainee or bring the case before a prosecutor within 96 hours of arrest. It also requires the authorities to provide suspects with access to a lawyer within 7 days of arrest. However, the Constitution states that all legally recognized civil liberties can be denied to anyone who actively opposes the decision of the people to build socialism. The authorities routinely invoked this sweeping authority to deny due process to those detained on purported state security grounds.

The Ministry of the Interior exercises control over police and internal security forces. The PNR is the primary law enforcement organization and generally was effective in investigating common crimes. Specialized units of the Ministry of the Interior are responsible for monitoring, infiltrating, and suppressing opposition political groups. The PNR plays a supporting role by carrying out house searches and providing interrogation facilities for State Security agents. There were some reports in both the independent and official press of bribery and corruption within the security forces.

The authorities routinely engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights advocates, subjecting them to interrogations, threats, degrading treatment, and unsanitary conditions for hours or days at a time. Police frequently lacked warrants when carrying out arrests or issued warrants themselves at the time of arrest. Authorities sometimes employed false charges of common crimes to arrest political opponents. Detainees often were not informed of the charges against them. The authorities continued to detain human rights activists and independent journalists for short periods, including house arrest, often to prevent them from attending or participating in events related to human rights issues (see Sections 2.a. and 2.b.).

Time in detention before trial counted toward time served if convicted. Bail was available and usually was low and more equivalent to a fine.

During the year, authorities arrested 22 human rights activists, including 3 Varela Project organizers and an independent librarian. By year's end, 13 of the 22 had been tried and sentenced.

On February 4, authorities arrested independent librarian Jose Agramonte Leiva for contempt for authority, specifically for having yelled, "Down with Fidel!" At year's end, he remained incarcerated awaiting trial (see Section 2.a.).

On April 19, authorities arrested Alexis García Pena and Walter López González of the Christian Liberation Movement for their activities in promotion of the Varela Project.

In March 2003, authorities arrested 75 human rights activists, journalists, and opposition political figures, charging them with violating national security and aiding a foreign power, among other crimes. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern regarding the arrests and summary trials, as did many governments, international organizations, and public figures. During the year, the Government released 14 of the 75 activists, including Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello of the Assembly to Promote Civil Society, independent journalist Raul Rivero, independent journalist and economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe, and independent journalist and poet Manuel Vasquez Portal. At year's end, the other 61 activists remained in prison.

During the year, the 15 remaining persons arrested near the Mexican Embassy in 2002 remained in prison awaiting trial, which was scheduled for January 2005.

At year's end, at least 13 political detainees were awaiting trial, many of whom had been held for more than 1 year.

The Government often held persons without charges for months. On April 27, after more than 25 months in prison, authorities sentenced 10 human rights activists and independent journalists arrested in 2002, including blind human rights activist Juan Carlos González Leyva (see Section 1.e). González Levya subsequently was released conditionally and told he could not leave his home province of Ciego de Avila without express government permission.

The Government also often released activists after months of detention without charges.

On June 8, authorities released Leonardo Bruzón Ávila, Carlos Alberto Domínguez, Emilio Leyva Pérez, and Lázaro Rodríguez Capote after 28 months of imprisonment without trial.

The authorities sometimes detained independent journalists to question them about contacts with foreigners or to prevent them from covering sensitive issues or criticizing the Government (see Section 2.a.).

The Penal Code includes the concept of "dangerousness," defined as the "special proclivity of a person to commit crimes, demonstrated by his conduct in manifest contradiction of socialist norms." If the police decide that a person exhibits signs of dangerousness, they may bring the offender before a court or subject him to therapy or political reeducation. Government authorities regularly threatened prosecution under this provision. Both the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) and the IACHR criticized this tactic for its arbitrariness, the summary nature of the judicial proceedings employed, the lack of legal safeguards, and the political considerations behind its application. According to the IACHR, the so called special inclination to commit crimes referred to in the Penal Code amounted to a subjective criterion used by the Government to justify violations of individual freedoms and due process for persons whose sole crime was to hold a view different from the official view.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The Constitution provides for independent courts; however, it explicitly subordinates the courts to the ANPP and the Council of State. The ANPP and its lower level counterparts choose all judges. The subordination of the courts to the CP, which the Constitution designates as the superior directive force of society and the State, further compromises the judiciary's independence. The courts undermined the right to a fair trial by restricting the right to a defense and often failed to observe the few due process rights available to defendants.

Civilian courts existed at the municipal, provincial, and supreme court levels. Panels composed of a mix of professionally certified and lay judges presided over them. There was a right to appeal, access to counsel, and charges were generally known to the defendant, although many political detainees subjected to summary trials in April 2003 were unaware of the charges against them until moments before trial. The law presumes the innocence of the accused, but the authorities often ignored this right in practice.

The law and trial practices did not meet international standards for fair public trials. Almost all cases were tried in less than 1 day; there were no jury trials. While most trials were public, trials were closed when there were alleged violations of state security. Prosecutors may introduce testimony from a CDR member about the revolutionary background of a defendant, which may contribute to either a longer or shorter sentence. The law recognizes the right of appeal in municipal courts but limits it in provincial courts to cases such as those involving maximum prison terms or the death penalty. Appeals in capital cases are automatic. The Council of State ultimately must affirm capital punishment.

Criteria for presenting evidence, especially in cases involving human rights advocates, were arbitrary and discriminatory. Often the sole evidence provided, particularly in political cases, was the defendant's confession, usually obtained under duress and without the legal advice or knowledge of a defense lawyer (see Section 1.c.). The authorities regularly denied defendants access to their lawyers until the day of the trial. Several dissidents who served prison terms reported that they were tried and sentenced without counsel and were not allowed to speak on their own behalf.

On April 27, after 25 months in prison, the Government tried Juan Carlos González Leyva, of the Cuban Foundation of Human Rights, and sentenced him to 4 years in prison. He was released conditionally with credit for time served, but told he could not leave the province of Ciego de Avila without government permission. González was arrested in 2002 after an "illegal gathering" in support of an independent journalist who had been beaten by State Security agents.

On April 27, the Government tried Antonio and Enrique García Morejón of the Christian Liberation Movement and sentenced them to 3 1/2 years' imprisonment each for attending the same gathering as González Leyva.

On May 18, after 18 months in prison, the Government sentenced Raúl Arencibia Fajardo, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, and Virgilio Marantes Güelmes to 3 years' imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for authority, and resistance. The three were members of different organizations, but were arrested together in 2002.

In April 2003, the Government arrested, summarily tried, convicted, and sentenced 75 political activists within a period of 20 days. Authorities did not reveal the charges against them and denied access to counsel until the day of the trial. Much of the evidence against the defendants consisted of unsubstantiated or unspecified allegations of activities against the Government on behalf of a foreign power and vague accusations of "counterrevolutionary" behavior. AI determined that all 75 jailed activists were "prisoners of conscience."

The law provides the accused with the right to an attorney, but the control that the Government exerted over the livelihood of members of the state controlled lawyers' collectives compromised their ability to represent clients, especially those accused of state security crimes. Attorneys reported reluctance to defend those charged in political cases due to fear of jeopardizing their own careers.

Military tribunals assumed jurisdiction for certain counterrevolutionary cases and were governed by a special law. The military tribunals processed civilians if a member of the military was involved with civilians in a crime. There was a right to appeal, access to counsel, and the charges were known to the defendant.

Human rights monitoring groups inside the country estimated the number of political prisoners at approximately 300. The authorities imprisoned persons on charges such as disseminating enemy propaganda, illicit association, contempt for the authorities (usually for criticizing President Castro), clandestine printing, or the broad charge of rebellion, which often was brought against advocates of peaceful democratic change. The Government continued to deny human rights organizations and the ICRC access to political prisoners.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The Constitution provides for the inviolability of a citizen's home and correspondence; however, official surveillance of private and family affairs by government controlled mass organizations, such as the CDRs, remained one of the most pervasive and repressive features of daily life. The Government employed physical and electronic surveillance against nonviolent political opponents. The State assumed the right to interfere in the lives of citizens, even those who did not oppose the Government and its practices actively. The authorities utilized a wide range of social controls. The mass organizations' ostensible purpose was to improve the citizenry, but their real goal was to discover and discourage nonconformity. Although official statistics indicated that CDRs have grown over the past decade and included 93.5 percent of the population over the age of 14, in reality, citizen participation in these mass organizations declined. Economic constraints both reduced the government's ability to provide material incentives for their participation and forced many persons to engage in black market activities, which the mass organizations were supposed to report to the authorities.

The Ministry of Interior employed an intricate system of informants and block committees (the CDRs) to monitor and control public opinion. While less capable than in the past, CDRs continued to report on suspicious activity, including: Conspicuous consumption; unauthorized meetings, including those with foreigners; and defiant attitudes toward the Government and the revolution.

The Government controlled all access to the Internet, and censored all electronic mail messages. Dial up Internet service was prohibitively expensive for most citizens. State Security often read international correspondence and monitored overseas telephone calls and conversations with foreigners. The Government also monitored domestic phone calls and correspondence, and sometimes denied telephone service to dissidents. Cell phones generally were not available to average citizens.

On January 14, Bárbara Lorenzo, who had attempted to emigrate illegally, reported that police and other State Security agents threatened to imprison her and take away her 3 year old daughter if she attempted to leave the country again.

On October 18, Varela Project volunteer Ricardo Montes Purón reported that State Security agents threatened to take away his granddaughter, whom he had custody of and legally was trying to adopt, if he did not leave the organization.

There were numerous credible reports of forced evictions of squatters and residents who lacked official permission to reside in Havana .

On March 19, State Security agents forced independent journalist Carlos Garcell Pérez to abandon his father in law's house, where he had been living because Garcell did not have government permission to live in the house. Agents threatened the father in law and informed him that his granddaughter would lose her job if he continued to allow Garcell to live in the house.

The Government sometimes punished family members for the activities of their relatives. On July 15, Dayli Tejeda Herrera, a third year chemistry student, was expelled from the Central University of Las Villas for "being the daughter of a counterrevolutionary." Her father, Miguel Tejeda Tenorio, was the secretary general of the illegal Christian Workers Union of Las Villas.

Go to Part 3, Respect for Human Rights