Cubalex, 5 September 2024 — In this analysis, we examine the sedition sentences handed down in Cuba following the protests of 11 July 11, 2021. Our findings reveal a worrying racial bias that results in harsher sentences for people of African descent. This trend suggests the existence of systematic discrimination within the judicial system, disproportionately affecting one of the most vulnerable groups in Cuban society, who already face multiple forms of exclusion and inequality. Below, we present a detailed examination of these discriminatory patterns and their implications in the human rights context.
Below we present the key findings of this analysis.
Key Findings:
1. Duration of sanctions for “unfavourable conduct”:
People of African descent who are classified by the State as having “unfavourable conduct” receive sanctions with an average duration of 13.02 years, while non-Afro-descendants, under the same classification, receive sanctions with an average duration of 12.0 years.
Unfavourable conduct appears to have a greater impact on the length of sanctions for people of African descent, who receive longer sentences compared to non-African descendants who exhibit similar conduct. This finding suggests that the combination of being of African descent and having unfavourable conduct may exacerbate the negative impact on sentence length, which may indicate a racial bias in the legal treatment of people of African descent.
The analysis was carried out exclusively on the basis of photographs, which allowed us to include both black and other racialised people. This method was necessary due to the lack of official data disaggregated by race in Cuba, forcing us to use visual indicators to identify Afro-descendants and racialised people. While this approach has limitations, it is crucial to highlight racial disparities in a context where access to information is restricted and where the administration of justice is not transparent. This methodology highlights the need for broader access to official data to allow for a more comprehensive analysis of inequalities in Cuba.
2. General duration of sanctions:
According to the analysis of the first instance sentences to which Cubalex had access, Afro-descendants receive sentences with an average duration of 13.63 years, while non-Afro-descendants receive sentences with an average duration of 12.61 years.
These figures indicate that, regardless of conduct, people of African descent are subject to longer sentences compared to people of African descent. This suggests that the judicial system may be affected by racial biases that influence the severity of sentences.
People of African descent receive, on average, longer sentences than people of non-African descent. This difference could indicate a possible racial bias in sentencing, where race appears to influence the severity of sentences. This finding is significant and suggests the need for further analysis to understand the underlying causes of this discrepancy.
3. Impact of education on sanctions:
The duration of sanctions varies significantly according to the level of education among people of African descent:
– University: 11.0 years (1 person)
– Secondary: 13.05 years (59 persons)
-Primary school: 14.86 years (7 persons)
-Pre-university: 15.24 years (17 people)
-Skilled worker: 17.67 years (3 persons)
-Medium Technician: 22.5 years (2 persons)
This analysis suggests that people of African descent with lower levels of education tend to receive harsher penalties. This is not only evidence of the role of education in determining sentencing, but also of how socio-economic factors, combined with racial origin, can result in harsher treatment within the justice system.
The data show a consistent pattern of racial disparities in the length of judicial sanctions in Cuba. In particular, people of African descent, especially those categorised as having “unfavourable conduct” or lower levels of education, face longer sanctions than people of non-African descent. This racial bias in the administration of justice is a form of discrimination that perpetuates inequalities and social exclusion in Cuba.
4. What does the State mean by “unfavourable conduct”?
In order to understand the criteria that the state might consider as “unfavourable conduct”, an analysis can be made based on the available information on documented conduct and sanctions imposed. From the above analysis, some patterns can be identified that could be interpreted as indicators of what the state perceives as unfavourable conduct:
– Non-participation in community and political activities:
Pattern identified: Descriptions repeatedly mention the lack of participation in activities organised by social, political and mass organisations.
The state appears to value active participation in community and political activities as an indicator of conformity with social expectations. Lack of participation may be seen as a sign of lack of interest in or disagreement with the regime, which could be seen as unfavourable.
Disinclination to work
Pattern identified: It is observed that people who are unemployed or who are not studying, despite being physically and mentally able to do so, are perceived negatively
Having a job or being in the education system can be seen as a sign of social responsibility and usefulness. Disengagement from employment or education could be interpreted as unfavourable behaviour, as it suggests a lack of integration into the country’s productive system.
– Limited social relations:
Identified pattern: Some records highlight that defendants have few social relationships or regular interaction with their neighbours.
Maintaining good interpersonal relationships within the community seems to be a positive social value. Lack of close social relationships may be interpreted as isolation or detachment, which could be perceived as unfavourable behaviour.
– Lingering in crime-prone neighbourhoods:
Identified pattern: Mention is made of the tendency of some individuals to wander at night or in places considered dangerous.
Such behaviour can be seen as suspicious or crime-prone, which is clearly unfavourable from a social control and public safety perspective.
– Criminal record:
Identified pattern: The existence of a criminal record is mentioned as a relevant factor in the assessment of behaviour.
Having a criminal record appears to be one of the most significant indicators of unfavourable behaviour, as it reinforces the perception of recidivism or social danger.
– Lack of interest in political and social participation:
Pattern identified: Apathy or lack of interest in joining political and mass organisations is negatively documented.
Lack of active participation in the political and social life of the country can be perceived as a lack of commitment to the ideals of the state, which is interpreted as unfavourable behaviour.
The state appears to view unfavourably any behaviour that deviates from expectations of active participation in the social, political and productive life of the country. Behaviours that suggest isolation, disengagement, disinterest or behaviours that are associated with the potential for criminality are perceived negatively and may influence the severity of sanctions imposed. This approach reflects an attempt to control and shape citizen behaviour to align it with the values and expectations of the state.
The criteria that the state appears to use to determine what is considered “unfavourable conduct” can be deeply problematic and discriminatory, especially when analysed from a critical human rights and social justice perspective.
Some of these criteria are discussed below:
– Disinclination to work or study
Problem: The State considers it unfavourable not to work or not to study, if the person is physically and mentally able to do so.
Criticism: This criterion is discriminatory in contexts where the state cannot guarantee full employment or equal access to education. Penalising people on the basis of their employment status is unfair when the economy and state policies fail to provide adequate employment opportunities for all. Moreover, this approach ignores the multiple structural factors, such as discrimination, poverty and social exclusion, which can limit people’s access to decent jobs and education.
-Obligation to participate in political and community activities:
Problem: Lack of participation in political and social activities organised by the state is considered unfavourable.
Criticism: Forcing people to participate in political and community activities is a direct violation of the right to freedom of association. This internationally recognised right includes the freedom not to associate or participate in organisations with which one disagrees. Criminalising non-participation is a form of coercion that undermines personal autonomy and the right to dissent.
-Social relations and social behaviour:
Problem: Having few social relationships or being perceived as an introverted individual is considered unfavourable behaviour.
Criticism: This criterion is arbitrary and discriminates against people who, for reasons of personality, preference or even mental health, choose a more reserved life or have fewer social interactions. Introversion or lack of close social relationships are not indicators of danger or criminality. Judging people by their social habits or level of community involvement is a form of discrimination that has no basis in the protection of public safety or public order.
Night-time activity and wandering around:
Problem: The State perceives the tendency to wander at night or in areas considered dangerous as unfavourable.
Criticism: This criterion reinforces unfair stereotypes about people who, because of their lifestyle or for work reasons, are more active at night. Moreover, criminalisation of mere presence in certain places or at certain times of the day is not only unfair, but may also be based on racial, economic or social prejudices. This kind of surveillance and control over individual behaviour infringes the rights to freedom of movement and respect for privacy.
-Criminal records as a determinant of conduct:
Problem: Criminal records are used as a central criterion for assessing unfavourable conduct.
Critique: The use of a criminal record to justify harsher sanctions perpetuates a cycle of criminalisation and exclusion, especially for people already facing social vulnerabilities. This approach fails to recognise the potential for rehabilitation and the circumstances that may have led to the commission of an offence. Moreover, it can exacerbate inequalities by punishing people for a past from which, in many cases, they cannot escape due to a lack of opportunities and support for social reintegration.
The criteria used by the state to define what constitutes “unfavourable conduct” are, for the most part, arbitrary, discriminatory and in contradiction with fundamental human rights. These criteria not only reinforce existing inequalities, but also limit personal autonomy and undermine the rights to freedom of association, freedom of movement, and equality before the law. It is critical to rethink these practices and policies to ensure that they do not perpetuate injustice and discrimination, and that they align with principles of human dignity and universal rights.
Analysis of the impact of the “unfavourable conduct” criterion on people of African descent compared to those who are not of African descent reveals worrying patterns indicating racial profiling in sentencing.
-Tougher sanctions for people of African descent:
Data observed: The previous analysis showed that Afro-descendants with behaviors considered unfavorable receive, on average, more severe sanctions (13.02 years) compared to those who are not Afro-descendants and present similar behaviors (12.0 years).
This disparity suggests that the standard for unfavorable conduct may be applied more strictly or punitively toward people of African descent. This reinforces the idea that there is a racial bias in the judicial system, where the same conduct is interpreted differently depending on the race of the individual. This bias may result in harsher treatment for people of African descent, perpetuating systemic inequality.
-Impact of non-conforming behavior:
Data observed: Afro-descendants with behaviors considered non-conformist (for example, not participating in political or community activities, job disengagement, limited social relationships) are punished more severely.
Using criteria such as political participation or employment as indicators of “good conduct” ignores the socioeconomic and cultural realities that disproportionately affect Afro-descendants. In many cases, these groups face significant barriers to accessing employment opportunities or may be wary of political activity due to a history of discrimination and exclusion. Criminalizing these behaviors without considering this context reinforces the cycle of exclusion and marginalization.
-Racial profiling and perception of dangerousness:
Data observed: The analysis showed that people of African descent are more frequently described in terms of their social behavior, their employment relationship, and their presence in the community, aspects that can be used to justify a perception of dangerousness.
Racial profiling occurs when a person’s racial or ethnic characteristics, combined with behaviors that are perceived as non-conforming or suspicious, are used to justify harsher treatment. In this context, race becomes a factor that exacerbates the negative interpretation of certain behaviors, leading to harsher sanctions. This racial profiling is not only discriminatory, but also undermines the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
-Criminalization of poverty and social exclusion:
Data observed: Behaviors related to job disengagement, lack of community participation and limited social relationships are frequently penalized, especially among Afro-descendants.
These behaviours may be symptoms of structural poverty and social exclusion, problems that disproportionately affect people of African descent. By using these factors as criteria for imposing harsher sanctions, the State effectively criminalises poverty and perpetuates social exclusion. This is not only unfair, but also reflects a punitive policy that punishes people for circumstances that are often beyond their control.
-Psychological and social effects of racial profiling:
Data observed: The more severe application of sanctions to people of African descent based on conduct considered unfavorable has profound implications.
Racial profiling and criminalization of certain behaviors can lead to mistrust in the justice system, social alienation, and perpetuate negative stereotypes about people of African descent. This can have long-term effects on social cohesion, increasing the marginalization of these groups and perpetuating a cycle of poverty, criminalization, and exclusion.
Conclusion:
The “unfavorable conduct” criterion, as applied in the context of judicial sentencing, appears to be deeply biased and discriminatory when it comes to people of African descent. The observed patterns suggest that there is racial profiling in the interpretation of conduct and the imposition of sanctions, resulting in harsher and more unequal treatment for this group. This profiling reinforces structural inequalities and perpetuates racial discrimination within the justice system. To move towards a more just and equitable system, it is essential to challenge and reform these criteria, ensuring that they are not used in ways that perpetuate racial oppression and discrimination.
Recommendations:
To address these worrying disparities, it is crucial to conduct a more thorough analysis of the factors that contribute to these inequalities. Judicial reforms and public policies that not only promote equity but also eliminate racial bias at all levels of the justice system are necessary. This includes ongoing training for judges and prosecutors in human rights and anti-racism, as well as the creation of independent oversight mechanisms to ensure that judicial decisions are impartial and fair.
At Cubalex, we will continue to monitor these situations and advocate before the international community to demand justice and equity in Cuba. It is essential that all people, regardless of their racial origin, receive fair and equal treatment before the law.
If you have additional information about these discriminatory practices or have been affected by them, we invite you to contact Cubalex to receive free and confidential legal advice. Your voice is essential in the fight for a more just and equitable judicial system.
Translated by GH
