Repression, Besieged Activists and Threats: These Were the Elections in Cuba / Cubalex

Source (El Toque)

Cubalex, 30 November 2022 — On 27 November 2022, municipal elections were held in Cuba, to choose constituency delegates. Cubalex monitored the human rights situation on election day, which was principally notable for violation of the right to political participation.

The data gathered by our organization demonstrates that the Cuban authorities continue to employ criminal investigation procedures, as set out in the law, as an instrument of repression. Our team recorded 26 incidents of repression in seven of the fifteen provinces of the country, including the special Isla de la Juventud Council. The most cases were reported in Havana (12) and Matanzas (7).

Of the 13 incidents of hostage-taking identified by Cubalex, with 34 victims (20 women and 14 men), obstruction of political participation, arbitrary detention, surveillance operations and selective cutoffs of internet connection were noted. continue reading

In at least two events related to exercise of political rights it was not possible to register the victims. The first also related to selective internet cuts on pro-democracy activists trying to carry out electoral observations, and the second involved control and threats to health professionals that they had to declare when they went to vote, by way of private messages.

The repression was focussed on prevention of electoral observation, in spite of the fact that there is no legal prohibition on that. At least 13 people were harassed by way of surveillance and home confinement; among them Marthadela Tamayo, Osvaldo Navarro  and Juan Antonio Madrazo Luna.

Cuban Siblings Frank Artola Plasencia and Hillary Gutierrez Plasencia Remain in Prison / Cubalex

Repression during the protest in Vedado RAMÓN ESPINOSA AP
Along with hundreds of innocent people incarcerated for exercising their right to peaceful protest: they all should be released immediately and the Cuban government should halt this repressive practice.

Cubalex, 10 December 2022 — Cuban siblings Frank Artola Plasencia (18 years) and Hillary Gutiérrez Plasencia (26) were beaten and arrested in the early hours of October 2nd, 2022, by Cuban paramilitary forces during protests at Línea and F streets in the Vedado area of Havana. Since then, they remain unjustly incarcerated by the island’s government.

On the night of October 1st the young people met at a peaceful protest to demand freedoms and reestablishment of electrical service at the intersection of Línea avenue and F street, in El Vedado, a neighborhood in the municipality of Plaza de la Revolución, Havana. Hours later, in that same location, they were surrounded by security forces with uniformed police and paramilitaries in civilian clothing, according to the description provided by local witnesses.

Once the protest dissolved, the government forces began the violent arrests. In the days that followed, photographs taken by Associated Press (AP) correspondents were published, showing the violence exercised during these arrests, where Frank Artola Plasencia appears severely beaten; he required medical attention at the Calixto García hospital.

Artola Plasencia was beaten to unconsciousness and bloodied by five individuals. He suffered multiple injuries in his abdomen, legs and face, including a broken nose and lips.

Later, the siblings were transferred to the police unit on Zapata and C in Havana, where they remained under arrest without being able to see their parents until October 7th when they were allowed to see their parents separately during a visit of a mere ten minutes. It is important to highlight that during the month when both were under arrest in the same police station, they were not allowed to see each other.

During his parents’ first visit, what was most notable was Frank Artola Plasencia’s deplorable physical condition. He still had visible signs of the beating; his face still bruised and swollen, lacerations in his abdomen and multiple friction burns on his legs. He told his mother he had trouble sleeping due to the pain.

The authorities informed their parents that Frank and Hillary are accused, supposedly, of the crimes of contempt and resistance. To date, the Prosecutor has denied various requests for a change in status for them to await the trial at home. Havana’s Provincial Tribunal also denied the Habeas Corpus request which denounced the arbitrary and illegal nature of the arrest.

On November 7th, more than a month after their arrests, the siblings were transferred to Cuban penitentiary system facilities. Hillary Gutiérrez was transferred to the Mujeres de Occidente prison, commonly known as El Guatao or Manto Negro; and Frank Artola Plasencia to a prison for minors known as Jóvenes de Occidente.

As of this writing, we are unaware of any open criminal investigation against the perpetrators who were denounced in statements presented to the prosecutor and the tribunal. If those who abused their power and continue reading

exercised state-sponsored violence are not investigated, tried and sanctioned, the Cuban government will continue to be responsible for torture and mistreatment for not complying with its international obligations such as ensuring that these acts are not repeated.

Their parents are demanding the immediate release of the siblings.

Cubalex calls on the government to immediately release all peaceful protesters from July 11, 2021 (11J) and later protests and for the citizenry to continue denouncing the repressors to fight against the impunity.


Eighteen-year-old student, Frank Artola Plasencia, and his sister, 26-year-old self-employed single mother Hillary Gutiérrez Plasencia, were beaten and detained on October 2nd, 2022 by Cuban paramilitary forces and since then remain unjustly incarcerated by the Cuban government.

On Saturday, October 1st, at approximately 9:00 pm, local time in Cuba, a group composed mostly of area residents met to peacefully protest at the intersection of Línea Avenue and Calle F, in El Vedado, in the Plaza de Revolución municipality of Havana. At that time, some members of the accredited foreign press in Cuba were present to cover the events.

The protest, according to local witnesses and the foreign press, developed peacefully. Mostly through chants and banging on pots, the demands of the protesters were centered on demands for freedom and the reestablishment of electrical service, which had been frequently interrupted for months. At one point, around a dozen government functionaries, among them the Secretary of Cuba’s Communist Party (PCC) of the municipality, Plaza de la Revolución, Leira Sánchez Valdivia, and officials of the People’s Assembly appeared on the scene to meet with the protesters and engage in a heated but peaceful discussion. The images show the place surrounded by uniformed police forces and, what local witnesses describe as paramilitary forces dressed in civilian clothing.

During the discussion with protesters, the government officials reiterated the right to peacefully protest, according to local witnesses and the CNN correspondent in Havana, Patrick Oppmann. While the protests developed at the intersection of Línea Avenue and F Street, two blocks away, in the nearby intersection of Calzada and F and the Hotel Presidente, paramilitary forces dressed as civilians and transported to the area in government military trucks, began to assemble. Once the protests dissolved, the government forces began the arrests. In the days that followed, photographs taken by Associated Press (AP) correspondents, showed the violence exercised during the arrests.

As the protests ended, the police and paramilitaries forced the protesters to retreat toward Calle F where there are few street lights, in the direction of a group of paramilitaries who were waiting to attack them. In a series of photographs published by AP, Hillary Gutiérrez can be seen being violently arrested by a member of the paramilitary forces who was also photographed beating an elderly woman, Esmeralda Cárdenas Hidalgo.

Frank Artola Plasencia was beaten unconscious and bloodied by five individuals and had to be transferred to a nearby hospital to receive medical attention for multiple injuries he suffered to the abdomen, legs and face, including a broken nose and lips. In the General Calixto García Hospital, at 2:20 am on October 2nd, Dr. Sanjay Ramanrine of the hospital’s General Surgery Department, issued a medical report which understated the severity of the injuries inflicted upon Frank. The report was filed at the hospital by Mr. Gerardo Limea under order number 05128. The cases of Frank Artola Plasencia and his friend, 38-year-old José Adalberto Fernández Cañizares were especially significant for their cruelty and the severity of their injuries.

They were all held at nearby school facilities occupied by paramilitary forces, State Security agents, National Police and representatives of the Communist Party (PCC). Later, they were transferred in vehicles of the Police Special Forces (known as Black Berets or Special Brigades) to be incarcerated, along with other protesters, at the police station located on Zapata Avenue and C Street, in El Vedado.

The siblings’ father, Frank Artola, arrived at the police station at approximately 12:30 am on October 2nd. The police officers at the station confirmed the arrest of several protesters, his children among them, and said that they would be investigated for the scandalous accusation of possible connections with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States of America. Artola vehemently denied these accusations. The police agents refused him the right to see his children and he was told that he would be notified as to when a visit would be possible.

Other protesters who were detained and released the next day communicated to the family that immediately after his arrest and despite his injuries, Frank Artola Plasencia was being interrogated by police.

On Sunday, October 2nd, around 2:00 pm, Artola (father) was contacted by telephone by First Lieutenant Luis Alberto Montes Navarro of the Police Investigations Headquarters located on 100 Street and Aldabó. The official requested that he go to the station as soon as possible to receive information related to his son’s and daughter’s arrests and they requested that he bring hygiene products for their personal use.

Once at the station, Artola was informed that Hillary and Frank were under investigation for the crimes of contempt and resistance. The officials at the center took the hygiene products, but once again, denied him the possibility of seeing his son and daughter. Mr. Artola firmly believes that this denial was due to the severity of his son’s injuries, a suspicion which was later confirmed. At the end of the meeting, the agents communicated to Artola that they had scheduled a visit for him and another family member to see his son and daughter on the following Friday, October 7th at 2:00 pm, six days after the arrest.

For the case to be opened, a complaint must be filed with the police by a citizen:

— Abel Pers Infante, who is employed at the Municipal Directorate of the PCC in Plaza de la Revolución. This individual was identified as one of the leaders of the paramilitary groups that conducted the cruel beatings an the violent arrests of the protesters.

On Monday, October 3rd, Artola (father) visited the Public Defenders’ Office (National Organization of Collective Law Firms), the only organization, controlled by the state, authorize to provide legal representation to the accused. Two contracts dated October 3rd, 2022, were signed by Artola and attorney Carlos Manuel Pérez Ricardo. Since then Mr. Pérez Ricardo has been Hillary Gutiérrez’s and Frank Artola Plasencia’s legal representative.

On Friday, October 7th, Artola (father) and Ibis Plasencia Torres (mother) went to the Police Investigations Headquarters on 100 and Aldabó for the scheduled visits. Frank and Hillary were taken, separately, to see their parents for a period no longer than 10 minutes. This pattern was repeated during the five visits they were permitted, always on Fridays at 2:00 pm.

The first thing his parents noticed was Frank Artola Plasencia’s deplorable physical condition. Signs of the cruel punishment to which he had been subjected were still visible; his face still bruised and swollen, lacerations in his abdomen and multiple abrasions on his legs. He told his mother he still was having trouble sleeping due to the pain. The agents present declared that he was receiving medical attention.

Hillary appeared in the visiting room and immediately began crying, wanted to know about her brother’s condition, as they had not allowed her to see him since the arrests, despite being held in the same center. Her mother assured Hillary that her brother was better. Hillary asked about her six-year-old daughter and her family tried to comfort her and provide security in that sense as well.

At the end of the visit, the parents had a brief exchange with the police authorities in charge of the case. The parents expressed their indignation at the abuses to which their children had been subjected. The police officers recognized that some of the behavior during the arrest were inappropriate but dismissed their petition to conduct an investigation. The police declared that the accused had both signed a written confession and voluntarily agreed to film an apology for their actions, a common practice of the Cuban government for propaganda purposes.

During the weeks that followed the same pattern of separate visits was repeated for each of the siblings. During each visit, the parents reiterated, in vain, their calls for authorities to investigate the abuses committed against Hillary and Frank.

The parents were allowed to visit them at this center on five occasions: October 7th, October 14th, October 21st, October 28th, and November 4th.

During these visits the police agents provided various warnings to Hillary and Frank, as well as their parents. They were all warned not to discuss the case or the visits could be terminated; they warned Hillary not to cry in front of her parents. At no point did they allow the whole family to be together. All visits occurred with one or more police agents nearby. Each individual visit was no longer than ten minutes.

The following is a list of some of the public officials implicated in this case:

Officials in charge of the case pertaining to the unit called the Special Crimes Section (Crimes Against State Security): Lieutenant Colonel Jorge Luis Díaz Jacinto, who is  supposedly in charge of this unit. First Lieutenant Yaremis Peña Real, Investigator. Captain Armando Cases Díaz, Investigator. First Lieutenant Luis Alberto Montes Navarro. Captain Michel Carrión.

Prosecutors assigned to the case, members of the Provincial Prosecutor of Havana: Prosecutor Yoandris López Parra, Lead Prosecutor. Prosecutor Yamileidy Rivero García.

On October 19th, the Prosecutor on the case, Yoandris López Parra, in response to a request made by the attorney for the accused, Carlos Manuel Pérez Ricardo, issued a notification denying the request to release the accused to await trial at home. The request was made, taking into consideration, among other circumstances, the young age of the accused, their lack of prior criminal records and the fact that they did not pose a danger to the community.

According to the current law in Cuba, decisions about the length of prison sentences are not made by judges, but by the Prosecutor. The appeal of an unfavorable decision in this sense is also made before the Prosecutor. This appeal was submitted. Later, a resolution was issued confirming they’d be held in jail.

On October 26th, Artola (father) submitted a formal complaint to the Prosecutor, challenging the manner and legality of the arrest. To this day he has not received a response.

On October 31st, a written resolution was issued, signed by Prosecutor Lediher Armas Sánchez of Havana’s Provincial Prosecutor, confirming the incarceration for both of the accused. That same day, Artola (father) presented a writ of Habeas Corpus before the Criminal Court of the Provincial Tribunal in Havana. In this document, he challenges the violent manner and the legality of the arrests of his daughter and son, reiterating the peaceful nature of the protests and stressed that his children do not pose any danger to the community and the peace.

b, three judges of the Second Criminal Court of the Provincial Tribunal of Havana, rejected Artola’s requests detailed in the Habeas Corpus. The judges alleged that, following consultations with the Prosecutor and the police, the did not have proof of mistreatment of the accused and confirmed the legality of their arrest. At no point did the signatory judges request interviews with the accused nor did they request that they be sent before the Tribunal to be interrogated in the case. The signatory judges were:

Judge Ángel García Leyva

Judge Irene Asunción Macía Mondejar

Judge Mérida López Rodríguez

On November 7th, 2022, an appeal was presented before the Criminal Court of the People’s Supreme Court of the Republic of Cuba, challenging the decision made on November 2nd by the Second Criminal Court of the Provincial Tribunal of Havana. According to Cuban law, this tribunal has up to three working days, beginning on the day after the document is submitted, to issue a decision.

On November 7th, both of the accused were transferred from the Police Investigations Headquarters (100 and Aldabó) to facilities of the Cuban Penitentiary System. Hillary Gutiérrez was transferred to the Mujeres de Occidente prison, commonly known as El Guatao or Manto Negro. Frank Artola Plasencia was transferred to a jail for minors known as Jóvenes de Occidente.

On November 8th, Frank Artola Plasencia was allowed a visit in prison by his father and girlfriend. Hillary Gutierrez was denied a visit by her mother; authorities explained that she would remain in isolation for ten days for health reasons.

This entry, Cuban Siblings Frank Artola Plasencia and Hillary Plasencia Remain in Prison, was first published on Cubalex.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

The Cuban Regime Harasses Laritza Diversent’s Mother to Halt the Work of Cubalex / Cubanet

Maricelis Cambara (l) and Laritza Divrsent (r). (Cubanet)

Cubanet, 4 November 2022 — “If you convince your daughter to stop what she does, then we will resolve your housing issues and the surgery you need,” two State Security agents said on Thursday to Maricelis Cambara, the mother of Laritza Diversent, Director of Cubalex, a Legal Information Center.

Cambara has a physical disability due to a childhood accident and has lost mobility in her left leg. According to the officials, it is within their power for her to have surgery to improve her quality of life and alleviate the pain she suffers.

The State Security agents “suggested” that she interfere in her daughter’s work. If she achieves that, as compensation, they’d give her a series of benefits, in addition to medical care, which is supposed to be public in Cuba and to which any one should have guaranteed access. They also promised that they’d cease the aggression, mostly verbal, from her neighbors, which she has been subjected to over the past several years.

Lastly, the political police stated that only if Diversent abandons her work as a defender of human rights will they allow her to reunite with her daughter. Paradoxically, it was that very political police who, in 2017, forced the Cubalex team into exile, without the possibility of returning to the country after it raided the organization’s office and threatened its members with prison.

During the encounter with Cambara, the agents preferred to disguise as “blackmail” their harassment and “soften” the exchange, in contrast to what has occurred in the past. In August 2021, one of those agents who now visited her, along with another repressor, tacitly threatened her. continue reading

At that time, 63 year-old Cambara was warned that even she could be tried for her daughter’s work. At the same time, they also threatened that they could intercept Diversent in the United States or another country and take her to Cuba to try her. At that time, Cambara was with her own mother who was ailing and who died a few days later. Now, once again, the regime’s agents take advantage of a vulnerable situation to attack her; only three days earlier her brother began showing signs of dementia.

The agents told Cambera that they’d visit her again to know her daughter’s response.

With respect to this, the Director of Cubalex stated to CubaNet that State Security is using her mother to pressure her. Apparently, they aim to suffocate the legal aid work the organization does, as well as her ability to provide visibility at the international level to violations of human rights in Cuba.

“This convinces me that we must continue doing the work because we are doing something right. If Cubalex didn’t worry them, they would not harass a 63-year-old disabled woman,” the lawyer told CubaNet.

The lawyer made it clear that she would not negotiate with, nor concede to the Cuban dictatorship or its repressive organizations. “The work of Cubalex transcends me. I am here to direct, but I am not the whole organization. It goes without saying that I will not be blackmailed to use my leadership position to reverse the organization,” she points out.

“If tomorrow I resign so that they leave my mother in peace, Cubalex will continue existing and working, which is what Cuba needs,” she concluded.

*This article was originally published, in Spanish, on Cubanet

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

Why Should This Code Worry Us as a Society? / Cubalex

Cubalex, 20 October 2022 — The Cuban government wants nothing to escape its supervision. Nothing, that might shake its power, has been left unregulated or uncriminalized.

Why should this Code worry us as a society?

#1 It categorizes criminal behaviour in a broad, ambiguous and discretionary manner.

#2 There are around 32 ’crimes’ which threaten freedom of expression.

#3 The use of cyberspace as an aggravation of criminal responsibility.

#4 The ’crime’ of practicing independent journalism.

#5 It maintains the death penalty.

#6 The use of ’therapeutic’ security measures.

#7 Age of criminal responsibility is maintained at 16 years.

#8 No recognition of femicide as a specific crime in its own right.

#9 Criminalization of the illegal transmission of satellite, television, radio or similar signals.

#10 Electronic surveillance is sanctioned.

#11 Monopoly of criminal action on electoral conduct, which should be processed in non-criminal ways.

Translated by Ricardo Recluso 

Cubalex Condemns the Wave of Threats, Coercion, and Psychological Torture Against Independent Journalists in Cuba

Cubalex, 9 September 2022 — We at Cubalex condemn and view with concern the threats and coercions against young journalists who work for independent media outlets in Cuba. We remind the Cuban state that it should abstain from any act which constitutes torture and mistreatment through is institutions and agents, which are absolutely prohibited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [and] the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The public resignations are not spontaneous. They all contain expressions such as, “Under pressure and blackmail we find ourselves forced to cease our project,” “I am leaving because they are forcing me,” “I will not be allowed to leave the country until certain conditions demanded by State Security are met.” The fragments above demonstrate pressure by State Security agents for them to stop exercising their profession as independent journalists, an act of censorship and a violation of freedoms of expression, opinion and press.

Thus, the Cuban authorities are committing the crimes of abuse of power and torture described in the Criminal Code, when they provoke mental suffering, intimidate, and coerce journalists in order to obtain a confession, information, a resignation from their workplace, and punish them for exercising their profession; this is contrary to the principle of nondiscrimination. It is worth noting that torture is typified as a crime in the Criminal Code which was approved on September 1, 2022 by the National Assembly of the People’s Power, but which has not yet gone into effect.

Some of these journalists have alleged that they resigned not only for their own mental health and that of their family, but also because they do not want to compromise their right to freedom of movement, especially the right to leave the country.

“I’m leaving because they are obligating me. They are forcing me to leave El Toque and not work for another alternative outlet, and therefore, stow my degree under a mattress. Faced with that greater force, which right now is putting in check my right to leave the country and my wellbeing, I prefer to put my freedom and my personal and family dreams first.”

“I’m leaving because, selfishly and cowardly, I prioritize my mental health and the wellbeing of my family. I’m leaving so I will have the right to freedom of movement. I’m leaving because I do not want to see my grandmother’s high blood pressure through the roof again, nor my father’s tears, nor my mother’s depression. I’m leaving because I am putting my future and my dreams of a better and more free life first,” wrote two of the journalists.

The state violates the right to freedom of movement described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the Cuban constitution, specifically, the right to leave the country.

It is a systematic and generalized practice for state agents to use investigation processes described in the Law of Criminal Procedures, such as citations and interrogations, and to repress, threaten, and torture these people. That is, they take advantage of discretion implicit in the norms to apply them arbitrarily.

Threats are another crime in the criminal law which applies to authorities who force citizens to limit themselves from carrying out activities that are not prohibited by law and which are recognized as constitutional rights such as: the right to work, freedom of the press and speech, the right to human dignity, and free development of one’s personality.

The principle of the law has been violated and those responsible enjoy impunity because the state does not carry out its international obligation to investigate, judge, and apply sanction that would guarantee these human rights violations are not repeated. A misapplication of the criminal law by the state is also evident, when its agents threaten journalists with applying the new Criminal Code, which is not even in effect yet.

When a journalist is prevented from working, not only is freedom of the press being violated, but also all of society’s right to information.

This entry, Cubalex Condemns the Wave of Threats, Coercion, and Psychological Torture Against Independent Journalists in Cuba, first appeared in Spanish on the Cubalex website.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

To donate to Cubalex via PayPal please open this link

Cubalex’s Assessment of the Sentences Imposed Upon Luis Manuel Otero and Maykel Castillo / Cubalex

Maykel ‘Osorbo’ Castillo Pérez and Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara (Cubalex)

Cubalex, Giselle Camila Morfi, 24 June 2022 — The crimes of disrespecting national symbols, contempt, defamation of institutions and organizations, and heroes and martyrs, are not compatible with international human rights standards. These crimes are an assault on the freedom of expression recognized in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (PIDCP in Spanish), as well as [Article] 13 of the Pact of San José.

The crimes of contempt, resistance, and public disorder are used in Cuba with the goal of censoring and criminalizing the right to protest, based on an ideological imposition that supersedes the right to citizen participation. These crimes are used for social control, rather than for the defense and guarantee of human rights; they are discretionary, lacking clarity and concreteness in the criminal norms. Public order, assessed by judges, has nothing to do with public order within a democratic society.

What is the motivation of judges to destroy these people’s presumption of innocence?

Where are the “sentiments of nationality and pride professed by the Cuban people to the national flag” defined, unquestionably?

The State’s motivation was political punishment to create a deterrent effect, to prevent the rest of society from freely expressing themselves out of fear. We see a great danger in that sentence, with an evidently exemplary effect. The assessment was completely subjective, discretionary, and with a finality that is entirely illegitimate and which promotes a culture of self-censorship.

The result of this and all the sentences against the July 11, 2021 (11J) protesters create an effect not only on the accused but all of society. It is in the public interest to understand everything that happened during the trial and access the sentencing document. continue reading

What judges refer to as “disrespecting, dishonoring and affecting the dignity of the highest authorities of the country, using false, digitally manipulated images of them, which were published on social media,” is nothing more than exercising freedom of expression and legitimate criticism of authorities. In this case, only a meme was shared. Government officials must be accountable to us and are held to a higher degree of public scrutiny, they must be tolerant of criticism because they must respond to the interests of their citizens.

We have very little data with respect to this since the content of the sentencing document is not known, not even the document number, but we can conclude from the information that has been released that none of the limits they refer to are recognized by international human rights standards, rather, it is a punitive abuse of power by the State. None of these reasons comply with the legitimate legality, finality, need, and proportionality required by the Interamerican system’s tripartite test [CHECK: not sure if they mean “test”; I couldn’t find a translation for “tes”. I’m assuming it is something where if three conditions are met, states are allowed to limit this freedom.] allowing states to limit freedom of expression.

Note: Sentences handed down to artists of the San Isidro Movement

5 years in prison for Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara, as author of the crimes of disrespecting national symbols, contempt and public disorder.

9 years in prison for Maikel Castillo Pérez, for the crimes of contempt, assault, public disorder, and defamation of institutions and organizations, heroes and martyrs.

The entry Cubalex’s Assessment of the Sentences Imposed Upon Luis Manuel Otero and Maykel Castillo first appeared on Cubalex.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

A Year Without Justice: Patterns of State Violence Against July 11th (11J) Protesters / Cubalex

Report Cover: A Year Without Justice. Cubalex, July 2022

Cubalex, 7 July 2022

The following report presents issues related to the impact and implications of the protests which occurred in Cuba on July 11th, 2021 (11J). We analyze elements such as the factors which provoked 11J and the reasons for the massive street protests.

As part of the observations of the state’s response, we describe the patterns of repression implemented along synchronic and diachronic axes, that is, throughout the country and over time. This is possible due to the systematic data on the arrests and the criminal and administrative proceedings from July to date, related to the public protests.

Finally, we offer recommendations on how the international community can help victims of repression in Cuba to obtain justice and reparations. Throughout this report, we apply an intersectional and gender lens to highlight the patterns of abuse faced by Cuban women, those of African descent and people from the LGBTQIA+ community as part of the state’s response from 11J to date.

We also highlight other vulnerable groups, such as minors, older adults, activists, journalists, human rights defenders and members of opposition parties and civic organizations.

While this report  contains a balance sheet of what has occurred to date with regard to the state’s response to the July protests and other issues associated with them, it is part of a gradual and systematic process of documentation and analysis, which will not be final so long as the Cuban government continues, through any means possible, repressing the July protesters, their families, and civil society which support them.

As a result, the estimates presented and the patterns described will vary over time. At the time of this writing, we continue verifying information which will be incorporated into our public registries.

Download Report as a PDF (in Spanish) here

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

Considerations on Cuba of the Committee Against Torture / Cubalex

Cubalex, 22 April 2022 — A Transcription of a Presentation by Sébastien Touze before the United Nations Committee Against Torture.

Confidence in the national police has declined, you might agree with me, you have not denied it since the events of July 2021. This episode of demonstrations offered an alarming vision, as there were a large number of arrests, some NGOs even spoke of hundreds of protesters arrested, among them political opponents such as José Daniel Ferrer, and artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara. There are issues that could be referred to as arbitrary detentions or secret detentions, for example the case of Denis Solís.

The working group tried, the group on arbitrary detentions handled his case, and that very working group stated that the arrest of Denis Solís was carried out by three police officers without an arrest warrant, without any explanation, and with violence. Furthermore, he was taken by police car and received a beating from the three police officers. Also, he was detained in secret from the evening of November 9th until the morning of November 11th.

Detained in secret, he was denied the possibility of challenging his detention before a judge and he was not allowed to contact his attorneys or to receive legal aid, which deprived him of his right to an effective defense. Once in the police commissary, he suffered cruel and degrading treatment, was humiliated, was beaten with a military boot and was forced to say, “Long live the revolution,” and the government has not denied that, and they blatantly violated articles 2 and 16 of our convention.

The issue with the arbitrary detention and the detention in secret is an issue that, for various claims, is somewhat persistent and recurring in Cuba. The working group that I mentioned has issued different opinions on cases of arbitrary detentions in Cuba and concluded that many cases, were not only arbitrary detentions, but also other violations of international human rights law, especially through acts of torture. continue reading

Thus, the repression of dissent seems to continue. The Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation, an NGO not officially recognized by the authorities, has documented 8616 arrests in 2015, 9940 in 2016, which, well, is a statistic which I will allow you to comment on.

Furthermore, we do not foresee any conditions for placing someone in preventive detention. For this reason, it can result in holding anyone, provisionally, if allowed by law. This fault in Cuban law results in allowing or recurring arbitrary detentions on a large scale, as reflected by several NGOs and civil society sources.

It has to do with the practice of detentions to prevent a person from reaching a particular location, for example, to participate in a demonstration, there could be preventive and repressive measures without a legal basis, which allows preventive detention without judicial context.

After the arrests of July 2021, 55 minors were detained. Many currently remain in detention. According to testimonies of the Cuban press, there have been parents who do not even know the jail where their children are held. Thus, there is an error in the information communicated to loved ones about the arrest.

We have received other reports which state, well, there is even one non-governmental organization which has a list of all the arrests and the reason for the arrest each month, and based on a published graph, the committee observed a massive use of arrests of political opponents. A practice which has existed for years, but the following issues are presented here:

With regard to repression and the legal framework, the norms which could be applied here, the analysis of the arrests in the Cuban system highlights a solid legal framework used by authorities to carry out political repression against some political and cultural opponents. Before presenting the details of this policy, the committee wishes to refer to some of these provisions, without intending to be exhaustive.

In the framework of the constitution, artistic freedom and freedom of the press are targets of the main limitations, as these are conditioned upon respect for socialist values and respect for the law and objectives of society. Article 55 of the current Cuban Criminal Code contains a series of provisions that allow the criminalization of citizens who oppose, in one form or another, the system established in article 100 of the criminal code. Regarding sedition, it allows repression of various behaviors, which include interfering with or disturbing the socialist order and those who refuse to obey a decision of a public official and finally those who refuse to perform their duties.

In addition, Cuban law imposes a penalty of one to eight years in jail for inciting propaganda against the social order or the socialist state. Such treatment is reserved for those who spread erroneous news intended to provoke discontent among the population or to cause public disturbances.

This seems to result in a certain cultural censorship. Also, artistic freedom and cultural opponents are viewed as especially affected by article 203 which condemns common threats of danger in public places, shows or during assemblies.

These articles have in common the use of low nations as the socialist order, the definition of which I have requested. The public disturbances, threats of common danger, propaganda, terms which they can orchestrate and is done to further repress people they believe are carrying out these activities.

The committee believes it important to highlight that these impressions, which are contrary to the universal judicial principle of the clarity of criminal law and clears a path to decisions that could be classified as arbitrary.

The authorities, or rather, those responsible for the national revolutionary police and the department of state security, frequently jail militants to prevent them from participating in public demonstrations or private meetings, to exercise their right to freedom of expression, association, assembly and movement.

Here, the committee can only express its worry at the the lack of respect for the fundamental, primordial rights of freedom of expression, association, assembly and movement to the extent that they were rights not covered by our commission, the actions of some state authorities in the framework of repression against these people, ended up with measures blatantly contrary to the convention against torture.


This entry, first appeared on Cubalex as Consideraciones del Comité contra la Tortura Sobre Cuba.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

80 Acts of Repression: This is How Cuba Celebrated May Day

Source: Cubadebate

Justicia 11J (via Cubalex), 2 May 2022 — Cubalex and Justicia 11J have observed an increase in repressive events against activists, opponents, journalists and family members of people held in detention for political reasons. Between April 26th at 6 pm and today, May 1st, we have documented a total of 80 events, disaggregated as follows:

    • Summons/interrogation: 12
    • Surveillance/police perimeter: 28
    • Arrests: 13
    • Forced disappearance: 5
    • Warning at home: 8
    • Fine: 3
    • Other forms of repression: 11

Based on testimonies of the victims, we have verified that this deployment was mainly related to the State’s concern that the traditional celebration of International Workers’ Day, in provinces throughout the country, could have been “destabilized” by the presence in the streets of dissenting voices, in a context of growing popular discontent and the loss of the authorities’ symbolic power.

Added to this are the actions related to two public protest events that took place in Havana in recent days. The first (on the 27th), was carried out by relatives of three of the minors who received long prison sentences for their participation in the July 2021 protests. The second (on the 28th), was led by activist Carlos Ernesto Díaz González (Ktivo Disidente), who remains in detention. continue reading

Although the first of the aforementioned events was thwarted by the presence of the political police near the agreed location for the protest, the signatory organizations view it as a milestone on the path to channeling the demands for freedom in the public space by relatives of the protesters.

Likewise, we point out the state’s response in order to prevent future similar events, through the arrest, in San Miguel del Padrón, of the participating relatives: Yanaisy Curbelo (mother of the minor Brandon David Becerra), Rolando Castillo (father of minor Rowland Castillo) and Maylín Fajardo (mother of minor Lázaro Noel Urgellés), who were held at the 11th unit of the PNR.

On the first anniversary of the Demonstration on Obispo Street on April 30, 2021, during which 13 people who expressed their solidarity with artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara were arrested and faced up to 8 months of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the organizations that have signed this report point out how the strength of Cuban civil society has been increasing as it struggles to recover the civic space.

And in this sense, we highlight the perseverance of activists such as Ángel Cuza, protester of Obispo Street, who was detained on the 28th, when he appeared for a summons to be interviewed by State Security officials, and held until today in the afternoon.

Likewise, we observe with concern the police’s liberal interpretation of the crimes defined in the Cuban Criminal Code. In particular, the excessive use of the crime of sedition, which has recently been directly related to freedom of expression, which, far from being a crime, constitutes a fundamental right, enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in article 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba.

We stress that, due to the alleged crime of sedition, 169 of the July protesters could serve up to 30 years in prison (according to the current regulations), and for which soon (when the preliminary draft of the Penal Code is approved on May 14), Cuban citizens could be sentenced to life in prison, or even the death penalty (article 121 a).

We denounce the practice of forced disappearance, which in the days covered by this report has been documented on 5 occasions, as well as the repressive manipulation of the truth of the island, which the Cuban State maintains before international institutions such as the Committee Against Torture (CAT), before whom it recently denied, once again, that this international crime was practiced in Cuba, a violation of the most basic human rights.

We also denounced the political violence exercised against women. Of all the registered events (80), 30 were practiced against them. We condemn the event of physical violence against nurse, and member of the Free Cuban Medical Guild, Welsimys Cruz Pérez, who this morning was attacked by five political police officers, until she bled.

A similar concentration of repressive events in just a few days had been documented by Cubalex and Justicia 11J in November of last year, related to the call for a peaceful march, in the context of the Civic Day for Change. In those days, 93 people were arrested, 8 of them remain in jail to this day.

We reiterate our commitment to demanding the immediate release, acquittal and dismissal of charges against those detained for political reasons. We will continue our work of documenting, denouncing and accompanying, as well as supporting family members and other civil society actors. As Ktivo Disidente, we understand that “all Cubans have the right to participate in the political life of the country.”

80 Acts of Repression: This is How Cuba Celebrated May Day first appeared on Cubalex.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

Instigating a Crime in the Draft Cuban Criminal Code / Cubalex

Cubalex, Laritza Diversent, 11 March 2022 — Instigating a crime is a crime against public order which appears in Article 202 of the Island’s current Criminal Code. However, this would undergo notable changes, according to the draft of the new Criminal Code, which will go into effect in April 2022, after approval by the delegates of the National Assembly of the People’s Power (ANPP). In the first section, the minimum jail sentence increases from three to six months, while the maximum remains the same. The penal framework is reduced, but the severity increased. Regarding the fine, it remains unchanged, however in the draft, the tribunal may decide to impose both sanctions: deprivation of liberty and a fine, simultaneously. The new Article 268 on instigation of a crime is read as follows in the Draft Criminal Code:

1. Whosoever, falling outside the case aforementioned in subparagraph c) of Article 145, publicly incites to commit a particular crime, incurs a penalty of deprivation of liberty for six months to one year or a fine between one hundred and three hundred quotas or both.

2. If the instigation is effective, the penalty imposed will correspond with the crime committed, if it is a higher penalty than the one referenced in the previous section.

3. If the instigation is to violate a law, or a legal disposition, or a measure adopted by the authorities, or citizen duties related to defense of the Homeland, production, services or education, the penalty imposed will be as described in section 1, with its lower and upper limits reduced by one-third. 

4. If the facts mentioned in previous sections occur via social media or other social communications channels, the lower and upper limits of the penalties applied for each case will increase by one-half. One section that did not undergo any changes is that, if the instigation is effective, the sanction that corresponds to the crime committed will be imposed, if it is higher than that mentioned in the previous section.   

The third section was combined with the fourth, increasing the possible motives for inciting civil disobedience, such as the case of non-compliance with “the duties of citizens related to defending the Homeland, production, services, or education,” which in the current Criminal Code are continue reading

included in section 4 of Article 202.

In this case, the minimum sanction in the penal framework also increases from one to four months and the maximum from three to eight. The fine also increases between 67 and 150 quotas. In the current code the maximum fine cannot exceed 100 quotas. Similarly, the tribunal may apply both sanctions.

In the draft, the fourth section contains completely new content: committing the crime using social media or other social communications channels. In this case the penalty is described in the third section, which, in turn, references the penalty in section one (six months to one year), with the lower and upper limits increased by one-half. The new criminal framework will be between nine months (lower limit) and a year and a half (upper limit) deprivation of liberty. The fine will also increase between 150 and 450 quotas and the tribunal may impose both sanctions.

We can conclude that sections 3 and 4 criminalize civil disobedience and freedom of expression. It is one way of preventing peaceful social protests because generally civil disobedience raises the awareness of the citizenry regarding the consequences of an unjust law, inviting them to mobilize to put an end to it.

The criminalization of civil disobedience also means the violation of the right to freedom of conscience (the law clashes with its most fundamental ethical principles and one feels the moral need to fight it, as remaining quiet before an injustice is incompatible with its conscience, freedom of expression, transmitting a message of denouncement against the unjust law and political participation).

Within instigation of a crime, campaigns against legal norms on social media, such as those conducted against Decree 349 and Decree Laws 370, 389, and 35 will be criminalized.

This entry, first appeared on Cubalex as Instigación a delinquir en el Anteproyecto del Código Penal cubano.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez  

Cuba: The Forced Exile of Anamely Ramos / Cubalex

The Right to Return

Cubalex, 16 February 2022

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clear:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 12.4 [states], “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba recognizes as a right any person’s “freedom to enter, remain, travel, and exit the national territory, move or change residence, without limitations beyond those established in the law.”

Anamely Ramos González is not stateless, although it is what the Cuban state would like to convert her into.

She is a Cuban citizen. She has not made any legal arrangements that would result in the loss of her citizenship nor has she been informed of any resolutions declaring that.

She is a resident of the island. She has not been declared an emigrant, as she has not exceeded the uninterrupted 24-month period abroad as regulated in Decree-Law 302 Modifying Law No. 1312, the “Migration Law,” in article 9.2, nor has she lived abroad without complying with the existing migration regulations. continue reading

She possesses a valid Cuban passport, issued in her name.

Thus, Anamely is acting within the bounds of the law and it is the Cuban government that violates not only international law but the principle of equality and nondiscrimination, if not its own domestic legislation.

The aforementioned Decree-Law regulates a series of transactions required not only for the loss of citizenship but also a set of exceptions to deny entry into the country: Article 24. [These include engaging in:] prior terrorist activities, trafficking in persons, drug trafficking, money laundering, arms dealing or others which are prosecutable internationally; being linked with acts against humanity, human dignity, public health or prosecutable by virtue of international treaties to which Cuba is a party; organizing, stimulating, carrying out or participating in hostile acts against the political, economic, and social foundations of the Cuban state; when advisable for reasons of National Defense and Security; being denied entry into the country for having been declared undesirable or expelled and failure to comply with the regulations of the Migration Law, its regulations [sic], and the complementary provisions for entry into the country.

Anamely Ramos is not within any of those legal assumptions.

The Migration Law and its Regulations do not establish procedures for appealing the discretionary decisions of officials and for that reason they are not susceptible to being challenged in cases of abusive, discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational, and unjust application.

Cubalex reminds the Cuban state of its obligation to be transparent and protect and guarantee the right to access information; therefore, if a bilateral agreement exists between the two states or an agreement between American Airlines and the Cuban government, it must be published by virtue of the principle of transparency. This information is a matter of public interest.

Furthermore, they highlight that the burden of proof is on immigration authorities and that all acts that restrict fundamental rights must be argued in a reasoned and legally grounded manner, where the proof of damage is perfectly proven, which is nothing more than showing the real danger to Cuban society of Anamely Ramos González’s return to the country and showing that this damage is greater than the damage caused to her by the restriction of her fundamental rights, which because of the interdependence of human rights, inevitably implies the violation of others.

This is not the first time the state denies its citizens entry. However, this is different. In the cases previously documented by Cubalex, people had allowed the uninterrupted 24-month period to elapse without returning to the national territory (emigrants) and of residents in Cuba who were prevented from exiting when they tried to return to their country of residence. Currently, although Anamely’s migratory legal status is public and notorious, the state is responsible for leaving her defenseless and at risk in a foreign territory, given the irregular migratory status to which she is now exposed.

In any case, the motive for selective application of the law and justice is political discrimination against human rights defenders, independent journalists and artists, and in the majority of cases is led by State Security agents in collaboration with departments of Immigration and Foreigners (both belonging to the Ministry of the Interior).

Of interest: The right to enter one’s own country

This entry, Cuba: The Forced Exile of Anamely Ramos, first appeared [in Spanish] on Cubalex.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

Chancellor Bruno Rodríguez Lies About the Trials in Cuba / Cubalex

Text: The United States is well aware that the current judicial processes in Cuba are carried out in full compliance with the law and within internationally accepted standards. It lies to tarnish the exemplary work of #Cuba in protecting its children and to justify criminal coercive measures.”

Cubalex, Alain Espinosa, 26 January 2022 — Cubalex responds to statements made by Cuban Chancellor Bruno Rodríguez, who stated that due process is being respected during trials in Cuba. The chancellor, once again, lies; we explain why his pronouncement is false.

The criminal proceedings against opponents in Cuba, in a general sense, are plagued with illegalities. In the specific case of J11 protestors, the first thing to note is the criminalization of a natural human right such as peaceful protest, which is also intrinsically linked to other natural rights such as freedom of expression or equality before the law.

It is important to note that Cuban criminal procedural legislation lacks, intentionally, a correct legislative technique and thus, procedural tools to guarantee the rights of the indicted/accused. In addition, political will on the part of the Cuban government to guarantee its citizens the rule of law is completely absent, an extreme which is reliably demonstrated by the lack of separation of powers.

This includes, among other elements, the complete subordination of judicial powers to the executive branch, in cooperation with the prosecutor. The current president in a public declaration described this as a “unity of power.” Such subordination is by nature antagonistic to the inherent obligations of judges as they execute their judicial functions, and thus creates a real conflict of interest which objectively goes against the rule of law.

Throughout the proceedings referred to above, innumerable transgressions against due process have been observed:

A large majority of the protesters arrested were held for days without judicial processes. Authorities denied family members information about the whereabouts of those arrested; this, according to several international human rights treaties which are incorporated into the national judicial order, constitutes forced disappearance, which is expressly prohibited by international and domestic laws, and specifically, by the national constitution. continue reading

The impossibility of access to legal defense, an element which is violated not only by impeding access to a defense from the beginning of the process, but also by impeding access to the hearings, and unsubstantiated decisions which are not communicated in compliance with the established law, depriving the indicted of the possibility of due process to which s/he is entitled as a guarantee of judicial security. Specifically, providing evidence and requesting the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence, and the right to be informed of the charges against him/her are also violated.

The right of the accused to communicate with family and friends is not respected. In many cases it is overtly denied as a means of coercion, to force the prisoner to make self-incriminating statements, or when investigative authorities insist on acting as intermediaries between the indicted and his/her loved ones despite the established legal procedures which explicitly establish that such communication should be direct between the accused and his/her family members.

Authorities’ treatment of the accused represent an assault on their dignity and physical and psychological integrity, often as a way to coerce them and force them to make self-incriminating statements at the time of their arrest.

The use of the following methods has been proven: long periods of confinement in patrol cars exposed to the sun without access to water, and in the case of women complete nudity, forced cavity searches, and denying them personal hygiene for several days while they are menstruating. In other cases, mostly of those held in penitentiaries, the use of physical violence which includes methods commonly referred to as the bicycle, the banana cluster or the use of shakiras [shackles].  All these methods cause severe physical harm to the accused, which is later concealed by authorities by violating other rights, among them the right to visitors or communication. In cases of extremely visible signs, they are isolated in punishment cells until these disappear.

The judicial phase is also plagued by violations, many established in the current, very poor legislation which during quick, summary proceedings allows oral notification of sentences, which prevents the verification of the probative material reviewed by the judges  to convict and sanction. This element transcends and directly and negatively affects the accused when it comes time to exhaust their appeals, preventing them from citing substantive grounds for their case to be reviewed by higher courts.

In addition to the aforementioned, during the trials, there has been a complete mismatch between the behavior of the judges and the principles which guide the exercise of judicial function, demonstrating extreme partiality as follows:

Violation of the principle of public debate, by discriminately exercising the power to prevent access to the public to attend the oral trial; limiting entry to one family member per accused, while allowing unrestricted access to members of repressive organizations. In this sense, the violation is more severe because the judges do not even comply with the legal requirements. They make decisions like these, which not only violate the rights of the accused, but also directly affect the principle of transparency which dictates the behavior of public servants and interferes with the real possibility that citizens exercise control over their actions.

Violation of the principle of independent review of the evidence, in the same way that they discriminately and illegally restrict the ability of the parties to provide burden of proof, in the majority of cases allowing an extremely limited number of defense exhibits, especially witnesses. While in the case of the prosecutor, there is no limit on the number of exhibits and witnesses.

All these violations place the indicted/accused in a complete state of defenselessness which affects their family members in two ways:

Indirectly, through all the suffering generated by the unjust and illegal proceedings to which their family members are subjected, in many cases minors who have not reached the legal age to respond criminally. In addition, ever-present is the impossibility of a defense as a result of the partiality with which the process is conducted.

Direct, a product of the harassment to which they are subjected by repressive organizations, especially state security, to prevent them from exercising their natural rights such as freedom of expression, the only way they can bring visibility to the situation faced by their family members  to seek justice for them.

Chancellor Bruno Rodríguez Lies About the Trials in Cuba was first published in Cubalex.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

Under Military Presence, 11J Protesters are Processed in Artemisa / Cubalex

Sentencing requests for some of the Cubans who protested in 11 July. (Cubalex)

Cubalex, 22 November 2021 — On November 22nd and 23rd, the judicial proceedings against 13  of the July 11th (11J) protesters are being held at the Provincial Tribunal of Artemisa. According to our sources all of the areas surrounding the courtroom are militarized. The police, red berets, black berets and State Security have organized a large-scale surveillance operation. For its part, the tribunal, in violation of established national legislation and international standards, has restricted public access and has only allowed the presence of one family member per accused.

Family members are devastated and discriminated against. Alarmed and worried due to the lack of media attention that these trials have had. To Cuban civil society, to the independent press, those who have business to conduct today at the tribunal, those who in one form or another can share information, we ask for your support to raise the visibility of the situation of these protesters and sensitize the international community. Let’s accompany the family members of the 11J peaceful protesters in these very difficult moments. Let’s not leave them alone, they need us today, now. Share the situation on your social media, if you have close neighbors in areas surrounding the tribunal, ask them to share information about what they are able to observe, including photos.

Justicia 11 and Cubalex condemn this and demand complete and immediate dismissal of the charges currently being processed by the prosecutor’s office, as well as the cases that have already been presented by the prosecutor to the tribunal, without trials. We request human rights organizations and those that protect journalists and activists to ensure the security of those within and outside of Cuba; who for their clear position of denouncement can become the targets of violence, harassment and repression by Cuban state and government bodies.

These are the names of those detained who are being processed: Javier González Fernández, Alexander Díaz Rodríguez, Yurien Rodríguez Ramos, Eduard Bryan Luperon Vega, Eddy Gutiérrez Alonso, Víctor Alejandro Panceira Rodríguez, Yeremin Salcines Janes, José Alberto Pío Torres, Leandro David Morales Ricondo, Luis Giraldo Martínez Sierra, Iván Hernández Troya, Yoslén Domínguez Victores, Yoselín Hernández Rodríguez.


We continue to urge family members to constantly denounce these cases, based on the proven fact that raising the visibility has provided significant protection. Our political prisoners are not alone. We demand justice.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

How Repression Unfolded in Cuba on November 14th / Cubalex


Image representing José Martí with a white rose.

Cubalex, 15 November 2021 — Cubalex summarized the 48 acts of harassment against civil society we’ve monitored since yesterday, November 14th.

At the end of each day, we will be publishing similar reports. We request your help in sharing. Let’s show the repressive essence of the Cuban regime.


La Lisa

1. Yunior García Aguilera denounced that his home was surrounded by agents dressed as civilians who violently expelled a crew of journalists that arrived to try to interview him. The mob performed an act of repudiation in front of his house.

Habana del Este (East Havana)

2. Under siege in her house Yoani Licea Gómez, one of the signers of the application to the march on 15N [that was submitted to the authorities and rejected].


3. The internet was cut off for Rafael Santos Regalado and his family members and his house is surrounded by patrol cars.


4. Yeniley Perdomo Sao received a police summons and state agents established a surveillance operation at the home of Abu Duyanah Tamayo. continue reading

5.María Esther Lemus  summoned to an interrogation and subjected to threats and degrading treatment.


6. Miryorly García denounced a surveillance operation at her home and later an attempted repudiation meeting.


7. Diosdado Verdecia denounced a surveillance operation.

San Miguel del Padrón

8. Ever Zamora Hernández received a San Miguel del Padrón police summons.


8. Under house arrest Maykel González.

Central Havana

9. Edel Carrero is under house arrest.


10. Detained José Díaz Silva and Lourdes Esquivel.

Revolution Plaza

11. Two young people were detained in Quijote Park.

12. State agents prevented the movement and established surveillance operations at the homes of Oscar Casanella, Boris González Arenas, Abraham Jiménez Enoa and Luz Escobar, who was threatened by a State Security agent when she filmed him.

Arroyo Naranjo

13. Yolanda Santana Ayala is assumed to be “disappeared”.


14. Carolina Sansón denounced a surveillance operation.

La Lisa

15. Under surveillance in his home Pablo Enrique Delgado Hernández.

Other relevant information

16. All week Camila Acosta, Ileana Hernández and Carolina Barrero denounced surveillance operations at their residences.

17. Militarization: The presence of Rapid Response Brigades and military trucks are reported along the malecón.

18. The office of Religious Affairs of the Central Committee tells priests Rolando Montes de Oca, Castor Álvarez and Alberto Reyes that if they participate in tomorrow’s protests they will be detained.



19. Doctor Alexander Jesús Figueredo denounced surveillance operations in his usual places of residence.

20. Lieutenant Colonel Oriel verbally summoned Yunior Berges to an interrogation. He is under surveillance in his home.


21. Yander Serra was summoned by police. As he was walking, they detained him and took him to the police station and fined him 3,000 pesos because supposedly two days before they saw him using his face mask incorrectly.

22. Yoendri Fornaris, one of the people who protested on July 11th, denounced a surveillance operation at her residence.


23. Noeima Rodríguez was visited by the chief of State Security in the province to intimidate her and threaten her, incuding her children.



24. Yoel Acosta Gámez was detained in his home and Emilio Almaguer de la Cruz denounced surveillance operations


25. Niober García received a police summons and denounced the surveillance operation established at his home, in addition to Rolando Rodríguez Lobaina


26. Harrassment of the headquarters of Partido Libertario Cubano [Cuban Libertarian Party] José Martí

27. Surveillance at the home of Lady in White María Cristina Labrada Varona.

Santiago de Cuba

Santiago de Cuba

28. Eduardo Clavel Rizo received a police summons and as he returned from the interrogation they conducted an act of repudiation.

29. Eloy Calugna, Fernando Castro and Pastor René Machado were detained

30. We received reports of military presence in the streets of this municipality

31. Jorge Amado Robert denounced surveillance operations. Captain Ronaldo from State Security told him he could not leave his home.

Palma Soriano

32. Marioldis Delgado Romero received a police summons. Denia Fernández Rey and her husband were threatened by police to they would not leave their houses.

Sancti Spíritus

33. The military presence in Trinidad city was denounced.

Villa Clara

Santa Clara

34. Saily González, Raux Denis Rodríguez, Omar Mena and Leidy Laura Hernández denounced surveillance operations at their homes.

35. Persons dressed in civilian clothing harrassed Víctor Javier Ariaz Ruiz for putting a sign up at his house. An act of repudiation was conducted.


36. Librado Linares was intercepted in the street by Security agent who told him he could not leave his house until the 16th.

Pinar del Río

Pinar del Río

37. Under house arrest Julio César Góngora Millo. Consolación del Sur.

38. An act of repudiation for Yahima Díaz. Minas de Matahambre.

39. Surveillance at the home of Pedro Víctor Serrano.


40. Quivicán. Reports of harassment of detainees.


41. Alquízar. Diasniurka Salcedo is under house arrest.


42. Cárdenas. Surveillance at the home of Carlos Manuel Álvarez who is in New York.

Isla de la Juventud

43. Act of repudiation for David Gómez Sánchez.


44. Víctor González, one of the signers of the application for the march on 15N, was detained.

45. Miguel Alejandro Montero Ochoa, moderator of Archipiélago, was reported missing 24 hours ago. He later published a video informing that he was detained under Criminal Instruction. He was later released.

Ciego de Avila

46. A military event was held in Martí Park.

Las Tunas

Las Tunas

47. A grand police deployment with sirens throughout the streets of the city.


48. Pedro Lago Segura detained at work.

Translated by: Silvia Suárez

Cuba: Repressors Identified / Cubalex

Help us to identify him. (Cubalex)

Cubalex, 6 November 2021 — Cubalex exposes repressors as part of our commitment to make the perpetrators visible. We expose them in solidarity with those who are imprisoned today for exercising a right, and also with their families.

Help us to share, help us to denounce.

Denounce the aggressor! With your voice you can prevent other people from being tortured within the prisons.

This is Lt. Col. Francisco Estrada Portales, who was in charge of all of my interrogations in the headquarters of OEIDCSE (Special Criminal Investigations Unit for Crimes against the Security of the State) in Villa Marista,” Cuban artist Hamlet Lavastida reported on Twitter.

Lt. Col. Kenia Maria Morales Larrea

Harasses, threatens, and prosecutes independent artists in Cuba.

Johana Tablada

The MINREX (Foreign Ministry) official stated without hesitation “It’s a lie that people have been tortured. It’s a lie that people have been disappeared.”

Official Jorge Luis Garcia, known in San Jose de las Lajas as “bone breaker”, has accused and beaten peaceful July 11th demonstrators.

Help Us to Identify Him

This man has beaten women and men from the opposition. This man put out a cigarette on the face of a Woman in White. This man violently suppressed people who came out to show support for Manuel Otero in Obispo Street. He is known as “Agent Camilo”.

From State Security: Captain Javier

Harasses, threatens, and arrests independent artists in Cuba.

Repressor: Lt. Ernesto Dávila Gallardo

He is the agent-in-charge in the case against journalist Camila Acosta, accused of “public disorder”. Davila, age 26, is a law graduate of the University of Havana.

Journalist Abraham Jimenez also identified him as one of his repressors.

The article “Repressors Identified” was first published in Cubalex.