A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155 (E) 230321 240321

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its eighty-ninth session, 23–27 November 2020

Opinion No. 65/2020 concerning Roberto de Jesús Quiñones Haces

(Cuba)

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and

clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251

and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the

Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a

three-year period in its resolution 42/22.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 23 December 2019 the

Working Group transmitted to the Government of Cuba a communication concerning

Roberto de Jesús Quiñones Haces. The Government replied to the communication on 13

January 2020. The State is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights.

3.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her

sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or

freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,

26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to

the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the

relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to

give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

(d)

When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy

(category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on

the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,

religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,

or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings

(category V).

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

General Assembly

Distr.: General

29 January 2021

English

Original: Spanish

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

2

GE.21-01155

Submissions

Communication from the source

4.

Roberto de Jesús Quiñones Haces is a Cuban journalist and lawyer, born in 1957 in

Cienfuegos and based in Guantánamo, who writes for independent media outlets. During his

12 years in journalism, he has been the subject of a string of attacks, including intimidation,

arrests, raids, physical assault and confiscation of property, all apparently with a view to

obstructing and impeding his work as a reporter. Mr. Quiñones worked as a lawyer until

1999, when he was sentenced to eight years in prison and banned from practising law.

5.

The source reports that Mr. Quiñones’ home was raided twice by State Security

officers, on 5 October 2015 and 3 July 2018, without any notice or criminal investigation

warrant that might justify the searches being issued. On both occasions, the officers

confiscated Mr. Quiñones’ work equipment, along with other belongings and money.

Additionally, he was temporarily detained for periods lasting from a few hours to four days.

Mr. Quiñones filed complaints with the authorities, including the Public Prosecutor’s Office,

the Ministry of the Interior and the Secretariat of the Communist Party, but his petitions have

all gone unanswered. In 2016, he sought constitutional protection for his bodily integrity and

his constitutional rights and interests before the municipal courts. After the judiciary

repeatedly declared his request for protection inadmissible, he filed appeals with all

competent bodies. However, no protection has apparently been granted and the attacks

against him have continued.

6.

On 23 January 2019, Mr. Quiñones was summoned to testify before the Provincial

Unit for Offences against State Security. He was interviewed by two officers who threatened

him because of his work as an independent journalist and accused him of “spreading fake

news detrimental to international peace” and “usurping functions” (defined as the unlawful

exercise of public, civil or military functions).

7.

The case presented by the source refers to two instances of deprivation of liberty in

2019, both of which were related to his work as a journalist.

a.

Arrest and detention

8.

Mr. Quiñones was arrested on 22 April 2019 by officers of the National Revolutionary

Police at the entrance to Guantánamo Municipal People’s Court, where he had gone to report

on a trial of public interest. It is claimed that the officers handcuffed, assaulted and arrested

him, apparently for refusing to show identification. Mr. Quiñones was subsequently detained

without a warrant. In the course of the arrest, he sustained a number of bruises, abrasions and

other injuries, including a perforation of his right eardrum. He did not receive appropriate

medical attention for the injuries he suffered during the arrest.

9.

Mr. Quiñones was released on 27 April 2019, having spent five days in detention

without being brought before a judge. The police officers informed him that criminal

proceedings for “disobedience” and “resistance” would be pursued against him. The

authorities instigated proceedings against Mr. Quiñones for these offences of their own

motion. On 30 April, the officers were exonerated of blame for the injuries caused to Mr.

Quiñones and the complaint against him was referred to Guantánamo Provincial Prosecutor’s

Office.

10.

On 9 June 2019, Mr. Quiñones was forbidden to leave the province where he lived

without seeking permission from security officers. However, he was informed of this decision

only when he attempted to travel to another town.

11.

On 18 June 2019, a police captain summoned Mr. Quiñones to discuss his case. It is

reported that, during this meeting, the captain offered him the possibility of paying a fine in

order to have the case against him closed. Mr. Quiñones refused to pay the fine, as it would

imply an admission of criminal responsibility for the offences.

b.

Trial proceedings

12.

The source reports that, on 1 August 2019, Mr. Quiñones was summoned for trial

before Guantánamo Municipal People’s Court. On 7 August, he was sentenced to one year’s

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155

3

imprisonment, reduced to correctional labour with custody, on the basis of articles 143

(resistance) and 147 (disobedience) of the Criminal Code.

13.

It is claimed that, during the proceedings, Mr. Quiñones had access neither to his case

file nor to the evidence against him, and that his requests to appoint himself as his legal

representative were delayed in the days leading up to the trial. As a result, he was not granted

permission to represent himself in court and was not represented by counsel during his trial.

14.

Mr. Quiñones did not have access to his case file until the day of the hearing, when

the Court gave him half an hour to review the allegations and evidence.

15.

According to the submissions, the Court dismissed the evidence brought by Mr.

Quiñones on the grounds that it was not related to the case and that the injuries he sustained

during the arrest, on 22 April 2019, were self-inflicted.

16.

Mr. Quiñones appealed against his conviction on 14 August 2019. On 20 August, he

was informed that the appeal had been denied, without a hearing being held, as was required

under article 381 of the Criminal Procedure Act. On 30 August, the Court dismissed the

appeal and upheld the sentence.

17.

The source reports that Mr. Quiñones was due to begin his prison term on 12

September 2019, when he was required to report to serve his sentence of one year’s

correctional labour with custody. Prior to this date, Mr. Quiñones had decided not to report

to the prison as summoned, feeling that to do so would be an admission of guilt.

18.

However, on 3 September 2019, Mr. Quiñones received a summons to report to serve

his sentence on 5 September. The summons provided no information about the reasons for

the change of the starting date. Mr. Quiñones did not report as summoned on 5 September,

as he had no legal certainty as to the validity of two orders with different dates. His sentence

was consequently raised to imprisonment, although he was not notified of this change.

According to the source, the Criminal Code provides that a custodial sentence may be

replaced by correctional labour with or without custody. Mr. Quiñones’ sentence had been

changed to labour with custody by the judge in charge of his case, but when he failed to report

to serve his sentence on 5 September, the one-year prison sentence was reinstated.

19.

On 11 September 2019, Mr. Quiñones was arrested at his home and taken to prison

by three police officers. The arrest took place one day before the date stipulated in the order

issued by Guantánamo Provincial People’s Court.

c.

Conditions of detention

20.

According to the submissions, Mr. Quiñones asked to make a phone call immediately

upon his arrival at the prison on 11 September 2019 but was informed by a prison officer that

his sentence carried certain restrictions, including a requirement for prior authorization to

make calls. On 20 September, after nine days without communication, Mr. Quiñones

reiterated that he had a right to make a call; the officers granted permission the next day.

21.

At the time this communication was submitted, Mr. Quiñones was being held in

Guantánamo Provincial Prison, in a cell 15 metres long and 9 metres wide containing 10

bunk beds and housing 20 inmates. There were two toilets and a rusty metal tank containing

water for drinking and washing. This water was being pumped to the prison from a nearby

river and was often dirty. The cells were infested with bedbugs, cockroaches and mosquitoes.

Other inmates advised him not to complain about his conditions of detention, as those who

sought to enforce their rights were punished.

22.

The source reports that, as a result of having complained publicly about conditions of

detention, Mr. Quiñones was brought before the prison’s Disciplinary Council, which

prohibited him from writing while serving his sentence. As an additional punishment, his

right to make phone calls was withdrawn. According to the Disciplinary Council, his prison

sentence would be extended if he violated the writing ban.

23.

Mr. Quiñones’ health is reported to have deteriorated during his detention. When a

local priest visited the prison, Mr. Quiñones was handcuffed and initially separated from the

area where the priest was meeting with prisoners, although he was taken to the area where

the priest and the other prisoners were later on. The source reports that Mr. Quiñones has lost

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

4

GE.21-01155

weight, has flu and is not being given the medication he needs. In addition, during October

and November 2019, he was not allowed to make phone calls. His family has been denied

the possibility of visiting him and planned visits have been cancelled on several occasions.

d.

Domestic challenges to detention

24.

The source reports that Mr. Quiñones has challenged the actions of the police on

several occasions. For example, on 3 May 2019, after his arrest and detention, he submitted

a complaint to the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Guantánamo challenging the decision to

try him on charges of disobedience and resistance. In the complaint he described the

circumstances of his arrest, explained why he had refused to show identification and clarified

that, when the officers informed him orally that he was being arrested, they asked him to

show his identity card at the same time. He stated that, when he asked the reasons for his

arrest, the security officers used force to apprehend him, inflicting injuries upon him as a

result.

25.

On 6 May 2019, Mr. Quiñones filed two complaints with the Ministry of the Interior

in which he described all the attacks that he had suffered from the start of 2015 to May 2019

and the legal remedies that he had exhausted, including his application for constitutional

protection. He requested the public security authorities to reimburse the money and the value

of the work equipment that was seized during the raids in 2015 and 2018 and to order State

Security to refrain from violating his rights to freedom of movement, freedom of expression

and property.

26.

As regards the injuries that Mr. Quiñones sustained during the first arrest, on 22 April

2019 the authorities initiated proceedings against the security officers implicated. However,

on 30 April the first military prosecutor exonerated the officers and filed a complaint against

Mr. Quiñones. On 3 May, Mr. Quiñones filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s

Office, and was informed that his case had been transferred to the Office of the Ministry of

the Interior, the very institution that had exonerated the officers who attacked him. According

to the source, the law establishes that inflicting harm upon a person in custody that causes

them injuries requiring medical treatment constitutes a criminal offence. It is therefore

claimed that the first military prosecutor’s decision to exonerate the officers on the grounds

that they were performing their duties is invalid, since they can only be absolved of criminal

responsibility through trial.

27.

On 6 May 2019, Mr. Quiñones challenged the decision of the Military Prosecutor’s

Office by means of a written complaint submitted to the Citizens Services Department of the

Ministry of the Interior in which he asserted that the Ministry would bear responsibility for

any further threats or attacks against him, including unlawful and arbitrary detention.

28.

To date, Mr. Quiñones has received no response to the complaints he has filed.

e.

Claims concerning the arbitrary nature of Mr. Quiñones’ deprivation of liberty

29.

It is alleged that the arrest and detention of Mr. Quiñones were unjustified and

arbitrary under categories II and III of the Working Group’s methods of work.

(i)

Category II

30.

Mr. Quiñones’ deprivation of liberty is alleged to be arbitrary under category II

because it results from the exercise of the rights provided for in article 19 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights. The source affirms that Mr. Quiñones’ arrest on 22 April 2019 and his

subsequent detention are related to his activity as a journalist in that he was threatened when

arriving at court to cover a public trial and report on it for independent electronic media

outlets. Moreover, this arrest was part of a string of attacks against him that had begun in

2015, when security officials raided his home and confiscated his work equipment, among

other belongings. It was also part of a campaign of constant harassment that he suffered in

2018, when security agents carried out a second raid and he received direct threats from

police and State Security officers because of his work as a journalist, specifically for

spreading “fake news” and “usurping functions” to facilitate his reporting activities.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155

5

31.

The April 2019 arrest and detention were executed without a warrant, and he was

denied access to information about the criminal proceedings being brought against him. He

was arbitrarily detained for five days, during which time he sustained serious injuries, was

denied medical assistance (as required under domestic law) and was released without being

formally brought before a judge for a ruling on the lawfulness of his detention.

(ii)

Category III

32.

The source maintains that Mr. Quiñones’ detention is arbitrary under category III,

claiming a violation of the right to a fair trial, including the right to a defence and the right

to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, and a violation of the prohibition of

inhuman and degrading treatment.

33.

It is alleged that Mr. Quiñones’ right to a defence was obstructed by a series of

unwarranted delays and violations of due process. His requests to appoint himself as his legal

counsel were persistently delayed in the days leading up to his trial, he was not granted

permission to represent himself in court and he was thus not represented by a lawyer during

his trial.

34.

It is claimed that Mr. Quiñones did not have access to his criminal case file until the

day of his trial, when the Court granted him a limited period of just half an hour to examine

the accusations and evidence against him, which was not a reasonable amount of time in

which to prepare his defence.

35.

It is also claimed that the Court refused to admit the evidence put forward by Mr.

Quiñones, claiming that it was unrelated to the case and that the injuries sustained by Mr.

Quiñones during his arrest on 22 April 2019 were self-inflicted. As a result, the sentence

handed down did not take account of Mr. Quiñones’ version of events and the evidence he

put forward, which contradicted the accusations brought by the military officials, as stated in

the letter of complaint that Mr. Quiñones submitted to the Military Prosecutor’s Office on 3

May.

36.

It is alleged that Guantánamo Court admitted and ruled on Mr. Quiñones’ appeal

without observing procedural law. Pursuant to article 381 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the

Court was required to summon both parties to a hearing to examine the evidence presented

at the initial trial and to hear any new evidence presented as relevant to substantiate the

appeal. The Court reportedly decided not to hold a hearing, claiming that Mr. Quiñones had

a personal understanding of the evidence presented – a subjective consideration seemingly

used by the Court to justify its decision to exclude the facts and evidence put forward.

37.

The source adds that the decisions concerning the enforcement of the sentence lacked

legal certainty insofar as Mr. Quiñones received two differing orders to start his correctional

labour with custody.

38.

Lastly, it is alleged that Mr. Quiñones has suffered reprisals after certain letters he

sent from prison were published and he complained about the conditions of his detention.

The source states that this constitutes a disproportionate and aggravated punishment, in

violation of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is argued that the

Disciplinary Council’s decision also contravenes article 54 of the Constitution, which

establishes that the State recognizes, respects and guarantees freedom of thought, conscience

and expression. In addition, the source considers that the conditions Mr. Quiñones faces in

prison violate article 51 of the Constitution, which establishes that no person may be

subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Response from the Government

39.

On 23 December 2019, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source

to the Government. The Working Group requested the Government to provide detailed

information on Mr. Quiñones’ case, clarifying the legal and factual bases for his detention,

by no later than 21 February 2020.

40.

The Government submitted its response on 13 January 2020. The Government

maintains that the claims that Mr. Quiñones’ detention was arbitrary, and that he was

assaulted and, as a consequence, suffered multiple injuries during his arrest, are false.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

6

GE.21-01155

41.

According to the Government, on 22 April 2019, at 1.50 p.m., while the oral hearing

of a trial of public interest was taking place at Guantánamo Municipal People’s Court, Mr.

Quiñones attempted to enter the court building by force, but was prevented by law

enforcement officers, whom he violently attacked and assaulted, leading to his arrest at the

scene of the incident.

42.

In accordance with article 116 of the Criminal Procedure Act, one of the law

enforcement officers went to the police station of the Guantánamo National Revolutionary

Police to file a complaint of resistance and disobedience. Mr. Quiñones was formally arrested

and charged on 22 April 2019, in compliance with the formal requirements and legal

safeguards required under Cuban procedural law, including the requirement to present the

corresponding arrest warrant.

43.

Mr. Quiñones was released on the morning of 27 April 2019, at 10.30 a.m. When he

declined to agree to the application of article 8 (3) of the Criminal Code, and the provisions

of Decree-Law No. 310/13, which allow the competent authority to impose an administrative

fine instead of referring the case to court, precautionary measures requiring him to report

regularly to the designated authority, as provided in article 255 (4) of the Criminal Procedure

Act, were ordered against him. He was informed of his right to appoint a lawyer to assist him,

which he again declined to exercise.

44.

The Government points out that this precautionary measure, by its nature, limits the

movement of the persons concerned to their area of residence as they are required to report

regularly to the police station. It is therefore untrue that Mr. Quiñones was forbidden to leave

his province of residence without a direct order from State security officers, who, moreover,

are not involved in the preliminary phase of procedures of this kind.

45.

The Government also maintains that it is untrue that Mr. Quiñones sustained a number

of injuries during his arrest. In fact, he suffered only a torn nail on the index finger of his

right hand, and this was a result of his violent behaviour towards the law enforcement

officers. He received medical treatment for this injury at the General Teaching Hospital

before being transferred to the Guantánamo Municipal Unit of the National Revolutionary

Police, in accordance with the procedures established for such cases.

46.

According to the Government, the complaint lodged by Mr. Quiñones in respect of

the minor injury he sustained as a result of his resistance and disobedience during arrest was

dismissed by the Military Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds that the police authorities had

acted diligently during the arrest and that the cause of his injury was linked to his violent

behaviour.

47.

The criminal proceedings brought against Mr. Quiñones under case No. 121/2019

were conducted with full respect for procedural safeguards and the legal principles that

inform due process, which are established in the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, the

Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Act and Act No. 82 (the People’s Courts Act).

48.

In addition, during the oral public hearing held on 6 August 2019 in the Criminal

Chamber of Guantánamo Municipal People’s Court, Mr. Quiñones exercised his right to legal

representation, in accordance with the provisions of article 249 of the Criminal Procedure

Act, presenting his defence before the judicial authorities himself, as he is a qualified lawyer.

As such, he was able to examine the actions detailed in the file corresponding to the

preparatory phase and to present evidence. It is therefore untrue that he was not granted

permission to represent himself, that he was not represented by a lawyer during the trial, and

that he did not have access to his criminal file and to the evidence brought against him by the

prosecution.

49.

After receiving notification of his sentence of one year’s imprisonment reduced to

correctional labour with custody, Mr. Quiñones filed an appeal before Guantánamo

Provincial People’s Court, but the appeal was declared inadmissible.

50.

The Government states that it is neither unlawful nor contrary to Cuban criminal law

for the court to dismiss a defendant’s appeal without holding an oral hearing. Article 381 (4)

of the Criminal Procedure Act, to which the communication received makes reference,

waives the requirement for an oral hearing when the appeal relates to points of law or is

aimed solely at challenging the appropriateness of the sentence, as in the case in question.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155

7

51.

The Government also affirms that the allegations that there were unexplained changes

to the dates on which Mr. Quiñones was required to report to serve his sentence and that his

sentence was increased to imprisonment are untrue. The Court decided on the penalty, within

the limits established by law, taking into account, in particular, the degree of danger the

defendant posed to society, any mitigating and aggravating circumstances applicable, his

motives, background and personal characteristics, his behaviour after committing the offence

and his capacity for rehabilitation. It also took into account the principles of proportionality,

objectivity and consistency in sentencing established in the Cuban Criminal Code. Mr.

Quiñones’ failure to appear to serve his sentence on 5 September 2019 attests only to his

attitude of disrespect and disdain for the jurisdictional mandate of Guantánamo Provincial

People’s Court.

52.

Since 11 September 2019, Mr. Quiñones has been serving his sentence of one year’s

imprisonment reduced to correctional labour with custody in Guantánamo Provincial Prison.

Since this date, he has enjoyed the rights and benefits conferred by law. He has received three

family visits and has twice made use of the conjugal unit – facts at odds with the false claim

that his family has been denied the possibility of visiting him and that planned visits have

been cancelled on several occasions. He has been provided with the medical assistance agreed

for his diagnosis of psoriasis, arterial hypertension and glaucoma, and medication has been

administered in all cases. As provided in the prison regulations, he has the possibility of

corresponding with persons outside the prison, receiving visitors and items for his personal

use, and has access to recreation and sports activities in accordance with scheduled

programmes.

53.

The Disciplinary Council had met twice to consider violations of the Disciplinary

Regulations governing conduct in prisons on his part. As a punitive measure, it was agreed

merely to restrict his telephone calls for a period of 13 days. The allegations of other punitive

measures being taken against Mr Quiñones are therefore untrue.

54.

Furthermore, the Government rejects the claim that Mr. Quiñones’ detention is related

to his work as a journalist. According to the Government, the grounds for his arrest on 22

April 2019 were disobedience, disrespect and resisting the police authorities. It is likewise

untrue that there has been a concerted campaign of attacks against Mr. Quiñones since 2015.

In Cuba no one is detained, persecuted, harassed, threatened or intimidated for exercising his

or her human rights, which are fully recognized and protected under Cuban law.

55.

The source’s allegations of a violation of the right to a fair trial, including the right to

a defence and to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, and a failure to comply

with the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment are totally false and unfounded. The

Government states that the trial held in August 2019, in which Mr. Quiñones was the

defendant, did not violate the safeguards established for legal proceedings and was oral,

public and adversarial, as stipulated in Cuban procedural law, and as was recorded in the

corresponding judgment.

56.

The independence of judges in the administration of justice is a principle of the Cuban

legal system, enshrined in article 122 of the Constitution and regulated by Act No. 82 of

1997. In exercising their functions, judges are guided solely by the authority of the law. Any

infringement of this rule, or any obstruction of its implementation, constitutes a violation of

legality, with corresponding disciplinary and possibly even criminal measures for the parties

responsible.

57.

Other principles of the Cuban justice system that guarantee the right of individuals to

a fair trial include the active participation of citizens in the administration of justice, the fact

that judges are elected, the collegiate composition of the courts when adopting decisions at

all levels and the possibility of appealing judicial decisions. The manner in which the

independence of judges is regulated in Cuba, as a principle of the legal system, is fully in line

with international standards.

58.

No extrajudicial executions, torture or forced disappearances are committed in Cuba;

defending human rights is not a criminal offence and there are no reprisals, as stated in the

allegations.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

8

GE.21-01155

Additional comments from the source

59.

The source points out that the Government’s response does not coincide with the

records of the Military Prosecutor’s Office and is also at odds with the version of events

recorded by Guantánamo Provincial People’s Court; resolution No. 289 of the Military

Prosecutor’s Office of 2019 states that Mr. Quiñones used neither force nor violence against

the State agents. The source also highlights that the judgment issued by the First Chamber of

Guantánamo Provincial People’s Court is inconsistent with the Government’s response in

that it does not indicate that Mr. Quiñones’ conduct was violent or threatening in a manner

that warranted his arrest. The source notes that, at the time Mr. Quiñones was arrested, the

authorities did not state that he was being arrested for violent conduct.

60.

According to the source, the first military prosecutor established that a complaint had

been filed against the officers involved in Mr. Quiñones’ arrest because they had caused him

various injuries, but that these were ruled by Guantánamo Department of Forensic Medicine

to be non-serious injuries even though they required medical treatment. According to the

source, the necessity and proportionality of the force used against Mr. Quiñones have not

been explained at any time, either at the time of his arrest, at the police station, during his

trial or subsequently.

61.

The source notes that, under article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the police may

arrest any person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued but that the Act does not

establish which authority has the power to issue such warrants. Article 244 provides that an

arrest report should be drawn up after the arrest has been made. Arrests are not subject to

court supervision. Prosecutors have the power to order pretrial detention. Detainees are not

brought before the courts until the investigative process has been completed and the

proceedings have been presented to the court.

62.

In addition, the Cuban Criminal Code empowers police officers to interpret the law

and apply it as if they were judges. Pursuant to article 8 (3), they are authorized to punish the

offender by imposing fines instead of referring the case to court. Fines are imposed without

the recipient having access to a lawyer. Accepting the imposition of a fine constitutes an

implicit acknowledgement of guilt, in violation of the presumption of innocence and without

the recipient’s guilt being determined by a judge. Mr. Quiñones refused to accept the

imposition of a fine since he considered himself innocent of the charges against him.

63.

On 5 August 2019, when he was served with a writ of summons for the oral trial

hearing two days later, Mr. Quiñones appeared before the Court to state that, in his

professional capacity as a lawyer, he would be conducting his own defence and requesting

access to the records of proceedings. The Court denied him access to the records until he was

able to provide a certificate attesting to his inclusion in the register of lawyers and entitling

him to conduct his own defence. Such certificates are issued by the Judicial Registry

Department of the provincial office of the Ministry of Justice, an institution which Mr.

Quiñones also visited, and which usually takes up to three weeks to issue the required

certificate. On 7 August, Mr. Quiñones was informed that he had half an hour to study the

case file and prepare his defence. Mr. Quiñones did not examine the records contained in the

file on the preparatory phase and, although he had evidence to present, it was not admitted

by the Court.

64.

The source stresses that the First-Instance Court did not even bother to read the initial

statements of the prosecution witnesses taken during the pretrial stage in order to check for

any possible contradictions. The judge accepted their statements as accurate and insinuated

that the injuries caused to Mr. Quiñones were self-inflicted. The source stated that this reflects

the lack not only of independence but also of impartiality of the Cuban courts.

65.

On 12 August 2019, Mr. Quiñones lodged an appeal before Guantánamo Provincial

People’s Court. In appeal cases, the general rule is that a hearing or retrial is held. The only

exceptions are those cases in which the defendants admit the facts and their guilt and are

challenging only the penalty. On 27 August, the Court of Appeal notified Mr. Quiñones of

its decision to declare his appeal inadmissible, thereby declining to hold a retrial in which it

would have had the opportunity to restore the safeguards of the parties to the proceedings or

else to annul the proceedings in view of the violations of domestic law and due process

guarantees.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155

9

66.

With regard to the enforcement of the sentence, the source reports that Guantánamo

Municipal People’s Court summoned Mr. Quiñones to report to the prison on 12 September

2019 to begin serving the sentence handed down, but that this date was later brought forward

to 5 September for no apparent reason. However, Mr. Quiñones did not report to the prison,

as he did not consider himself guilty of the offences with which he was charged. Mr.

Quiñones’ failure to comply with the summons does not constitute disrespectful and unlawful

conduct, but is a form of civil disobedience in the face of proceedings that were plagued by

due process violations.

67.

With regard to the conditions of his detention, the source indicates that Mr. Quiñones

was subjected to a form of imprisonment that contravenes international norms and human

dignity. Mr. Quiñones was released on 4 September 2020, having served his sentence.

Discussion

68.

The Working Group thanks the parties for the information provided and for their

cooperation.

69.

The Working Group recognizes that Mr. Quiñones was released on 4 September 2020,

having served his sentence. According to paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, the

Working Group reserves the right to render an opinion on whether the deprivation of liberty

was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of the person concerned. In the present case, Mr.

Quiñones was allegedly subjected to serious human rights violations, including detention for

having exercised freedom of opinion and expression and a failure to observe due process

guarantees. In such circumstances, the Working Group decides to issue an opinion.

70.

In determining whether Mr. Quiñones’ detention was arbitrary, the Working Group

takes account of the principles established in its jurisprudence on evidentiary issues. If the

source has established a prima facie case for breach of international law constituting arbitrary

detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes

to refute the allegations. Mere assertions that lawful procedures have been followed will not

be sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations (A/HRC/19/57, para. 68). In the present case,

the Working Group takes note of the Government’s various claims that the proceedings

against Mr. Quiñones were in compliance with Cuban law. However, even when detention is

carried out in conformity with domestic legislation, the Working Group must assess whether

it was consistent with international human rights law.1

71.

The Working Group notes that Mr. Quiñones was detained twice, firstly for five days,

from 22 to 27 April 2019, and secondly for almost a year, from 11 September 2019 until his

release from prison on 4 September 2020. The Working Group will consider whether the

detention of Mr. Quiñones during these periods was arbitrary.

(i)

Category I

72.

The source alleges that Mr. Quiñones was arrested on 22 April 2019 by officers of the

National Revolutionary Police at the entrance to Guantánamo Municipal People’s Court,

where he had gone to report on a trial of public interest. According to the source, when the

officers informed Mr. Quiñones orally that he was going to be detained, they asked him to

show his identity card. Mr. Quiñones asked to know the reasons for his arrest, and, after he

refused to show identification, the officers used force to apprehend him, causing him physical

injuries. The source further alleges that the arrest and detention were carried out without a

court order and that Mr. Quiñones was not provided with information about the criminal

proceedings against him. He was released five days later, without being brought before a

judge for a ruling on the lawfulness of his detention.

73.

In its response, the Government denies the allegations, affirming that Mr. Quiñones

attempted to enter the Court by force and was prevented from doing so by the law

enforcement officers. According to the Government, Mr. Quiñones violently assaulted the

officers, and this resulted in his arrest. One of the agents filed a complaint against Mr.

1 Opinions No. 5/2020, para. 71; No. 46/2019, para. 50; No. 4/2019, para. 46; and No. 10/2018, para.

39.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

10

GE.21-01155

Quiñones for the offences of resistance and disobedience, and he was charged with these

crimes on 22 April 2019, in accordance with the legal requirements established under Cuban

law, including the requirement that an order for his detention at Guantánamo police station

be issued. In subsequent comments, the source notes that the documents issued by the State

institutions involved in the case do not refer to Mr. Quiñones’ behaviour as violent or

threatening to an extent that might justify his arrest. The source also notes that, at the time of

the arrest, the authorities did not inform Mr. Quiñones that it was due to his violent behaviour.

74.

The Working Group considers that the source has presented a credible prima facie

case that the authorities did not show an arrest warrant at the time of Mr. Quiñones’ arrest.

According to the Government’s account, the officers could not have produced such a warrant

at the time of the arrest, as there is no information to suggest that they had prior knowledge

that he would attempt to enter the courthouse, and could therefore already have been in

possession of a warrant. Moreover, the version of events presented by the Government does

not appear to be backed up by the decision of the Military Prosecutor’s Office (see para. 59

above): in other words, there appears to be no evidence that Mr. Quiñones was violent and

attacked the officers. In these circumstances, the Working Group considers that Mr. Quiñones

was not arrested in flagrante delicto and that an arrest warrant was therefore required.2

75.

It is not enough that there is a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must state

the legal basis for the arrest and apply it by means of an arrest warrant.3 In the present case,

the arresting officers did not show a warrant at the time of the arrest,4 in violation of articles

3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.5 Accordingly, the authorities did not

establish a legal basis for Mr. Quiñones’ arrest. In addition, the Working Group is not

convinced that Mr. Quiñones was informed of the reasons for his arrest. In order to invoke a

legal basis for deprivation of liberty, the authorities should have informed Mr. Quiñones of

the reasons for his arrest when it was carried out.6 Their failure to do so constituted a violation

of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 10 of the Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,

and rendered Mr. Quiñones’ arrest and detention arbitrary.

76.

The Working Group also notes that Mr. Quiñones did not appear before a judge during

the five days that he was detained, from 22 to 27 April 2019. The Government does not

mention that Mr. Quiñones appeared in court during this period and has offered no

explanation as to why he did not. As the Working Group has highlighted, an arrestee must be

brought before a judge within 48 hours; any delay must be absolutely exceptional and must

be justified.7 The Working Group concludes that Mr. Quiñones has not been afforded the

right to be brought promptly before a judicial authority in order to challenge the lawfulness

of his detention, contrary to article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

principles 11 and 37 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any

Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The lawfulness of detention should be verified by a

judge, not by a prosecution body or security force.8

77.

The Working Group also notes that, during the initial period of his detention, from 22

to 27 April 2019, Mr. Quiñones was not afforded the right to take proceedings before a court

in order that the court might decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention, in

accordance with articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle

2 Opinion No. 9/2018, para. 38.

3 Opinions No. 46/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2018, para. 48; No. 36/2018, para. 40; and No. 10/2018, para.

45.

4 Opinion No. 45/2019, para. 50 (an arrest warrant must be shown at the time of arrest and is not

sufficient if shown later). See also opinion No. 71/2019, para. 70.

5 Opinions No. 37/2020, para. 52; No. 33/2020, para. 54; No.31/2020, para. 41; No. 82/2018, para. 29;

No. 68/2018, para. 39; No. 30/2018, para. 39; No. 26/2018, para. 54; No. 10/2018, para. 46; and No.

3/2018, para. 43 (the presentation of an arrest warrant is a fundamental part of procedure pursuant to

articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

6 Opinions No. 33/2020, para. 55; No. 31/2020, para. 42; No. 83/2019, para. 50; No. 46/2019, para. 51;

No. 32/2019, para. 29; and No. 10/2015, para. 34.

7 Opinions No. 76/2019, para. 38; No. 56/2019, para. 80; No. 36/2019, para. 36; No. 26/2019, para. 89;

and No. 20/2019, para. 66.

8 Opinions No. 33/2020, para. 75; and No. 32/2020, para. 44.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155

11

32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention

or Imprisonment. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-

standing human right, the absence of which constitutes a human rights violation.9 Judicial

oversight of the deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty, and is

essential to ensuring that detention has a legal basis.10 Given that Mr. Quiñones was unable

to challenge his detention, his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights was also violated.

78.

In addition, Mr. Quiñones was initially charged with the offences of resistance and

disobedience, established under articles 143 and 147 of the Criminal Code, and ultimately

served a one-year prison sentence for these offences. The Working Group has previously

found the definitions of these and similar offences to be vague and overly broad, as they do

not clearly specify the type of criminal activity that may be punishable.11 The principle of

legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision to give individuals access

to and an understanding of the law and enable them to regulate their conduct accordingly.12

The application of vague and overly broad provisions in the present case made it impossible

to invoke a legal basis to justify Mr. Quiñones’ detention and conviction.

79.

Lastly, the Working Group notes the source’s assertion that Mr. Quiñones was

arrested on 11 September 2019. According to the source, the arrest took place one day before

the starting date of the sentence stipulated in the original record of the hearing, that is, 12

September.

80.

The source notes that, after his appeal was dismissed, Mr. Quiñones received a

summons to report to begin his sentence on 5 September 2019. The summons provided no

information about either the reasons for the change of starting date or the cancellation of the

previous order. Mr. Quiñones did not appear on 5 September to serve his sentence because

he apparently had no legal certainty about the validity of two orders with different dates. As

a result his sentence was raised to a year’s detention in a closed prison, but no notification of

the change in sentence was issued.

81.

The Government states that the allegations of a change in the date on which Mr.

Quiñones was required to report to begin his sentence are false. However, it provided no

information specifying the date on which Mr. Quiñones had been ordered to start his

sentence, even though it might be expected to have access to such information. Such

information could have demonstrated that there had been no change of date and that the

sentence was due to commence on 5 September 2019. Consequently, the Working Group

considers that the allegations of the source have not been rebutted and that the Government

has not demonstrated that a change in the starting date of the sentence had been duly

communicated to Mr. Quiñones. Mr. Quiñones was detained before the date on which his

detention order was due to take effect and was not notified of the change. The Working Group

concludes that the authorities did not adhere to the legal procedures necessary to ensure a

legal basis for Mr. Quiñones’ detention.

82.

For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Quiñones’ detention from

22 to 27 April 2019 and from 11 September 2019 to 4 September 2020 had no legal basis and

was arbitrary under category I.

(ii)

Category II

83.

The source alleges that Mr. Quiñones was detained as a result of the peaceful exercise

of his right to freedom of opinion and expression, as recognized in article 19 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights. Mr. Quiñones, who is a journalist, was arrested on 22 April

2019 while attempting to report on a public trial for a media outlet. The source claims that

9 A/HRC/30/37, para. 2.

10 Ibid., para. 3. See also A/HRC/39/16, para. 24.123.

11 Opinions No. 4/2020 and No. 63/2019. See also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

Annual Report 2019, chap. IV.B, Cuba, para. 22, available at www.oas.org/es/cidh/docs/

annual/2019/docs/IA2019cap4BCU-en.pdf.

12 Opinions No. 37/2020, para. 60; and No. 41/2017, paras. 98–101. See also opinion No. 62/2018,

paras. 57–59.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

12

GE.21-01155

the arrest was part of a string of attacks against Mr. Quiñones between 2015 and 2019, during

which time his home was raided and he received threats related to his reporting activities.

84.

In its response, the Government stresses that Mr. Quiñones was not detained because

of his work as a journalist, but that his detention was the result of the disobedience, lack of

respect and resistance he showed towards the police during his arrest. The Government also

denies that there has been a campaign of attacks against Mr. Quiñones, asserting that no one

in Cuba is detained, persecuted, harassed, threatened or intimidated for exercising his or her

human rights, which are protected by law.

85.

The Working Group recalls that article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and that this

right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and

impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This right

encompasses the work of journalists reporting on matters of public interest.13

86.

The Working Group considers that Mr. Quiñones’ conduct in covering a trial is framed

within the right to freedom of opinion and expression protected under article 19 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that he was arrested for exercising this right. In

reaching this conclusion, the Working Group notes that the Government did not provide

information to substantiate its claim that Mr. Quiñones disobeyed or resisted the law

enforcement officers and was arrested for this reason. It should be noted that, in May 2019,

Mr. Quiñones filed two complaints with the Ministry of the Interior in which he documented

previous threats connected to his work as a journalist. In addition, the Working Group has

received numerous communications concerning cases in which journalists, political

opponents, human rights defenders and activists have been arbitrarily detained in Cuba for

the peaceful exercise of freedom of opinion and expression.14 Other international human

rights mechanisms have noted a similar pattern.15

87.

There is nothing to suggest that the permissible limitations on the above rights set out

in article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might affect the conclusions

drawn in the present case. In particular, the Government has provided no reasons that might

have legitimized restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression. The Working Group is

not convinced that prosecuting Mr. Quiñones was necessary to protect a legitimate interest,

nor that imprisonment was a proportionate response to his work as a journalist. Importantly,

there is no evidence to suggest that his work, or his reaction when he was arrested, required

or involved violence, or could reasonably be considered to threaten the rights and freedoms

of others, morality, public order or the general welfare in a democratic society. The Working

Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right

to freedom of opinion and expression.

88.

The Working Group concludes that the detention of Mr. Quiñones from 22 to 27 April

2019 and his imprisonment from 11 September 2019 to 4 September 2020 were the direct

result of the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression under article

19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and were arbitrary under category II.

(iii)

Category III

89.

In view of its finding that the detention of Mr. Quiñones was arbitrary under category

II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should have taken place. However,

Mr. Quiñones was convicted at the end of a trial, and his appeal was dismissed. The Working

Group therefore considers it important to assess whether the information submitted reveals

violations of his right to a fair trial and due process during the judicial proceedings.

13 Opinions No. 46/2020, No. 1/2020, No. 45/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 3/2019, No. 7/2016, No. 44/2015,

No. 40/2015, No. 52/2013 and No. 31/1998.

14 Opinions No. 4/2020, No. 63/2019, No. 66/2018, No. 64/2017, No. 55/2017, No. 9/2014, No.

17/2013, No. 23/2012, No. 17/2003, No. 16/2003, No. 9/2003 and No. 1/1998, and decisions No.

8/1996, No. 11/1995, No. 46/1994, No. 12/1993, No. 44/1992, No. 42/1992, No. 29/1992, No.

28/1992, No. 26/1992, No. 21/1992, No. 18/1992, No. 16/1992, No. 13/1992 and No. 11/1992.

15 CAT/C/CUB/CO/2, para. 20; A/HRC/39/16, paras. 24.112, 24.117, 24.132, 24.160, 24.163 and 164,

24.167, 24.171 and 172, 24.179, 24.181, 24.184, 24.192 and 193, 24.198–201 and 24.206.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155

13

90.

The source maintains that Mr. Quiñones’ requests to appoint himself as legal counsel

were delayed in the days leading up to the trial. He was not granted permission to represent

himself in court and was not represented by a lawyer during his trial. He was not granted

access to the case file because he did not have the certificate necessary to represent himself.

The source claims that Mr. Quiñones did not have access to his criminal case file until the

day of the trial, when the Court granted him just half an hour to examine the accusations and

evidence against him and prepare his defence. In addition, the Court did not accept the

evidence submitted by Mr. Quiñones, ruling that it was unrelated to the case and that the

injuries sustained by Mr. Quiñones during his arrest and detention in April 2019 were self-

inflicted. The sentence was decided without taking Mr. Quiñones’ account of the facts into

account.

91.

The Government maintains that the proceedings against Mr. Quiñones fully respected

the due process guarantees established in the Cuban Constitution and other laws. Mr.

Quiñones represented himself and presented his defence before the Court. He was able to

examine his case file, which contained the evidence against him, and to present evidence.

However, the Government did not provide any information to support its claims, including

details of when and for how long Mr. Quiñones was allowed access to the file prior to the

trial. The Government did not address the allegation that Mr. Quiñones had only half an hour

to prepare his defence and that the Court did not take the evidence presented by Mr. Quiñones

into account when deciding the sentence. The Working Group concludes that Mr. Quiñones

did not receive a fair trial in accordance with the principle of equality of arms, the right to

legal assistance and the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, in

violation of articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

92.

Furthermore, the source claims that Mr. Quiñones’ appeal was settled without a

hearing. According to the source, the Appeals Court was required to convene a hearing with

both parties to consider the evidence presented during the trial and any new evidence

presented on appeal. The source maintains that the Court decided not to hold a hearing, since

it considered Mr. Quiñones to have a personal understanding of the evidence presented. The

Government contends that the appeal ruling without an oral hearing did not violate Cuban

law, which waives the requirement for a hearing when the appeal involves points of law or

is solely for the purpose of challenging the appropriateness of the sentence, as was the case

with Mr. Quiñones’ appeal.

93.

The Working Group considers that Mr. Quiñones did not receive a satisfactory review

of his case. The Appeals Court denied him a hearing, based on his understanding of the

evidence, which suggests that it was unwilling to consider the evidence put forward by the

defence. Given the due process violations that occurred during the first instance trial, the

refusal to hold an appeal hearing was serious. While national legislation may not require such

a hearing, the Working Group’s role is to determine whether international standards have

been met.16 In this case, Mr. Quiñones was denied the right of appeal, and was thus also

denied the right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights.

94.

Lastly, the source claims that Mr. Quiñones was assaulted by the officers who arrested

him on 22 April 2019, causing him abrasions and injuries including a perforated eardrum.

According to the source, he did not receive adequate medical attention for these injuries, and

only had access to treatment after his release. In support of its allegations, the source refers

to the complaints made by Mr. Quiñones in relation to the assault. The Government denies

these allegations, stating that, as a result of the violent resistance he showed towards the

arresting officers, Mr. Quiñones suffered a torn nail on the index finger of his right hand, for

which he received medical assistance before being taken to the police station. His complaint

was dismissed by the Military Prosecutor’s Office.

95.

The Working Group considers that the source has presented a prima facie credible

case that Mr. Quiñones was assaulted during his arrest and that he was subjected to treatment

that could amount to torture and ill-treatment on the part of the authorities. This aggression

appears to violate article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 and

16 Opinion Nos. 46/2019, para. 50; and No. 4/2019, para. 46.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

14

GE.21-01155

16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment, to which Cuba is a State party. The injuries reported, in particular a perforated

eardrum, apparently prevented Mr. Quiñones from seeking a review of the lawfulness of his

initial detention and an effective remedy for any violation of his rights.17

96.

In addition, Mr. Quiñones raised the issue of his injuries during the trial, but the Court

dismissed the evidence and ruled that the injuries were self-inflicted. The failure of a judge

to intervene when torture or ill-treatment is alleged amounts to a violation of the right to a

fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal under article 10 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights18 and articles 12 to 14 of the Convention against Torture and

Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Working Group therefore

refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers

and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment. The referral includes the alleged beating of Mr. Quiñones on 22 April 2019.

97.

The Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a fair trial are of such

gravity that the detention of Mr. Quiñones, from 22 to 27 April 2019 and from 11 September

2019 to 4 September 2020, must be considered arbitrary under category III.

Final considerations

98.

The source reports that conditions in Guantánamo Provincial Prison were poor. Mr.

Quiñones was held in a cell 15 metres long by 9 metres wide that contained 10 bunk beds

and held 20 inmates. The water was often dirty and the cells were infested with bugs. Mr.

Quiñones’ health deteriorated during his detention. As a result of publicly denouncing the

conditions, Mr. Quiñones was brought before the Disciplinary Council, which banned him

from writing while serving his sentence. Mr. Quiñones’ contact with the outside world was

also limited. Upon his arrival at the prison, Mr. Quiñones asked to make a phone call, but he

was not allowed to do so until 10 days later. His right to make phone calls was withdrawn

for more than a month in 2019. Family visits were cancelled on various occasions.

99.

In its response, the Government indicates that Mr. Quiñones enjoyed the rights

conferred on him by law. He received three family visits and two conjugal visits. He was

provided with medical attention and medication. He was allowed to correspond with people

outside the prison and to take part in recreational and sporting activities. Due to his violations

of disciplinary regulations, he was the subject of two meetings of the Disciplinary Board,

which resulted in a 13-day ban on phone calls. The Government did not provide details of

the disciplinary violations.

100.

While noting the Government’s response, the Working Group remains concerned

about the prison conditions reported. Several human rights mechanisms have documented

the deplorable conditions in Cuban prisons.19 The Working Group urges the Government to

ensure that conditions in all places of deprivation of liberty in Cuba meet international

standards. This includes the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of

Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), in particular rules 12 to 27 relating to living conditions

and medical attention. The Working Group also urges the Government to ensure that

detainees have contact with the outside world, in accordance with rules 43 (3) and 58 of the

Nelson Mandela Rules and principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection

of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

101.

Lastly, the Working Group would welcome the opportunity to undertake a visit to

Cuba in order to assist the Government in addressing the concerns related to arbitrary

detention raised in the present case and other cases in recent years.20 As an elected member

of the Human Rights Council from 2021 to 2023, Cuba is in a good position to demonstrate

its commitment to human rights by inviting the Working Group to undertake a visit.

17 CAT/C/CUB/CO/2, para. 8; Opinions No. 5/2020, para. 81; and No. 66/2018, para. 58.

18 Opinions Nos. 24/2020, para. 108; No. 53/2018, para. 77 (b); and No. 46/2017, para. 25.

19 Opinions Nos. 66/2018, para. 58; No. 48/2018, para. 75; CAT/C/CUB/CO/2, para. 10; A/HRC/39/16,

paras. 24.129 and 130 and 24.154.

20 Opinions No. 4/2020, No. 63/2019, No. 66/2018, No. 59/2018, No. 48/2018, No. 64/2017, No.

55/2017, No. 12/2017, No. 9/2014, No. 17/2013, No. 69/2012 and No. 23/2012.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

GE.21-01155

15

Disposition

102.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Roberto de Jesús Quiñones Haces, being in

contravention of articles 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, was arbitrary under categories I, II and III.

103.

The Working Group requests the Government of Cuba to take the steps necessary to

remedy the situation of Mr. Quiñones without delay and bring it into conformity with the

relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. The Working Group encourages the Government to ratify the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights.

104.

The Working Group, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, considers

that the appropriate remedy would be to accord Mr. Quiñones an enforceable right to

compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.21

105.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr.

Quiñones and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his

rights.

106.

In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers

the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to

freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges

and lawyers; and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment, for appropriate action.

107.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure

108.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests

the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up

to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:

(a)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Quiñones;

(b)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr.

Quiñones’ rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;

(c)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of Cuba with its international obligations in line with the

present opinion;

(d)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

109.

The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may

have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and

whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working

Group.

110.

The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-

mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.

However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the

opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would

enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in

implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.

21 A/HRC/45/16, annex I.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/65

16

GE.21-01155

111.

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States

to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views

and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily

deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.22

[Adopted on 24 November 2020]

22 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.