Opinion; Subjects: CUBA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.21-16048 (E) 250122 260122
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-first session, 6–10 September 2021
Opinion No. 41/2021, concerning Denis Solís González and Luis Robles
Elizástegui (Cuba)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the Commission on
Human Rights in its resolution 1991/42. 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,1 on 12 March 2021 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Cuba a communication concerning Denis Solís González
and Luis Robles Elizástegui. The Government replied to the communication on 3 June 2021.
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).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
General Assembly
Distr.: General
4 November 2021
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
2
GE.21-16048
Submissions
Communication from the source concerning Denis Solís González
4.
Denis Solís González is a Cuban national who was born on 30 June 1988 and resides
in La Habana Vieja. He is a musician and activist with the independent art group Movimiento
San Isidro.
5.
He became involved in pro-democracy activism when he was 22 years old and since
then has been arrested repeatedly. For example, in 2011 he was arrested on 9 February, 8, 18
and 20 March, 8 and 14 April and 2 and 4 May. In 2016, he was arrested on 25 and 28 March.
The source reports that Mr. Solís and the persons accompanying him were detained for short
periods with the aim or effect of preventing them from participating in political, cultural or
religious activities. He has never been charged with a criminal offence or appeared in court.
He has recently been arrested on several more occasions, for example on 3, 9, 10 and 14
October 2020.
6.
The source reports that Mr. Solís has been a member of peaceful civic associations
such as the Partido Republicano de Cuba and Cuba Independiente y Democrática and that
some of his colleagues in these organizations have also been arbitrarily detained.2 He has
allegedly been arrested on numerous occasions and subjected to harassment and abuse by
police despite always conducting his activism in a peaceful manner.
7.
According to the source, Movimiento San Isidro, the organization to which Mr. Solís
currently belongs, brings together young artists, independent journalists and academics who
oppose the Government’s efforts to stifle freedom of expression and intellectual creation and
other human rights. Their protests take the form of songs, literary works and performances.
The organization campaigns against ideology-based discrimination and promotes respect for
artistic and human rights. Musicians, film-makers, actors, writers and intellectuals from the
press and the fields of art, culture and science have spoken out against the repression and
discrediting of the members of Movimiento San Isidro.
8.
According to the information received, the events that led to Mr. Solís’ arrest occurred
on 6 November 2020 and were recorded by him in a video broadcast live and in real time on
social networks.3
9.
On that date, a police officer entered Mr. Solís’ home without knocking, without
judicial authorization and without providing any explanation or identifying himself. The
officer did not give a reason for being there or for entering the premises. In accordance with
his rights, Mr. Solís asked the officer to leave his house because he had entered illegally. Mr.
Solís repeated his request over several minutes. When the officer did not leave, Mr. Solís
began to record the conversation and again asked the officer to explain why he was there and
to leave the house. The police officer ignored him. Exceeding the limits of his authority, the
police officer began to film Mr. Solís in his home, thereby violating his privacy. Mr. Solís
responded using expressions that could be considered offensive.
10.
The source claims that the officer’s irregular presence in Mr. Solís’ home infringed
his property rights and that his recording of Mr. Solís constitutes police misconduct and
violates article 48 of the Constitution.
11.
According to the source, before entering the property, the police officer should have
identified himself, explained to the occupants why he was there and contacted Mr. Solís to
notify him of the reason. If a complaint or notification form existed, he should have shown it
to Mr. Solís and asked him to sign it. If Mr. Solís had refused, the officer should have left.
None of this happened. Non-compliance with the aforementioned protocol reportedly
constitutes an offence of aggravated forcible entry under article 287 of the Criminal Code,
given that the officer entered a private residence without the express permission of the
occupant. The use of intimidation, provocation and psychological violence, in the form of
the threatening presence of a uniformed official, constitute aggravating factors.
2 Opinions No. 63/2019 (Josiel Guía Piloto) and No. 4/2020 (Silverio Portal).
3 https://www.facebook.com/100017269035041/videos/790464094872551/.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
GE.21-16048
3
12.
The source states that the recording and images taken illegally by the police officer in
Mr. Solís’ house were used as a pretext for his subsequent arrest and the indictment against
him.
13.
Mr. Solís was arrested at the intersection of calle Paula and calle Compostela in La
Habana Vieja on 9 November 2020, three days after the events at his home. The arrest was
carried out by three police officers, who used violence and did not explain why he was being
arrested.
14.
According to the information received, Mr. Solís was transferred to the police station
known as Punto 30, at the intersection of calle Cuba and calle Chacón in La Habana Vieja.
During his transfer, the three officers beat him inside the police vehicle. The source indicates
that several members of Movimiento San Isidro waited outside the police station for three
days and requested information on Mr. Solís’ situation but were given no details of his
whereabouts or the status of the case against him. At the police station, Mr. Solís was severely
beaten and subjected to cruel and degrading treatment. He was humiliated, a military boot
was placed on his head as he lay on the floor and he was forced to say “Long live the
Revolution!” and other ideological slogans. The police officer who had raided Mr. Solís’
home on 6 November 2020 was present.
15.
According to the source, on the night of 9 November 2020, Mr. Solís was transferred
to a police station in Havana known as “el vivac” (the bivouac). Mr. Solís was held
incommunicado in the cells there from the night of 9 November until the early morning hours
of 11 November, when he was transferred to the People’s Municipal Court of La Habana
Vieja, where he was tried and handed an eight-month prison sentence for the offence of
contempt of authority. At the conclusion of the trial, the conviction was announced orally.
16.
The source indicates that Mr. Solís was subjected to an expedited trial using the
summary procedure of direct testimony, without a formal written indictment, the assistance
of a defence lawyer or the presence or knowledge of his family and friends, who were
unaware of his situation. Under the direct testimony procedure, judges have the power to
hand down oral sentences and provide verbal notification of them at hearings that take place
without a prosecutor or lawyer present. As a result, the accused person is unaware of the
judicial decision because it is not set out in a written record or ruling. This procedure is
covered by Instruction No. 238 of the Governing Council of the People’s Supreme Court,
which de facto prevents the effective exercise of the right to appeal to a higher court.
Furthermore, the oral trial was held behind closed doors, and Mr. Solís was held
incommunicado until the deadline to appeal had expired. Once the decision was final and he
was serving his sentence, he was permitted to have telephone contact with the outside world.
The defence lawyer is unable to obtain a physical written copy of the decision.
17.
The source points out that the offence of contempt of authority is set out in article 144
of the Cuban Criminal Code. However, doctrine and international human rights organizations
reportedly consider it to be incompatible with freedom of expression and recommend its
removal from criminal legislation because it is often used as a means to repress political
opposition. The source reports that in Cuba, contempt of authority is one of the eight offences
most commonly prosecuted in the municipal courts.
18.
In this specific case, the source also claims that article 144 of the Cuban Penal Code
requires the offence to be committed against the authorities during or as a result of the
performance of their duties. The situation of Mr. Solís reportedly does not comply with the
requirements of the law itself, given that in entering the home of Mr. Solís without a warrant
the officer was not performing his duties but was acting in violation of them.
19.
A publication on the Cuban Criminal Code edited, printed and distributed by the
National Organization of Collective Law Firms states that when public officials exceed or
overstep the limits of their duties, the offence of contempt of authority cannot be used to
protect them.4
4 Yudith López Soria, Código Penal Cubano (Cuban Criminal Code), (Havana, National Organization
of Collective Law Firms, 2011), p. 60.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
4
GE.21-16048
20.
From the time of his arrest on 9 November 2020, Mr. Solís was held incommunicado
for more than a week, which allegedly further violated his right to a defence in the summary
proceedings and de facto prevented him from filing an appeal. After the trial, which took
place on 11 November 2020, he had only three days to appeal. He remained in
incommunicado detention until 16 November.
21.
The source reports that a relative of Mr. Solís who was unaware of his situation
submitted a habeas corpus petition on 10 November 2020. The response to the petition was
dated 11 November but was in fact delivered five days later, on 16 November, to another
person connected to Movimiento San Isidro.
22.
The source claims that it was impossible for Mr. Solís to freely hire a lawyer from
inside the prison because in order to request and be assigned one, it is necessary to visit the
law firms belonging to the National Organization of Collective Law Firms. The source
alleges that the legal profession is dependent on the political powers and the executive. Mr.
Solís’ placement in incommunicado detention made it impossible to freely hire a defence
lawyer, since it would have had to have been done by family members outside the prison who
had no information on his actual situation.
23.
The source indicates that after being convicted by the People’s Municipal Court of La
Habana Vieja, Mr. Solís was held in Valle Grande prison until 2 December 2020, when he
was transferred to the Combinado del Este facility, a maximum-security prison also located
in Havana. The source indicates that Mr. Solís is excluded by the prison management and,
unlike the other inmates, has not been offered the opportunity to engage in part-time work.
In addition, some of the food sent to him by family and friends does not reach him. State
Security agents who supervise him have told him that he will not be eligible for parole unless
he changes his views and supports the political interests of the Government.
24.
According to the source, the People’s Municipal Court of La Habana Vieja was
complicit in police impunity in this case because it is responsible for flagging any offence
committed by the police administration. In accordance with its legal obligation, as set out in
article 6 of Act No. 82, also known as the People’s Courts Act, it should have released the
corresponding testimony to the Prosecutor’s Office for it to investigate the events of 6
November 2020 and turned over the alleged perpetrator of the offence of forcible entry.
25.
The source notes that a trial that is not held in public as required by law, including the
absence of written notification to the parties of any procedural issues, violates the universal
guarantee of public trials set out in article 305 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
26.
The source indicates that Mr. Solís was tried for an ordinary offence and there was no
justification for the exceptional decision to hold the trial behind closed doors and out of sight
of anyone interested in the outcome. When there are no ideological or political elements at
play, it is common practice for trials involving similar offences to be held in public. The
source alleges that this constitutes further evidence that the decision to hold the trial behind
closed doors was political in nature and was intended to conceal the truth from individuals
who might have wished to attend.
27.
On 27 November 2020, more than 400 artists, intellectuals and journalists gathered
outside the Ministry of Culture to request the Government to release Mr. Solís and engage in
dialogue on the suppression of freedom of expression. Their requests were rejected.
28.
On 11 February 2021, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted
precautionary protection measures for Mr. Solís and 19 other members of Movimiento San
Isidro. 5 In its decision, the Commission considered that the rights to life and personal
integrity of Mr. Solís and the other 19 members of Movimiento San Isidro were at serious
risk and that the situation was likely to continue and worsen, and therefore requested Cuba
to adopt the necessary measures to protect them.
29.
The source submits that the detention of Mr. Solís is arbitrary and falls under
categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
5 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 14/2021, Precautionary Measure No.
1101-20.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
GE.21-16048
5
Category I
30.
The source argues that, according to the arguments, evidence and legal considerations
put forward, there are no legal grounds that can be invoked by the Government to justify the
arrest of Mr. Solís or his sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment.
Category II
31.
According to the source, the Government’s political motivations and the repressive
actions taken against Mr. Solís and Movimiento San Isidro, which is a group of artists
supported and respected by young people and the general public, demonstrate that the
ultimate aim is to suppress the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in articles 7,
13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Category III
32.
The source claims that in Mr. Solís’ case, the total or partial non-observance of the
international standards relating to the right to a fair trial, as set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, has been demonstrated to be of such gravity as to render his
deprivation of liberty arbitrary.
Category V
33.
The source claims that Mr. Solís’ deprivation of liberty is an act of discrimination
based on political and other opinions and that it ignores the principle of equality of human
beings and constitutes a violation of international law.
Communication from the source concerning Luis Robles Elizástegui
34.
Luis Robles Elizástegui is a Cuban national born on 2 December 1992 who resides in
Havana. He has no affiliation or ties to any political movement or organization and is self-
employed as a computer technician.
35.
According to the information received, on 4 December 2020, Mr. Robles, having
learned of the repression directed at Movimiento San Isidro in November, decided to exercise
his own right to freedom of expression and peaceful demonstration on Boulevard San Rafael
and attract the Government’s attention by holding a sign above his head that read “Libertad,
no + represión, #FreeDenis” (Freedom, no more repression, #FreeDenis).
36.
The source indicates that the demonstration was recorded, and several videos of it
were posted on social networks. The videos show State Security officials approaching Mr.
Robles, grabbing his sign and arresting him. Passers-by can be seen spontaneously voicing
their support for him. The videos also show that Mr. Robles attempted to exercise his freedom
of expression in a civic, peaceful and respectful manner and that his protest was suppressed.6
37.
According to the source, Mr. Robles did not resist or respond with violence, despite
knowing there were no grounds for his arrest. Since then, he has remained deprived of his
liberty without any justification whatsoever. In the source’s opinion, the manner in which
Mr. Robles was arrested demonstrates its arbitrariness. Mr. Robles was transferred to a cell
in the Criminal Operations and Investigation Unit of the State security services in Villa
Marista, Havana.
38.
The source indicates that Mr. Robles was arrested without being informed of the
criminal conduct in which he was alleged to have engaged; there were no prior grounds for
investigating him and he was not caught in flagrante delicto, since he was not committing an
offence by protesting. No prior court order for his arrest had been issued by the competent
authorities. In addition, he was fined on the spot for allegedly causing damage to a public
place, an offence that does not correspond to carrying a sign in public.
39.
The source reports that the decision to arrest Mr. Robles on 4 December 2020 was
made by State Security officers, and the arrest was conducted by officers from the National
6 https://www.facebook.com/yoani.sanchez/videos/10225246570656388/ and
https://twitter.com/mmpizonero/status/1335006809384431618.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
6
GE.21-16048
Revolutionary Police. After the first 24 hours, an investigator from the specialist unit for
offences against State security officials extended the detention until 7 December 2020, when
the prosecutor appointed to monitor the proper application of the law in the case assumed
responsibility for Mr. Robles. On 9 December, the prosecutor gave approval for him to
remain in prison and, as a precautionary measure, to be placed in pretrial detention, where he
remains to date.
40.
In the following days, the State security services sent officers to Mr. Robles’ address
to conduct a search in his absence and summoned the owner of the property. On 17
December, at the Criminal Operations and Investigation Unit of the State security services in
Villa Marista, he was given a document that had been handwritten by a police officer, which
listed the case number, the alleged offence with which he was charged, namely “other acts
against State security”, the name of the investigator and the order to place him in pretrial
detention. All of this happened despite the fact that a habeas corpus petition had been filed
on Mr. Robles’ behalf but had not elicited a response.
41.
According to the source, the State security services reported that preparatory file No.
49/2020 had been opened against Mr. Robles to investigate him, within six months, for the
offence of “other acts against State security”. During the investigation, he will remain in
pretrial detention.
42.
The source alleges that the events depicted in the recording of Mr. Robles’ arrest
demonstrate beyond doubt that he did not commit any offence provided for in law. There is
even less of a case to be made for the offence of “other acts against State security”, which
encompasses rebellion, sedition and very serious crimes unconnected to demonstrations and
freedom of expression and which is punishable under the Criminal Code with prison
sentences of more than 10 years. In the source’s opinion, there is even less reason to impose
pretrial detention.
43.
In addition to the criminal case, the source reports that at the time of his arrest, Mr.
Robles was fined 1,000 Cuban pesos, under article 11 (h) of Decree No. 272, for
demonstrating on a public thoroughfare. According to the source, article 11 (h), which refers
to the placement on the outside of buildings or in public spaces of advertisements, posters,
billboards, signage or items of temporary or permanent decoration or ornamentation, could
appear to be relevant to Mr. Robles’ actions but is not really applicable to what happened.
44.
The source alleges that, like the detention, the fine is completely arbitrary and
contributes to creating an atmosphere of intimidation and rights violations. Under article 170
(1) of the Criminal Code, if the large amount, which equates to more than one month’s salary,
goes unpaid, it could lead to a six-month prison sentence.
45.
Following Mr. Robles’ arrest, a habeas corpus petition was filed on 14 December 2020
before the People’s Provincial Court of Havana under articles 54, 92 and 94 of the
Constitution.
46.
On 16 December 2020, the Third Criminal Chamber of the People’s Provincial Court
of Havana rejected the habeas corpus petition without requiring those responsible for Mr.
Robles’ arrest to present him before a judge to be heard. The Chamber did not even indicate
the offence with which he has been charged or for which he is being investigated. This
deliberate omission works in favour of the prosecution and against any attempt at a defence.
47.
The source reports that the Chamber argued that a supposedly legitimate investigation
was under way and rejected the request to release Mr. Robles, claiming that all formalities
had been respected in determining the trial procedure and stating that he was subject to
criminal proceedings being handled by the Prosecutor’s Office. The source claims that the
Court concealed the details of the indictment and, warning of a possible violation of the
Constitution, limited itself to rejecting the request, thereby evading its constitutional duty to
ensure a defence.
48.
According to the source, Mr. Robles’ arrest and indictment are the result of his civic
expression of support for intellectuals and his fight for freedom of expression, and form part
of a political strategy to dissuade citizens from engaging in such activities.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
GE.21-16048
7
49.
The source claims that the charge of “other acts against State security” is baseless.
The source alleges that in reality, Mr. Robles was not arrested for public or private
preparatory acts inciting one or more persons, orally or in writing, to commit an offence
against State security, as set out in legislation. If that had been the case, it would be necessary
to prove a causal link between his actions and the actual result of the incitement and to
demonstrate a link between him and individuals who wish to overthrow the established
political and ideological order. The source recalls that Mr. Robles was motivated to express
himself by the detention of Mr. Solís, the historical suppression of freedoms and the absence
of dialogue with intellectuals and artists, which cannot constitute a basis for deprivation of
liberty.
50.
Since his arrest, Mr. Robles has not been brought before a judge to assess the legality
and reasonableness of the evidence, the relevance of the facts or the need for the
precautionary measure of pretrial detention. In accordance with the powers conferred on them
by the Criminal Procedure Act, the judge and the court are the final instance with jurisdiction
to try the case and issue a ruling on it. Under the Act, the accused can be detained without
contact with the court for up to six months while the investigation is conducted and can be
held even longer if the Attorney General intervenes and issues the relevant order. The matter
is currently being investigated by the prosecutor’s office.
51.
On 24 December 2020, a claim was filed to protect Mr. Robles’ rights because he had
not been permitted to engage a lawyer from the National Organization of Collective Law
Firms. On 29 December, a lawyer was finally engaged to represent him, and on 30 December,
a request was filed for a change to the measure of pretrial detention, which was refused.
Between 4 and 29 December 2020, Mr. Robles had no legal assistance. When the lawyer took
on the case on 29 December, he met with Mr. Robles at the Unit in Villa Marista, but there
has been no contact between them since then.
52.
The source also reports that Mr. Robles is being held under the precautionary measure
of pretrial detention ordered by the prosecutor appointed to the case on 9 December 2020.
No date has been set for a trial or public hearing. Furthermore, no criminal case has been
filed by the competent court. In other words, the matter has not yet been brought before a
court of law, and Mr. Robles has not been tried or sentenced.
Category I
53.
The source claims that, according to the arguments, evidence and legal considerations
put forward, there are no legal grounds that can be invoked to justify Mr. Robles’ arrest and
his placement in pretrial detention as a precautionary measure, since it is not an offence to
display a sign demanding justice.
Category II
54.
According to the source, the Government’s political motivations and the repressive
actions taken against Mr. Robles show that the aim of his detention is to suppress his exercise
of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. By accusing, investigating and arresting Mr. Robles and
threatening to prosecute him, the Government appears to be seeking to dissuade the general
public from gathering to demonstrate and express any opinion they deem appropriate.
Category V
55.
The source claims that Mr. Robles’ deprivation of liberty is an act of discrimination
based on political and other opinions and that it ignores the principle of equality of human
beings and constitutes a violation of international law.
Response from the Government
56.
On 12 March 2021, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government of Cuba, requesting that it submit a response before 11 May 2021. The
Working Group requested detailed information on the cases of Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles,
including the legal and factual grounds for their detention and an explanation of how it was
compatible with the State’s international human rights obligations.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
8
GE.21-16048
57.
The Government replied on 10 May 2021 requesting an extension, which was granted,
and subsequently sent its response on 31 May 2021, within the established deadline.
58.
In its response, the Government stated that the arrest and detention of Mr. Solís and
Mr. Robles were carried out in accordance with the law. In the case of Mr. Solís, it denies
that he is a pro-democracy political activist or human rights advocate. The organizations to
which he claims to belong are not recognized and have no legal standing under the terms set
out in law. Mr. Solís is not recognized as an artist by the Cuban Rap Agency. The
organizations are not registered or recognized and therefore lack legitimacy.
59.
The Government insists that Mr. Solís is not a cultural rights defender and has not
been arrested repeatedly or subjected to police harassment or abuse while attempting to
participate in political, cultural or religious activities. The Government claims that his arrest
was conducted in accordance with the law.
60.
The Government describes Mr. Solís’ legal situation and the reasons for his detention,
indicating that he had been arrested for disturbing the peace on two previous occasions and
for contempt of authority in 2011. Only on the last occasion was he held in a prison facility.
In addition, he has been given a warning on nine occasions, and on three other occasions has
been directed by the National Revolutionary Police to engage in educational work. He has
received six fines for infractions relating to causing a public disturbance and social disorder
and 28 fines for traffic violations.
61.
In the case of Mr. Robles, the Government states that he was arrested after being
intercepted in the street by a law enforcement officer who was on the scene in the
performance of his duties. Mr. Robles ignored the officer’s attempts to attract his attention
and intended to engage in provocation. His inappropriate behaviour caused a disturbance
among passers-by. The Government states that these events led to his arrest on 4 December
2020 for the alleged offence of “other acts against State security”, pursuant to articles 124 ff.
of the Criminal Code.
62.
The Government denies that Mr. Robles did not have access to a defence lawyer,
noting that in Cuba there is a system for legal assistance with any matter and for any offence.
Mr. Robles’ brother entered into a contract for legal services on 28 December 2020.
63.
The lawyer went to the Criminal Investigation Unit where he met with the accused,
explained to him all the aspects of the case and informed him of the request for a change to
the precautionary measure. The request was filed on 5 January 2021 and was subsequently
denied. Notification that the request had been denied was issued on 21 January. The lawyer
then filed an appeal, which was also rejected.
64.
Mr. Robles was taken to prison on 8 January 2021 and since then has not received
visits from his lawyer or family members due to the epidemiological situation and the
restrictions that have been put in place. He has telephone contact with his family and friends
and with his lawyer three times a week and has been updated on the status of his case. A
number of details were clarified, and the actions taken to defend him were explained to him.
65.
The Government also reports that Mr. Robles requested before the People’s Provincial
Court of Havana the immediate temporary suspension of his case and the judicial proceedings
in progress owing to the particular epidemiological situation and the need to comply with the
measures implemented to prevent and mitigate the risks and effects of the coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) pandemic. He based his request on Instruction No. 248, dated 31 March 2020,
of the Governing Council of the People’s Supreme Court and filed another request for a
change to the precautionary measure.
66.
The Government reports that Mr. Robles filed a habeas corpus petition with the
People’s Provincial Court of Havana on 9 February 2021. The petition was rejected under
article 467 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
67.
The Government states that Mr. Robles has undertaken two hunger strikes, has been
found to have breached prison regulations on three occasions and has twice been placed in
disciplinary cells. He is in good health, but on 17 March 2021 received medical treatment for
a bronchial asthma attack and a skin condition he has had since childhood.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
GE.21-16048
9
Additional comments from the source
68.
In accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group shared the Government’s
response with the source, who refuted it, noting that the Government has not been able to
disprove the allegations.
Discussion
69.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
70.
In determining whether the detention of Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles is arbitrary, the
Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to
rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.7 Mere assertions that lawful
national procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.
In the present case, the Working Group takes note of the Government’s various claims that
the detentions have been carried out in compliance with Cuban law. The Working Group
wishes to reaffirm that States have an obligation to respect, protect and uphold all human
rights and fundamental freedoms, including the liberty of person, and that any national law
allowing deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented in conformity with the
relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
other applicable international instruments. Even if the detention does conform to national
legislation, regulations and practices, the Working Group is mandated to assess the judicial
proceedings and the law to determine whether such detention is compatible with international
human rights law.8
Category I
71.
Mr. Solís was arrested on 9 November 2020, three days after a police officer entered
his home without knocking, without judicial authorization and without providing any
explanation or identifying himself. This happened despite the fact that under article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no one should be subjected to arbitrary interference
with their privacy, family or home.
72.
Mr. Solís recorded the incident and broadcast it in real time on social networks. The
Working Group recalls that transmission of material on the Internet is protected by the right
to freedom of opinion and expression enshrined in articles 18 and 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. This right protects freedom of expression even when it may
shock, offend, criticize, insult or disturb an individual or group.9
73.
The Working Group takes into consideration that fact that Mr. Solís’ arrest took place
three days after the incident and was carried out by three police officers who used violence
and did not present an arrest warrant or offer any explanations. The Working Group recalls
that international law requires an arrest warrant to be shown to the person being arrested, an
element which is a fundamental part of procedure in the context of the right to liberty and
security of person and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation under articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
74.
Furthermore, according to the source, during his transfer to the police station, Mr.
Solís was beaten by the three officers inside the vehicle, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
75.
Mr. Solís was held incommunicado from the night of 9 November until the morning
of 11 November. Consequently, he was prevented from challenging his detention before a
judge and from contacting a lawyer and receiving legal assistance, thereby depriving him of
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
8 Opinions No. 5/2020, para. 71; No. 46/2019, para. 50; No. 4/2019, para. 46; and No. 10/2018, para.
39.
9 See, for example, opinions No. 33/2019, No. 4/2019, No. 46/2013, No. 35/2012 and No. 7/2008.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
10
GE.21-16048
his right to defend himself effectively, in violation of article 8 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
76.
The source reports that at the police station, Mr. Solís was severely beaten and
suffered cruel and degrading treatment. He was humiliated, a military boot was placed on his
head as he lay on the floor and he was forced to say “Long live the revolution!” and other
slogans. The police officer who had raided his home was present. These events have not been
refuted by the Government and constitute a violation of article 5 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for appropriate action.
77.
On 11 November 2020, three days after his arrest, Mr. Solís was brought before the
People’s Municipal Court of La Habana Vieja, where he was tried and handed an eight-month
prison sentence for the offence of contempt of authority. At the conclusion of the trial, his
conviction was announced orally.
78.
The Working Group considers that the source has presented a credible prima facie
case that Mr. Solís was arrested without a warrant10 and that he was not caught in flagrante
delicto.11 The Working Group emphasizes that it is not sufficient for there to be a law under
which an arrest may be authorized. The authorities must state the legal basis for the arrest
and apply it by means of a court order.12 Furthermore, the officers who detained him also
failed to explain the reason for his arrest, thereby violating articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.13 The authorities did not therefore establish a legal basis for
Mr. Solís’ arrest.
79.
In order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of liberty, the authorities should have
informed Mr. Solís of the reasons for his arrest at the time that it was carried out.14 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, rendering Mr. Solís’ arrest and detention arbitrary.
80.
The Working Group also notes that while he was in detention between 9 and 11
November 2020, Mr. Solís did not receive legal assistance because he was being held
incommunicado, and was denied the right to appear before a court for a judge to 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 32 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
81.
The Working Group recalls that the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention
before a court is a self-standing human right, the denial of which constitutes a human rights
violation.15 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.16 Given that Mr.
Solís 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.
82.
Consequently, the Working Group considers the detention of Mr. Solís to be arbitrary
under category I.
10 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.
11 Opinion No. 9/2018, para. 38.
12 Opinions No. 46/2019, para. 51; No. 46/2018, para. 48; No. 36/2018, para. 40; and No. 10/2018, para.
45.
13 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).
14 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.
15 A/HRC/30/37, para. 2.
16 Ibid., para. 3. See also A/HRC/39/16, para. 24.123.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
GE.21-16048
11
83.
In the case of Mr. Robles, the Working Group is convinced that the source has
established a prima facie case of arbitrary detention. Furthermore, in its response, the
Government confirms the details of his arrest.
84.
Mr. Robles’ arrest violated the guarantees enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Considering the circumstances of the arrest, the officer could not have
presented an arrest warrant or explained the reasoned legal grounds for ordering his detention.
Mr. Robles was detained under the assumption that he intended to engage in provocation,
meaning that the arrest was made on the basis of a “suspicion” that he “probably intended”
to commit a crime, in violation of articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
85.
According to the information from the source, which has not been contested by the
Government, there is no law that prohibits the public display of a sign bearing a peaceful
message. If there was, it would constitute a violation of the right to freedom of expression
and of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.17
86.
The Working Group also finds a violation of article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which states that no one should be held guilty of any criminal offence on
account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when
it was committed. The Working Group also recalls the importance of the universal legal
principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, which is violated by Mr. Robles’ detention.
87.
The Working Group finds no legitimate reason to justify the detention of Mr. Robles,
who was also denied timely legal assistance. The Working Group notes that detained persons
should have access, from the moment of arrest, to legal assistance of their own choosing, as
stipulated in the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures
on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings before a Court.18 Mr.
Robles was denied this right since, between the time of his arrest, on 4 December 2020, and
28 December, he was not permitted any contact with a lawyer19 to ensure the defence of his
case. His capacity to exercise his right to challenge his detention was thus seriously
undermined, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and principles 17 and 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
88.
The Working Group recalls that under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for
acts violating the fundamental rights granted to them by the constitution or by law.
89.
Both Mr. Robles and Mr. Solís were denied effective access to a habeas corpus
remedy, which is a human right in itself under articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. A habeas corpus remedy protects two fundamental rights, namely the
detainee’s rights to individual liberty and to personal integrity.
90.
Since Mr. Robles was taken to prison on 8 January 2021, he has not received visits
from his lawyer or family members due to the epidemiological situation in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Working Group recalls that it has urged States to review all cases
of deprivation of liberty to determine whether the detention is still justified as necessary and
proportionate in the prevailing context of the COVID-19 pandemic.20
91.
The Working Group wishes to emphasize that arbitrary detention can never be
justified, not even on the basis of a national emergency or in order to protect public safety or
health. The prohibition applies in any territory under the jurisdiction or effective control of
the State, or as a result of the acts or omissions of its agents or officials. The Working Group
has urged States to ensure that the emergency public health measures they adopt to combat
the pandemic respect personal freedom.
17 A/HRC/22/44, para. 63. See also opinions No. 41/2017; No. 52/2018; and No. 62/2018, paras. 57–59.
See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 22.
18 A/HRC/30/37, annex, paras. 12–15 (principle 9).
19 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, paras. 1 and 5.
20 A/HRC/45/16, annex II (deliberation No. 11, para. 13).
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
12
GE.21-16048
92.
The Working Group recalls that States must implement alternatives to deprivation of
liberty.21 These requests have nevertheless been denied by the Government, which has not
taken into account Mr. Robles’ state of health.
93.
In view of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that the detentions of Mr. Solís
and Mr. Robles have been carried out in violation of the guarantees established in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and fall under category I.
Category II
94.
The source claims that Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles have been arbitrarily detained for
reasons related to the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, particularly those set out in articles 18 and 19, concerning freedom of expression.
95.
In the case of Mr. Solís, the Working Group notes that he has been a member of
peaceful civic associations such as the Partido Republicano de Cuba and Cuba Independiente
y Democrática, and that colleagues with whom he worked in these organizations have also
been arbitrarily detained.22
96.
The Working Group also notes that Mr. Solís has been arrested on numerous occasions
and subjected to police harassment and abuse23 despite engaging solely in peaceful activism
aimed at defending cultural and artistic rights as a member of Movimiento San Isidro, an
organization which brings together young artists, independent journalists and academics who
oppose the Government’s efforts to stifle freedom of expression and intellectual creation and
other human rights.
97.
The Working Group observes that Mr. Solís’ engagement includes participation in
artistic political endeavours such as a music video showing images of police abuse and the
horrified reaction of witnesses.24
98.
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 medium. This right includes the right of artists to
express themselves in public and to disseminate their art. Detaining an individual for such
actions is a violation of article 19. The Working Group decides to refer the present case to
the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.
99.
The Working Group is convinced that Mr. Solís has been involved in political
activities as a member of an organization that speaks out against the Government, which has
not refuted these claims. Mr. Solís’ detention for this reason violates his rights to freedom of
association and participation in public affairs, as provided for in articles 20 and 21 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
100.
In the case of Mr. Robles, the Government has not demonstrated that he ignored a
police officer’s attempts to attract his attention and caused a disturbance among passers-by
with his inappropriate behaviour. The Government has not demonstrated how holding up a
sign could constitute an offence against State security.
21 Revised deliberation No. 5, paras. 14 and 16, and opinion No. 72/2017.
22 Opinions No. 63/2019 (Josiel Guía Piloto) and No. 4/2020 (Silverio Portal).
23 National authorities and international supervisory bodies should apply the heightened standard of
review of government action, especially when there are allegations of a pattern of harassment (see
opinion No. 39/2012, para. 45). See also General Assembly resolution 53/144, annex (Declaration on
the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect
Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 9 (3)).
24 This conclusion is shared by other United Nations special procedures experts in their decisions. See
A/72/382, paras. 16−25; A/74/342, para. 23; and A/HRC/43/59, para. 18. See also
A/HRC/23/40/Add.1, para. 71 (Freedom of expression can be exercised through any medium. This
includes the right to participate in demonstrations and peaceful protests staged by social sectors or
organizations that wish to show their discontent with public policies, natural resource development
contracts, the attitudes adopted by civil servants or other situations.)
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
GE.21-16048
13
101.
The Working Group is convinced that Mr. Robles’ action was an expression of his
political position and he therefore must not be punished for it, in accordance with articles 19
and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
102.
The Working Group recalls that it 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.25
103.
The Working Group has found that individuals have been detained without an arrest
warrant and mostly have not been informed of the reasons for their detention. The Working
Group concludes that there is a lack of compliance with detention procedures that constitutes
a systemic problem in Cuba.
104.
In view of the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that the arrests of Mr. Solís
and Mr. Robles were the direct result of the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of
opinion and expression, association and participation, as protected by articles 19, 20 and 21
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and fall under category II.
Category III
105.
In view of its finding that the detention of Mr. Solís was arbitrary under category II,
the Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should have taken place. However, Mr.
Solís was subjected to an expedited trial using the summary procedure of direct testimony,
and the Working Group will proceed to examine whether it was conducted in accordance
with international law.
106.
The Government maintains that the proceedings against Mr. Solís fully respected the
law and the due process guarantees established in the Constitution. Under the direct testimony
procedure, judges have the power to hand down oral sentences and provide verbal notification
of them at short hearings that take place without a prosecutor or lawyer present. As a result,
the accused person is unaware of the judicial decision because it is not set out in a written
record or ruling. This procedure is covered by Cuban regulations.
107.
The Working Group notes that, from the time of his arrest on 9 November 2020, Mr.
Solís was held incommunicado for more than a week, which reportedly made it even more
difficult for him to exercise his right to a defence in the summary proceedings. After the trial
on 11 November, he had only three days to appeal, but was held incommunicado until 16
November, preventing him from exercising his right to a review of his conviction by a higher
court. Holding him incommunicado constitutes a violation of his right to challenge the
legality of his detention before a court, as provided for in article 8 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
108.
Furthermore, the oral trial took place behind closed doors, and Mr. Solís was held
incommunicado until the deadline to appeal had expired. He was not permitted to have
telephone contact with the outside world until the decision was final and he had begun serving
his sentence. To date, it has not been possible to obtain a physical written copy of the
decision.
109.
Mr. Solís was charged with contempt of authority. The Working Group has found the
definitions of this and similar offences to be vague and overly broad, as they do not clearly
specify the type of criminal activity that is punishable.26 The principle of legality requires
that laws be formulated with sufficient precision to ensure that individuals can understand
them and regulate their own conduct accordingly. The application of vague and overly broad
25 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.
26 Opinions No. 4/2020; No. 63/2019; and No. 65/2020, para. 78. See also Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, Annual Report 2019, chap. IV.B, Cuba, para. 22, available at
http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/docs/ annual/2019/docs/IA2019cap4BCU-en.pdf.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
14
GE.21-16048
provisions made it impossible to invoke a legal basis to justify Mr. Solís’ detention and
conviction.
110.
The Working Group finds that these actions impede a fair trial and violate articles 7,
8, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantee equality before
the law, the right to legal counsel and the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a
defence, as well as the right to submit appeals to the competent authorities. Mr. Solís has
been denied all of these guarantees. In these circumstances, the Working Group refers the
case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
111.
The Working Group considers that the right to adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of a defence and to communicate with a lawyer is a vital element for a trial to be
considered fair and impartial. In this case, Mr. Solís was denied this right, a fact which has
not been refuted by the Government.
112.
In addition, the source has stated that Mr. Solís was assaulted by the officers who
arrested him and that he suffered cruel and humiliating treatment.27 This assault violates
article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 and 16 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. In such cases, it is for the Government to demonstrate the invalidity of the
claims, which it has not done.
113.
The Working Group considers it important to underline that in its deliberation No. 11,
on the prevention of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the context of public health
emergencies, it warned that a detention may be arbitrary if it is not strictly necessary or
proportionate in fulfilling a legitimate objective. In particular, States should bear in mind that
a detention that may have initially met the requirements of necessity and proportionality may
no longer be justified if the circumstances of the case have changed significantly.
114.
These circumstances constituted aggravating factors in the violation of the right to
presumption of innocence. The Working Group emphasizes that the presumption of
innocence is a fundamental element in the protection of human rights and that the burden of
proof with regard to the accusation rests with the Government. This guarantee assures the
accused the benefit of the doubt and requires that persons accused of a criminal act be treated
as innocent. All public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a
trial.28
115.
The Working Group concludes that Mr. Solís did not receive a fair trial in accordance
with the principle of equality of arms and that his detention is arbitrary under category III.
Category V
116.
Having examined the case, the Working Group finds that Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles
have been detained as acts of repression of their freedom of expression and, in Mr. Solís’
case, as a result of his artistic and political demonstrations in support of cultural rights and
his participation in political activities, as has been demonstrated in the consideration of this
opinion.
117.
The Working Group takes the opportunity to reiterate the statement of the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, namely that freedom of expression can be exercised through any sort of medium.
This includes the right to participate in demonstrations and peaceful protests staged by social
sectors or organizations that wish to show their discontent with public policies, natural
resource development contracts, the attitudes adopted by civil servants or other situations.29
118.
The Working Group also reiterates that it applies a heightened standard of review in
cases in which the freedom of expression and opinion is restricted or in which human rights
defenders are involved. The engagement of Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles in social expression,
27 CAT/C/CUB/CO/2, para. 8; and opinions No. 5/2020, para. 81; and No. 66/2018, para. 58.
28 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.
29 A/HRC/23/40/Add.1, para. 71.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
GE.21-16048
15
defence of human rights and freedom of expression requires the Working Group to maintain
this strict level of scrutiny.
119.
The Working Group has established in its jurisprudence that human rights defenders,
in particular, have the right to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both
in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to draw public
attention to such matters through appropriate means, as determined by the Declaration on the
Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and
Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.30
120.
In these circumstances, the Working Group concludes that the arrests of Mr. Solís and
Mr. Robles fall under category V.
Disposition
121.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Denis Solís González is arbitrary, as it
contravenes articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and falls under categories I, II, III and V. The deprivation of liberty of Luis
Robles Elizástegui is arbitrary, as it contravenes articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and falls under categories I, II and V.
122.
The Working Group requests the Government of Cuba to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situations of Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles without delay and bring them 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.
123.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles immediately and
accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
124.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr.
Solís and Mr. Robles and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of their rights.
125.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, and the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, for appropriate action.
126.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
127.
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 Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles have been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Solís and
Mr. Robles;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Mr. Solís and Mr. Robles and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
30 See opinions No. 8/2009, para. 18; and No. 88/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/41
16
GE.21-16048
(d)
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;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
128.
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.
129.
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.
130.
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.31
[Adopted on 10 September 2021]
31 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.