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.25-15465 (E) 211125 241125
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 46/2025, concerning Mitzael Díaz Paseiro, Nidia Bienes
Paseiro, Ariana López Roque, Orlando Pineda Martínez, Yunior Jorge
Ramos Yera, Yunior Iglesias Velázquez, Loreto Hernández García,
Donaida Pérez Paseiro, Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac, Lisdiani Rodríguez
Isaac, Juvier Jiménez Gómez, Demis Valdés Sarduy, Ciro Alexis
Casanova Pérez, Yeidel Carrero Pablo, Yamani Noel Pupo Soto and
José Enrique Pablo Oliva (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 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 7 March 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Cuba a communication concerning Mitzael Díaz Paseiro,
Nidia Bienes Paseiro, Ariana López Roque, Orlando Pineda Martínez, Yunior Jorge Ramos
Yera, Yunior Iglesias Velázquez, Loreto Hernández García, Donaida Pérez Paseiro, Lisdani
Rodríguez Isaac, Lisdiani Rodríguez Isaac, Juvier Jiménez Gómez, Demis Valdés Sarduy,
Ciro Alexis Casanova Pérez, Yeidel Carrero Pablo, Yamani Noel Pupo Soto and José Enrique
Pablo Oliva. The Government has not replied to the communication. 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);
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
General Assembly
Distr.: General
5 November 2025
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
2
GE.25-15465
(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.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
According to the source, the present communication concerns the following
16 persons, all of whom are nationals of Cuba:
• Mitzael Díaz Paseiro, born on 22 August 1978
• Nidia Bienes Paseiro, born on 17 August 1987
• Ariana López Roque, born on 14 May 1990
• Orlando Pineda Martínez, born on 4 October 1984
• Yunior Jorge Ramos Yera, born on 11 January 1991
• Yunior Iglesias Velázquez, also a national of Spain, born on 24 January 1985
• Loreto Hernández García, born on 4 May 1971
• Donaida Pérez Paseiro, born on 25 February 1971
• Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac, also a national of Spain, born on 12 October 1998
• Lisdiani Rodriguez Isaac, also a national of Spain, born on 12 October 1998
• Juvier Jiménez Gómez, born on 19 April 1971
• Demis Valdés Sarduy, born on 11 September 1980
• Ciro Alexis Casanova Pérez, born on 18 September 1975
• Yeidel Carrero Pablo, born on 19 June 1988
• Yamani Noel Pupo Soto, born on 15 July 1989
• José Enrique Pablo Oliva, born on 11 May 1972
(i)
Context
5.
On 11 July 2021, peaceful demonstrations began in San Antonio de los Baños and
soon spread throughout the country. The Government responded harshly and the President,
in a televised statement, described the participants as “criminals”, linked them to the United
States of America and called on the people to fight against those who questioned the
Government. Busloads of individuals, summoned by the Government in coordination with
the Department of State Security and the police forces of the Ministry of the Interior and the
Communist Party, arrived and violently repressed the demonstrators.
6.
After the demonstrations had been broken up, thousands of protesters were arrested
and prosecuted. All the persons mentioned in the previous paragraph were arrested by the
Cuban authorities because they had allegedly participated in the demonstrations held on
11 July 2021 in the municipality of Santa Clara.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
7.
None of the 16 arrested persons was shown an arrest warrant, either at the time of
arrest or shortly thereafter. Three persons were arrested on 11 July 2021 itself, while the
others were arrested in the following days.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
3
8.
The individuals were not arrested in flagrante delicto but later, after images and videos
of the protesters had been illegally seized. The Government singled out persons critical of
the Communist Party and held them responsible for the events of 11 July 2021.
9.
The arrests of the 16 individuals and the precautionary measures of pretrial detention
were carried out by the investigating police officers and the prosecutor, in all cases without
judicial protection, which constitutes a violation of minimum procedural guarantees.
10.
The precautionary measure of pretrial detention was formally ordered for all the
individuals days after their arrest (three of them – Mr. Carrero Pablo, Mr. Pupo Soto and
Mr. Pablo Oliva – had their precautionary measure of pretrial detention changed to another
measure before the trial) without judicial protection being ordered by the investigating police
officer and the prosecutor, as is mandatory in Cuba. The 16 individuals were held
incommunicado for hours and even weeks at a time while they were in pretrial detention.
During this time, they were all questioned without the presence of a lawyer and subjected to
degrading treatment and psychological pressure.
Mr. Díaz Paseiro
11.
He is an activist for the Frente de Resistencia Cívica Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a
member of the Asamblea de la Resistencia Cubana and the Directorio Democrático Cubano,
and a religious practitioner within the Asociación de Yorubas Libres de Cuba. He was
arrested on 11 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after participating in
the demonstrations.
12.
Mr. Díaz Paseiro spent more than 10 days in a situation of enforced disappearance
and more than 20 days without having any contact with his family. He was held in solitary
confinement and questioned without the presence of a lawyer. He was first permitted to
receive a visit from a family member after 40 days had passed. He was sentenced to 6 years’
imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for authority and resistance.
Ms. Bienes Paseiro
13.
She is an activist for the Academia Julio Machado and the Frente Nacional de
Resistencia Cívica Orlando Zapata Tamayo. She was arrested on 12 July 2021, without an
arrest warrant or any justification, after participating in the demonstrations. She was
disappeared for more than 10 days, held incommunicado for 20 days and questioned without
the presence of a lawyer. It was not until 40 days after her arrest that she received her first
visit from a family member. She was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment for public disorder,
contempt for authority and assault.
Ms. López Roque
14.
She is an activist and the director of the Academia Julio Machado. She was arrested
on 11 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after participating in the
demonstrations. Ms. López Roque’s family had no contact with her for days, during which
time she was held in solitary confinement and questioned without the presence of a lawyer.
She was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for authority and
assault. In prison, she was punished and held incommunicado for political reasons.
Ms. Pérez Paseiro
15.
She is a priestess of the Yoruba religion and a member of the Asociación de Yorubas
Libres de Cuba. She was arrested on 15 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any
justification, after participating in the demonstrations. Her family had no contact with her for
several days, during which time she was held in isolation and questioned without a lawyer.
She was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for authority and
assault.
Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac
16.
She is a religious practitioner within the Asociación de Yorubas Libres de Cuba and
was arrested on 17 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after participating
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
4
GE.25-15465
in the demonstrations. She was disappeared for more than 30 days without being permitted
to contact her family or use the telephone. During that time, she was held in a punishment
cell and questioned without the presence of a lawyer. It was not until 120 days later that she
received her first visit from a family member. She was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment
for public disorder, contempt for authority and assault.
17.
In late January 2024, Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac learned that she was pregnant following
a conjugal visit with her partner in late 2023. After an initial medical visit in which she was
diagnosed as pregnant, the officials at Guamajal Prison did not provide her with prenatal
medical care or other measures appropriate to her condition. Although Lisdani Rodríguez
Isaac suffered from severe morning sickness, the prison authorities did not provide her with
an anti-emetic medication to alleviate her symptoms. As the portions of food provided to the
inmates were small and lacking in nutritional value, Ms. Rodríguez Isaac was forced to rely
on family members to bring her food to supplement her diet. On 28 May 2024, thanks to
pressure brought by a number of special procedure mandate holders of the United Nations,
the authorities granted Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac extra-penitentiary leave for one year so that
she could carry her pregnancy to term outside prison. Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac gave birth in
September 2024.
Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac
18.
She is a religious practitioner within the Asociación de Yorubas Libres de Cuba. She
was arrested on 17 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after participating
in the demonstrations. She was disappeared for more than 30 days, held incommunicado and
questioned without a lawyer. After 120 days, she received her first visit from a family
member. She was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for
authority and assault.
19.
In March 2024, she was denied access to a minimum security regime and family visits,
without justification. In November, she was brutally beaten, leaving her with bruises on her
face and hands. She was then forced to remain standing for 13 hours and was forbidden from
making phone calls and receiving visits in order to cover up the assault.
Mr. Pineda Martínez
20.
He is a citizen who is critical of the political system but has no known affiliations. He
was arrested, without an arrest warrant or any justification, in the days following the
demonstrations of 11 July after participating in them. His family had no contact with him for
days. He was held in isolation and questioned without the presence of a lawyer. He was
sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for authority and assault.
Mr. Ramos Yera
21.
He is a citizen who is critical of the political system but has no known affiliations. He
was arrested on 14 July 2021 after the protests, without a warrant or any justification. He was
sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for authority and assault.
He suffers from migraines and severe sinusitis and does not receive adequate treatment in
prison.
Mr. Iglesias Velázquez
22.
He is a citizen who is critical of the political system but has no known affiliations. He
was arrested on 14 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after participating
in the demonstrations. He was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for the offences of public
disorder and contempt for authority.
Mr. Hernández García
23.
He is an Ifá priest (seer) of the Yoruba religion and a member of the Asociación de
Yorubas Libres de Cuba. He was arrested on 15 July 2021 after being summoned without a
warrant following his participation in the protests. He was held in isolation and kept
incommunicado for several days and was questioned without the presence of a lawyer.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
5
24.
Mr. Hernández García is serving 7 years’ imprisonment in Guamajal (Villa Clara) for
public disorder and contempt for authority. He suffers from asthma, high blood pressure,
diabetes, heart problems and severe malnutrition and is the subject of a medical opinion
declaring him unfit for prison. He submitted requests for extra-penitentiary leave on two
occasions, both of which were denied. In November 2024 he was assaulted by another
prisoner, causing a hypertensive crisis that required him to be admitted to the infirmary.
Mr. Jiménez Gómez
25.
He is a citizen who is critical of the political system but has no known affiliations. He
was arrested on 18 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after participating
in the demonstrations. His family had no contact with him for days, during which time he
was held in isolation and questioned without the presence of a lawyer. He was sentenced to
5 years’ imprisonment for public disorder, contempt for authority and assault.
Mr. Valdés Sarduy
26.
He is an activist member of the Movimiento Cubano Reflexión. He was arrested on
18 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after participating in the
demonstrations. He was subjected to questioning without the presence of a lawyer. He was
sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for public disorder and contempt for authority, with the
penalty commuted to forced labour without imprisonment. When his privilege was revoked,
he fled Cuba and now lives in exile, having been persecuted and prevented from leading a
normal life or returning to his country.
Mr. Casanova Pérez
27.
He is an activist for the Academia Julio Machado, Juventud Despierta and
Movimiento Cubano Reflexión. He was arrested on 15 July 2021, without an arrest warrant
or any justification, after participating in the demonstrations. His family had no contact with
him while he was held in isolation for several days and questioned without the presence of a
lawyer. He was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for public disorder and
contempt for authority.
Mr. Carrero Pablo
28.
He was arrested on 15 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after
participating in the demonstrations. His family had no contact with him for several days,
during which time he was held in isolation and questioned without the presence of a lawyer.
Prior to the trial, his pretrial detention order was replaced with a precautionary measure
requiring him to report to the authorities. He was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for
public disorder and assault.
Mr. Pupo Soto
29.
He was arrested on 11 July 2021, without an arrest warrant or any justification, after
participating in the demonstrations. His family had no contact with him for several days,
during which time he was held in isolation and questioned without the presence of a lawyer.
Prior to the trial, he was issued with a precautionary measure requiring him to report to the
authorities. He was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for public disorder and assault.
Mr. Pablo Oliva
30.
He was arrested, without an arrest warrant or any justification, in the days following
the demonstrations of 11 July 2021 after participating in them. Mr. Pablo Oliva’s family had
no contact with him for several days, during which time he was held in isolation and
questioned without the presence of a lawyer. Prior to the trial, his pretrial detention order was
commuted to house arrest. He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for public disorder
and contempt for authority, with the penalty being commuted to forced labour without
imprisonment. His latest legal status was that he was on extra-penitentiary leave, which
expired following surgery for an ulcer.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
6
GE.25-15465
(iii)
Trial proceedings
31.
The 16 individuals were convicted in a first-instance judgment handed down by the
People’s Municipal Court of Santa Clara on 2 February 2022 (case No. 149/2021) for the
offences of public disorder, contempt for authority, assault, and resistance, receiving
sentences ranging from 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment. In the second-instance judgment handed
down by the People’s Provincial Court of Villa Clara on 12 May 2022, the penalties were
amended very little.
32.
The claims declared to be proven in the first-instance judgment relate to the fact that,
on 11 July 2021, the 16 individuals exercised their right to assemble, to demonstrate and to
freely express their opinion and that no violence resulted from these persons’ acts.
33.
All 16 individuals spent long periods in maximum security prisons under detention
orders issued by the public prosecutor’s office without any judicial protection. All the
witnesses for the prosecution were members of the Ministry of the Interior. All the experts in
the case are also members of Cuban government institutions. The principle of equality of
arms has been prevented from being upheld as witnesses and experts for the defence have
been dismissed from the proceedings without justification.
34.
None of the 16 individuals benefited from an expert, legal and independent defence
throughout the criminal proceedings, except for the lawyers provided by the Government,
who report to the Ministry of Justice. Where these lawyers are concerned, the Working
Group,2 the Committee against Torture3 and other special procedure mandate holders4 have
stated that their lack of independence flagrantly violates the right to equality of arms and
procedural rights.
35.
With regard to Mr. Díaz Paseiro, Mr. Hernández García, Ms. Pérez Paseiro,
Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Issac and Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac, five special procedure
mandate holders expressed concern about the allegations of arbitrary detention on religious
grounds.5
36.
On 14 January 2025, the Government, after entering into an agreement with the
Vatican, announced the “gradual” release from prison of 553 persons who had been
“punished for various offences”. According to the source, none of the persons convicted in
case No. 149 of 2021 has been effectively released, except for one who has just served a full
sentence. They are all continuing to serve their sentences, either under house arrest or in
prison (Mr. Hernández García remains in prison). Of the total number of convicted persons,
12 (Ms. López Roque, Mr. Casanova Pérez, Ms. Pérez Paseiro, Mr. Jiménez Gómez,
Ms. Lisdani Rodriguez Issac, Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac, Mr. Díaz Paseiro, Ms. Bienes
Paseiro, Mr. Pineda Martínez, Mr. Pupo Soto, Mr. Carrero Pablo and Mr. Ramos Yera) are
under what the source likens to house arrest.
37.
According to the source, the 12 individuals are serving their sentences on probation
or on extra-penitentiary leave. Their release is merely pro forma, as they face the threat of
being returned to prison if they do not respect severe restrictions: they cannot leave their city,
travel abroad or undertake consular procedures. In many cases, they are undertaking forced
labour. They are prohibited from expressing themselves on social networks, speaking to the
press or communicating with human rights organizations. They may not engage in activities
critical of the Government, must report to judges on a regular basis and are kept under
constant surveillance.
38.
This does not represent a release from prison in real terms or under international law.
Far from being an effective release, it is a disguised form of house arrest. Many of them could
be sent back to prison owing to the harsh monitoring and harassment to which they are
subjected outside.
2 Opinions No. 63/2021 and No. 63/2019.
3 CAT/C/CUB/CO/3, paras. 14 and 15.
4 Communication CUB 2/2024. All communications mentioned in the present document may be
consulted at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
5 Communication CUB 4/2023.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
7
39.
The source reports that Mr. Iglesias Velázquez is fully at liberty since he completed
his full sentence on 2 December 2024. Mr. Pablo Oliva is on temporary extra-penitentiary
leave, which was granted so that he could undergo ulcer surgery. According to the
information provided by the source, however, when his medical situation improves, he will
return to prison.
(iv)
Legal analysis
40.
The source claims that the detention of the 16 individuals falls under categories I, II,
III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Categories I and III
41.
None of the detainees was shown an arrest warrant, either at the time of arrest or
shortly thereafter. In addition, principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment was violated because in no case was
the judiciary involved in, or informed of, these detentions. In none of the cases was there any
judicial protection.
42.
In proceedings that took place prior to 1 January 2022, the Criminal Procedure Act
(No. 5 of 1977) granted full powers to police officers known as investigators. After 24 hours
of police custody, the investigating police officer had an additional 72 hours (additional to
the initial 24) to keep the defendant in custody and make a further decision. The prosecutor
then had an additional 72 hours in which to make a decision on the recommendation of the
investigating police officer. In no case did any judge take part in the procedure defined in the
Act during these 168 hours. Therefore, no judge was informed of the detentions carried out
by the police, the investigating police officer and the public prosecutor’s office. In addition,
the investigation and pretrial detention may be extended indefinitely on the sole approval of
the Attorney General, without any involvement by judges.
43.
The judicial stage, which can last for months or years, takes place after the
investigation phase and is led by the investigating police officer. When the preliminary phase
is complete, the case is referred to the court and the prosecutor’s request or the provisional
concluding arguments are issued. In practice, almost all the 16 arrested persons remained in
pretrial detention from the time of their arrest.
44.
The source notes that the lack of independent lawyers in Cuba has been highlighted
by the Working Group on numerous occasions.6 The Committee against Torture has also
raised concerns about this issue.7 In Cuba, there are no independent defence lawyers, since
they are officially, hierarchically and financially dependent on the Ministry of Justice.
45.
According to the source, judges in Cuba are chosen, not on the basis of academic
merit, but on subjective criteria such as “morality” and “prestige” under the supervision of
the Communist Party of Cuba, which they must obey in order to remain in office. The
Communist Party of Cuba controls the grass-roots organizations that propose candidates for
the National Assembly, which appoints, and can dismiss, prosecutors, magistrates and
judges. This ensures that the party exercises direct control over the prosecution and the courts,
thereby nullifying judicial independence. All the defendants were tried by dependent and
biased judges whose tenure depended on their repressing “anti-revolutionary” conduct, in
violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
46.
The source notes that equality of arms is an essential principle of justice that is linked
to articles 7 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Experts must be
independent, but in Cuba they act only at the request of the authority and are appointed by
prosecutors or investigating officers subject to State control, which casts doubt on their
impartiality. Five expert opinions were cited in the prosecutor’s request of 16 September
2021, but none of the experts reaffirmed their opinions at trial, preventing them from being
challenged.
6 Opinions No. 63/2021, para. 93; and No. 63/2019, paras. 102–111.
7 CAT/C/CUB/CO/3, paras. 14 and 15.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
8
GE.25-15465
47.
Criminal proceedings in Cuba are subject to shortcomings in respect of the evaluation
of testimonies as a distinction is made between those considered relevant by the court and
those proposed by the parties. As with the State’s expert opinions, the testimonies of officials
should not be sufficient to restrict the right to the presumption of innocence or justify
deprivation of liberty, given the political influence exerted by the Communist Party.
48.
The witnesses put forward by the public prosecutor’s office were exclusively State
officials or agents, while those acting for the defence were discredited.
49.
According to the source, the “proven facts” section of the judgment handed down by
the People’s Municipal Court of Santa Clara includes disqualifications, value judgments and
violations of privacy and the presumption of innocence, with charges being brought against
persons with no criminal record, revealing an ideological bias.
50.
The source states that the court relied on value judgments relating to the defendants’
private and political lives in the “proven facts” section to justify convictions or increase
sentences that bore no relation to the acts with which they were charged.
b.
Category II
51.
The source claims that the detentions violate articles 19 and 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as charges are brought without evidence, rights are restricted
without any proportional justification, and vaguely defined offences are applied, contrary to
the principle of legality. It recalls that, in order to restrict the rights of expression and protest,
in accordance with the so-called three-step test, a legal basis, a legitimate aim and strict
proportionality are required.8
52.
The source points out that in no case were there any circumstances that might justify
restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and demonstration of the persons
prosecuted in connection with the demonstrations of 11 July 2021. Therefore, the conduct of
the Cuban authorities directly violated articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in that they repressed demonstrations against the Government, punishing
dissidents and instilling fear to deter people from peacefully exercising these rights.
53.
The source notes that the prosecutorial and court documents discredit demonstrators
for criticizing the system, using such criticism as the basis for bringing charges and
reproducing a pattern of discrimination and criminalization of the right to demonstrate, in
violation of international law.
54.
The charges brought against the demonstrators of 11 July 2021 were not duly justified,
since any conduct relating to the demonstrations, even the act of displaying a banner or
accompanying the march, was classed as criminal. The offences of public disorder, contempt
for authority, resistance and assault were applied both individually, in connection with a
specific act by a demonstrator, and jointly, in combination with other charges.
55.
The aforementioned offences are based on vague concepts subject to interpretation by
judges and prosecutors, which violates the principle of legality. The Working Group has
pointed out that they are vague and lack the necessary precision to provide legal certainty.9
There were no complaints by citizens that might have justified the charge of public disorder.
Where the charge of assault is concerned, there was no evidence that police officers had been
subjected to violence or injury, which shows that this offence is being applied improperly.
56.
The source points out that, where offences such as “assault”, “resistance”, “contempt
for authority” or “disobedience” are concerned, the authority must act in accordance with its
duties. However, in violently repressing the demonstrations in accordance with a presidential
order, the law enforcement authorities ceased to be protected by that condition, as they acted
contrary to their duties.
57.
The source points out that article 53 (e) of the Criminal Code, which provides for an
aggravating circumstance (taking advantage of a public calamity), was improperly applied,
8 European Court of Human Rights, The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, application No. 6538/74,
judgment of 26 April 1979, para. 45.
9 Opinions No. 63/2021 and No. 63/2019.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
9
since the events had nothing to do with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and
did not involve any greater danger. In Cuba it was not forbidden to demonstrate, the
demonstrators were wearing masks and Decree No. 31, concerning the violation of
health-related measures, provided only for fines. Furthermore, on 17 July 2021, the
Government organized a massive counter-demonstration that violated this decree without
punishing anyone, in contrast to the treatment meted out to the accused opponents of the
Government.
58.
The source states that the Government of Cuba violated the right of Ms. Lisdani
Rodríguez Issac, Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac, Mr. Hernández García, Mrs. Pérez Paseiro
and Mr. Díaz Paseiro to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. All of them belong to
the Asociación de Yorubas Libres de Cuba. Mr. Hernández Garcia and Ms. Pérez Paseiro are
also Yoruba priests (priests are called Ifás in that religion).
59.
The source claims that the five members of the unregistered religious group Yorubas
Libres de Cuba have often been victims of continued harassment, detention and
discrimination because of their religious affiliation and beliefs. During the protests of 11 July,
they expressed their beliefs without posing a threat. Therefore, their arrests appear to be
motivated by their religious affiliation, in violation of the right to freedom of conscience and
religion.
c.
Category V
60.
The deprivation of liberty of the 16 accused persons constitutes a violation of
international law in that it is an act of discrimination on the basis of political opinion, which
disregards the principle of equality of human beings with regard to thought, expression,
assembly and demonstration.
61.
The treatment of Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Issac and Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac
amounts to a violation under category V on grounds of gender discrimination. The Working
Group has established that when a State fails to meet the particular health needs of
incarcerated women or takes other actions detrimental to the health of incarcerated women,
such acts or omissions constitute a violation under category V. 10 This has also been
specifically identified by the Working Group in its deliberation No. 12 on women deprived
of their liberty.11 In addition, article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states
that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health of himself and of
his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care”.
62.
The source states that international standards on human rights guarantee prisoners
bodily autonomy, nutrition and healthcare. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights has stressed that States may not deny or restrict equal access to healthcare, including
for persons in detention.12 The same position is set out in the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the United
Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for
Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules).
63.
The source recalls that the Working Group has clearly established that there are
“gender-specific dimensions of arbitrary detention” that States must take into account to
ensure the protection of the rights of women, transgender women, gender diverse women and
intersex persons.13 These considerations include the various health situations of incarcerated
women. The Nelson Mandela Rules require States to provide prisoners with food of
nutritional value adequate for health and strength and to ensure that prisoners enjoy the same
standards of healthcare that are available in the community, with special accommodation for
prenatal care and treatment in women’s prisons (rules 22, 24 and 28). The Bangkok Rules
add to these requirements by establishing that gender-specific healthcare must be at least
equivalent to that available in the community and that States must provide free personal
hygiene products for women and a regular supply of water for pregnant or menstruating
10 Opinions No. 74/2021 and No. 19/2020.
11 A/HRC/48/55, annex, para. 5.
12 E/C.12/2000/4.
13 A/HRC/48/55, annex.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
10
GE.25-15465
women, among others (rules 5 and 10). Specifically, pregnant women prisoners must have a
prenatal programme drawn up and monitored by a qualified health practitioner and have
adequate and timely food, a healthy environment, and regular exercise opportunities
(rule 48).
64.
The Working Group has previously found that gender-based ill-treatment occurred
when a State failed to protect the rights of pregnant women prisoners or failed to meet their
specialized healthcare needs. The Working Group found in Opinion No. 74/2021 that
deficient gynaecological examinations and abuse, resulting in a miscarriage, violated the
petitioner’s reproductive rights and constituted a violation under category V. The Working
Group has also established in other Opinions that denial of access to medical care can
contribute to a finding of arbitrary detention.14
65.
The source argues that the authorities denied Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Issac and
Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac their right to medical care under international law, the Nelson
Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules. Ms. Lisdani Rodriguez Isaac had particular health
needs because she was pregnant and was also diagnosed with placenta praevia, a condition
that carries a risk of premature delivery. In failing to provide her with adequate prenatal care,
the authorities violated her rights under rule 28 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and rule 5 of
the Bangkok Rules. In addition, the authorities pressured her to have an abortion by
subjecting her to ill-treatment. Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Issac and Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac
were denied food during their deprivation of liberty and lacked access to hot water during the
winter months. This treatment violates both the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok
Rules and, in the case of Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Issac, compounds the lack of prenatal care
to constitute a violation of her pregnancy-related rights.15 As the Working Group has pointed
out, under the Bangkok Rules, States should consider non-custodial alternatives to detention
for pregnant persons.16 There is no indication that the authorities considered a non-custodial
sentence for Ms. Lisdani Rodriguez Isaac as part of their sentencing procedures.
(b)
Response from the Government
66.
The Working Group, in accordance with its methods of work, transmitted the source’s
allegations to the Government on 7 March 2025, requesting it to reply by 6 May 2025 and to
provide detailed information on the situation of the 16 detainees, clarifying the legal and
factual grounds justifying their detention, as well as the compatibility of these grounds with
the international human rights obligations of Cuba. The Working Group also urged the
Government to guarantee the physical and mental integrity of the 16 prisoners.
67.
The Government did not send any response within the deadline and did not request an
extension of it. The Working Group regrets that the Government did not respond to its request
within the time limit.17
2.
Discussion
68.
In the absence of a response from the Government, and on the basis of all the
information the Working Group has received, the Working Group has decided to render the
present opinion in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
69.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the 16 detainees is arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
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.18 In the present case, the Government
has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
14 Opinion No. 53/2021.
15 Rules 24 and 28 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, and rule 48 of the Bangkok Rules.
16 A/HRC/48/55, annex, para. 5; and rule 64 of the Bangkok Rules.
17 The Government responded to the communication on 24 October 2025, after the adoption of the
present opinion.
18 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
11
(a)
Category I
70.
The source states that none of the 16 persons was shown an arrest warrant, either at
the time of arrest or at any other point in the proceedings. Furthermore, no judge was initially
informed of the 16 arrests.
71.
The Working Group, after examining the information presented by the source, which
has not been refuted by the Government, concludes that the arrests of the 16 individuals
occurred, without exception, after they had participated in the protests of 11 July 2021 in
different parts of Santa Clara, Cuba.
72.
As a common factor, none of the aforementioned prisoners, at the time of their arrest,
were informed of the reasons for their arrest, shown an arrest warrant or informed of their
rights. The arrests were not carried out at the place and time when the events took place,
which means that they cannot be considered to have been carried out in flagrante delicto, if
the Government had wished to make this argument. This did not take place because,
according to the source, the arrests were made later after cameras, photos and videos of the
protest were used to identify the participants. The Working Group has already stated that it
is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest; the authorities must invoke
that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case, normally through an arrest
warrant.19
73.
The Government, in not submitting a response, despite the Working Group’s request,
and despite bearing the burden of proof, has not denied these claims, for which reason the
Working Group assumes them to be correct.
74.
These detentions directly violate articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which guarantee the right to liberty and security of person, as well as the right
to be informed of the charges.
75.
The Working Group insists that, in order to be considered as having a legal basis, the
legality of a detention must be overseen by a judge and not a prosecution or security body,
as occurred in this case, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
76.
Principle 37 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that any “person detained on a criminal charge
shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest.”
International human rights standards specify that the maximum time limit for bringing a
detained person before the competent authority is 48 hours and make clear that any delay
must be absolutely exceptional and justified.20
77.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group considers that
the detainees were not brought before a judge to challenge their detention within 48 hours of
their initial deprivation of liberty. Although the persons in question were eventually brought
before the courts, this took place well after the 48-hour deadline for challenging the grounds
for the arrest. On the basis of the information received, the Working Group considers that the
detention of the 16 persons was not subject to judicial oversight, in violation of article 9 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
78.
The source notes that, in all cases, the investigating police officers and the prosecutor
ordered pretrial detention for all the arrested persons, who were not brought before a judge
and remained in custody.
79.
Pretrial deprivation of liberty, as a precautionary and non-punitive measure, must also
comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality to the extent strictly
necessary in a democratic society. It may be imposed only within the limits strictly necessary
to ensure that the efficient undertaking of investigations is not impeded nor the action of
19 Opinion No. 10/2018, para. 45.
20 Opinion No. 20/2019, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
12
GE.25-15465
justice evaded, and provided that the competent authority substantiates and confirms the
fulfilment of the aforementioned conditions.21
80.
Although Cuban law provides that investigating police officers and prosecutors may
order pretrial detention without judicial intervention for up to 168 hours (seven days), and
that this period may be extended indefinitely with the authorization of the Attorney General,
this mechanism lacks independence and does not meet the international standard relating to
review by an impartial authority. The Working Group has repeatedly pointed out that this
type of system converts pretrial detention into an advance punishment, violating the
presumption of innocence.
81.
The investigative (preliminary) phase went on for months without a judge reviewing
the legality or necessity of the detention. This lack of judicial oversight is incompatible with
article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
82.
In addition to the situation described above, the 16 detainees were held
incommunicado for periods ranging from several days to weeks. During this time, they were
not allowed to communicate with their families, who were unaware of their whereabouts.
They were victims of enforced disappearance and had clearly suffered ill-treatment, as can
be seen from the information provided by the source, which the Government, in failing to
respond to these allegations, has not refuted, as noted below.
83.
Mr. Díaz Paseiro was disappeared for more than 10 days and had no contact with his
family for more than 20 days. His first family visit was permitted only after 40 days.
Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac was disappeared for more than 30 days and received her first
family visit after 120 days. Ms. Bienes Paseiro was disappeared for more than 10 days and
received her first family visit after 40 days.
84.
Likewise, the families of Messrs. López Roque, Pérez Paseiro, Pineda Martínez,
Ramos Yera, Iglesias Velázquez, Jiménez Gómez, Casanova Pérez, Carrero Pablo, Pupo
Soto, Hernández García, Valdés Sarduy and Pablo Oliva spent several days without their
families knowing their whereabouts or having any contact with them.
85.
The Working Group recalls that a deprivation of liberty entailing a wilful refusal to
disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or to acknowledge their detention
has no valid legal basis under any circumstances. In addition, it is inherently arbitrary, as it
places the person outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.22 The Government’s failure to notify the detained persons’
families of their arrest and the location of their detention was also a violation of
principle 16 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment. Enforced disappearance violates many substantive provisions
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and constitutes a particularly aggravated form
of arbitrary detention.
86.
In the description of each case, the source states that, for the entirety of the time that
the detainees remained disappeared, they did not have access to a lawyer and were not
brought before a judge to ensure the legality of the proceedings. This situation constitutes a
serious violation of the right to challenge the legality of detention, as established in article 9
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
87.
The Working Group, taking into account all these considerations, is persuaded that
the detention of the 16 individuals is arbitrary under category I, as it is not in accordance with
the grounds and procedures established by law, as required by articles 3, 6 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(b)
Category II
88.
The source claims that the detention of the 16 individuals results from the exercise of
rights and freedoms guaranteed by articles 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
21 Opinion No. 37/2022, para. 60.
22 Opinion No. 56/2023, para. 92.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
13
89.
The Working Group notes that, given the background to these detentions, the cases
described in the communication disclose a systematic violation of multiple rights set forth in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially article 18, which guarantees freedom
of thought, conscience and religion. Given that several of the detainees are Yoruba priests
and priestesses, and that their religion is linked to their political activism, persecuting them
for their religious beliefs and political dissent violates this right. Religion cannot be used as
a pretext for criminalizing dissent. Furthermore, the Working Group notes that there has been
a violation of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the
right to freedom of opinion and expression, on the grounds already stated by the source.
These grounds are recognized by the Working Group and have not been refuted by the
Government. The Working Group considers that it is article 19 that lies at the heart of the
conflict, since the detainees protested peacefully on 11 July 2021 and freedom of expression
includes the right to demonstrate. The criminalization of peaceful protest is a flagrant
violation of that article, and of article 20, which states that everyone has the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association. As the demonstrations of 11 July 2021 were peaceful,
the mass arrest of activists for exercising this right constitutes a systematic attack on
legitimate association and social protest.
90.
The Working Group reiterates that the importance of the right to freedom of opinion
is such that no government may restrict other human rights on the basis of a person’s actual
or perceived opinions, whether they be of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious
nature. It is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to criminalize the
holding of an opinion, which means that it is impermissible for a person to be harassed,
intimidated, stigmatized, or subjected to detention, pretrial detention, trial or imprisonment,
for reasons of the opinions he or she may hold.
91.
It is also important to note that freedom of opinion and expression includes the
opportunity to express the way in which peoples may freely choose their political system,
constitution or government, which points to the link with other human rights.
92.
The absence of the factor of violence and of credible information regarding any acts
attributable to the 16 individuals that would link them to the sort of conduct that constitutes
the offences of which they stand accused leads the Working Group to conclude that the
purpose of the criminal charges is to intimidate them for their opinions and political
participation, as well as to discourage any further protests relating to this area. Consequently,
the actions in question correspond to the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and
assembly protected by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
do not meet the threshold for legitimate limitation set out in article 29 (2).
93.
The Working Group is persuaded that the criminal charges against the 16 detainees
were brought in order to justify detentions aimed at criminalizing the exercise of the rights
to freedom of opinion, expression, association, assembly and political participation, in
contravention of articles 18–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that their
detention is therefore arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category II
94.
Given its finding that the detention of the 16 detainees was arbitrary under category
II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. However, the
detainees were charged and sentenced, with sentences ranging from 3 to 8 years, all for
causing public disorder, contempt for authority and assault. In view of the claims made by
the source and the lack of response from the Government, the Working Group will proceed
to analyse whether, in the course of the judicial proceedings, the fundamental components of
a fair, independent and impartial trial, and the rules of due process, were respected.
95.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right of
all accused persons to be presumed innocent. This right places an obligation on State
institutions to treat the accused person as innocent until the charge has been proved beyond
any reasonable doubt. The right requires that the authorities refrain from prejudging the
outcome of a trial, which entails abstaining from making public statements affirming the guilt
of the accused person.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
14
GE.25-15465
96.
In this case, the Working Group takes note of the claims made by the source, who
quotes from a televised statement made by the President of Cuba stating that the
demonstrations were a front for “criminals” and “officials of the Government of the United
States” and calling on the people of Cuba to “fight” against those who questioned the
Government.
97.
As mentioned above, this rules out the possibility that the 16 persons were guaranteed
the presumption of innocence. Moreover, the Working Group found evidence to suggest that
judges with prior knowledge of the case harboured preconceptions about it.
98.
In all the cases concerning the 16 detained and convicted persons, they are said to
have been questioned without the presence of a lawyer and charged with vague and
disproportionate offences such as contempt for authority, assault and public disorder, which
are vaguely defined and can be used to criminalize criticism of the Government. This practice
violates article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone
charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent.
99.
The source has clearly established – and the Government, by not responding, has not
refuted the fact – that the 16 persons were not provided with a lawyer at the start of their
detention, which indicates that their right to a defence and their right to be informed of the
charges within a legal framework were not respected. The authorities acted in an opaque
manner, without allowing the detainees to formally be informed of the grounds for their arrest
or to exercise their right to legal representation.
100.
In view of the above, the Working Group is persuaded that the 16 detainees did not
have sufficient time to prepare their defence and that this limited their access to the facilities
necessary for their legal protection. The foregoing amounts to a violation of the right
recognized in article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
101.
The source states with concern, and the Working Group is alarmed to note, that
Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac was deprived of prenatal care while pregnant and kept in
conditions that were totally inadequate for her condition. Furthermore, Mr. Hernández García
suffers from asthma, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems and severe malnutrition.
Despite the fact that a medical opinion has stated that he is unfit to remain in prison, he was
denied extra-penitentiary leave and is currently in hospital after being assaulted by another
inmate in November 2024. All these facts are incompatible with article 25 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees everyone a standard of living adequate for
their health and well-being.
102.
The Working Group reminds the Government that all persons deprived of their liberty
must be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and that
endangering the health of detainees constitutes a violation of rules 24, 25, 27 and 30 of the
Nelson Mandela Rules. With regard to women in prison and pregnant women, these practices
also entail a violation of rule 28 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and rule 48 of the Bangkok
Rules.23
103.
The Working Group recalls the principles outlined by the Special Rapporteur on the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health.24 Such principles guarantee the right to health in the context of confinement and
deprivation of liberty, establishing that violations of the right to health interfere with fair trial
guarantees and the enjoyment of the right to life.
104.
The Working Group concludes that the non-observance of the international norms
relating to the right to a fair and impartial trial, established in articles 10 and 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is of such gravity as to give the detention of the
16 persons an arbitrary character under category III.
23 A/HRC/48/55, annex, paras. 22 and 23; A/68/340, paras. 44–50; and CAT/OP/27/1, para. 28.
24 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
15
(d)
Category V
105.
The source states that the detainees were deprived of their liberty for their work as
human rights defenders, their participation in protests against the regime and their critical
stance towards the Government. They went out to demand their rights and were detained and
sentenced for political reasons.
106.
The Working Group recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category V when it
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.
107.
Furthermore, the Working Group notes that one of the factors that suggest that there
is a discriminatory aspect to a deprivation of liberty is whether it is part of a pattern of
persecution against the detained persons that includes, for example, previous arrests or acts
of violence or threats.
108.
As established in the discussion concerning category II, the detention of the 16 persons
resulted from their exercise of their fundamental rights under international law. When a
deprivation of liberty has resulted from the active exercise of citizens’ rights guaranteed by
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is a strong presumption that it also
constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination.25
109.
In this context, the Working Group refers to the source’s allegations, not refuted by
the Government, that have already been considered in the present opinion. The pattern of
selective detention of human rights activists, journalists and political opponents reveals a
clear discriminatory motivation. The Government has used the criminal justice system as a
tool to silence its critics, in violation of article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which prohibits all forms of discrimination. This pattern of conduct confirms that the
detention is arbitrary under category V, on grounds of political discrimination.
110.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegations concerning Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez
Issac and Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac, in which it states that the authorities denied them
their right to medical care under international law and the Bangkok Rules. The source states
that Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac became pregnant and was diagnosed with placenta praevia,
a condition that carries a risk of premature birth, while she was incarcerated. In addition, the
Cuban authorities pressured her to have an abortion by subjecting her to ill-treatment. The
source adds that Ms. Lisdani Rodríguez Issac and Ms. Lisdiani Rodríguez Issac were denied
food during their imprisonment and lacked access to hot water during the winter months.
There is no indication that the authorities considered a non-custodial sentence for Ms. Lisdani
Rodriguez Isaac as part of their sentencing procedures. In the absence of a response from the
Government, the Working Group considers that rules 5 and 48 of the Bangkok Rules have
been violated and that her detention is arbitrary under category V on grounds of gender
discrimination.26
(e)
Concluding remarks
111.
This is one of several cases brought before the Working Group in recent years
concerning arbitrary detention in Cuba.27 The Working Group is concerned that this might be
a sign that arbitrary detention is widespread or systematic in the country. The Working Group
stresses that States have an obligation not to commit acts that may constitute crimes against
humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are committed.
112.
The Working Group is concerned about allegations that releases effected between
January and March 2025 are subject to conditions that, according to the source, involve a
constant threat of being returned to prison. These conditions include the obligation to carry
out work imposed by the State security forces, a ban on speaking out on social networks, in
25 Opinion No. 88/2017, para. 43.
26 A/HRC/48/55, annex, paras. 12–20. See also opinion No. 74/2021.
27 Opinions No. 66/2024, No. 13/2024, No. 73/2023, No. 68/2023, No. 62/2023, No. 51/2023 and
No. 37/2022.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
16
GE.25-15465
the media or before human rights organizations, and a restriction on participating in public
activities critical of the Government or in defence of rights. The Working Group notes that
these restrictions could lead to further human rights violations.
3.
Disposition
113.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mitzael Díaz Paseiro, Nidia Bienes Paseiro, Ariana
López Roque, Orlando Pineda Martínez, Yunior Jorge Ramos Yera, Yunior Iglesias
Velázquez, Loreto Hernández García, Donaida Pérez Paseiro, Lisdani Rodríguez
Isaac, Lisdiani Rodríguez Isaac, Juvier Jiménez Gómez, Demis Valdés Sarduy, Ciro
Alexis Casanova Pérez, Yeidel Carrero Pablo, Yamani Noel Pupo Soto and José
Enrique Pablo Oliva, being in contravention of articles 3, 6–11, 18–21 and 26 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls under categories I, II,
III and V.
114.
The Working Group requests the Government of Cuba to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of the 16 persons without delay and bring it into conformity with the
relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
115.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to unconditionally release the 16 persons immediately
and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance
with international law.
116.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the
16 individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
their rights.
117.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
118.
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 the 16 persons have been unconditionally released and, if so, on what
date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the 16 persons;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the
16 persons’ rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(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.
119.
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.
120.
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 of any failure to take action.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/46
GE.25-15465
17
121.
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.28
[Adopted on 26 August 2025]
28 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.