A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57

GE.25-15052 (E) 181125 191125 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. 57 /2025 concerning Jorge Bello Domínguez, Mijaíl Sánchez de la Nuez, Orlando Valle Jorge, Brenda Díaz García, Lizandra Góngora Espinosa, Yasdani Benítez Quesada, Yandi Hernández Montes de Oca, Carlos Manuel Fonseca Borges, Yanley López Basulto, Carlos Raúl Perdomo Cancio, Yander Rodríguez Iglesias, Ismael Rodríguez González, Yendri Vidal Limonta, Yasiel de Jesús Chinea Solano, Yasiel Hernández Márquez, Juan Pablo Martínez Monterrey, Daisel González Álvarez, Lázaro Antonio Rodríguez Jerez, Yasbelys Rodríguez León, Marlon Noval Alonso, Yunior Pérez López, Yismel Alfonso Oliva, Lázaro Yeison Cecé Gálvez, Dariel Rosa Pérez, Yosnel Laferté Salazar, Joselín Orta Llorens, Gilberto Castillo Castillo, Jorge Luis Lugones Lara, Elienay Maresma Mesa, Yunaikis González Pérez, Hortensia Oceguera González, Claudia González Amarán and Kevin Ángel Álvarez Echevarría (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 5 December 2024 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Cuba a communication concerning Jorge Bello Domínguez, Mijaíl Sánchez de la Nuez, Orlando Valle Jorge, Brenda Díaz García, Lizandra Góngora Espinosa, Yasdani Benítez Quesada, Yandi Hernández Montes de Oca, Carlos Manuel Fonseca Borges, Yanley López Basulto, Carlos Raúl Perdomo Cancio, Yander Rodríguez Iglesias, Ismael Rodríguez González, Yendri Vidal Limonta, Yasiel de Jesús Chinea Solano, Yasiel Hernández Márquez, Juan Pablo Martínez Monterrey, Daisel González Álvarez, Lázaro Antonio Rodríguez Jerez, Yasbelys Rodríguez León, Marlon Noval Alonso, Yunior Pérez López, Yismel Alfonso Oliva, Lázaro Yeison Cecé Gálvez, Dariel Rosa Pérez, Yosnel Laferté Salazar, Joselín Orta Llorens, Gilberto Castillo Castillo, Jorge Luis Lugones Lara, Elienay Maresma Mesa, Yunaikis González Pérez, Hortensia Oceguera González, Claudia González Amarán and Kevin Ángel Álvarez Echevarría. The Government of Cuba did not respond within the established time limit. The State is not a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1 A/HRC/36/38. United Nations A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 General Assembly Distr.: General 14 October 2025 English Original: Spanish A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 2 GE.25-15052 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. Submissions (a) Communication from the source 4. The communication concerns the following 33 individuals, all of whom are nationals of Cuba:

• Jorge Bello Domínguez, born on 8 October 1976

• Mijaíl Sánchez de la Nuez, born on 16 February 1977

• Orlando Valle Jorge, born on 12 December 1971

• Brenda Díaz García, born on 26 June 1993

• Lizandra Góngora Espinosa, born on 19 August 1985

• Yasdani Benítez Quesada, born on 20 July 1995

• Yandi Hernández Montes de Oca, born on 17 June 1993

• Carlos Manuel Fonseca Borges, born on 18 May 1966

• Yanley López Basulto, born on 9 November 1999

• Carlos Raúl Perdomo Cancio, born on 12 October 1970

• Yander Rodríguez Iglesias, born on 23 May 1992

• Ismael Rodríguez González, born on 25 June 1996

• Yendri Vidal Limonta, born on 18 February 1984

• Yasiel de Jesús Chinea Solano, born on 27 October 1994

• Yasiel Hernández Márquez, born on 3 December 1986

• Juan Pablo Martínez Monterrey, born on 16 September 1993

• Daisel González Álvarez, born on 26 March 1998

• Lázaro Antonio Rodríguez Jerez, born on 30 July 1999

• Yasbelys Rodríguez León, born on 10 June 2005

• Marlon Noval Alonso, born on 2 April 1997 A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 GE.25-15052 3

• Yunior Pérez López, born on 23 April 1999

• Yismel Alfonso Oliva, born on 8 August 2000

• Lázaro Yeison Cecé Gálvez, born on 23 September 2001

• Dariel Rosa Pérez, born on 6 April 2001

• Yosnel Laferté Salazar, born on 16 July 1997

• Joselín Orta Llorens, born on 12 October 1976

• Gilberto Castillo Castillo, born on 13 June 2001

• Jorge Luis Lugones Lara, born on 22 February 1973

• Elienay Maresma Mesa, born on 27 November 1991

• Yunaikis González Pérez, born on 8 February 1986

• Hortensia Oceguera González, born on 20 December 2000

• Claudia González Amarán, born on 13 February 1992

• Kevin Ángel Álvarez Echevarría, born on 14 July 2003 (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 made a televised statement in which he described the demonstrators as “criminals” and linked them to the United States of America. He also called for “combat” against those who challenged the Government. 6. The source states that the Government, together with security forces and the Communist Party, sent in busloads of people to violently repress the demonstrators. 7. After the demonstrations had been dispersed, thousands of people were arrested and prosecuted. The 33 individuals listed were arrested by the authorities for their alleged participation in the demonstrations of 11 July 2021 in the Municipality of Güira de Melena, Artemisa. They were investigated under preliminary case file No. 102 of 2021 of the Military Prosecutor’s Office of Artemisa Province and tried by the Western Territorial Military Court of Artemisa in case No. 23. (ii) Arrests and detentions 8. According to the source, most of the 33 individuals were arrested after the fact, at their homes or workplaces or by summons. None of them were shown an arrest warrant, either at the time of their arrest or afterwards. The judiciary was not informed and did not participate in any way. 9. In all of the cases, de facto action was taken and then documents were drawn up to justify that action. Neither the detainees nor their families have copies of, or access to, the arrest warrants or the detention orders issued by the prosecutor. There was no legal protection in any of the cases. 10. The detainees did not have any communication with their families or lawyers for at least a week and they were interrogated without a lawyer being present, which meant that they were at risk of being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment with the aim of obtaining a confession of guilt. 11. Almost all the individuals, with the exception of Mr. Noval Alonso, Mr. Álvarez Echevarría and Mr. Lugones Lara, were placed in pretrial detention without legal protection as a provisional measure by formal order of the investigating police officer and the prosecutor. Although the remaining three individuals were not placed in pretrial detention as a provisional measure by formal order, they were all detained for more than a week and had no contact with the outside world – neither with their families and relatives, nor with a lawyer, whether independent or not – during that time, a fact that renders their provisional detention arbitrary. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 4 GE.25-15052 12. None of the individuals had independent legal representation, because the lawyers appointed by the Government, who were attached to the Ministry of Justice, generally acted like prosecutors. Mr. Bello Domínguez 13. Arrested on 11 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he was missing for 12 days, held incommunicado for 13 days and prevented from receiving visits for three months. He did not have access to legal counsel for more than four months. He is serving a 15-year sentence in Combinado del Este prison in Havana, where he has suffered punishments and physical and verbal abuse, including beatings while handcuffed, and has been sprayed with pepper spray even though he has asthma. Bello Domínguez, a freelance journalist, suffers from diabetes, hypertension and kidney and testicular problems. He is not being provided with medical care. Mr. Sánchez de la Nuez 14. Arrested on 12 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he was held incommunicado for 10 days and received his first family visit 37 days later. He did not have access to legal counsel for more than 11 days. He is currently serving a 15-year sentence in Combinado del Este maximum security prison in Havana, where he has been subjected to physical and verbal abuse that has aggravated his cognitive disability. In addition, despite his cognitive disability, he has received no medical or psychological care. Mr. Valle Jorge 15. Arrested on 17 July 2021 after participating in the demonstrations, he was unable to contact his family for 9 days, was denied visits for 36 days and was refused access to legal counsel for more than 11 days. He is serving a 15-year sentence in Combinado del Este maximum security prison in Havana. He suffers from chronic hypertension, which has been aggravated by lack of treatment, inadequate medical care and poor sanitation, nutrition and hydration. Ms. Díaz García 16. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after the demonstrations, she was missing for 9 days, was held incommunicado for 30 days and was unable to see her family for three months, during which time she had no access to legal counsel either. She is currently serving a 14-year sentence in Cuba-Panamá prison in Güines, Mayabeque, where she is subjected to physical and verbal abuse on account of her gender identity. In January, she was beaten and taken to the punishment cell, and in October 2022, a guard threw her down a flight of stairs. She has HIV, chronic gastritis and kidney stones but has no access to medical care or treatment. Ms. Góngora Espinosa 17. Arrested on 22 July 2021 after the demonstrations, she spent 3 days in the punishment cell, was held incommunicado for 18 days, was unable to receive visits until 40 days into her detention and had no access to a lawyer for more than 15 days. In the last year she was transferred several times and spent time in a men’s prison, where the stress caused her to shave her head. Since April 2023, she has been serving a 14-year sentence in Los Colonos hard labour prison on Isla de la Juventud, which is 160 km from her home, making it difficult for her children to visit her. She has a uterine fibroid that has not been operated on, and she has been subjected to physical and verbal abuse, including a beating by the head of the prison. In addition, the State security forces are threatening to take away her five children and send them to an orphanage. Mr. Benítez Quesada 18. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after the demonstrations, he was held incommunicado for nine days and had no access to a lawyer for over a year. He is serving a 10-year sentence in Guanajay maximum security prison in Artemisa. He suffers from psychiatric disorders, A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 GE.25-15052 5 rheumatoid arthritis and chronic tonsillitis, all of which have been aggravated by the lack of medical care and medicines and by poor sanitation, nutrition and hydration. Mr. Hernández Montes de Oca 19. Arrested on 13 July 2021 following the demonstrations, he was held incommunicado for 20 days, he received his first visit 120 days into his detention and he spent more than 90 days without access to a lawyer. He is currently serving an 8-year sentence in Aguacate prison in Quivicán, Mayabeque. He suffers from central nervous system fatigue, which has resulted in depression and suicide attempts. His condition has been worsened by physical and verbal abuse from security officers. Mr. Fonseca Borges 20. Arrested on 11 July 2021 without any justification after the demonstrations, he was missing for 12 days, was unable to contact his family for 22 days and was unable to see his family for 28 days. In addition, he had no access to a lawyer for more than nine days. He is currently serving a 12-year sentence in Guanajay maximum security prison in Artemisa. He suffers from hypertension, which has been aggravated in prison by the lack of medical care and treatment and by poor sanitation, nutrition and hydration. Mr. López Basulto 21. Arrested on 12 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he remained missing for several days, was unable to contact his family for 20 days and was unable to receive visits until 26 days into his detention. In addition, he had no access to a lawyer for more than eight days. He is currently serving an eight-year sentence in Combinado del Este maximum security prison in Havana. He suffers from personality disorders and malnutrition. In June 2023, he underwent surgery for cysts on his arm, but one of the stitches became infected and the infection went untreated. He is also verbally abused by the guards. Mr. Perdomo Cancio 22. Arrested on 11 July 2021 without justification after the demonstrations, he remained missing for 17 days and was unable to contact his family for 18 days. He was unable to receive visits until 25 days into his detention and had no access to a lawyer for more than 12 days. He is currently serving a 12-year sentence in Combinado del Este maximum security prison in Havana, where he has been subjected to physical and verbal abuse that has left him with a physical disability, lung problems, a plate in his skull and vision impairment. Mr. Rodríguez Iglesias 23. Arrested on 23 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he was missing for six days and was then granted only one telephone call to his family, who could not visit him until 22 October. He had no access to a lawyer for more than five months. He is currently serving a 12-year sentence in Combinado del Este maximum security prison in Havana, where he is physically and verbally abused by guards. He has hepatitis, which has been aggravated in prison by the lack of medical care and medicines and by poor sanitation, nutrition and hydration. Mr. Rodríguez González 24. Arrested on 11 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he was unable to contact his family for 8 days, he went without visits for 29 days and he had no access to a lawyer for more than 6 days. He is serving 7 years in Guanajay maximum security prison in Artemisa. He suffers from cognitive impairment, suicidal behaviour, a personality disorder and epilepsy, for which he is receiving no care or treatment. As a result, his state of health has worsened and he has made several suicide attempts. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 6 GE.25-15052 Mr. Vidal Limonta 25. Arrested on 12 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he was missing for seven days and had access to a lawyer only on the day of his trial, 11 March 2022. He is currently serving an 11-year sentence in Combinado del Este maximum security prison in Havana, where he is subjected to constant physical and verbal abuse by State security agents. Mr. Chinea Solano 26. Arrested on 11 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he was unable to speak to his relatives for several days. He is currently serving an 8-year sentence in Ceiba 5 hard labour prison in Artemisa. He is subjected to physical and verbal abuse by State security agents on a regular basis. Mr. Hernández Márquez 27. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating peacefully in the demonstrations, he was unable to contact his family for 7 days, he went without visits for 37 days and he had no access to a lawyer for more than a week. He is currently serving an 11-year sentence at Combinado del Este maximum security prison in Havana. Mr. Martínez Monterrey 28. Arrested on 20 July 2021 after the demonstrations, he was unable to contact his family for several days. He is currently serving an 11-year sentence in Ceiba 5 hard labour prison in Artemisa. He suffers from kidney disease, which has been aggravated by the lack of medical care and by poor sanitation, nutrition and hydration. Mr. González Álvarez 29. Arrested on 14 July 2021 after participating in the protests, he was unable to contact his family for 20 days, he was granted his first visit only after three months of detention and he had no access to a lawyer for more than four months. He is currently serving a 7-year sentence in Ceiba 5 prison in Artemisa. He had syphilis and still requires treatment but has not received it while in detention. Mr. Rodríguez Jerez 30. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating peacefully in the protests, he was unable to contact his family for several days. He is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Guanajay maximum security prison in Artemisa. He is subjected to physical and verbal abuse by State security agents on a regular basis. Mr. Rodríguez León 31. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating in the demonstrations, he was held incommunicado for more than a week, without contact with his family or access to a lawyer. He is currently serving a 5-year suspended sentence and has been threatened with imprisonment if he expresses any kind of dissent against the Government of Cuba. Mr. Noval Alonso 32. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after the demonstrations, he was held incommunicado, without access to a lawyer, for nine days, before being released on bail with an obligation to appear in court periodically. He is serving a 10-year sentence in Guanajay maximum security prison in Artemisa. He is frequently subjected to physical and verbal abuse, and he has been threatened with losing the right to receive visits, falsely accused and prevented from making telephone calls. He has a leg infection that was treated only after his family made complaints. He has bipolar disorder for which he receives no medication in prison. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 GE.25-15052 7 Mr. Pérez López 33. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating in the demonstrations, he was missing for 15 days, during which time he contracted coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and was kept in isolation. He was only able to call his family after 15 days and to receive his first visit after 20 days. He had no access to legal counsel for more than a month. He is serving a 7-year sentence in Guanajay maximum security prison in Artemisa. He is suffering from stress and hair loss as a result of the inadequate medical care and poor sanitation, nutrition and hydration. Mr. Alfonso Oliva 34. Arrested on 12 July 2021 after the demonstrations, he was unable to contact his family for more than six months, he was granted his first visit in January 2022 and he had no access to a lawyer for more than a year. He spent two months in solitary confinement because he had contracted COVID-19. He is currently serving a 6-year sentence in Ceiba 5 hard labour prison in Artemisa. He is subjected to physical and verbal abuse by prison officers on a regular basis. Mr. Cecé Gálvez 35. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating in the demonstrations, he was unable to contact his family for 10 days, was granted his first visit after 33 days and had no access to a lawyer for more than 5 days. He is currently serving a 6-year sentence in 1580 prison in San Miguel del Padrón, where he has faced physical and verbal abuse, as well as poor sanitation and inadequate food and water, for the past two and a half years. Mr. Rosa Pérez 36. Arrested at 20 years old, on 20 July 2021, after participating in the demonstrations, he was held incommunicado for five days, was granted his first visit after four months and had no access to a lawyer for more than six months. He is currently serving a 6-year sentence in El Blais hard labour prison, where he is forced to perform agricultural work in poor conditions. He has experienced health problems on two occasions but has received no medical treatment. Mr. Laferté Salazar 37. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating peacefully in the demonstrations, he was missing for 8 days, was unable to contact his family for 17 days and was only granted his first visit after 34 days of detention. He did not have a lawyer for the first nine days. He is currently serving a 5-year sentence in Guanajay hard labour prison in Artemisa, together with the convict who killed a member of his family. He is subjected to constant verbal abuse by prison guards. Ms. Orta Llorens 38. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating in the demonstrations, she was unable to contact her family for 9 days and received her first visit after 35 days. She is serving a 4-year sentence in Guanajay maximum security prison in Artemisa. She suffers from epilepsy, which has been aggravated in prison by insufficient medical care, poor sanitation and inadequate food and water. Mr. Castillo Castillo 39. Arrested on 11 July 2021 without justification after participating in the demonstrations, he was held incommunicado for 7 days, received his first visit 33 days into his detention and had no access to a lawyer for more than 6 days. He is currently serving a 9-year sentence in Los Palacios hard labour prison in Pinar del Río. He is subjected to physical and verbal abuse by prison officers on a regular basis. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 8 GE.25-15052 Mr. Lugones Lara 40. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after the demonstrations, he was charged and released subject to a precautionary measure and had no access to a lawyer or contact with his family for more than a week. He is currently serving a 4-year sentence in Ceiba 5 hard labour prison in Artemisa. He has a lung disease for which he receives no medical care or pharmacological treatment. Ms. Maresma Mesa 41. Arrested on 15 July 2021 without justification after participating peacefully in the demonstrations, she was unable to speak to her family for 17 days and was granted no family visits at all during the 28 days that she was in detention. She is currently serving a 5-year suspended sentence and has been threatened with imprisonment if she expresses any kind of dissent against the Government of Cuba. Ms. González Pérez 42. Arrested on 13 July 2021 without justification following the demonstrations, she had no contact with her family for five days. She is currently serving a 5-year suspended sentence and has been threatened with imprisonment if she expresses any kind of dissent against the Government of Cuba. Ms. Oceguera González 43. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating in the demonstrations, she had no contact with her family for 15 days, no visits for 25 days and no access to a lawyer for more than 6 days. She is currently serving a 5-year suspended sentence and has been threatened with imprisonment if she expresses any kind of dissent against the Government of Cuba. Ms. González Amarán 44. Arrested on 11 July 2021 after the demonstrations, she was held incommunicado, without access to her family or a lawyer, for more than a week. She is currently serving a 5-year suspended sentence and has been threatened with imprisonment if she expresses any kind of dissent against the Government of Cuba. Mr. Álvarez Echevarría 45. He was arrested on 11 July 2021 after participating in the demonstrations. He was held incommunicado for more than six days and only on the seventh day was he assigned a lawyer. After 20 days he was released on bail until his trial. He is currently serving a 5-year suspended sentence and has been threatened with imprisonment if he expresses any kind of dissent against the Government of Cuba. (iii) Criminal proceedings 46. Case No. 23 brought together offences of public disorder and sabotage, with similar sentences for almost all the defendants. Most were convicted of disorder and all were convicted of sabotage or, in some cases, robbery with the use of force. Some of them were also convicted of contempt of court or assault on authority. Mr. Rodríguez Iglesias was convicted of illegal possession of weapons, despite there being a lack of evidence, since the court recognized that no weapon had been seized and that the alleged knife had been neither carried nor used, meaning that he was merely suspected of a dangerous offence. 47. The defendants were tried behind closed doors for reasons of “national security”, by the Western Territorial Military Court, which was comprised solely of military personnel. The trial was held in the Municipality of Diez de Octubre, Havana, from 7 to 11 March 2022 and led to the pronouncement of ordinary criminal procedure sentence No. 20 of 2022, dated 11 March 2022. 48. The cassation hearing was held by the Military Division of the People’s Supreme Court on 17 June 2022 without the defendants. The sentence handed down at first instance was upheld for 22 of the defendants. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 GE.25-15052 9 49. The 33 individuals, all of whom are civilians, were tried for offences that are defined too broadly and vaguely in Cuban law, namely sabotage, public disorder and contempt. They were sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment, including terms of up to 15 years. (iv) Legal analysis 50. The source claims that the detention of the 33 individuals falls within categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group. a. Categories I and III 51. None of the detainees were shown an arrest warrant, either at the time of their arrest or shortly thereafter. Neither the detainees nor their families have copies of, or access to, the arrest warrants or the detention orders issued by the prosecutor. There was no legal protection in any of the cases. 52. 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 could keep the arrested person in custody for an additional 72 hours in order to 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. At no point during these 168 hours does any judge take part in the procedure defined in the Act. Therefore, no judge is informed of the detentions carried out by the police, the investigating police officer and the public prosecutor’s office. In addition, pretrial proceedings and pretrial detention may be extended indefinitely with the sole approval of the Attorney General, without the involvement of a judge. 53. All the individuals in this case have been subjected to arrests and pretrial detention lasting more than 24 hours. In most of the cases, pretrial detention lasted more than six months and in many of the cases it lasted significantly longer. 54. The 33 individuals should not have been tried by a military court. In another case, the Human Rights Committee found that the fact that a tribunal comprised officials of the executive branch or serving members of the armed forces violated the right to be heard by an independent tribunal.2 The 33 individuals were charged, tried and sentenced by members of the military justice system even though they were civilians. This violates the right to due process and the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. 55. The lack of independent lawyers in Cuba has been noted by the Working Group on numerous occasions.3 The Committee against Torture has also raised concerns about this issue. 4 In Cuba, there are no independent defence lawyers, since they are officially, hierarchically and financially dependent on the Ministry of Justice. 56. In Cuba, there are no independent witnesses or experts: they are all State or military officials, in violation of the principle of equality of arms and the right to a fair trial. In this case, only two experts gave evidence, both of whom were government employees (military personnel and staff of the Institute of Forensic Medicine), meaning that they could not be considered impartial. Moreover, none of the witnesses were independent of the State apparatus: all of them were either military personnel or employees of State-owned stores that were closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, so their testimonies lack objectivity. 57. The sentence handed down by the military court contains offensive descriptions, unsubstantiated opinions and personal information, violating the principle of the presumption of innocence. The court went so far as to attribute crimes to defendants with no criminal record. 2 Polay Campos v. Peru (CCPR/C/61/D/577/1994), para. 8.8. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, 25 November 2004, para. 143. 3 Opinions No. 63/2021 and No. 63/2019. 4 CAT/C/CUB/CO/3, paras. 14 and 15. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 10 GE.25-15052 58. In its ruling, the court reproduced subjective assessments of the defendants’ personal and political lives by the public prosecutor’s office to justify convictions and aggravated sentences, following a closed trial in which they were described as “antisocial”. b. Category II 59. The source notes that it is clear from the indictment (or the sentence, since they are identical) that case No. 23/2022 was fabricated as a means of retaliating against, punishing and silencing the demonstrators who had peacefully and publicly protested against the policies pursued by the Government of Cuba, through convictions for the offences of sabotage, contempt and public disorder, among others. Sentences of up to 15 years’ imprisonment were handed down in this case. 60. The source draws attention to paragraph 2 of the “proven facts” section of the sentence, which includes the following wording: “with the sole purpose of attracting the attention of the people and the local authorities in order to cause agitation and disturb public order”. Both the public prosecutor’s office and the court were apparently able to express the demonstrators’ personal intentions, without providing any justification, before linking those intentions and that inner motivation to criminal conduct, stripping the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association of any material content and trying to disguise any lawful conduct as an offence such as public disorder. 61. An analysis of the indictment and the proven facts of the sentence shows that the acts actually carried out by the defendants were not criminal and were nothing other than public, peaceful demonstrations through which the defendants exercised their right to freedom of expression and ideological freedom. The defendants did not engage in violence of any kind against individuals or currency exchange stores, nor did they intend to weaken the country’s economy, contrary to what the court found. 62. According to the sentence, the defendants shouted slogans against Cuba and the Government, they engaged in significant violence, brandishing pots and pans and metal objects (none of which were seized), they made noise and they carried a white sheet painted with the words “down with the dictatorship and freedom for Cuba”. According to the source, this is an exaggerated account of how the right to freedom of expression was exercised. Moreover, expressing oneself cannot be described as violence. 63. The 33 individuals were charged with criminal offences that are defined vaguely and imprecisely. The source mentions that the Working Group, in its opinions No. 4/2020, No. 65/2020, No. 41/2021 and No. 63/2021, has stated that offences such as assault on authority, contempt, resistance, disorder and disobedience are too broad and do not comply with the principle of legality. 64. The source notes that aggravating circumstances were applied to the offence of sabotage, specifically those provided for in article 53 (e) and (o) of the Criminal Code: taking advantage of a public disaster or attacking property related to activities that are a priority for economic development. The source claims that there is no link between the events and the COVID-19 pandemic. On the contrary, State controls were tightened during the pandemic, making it harder to commit the acts described as sabotage. The pandemic was not, therefore, a factor that facilitated the offence or increased the criminal dangerousness of the defendants, since at that time demonstrations were not prohibited in Cuba. c. Category V 65. The detention of the 33 accused persons constitutes a violation of international law insofar as it is an act of discrimination based on political opinion that amounts to ignoring the equality of human beings as regards thought, expression, assembly and demonstration. (b) Additional information from the source 66. On 27 August 2025, the source reported that on 14 January 2025, the Government, following an agreement with the Vatican, had announced the “gradual” release of 553 prisoners “punished for various offences”. The following individuals have been released on furlough or on parole: Ms. Díaz García, Mr. Benítez Quesada, Mr. Hernández Montes de A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 GE.25-15052 11 Oca, Mr. Fonseca Borges, Mr. López Basulto, Mr. Rodríguez González, Mr. Chinea Solano, Mr. Rodríguez Jerez, Mr. Alfonso Oliva, Mr. Cecé Gálvez, Mr. Rosa Pérez, Mr. Laferté Salazar, Mr. Castillo Castillo and Mr. Lugones Lara. According to the source, their release is purely formal and subject to conditions that the source describes as a “constant threat of reimprisonment”. They face the threat of being reincarcerated unless they comply with severe restrictions: they cannot leave their city, some must perform forced labour, and they are not allowed to express themselves in the media or on social networks, contact human rights organizations, criticize the Government, or travel. They must also report periodically to judges, and they are under constant surveillance. In addition, Ms. Orta Llorens has been released, since she has served her full sentence, and there is no information on the whereabouts of Mr. González Álvarez. (c) Response from the Government 67. The Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the Government on 5 December 2024, requesting it to provide detailed information on the situation of the 33 persons by 3 February 2025 and to clarify the legal and factual grounds justifying their detention, as well as the compatibility of these grounds with the international human rights obligations of Cuba. 68. On 3 February 2025, the Government requested an extension of the deadline and was given until 5 March 2025 to reply. The Working Group finds it regrettable that the Government of Cuba did not respond to the communication within the time limit.5 2. Discussion 69. In the absence of a timely response from the Government, and on the basis of all the information available to it, the Working Group has decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 16 of its methods of work. 70. In determining whether the detention of the 33 persons 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.6 In the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source. (a) Category I 71. The source claims that none of the 33 individuals were presented with an arrest warrant and that no judge was even informed of the 33 arrests. The Government has not responded to this claim. 72. The Working Group notes that all the detainees were arrested in the same circumstances and for the same reasons, and many of them have been subjected to enforced disappearance, held incommunicado and prevented from contacting their families for long periods of time. In addition, many of them are in very poor health. These allegations have not been refuted by the Government. 73. The source notes that the 33 individuals were arrested in connection with the protests of 11 July 2021 and face charges of public disorder, sabotage and other vague offences. The Working Group notes that most of them were arrested during the demonstrations, while others were arrested up to five days later, on the same charges. It also notes that none of the individuals were shown an arrest warrant. 74. The Working Group reiterates principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which states that any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control 5 The Government replied to the communication on 3 September 2025, after the adoption of the present opinion. 6 A/HRC/36/38. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 12 GE.25-15052 of, a judicial or other authority. The Working Group considers that a prosecuting body cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes of proceedings of this type. 75. Principle 9 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that the authorities that arrest a person may exercise only the powers granted to them under the law and, most importantly with regard to the 33 cases under consideration, that the exercise of these powers must be subject to review and appeal before a judicial or other authority, which it was not in these cases. 76. The source states that there was no judicial oversight of the initial detention in any of the 33 cases. The Working Group notes that it has the right and the obligation to assess the judicial proceedings and the law itself, even if the detention was in line with national legislation, regulations and practices, always with a view to determining whether the detention is also compatible with the relevant provisions of international human rights law. 77. Since the Government did not submit its response in time, the source’s assertion that there were no arrest warrants prior to the arrests was not refuted. In view of this fact, and taking into account similar allegations analysed by the Working Group in other opinions, the Working Group considers the information provided by the source to be credible. 78. The Working Group insists that, for a detention to be considered to have a legal basis, its lawfulness must be monitored by a judge, not by a prosecuting body or a security agency as happened in this case, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 79. Principle 37 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that persons detained on criminal charges must be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after their arrest. International human rights standards specify that the maximum time frame for bringing a detained person before the competent authority is 48 hours and make clear that any delay must be absolutely exceptional and justified.7 80. In the absence of a timely response from the Government, the Working Group considers that the detained persons were not brought before a judge to challenge their detention within 48 hours of their arrest. 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 their arrest. On the basis of the information received, the Working Group considers that the detention of the 33 persons was not subject to judicial oversight, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 81. The source notes that, in all of the cases, the investigating police officers and the prosecutor ordered the use of pretrial detention and the arrested persons were not brought before a judge and remained in custody. 82. 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 justice evaded, and provided that the competent authority substantiates and confirms the fulfilment of the aforementioned requirements.8 83. Although Cuban law allows investigating police officers and prosecutors to impose pretrial detention without the involvement of a judge for up to 168 hours (7 days) and allows for this detention to be extended indefinitely with the authorization of the Attorney General, this mechanism lacks independence and does not meet the international standard of review by an impartial authority. The Working Group has repeatedly pointed out that this type of system turns pretrial detention into an advance punishment, violating the principle of the presumption of innocence. 7 Opinions No. 26/2019, para. 89; and No. 20/2019, para. 66. 8 Opinion No. 37/2022, para. 60. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 GE.25-15052 13 84. The investigatory or preparatory stage lasted for months without a judge reviewing the lawfulness or necessity of the detention. This total lack of judicial oversight is incompatible with article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 85. The Working Group notes that the 33 individuals were held incommunicado, were disappeared, with their family and friends unable to obtain information about their whereabouts, and were subjected to ill-treatment or even torture, for between 7 and 40 days. In this regard, the Working Group underlines that both the Working Group and other human rights mechanisms have stated that incommunicado detention violates the rights enshrined in articles 1–3, 5 and 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.9 86. The Working Group emphasizes that incommunicado detention in an unknown location amounts to prima facie enforced disappearance.10 Enforced disappearance violates numerous substantive provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention. 11 In this case, the 33 individuals were removed from the protection of the law for weeks. 87. Most of the detainees were held incommunicado for a period of time and were denied contact with their families and with legal counsel. Some of them had no access to a lawyer for more than a year. This situation constitutes a serious violation of the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 9). 88. In view of the above, the Working Group concludes that the legal irregularities that occurred when the 33 individuals were placed in detention render their detention arbitrary under category I. (b) Category II 89. The source claims that the detention of the 33 individuals results from the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group reaffirms that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a symbolic document: it establishes a minimum standard of human dignity and has acquired the status of jus cogens. 90. The source notes that it is clear from an analysis of the indictment or the sentence – which are virtually identical – that the case was fabricated with the aim of holding the defendants up as an example and silencing the people. The purpose was to sow a fear of protesting, given the threat of prosecution for the offences of sabotage, contempt and public disorder, which carry penalties of up to 15 years’ imprisonment. 91. The source draws attention to paragraph 2 of the “proven facts” section of the sentence, which includes the following wording: “with the sole purpose of attracting the attention of the people and the local authorities in order to cause agitation and disturb public order”. According to the source, this statement constitutes a misrepresentation of the facts, and the Working Group accepts the source’s argument in the absence of a response from the Government. The Working Group finds that no facts other than the involvement of the 33 individuals in peaceful demonstrations have been established and considers the intentions described by the public prosecutor’s office and the police to be a supposition. 92. In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group agrees with the source that the criminal nature of the acts carried out by the defendants has not been proven. The source insists that they simply took part in public, peaceful demonstrations through which they exercised their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and participation in the public and political life of the country. Their acts therefore constitute the exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as guaranteed by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and do not appear to meet the threshold for legitimate limitation established in article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 9 See A/HRC/16/48/Add.3. See also opinions No. 6/2020, para. 43; and No. 5/2020, para. 74. 10 Opinions No. 20/2020, para. 80; No. 19/2019, para. 34; and No. 76/2017, para. 59. 11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 14 GE.25-15052 93. The Working Group reiterates that the right to freedom of opinion is of such importance that no Government may restrict it on account of the opinions – political, scientific, historical, artistic, moral or religious – expressed by or attributed to a person. Prohibiting the exercise of this right is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since the expression of an opinion cannot be considered a crime. Accordingly, the harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of a person, including through arrest, pretrial detention, prosecution or imprisonment, for expressing his or her opinions is not permitted. 94. It should also be noted 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. The Working Group wishes to recall that the enjoyment of the right to hold and participate in peaceful assemblies entails the fulfilment by the State of its positive obligation to facilitate the exercise of this right. 95. The Working Group concludes that, since articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been violated, these actions fall under category II. 96. The Working Group also notes that the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has stated that assemblies should not be dissolved automatically and organizers should not be subject to criminal sanctions, or administrative sanctions resulting in fines or imprisonment.12 This, however, is precisely what happened to the 33 individuals. 97. The source notes that the 33 individuals were charged with offences that are defined vaguely and do not comply with the principle of legality. He cites several opinions of the Working Group in which it is stated that offences such as assault on authority, contempt, resistance, disorder and disobedience are too broad. He also questions the application of aggravating circumstances to the offence of sabotage under article 53 (e) and (o) of the Criminal Code, arguing that there was no link between the events and the COVID-19 pandemic, and pointing out that State controls were tightened during the pandemic and demonstrating was not prohibited in Cuba. 98. The Working Group adds that the imposition of a lengthy prison sentence can have a chilling effect on the exercise of human rights, including freedom of expression, and requests the Government to avoid unduly infringing on the rights of its citizens in this way.13 (c) Category III 99. Given its finding that the detention of the 33 individuals was arbitrary under category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. However, the detainees were charged and convicted and are serving sentences. All of them were convicted of public disorder, contempt and assault on authority. The Working Group considers that the information submitted by the source reveals violations of the detainees’ right to due process during the trial and appeal proceedings. 100. Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes the right of all persons to be presumed innocent. This principle requires the State and its authorities to treat accused persons as innocent until a final judgment has been handed down and to refrain from making statements anticipating a guilty verdict. 101. All 33 detainees were interrogated without a lawyer present and charged with vague offences such as “contempt” or “assault on authority” that are not clearly defined in criminal law and may be used to criminalize criticism of the Government. This practice violates the right to freedom of expression and opinion. 102. In this case, the Working Group notes that, according to the source, the President of the Republic made a statement on public television in which he claimed that “criminals” and “officials of the Government of the United States” were behind the protests and called on the people of Cuba to “combat” those who challenged the Government. 12 A/HRC/20/27, para. 29. 13 Opinions No. 13/2024, paras. 71–73; and No. 82/2022, para. 45. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 GE.25-15052 15 103. This public statement undermines the notion that the 33 individuals were treated in accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence. In addition, the Working Group has reason to believe that the judges who heard the case had preconceived ideas about it. 104. The Working Group notes that neither the detainees nor their families have copies of the arrest warrants or the pretrial detention orders. This lack of procedural transparency prevents the detainees from effectively challenging the lawfulness of their detention, thus accentuating its arbitrary nature. The Working Group also notes that, according to the source, the 33 detainees were questioned by police without a lawyer present. The lack of response from the Government means that this claim has not been refuted. The Working Group therefore finds credible the source’s assertion that the detainees were not assisted by defence counsel in accordance with the law, either from the moment they were arrested or throughout the proceedings. 105. In view of the above, the Working Group considers that the Government violated article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 11 (2) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which states that a detained person and his or her counsel, if any, must receive prompt and full communication of any order of detention, together with the reasons therefor. 106. The Working Group has received reports from the source, which have been neither refuted nor investigated by the authorities, that the detainees were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This conduct violates the absolute prohibition of torture, which is recognized as a peremptory norm of international law, as well as 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. The Working Group has therefore decided to refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 107. The Working Group considers that the information submitted confirms the source’s claims that the fairness of the proceedings was affected by inequality of arms, ill-treatment and torture and that this amounts to a violation of the right to a fair trial, which is enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 108. According to the source, the detainees were tried by military courts. The Working Group has stated on several occasions that military courts are not competent to try civilians except in duly justified exceptional cases. The trial of civilians by military courts violates the principle of legality and undermines the right to be tried by a civilian court.14 The Working Group finds that this situation violates the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 109. 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 33 persons an arbitrary character under category III. (d) Category V 110. The source claims that the detention of the individuals concerned constitutes a violation of international law insofar as it is an act of discrimination based on opinion that amounts to ignoring the equality of human beings as regards thought, expression, assembly and demonstration. 111. The Working Group has concluded, under category II, that the detention of the 33 individuals was due to their legitimate exercise of the freedoms of expression, opinion and association in the context of the demonstrations of 11 and 12 July 2021. It recalls that, when detention results from political expression, there is a strong presumption that it also constitutes discrimination on the basis of political opinion. This presumption is reinforced in the present case by the fact that, according to the charges brought during the legal proceedings, the defendants shouted slogans against the State and the Government of Cuba, 14 Opinions No. 3/2021 and No. 28/2018. A/HRC/WGAD/2025/57 16 GE.25-15052 they engaged in significant violence, brandishing pots and pans and metal objects (none of which were seized), they made noise and they carried a white sheet (not seized either) painted with the words “down with the dictatorship and freedom for Cuba”. This shows that the authorities punished them specifically for their criticism of the political status quo. Furthermore, since the demonstration reflected discontent with the Government, the Working Group considers that the 33 detainees were arrested, charged and imprisoned solely because of their political positions. Consequently, the Working Group finds that the detentions were arbitrary under category V, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (e) Concluding remarks 112. The present case is one of several brought before the Working Group in recent years concerning arbitrary detention in Cuba.15 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 engage in acts that may constitute crimes against humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are committed. 113. The Working Group is concerned about the claims that the releases granted between January and March 2025 are subject to conditions that the source describes as a “constant threat of reimprisonment”. These conditions include being required by the State security forces to perform work; being banned from making statements on social networks, in the media or to human rights organizations; and being unable to participate freely in public activities protesting the Government or defending human rights (see para. 66). The Working Group notes that such restrictions could lead to further human rights violations. 3. Disposition 114. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of the 33 individuals, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V. 115. The Working Group requests the Government of Cuba to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of the 33 individuals without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 116. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to unconditionally release the 33 individuals immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. 117. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the 33 individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights. 118. In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 119. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible. 15 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/2025/57 GE.25-15052 17 4. Follow-up procedure 120. 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 33 individuals have been unconditionally released and, if so, on what date; (b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the 33 individuals; (c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of the 33 individuals 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. 121. 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. 122. 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. 123. 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.16 [Adopted on 29 August 2025] 16 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.