Pedro’s case, sentenced to 18 years without evidence, illustrates how the Cuban State uses exemplary judgments to sow fear and violate basic guarantees.
Santiago de Cuba, Cuba.- On September 22, Cuban Official Media announced the start of the IV National Exercise of Prevention and Confrontation of Crime, a state strategy that includes police operations, transport controls and an increase in the so -called exemplary judgments. These public hearings, conceived to “educate” the population, are presented as part of the offensive against drug trafficking and other crimes of high social impact.
However, behind the Official rhetoricthe measure raises serious legal and ethical doubts. What the State presents as a prevention tool, experts indicate it as a flagrant violation of human rights.
Pedro’s case: condemned without evidence
In January 2024, July and Ana were arrested in a bus from Santiago de Cuba, at the entrance of Havana. Julio took cash; to Ana, about three grams of cocaine. Both were transferred to the unit of 100 and Aldabó, where they began collaborating with the police. In the midst of that dynamic, Pedro, resident in the Mayan, was arrested weeks later, indicated by the statements of the others involved.
No drugs, money or other evidence were occupied. Your cousin, interviewed by Cubanet, He assures that “they had nothing against him.” Despite this, he was transferred to the capital and remained imprisoned for months without formal accusation, in an arrest that his family described as arbitrary.
In May 2025, after more than a year in preventive detention, Pedro was presented in an exemplary collective trial. The Court condemned him to 18 years in jail for international drug trafficking, a sanction even superior to the other two prosecuted: 15 years for July and 13 for Ana. He was tried as the main author of the crime, despite the fact that the evidence was circumstantial since, according to jurists, a habeas corpus – previsited in article 96 of the Cuban Constitution (2019) – would have had to prosper to stop the arbitrariness from the beginning.
The look of the experts
The lawyer Laritza Diversent, director of Cubalex, has been overwhelming: “Yes it is a violation. We are criticizing Since the time of the Covid, because it is a prejugation. It is also a violation of due process guarantee, since many of these judgments are broadcast on television, when that is illegal. Although judgments can be open to the public, they should not be transmitted. The right to the presumption of innocence is violated, in addition to disseminating images of people who never gave their consent. ”
Diversent’s signaling is aligned with the Cuban legal framework. The Constitution of 2019, in article 95, recognizes the right of every person to obtain from the courts “the restitution of rights” and reparation in the event of violation. The law of Criminal process (2021) also establishes guarantees for an impartial trial (Law 143, 2021).
In addition, Cuba is a signature of the Covenant International Civil and Political Rights, whose article 14 protects the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence (OHCHR). The practice of exemplary judgments contradicts these commitments openly.
More rematch than justice
Far from strengthening legality, exemplary judgments seem designed to sow fear and legitimize punishment. More than imparting justice, they seek to generate social revenge. In different locations, Citizens have come to hit or publicly humiliate alleged criminals, with passivity – even the complacency – of the authorities.
This climate of public lynching, reinforced by the courts and state media, erodes civil coexistence and normalizes violence in response.
The IV National Exercise of Prevention and Confrontation of Crime has resumed old practices that, far from educating, only deepen distrust in the Cuban judicial system. Pedro’s story* reveals how, in Cuba, the logic of the lesson can weigh more than the evidence, and how the legality is subordinated to a discourse of social discipline.
Cuba, their dignity and the coexistence of its citizens deserve more than judgments that encourage fear and collective rematch.
Note: The names of those involved were changed to protect their identities.
