The UN reminds the Cuban regime that States have “the obligation not to engage in acts that may constitute crimes against humanity and to prevent them.”
MIAMI, United States. – The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that the deprivation of liberty of 49 people detained for their participation in the protests of July 11, 2021 in Cuba is arbitrary and demanded their “immediate and unconditional” release, in addition to comprehensive reparations.
The conclusions appear in two recent opinions, number 57/2025 and the number 46/2025adopted in August of this year and sent to the organization Prisoners Defenders International in November.
The decisions refer to 33 people tried by military jurisdiction as a result of the protests in Güira de Melena (Artemisa), grouped in case 23 before the Western Territorial Military Court, and another 16 people prosecuted by ordinary courts in Santa Clara in case 149/2021. In both cases, the Working Group concluded that the convictions are based on serious violations of due process, the use of vague criminal offenses to punish the peaceful exercise of fundamental rights, and a pattern of discrimination for political, religious, and gender reasons.
In the Opinion no. 57/2025regarding the Güira de Melena group, the UN mechanism affirms that the deprivation of liberty of these 33 people “is arbitrary, since it contravenes articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and falls within categories I, II, III and V.” In the Opinion no. 46/2025regarding the 16 convicts from Santa Clara, reaches an analogous conclusion: the deprivation of liberty “is arbitrary, since it contravenes articles 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and falls within categories I, II, III and V.”
The Working Group calls on the Government of Cuba to release the 49 affected without delay. In the case of the military case, it points out that “the appropriate remedy would be to release the 33 individuals immediately and unconditionally and grant them the effective right to obtain compensation and other types of reparation, in accordance with international law.”
In the Santa Clara case, it makes a virtually identical recommendation: “The appropriate remedy would be to immediately release the 16 people unconditionally and grant them the effective right to obtain compensation and other forms of reparation, in accordance with international law.”
A pattern that could border on crimes against humanity
UN experts warn that these cases are not isolated. In both opinions, the Working Group notes that this is “one of several cases presented (…) in recent years in relation to arbitrary detention in Cuba” and expresses concern that this “may indicate a widespread or systematic practice of arbitrary detention in the country.” It adds that States have “the obligation not to engage in acts that may constitute crimes against humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are committed.”
In Case 23, the Working Group also decided to bring the case to the attention of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, in light of allegations of mistreatment, beatings, punishment cells, use of pepper spray, and denial of adequate medical care to people with chronic diseases such as HIV, diabetes, hypertension, psychiatric disorders, and cognitive disabilities.
Both documents place the arrests in the context of the social outbreak of July 11, 2021. The opinions recall that that day “peaceful demonstrations began in San Antonio de los Baños that soon spread throughout the country”, that the Government responded “harshly” and that Miguel Díaz-Canel, on television, “called the participants ‘criminals’ and linked to the United States of America, also calling for ‘combat’ against those who questioned the Government.”
In Güira de Melena, the 33 defendants were arrested for their alleged participation in the protests in that municipality and prosecuted in the Artemisa Military Prosecutor’s Office under file 102/2021, which gave rise to case 23 before the Western Territorial Military Court. In Santa Clara, the 16 defendants were also arrested for their participation in the 11J demonstrations in that city and then tried in case 149/2021 by the Popular Municipal Court of Santa Clara, with a second instance in the Popular Provincial Court of Villa Clara.
The Working Group emphasizes that, from reading the sentences and prosecutorial accusations, “there is no criminality in the actions that the accused actually carried out,” which are reduced to peaceful public demonstrations, including the display of a white sheet with the phrase “Down with the dictatorship and freedom for Cuba.” In the opinion of the experts, the Cuban authorities thus convert the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly into crimes such as public disorder, sabotage, contempt, attack and resistance, configured in such a broad way that, as recalled, they have already been questioned by the Working Group itself in previous opinions.
Arrests without a court order, temporary disappearances and incommunicado detention
In both files the same scheme is repeated. None of the 49 detainees was presented with an arrest warrant either at the time of arrest or subsequently, and no judge was informed of the arrests in the initial phase. The Working Group recalls that, according to international law, the authorities must present a detained person to a competent authority within a maximum period of 48 hours and that supervision of the legality of the detention must be carried out by a judge and not by the Prosecutor’s Office or security bodies.
In the case of Güira de Melena, the detainees remained missing or incommunicado for between seven and forty days, without contact with their families or lawyers, subjected to interrogations without defense and, in many cases, to mistreatment. The Working Group emphasizes that “incommunicado detention in an unknown place is considered, prima facie, a forced disappearance” and that this type of practice constitutes “a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.”
Similar patterns are described in the cause of Santa Clara: the activist Mitzael Díaz Paseiro She was “for more than 10 days in a situation of forced disappearance and more than 20 without contact with her family,” while Lisdani and Lisdiani Rodríguez Isaac remained missing for more than 30 days, without family or telephone contact, in a punishment cell and without the presence of lawyers during interrogations.
Preventive detention as punishment and courts without independence
The opinions remind that the Criminal Procedure Law Cuban law in force until January 2022 allowed the so-called police “instructors” and the Prosecutor’s Office to detain people for up to 168 hours without judicial control and to prolong preventive detention with the sole approval of the Attorney General. For the Working Group, this design “converts preventive detention into an anticipation of punishment, violating the presumption of innocence” and is incompatible with article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In case 23, the 33 defendants—all civilians—were tried by a military court, something that, as the Working Group recalls, violates the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court and contradicts international jurisprudence that strictly limits the use of military jurisdiction over civilians. In the case of Santa Clara, the judges belong to the structure subject to the Communist Party of Cuba: the source cited by the UN maintains that the permanence of magistrates and prosecutors depends on their willingness to repress “anti-revolutionary” behavior, something that the Working Group considers incompatible with article 10 of the Universal Declaration.
Both opinions insist that in Cuba “there are no independent defense lawyers,” because they all depend organically, hierarchically and economically on the Ministry of Justice, and point out that the experts and witnesses who testify in trials are state or military officials, which “violates the equality of procedural arms” and the impartiality of the process.
Prison conditions
The documents dedicate extensive sections to the conditions of confinement. In the military case, punishments, beatings and the use of pepper spray are described against people such as independent journalist Jorge Bello Domínguez, who suffers from diabetes, hypertension, kidney and testicular problems and asthma without receiving adequate medical care. The Working Group also details the case of Brenda Diaz Garciaheld in the Cuba-Panama prison, who “suffers physical and verbal abuse due to her gender identity” and suffers from HIV, chronic gastritis and kidney stones without treatment.
In the cause of Santa Clara, the sisters Lisdani and Lisdiani Rodríguez Isaac and the Yoruba priestess Donaida Pérez Paseiro They appear as victims of double discrimination, for political reasons and gender or religion. The Working Group recalls the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok rules on the treatment of imprisoned women and concludes that, in the case of Lisdani Rodríguez Isaac, pregnant and without adequate prenatal care, these regulations have been violated. He considers that his detention is also arbitrary “due to gender-based discrimination.”
Regarding the Ifá priest Loreto Hernandez Garciaimprisoned in the Guamajal prison, the document indicates that he suffers from asthma, hypertension, diabetes, heart problems and severe malnutrition and that a medical opinion declared him “unfit for prison”, but he was denied extra-penal license on two occasions. Overall, the Working Group concludes that the State’s actions violate the right to health and an adequate standard of living recognized in article 25 of the Universal Declaration.
Both opinions analyze the announcement by the Cuban Government, on January 14, 2025, about the “gradual” release of 553 people “sanctioned for various crimes” after an agreement with the Vatican. In Güira de Melena’s group, several people are placed on extra-penal leave or conditional release, but under a regime of strong restrictions: they cannot leave their cities, they are prohibited from expressing themselves on social networks, speaking with human rights organizations or criticizing the Government and they must appear periodically before the authorities, under “constant surveillance.” The Working Group warns that this situation is experienced as “a constant threat of re-entry into a prison regime.”
In the case of Santa Clara, 12 of the 16 convicted persons are serving their sentences under extra-penal license, conditional release or similar modalities. The UN estimates that “what is described does not represent a release in real terms or within the framework of international law” and maintains that, far from being a true release, “it is a covert home prison regime.”
Lack of cooperation or late response from Cuba
In the two files, the Working Group records the limited cooperation of the Cuban State. In case 23, the Government requested an extension to respond to the UN communication, but presented its allegations on September 3, after the opinion was adopted on August 29. In case 149, Cuba did not even respond within the deadline or request an extension, despite the express request for detailed information on the situation of the 16 detained people.
Given the silence or the late response of the State, the Working Group applied its own evidentiary methodology and accepted the facts presented by the source as accredited, considering that they contain reasonable indications of violations of international law and have not been refuted.
In both documents, the UN mechanism opened a follow-up procedure and asked the Government of Cuba to report, within a period of six months, whether the affected people were released unconditionally, whether they received compensation or other reparations, whether the violations were investigated and whether legal or practical reforms were introduced to bring the Cuban penal system into line with international standards.
