Havana/The publication on January 9 in the Official Gazette of the Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information marks the formal beginning of a new relevant legal stage if it is really carried out. For the first time, the country’s institutions have a specific deadline to prepare and respond to a right that, although recognized in the Constitution, had never had clear rules to become a reality. Official media as Cubadebate They celebrate this publication with great fanfare, while the independent press maintains a critical position on the real scope of the new provisions.
The rule was approved in July 2024 by the National Assembly of People’s Power, but has not yet entered into force. The text itself establishes that 180 calendar days must pass from its publication in the Official Gazette to start applying. During that time, entities will have to organize their files, prepare their staff and create mechanisms to respond to requests for information. On paper, the deadline seems reasonable. In practice, it remains to be seen whether this will actually be done effectively.
For decades, access to public information in Cuba has been more of a distant fantasy than a reality. Articles 53, 97 and 101 of the Constitution recognize the obligation of transparency, but do not say who must respond, how much time they have to do so or what happens when an institution simply does not respond. The new law attempts to close that gap and put rules where there were none before.
For decades, access to public information in Cuba has been more of a distant fantasy than a reality
One of the most important points is that the reporting obligation is not limited to ministries. It also reaches state companies, local governments, mass organizations and any entity or person that manages public money. The scope is broad, at least on paper, although its effectiveness will depend on there being real control.
The law establishes a period of 15 business days to respond to requests for information, with the possibility of a justified extension. It also makes it clear that not responding, responding half-heartedly, or responding ambiguously counts as a restriction of the right. This opens the possibility of complaining and even going to court, something almost impossible until now in the relationship between citizens and institutions.
In addition, entities will be required to regularly publish basic information about their operations. Data such as who runs an institution, what exactly it does or how it is financed should be available without the need to ask for it. The challenge will be for this information to be clear, updated and useful, and not just a formal procedure.
However, the law also establishes limits on access to information for reasons of national security, protection of personal data or ongoing legal proceedings. For these cases, the law introduces the so-called proof of damage, which requires explaining why disclosing specific information would cause harm and allows only a part to be provided when possible. This will be one of the most sensitive points when evaluating how the rule is applied since it can facilitate the concealment of cases of corruption and rights violations.
Experience shows that having written rules does not always guarantee that they are followed.
Along with the law, the procedures manual that should guide its implementation was published. However, experience shows that having written rules does not always guarantee that they are followed.
The law is a long-awaited and, in theory, positive initiative. However, its real impact will depend on more than just deadlines and documents. In a country with little tradition of access to public information and where corruption has spread to different levels of the State, doubt remains about the application of the new provisions.
Some state newspapers have recognized that, until now, institutions have denied basic information or have remained silent on issues of public interest, which has prevented the press itself from fulfilling its function. Cases such as the absence of official figures on femicides led media such as Giron and Escambray to admit that they could not report because no authority provided data. Invader It was even more direct. by denouncing that ministries and organizations arbitrarily decided who could speak, when and about what.
