Report No. 67 (2006) IACHR. Case No. 12.476 (Cuba)

• Case Number: 12.476
• Year: 2006
• Report Number: 67
• Respondent State: Cuba
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Oscar Elías Biscet y otros, Cuba

REPORT Nº 67/06 CASE 12.476 PUBLICATION OSCAR ELÍAS BISCET ET AL. CUBA October 21, 2006 I. SUMMARY 1. On September 22, 2003 and October 9, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” the “Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received two petitions lodged, respectively, by the Cuban American Bar Association and Directorio Democrático Cubano (hereinafter “the petitioners). The allegations in both petitions is that the international responsibility of the Republic of Cuba (hereinafter “Cuba,” “the Cuban State”, or “the State”) has been engaged by its violation of Articles I (right to life, liberty and personal security), II (right to equality before the law), IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination), V (right to protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life), VI (right to a family and to protection thereof), IX (right to inviolability of the home), X (right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence ), XI (right to the preservation of health and to well-being), XVII (right to recognition of juridical personality and civil rights), XVIII (right to a fair trial), XX (right to vote and to participate in government), XXI (right of assembly), XXII (right of association), XXV (right of protection from arbitrary detention) and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter the “Declaration” or the “American Declaration”), to the detriment of a group of 79 dissidents and members of the opposition to the Cuban government. 2. The Commission decided to join the two petitions and process them as a single case, in exercise of its authority under Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure. It then proceeded to open the case, which was classified as Case No. 12,476. Subsequently, during its 121st regular session, the Commission approved Report No. 57/04, in which it concluded that the case was admissible and decided to continue with its analysis of the merits. 3. The State responded to the requests for information, which the Commission made through the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. In its communications, the State asserted that the Inter-American Commission did not have legal jurisdiction and the Organization of American States did not have the moral authority to pass judgment on the exercise of human rights in Cuba. The Commission therefore considers that the time periods prescribed in its Rules of Procedure for a State to contest the facts reported in a petition have long since expired. 4. In the present report, after examining the arguments as to the merits, the Commission concludes that the State’s international responsibility has been engaged for violation of Articles I (right to life, liberty and personal security), II (right to equality before law), IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination), V (right to protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life), VI (right to a family and to protection thereof), IX (right to inviolability of the home), X (right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence ), XI (right to the preservation of health and to well-being), XVIII (right to a fair trial), XX (right to vote and to participate in government), XXI (right of assembly), XXII (right of association), XXV (right of protection from arbitrary detention) and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration, to the detriment of Nelson Alberto Aguiar Ramírez, Osvaldo Alfonso Valdés, Pedro Pablo Álvarez Ramos, Pedro Argüelles Morán, Víctor Rolando Arroyo Carmona, Mijail Bárzaga Lugo, Oscar Elías Biscet González, Margarito Broche Espinosa, Marcelo Cano Rodríguez, Juan Roberto de Miranda Hernández, Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández, Eduardo Díaz Fleitas, Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe, Alfredo Felipe Fuentes, Efrén Fernández Fernández, Juan Adolfo Fernández Saínz, José Daniel Ferrer García, Luís Enrique Ferrer García, Orlando Fundora Álvarez, Próspero Gaínza Agüero, Miguel Galbán Gutiérrez, Julio César Gálvez Rodríguez, Edel José García Díaz, José Luís García Paneque, Ricardo Severino González Alfonso, Diosdado González Marrero, Léster González Pentón, Alejandro González Raga, Jorge Luís González Tanquero, Leonel Grave de Peralta, Iván Hernández Carrillo, Normando Hernández González, Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, Regis Iglesias Ramírez, José Ubaldo Izquierdo Hernández, Reynaldo Miguel Labrada Peña, Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Raúl Ramón Rivero Castañeda, José Gabriel Ramón Castillo, Pablo Pacheco Ávila, Horacio Julio Piña Borrego, Ángel Moya Acosta, Manuel Vázquez Portal, Nelson Molinet Espino, Antonio Ramón Díaz Sánchez, Alfredo Rodolfo Domínguez Batista, Fidel Suárez Cruz, Jorge Olivera Castillo, Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, Héctor Palacios Ruiz, Marcelo Manuel López Bañobre, Héctor Raúl Valle Hernández, Guido Sigler Amaya, Ariel Sigler Amaya, Félix Navarro Rodríguez, Librado Linares García, Omar Pernet Hernández, Antonio Augusto Villareal Acosta, Mario Enrique Mayo Hernández, Julio Antonio Valdés Guevara, Luís Milán Fernández, Alexis Rodríguez Fernández, Arnaldo Ramos Lauzurique, Miguel Valdés Tamayo, José Miguel Martínez Hernández, Arturo Pérez de Alejo Rodríguez, Omar Moisés Ruiz Hernández, Blas Giraldo Reyes Rodríguez, Alfredo Manuel Pulido López, Claro Sánchez Altarriba, Ricardo Enrique Silva Gual, Jesús Mustafá Felipe, Manuel Ubals González, Fabio Prieto Llorente, Omar Rodríguez Saludes, Rafael Millet Leyva, Miguel Sigler Amaya, and Orlando Zapata Tamayo (hereinafter the “alleged victims” or “victims”). In this report, the Commission also makes a number of recommendations to the State.; II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 5. On September 22, 2003, the Cuban American Bar Association lodged petition 771/03 with the IACHR. The Commission initiated the processing of the petition on February 8, 2004, and forwarded the pertinent parts thereof to the State, giving it two months to submit its response. The State did not reply to that communication. On October 9, 2003, the Directorio Democrático Cubano lodged petition 841/03 with the Commission. Then, on January 21, 2004, the Directorio Democrático Cubano supplied the Commission with additional information pertinent to the petition it had lodged. 6. On September 30, 2004, the Commission decided to join petitions 771/03 and 841/04, pursuant to Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure. On October 14, 2004, during its 121st regular session, the Commission issued Report No. 57/04 in which it declared the petitions admissible and opened the case as number 12,476. On November 8, 2004, the IACHR forwarded the report to the parties and, in accordance with the provisions of Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, gave the parties two months in which to submit their observations on the merits. 7. On December 6, 2004, the Chief of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. sent the Commission a letter stating that the IACHR “does not have legal jurisdiction, and the Organization of American States does not have the moral authority to pass judgment on the exercise of human rights in Cuba.” 8. On January 7, 2005, the petitioners sent the Commission their observations on the merits. Those observations were forwarded to the State that same day. In the letter of transmittal, the State was informed that it had two months in which to present its additional observations on the merits. 9. On February 11, 2005, the IACHR received a note from the Chief of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. in which he advised that “the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights does not have jurisdiction and the OAS does not have the moral authority to examine this or any other matter pertaining to Cuba.” 10. On February 28, 2005, the Commission held a hearing in which the petitioners participated. They introduced their witnesses, who testified as to the situation of the alleged victims. 11. On February 22, 2006 the petitioners sent additional information to the Commission, updating the individual situation of the victims. On February 24, 2006 this information was transmitted to the State.; III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 1. As to the facts 12. The petitioners allege that during March 2003 the State unleashed a crackdown against a succession of human rights activists and independent journalists. The result was that a number of dissidents and members of the opposition were detained and arrested, among them Nelson Alberto Aguiar Ramírez, Cruz Delia Aguilar Mora, Osvaldo Alfonso Valdés, Pedro Pablo Álvarez Ramo, Pedro Argüelles Morán, Víctor Rolando Arroyo Carmona,Mijail Bárzaga Lugo, Oscar Elías Biscet González, Margarito Broche Espinosa, Marcelo Cano Rodríguez, Juan Roberto de Miranda Hernández, Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández, Eduardo Díaz Fleitas, Antonio Ramón Díaz Sánchez, Alfredo Rodolfo Domínguez Batista, Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe, Alfredo Felipe Fuentes, Efrén Fernández Fernández, Juan Adolfo Fernández Saínz, José Daniel Ferrer García, Luís Enrique Ferrer García, Orlando Fundora Álvarez, Próspero Gaínza Agüero, Miguel Galbán Gutiérrez, José Miguel Martínez, Julio César Gálvez Rodríguez, Edel José García Díaz, José Luís García Paneque, Ricardo Severino González Alfonso, Diosdado González Marrero, Léster González Pentón, Alejandro González Raga, Jorge Luís González Tanquero, Leonel Grave de Peralta, Iván Hernández Carrillo, Normando Hernández González, Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, Regis Iglesias Ramírez, José Ubaldo Izquierdo Hernández, Reynaldo Miguel Labrada Peña, Librado Ricardo Linares García, Marcelo Manuel López Bañobre, José Miguel Martínez Hernández, Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, Mario Enrique Mayo Hernández, Luís Milán Fernández, Rafael Millet Leyva, Nelson Moline...