Cubalex has documented several incidents of obstruction of access to justice, due to the courts' refusal to accept appeals and complaints filed by family members and associates of people deprived of their liberty or under harassment. We present some of the cases documented to date.
On March 26, Guillermo Fariñas, along with family members and neighbors of inmate Eduardo Valladares, went to the Military Prosecutor's Office to file a complaint against an officer of the Technical Directorate of Investigations (DTI) of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT), known as “Yosbel, Cara Mala” (Yosbel, Bad Face), for blackmailing and coercing Valladares into becoming an informant. However, the Prosecutor's Office rejection formalize the complaint, arguing that only Valladares can file it when he is free.
On three occasions —specifically on April 10, 12 and 17— the Provincial Court of Artemisa rejected a Habeas Corpus petition in favor of the political prisoner Daniel Alfaro Frías, provincial delegate of the Movement of Opponents for a New Republic (MONR).
MONR leader José Díaz Silva told Cubalex that the court had initially indicated that the habeas corpus petition had to be filed by a lawyer with the Public Prosecutor's Office. However, upon going to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the person was informed that the procedure was not handled there.
Teresa Garbey, mother of the political prisoner Asdrúbal Kindelán, She reported that she made two attempts, on April 9 and 11, to file a complaint with the Provincial Court of Santiago de Cuba against an officer who assaulted her, but her complaint was rejected.
Also, Sujay Acosta, wife of the political prisoner Onaikel Infantes Abreu, He informed Cubalex that the Havana Provincial Court did not receive his habeas corpus petition. A court clerk informed him that the request had to be filed by a lawyer.
The systematic refusal of the courts to accept appeals or complaints filed by family members and associates of individuals subjected to harassment and human rights violations reflects a profound disregard for national legislation. This attitude also constitutes a violation of the State's human rights obligations.
This recurring pattern of repression violates the principle of legality established in Article 9 of the Constitution, which imposes on all State bodies and their officials the obligation to strictly observe the law and act within the limits of their powers.
Furthermore, preventing the filing of legal appeals based on arguments not contemplated in current legislation infringes upon the victims' right to access justice to obtain effective legal protection of their rights, as well as the right to initiate proceedings. Habeas corpus before a competent court, as established by Articles 92 and 96 of the Constitution.
This behavior represents discrimination based on political motives and an action that violates human dignity, something that is expressly prohibited by article 42 of the same constitutional norm.
For its part, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its article 8 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 9 provides protections that include the right to an effective remedy before competent national tribunals, the prohibition of arbitrary arrests or detentions, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released, as well as the right to appeal to a tribunal to determine the legality of the detention and order release if it is unlawful.