Cuban authorities denied parole to Gustavo Mena Artola, animal rights defender and political prisoner, despite the fact that this right corresponded to him from October 25 of this year.
Mena Artola was imprisoned after posting criticisms on Facebook about the blackouts in Cuba, resulting in a two-year sentence for contempt. Despite having met the good behavior requirements stipulated by prison regulations, the authorities denied him this benefit. This case highlights the Cuban government's troubling tendency to use the penal system and prison benefits as tools of political repression.
Photo: Gustavo Mena Artola. Taken from his profile from Facebook.
Gustavo Mena Artola is currently incarcerated at the "La Guanajera" forced labor camp in Santa Clara. Despite being informed that, due to his good behavior, he would be eligible for parole, this benefit was denied. Mena was arrested on September 15, 2023, and, after several weeks in prison, was released on October 31 and sent home to await trial. However, on November 7, he was sentenced to two years of correctional labor with confinement, a sentence he continues to serve to this day.
The Cuban prison system provides for parole as a form of early release, allowing inmates, under certain conditions, to serve the remainder of their sentence outside of prison. According to Article 89.1 of the Penal Code, the court may grant this benefit to those sentenced to imprisonment or correctional labor with confinement, based on two key criteria: the inmate's behavior and their individual circumstances. In the case of Gustavo Mena, both requirements are clearly met. During his incarceration, he has not exhibited negative behavior or engaged in acts of indiscipline, maintaining exemplary conduct both before and after his imprisonment.
However, Cuban authorities argued that, due to his conviction for contempt of court, Mena had to serve his full sentence. This decision reflects a clear case of arbitrariness and illegality in the application of prison benefits and contradicts the principles of equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination. Prison benefits should be granted based on the inmate's behavior, not on political considerations.
Contempt is a crime under the Cuban Penal Code that punishes those who insult or defame public officials in the performance of their duties. However, this crime should not be applied when the accused's statements fall within the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, a right recognized by both the Cuban Constitution and international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Government officials, by virtue of their role in public service, must be more tolerant of criticism. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has endorsed this position, stating that the crime of contempt should be eliminated from penal codes, as it is often used as a tool to punish human rights defenders and activists, as in the case of Mena. Furthermore, the IACHR warns that this legislation constitutes a form of prior censorship, violating the right to freedom of expression.
The case of Gustavo Mena Artola illustrates how the crime of contempt has been used to criminalize criticism of government management and administration, particularly regarding policies that have affected both citizens and animal rights. The punitive application of contempt in this context is unjustified and constitutes a violation of Mena's fundamental rights.
Article 89.2 of Penal Code Cuban law stipulates that, in cases of serious crimes such as those related to drug trafficking, organized crime, or terrorism, the court may require the convicted person to serve at least two-thirds of their sentence before considering parole. However, applying this provision to the crime of contempt is disproportionate, as it equates criticism of government management with a threat to state security. Furthermore, it is illegal, given that contempt is not, by its very nature, classified among the crimes that could justify restricting or delaying prison benefits. Moreover, the lack of clarity regarding the boundaries of the crime of contempt, due to the broad interpretation given by the authorities, violates the principle of legal certainty, which requires that citizens know precisely which actions may constitute a crime.
The denial of parole to Gustavo Mena Artola is a clear example of how criminal law in Cuba is used as a tool to repress freedom of expression. Cubalex calls on the international community and human rights organizations to condemn this violation of Gustavo Mena Artola's rights and demand his immediate release. The Cuban government must respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens and put an end to the use of the criminal justice system to silence criticism.