It was recently revealed that the activist Ángel Cuza Alfonso He was arrested by Cuban police officers and an investigation was launched against him for carrying with him four bullets. Cuza Alfonso acknowledged that one of the weapons was his and that he carried it for religious reasons. However, he stated that the other three were planted by his captors to frame him for the crime of illegal possession and carrying of weapons, explosives, and ammunition. This crime is regulated in articles 276 to 279 of the [relevant legal code/code]. Penal Code And it is considered a crime of endangerment, meaning the conduct is punished for the potential risk posed by the uncontrolled handling of these objects. Therefore, what Cuza Alfonso described as the authorities' behavior is not insignificant: the greater the quantity of ammunition he is accused of possessing, the more dangerous his actions are considered, and consequently, the greater the potential penalty.
The possible criminal conduct attributable to Cuza Alfonso
According to Article 276 of the Cuban Penal Code, the acquisition, carrying, or possession of firearms without legal authorization is punishable. The State aims to eliminate any existing weapons stockpile outside its registered control. At the same time, in the Article 278 Possession or manufacture of explosive substances without authorization is punishable. One of the most controversial points between the two articles is the detention of people who only possess ammunition, as in the case of Cuza Alfonso, without the weapon present.
The legal analysis has two aspects. First, the four bullets could be considered components of a firearm, and Cuza Alfonso would then be charged under Article 276 of the Penal Code. In this case, Cuza Alfonso could receive a sentence of between two and five years in prison. Another possibility is that the activist could receive a sentence of between one and three years in prison. This second possibility depends on whether the four bullets are considered to contain an explosive substance, specifically gunpowder.
In either case, Cuza Alfonso's religious freedom is violated. According to the provisions of Article 15 of the Cuban Constitution, The State recognizes, respects, and guarantees religious freedom. Furthermore, this is one of the categories of special protection recognized in Article 42 of the Constitution, which pertains to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Article 57 of the Constitution also recognizes that everyone has the right to profess or not profess religious beliefs, to change them, and to practice the religion of their choice, with due respect for others and in accordance with the law. International standards on religious freedom also protect Cuza Alfonso. According to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, If, for him, the bullet he admitted to carrying has genuine spiritual value, then carrying it is a legitimate way to practice his faith. Although the State has the obligation to protect public safety and control weapons, it must comply with several rules to punish a person for it. First, the prohibition cannot be a whim of the police, but must be written in a prior and clear law. Second, the authorities must demonstrate that prohibiting that amulet actually protects the health or life of the community. And third, the measure must be fair and not excessive. Cuza Alfonso should not be imprisoned for carrying a object with religious significance, since it is a completely disproportionate reaction.
Conclusions: some important aspects for the defense of Ángel Cuza
From a due process and strict legality perspective, as well as considering the international standards applicable to the Cuza Alfonso case, there are fundamental points of contention. First, in criminal law, laws must be applied strictly and precisely. If the legislation does not expressly mention the word ammunition, It is legally incorrect and violates the principle of legality to classify a bullet as a part of a weapon. Bullets are external and consumable objects, so stretching the interpretation of the law to include these items would infringe upon Cuza Alfonso's rights.
Second, it must be assessed whether the conduct in question truly represents a real and concrete danger to public safety. Carrying a minimal quantity of bullets, especially when one does not possess a weapon capable of firing them, lacks the capacity to cause immediate harm. Since there is no real risk to society due to the impossibility of using such material effectively, the action loses the necessary relevance for Cuza Alfonso to be prosecuted criminally.
Third, the presumption of innocence must prevail over any ambiguity in the law. To prevent the punishment of mere suspicion, the State has the strict obligation to present solid and compelling evidence demonstrating Cuza Alfonso's guilt, always respecting his right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In this regard, the Law No. 143/2021 Of the Criminal Process Cuban law sanctions illegal actions by authorities, such as planting false evidence.
If the police officers planted three bullets on Cuza Alfonso, the law severely punishes such conduct and provides for the immediate nullification and exclusion of the illegally obtained evidence. According to Article 185.1, any act that violates due process guarantees is inadmissible as evidence. Article 11 reinforces this position by declaring illegal and excluding from the proceedings any actions taken in violation of the law. Meanwhile, Article 7 categorically prohibits the use of coercion or deception, a category that includes actions such as those carried out against Cuza Alfonso. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence is protected by establishing that, in the event of any doubt regarding the facts, the decision will always be made in the most favorable light for the accused.
To challenge the planting of evidence, one can request the absolute nullity of the police action, as this type of maneuver violates due process. During the investigation phase, this request is presented to the prosecutor. If the prosecutor rejects it, the defense has the opportunity to insist on the nullity before the court. If accepted by the judges, the court will order the immediate removal of the illegally obtained evidence from the case file. As an alternative, the accused can file a complaint against the illegal police action. This complaint is submitted to the authority that committed the infraction so that it can be immediately forwarded to the prosecutor's office, which must resolve it and notify its decision within a maximum of three days.
Finally, the law defines serious consequences for officers who engage in these illegal practices. On the one hand, it empowers the application of disciplinary measures to police officers, ranging from warnings to fines. On the other hand, if planting evidence constitutes a crime, as in the case of Cuza Alfonso, the law stipulates that those responsible must be held criminally liable. Any prosecutor or court that detects a crime of this nature must report it and initiate the corresponding criminal proceedings immediately. However, the existence of these legal provisions is a dead letter in Cuba. The profound lack of judicial independence and the systematic absence of real guarantees for a due process These factors limit the effectiveness of these defense mechanisms. This vulnerability is exacerbated when the person under investigation is a activist for human rights like Cuza Alfonso. In these cases, the judicial system becomes a tool of repression, so it is common for allegations of planted evidence, requests for annulment, and due process guarantees to be completely dismissed.