I. The facts according to the prosecution's own accusation
It all started because a Cuban citizen took photographs of a police operation in a public place.
According to the indictment filed by the Prosecutor's Office, on March 5, 2026, Anyelo Ramírez Martínez was walking along a street in Santiago de Cuba when he observed a deployment of agents from the Ministry of the Interior surrounding an alleged act of "subversive propaganda": graffiti on a wall. Anyelo then began photographing both the graffiti and the actions of the agents present at the scene.
The indictment acknowledges that, upon noticing this, MININT officers approached the young man, demanded he stop taking photographs, ordered him to hand over his cell phone, and asked him to delete the images he had captured. Anyelo refused. According to the file, he responded that he was not doing anything illegal and that he had the right to take photographs in a public space.
From that moment on, the situation escalated rapidly. Major Dainier Suárez Pagán, identified in the document as second in command of Counterintelligence in Santiago de Cuba, He decided to physically restrain him “by the right arm with the aim of moving him.” Only after this initial physical intervention did the alleged struggle occur, which later led to charges of disobedience, assault, and resisting arrest. Also named in the legal documents indicting the young man is Raidel Kindelán Despaigne, an official and driver for the Operational Guard in Santiago de Cuba.
Today, for those acts, the Prosecutor's Office requests a joint sentence of four years of deprivation of liberty, in addition to accessory sanctions such as the deprivation of civil and political rights and the prohibition of leaving the country.
This case is particularly troubling because it demonstrates how an action initially linked to the legitimate exercise of protected rights—specifically, documenting a state operation in a public place—led to the activation of the criminal justice system and the filing of serious charges with a request for imprisonment. Furthermore, the case file reflects an expansive and punitive use of criminal charges such as disobedience, assault, and resistance, frequently employed in Cuba to criminalize conduct related to citizen documentation and reactions against arbitrary and disproportionate interventions by the authorities.
This analysis is based primarily on the prosecution's own version of events. It is precisely this official narrative that allows us to identify violations of due process, arbitrary restrictions on liberty, disproportionate use of force, and a worrying criminalization of the exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to seek and disseminate information.
II. Criminalization of freedom of expression and the right to document
The core of the case against Anyelo Ramírez Martínez stems from conduct that, under international human rights standards, is protected: photographing a state operation in a public space.
The prosecutor's file acknowledges that the young man began taking pictures of a police operation related to an alleged act of "subversive propaganda." It does not describe him physically interfering with the operation, threatening the officers, or obstructing them from carrying out their duties. His actions that triggered the entire intervention were, essentially, observing and documenting.
This is legally relevant because the right to freedom of expression is not limited solely to expressing opinions. It also includes the right of every person to seek, receive, and disseminate information of public interest, including information related to the actions of state agents.
The General Comment No. 34 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, when interpreting article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, It establishes that freedom of expression protects all forms of communication and all means used to transmit information, including audiovisual and electronic forms. It also emphasizes that restrictions imposed by the State must meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
In this context, documenting police actions in public spaces constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right to information and a mechanism for citizen oversight of the exercise of state power. However, according to the official version itself, the officers involved tried to prevent Anyelo from continuing to take photographs, demanded he hand over his cell phone, and ordered him to delete the images he had captured. The case file makes no mention of a court order, a specific legal basis for seizing the device, or any objective reasons justifying the restriction of access to or retention of that content.
Requiring the deletion of images and the surrender of a cell phone in these circumstances constitutes a particularly serious measure from the perspective of international human rights standards. In addition to implying arbitrary interference with personal property and privacy, it restricts everyone's right to retain, access, and disseminate information of public interest.
International standards have warned that states cannot use indirect mechanisms to impede the flow of information or inhibit citizens from documenting official actions. The arbitrary confiscation of electronic devices, the forced deletion of content, and the intimidation of those who record state operations constitute forms of indirect censorship incompatible with Article 19. of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with the basic guarantees of freedom of expression and access to information.
III. “He grabbed him by the right arm with the aim of moving him”: abuse of authority as the trigger
One of the most relevant elements of the case file is that the prosecution itself acknowledges that the first coercive physical action came from the state agent and not from Anyelo Ramírez Martínez.
According to the official narrative, after the young man refused to hand over his cell phone and delete the photos he had taken, Major Dainier Suárez Pagán “grabbed him by the right arm with the intention of taking him away.” This statement is crucial because it dismantles the idea that the conflict began with an attack on an authority figure. On the contrary, the Prosecutor's Office itself acknowledges that the initial use of physical force came from the Interior Ministry agent.
Physically restraining a person for the purpose of “transporting” them constitutes a material restriction of their freedom of movement and the commencement of arbitrary detention or transport. Under international human rights standards, any deprivation or limitation of liberty must be based on a legal ground, be strictly necessary, and be applied proportionately.
However, the prosecution does not explain the specific grounds for physically transporting Anyelo. The file does not mention:
- the existence of a flagrant crime;
- an arrest warrant;
- objective reasons that would justify the use of force;
- nor that the citizen had been informed of the reasons for his driving.
Nor is it explained why photographing a police operation or refusing to hand over a cell phone would justify immediate physical intervention by state agents.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights They prohibit arbitrary arrests and require that all deprivations of liberty be clearly based on law. General Comment No. 35 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee It also establishes that a detention can be arbitrary when it lacks a legal basis, but also when it is unnecessary, disproportionate, or used as a response to the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights.
In this case, the available information makes it impossible to examine whether the agents' initial actions were legitimate, necessary, or proportionate. On the contrary, the prosecution's narrative automatically presumes the legality of the state agents' actions and shifts all responsibility onto the citizen, even in the face of evidence of abuse of power and arbitrary conduct by the state agents.
IV. The expansive use of criminal law: disobedience, assault and resistance
The case reflects a widely documented pattern: actions by authorities initially aimed at preventing the exercise of fundamental freedoms quickly escalate into criminal proceedings based on crimes such as assault, resistance or disobedience, used to legitimize arbitrary interventions by state authorities and reinforce mechanisms of social control and citizen discipline.
Disobedience
The charge of disobedience rests essentially on Anyelo Ramírez Martínez's refusal to obey orders issued by agents of the Ministry of the Interior, specifically to stop taking photographs, hand over his cell phone, and delete the images taken.
Article 189.1 of Cuban Penal Code It penalizes anyone who “disobeys the decisions of authorities or public officials, or the orders of their agents or assistants, issued in the exercise of their functions.” As the penal code itself indicates, the duty of obedience to state agents is not absolute. For disobedience to exist, the order issued must fall within the agent's legal authority and be compatible with the minimum guarantees of legality and due process.
That analysis is completely absent from the prosecution's case, which presupposes, once again, the legality of the arbitrary actions of the state authorities.
Attempt
The crime of assault, provided for in article 182.1 of Cuban Penal Code, The law penalizes the use of violence or intimidation against authorities or their agents to prevent them from carrying out their duties. However, in this case, even accepting the prosecution's version of events, the described facts do not demonstrate a serious attack or conduct with the real capacity to endanger the safety of state agents.
The accusation is limited to describing a struggle and alleged attempts to strike the officer in the immediate context of Anyelo Ramírez Martínez being physically restrained for transport. The available information does not indicate injuries, use of weapons, serious threats, or a clear intent to cause severe harm, nor sufficient evidence to conclude a deliberate intent to obstruct the performance of public duties.
The use of the crime of assault in this case demonstrates an expansive application of criminal law aimed more at imposing a logic of absolute subordination to state authority—even in the face of illegal or excessive actions—than at protecting genuine legal rights. Under this framework, the person initially subjected to arbitrary intervention ends up being recast by the state as the perpetrator, thus rendering invisible the abuses of power that triggered the events.
Endurance
Article 184.1 of Cuban Penal Code It penalizes anyone who “resists” an authority, public official, or their agents in the exercise of their duties. In this case, the prosecution maintains that Anyelo Ramírez Martínez used physical force and bodily resistance to avoid being subdued and handcuffed by the officers. However, this charge presents the same deficiencies noted regarding the crime of assault: the case file fails to analyze the legality and proportionality of the state intervention and constructs the alleged “resistance” based on a reaction to an arbitrary action.
Furthermore, from a legal perspective, the simultaneous imputation of the crimes of assault and resisting arrest for the same set of events is questionable. The prosecution's narrative describes a single sequence of events: breaking free from the officers' grasp, struggling, and attempting to avoid being subdued. There are no distinct actions that would allow for both charges to be subdued without constituting an overlap.
While resistance punishes physical opposition to law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties, assault requires a higher level of violence or intimidation aimed at seriously impeding state action. The concurrent use of both criminal offenses thus demonstrates an expansion of punitive power contrary to the principle of legality, aimed at aggravating and duplicating the penal response for the same sequence of events.
This construction creates serious tensions with basic principles of criminal law, particularly with the principle of legality, the prohibition of double jeopardy for the same conduct, and the principle of proportionality.
V. Discrimination on political grounds, lack of guarantees and defenselessness against punitive power
One of the most alarming elements of the case file is the inclusion of assessments of a political nature and “social conduct.” The Prosecutor's Office itself states that Anyelo Ramírez Martínez “does not demonstrate sympathy” for the revolutionary process, does not appear on the list of CDR members, and is associated with people “prone to committing criminal acts.” These references bear no direct relation to the alleged acts and reflect a logic of political stigmatization incompatible with basic principles of modern criminal law.
The prosecution attempts to construct an image of dangerousness based on a lack of political affiliation and subjective assessments of the accused's social behavior. This approach resembles forms of character-based criminal law, where state reproach, instead of focusing on specific acts, also encompasses personal characteristics, opinions, or levels of conformity with the political system. This is particularly serious in a context where discrimination based on political opinion is prohibited by international human rights standards.
These concerns are compounded by significant shortcomings in due process, confirming citizens' vulnerability to the state's punitive power. Both the alleged victim and the proposed witnesses belong to military or Ministry of the Interior structures, with no reference to independent witnesses, audiovisual recordings, or other evidence to corroborate the official version. The prosecution's case rests solely on the testimonies of the very authorities involved in the events, who also have a direct interest in legitimizing their actions and dismissing any questioning of excesses or abuses committed during the operation.
VI. Conclusions
The Anyelo Ramírez Martínez case serves as a serious warning sign regarding the erosion of basic guarantees for the protection of human rights and due process in Cuba. The prosecution's own indictment demonstrates how actions related to the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms—such as documenting state actions in public spaces—can quickly lead to arbitrary interventions, criminal charges, and disproportionate requests for detention.
From Cubalex, we warn that this case should be analyzed as part of a broader pattern of the expansive use of criminal law to discourage the exercise of citizens' rights, reinforce absolute and unquestionable subordination to state agents, and limit independent documentation of official actions.
In light of this, we call upon Cuban citizens, human rights organizations, international protection mechanisms, and actors in the international community to maintain vigilance and support for this case and others like it, which reflect the use of the criminal justice system as a tool for social control and discipline. Public oversight and international solidarity remain essential in contexts where the exercise of fundamental rights can lead to state reprisals and arbitrary criminal proceedings.