On March 10, 2026, an agent of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT) attended They went to the home of Anna Sofía Benítez and her mother, Caridad Silvente, to deliver an official summons addressed to the latter. Due to the history of harassment against them, they decided to record the delivery of the summons on video with their cell phone and later post it on their social media.
The action was carried out as a legitimate mechanism of self-protection, citizen transparency, and prevention against possible arbitrary actions by state agents. Following this publication, the police authorities initiated criminal proceedings against both women for the crime of acts against personal and family privacy, one's own image and voice, the identity of another person and their data – article 393 of the Penal Code Cuban-, imposing on them the precautionary measure of house arrest.
Although the proceedings were archived in April 2026, The criminal proceedings were reopened in July following a complaint filed by the officer himself, who alleged that the disclosure of his image on social media violated his right to privacy and exposed him to reprisals.
On August 11th confirmed quBoth will be brought to trial, which exposes them to deprivation of liberty.
This case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a systematic pattern of criminalizing activists, content creators, and independent journalists who exercise citizen oversight and document social deterioration and human rights violations in Cuba.
Legal dismantling under Cuban law
The accusation against Anna Bensi and her mother suffers from a complete lack of legal basis and flagrantly violates the principle of legality. A technical analysis of Cuban legislation demonstrates that both acted in accordance with the law. First, in subsections b) and h) of Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba It is formally established that state bodies, their directors and employees must submit to citizen control and act with due transparency.
A MININT agent who goes to a residence to deliver a state summons is performing a public act of authority, not a private or personal activity. Therefore, eIt is subject to direct oversight by the affected citizens.
Second, in article 326 of the Law of Criminal Procedure The evidentiary value of audio and video recordings made by private individuals is recognized, provided they are not obtained through deception or violence. Recording a police officer at the entrance or doorway of one's own home constitutes a lawful means of gathering documentary evidence that guarantees due process and protects against abuses of power.
Finally, the right to privacy protects a person's private sphere (family life, home, health, etc.). An official acting in their official capacity does not have an expectation of privacy in relation to their official duties. Furthermore, the mere dissemination of audiovisual recordings of official proceedings does not constitute the crime of threats, since this crime requires the intention to cause future harm, and not simply the exposure of a state agent's behavior within the scope of their legal authority.
Applicable international human rights standards
The trial of Anna Bensi and her mother violates international human rights standards. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR)—including landmark cases such as Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica y Fontevecchia and D'Amico vs. Argentina— has clearly established that individuals holding public office are subject to greater public scrutiny. When acting on behalf of law enforcement, the protection of the agent's privacy legitimately yields to the public interest in verifying that state power is exercised legally.
Audiovisual documentation is an essential tool for the exercise of freedom of expression and the right of access to information recognized in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (IDPCP).
Furthermore, several international human rights organizations have reiterated that the use of criminal law as a mechanism of reprisal against citizens who document or criticize state actions is disproportionate. The application of criminal figures To protect the “honor”, “image” or “privacy” of authorities against the actions of citizens constitutes a form of indirect censorship and intimidation.
The imposition of house arrest as a precautionary measure on Anna Sofía Benítez and Caridad Silvente also violates the principles of necessity and proportionality established in international law. The use of restrictive measures The deprivation of liberty against people prosecuted for acts that do not constitute a crime represents a form of anticipated punishment, arbitrary persecution and psychological torture aimed at neutralizing citizen activism.
Documenting the actions of a public official in the performance of their duties is not a crime. On the contrary, it represents a guarantee of transparency, a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression to prevent state abuses. The criminal proceedings brought against Anna Bensi and Caridad Silvente demonstrate the use of criminal law to instill fear, silence denunciations of the Cuban social crisis, and shield from impunity the abuses committed by agents of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT).
Given this situation, Cubalex demands that the Cuban State immediately cease the criminal prosecution against both citizens, revoke the precautionary measure of house arrest, and definitively close the legal case established against them.