Have you ever wondered if you can take out your phone and record a police officer or state inspector when they come to your house or stop you on the street?
In Cuba, state institutions such as the Supreme People's Court have spread The argument is that recording or publishing the image of a public official without their consent may constitute a crime under Article 393 of the Penal Code. This article penalizes acts against personal and family privacy, one's own image and voice, the identity of another person, and their data.
However, using that provision to Criminalizing the documentation of official actions implies an interpretation that ignores the purpose and elements required by the penal law itself.
Distinguish between private life and official duties
Article 393 of the Penal Code protects personal and family privacy, one's own image and voice, identity, and personal data. Its purpose is to protect aspects of people's private lives.
But a police officer, a state inspector, or another official who comes to your home to carry out an official action or Someone who approaches you in a public place is not acting within their private sphere. He is performing a public function on behalf of the State.
Therefore, wearing a uniform, identifying oneself as an official, and performing an official act are not aspects of private life that are protected from citizen documentation simply because the image of the official appears.
This is especially important when recording It is done to record a summons, a search, an interrogation, a police operation, or other action by the authorities.
In these cases, the purpose is not to invade the agent's privacy, but to document a state action and have a record of what happened.
Furthermore, Article 393 itself requires an element that cannot be ignored: that the conduct is carried out with the purpose of affecting the personal and family privacy, image, voice, identity or data of another person.
Therefore, the mere appearance of a person in a photograph, video, or recording is not enough to automatically conclude that a crime has been committed. The specific conduct, the context, and the purpose for which the material was obtained and used must be analyzed.
The case of content creator Anna Sofía Benítez and her mother shows the consequences that an expansive interpretation of this rule may have. In March 2026, both women were prosecuted after recording and publishing the actions of a state agent who came to their home to deliver a summons. The recording had been made as a means of documentation and protection against potential arbitrary actions.
Cuban law recognizes citizen control over the authorities
The possibility of documenting an official action cannot be analyzed solely from article 393 of the Penal Code.
The Cuban Constitution establishes in its article 101, section h), that the organs of the State, their directors, officials and employees must act with transparency and be subject to popular control.
This means that those who hold public office do not operate outside the scrutiny of the citizenry. On the contrary, the exercise of state power is subject, at least formally, to mechanisms of citizen oversight.
Recording an official performance can be precisely a way of documenting how that power is exercised.
READ ALSO: Recording the police in Cuba is not a crime, it's a citizen's right
Furthermore, Cuban procedural law itself recognizes the usefulness of this type of record. Article 326 of the Law of Criminal Procedure It establishes that audio and image recordings made by individuals may be admitted as evidence provided they have been obtained without deception, coercion, intimidation or violence and comply with the requirements and limits established by law.
This is especially relevant when the recording is made from a person's own home during an action by the authorities.
In other words: a recording made by a citizen does not become illegal simply because a public official appears in it. The way it is obtained and the context in which it is used are elements that must be considered.
Recording can help protect your rights
When an authority takes action against you, having a record of what happened can be important to document possible irregularities.
A recording can document who came to your home, which officials participated, what was said during a summons, what objects were seized, or how a procedure unfolded.
For that reason, recording an official action can serve as a self-protection tool and as a means of preserving evidence about what happened.
The Law of Criminal Procedure expressly stipulates that audio and video recordings made by private individuals may be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings under certain conditions. This demonstrates that Cuban law does not consider all recordings made by a citizen to be inherently illegitimate.
Practical tip: If you decide to document an official action, try to do so peacefully and without using deception, coercion, intimidation, or violence. The aim should be to record what happens, not to physically interfere with the procedure.
Public authorities are subject to greater scrutiny
The right to document official actions must also be understood from the perspective of international human rights standards.
The right to freedom of expression includes the ability to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through various media. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has indicated that this right is directly related to the principles of transparency and accountability.
International human rights bodies and inter-American courts have also recognized that the actions of public institutions are subject to a higher level of citizen scrutiny precisely because they involve matters of public interest.
When an official uses the powers granted to him by the State, citizens have a legitimate interest in being able to know and document how that power is exercised.
Therefore, using the threat of criminal prosecution to prevent a person from recording or disseminating an official action can have an effect that goes beyond the specific case: it can generate fear among citizens and discourage the documentation and reporting of possible irregularities.
A person who fears prosecution simply for taking out their phone during a police operation may choose not to record what happened. This reduces the chances of documenting abuses and hinders citizen oversight of those in public office.
What should you keep in mind if you decide to record?
If a police officer, inspector, or other official carries out an official action and you decide to document it:
1. You can record what happens peacefully.
The presence of a public official in the performance of their duties does not automatically make the recording an act against their privacy.
2. Avoid physically interfering with the procedure.
Recording and obstructing an action are different behaviors. Documentation must be carried out without resorting to violence, intimidation, coercion, or deception.
3. Keep the original file.
If the recording could later be used to prove how the events occurred, preserving the original material may be important.
4. Remember that context matters.
Article 393 does not automatically make any image or recording of a person a crime. The law refers to conduct carried out without consent and with the purpose of affecting certain rights related to privacy, image, voice, identity, or personal data.
5. An official action is not equivalent to the private life of the official.
Documenting how an agent performs their public duties is different from obtaining or disseminating information pertaining to their strictly personal sphere.
To peacefully record or photograph a public official while they are performing their duties It is not, in itself, a crime.
Article 393 of the Penal Code cannot be automatically interpreted to criminalize any recording of a state action. The law protects privacy, image, voice, identity, and personal data, but requires that the specific elements stipulated therein be present.
At the same time, the Cuban Constitution establishes the principle of transparency and citizen control over the authorities, while the Law of Criminal Procedure recognizes that audio and image recordings made by individuals can be used as evidence when obtained lawfully.
From a human rights perspective, documenting the exercise of public power is part of transparency and citizen oversight.
Therefore, recording a summons, a police operation, or any other official action can be a legitimate tool to protect your rights, document what happened, and demand accountability if irregularities occur.