The accusation of terrorism against the survivors of the Florida boat exposes the political use of the Cuban Penal Code

In October 2026, the official program Reasons of Cuba public New details have emerged regarding the charges against the five survivors of the Florida-registered boat intercepted by Cuban Border Guard troops on February 25. The confrontation resulted in five deaths and the arrest of five others by Cuban authorities. The official publication, titled “Weapons, Starlink, Farm in the US: Confessions from Villa Clara,” provided further information about the accused, their alleged ties to opposition organizations, and the crimes they are charged with.

The five survivors identified by authorities are José Manuel Rodríguez Castelló, Christian Ernesto Acosta Guevara, Leordán Enrique Cruz Gómez, Conrado Galindo Sariol, and Amijail Sánchez González. The investigation also mentions other individuals who are outside of Cuba, including Maritza Lugo, identified by Havana as one of the alleged organizers of the operation. According to the official version, those detained have ties to organizations based in the United States, such as New Cuban Nation, Cuba First, the Republican Party of Cuba, and the Cuban Shield and People's Self-Defense movements, and were allegedly recruited through social media.

Previously, official media outlets indicated that the five survivors They remain confined in a maximum security section of the Combinado del Este prison in Havana., They remain in pretrial detention along with Duniel Hernández Santos, who had been in Cuba since 2024 and is identified by authorities as an alleged collaborator in the operation. These accusations and the information disseminated by state media should be understood as the authorities' version of events, not as legally proven facts or as evidence of individual criminal responsibility.

READ ALSO: Interviews in custody and without lawyers: irregularities surrounding the trial against survivors of the Florida boat

According to information published by Razones de Cuba, the crimes attributed to those involved include articles 151, 157, 162, 167, 273, and 276 of Law 151/2022, the Cuban Penal Code. These are offenses related to acts committed with weapons or explosive devices, attacks against the safety of maritime and air navigation, financing of terrorism, criminal conspiracy, and illegal possession of firearms. The combination of these charges This places the case within a framework of extreme criminal gravity, with sanctions that, depending on the classification, circumstances and the rules for applying penalties, can reach several decades of deprivation of liberty, life imprisonment and even the death penalty.

Based on these revelations, Cubalex's legal analysis examines how the combined use of these criminal figures can become an instrument of political criminalization, how the conditions of detention and interrogation compromise procedural guarantees, and how the severity of the sanctions can be used as a mechanism of intimidation and pressure on the accused.

A criminal classification aimed at political criminalization

From a dogmatic-legal and human rights perspective, Cubalex warns that the selection and joint application of Articles 151, 157, 162, 167, 273, and 276 of the Penal Code does not simply correspond to the classification of common criminal conduct. Their use activates a mechanism of securitization and political prosecution, through which the State transforms acts related to opposition or migration into national territory into alleged threats to state security.

The inclusion of Articles 151 and 167, corresponding to conduct related to terrorism, allows the case to be shifted from the ordinary criminal sphere to the framework of terrorism offenses. This classification makes it easier for authorities to present any attempt at entry, exit, or action of political opposition as a supposed “terrorist infiltration” or “armed aggression.” In this context, Cubalex warns of the risk that the activities attributed to organizations such as the Republican Party of Cuba (PRC), mentioned in the Corralillo case, be used to construct a narrative of terrorist threat without replacing the obligation to individually demonstrate the elements of each crime.

Furthermore, Articles 157 and 162, concerning the safety of maritime and air navigation, can be used to transform migratory movements or the interception of civilian vessels into alleged acts of destabilization or maritime sabotage. In turn, the simultaneous charges of criminal association (Article 273) and illegal possession of firearms (Article 276) can serve to exaggerate the social danger posed by the accused, reinforcing the official narrative about the supposed threat they represented and preemptively justifying disproportionate state actions, including the use of lethal force by military and border guard agencies.

The preemptive construction of a political-terrorist narrative by official bodies, through statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or presentations before the UN Committee against Enforced Disappearances, can contribute to the preemptive exoneration of state agents for possible extrajudicial killings or illegitimate uses of force. In this way, responsibility for what happened is shifted to the supposed dangerousness of the individuals involved, before an independent and impartial investigation can clarify the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities.

Guilty pleas and due process violations

The use of extremely serious criminal offenses also raises questions about the conditions under which the statements of the detainees are obtained. Cubalex warns that the investigation of crimes related to terrorism and state security may involve the transfer of the accused to specialized intelligence and interrogation centers, such as Villa Marista, where practices of isolation, family isolation and restrictions on access to independent legal counsel have been reported.

In this context, a documented pattern has been identified of physical and psychological pressure exerted on detainees or survivors to obtain self-incriminating statements and fabricated confessions, which are subsequently disseminated by official media. These recordings and public confessions aim to validate the government's version of an alleged infiltration or armed attack before an independent judicial investigation can take place and the evidence can be examined with due process.

The dissemination of these statements raises serious concerns about the presumption of innocence and the right not to testify against oneself or confess guilt, This right is recognized in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Publicly presenting detainees as responsible for criminal acts before a final judgment, especially when their statements are made under conditions of isolation and without sufficient guarantees of defense, compromises the legitimacy of the criminal proceedings.

These concerns are compounded by the circumstances of the death in custody of Roberto Álvarez Ávila, These practices, which remain unresolved, as well as the non-consensual cremation of bodies, prevent independent autopsies and hinder the collection of forensic evidence needed to clarify the circumstances of the deaths. At the same time, they contribute to an environment of uncertainty, pressure, and coercion for the survivors and their families.

Extreme penalties and disproportionate punitive framework

Another key element of the analysis is the severity of the sanctions stipulated in the cited articles. Cubalex warns that the punitive framework can function as a mechanism of intimidation and procedural blackmail, especially when defendants face the possibility of long prison sentences, life imprisonment, or the death penalty.

Article 151 of the Penal Code, concerning acts committed with weapons or explosive devices, stipulates penalties of between 10 and 30 years' imprisonment, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. Articles 157 and 162, related to acts against the safety of maritime and air navigation, provide for penalties of between 10 and 30 years' imprisonment or life imprisonment. Article 167, on the financing of terrorism, also stipulates penalties of between 10 and 30 years' imprisonment or life imprisonment.

Regarding Article 273, which refers to criminal association, its penalty depends on the applicable rules and the concurrence of offenses. Article 276, concerning the illegal carrying and possession of firearms, also provides for imprisonment, with a possible aggravating factor arising from its concurrence with other criminal offenses.

The possibility of applying the death penalty and life imprisonment takes on particular relevance in this case. Article 151 expressly provides for both sanctions, including the death penalty. According to Cubalex, the threat of these sentences places the defendants in a situation of extreme legal vulnerability, which can be used by police investigators as a tool of pressure to obtain plea bargains or incriminating statements against third parties in exchange for avoiding the maximum penalties.

The accumulation of crimes against state security with offenses related to weapons possession and criminal association can also significantly increase the defendants' criminal liability. The application of rules regarding multiple offenses and aggravated penalties can raise the sentences to the maximum allowed by law and reduce the likelihood of accessing prison benefits or alternatives to incarceration.

From this perspective, the severity of the penalties would not only serve as a sanction proportional to the demonstrated individual conduct, but could also pursue a deterrent and general prevention objective. The message to the civilian population and opposition groups would be that any action that challenges state control can receive the most severe punishment from the penal system.

The criminal process as a mechanism of political control

Substantive and procedural legislation would not operate under a fully guarantee-based scheme, but rather under a doctrine of “social defense” and permanent exceptionality, in which criminal decisions can be conditioned by the political interests of the State.

In this regard, the organization warns about the use of government directives, such as Instruction 273/2022, and Supreme Court rulings, such as Opinion 475/2025, to legitimize the Party's political intervention in decisions related to the administration of justice. This interference compromises judicial independence and, according to the analysis, violates the guarantees of due process recognized in Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

Another identified problem is the violation of the principle of equality of arms. The initial lack of legal representation for those detained during military or police investigations, coupled with the widespread use of pretrial detention, places defendants at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis the state's prosecutorial and judicial systems. The lack of timely access to independent legal counsel makes it difficult to challenge evidence, report potential abuses, and contest statements obtained during interrogations.

Finally, coercive isolation in detention centers, coupled with the threat of life imprisonment or the death penalty stipulated in Article 151, creates an environment particularly conducive to breaking the will of detainees. Pressure to accept charges, incriminate others, or reproduce the official narrative can effectively nullify the right against self-incrimination and compromise the validity of statements used in the proceedings.

The case of the survivors of the boat intercepted in February must be examined not only in light of the charges brought by the Cuban authorities, but also in light of the guarantees that must protect every person subjected to criminal proceedings. The seriousness of the accusations does not exempt the State from demonstrating the individual responsibility of each accused, respecting the presumption of innocence, guaranteeing an effective defense, and independently investigating the deaths that occurred during the confrontation. The use of criminal figures of terrorism and extreme sanctions cannot become a tool to criminalize dissent., obtaining confessions under duress or justifying state actions outside of international human rights obligations.