|
I cinque cubani, meglio noti come i "Miami Five"
- ANTONIO GUERRERO, FERNANDO GONZÁLEZ, GERARDO HERNÁNDEZ, RAMÓN LABAÑINO, RENÉ
GONZÁLEZ - sono stati condannati a lunghe pene detentive negli USA, dopo essere
stati dichiarati colpevoli di cospirazione, per aver lavorato come agenti del
governo cubano. I cinque sono stati processati dal governo USA nonostante sia
stato dimostrato, nel corso del processo, che non hanno mai commesso nessuna
attività di spionaggio.
Infatti, negli anni Novanta, i Cinque furono inviati di nascosto negli Stati
uniti per infiltrarsi nei gruppi terroristici anticastristi ed informare il
governo sugli sviluppi di organizzazioni, quali "Alpha 66", "Omega 7" e
"Fratelli del riscatto", sospettate di attività terroristiche. Stavano, quindi,
semplicemente svolgendo una funzione di intelligence propria di tutti i servizi
segreti impegnati nella lotta al terrorismo. Ma in questo caso, in contrasto
con la tanto declamata "guerra al terrorismo", il Governo degli Stati Uniti ha
trattato come criminali gli agenti cubani e non i veri terroristi. I Cinque sono
stati arrestati nel settembre del 1998 e il dipartimento di giustizia di Miami
li ha processati e condannati l'8 giugno del 2001 per spionaggio.
In difesa di questa causa, si è pronunciata sia Amnesty International con una
lettera del gennaio 2006, inviata al Dipartimento di Stato USA, che denuncia
pubblicamente che ai Cinque è stato negato un processo "giusto e imparziale";
sia il Gruppo di Lavoro sulle Detenzioni Arbitrarie delle Nazioni Unite,
facente parte della Commissione dei Diritti Umani dell'ONU, denunciando che i
Cinque sono stati arbitrariamente privati della libertà non garantendo loro un
processo imparziale.
Nell'Agosto del 2005 la Corte d'Appello dell'11º Circuito ha revocato le
sentenze dei prigionieri e ha ordinato un nuovo processo. Questa decisione si è
basata sui forti pregiudizi contro il governo cubano che hanno generato una
situazione che ha reso impossibile lo svolgimento di un processo giusto e
imparziale.
Inoltre Amnesty International accusa gli Stati Uniti di aver violato norme
internazionali sui diritti umani negando ripetutamente, senza chiare
giustificazioni, la concessione dei visti ai parenti dei cubani prigionieri per
fare loro visita, ponendosi in questo senso in contrasto con tutti gli standard
internazionali che ribadiscono l'importanza di permettere ai prigionieri di
vedere i propri familiari e di rispettarne i diritti e le libertà fondamentali.
Sono passati otto anni da quando i Cinque, che non hanno commesso nessuno degli
atti per cui sono stati processati e condannati, sono stati arrestati e restano
tuttora rinchiusi nelle carceri di massima sicurezza statunitensi.
LETTERA:
Ambassador Clayland Boyden Gray
United States Ambassador to the European Union
Rue Zinner 13
B-I000 Brussels
Belgium
Brussels, 8 January 2007
Dear Ambassador, Your Excellency
We are writing to you about the fate of five Cubans (also known as the "Miami
five") who were sentenced by a US court to lengthy prison terms after being
convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, conspiracy to murder and other
related charges. These men (Gerardo Hermindez Nordelo, Antonio Guerrero, Raman
Labafiino, Fernando Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez) were arrested in September 1998
in Miami, put on trial in November 2000, convicted on June 8, 2001, and given
sentences ranging from 15 years to two consecutive life terms. Our concerns are
threefold: I. We believe that some of the charges these men faced are based on
-to put it mildly absurd accusations. Two examples will suffice to illustrate
this: It seems clear that these men were sent to the USA to infiltrate, and
provide information on, Cuban exile organizations suspected of terrorist
activities against Cuba, including Alpha 66, Omega 7 and 'Brothers to the
Rescue'. The US federal government knew this. This is why the men weren't
convicted of espionage. They weren't even charged with espionage. In fact they
were accused of "conspiracy to commit espionage", which means the federal
government wanted to convince the trial jury that these men actually agreed
between themselves to spy on the US government at some point in the future.
During the trial, no evidence was put forward to support this accusation. Yet
the jury found them guilty on this charge. The second example has to do with the
conviction of Gerardo Hermindez for "conspiracy to murder" four members of an
organization of Cuban exiles ('Brothers to the Rescue'.) Their planes were shot
down overCuban territory on February 24, 1996 by the Cuban authorities. Mter
several violations of Cuban airspace by this organisation, in January 1996 the
Cuban government had publicly declared that any further violation of its
airspace would result in planes being shot down. Apparently, a diplomatic note
was sent to the US government urging it to put an end to such flights, which it
didn't. In short, Gerardo Hernandez was bizarrely charged with conspiring with
members of the Cuban military to murder the four members of the organisation 'Brothers
to the Rescue' that ended up being killed when their planes were shot down.
Based on this charge, Hernandez was convicted and is now serving two life
sentences plus 15 years. These five men are of course not without responsibility.
They were unregistered, and therefore illegal, agents of a foreign government
active on US territory. But the charges they ended up facing and the convictions
based on them, are clearly politicized, which leads us to our second concern.
II. Amnesty International, in a letter sent to Mr Kevin Whitaker at the Office
of Cuban Mfairs at the US State Department on January 11, 2006, underlined that
the trial which ended in convictions for the five men was far from impartial.
Amnesty believes that: "the pervasive community prejudice against the Cuban
government and its agents in the trial venue and the publicity and events
surrounding the trial combined to create a situation where they were unable to
obtain a fair and impartial trial." In saying so, Amnesty International was
merely reiterating the substance of a legal opinion produced by a three-judge
panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of August 8, 2005 (Case Number
01-17176, Docket Number 98-00721). This panel unanimously reversed the
convictions and asked for a new trial. The conclusion of this opinion deserves
to be quoted in full: "In light of the foregoing discussion, the defendants'
convictions are REVERSED and we REMAND for a new trial. The court is aware that
... the reversal of these convictions will be unpopular and even offensive to
many citizens. However, the court is equally mindful that those same citizens
cherish and support the freedoms they enjoy in this country that are unavailable
to residents of Cuba. One of our most sacred freedoms is the right to be tried
fairly in a noncoercive atmosphere. The court is cognizant that its judgment
today will be received by those citizens with grave disappointment, but is
equally confident of our shared commitment to scrupulously protect our freedoms.
The Cuban-American community is a bastion of the traditional values that make
America great. Included in those values are the rights of the accused criminal
that insure a fair trial. Thus, in the final analysis, we trust that any
disappointment with our judgment in this case will be tempered and balanced by
the recognition that we are a nation of laws in which every defendant, no matter
how unpopular, must be treated fairly. Our Constitution requires no less. " A
few months earlier, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in its Opinion
19/2005 adopted on May 27, 2005, had come to a similar conclusion. It considered
the positions of the US government and of several sources speaking in the name
of the convicted men, and concluded that the flaws of the trial were "of such
gravity that they confer the deprivation of liberty of these five persons an
arbitrary character. " More specifically, concerning the issue of impartiality,
which lies at the heart of our concern about the politicization of this trial,
the UN Working Group had the following to say: "(c) The jury for the trial was
selected following an examination process in which the defence attorneys had the
opportunity and availed themselves of the procedural tools to reject potential
jurors, and ensured that no Cuban-Americans served on the jury, Nevertheless,
the Government has not denied that even so, the climate of bias and prejudice
against the accused in Miami persisted and helped to present the accused as
guilty from the beginning. It was not contested by the Government that one year
later it admitted that Miami was an unsuitable place for a trial where it proved
almost impossible to select an impartial jury in a case linked with Cuba. " Of
course we are aware that in a decision of August 9 of this year, the entire
Eleventh Circuit Court overruled the previous decision by thethree-judge panel,
thus excluding a new trial. At the same time it ordered the case to be sent back
to "the panel for consideration of the remaining issues." We certainly haven't
heard the last of this case. As is the case in every mature democracy, the US
judicial branch is independent and it does not lie in Your powers to influence
the outcome of any decision by US courts. However, in this particular case, we
feel that it is important to raise your awareness and that of your superiors in
the State Department -about the fate of these five men, if only to show that
many people outside the US and Cuba are concerned about them and about the
strong circumstantial evidence indicating that political and ideological
considerations have influenced their judicial process.
Ill. Our third and final concern has to do with the fact that some prisoners
have been denied the right to see their families. Olga Salanueva, wife of Rene
Gonzalez (sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment) has been refused entry to the USA
since 2002. She was deported from the USA in 2000 after being accused by the US
government of being an agent for Cuban intelligence.
According to Amnesty International, no evidence was provided on which she could
respond to this claim. Olga actually lived for over two years in the USA while
her husband was on trial and was deported only after her husband refused to
enter a plea arrangement in return for her being allowed to remain in the United
States. Rem~ Gonzalez has consequently not seen his young daughter since she was
four months old. Adriana Perez, wife of Gerardo Hernandez (sentenced to life
imprisonment) has not been allowed to visit her husband since his arrest in
1998. Both she and Olga Salanueva have been enied visas under provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act
relating to varying concerns, namely terrorism, national security, or
espionage, without detailed reasons being given. In fact, according to
Amnesty International, "the reasons given for denying visas to allow them to
visit their husbands have Reportedly changed at various points, making it more
difficult for the applicants to make their case and raising questions about the
good faith of the authorities in this matter. We understand that Adriana Perez,
for example, was denied a visa last September [2005} on the unsupported ground
that she may seek to remain in the USA." International standards underline the
importance of allowing prisoners to maintain regular contact with their families.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the USA are a
party, states in its Article 10, that "all persons deprived of their liberty
shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the
human person." The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 21 on Article 10
of that Covenant underlines that individuals deprived of their liberty may not
be subjected to "any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the
deprivation of liberty", and that respect for the humanity and dignity of
persons deprived of their liberty shall be applied "without distinction of any
kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth, or status. " Also, the 'Basic
Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners' adopted and proclaimed by UN General
Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990 state that: "5. Except for those
limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all
prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, where the State concerned is a
party, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional
Protocol thereto, as well as such other rights as are set out in other United
Nations covenants."
Finally, Principle 15 of the 'Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment', adopted by the UN General
Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988, stipulates that "...
communication of the detained or imprisoned person with the outside world, and
in particular his family of counsel, shall not be denied for more than a matter
of days. " It seems that the decision on issuing visitors' visas for Olga
Salanueva and Adriana Perez is now in the hands of the State Department. We urge
you to call on the relevant elements within it to review this matter and allow
these two women to visit their husbands after all these years.
To conclude, it is important for us to underline what this letter is not: it is
not a statement about the decades-old US embargo on Cuba and it is not a defence
of the Cuban regime. What this letter does express is a deep disappointment with
what seems to be a politicized miscarriage of justice in the USA, a country that
measures itself according to the highest legal standards. This whole case,
including the cruel separation of some of the convicted men from their families
based on shifting and unconvincing justifications, does a disservice to the
image of the USA around the world, quite apart from the suffering it has caused
to the five men who have been languishing in prison for the last eight years.
Yours sincerely,
Ana GOMES (MEP, PSE)
Vittorio AGNOLETTO (MEP, GUE-NGL)
Benoit HAMON (MEP, PSE)
Baroness Sarah LUDFORD (MEP,ALDE)
Miguel Angel MARTINEZ (MEP, PSE)
Pasqualina NAPOLETANO (MEP, PSE)
Annemie NEYTS-UYTTEBROECK (MEP, ALDE)
Raul ROMEVA i RUEDA (MEP, Green/EFA)
|
patrioti cubani
