|
U.S.
Department of State. Released by
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. March 31,
2003
(5
of 6)
d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel,
Emigration, and Repatriation
The Government severely restricted freedom of movement. The
Government generally did not impose legal restrictions on
domestic travel; however, it limited migration to Havana,
and initially restricted persons found to be HIV-positive
to sanatoriums for treatment and therapy before conditionally
releasing them into the community. For the past several years,
state security officials prohibited human rights advocates
and independent journalists from traveling outside their home
provinces, and the Government also sentenced others to internal
exile.
On April 24, a local official in Puerto Padre, Las Tunas
province, encouraged the expulsion of Alfredo Dominguez Batista,
Rigoberto Pena Hernandez, and Hector Sanchez Garcia from that
city for their activities in support of the Varela Project.
The two men were harassed but were able to continue their
work.
In July state security officials prevented human rights activist
Jose Manuel Rivas Medina of the Isle of Pines Human Rights
Foundation from departing the Isle of Youth for meetings in
Havana. On July 1, two state security agents prevented Rivas
Medina from boarding a flight to Havana. The next day, the
same officials prevented Rivas Medina from boarding a ferry
and threatened to arrest him if he persisted in his efforts
to visit Havana.
Decree 217 prohibits persons in other provinces from moving
into Havana on the grounds that if internal migration was
left unchecked, the city's problems regarding housing, public
transport, water, and electrical supplies would become worse;
visits to the city were permissible. Police frequently checked
the identification of persons on the streets, and if someone
from another province was found living in Havana illegally,
that person was fined $12 (300 pesos) and sent back home.
Fines were $40 (1,000 pesos) for those who resided illegally
in the neighborhoods of Old Havana and Cerro. Human rights
observers noted that while the decree affected migration countrywide,
it targeted individuals and families predominantly of African
descent from the more impoverished eastern provinces.
On June 1, police in Havana province entered the neighborhood
of Buena Esperanza to remove persons from the eastern provinces
living in the area without authorization. An unknown number
of men were removed in trucks on that date, while women and
children were given 72 hours to depart (see Section 1.d.).
The Government imposed some restrictions on both emigration
and temporary foreign travel. The Government allowed the majority
of persons who qualified for immigrant or refugee status in
other countries to depart; however, in certain cases the authorities
delayed or denied exit permits, usually without explanation.
Some denials involved professionals who tried to emigrate
and whom the Government subsequently banned from working in
their occupational fields. The Government refused permission
to others because it considered their cases sensitive for
political or state security reasons. Resolution 54 denies
exit permits to medical professionals until they have performed
3 to 5 years of service in their profession after requesting
permission to travel abroad. This regulation, normally applied
to recent graduates, was not published officially and may
have applied to other professionals as well.
The Independent Human Rights Center in Santiago reported
that the Government had denied exit permits to medical professionals
Milagro Beaton Betancourt, Nayibe Sarda Sabatel, Angel Edmundo
Fernandez Petell, Hector Arias, Raul Rizo, and Ariel Valverde
Cuevas. The Government usually denied exit permits to the
family members of doctors performing regional medical missions,
a practice intended to discourage such personnel from seeking
asylum or emigrating.
In July immigration officials denied an exit permit to Elizardo
Sanchez Santa Cruz to attend a human rights conference in
Guatemala. Sanchez subsequently received an exit permit for
a family visit.
In July immigration officials withdrew authorization they
had previously granted to independent librarian Gisela Delgado
Sablon to receive a human rights award abroad.
In September immigration officials informed Christian Liberation
Movement leader Oswaldo Jose Paya Sardinas that he needed
authorization from the Minister of Health before they would
process his request for an exit permit. Paya is an X-ray equipment
technician employed by a state company that falls under the
authority of the Ministry of Health. After several months'
delay and after pressure from foreign governments, the Government
granted Paya an exit permit the day after unknown persons
left threatening placards in front of his home. Paya had requested
an exit permit to receive a human rights award abroad for
his leadership of the Varela Project (see Section 3). On December
18, the European Parliament awarded Paya the Sakharov Prize
for Freedom of Thought.
In September immigration authorities informed dissident Vladimiro
Roca that they had up to 30 days to determine whether they
would issue an exit permit to "people like him,"
apparently referring to his status as a released political
prisoner, rather than the 15 days required for most applications.
Roca requested an exit permit to receive a human rights award
abroad. In December the Government formally denied Roca's
request and refused to explain why his application had been
rejected.
On October 4, immigration officials denied independent economist
Martha Beatriz Roque's request for an exit permit to travel
to receive a human rights award abroad. Before denying her
application, immigration officials forced Roque to return
numerous times to produce documents--such as her ration card--not
normally required for applications for temporary travel.
In March 2001, immigration officials prevented independent
journalist Oswaldo de Cespedes and his family from boarding
their flight as political refugees. De Cespedes was informed
that his exit permit had been canceled. A migration official
later told him that the exit permit was canceled "for
interests of the State." His family was allowed to leave
at a later date and de Cespedes was allowed to depart early
in the year.
The Government routinely denied exit permits to young men
approaching the age of military service, and until they reached
the age of 27, even when it authorized other family members
to leave. However, in most of those cases approved for migration
to the United States under the September 1, 1994, U.S.-Cuban
migration agreement, the applicants eventually received exemption
from obligatory service and were granted exit permits.
The Government has a policy of denying exit permission for
several years to relatives of individuals who successfully
migrated illegally (e.g., merchant seamen who defected while
overseas and sports figures who defected while on tours abroad).
Migrants who travel to the United States must pay the Government
a total of $600 per adult and $400 per child, plus airfare.
These government fees for medical exam, passport, and exit
visa--which must be paid in dollars--were equivalent to about
5 years of a professional person's accumulated peso salary
and represented a significant hardship, particularly for political
refugees who usually were marginalized and had no income.
In 1996 the Government agreed to allow 1,000 needy refugees
to leave each year with reduced exit fees. However, after
the first group of 1,000 in 1996, no further refugees were
accorded reduced fees. At year's end, of the 1,259 persons
pending travel, 23 approved refugees remained in the country
because they were unable to pay government exit fees for themselves
and their families.
The Penal Code provides for imprisonment of up to 3 years
or a fine of $12 to $40 (300 to 1,000 pesos) for unauthorized
departures by boat or raft. The office of the U.N. High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) stated that it regarded any sentence
of more than 1 year for simple illegal exit as harsh and excessive.
Under the terms of the May 2, 1995, U.S.-Cuba Migration Accord,
the Government agreed not to prosecute or retaliate against
migrants returned from international or U.S. waters, or from
the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo, after attempting to emigrate
illegally if they had not committed a separate criminal offense.
In 1994 the Government eased restrictions on visits by and
repatriations of Cuban emigrants. Citizens who established
residency abroad and who were in possession of government-issued
permits to reside abroad may travel to the country without
visas. Persons at least 18 years of age are eligible to travel
abroad and may stay abroad up to 11 months. In 1995 the Government
announced that emigrants who were considered not to have engaged
in so-called hostile actions against the Government and who
were not subject to criminal proceedings in their countries
of residence could apply at Cuban consulates for renewable,
2-year multiple-entry travel authorizations. However, in 1999
the Government announced that it would deny entry permits
for emigrants who had left the country illegally after September
1994. It remained unclear whether the Government actually
was implementing such a policy.
The Constitution provides for the granting of asylum to individuals
persecuted "for their ideals or struggles for democratic
rights against imperialism, fascism, colonialism, and neocolonialism;
against discrimination and racism; for national liberation;
for the rights of workers, peasants, and students; for their
progressive political, scientific, artistic, and literary
activities; and for socialism and peace." However, the
Government has no formal mechanism to process asylum for foreign
nationals. Nonetheless, the Government honors the principle
of first asylum and provided it to a small number of persons.
There was no information available on its use during the year.
A total of 45 persons applied for refugee status during the
year, of which 9 were approved; according to the UNHCR, there
were 1,005 refugees in the country.
There were no reports of the forced return of persons to
a country where they feared persecution.
Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens
to Change their Government
Citizens do not have the legal right to change their government
or to advocate change, and the Government retaliated systematically
against those who sought peaceful political change. The Constitution
proscribes any political organization other than the Communist
Party. During the year, the Government amended the Constitution
to restrict further citizens' rights to change the Government,
making socialism the "irrevocable" basis of the
Constitution. While the Constitution provides for direct election
of provincial, municipal, and ANPP members, the candidates
for provincial and national office must be approved in advance
by mass organizations controlled by the Government. In practice
a small group of leaders, under the direction of President
Castro, selected the members of the highest policy-making
bodies of the Communist Party: The Politburo and the Central
Committee.
The authorities tightly controlled the selection of candidates
and all elections for government and party positions. The
candidacy committees were composed of members of government-controlled
mass organizations such as the Confederation of Cuban Workers
(CTC) and the CDRs and were responsible for selecting candidates,
whose names then were sent to municipal assemblies that selected
a single candidate for each regional seat in the ANPP. An
opposition or independent candidate never has been allowed
to run for national office.
In January 1998, the Government held national elections in
which 601 candidates were approved to compete for the 601
seats in the National Assembly. According to the official
state media, the candidates were voted in by more than 93
percent of the electorate. No candidates with views independent
from or in opposition to the Government were allowed to run,
and no views contrary to the Government or the Communist Party
were expressed in the government-controlled national media.
The Government saturated the media and used government ministries,
Communist Party entities, and mass organizations to urge voters
to cast a "unified vote" where marking one box automatically
selected all candidates on the ballot form. In practice the
Communist Party approved candidates for all offices. A small
minority of candidates did not belong formally to the Communist
Party. The Communist Party was the only political party allowed
to participate in the elections.
Deputies in the National Assembly, delegates in the provincial
assemblies, and members of the Council of State are elected
during general elections every 5 years. Municipal elections
are held every 2½ years to elect 14,686 local representatives
to the municipal assemblies, the lowest level of the Government's
structure. In October the Government held elections for local
representatives to the municipal assemblies. Government newspapers
reported that 95 percent of voters participated in the election,
compared with 98 percent in 2000. Slightly less than 50 percent
of those elected were incumbents, 22 percent were women, and
6 percent of all candidates were between the ages of 16 and
30. The reports also claimed that nationwide the number of
blank ballots remained steady at 2.8 percent and the number
of annulled ballots decreased from 3 percent to 2.4 percent.
Although not a formal requirement, in practice Communist
Party membership was a prerequisite for high-level official
positions and professional advancement.
The Government rejected any change to the political system
judged incompatible with the revolution and ignored and actively
suppressed calls for democratic reform. On May 10, opposition
organization All United (Todos Unidos) delivered a petition
to the National Assembly proposing a five-point national referendum
on political and economic reforms. This effort, known as the
Varela Project and led by Christian Liberation Movement leader
Oswaldo Paya, was based on Article 88 of the 1976 Constitution,
which permits citizens to propose legislation if such proposals
are backed by at least 10,000 citizens; the Varela petition
had 11,020 signatures. The Varela Project called for an end
to limits on freedom of association, an amnesty for nonviolent
political prisoners, reduced barriers to private enterprise,
electoral reforms, and free elections within a year of the
referendum. In an apparent effort to reject the Varela Project
without publicly addressing it, the Government mobilized citizens
to sign a petition making the socialist character of the Constitution
"untouchable." The Government claimed that 99.37
percent of eligible voters signed the government petition
requesting such a modification to the Constitution. The National
Assembly unanimously passed the amendment making socialism
the "irrevocable" basis of the Constitution. The
changes did not rescind the right of citizens to propose legislation,
and Varela organizers continued to collect signatures in support
of their proposal. Government officials harassed persons working
in support of Project Varela, retaliated against some persons
who signed that petition, and retaliated against some persons
who did not sign the government petition (see Section 1.f.).
Government leadership positions continued to be dominated
by men. There were no legal impediments to women voting, holding
political office, or rising to political leadership; however,
there were very few women or minorities in policymaking positions
in the Government or the Party. There were 2 women in the
24-member Politburo and 18 in the 150-member Central Committee.
Women held 28 percent of the seats in the 601-seat National
Assembly. Although blacks and persons of African descent made
up more than half the population, they held only six seats
in the Politburo. The National Assembly was approximately
42 percent mulatto or mestizo, 40 percent white, 17 percent
black, and 1 percent other.
Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and
Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human
Rights
The Government did not recognize any domestic human rights
groups or permit them to function legally. The Government
subjected domestic human rights advocates to intense intimidation,
harassment, and repression. In violation of its own statutes,
the Government refused to consider applications for legal
recognition submitted by human rights monitoring groups (see
Section 2.b.).
Dissidents generally believed that most human rights organizations
were infiltrated and subjected to constant surveillance. Activists
believed that some of the dissidents were either state security
officials or were persons attempting to qualify for refugee
status to leave the country. It was a crime punishable by
8 to 15 years' imprisonment publicly to identify suspected
state infiltrators.
In its 1997 report, the IACHR examined measures taken by
the Government and found that they did not "comprise
the bedrock of a substantive reform in the present political
system that would permit the ideological and partisan pluralism
implicit in the wellspring from which a democratic system
of government develops." The IACHR recommended that the
Government provide reasonable safeguards to prevent violations
of human rights, unconditionally release political prisoners
and those jailed for trying to leave the country, abolish
the concept of dangerousness in the Penal Code, eliminate
other legal restriction on basic freedoms, cease harassing
human rights groups, and establish a separation of powers
so that the judiciary no longer would be subordinate to political
power (see Sections 1.c. and 1.e.).
The Government steadfastly rejected international human rights
monitoring. In 1992 the country's U.N. representative stated
that the Government would not recognize the mandate of the
U.N. Commission on Human Rights on Cuba and would not cooperate
with the Special Rapporteur on Cuba, despite being a UNCHR
member. This policy remained unchanged, and the Government
refused even to acknowledge requests by the Special Rapporteur
to visit the country. On April 19, the UNCHR passed a resolution
that expressed concern about the human rights situation in
the country and renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur
on Cuba. At year's end, the Government had not allowed the
Rapporteur to visit Cuba as required by the UNCHR resolution.
NEXT
PAGE
|
