In 2014 the Provincial Court of Cienfuegos tried, on charges of money laundering and the falsification of documents, six citizens who had close ties to two alleged drug traffickers based in the United States: Enrique Anicio Artiles Mata and Elvis Artiles Martín. The first was also a friend of Alejandro Castro Soto del Valle, one of Fidel Castro's sons, to whom he even gave gifts, according to the statements by four of the six people prosecuted in Cuba, as could be seen in images of the proceedings revealed exclusively by DIARIO DE CUBA.
Despite this, neither the judge who presided over the trial nor the prosecutors showed any interest in this citizen testifying. We spoke about the gravity of this omission with former Cuban judge Edel González Jiménez, a member of DIARIO DE CUBA's legal team.
Was Castro Soto del Valle's appearance relevant to the trial in Cienfuegos? By not summoning him, did the Court violate any law in force in Cuba at the time?
Yes. Having called Alejandro Castro del Valle, initially as a witness, or as a defendant, was compulsory because he maintained a close, decisive and questionable link with Artiles Mata. According to three of those convicted, Castro Soto del Valle spent the night at Artiles Mata's house, met with, and received presents from him. Therefore, he was or is in a position to specify whether or not the money in question came from alleged drug trafficking in the United States.
The omission indicated constitutes a violation of the Criminal Procedure Law in force at the time. Castro Soto del Valle should have been summoned to appear in the proceedings, like the six people tried (and convicted), and it should have been investigated what he received and what he knew about the dealings of the defendants, accused of alleged drug trafficking in the US and convicted in absentia by the Court of Cienfuegos.
His testimony could have saved Maikel Omar Morejón Mata, Esbel Morejón Sánchez, Fausto Lázaro López Soler del Castillo, Elvis Blanco Mata, Jorge Luis Araujo López and Odalis Sabina Martín Cuéllar (the six defendants, convicted in Cuba) from going to prison, had he testified that he did not know about any drug trafficking and that he believed the claims of Artiles Mata and Artiles Martín that their businesses in the United States were successful.
The fact that proper process was not followed, in accordance with the established law and justice, constitutes another possible example of the impunity enjoyed by the descendants of the Castros and certain members of structures that protect the family in power, even when it is linked to people related to very serious crimes. This denotes the lack of transparency in Cuba.
What specific articles of the then current Legal Procedure Law were violated by not calling upon Castro Soto del Valle to testify?
Article 104 of the Criminal Procedure Law stated that pre-trial proceedings should include all those actions necessary to confirm and verify the legal classification of the crime in question, as well as to determine the actual participation and degree of it by the alleged perpetrators. In addition, these actions are aimed at protecting the alleged perpetrators of the act through the corresponding precautionary measures.
This means that statements should have been taken from all the people, without exception, with known links to Artiles Mata and Artiles Martin. The gifts that Artiles Mata gave Fidel Castro's son also should have been investigated, as well as the vehicle that he sold to him, to ascertain whether they were acquired with the allegedly ill-gotten money.
It was particularly important to have determined whether Fidel Castro's son should have appeared at the trial as a defendant or as a witness, as well as to have confirmed the identities of the Interior Ministry officials who had links to the alleged criminals, Artiles Mata and Artiles Martin, as it was necessary to clarify whether any or all of them were involved in corruption or drug trafficking. These crimes are tried and punished harshly when committed by the rest of the Cuban population.
The criminal investigation, the Prosecutor's Office and the Provincial Court of Cienfuegos were obliged to order the expansion of the investigative measures. A criminal investigation was required, as per Article 107 of the law in question, while the Prosecutor's Office should have exercised control over the preparatory phase, as provided for in Article 105. The Court was required to observe Articles 263 and 351.
The first dictates that in all cases and at each stage of the process "the accused will be allowed to state whatever he deems advisable in the interest of his defense and for the explanation of the facts, and in view of his statement, the actions necessary to verify those statements are to be ordered."
Article 351 states that "when during the trial there are revelations ... producing well-founded suspicion that persons not standing trial ought to testify, the Court, ex officio, or at the request of the prosecuting party, will order new evidentiary proceedings or summary supplementary investigation, which are to be communicated, in writing, to the Prosecutor."
The new evidentiary proceedings and the summary supplementary investigation are to be carried out within 20 working days from the moment when the prosecutor receives the corresponding communication from the Court. The defense counsel may also propose the evidence he deems appropriate to be included in the new proceedings or in the supplementary preliminary investigation.
At this trial all the parties, including the defense lawyers of the six individuals tried and convicted in Cuba, favored the impunity of Fidel Castro's son and MININT officials.
How should the Prosecutor's Office and the Court have proceeded in the face of the defendants' revelations in Cuba and the inaction of the Criminal Investigation Department, which should have expanded the investigation in the preparatory phase?
Both the Prosecutor's Office and the Court should have refrained from prosecuting the defendants upon realizing the inequality in the handling of the ties with the Artiles Mata and Artiles Martin. An acquittal should have been issued or, if the aim was to protect the image of Fidel Castro's son and senior MININT officials, and prevent their relationships with alleged drug traffickers from coming to light, the case should have been dismissed.
Is there time to correct the mistakes made by the judicial system and rectify the glaring lack of transparency, albeit belatedly?
The statute of limitations to prosecute all those allegedly responsible has not expired. According to Article 64 of the Criminal Code in force in 2014 and subsection a) of the current one, the criminal action to prosecute all possible perpetrators of the crime of money laundering has not expired, as the 25 years required by law since the acts in question for those responsible to be safe from criminal prosecution have not elapsed.
The crime of money laundering, defined in Article 346 of the Criminal Code in 2014, provides for sentences ranging from 5 to 12 years in prison for those who acquire, convert, transfer, use or have in their possession resources, funds or assets of illicit origin, or who engage in actions to conceal these origins.
Also, for those who possess these assets when they knew, or should have known, that they proceeded directly or indirectly from illicit drug trafficking, transnational crime or organized crime.
The same sanction is incurred by anyone who conceals, hides or prevents the determination of the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement or ownership of those assets.
In addition, in support of the possible innocence of those convicted in Cuba, their former lawyers or others could undertake several legal actions before structures of the Popular Supreme Court, the Attorney General's Office, and the Ministry of the Interior, which could or should culminate in the annulment of what was done, official rectification of the errors committed, and even an official request for an apology for the damages inflicted.
