25 March, 2004

Good morning to all the foreign media correspondents and also to the correspondents of the Cuban media.

We have asked you to come to address general issues and to offer Cuba’s position on some matters that have brought about an intense foreign media campaign.

But before going into the issue that has brought us here, I would like to inform you that a few hours ago we came into possession of a document of general interest and learned of some news that I will give to you before we begin.

It is a document drafted in English. It is the text of the draft resolution that the US has come up with to be presented by some other country in the next few days at the Commission on Human Rights.

The text was delivered yesterday afternoon, at the State Department, to a select group of diplomats from member countries of the Commission on Human Rights; not to all, but just to a select group.

The US finally disclosed the text that it has been working on with a lot of secretiveness and handed out the draft resolution to some countries yesterday afternoon. We just happened to get hold of it and copies will be distributed to you afterwards.

Now, I want to challenge any country that will present it in the next few days to say whether or not this text in English (shows document) is the text drafted at the State Department; to say whether it is true or not that yesterday afternoon it was handed out at the State Department to a group of countries and whether it is true or not that the text is the attempt to take the Cuba issue once again to the Commission on Human Rights.

We have asked you to come because we believe that the time has come for our country to offer its viewpoint and, above all, to offer the truth – with the objectivity and seriousness that characterizes Cuba – on this issue, overused and hammered on time and again on the basis of exaggerations, inaccuracies, lies and false and disgusting fabrications; on the prison conditions and the medical treatment of the 75 mercenaries convicted for working at the service of the US Government in enforcing the Helms-Burton Act and the blockade against Cuba and for receiving both money and instructions from that country’s Government.

I am going to give information on that matter, which I hope will shed light and cause the truth to appear upon an issue that has been used as part of a campaign of lies and slanders against Cuba.

On the general situation of the Cuban prison system, there was an interesting Round Table a few days ago with a lengthy discussion – which, by the way, to my amazement, has not had any international repercussions. I am surprised that in these three days no news bureau has talked about what was discussed there; it has been really remarkable to see that no interest was caused by the explanation given by the head of the medical services of Cuba’s prison system, about how it is organized, which includes data such as that Cuba has 1 doctor to every 200 inmates in its prison system; something really impressive, very similar to the ratio for the Cuban population. Nor was there any interest in the information provided about what is being done in terms of education and access to knowledge by the prison population.

I really express my amazement, my bewilderment, over the fact that such issue causes no interest – because tons of words have been published in the last few months on the Cuban jails and there has not been a single mention of an issue that has aroused so much interest in Cuba. Within the Cuban population, there was, indeed, a lot of interest; we have received a lot of information from the people and also here, at the Foreign Ministry, we have all talked about it. We think that its humane sense and humanistic outlook is actually impressive. However, not a single word has been uttered; it would seem that it did not happen.

I hope that this that we are going to present here today will, indeed, happen so that the information to be provided can be disclosed.

First and foremost, I would like to present the background of all this process, which started following Cuba’s reply last year, a reply that Cuba saw itself compelled to give because it had no other choice. We have selected the viewpoints of some representatives of the US Government, from that country’s circles of power, which I believe shed more light than anything I can say on the moment that Cuba has gone through over the last year and a half.
Here is, for example (image projected on screen), the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, stating on 11 April 2003, nearly a year ago: “Following the success of the war in Iraq, the US must look to its neighborhood and pressure the international community so that the Cuban regime cannot continue.” To pressure, to look to its neighborhood...
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, stated on 4 May: “It is not appropriate to consider, for the time being, the use of military force against Cuba.” For the time being...

It must be recalled that Mr. Powell went to the UN Security Council and presented the alleged evidence that Iraq had WMD; that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons that it was getting ready to launch against other countries; chemical and biological weapons.
So “for the time being” should not be a phrase that we must give too much credibility to. That was on 4 May.
On 10 October, President Bush, in an electoral show staged at the White House with terrorist elements and people from Miami’s Cuban far right – the worst of Miami’s ultrareactionary creatures – said the following: “The Cuban regime is not going to change on its own, but Cuba must change.” Cuba must change, the US President said on 10 October, by force; it has to, even if they are not willing to do it.
The gentleman below (referring to image shown), who looks like a Latino but who is not – he is a grandchild of a Mexican, but he is American – Roger Noriega, who is the State Department’s Undersecretary for the Western Hemisphere, is the mastermind of the policy towards Latin America in the State Department. He said in December 2003: “We have to stand ready to act decisively and promptly.” He said that after having stated that the US was examining a way to expedite Fidel’s ouster from Cuba’s political scene – which led to comrade Fidel’s public challenge, unresponded until today, of whether that meant political assassination, of whether or not there was any applicability in the prohibition signed by President Gerald Ford in the mid-sixties, preventing US officials and the special services from engaging in the assassination of foreign leaders, after the lid was blown on the Church Commission, which presented several cases of assassinations of foreign leaders by the US Special Services, including various thwarted plots against the life of comrade Fidel. Fidel challenged him.
He challenged him to say whether it was true or not that there had been a meeting in which the then candidate, George Bush, had told several members of the Cuban mafia not to worry, that he knew how to work out the problem.
Then, after having stated so, Mr. Noriega said that they had to stand ready for that moment to act decisively and promptly; that “the US wanted to be sure that the regime’s cronies would not take control in Cuba of the Government’s security apparatus,” and he announced that the Commission – called Commission for Cuba’s Transition, which would allegedly prepare the plan to subvert, overthrow the Revolution and turn Cuba once again into a protectorate – would see, among other things, to that objective. That was in December.
Mr. Melquíades Martínez, who at the moment co-chaired the Commission and was the Housing Secretary, said, when asked by the media, that the Pentagon – that is, the US Armed Forces – did not participate in the Commission officially; at that moment, in December, but he said: “It must not be ruled out that the State Department may be involved in the work at some point in time.”
Why should the US Armed Forces be involved in the so-called transition in Cuba? – this is a question that has not been responded yet and a challenge thrown by Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro that has found no reply yet.
Mr. Noriega, once again, on 6 January, stated with a lie “that the US was following the performance of Cuban leader Fidel Castro in his latest follies,” he said. “The US has information on Cuba’s involvement to destabilize governments,” a lie that also received its reply from the leader of the Cuban Revolution, who clearly indicated that the causes of the fall of governments are found in the unbridled enforcement of the neoliberal model, the extortion of the Latin American economies through the model imposed by the US Government and the IMF.
In what seemed like a competition of rhetoric, Secretary of State Powell said on 8 January: “Cuba has been trying to do everything possible to destabilize parts of the region.” Cuba does not have to do so, if it is already enough for Latin America to erupt like a volcano with what the US is doing.
Mrs. Condoleezza Rice said that “Cuba continued to stir difficulties in other parts of the region.”
President Bush said again on 12 January, worried about his slide in the polls and insecure about not being reelected because he sees with concern that his rival’s candidature is getting stronger, “that we had to work for a quick transition.” He said that. It is true that they want that. He also said: “a pacific transition in Cuba.” That is a lie! That part is not real.
This is the latest evidence of their nonsense and lack of scruples. A member of the US House of Representatives, an elected lawmaker, says this phrase: “What should happen in Cuba is Castro’s assassination,” and he calls for the murder of the Head of State of a UN member country, a neighbor of the United States, and he does so publicly.
“I do believe that it should be done” – says this gentleman – “the assassination,” and he publicly upholds the idea of murdering the Head of State of a country.
Look at what has been said by Mr. Lincoln Díaz-Balart, a member of the House of Representatives of the US: “Since Castro likes tourists so much to take him dollars” – listen to the dinosaur-like, ultraconservative and reactionary language, listen to that – “then we should send spies among them.”
I would like to get an explanation on whether or not Cuba is entitled to adopt whatever measures it deems appropriate, within the limits of its own ethics and legislation, in order to preserve the country and defend its people from those who inside Cuba cooperate with the enforcement of this policy that is announced in an open and unbridled manner by the major political figures of the US.
Then, that is the issue at stake here, that has been the background of all this and the context that cannot be overlooked, that Cuba is a country defending the exercise of its right to exist as an independent nation and Cuba is entitled to enforce its laws.
Cuba will not murder, Cuba will not have missing people, Cuba will not resort to extralegal murders, Cuba will not torture, Cuba will not use violence, Cuba will not repress; but Cuba will apply its law strictly and it has, because that right is recognized by the UN Charter, by International Law – and it is entitled to defend itself and punish, as is the case of the US legislation and the legislation of the whole world, those who cooperate with a foreign power that attacks their country.
Let us recall that Cuba was then compelled to adopt measures in response to the flagrantly provocative actions of the Head of the US Interests Section in Havana – and, therefore, I reiterate here today that the Government of the US and the Head of the US Interests Section in Havana carry on their shoulders the historical responsibility of the defensive measures that Cuba had to adopt to prevent the cooperation, from within the country, with the enforcement of the Helms-Burton Act, with the enforcement of the subversive policy of the US against Cuba.
Also as background information, I am going to reiterate our stand on the trials, because there has been a lot of talk about all that; and I am going to reiterate here twelve features of such proceedings, of the trials against the 75 mercenaries, because that is an issue where truth must prevail.
First: No violence or force was used, not even the slightest; we acted with respect for those people and their integrity.
Second: The legal proceedings took place with a summary nature, which means – according to the Cuban legislation – shortening of the trial terms, but in no case curtailment of the guarantees.
Therefore, I reject the notion that summary trials implied the loss of guarantees for those convicted. It simply implied the shortening of the terms, without the loss of those guarantees, which is a prerogative – according to the Cuban law – of the President of the People’s Supreme Court.
Third: All of the accused were previously informed of the charges against them and had the chance, like all defendants in Cuba, to make claims on the charges before the trials were held. It is false to argue that they did not know of the charges attributed to them during the trials. That is false; it was recognized by them during the trials.
Fourth: All the defendants exercised their right to rely on a defense attorney. Fifty-four defense attorneys participated; 44 of them, 80%, were appointed by the defendants themselves or their relatives – 44 of the 54 were appointed by the defendants or their families. Ten were court-appointed lawyers, assigned to the defendants when they appoint none, in conformity with the Cuban law.
Fifth: All the defendants exercised their right to be heard at oral trials by regular civil courts; courts that had been previously established, in conformity with the Cuban and international legislation.
Therefore, I reiterate here again that no special ad-hoc court was set up to try them, nor were any special judges or emergency judges appointed to that end. Those were judges who already worked as judges and had been appointed prior to the trials in existing courts of law that work on a regular basis; it is not like what the detainees in the Guantánamo Naval Base have in store, those prisoners in such concentration camp, who will face special military courts with appointed judges. That is, overlooking such fact is really to disregard the truth.
Sixth: There was no secret trial. The oral hearings of all trials were public and controversial.
There were 29 trials – and in those 29 trials the hearings were public, oral and controversial. Nearly 3,000 people participated in those 29 trials; therefore, there were almost 100 people on average taking part in every trial, including the relatives of the defendants. It is false to assert that the relatives were absent from the trials; that is false and can be verified. In addition to the relatives, there were witnesses, experts, other citizens – and, therefore, I must reject again the idea that those were secret trials. That is false.
It is true that some foreign diplomats in Havana, a few, who requested to go to the trials, were not present; that much is true. But no national from their countries was being tried; all the defendants were Cubans.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations provides for the right of the Diplomatic Corps to participate when a national of their country is being tried. International Law does not set forth that diplomats are entitled to participate and, in this case, the courts decided to hold the trials and give no access to diplomats. That is no violation of International Law and does not mean that the trials were secret because eight or ten ambassadors in Havana were not present. There is distortion and exaggeration in all that.
The courts decided that there would be no media access, and there was not. That is their prerogative. They considered that the nature of the information to be handled there was secret in some cases, having to do with the country’s national security. That is the prerogative of the court. They also prevented an atmosphere of publicity from interfering in the trial, in the impartiality and objectivity of the court’s performance. Now, that does not mean that the trials were secret; their relatives were there. I already said that nearly 3,000 people participated in those trials.
Seventh: All the defendants and their counsels exercised the right to contribute evidence and witnesses in their favor – in favor of the accused – who examined evidence and talked to the witnesses, in addition to those presented by the police and the Attorney General’s office. The accused themselves and their defense attorneys introduced additional witnesses and evidence into the trials.
The defense attorneys presented 28 witnesses; different from those of the Attorney General, 28, during the trial. They said: “I now call Mr. So and So,” that was the defense, to cross-examine them. And out of those 28, the courts authorized 22, the overwhelming majority, to participate, and they did, and those witnesses testified.
Eighth: All the defense attorneys had previous access to the file containing the charges.
I want to recall here that the defense attorneys of the five Cuban heroes who are political prisoners in the US, during the rigged trial held in Miami, failed to have access to 80% of the information provided by the Attorney General’s office because it was declared secret – and still today, it has not been seen. That is, the proceedings and the appeal have taken place without knowing 80% of the contributions made by the Attorney General’s office because it was declared secret. Not only did they fail to have previous access in the case of the Cuban five. The defense attorneys have never had it.
That was not the case here. The defense attorneys had previous access to the files. It was even recognized by the defendants themselves and some testimonies were seen here, where they recognized that they met with the lawyer and examined all the information.
Ninth: All the defendants were entitled – and most did, in conformity with the provisions of our law and as notified to each one during the trials – to appeal the sentences at a higher court; in this case, at the Supreme Court, and, as a matter of fact, there are still today a dozen cases whose process is not over and are going through the appeal. Therefore, they exercised that right envisaged in the Cuban legislation.
Tenth: The seizures and confiscations of assets were always carried out with a warrant and after proving the illegal origin of them.
We are not talking here about any high-handed actions by the police: a warrant after proving the illegal origin.
Let us recall that some defendants had money stashed, sums amounting to nearly US$ 16,000, hidden in the lining of a suit nobody knows why, because it is not illegal in Cuba to have dollars. Nobody knows why that money was not on a bank account. It was apparently hidden. It is not known why it was being protected.
Eleventh: We ensured the most careful respect for the physical and moral integrity of the defendants at all stages of the proceedings, which was recognized voluntarily by some of them during the trials.
Twelfth: There is not a single shred of evidence – and if anyone has some, please come forward with it – that we used coercion, pressure, threat or blackmail to obtain the statements and confessions of the defendants.
It seems to me that these twelve elements should be recalled to let the truth stand in its rightful place amid the huge campaign that repeats, and not naively, the arguments fabricated and orchestrated by Cuba’s enemies. Whoever repeats a lie becomes an accessory in its dissemination, and that has been happening in this case.
Well, now I will give new information that we did not have when we reported on those trials right in this place, because only two days had elapsed since their completion. Today, there is more extensive information on the issue. I think it is good, finally, to see if the truth is understood, if it is known, if it prevails, if there is at least some ethics to recognize that there is some other information provided by Cuba that should be made available to the public opinion so that it can make an assessment, taking into account our arguments as well and not only the arguments of our accusers, not only the arguments of our attackers.
Let us recall that the courts convicted 75 people, 74 men and one woman. Only 5, accounting for 7%, were employed at the time of their detention; seventy of them, 93%, did not have a job in Cuba, they did not work, they received no salary for a job done in Cuba.
Now, I would like to get an explanation about what they lived on, about how someone in Cuba could live without a salary, without a job – and 70 of the 75 were jobless, they did not work, their status was “unemployed.” Assuming that they did not thrive on theft or commit any crimes, where did they get the money from to feed themselves, buy clothing and incur other expenses? – assuming that these were not family-related remittances either. They were remittances from abroad, but not family-oriented; they were salaries paid by their employers.
Who gave them that money? It was given by the Government of the United States, and that was extensively proven here. But there is practically no mention of it in the press releases published on the issue, in the press articles; although here we presented the evidence, the checks, the invoices, the payrolls with salaries of US$ 3,000 per month. There is no talk about that; I do not know why that issue is not talked about; it is belittled and hidden. However, on a daily basis, it is said that those people were intellectuals, that the best Cuban intellectuals were arrested; but it is not said and it is not recalled that until 15 January 2004, listen up, until 15 January 2004, and since 1997, USAID recognized that on its own – and they said that they did not provide the largest share – they had allocated US$ 26 million from the US budget to fund the creation of groups in Cuba with a view to fabricating in Cuba an internal opposition. That was said by the director of USAID: US$ 26 million, since 1997 through January 2004.
The US 2004 budget has allocated another US$ 7 million; it is in the US law; it can be found on the web pages of the US Government: US$ 7 million to finance the creation of an internal opposition in Cuba. That is the origin of the money, most of which remains in Miami, with the middlemen, and another portion gets here; what happens is that the portion that gets here has a lot of value to it because these people, regardless of their political position, of their actions against the Revolution; regardless of the fact that they work at the service of the US Government, do not have to pay for healthcare or for their children’s education; they enjoy all the social rights and services – and, therefore, US$ 1,000 in Cuba is a salary of millionaires, as known by all those who are sitting in this hall. That is where the money came from.
Therefore, first thing: 70 out of the 75 had no job, they were jobless; most of them had not worked for several years, four, five, six years. Why did they not work? Because they had money. Where did they get that money from? From the US Government.
School level? Of the 75, only 25, 33%, are university graduates, 25 out of the 75! The rest did not reach graduation, they have not attended university, have no university qualification; twenty-five are university graduates, 33%.
Out of those 25 university graduates, only two obtained their Bachelor’s Degrees in Journalism. Last year, I said four, but I made a mistake. Two of them studied journalism: Raúl Rivero and Julio César Gálvez, who was a sportscaster. There is no other journalism graduate here. Well, if writing what is being told by those who pay and sending it to the Miami Herald or to El Nuevo Herald is called journalism, that is a horse of a different color; but out of the 25 only two graduated as journalists from a Cuban or any other university.
Fourteen of the 75, 19%, are 12th-grade graduates; they did their senior high-school studies and that was it; they did not go to college. Another 15, accounting for 20%, were engaged in intermediate studies and at some point in time graduated from an intermediate school; one passed 10th grade and failed to continue his studies; 18 have reached 9th grade – 24% of the total, 18, a fourth of them all, have reached 9th grade. They finished 9th grade in Cuba, which, as you know, is the compulsory level for all children in the country; and one reached 6th grade. There is one whose data I am not sure about.
Once the information on this issue is presented, I would like you to recall that 25 out of the 75 are university graduates. When you talk of journalists and Cuban intellectuals, you should recall that a third of them have graduated from university, and of the total, two have degrees in journalism. I remember a prominent member of the Spanish Government who said that the cream of the crop of Cuba’s culture was in prison; that is something awesome; besides, that was said by a woman who must not have crossed the Atlantic to get here – but, well, that is ancient history.
The correspondents who are sitting here know of our ethics and our attachment to truth; they know it, I do not have to ask for a vow of credibility. They know that when we say something we say it because it is so and because we are right – and because our weapon is the truth; 15 of the 75, 20% of the total, have priors for petty crimes, which was not known when we spoke here about that issue: 3 for rape or lewd abuse of minors, 1 for break-in, 4 for economic crimes, 1 for homicide, 2 for attempted attacks, 1 for larceny, 2 for public disobedience and 1 for drug trafficking.
I understand that objectivity is not easy. I understand that there are vested interests behind the media. I understand that there are editorial guidelines drafted by the owners. I understand that there is an Inter-American Press Society, composed of the oligarchic owners of the media in this hemisphere. I understand that there are things that go unpublished because they are in bad taste there in the headquarters. I understand all that; but I think that I am entitled, on behalf of our people, to express our right to disclose the truth, so that the elements that I have spoken about here are not dealt with as if they had not happened. I guess that is the least that a country, besieged and blockaded, can ask for.
About all this, let us recall that the Commission on Human Rights cast a vote last year. The Government of Costa Rica, at the behest and under the mandate of the Government of the United States, tabled a text to condemn Cuba for those trials, to condemn Cuba for the decision to take the mercenaries to court and also to demand that they be released – and the Commission on Human Rights voted on that.
The proposal to condemn Cuba was overwhelmingly defeated by 31 votes against the Costa Rican amendment and 15 in favor. Therefore, Cuba understands that the Commission on Human Rights endorsed Cuba’s right to take these measures and refused to condemn those trials and demand that those people be released.
I would say that the vote in Geneva, plus the extraordinary impact of the presence of comrade Fidel in Argentina, where he was received in a really impressive manner by the crowds, by the people of Argentina; all of that, besides the fact that Cuba’s arguments started to prevail, as well as the role of the intellectuals, honest voices in the world, the best intellectuals at the international level, who stood up to the media campaign, all of that caused the slide of that first campaign that called into question the legitimacy of the trials.
Now there is a new campaign that has to do with the prison conditions of the 75 mercenaries detained and the medical treatment they are getting.
Now, is this the first campaign launched against Cuba about counterrevolutionary prisoners in jail? No, no, no, this is not the first campaign. Cuba is used to that.
By way of example, I have decided to recall this that I will show right now. This is not the first time that Cuba faces a campaign, no, no, no, not at all. We know about this. We have been withstanding media campaigns for 45 years now (video shown).
Do you know who this character is? That is Armando Valladares, a cop from Batista’s dictatorship, detained – that is the press of the time – for placing in public places bombs packed in cigarette boxes; a member of a terrorist cell in which Carlos Alberto Montaner also participated. They were convicted and for that reason Armando Valladares went to prison in Cuba.
However, see how this started to be portrayed in the press: “A handicapped poet jailed in Cuba;” “Armando Valladares’ release demanded;” “Freedom for Valladares;” “Jailed in his wheelchair;” “A poet that languishes in Cuban prisons;” “From my wheelchair,” the book of poems by Armando Valladares, third edition; “The heart with which I live.” Look, the illustration from an important international newspaper: “An invalid poet.” However, take a look at the images that were once known about the alleged invalid poet in his prison cell; look at him, doing calisthenics.
(video shown)
Professor Álvarez Cambra: The medical board of high-level professors, composed, as we said, of the most prestigious comrades of the four specialties: neurology, surgery, orthopedics and rehabilitation, concluded that patient Armando Valladares was a fake; that is, a liar who wanted to profit from that appearance of a handicapped man. Actually, at no moment since he came into our hospital was he handicapped. These are the conclusions of this commission.
Felipe Pérez: There he is, the “invalid poet” jogging, before leaving Cuba. He was told: “Well, you have to show some evidence, because Cuba has to prove that in fact you are not handicapped.”
(video shown)
Narrator: In October 1982, Armando Valladares, a former member of General Batista’s repressive force and a notorious terrorist, left the airport in Havana for Paris, after becoming the pivot of an international campaign that seemed to be aimed more at damaging a country’s image than at setting the record straight.
Felipe Pérez: It happened like in the Bible: “Rise and walk.” He did like Lazarus: the truth made him walk (laughter).
Now look (video shown), look at him there, the “invalid poet,” welcomed by Reagan at the White House. Later on, he was the head of the US delegation to the Commission on Human Rights, just like the other terrorist who is now at the US seat, arrested in Cuba on a boat laden with explosives and assault rifles, Luis Zuñiga Rey, who is claimed to be a “human rights advocate.”
Why was Luis Zuñiga Rey jailed in Cuba? Because he was arrested ashore, as part of a landing team organized by the CIA, and rifles and explosives were found on him; however, there he is on the US seat as a “human rights advocate.”
This is a long story. Cuba knows it well and is used to these campaigns.
One day, that was the campaign against Cuba. And those who made arrangements for the “invalid poet” to be released were sent those images first, so they could know what they were getting – and regrets came later on.
There is a book published by Regis Debray, a former adviser to the President of France, in which he said: “...it turns out that the poet was no longer a poet, that the invalid walked like a normal person afterwards and that the Cuban was no longer a Cuban; he was an American citizen and got involved in the dirty war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.” This is a quote from the then advisor to the President of France, who arranged for and demanded the release of the “invalid poet.”
Therefore, Cuba knows these campaigns, and knows that it has been a mechanism of pressure against Cuba and part of the war that Cuba has had to endure.
Now, in the current situation, there is a new campaign. I assert that here. There is a campaign imposed by the interests behind the aggression against Cuba. I do not blame the reporters; I am not blaming the correspondents based in Havana. I do not hold them accountable for that, but I do assert that there is a campaign against our country.
I have excellent relations, we all do here at the Foreign Ministry, with the correspondents based in Havana; we try to do our bit to contribute to their serious work, which we respect, in the same way that we respect the work of our fellow reporters; I do not hold them responsible; these words are not aimed at criticizing their job, but the interests behind the media and the campaign against Cuba.
Seven lies have been told over and over again, seven lies! On the reality of the Cuban prisons, on the reality of the situation in prison and the medical treatment given to those imprisoned for undertaking mercenary activities against their homeland.
First: “That the inmates are incommunicado;” that is a lie, that is false!
Second: “That they are in bricked up cells or isolation cells,” imitating to some extent the idea of the hole, where the Cuban patriots in the US have indeed been for up to 17 months: in underwear, in walled up cells and with artificial lighting all day long. It is false to say that this has happened here! It has been said that they are in dungeons; that is a lie!
Third: “That they have taken and take beatings;” that is a lie!
Fourth: “That they lack medical care;” that is a lie! And I am going to prove it.
Fifth: “That they cannot see their relatives;” that is a lie!
Sixth: “That they practically go unfed, that they are dying of starvation and famine;” that is a lie! That is false, and I reject such assertion, in a country that has food limitations for all the population as a result of the economic war that the nation has had to endure for over 45 years and also as a result of the restraints imposed by the Special Period on our homeland.
Seventh: “That they lack water and are facing sanitary conditions almost incompatible to life.”
We have gone to the authorities of the Cuban penal system; we have asked them for information – and when we say here that those are lies and that all that is false and that we reject the insidious origin and the intent to tarnish the country with this, we say it because we are right and because we have gone to find out with our comrades, whose humanistic sense was very clearly revealed to all our public opinion – although none of that has been published in the world – the day they appeared on TV explaining how they do their job and fulfill their aspirations of education and reinsertion for Cuba’s inmates. We have asked them, and this information is the result of our meetings with them.
What is the truth? I assert here that the Cuban prison authorities are fulfilling the UN Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Inmates, fulfilled and overfulfilled in some cases by our country and which are the daily handbook that governs the work in these prisons.
I assert here that the 75 mercenaries imprisoned in Cuba are treated with respect and without humiliation.
I assert here that it is false that they are being subjected to a cruel, inhumane and debasing treatment.
I assert here that there is respect for their physical and moral integrity.
I assert that they are treated like human beings.
I assert that there is no spirit of revenge against them because they are rivals, because they have been instrumental in enforcing the policy of their people’s enemy to stifle us through hunger and disease.
And I assert that we are ethical people that do not violate those tenets; the ethics in us comes from the birth of the Cuban Revolution, from the guerrilla army that first healed the injured enemy soldiers with its medications, that never murdered a prisoner and that fought them but extensively abiding by rules that were later codified into the International Humanitarian Law.
A Revolution born out of ethics, born out of the victory over a bloody dictatorship that enjoyed the complicity of the US until the very last day, could not imitate its methods.
I assert that there is severity in our actions, but there is also respect and integrity.
I reject the lies on behalf of a people that cannot be accused of fanaticism. Our people would never allow us to act that way and would not believe in us if one day we were remiss in such ethics and failed to keep our word. Therefore, I reject the campaign, and I am going to prove it.
Now, I am going to explain here 16 rights enforced for those inmates – and I would like anyone to tell me whether it is true or not.
First: None of those 75 inmates has to sleep on the floor; they all have a bed and a mattress. That was confirmed to us by the relevant authorities.
Second: They all have access to drinking water.
Third: They all have access to read the press.
Fourth: On a daily basis, they all get some sun outdoors. They have that right, which is enforced, except when there is some breach of conduct, improper behavior, violation of the rules, like in every penitentiary; but that is their right – absolutely enforced for every inmate in Cuba.
Fifth: From the prison authorities, they get cleaning items despite the limitations that our country has.
Sixth: They get the mandatory uniforms.
Seventh: They have access to TV programs in common spots; I mean, in halls where they are not alone.
Eighth: They are entitled to receive religious assistance if so requested, and as a matter of fact they make such request – and those who have made those requests have been receiving it.
Ninth: They get sufficient and appropriate food, with an average caloric intake of over 2,400 daily kilocalories, as detailed by the World Health Organization. Now, this food meets with the same constraints and problems faced by the Cuban population, for that has not been worked out in our country on account of what I already said: the economic war imposed on us and the Special Period; but the idea that they are starving, the idea that they are on the brink of famine, the idea indicative of the Nazi concentration camps in Europe, all that is a lie.
Tenth: They all get free healthcare of a high scientific and human level, with free supply of medications and free tests as needed. That is their right and they enforce it, regardless of their ideas and even their behavior, and I will prove it.
Eleventh: They receive family visits every three months. That is the current prison regulation.
Twelfth: They are entitled to marital relations every five months, and they have them – and they have the right to the so-called conjugal visits, when they can receive their spouses in a private and respectful manner.
You will not see in Cuba the images shown at the Round Table on the prison system in Cuba and around the world, where we could even see the inmates in the US having sex in front of their children, hiding under a table, amid a family visit.
Everybody saw those images here, right? Because those are video images that our people saw on TV. That does not happen here.
Thirteenth: Every one is entitled to receive the food taken to them by their relatives, in addition to what they receive in prison.
Fourteenth: They are entitled to receive the books taken to them by their relatives.
Fifteenth: They are entitled to send and receive mail and make telephone calls, 100 minutes per month, wherever that is possible. There are places in which it is still not possible because of Cuba’s constraints, but in most it is and they do it.
Sixteenth: Besides, they will be able to benefit from the progressive regime envisaged in the regulation as the right of every inmate, in conformity with their behavior – which implies an improvement in their situation, in their discipline regime, depending on their conduct in prison, their good behavior and the time in prison, all of which entails an increase in the number of family visits and so forth, all the other rights, like every inmate in Cuba.
I have provided 16 elements. Now, I would like to know if that is going to be published just like the opposite has been published, or whether they will only continue to harp on the versions driven by the interest of Cuba’s enemies.
I also have here an article attributed to Secretary of State Colin Powell, published in several newspapers of Latin America over the last few days.
Here I have La Nación, from Argentina; it is entitled: “We must show solidarity to those who fight for democracy in Cuba.” The truth is that seeing a representative of the US Government talking about democracy, amid the situation of international disrepute that the US Government is facing today over the violation of democracy in the world, acting outside the boundaries of the UN, debasing the international institutions, is something really impossible to fathom.
It says here that “these people have been arrested for the crime of thinking and acting independently.” There are two lies here: the first, it was not for thinking, it was for acting at the service of the US and receiving its money; the second is that they did not act independently but under the instructions of the US Government and the US Interests Section [in Havana]. The Secretary of State is not informed.
It says here that they were “independent librarians and journalists.” Well, I already said that there were only two journalists. None was independent. They depend on the US Government, on its instructions, on its means, on its money.
Now, “independent librarians,” I think this is mockery. The idea that there is a need for libraries in Cuba, a country with almost 400 public libraries, plus a library in each of its 15,000 schools, is unheard-of. It seems to me that after the celebration of the Book Fair, the idea that the US Government has to worry about promoting libraries in Cuba is something that would cause laughter if it were not some type of intrusion and part of a subversive plan against the country. Besides, “independent journalists and librarians.” Hey, if these people are independent, then we are from Mars.
Now, it says here – I am going to elaborate on this – that “these men and women” – it says “women;” there is only one, as you know – “are serving their draconian sentences under inhumane” – listen to the US Secretary of State – “and totally unhealthy conditions, in which medical services are completely inadequate. As a result, some have taken seriously ill.”
I wonder if Secretary Powell remembers that he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of a country that has a concentration camp at the Guantánamo Naval Base. In order to talk about the situation elsewhere, he should be reminded of his situation, what his roof is made of. And the prisons in Iraq? And the inmates in the US, without even knowing what they are accused of?
I have an article here written by reporter Gordon Thomas on what is called Cropper Camp. Cropper Camp is a prison located on the outskirts of Baghdad International Airport; it is a prison kept by the US Army on the outskirts of Baghdad. “A gulag,” this reporter says.
“There are 3,000 Iraqi prisoners in that jail.” He says that “none of them has been tried yet;” that is, they have been imprisoned for a year without knowing what they are accused of; they have not appeared before a judge, they have not gone to a court of law.
It says that “they live in tents that provide little protection from the scorching sun, 50 degrees; 80 people in each tent, on small mattresses.” “They are given three liters of water per day to wash up and drink. At noon, temperatures reach 50 degrees.”
“Each one has a long-handled shovel to dig up a latrine;” “some find out that they have dug up a hole where there was already one; some are too old or feeble to dig up their three-foot latrine.”
He says that “Amnesty International has been provided with information that prisoners have died there in that camp, under custody, beaten by the firearms of members of the US Army.”
“The women sleep in a tent, just like the men;” “and like the men, they are not allowed to wash their underwear;” “some of them have developed ugly sores;” “they are given a cupful of anti-flea powder to treat the worst bodily infections.”
Do you think that the Foreign Minister of a country with a prison like that really has the moral authority to comment on the conditions of Cuban prisons, or should I think that there is some lack of knowledge and he does not have the slightest idea of what he has said?
My personal conclusion is that Mr. Powell signs the articles prepared by some anti-Cuban scribe without having any idea of the content or the theme. He may be innocent, but he has by-lined an article that he does not have the slightest idea about.
Now, Thomas’ article was not featured in the major newspapers. No, no, no, that only appears in Rebelión [rebelion.org]. The major newspapers, that run articles on Cuba’s prisons on a daily basis, considered that what I have read on the concentration camp on the outskirts of Baghdad is not an important subject. Let us be clear, that things are the way they are and not the way we want them to be; but that does not mean that we will relinquish our fight to set the record straight.
Now, on the medical care of the 75 inmates. I already said and assert that all inmates have access to high-quality medical care.
By way of example, I am going to refer to two cases that have aroused a very fierce campaign: Oscar Espinosa Chepe, one of the 75 mercenaries in prison. I think that at that moment it was said that he was one of the people with the most money, according to the invoices shown.
It has published time and again that he has cancer, that he has cirrhosis of the liver and that, despite all that, we keep him in ruthless conditions, without healthcare.
I have invited Doctor Félix Báez Sarría here today – a first-degree specialist in internal medicine from Carlos Juan Finlay Hospital; he is the doctor in charge of inmate Oscar Espinosa Chepe. I have asked him to come and answer the questions that I will put to him.
Doctor Báez, thank you for agreeing to be here with us. You graduated as a doctor in what year?
Félix Báez: In 1995.
Felipe Pérez: And as an internal medicine specialist?
Félix Báez: In 2000.
Felipe Pérez: That is, you have been a first-degree specialist since 2000.
Thank you, Félix. I am sorry for taking you out of your job, but your work is being debased, your integrity as a doctor is being offended, as well as the integrity of all Cuban doctors, and that has led us to ask you to make this effort, which we know deviates from your usual activities.
You graduated as a doctor in 2000, as a first-degree specialist in internal medicine.
Félix Báez: Yes.
Felipe Pérez: How long have you been working at Carlos Juan Finlay Hospital?
Félix Báez: Since 1997.
Felipe Pérez: It means that you have been working at Finlay Hospital for seven years now. How long have you been treating patient Espinosa Chepe?
Félix Báez: I have been treating Espinosa Chepe since August 2003.
Felipe Pérez: Since August 2003; that is, you have been treating him for a little bit less than a year. Could you explain to us what patient Espinosa Chepe’s health condition is? Is he suffering from cancer?
Félix Báez: He is not suffering from cancer, Mr. Minister.
Felipe Pérez: Is he suffering from cirrhosis of the liver?
Félix Báez: He does not have any cirrhosis of the liver at the moment.
Felipe Pérez: Please, explain the health condition of inmate Oscar Espinosa Chepe.
Félix Báez: Well, patient Oscar Espinosa Chepe has a history, from 1983, of brucellosis.
Felipe Pérez: In 1983, he had a disease called brucellosis.
Félix Báez: That is correct.
Felipe Pérez: Could you explain to us what it consists of?
Félix Báez: Well, brucellosis is generally a disease affecting cattle that can be sporadically transmitted to humans.
Felipe Pérez: Is it a parasite?
Félix Báez: It is a bacterium that can live inside the body’s cells.
Felipe Pérez: What does it cause?
Félix Báez: He was left with a granular liver; that is, with a granulomatous hepatopathology.
Felipe Pérez: That is, his liver was affected by a disease called...
Félix Báez: Granulomatous hepatopathology.
Felipe Pérez: Granulomatous hepatopathology. That is, he suffers from granulomatous hepatopathology, caused by brucellosis in 1983.
Félix Báez: I was telling you that he has a granular liver, that he has had since 1983 and that has remained stable for nearly 20 years; that means that the disease has not advanced.
Felipe Pérez: What can granulomatosis cause when it progresses?
Félix Báez: Generally, granulomatous hepatopathology caused by brucellosis is a state of reaction; that is, a reaction of the body to brucellosis and generally it does not turn into cirrhosis of the liver.
Felipe Pérez: It has been stable in these 20 years, it has been stable.
Félix Báez: Stable.
Felipe Pérez: What is his health condition?
Félix Báez: Well, since August 2003 he has had some laboratory tests and some image studies done that indicate that such disease is stable.
Felipe Pérez: Could you tell us what tests have been done?
Félix Báez: Well, some liver function studies were conducted on him, more known to the population as transaminase tests, which since 1983 have shown normal rates.
Felipe Pérez: His transaminase rates are normal. That translates into what?
Félix Báez: Into a normal liver.
Felipe Pérez: His liver is functioning normally. Can it be asserted that his liver is functioning normally?
Félix Báez: It can be asserted.
Felipe Pérez: Good. Does he have cirrhosis of the liver?
Félix Báez: No, he does not have cirrhosis of the liver.
Felipe Pérez: Why can that be asserted?
Félix Báez: We can assert it from the clinical standpoint because the patient has put on some weight; he is a patient that presents no symptoms or signs of liver failure; his coagulation tests are normal – this is a test by means of which from a very early stage, hours after the liver is infected, you can see alterations in the coagulogram. We can say that he is a patient that has increased his weight; that he is a patient, as I was saying, with hemoglobin levels between 12 and 14 grams.
Felipe Pérez: His hemoglobin level today stands between 12 and 14.
Félix Báez: We ran a hemoglobin test on him less than 10 days ago and his level is 15.2.
Felipe Pérez: Doctor, if he had any cirrhosis of the liver, how would you know?
Félix Báez: We could know from the clinical standpoint, as I was explaining, through a series of clinical manifestations, such as weight loss, anemia, bleeding, symptoms of portal high-blood pressure; that is, an increase in blood circulation around the abdomen, veins on the skin; there can be esophageal veins that cause melena. He does not have any of it at the moment. He even had a recent endoscopy, where we detected chronic gastroduodenitis; he does not have any disruption in his esophageal veins; they are normal, and he is a patient in good health.
Felipe Pérez: Has he lost any weight this year?
Félix Báez: He has not lost any weight. I could say that he has put on some weight. He weighs 170 pounds, with a bodily mass index of 26. We can say that he is slightly overweight.
Felipe Pérez: Good. Could you describe to us his evolution in this period of care? How often do you see him? What kind of healthcare have you given him?
Félix Báez: We generally see him twice a week, on top of the times requested by the patient. When he has any symptoms or complaints, we stand ready to provide him with care.
Felipe Pérez: Twice a week. You, as an internal medicine specialist, go there and check up on him.
Félix Báez: I run a check-up on him there. Besides, if I think that another specialist should see him, we call them and they go there as well.
Felipe Pérez: Have other specialists seen him?
Félix Báez: He has been seen by the dermatologist, by the ENT specialist, by the gastroenterologist, by surgery professors and by hematology professors.
Felipe Pérez: All specialists?
Félix Báez: All specialists.
Felipe Pérez: Graduates.
Félix Báez: And many, besides that, with teaching degrees.
Felipe Pérez: Good. Could you tell me what tests have you done to him?
Félix Báez: Well, we have run a whole set of tests on him, as we say, routine stuff, such as hemograms, liver tests, coagulograms; he had brucellosis tests done as well to see if it was still active. And he has tested negative for all that. We have done diagnostic ultrasounds; we have done more than five CAT scans; we have taken some X-rays of the thorax, of the perinasal membranes, and other tests.
Felipe Pérez: Could you tell me if anything that should be done to a patient with this pathology has not been done because he is an inmate? Is there anything that has not been done to him because of his political position or because he is a convict?
Félix Báez: Negative, Minister. All necessary tests have been done to him.
Felipe Pérez: Good. Has he been charged any money for it?
Félix Báez: Everything has been absolutely free of charge.
Felipe Pérez: Have you had any contacts with his family?
Félix Báez: We have been in contact with his family.
Felipe Pérez: With whom?
Félix Báez: We have been in contact with his niece; his niece is an ICU doctor.
Felipe Pérez: She is also a doctor.
Félix Báez: A doctor.
Felipe Pérez: You have met with her.
Félix Báez: Yes, Mr. Minister.
Felipe Pérez: To explain this to her?
Félix Báez: Yes.
Felipe Pérez: Who else?
Félix Báez: His wife.
Felipe Pérez: Just once?
Félix Báez: I have really met with her just once.
Felipe Pérez: You sat down and explained all this to her.
Félix Báez: I sat down and explained all the medical information to her.
Felipe Pérez: Is there any test that should be done to him that has not been done yet?
Félix Báez: We could say that patient Oscar Espinosa Chepe must have a biopsy-related laparoscopy.
Felipe Pérez: He must have a liver-related biopsy laparoscopy. To detect what?
Félix Báez: To detect the degree of activity of his hepatopathology, because clinically, as we know, for 20 years, there has not been any sign of malignant disruption in that liver.
Felipe Pérez: It would be to rule out any type of malignant disruption, not only clinically but also through a test.
Félix Báez: To obtain a sample of his tissue. There is a difference between what we see or analyze and a sample of that tissue.
Felipe Pérez: That test has not been done yet. Why?
Félix Báez: That test has not been done yet because the patient has emphatically refused to have it done.
Felipe Pérez: And if the patient refuses?
Félix Báez: It is not done. Out of habit, not with this kind of patient, but with all patients, we resort to the so-called informed consent; that is, the patient decides for him or herself. This procedure is not cumbersome, but we do get the patient’s consent to do it. We could even say that if the patient is not ready to make a decision, we talk to the family as well to make that decision.
Felipe Pérez: That is, you would never do that on an unconscious patient, without the family’s authorization, without his or her consent, even if it is a simple test.
Félix Báez: Even if it is a simple test.
Felipe Pérez: But this test has not been done yet because he objects to it and his right is respected. Is that correct?
Félix Báez: Yes.
Felipe Pérez: Good. I thank you, Doctor Félix Báez.
The other case that has been talked about here is that of inmate Marta Beatriz Roque. There has also been a great deal of information and publicity about that, and I have also invited Doctor Annette Álvarez Pérez, a first-degree specialist in internal medicine from Carlos Juan Finlay Hospital. She is the doctor who takes care of patient Marta Beatriz Roque. And I have also asked her to come and give her testimony here.
Doctor, you are a medical graduate, from what year?
Annette Álvarez: 1992.
Felipe Pérez: And you are a first-degree specialist in internal medicine since what year?
Annette Álvarez: 2000.
Felipe Pérez: So, you have been an internal medicine specialist for four years now.
Besides that, how long have you been working at the hospital?
Annette Álvarez: Since 1997.
Felipe Pérez: Since when are you the doctor who treats inmate Marta Beatriz Roque?
Annette Álvarez: Since July 2003.
Felipe Pérez: Since July 2003, when she was confined to Carlos Juan Finlay Hospital. I also apologize to you. I know this is not your usual activity; but also in your case, as in the case of all Cuban doctors, your expertise and humanistic spirit is debased and called into question, and that is what has led me to ask you to come forward.
In the past, it has been said that patient Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello suffers from breast cancer, and it has also been said that she suffers from an ischemic cardiopathology. Is that true?
Annette Álvarez: She does not suffer from breast cancer; she has a breast condition treated with Vitamin E, one tablet a day.
Felipe Pérez: Is that breast condition a malignant pathology?
Annette Álvarez: It is not a malignant pathology.
Felipe Pérez: Is it breast cancer?
Annette Álvarez: It is not breast cancer.
Felipe Pérez: Can it turn into breast cancer?
Annette Álvarez: No.
Felipe Pérez: Is it a common pathology among women?
Annette Álvarez: Yes.
Felipe Pérez: Are women at a certain age prone to this disease?
Annette Álvarez: Yes, they are prone to it.
Felipe Pérez: Can it be emphatically said that patient Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello does not suffer from beast cancer?
Annette Álvarez: Yes. She does not suffer from breast cancer.
Felipe Pérez: In what state is her breast condition, stable, getting worse?
Annette Álvarez: She is stable; she does not have any symptoms of worsening or signs, for that matter. The latest ultrasounds done on her have not shown any aggravation of the disease, and she is undergoing cycles with Vitamin E.
Felipe Pérez: What is the right treatment for that pathology, doctor?
Annette Álvarez: Vitamin E.
Felipe Pérez: Is she taking it?
Annette Álvarez: Yes.
Felipe Pérez: How many tablets?
Annette Álvarez: A 400 mg. tablet per day.
Felipe Pérez: Who supplies it to her?
Annette Álvarez: At the hospital, she is hospitalized.
Felipe Pérez: Ischemic cardiopathology.
Can you tell us her real situation on the basis of her medical treatment?
Annette Álvarez: Marta Beatriz is a 57-year-old patient, with a history of high-blood pressure that started five years ago.
Felipe Pérez: That is, she started to suffer from high-blood pressure five years ago.
Annette Álvarez: Five years ago.
Felipe Pérez: Was she a patient suffering from high-blood pressure a year ago when she arrived in the hospital where you are taking care of her?
Annette Álvarez: She was already a patient suffering from high-blood pressure.
She had an irregular treatment with enalapril, two tablets a day.
Felipe Pérez: What does irregular treatment mean?
Annette Álvarez: That she did not do it on a daily basis.
Felipe Pérez: She did not take the pills on a daily basis; it was an irregular treatment in that previous period.
Annette Álvarez: We received her on 23 July at the hospital’s ER complaining of a chest plain, that she referred to as a pang, an intermittent pang, that did not move towards another part of the body and that had no other symptoms. When we did her physical, we noticed only through her physical that there were high levels of blood pressure. We then decided to leave the patient in the observation room and do an ECG.
When we did an ECG on the patient, we noticed that there was a complete block of the left side, which made us change the medical thinking. It was necessary to leave the patient under observation – because a high percentage of patients with a block of the left side have ischemic symptoms, although the pain that the patient was referring to was not indicative of coronary ischemia. Therefore, a decision was made to hospitalize the patient in an intermediate care unit. In this ward, her evolution was favorable; she did not have any more chest pains, but we continued to notice the complete block of the left side on the ECGs. However, since her evolution was favorable, we decided to transfer her to the detention area of Finlay Hospital.
Felipe Pérez: In this ward, doctor, where does she sleep?
Annette Álvarez: She sleeps in a room, a room that she shares with another patient, with a bed for each one, a hospital bed.
Felipe Pérez: Does she have a bathroom?
Annette Álvarez: She has a bathroom inside the room.
Felipe Pérez: Running water?
Annette Álvarez: She has running water.
Felipe Pérez: Does water come out of the tap in the sink?
Annette Álvarez: Twenty-four hours a day.
Felipe Pérez: Does she have a TV?
Annette Álvarez: Right now she has a TV.
Felipe Pérez: Where?
Annette Álvarez: In her room.
When she was already in her ward, a group of specialists met and decided to run an eco-stress test on her to rule out the possibility of a coronary ischemia. We had an appointment in another institution of the country where this is done. An eco-stress test was done on her.
Felipe Pérez: Where was it?
Annette Álvarez: At Hermanos Ameijeiras Hospital.
Felipe Pérez: She was taken to Hermanos Ameijeiras Hospital for an eco-stress test.
Annette Álvarez: That is where the eco-stress test was done.
Felipe Pérez: What is an eco-stress, please?
Annette Álvarez: The eco-stress is an ultrasound of the heart; the patient is at rest, but the heart is subjected to an effort, and during that effort to which the heart was subjected there was no evidence of an ischemic cardiopathology.
Felipe Pérez: Is that the test to determine if there is any ischemic cardiopathology?
Annette Álvarez: Yes. It was already ruled out from the clinical standpoint, because of the symptoms.
Felipe Pérez: This was an additional test.
Annette Álvarez: But this was a test that helped us – because we were in doubt with the previous ECG that we had run on her.
That test denies the possibility of an acute ischemic cardiopathology. That is, now we can say that Marta Beatriz does not have any ischemic cardiopathology; but she has some risk factors to suffer from it because she is overweight; her bodily mass index is 26; Marta Beatriz weighs 153 pounds and is 1.60 meters tall; that is, she is overweight.
Felipe Pérez: She is 1.60 meters tall and weighs 153 pounds. Has she lost any weight this year?
Annette Álvarez: No, she has not lost any weight.
Felipe Pérez: Has she put on some weight?
Annette Álvarez: Yes.
Felipe Pérez: And that is a risk factor?
Annette Álvarez: That is a risk factor. Besides, she has a risk factor because she suffers from high-blood pressure, with repercussions on the cardiovascular system. She has a hypertensive cardiopathology and diabetes type II. These are chronic diseases that are currently stable. She is under medical treatment.
Felipe Pérez: What treatment is she under, doctor, for her diabetes?
Annette Álvarez: She has a diet-reinforced treatment for her diabetes. Some 1,800 calories, plus a meat-based basal formula; she is currently taking 5 mg. glibenclamide, one tablet at breakfast only. She started with 3 tablets per day and is already taking a tablet per day. Possibly, next week she will keep her diet only.
Felipe Pérez: Why?
Annette Álvarez: Because she is well under control.
Felipe Pérez: You mean, her diabetes. And the treatment for the hypertensive cardiopathology; that is, the high-blood pressure condition she has?
Annette Álvarez: She is taking atenolol, 50 mg. twice a day.
Felipe Pérez: Can you tell us what her condition is at the moment?
Annette Álvarez: She is now stable and totally asymptomatic.
Felipe Pérez: How often do you see her?
Annette Álvarez: Twice a week and whenever she requests a medical appointment, with my specialty, because I am her GP, and I decide if other specialists need to see her. Sometimes she requests to have other specialists check up on her.
Felipe Pérez: Have other specialists seen her? Could you mention some of them?
Annette Álvarez: Yes, she has been seen by the gynecologist, by the maxillofacial and the allergy specialists.
Felipe Pérez: All specialists, doctor?
Annette Álvarez: All specialists.
Felipe Pérez: Have you had any contact with the patient’s family?
Annette Álvarez: No.
Felipe Pérez: Have other doctors been in contact with them?
Annette Álvarez: Yes, when she was in the intermediate care unit.
Felipe Pérez: Very good. I thank you, doctor. I reiterate my apologies for taking you away from your usual responsibilities. I apologize to you two for the idea suggested that the patients under your care could be treated in a cruel and inhumane manner, or that there were doubts about your devoting all your scientific talent and human endeavors to protecting the lives of those patients, even if they are inmates, even if they have worked at the service of the power that attacks their own people.
Thank you.
Finally, I would like to show you these other testimonies; it is a selection of testimonies obtained by Cuban reporters, who talked to some relatives. I will hand these images to the media later on.
(video shown)

Interview with Teresa López Bañobre,
sister of convict Marcelo López Bañobre

Interviewer.- Well, how is your brother? When did you see him last?
Sister.- I saw my brother last around 15 days ago, at the most. He was here at home. He was brought in by the people who are taking care of him and he came on a furlough, because my dad is in very bad health and I myself asked if it was possible to consider, I don’t know…He was brought in. He was here an hour and a half approximately.
Interviewer.- Here in the house?
Sister.- Here in the house. He was with us.
He’s doing very well; he’s doing very well; he’s put on more pounds than ever in his life.
My brother was always a very slim person and he’s now weighing 60 kilos, right? He’s weighing 60 kilos; he used to weigh 48 or 49; that’s the most weight he’s had. He’s got good care, good treatment; he acknowledges that much.
I’ve got letters from him in which he says that he’s not been offended, vexed or debased; that he has been treated with respect. And regardless of what he says, one can sense that because his peace of mind tells you so, right? He’s actually in jail, because he’s deprived of the freedom to move; he’s not doing badly; not doing badly; he’s not…
Interviewer.- Do you see him often? That is, how often can you see visit with him in jail?
Sister.- Look, the frequency of the visits, in this case, is every three months, right? The visit is every three months, three hours approximately; sometimes they give you some extra time.
What happens? In his case, he’s been able, for various reasons, to see us almost every month; we’ve had to go on account of a legal problem, a subpoena. My mom went and she was allowed a few minutes to talk to him. On his birthday, my mother went there to take him cigarettes and she was also allowed to spend some time with him. And he knows that, because he has kept track of it. Between the conjugal visits and our visits, my brother has had a visit every month.
Interviewer.- Does he have conjugal visits too? Does he have that facility?
Sister.- Yes, yes, he’s allowed conjugal visits.
He had a CAT scan and a neurological study. In his own words, the CAT scan went normal, as he said here the week before last when he was here, but a recommendation was made for the neurological studies to continue.
I think that my brother would concede to anyone that he has not been harassed, vexed, beaten. My brother has not been abandoned; my brother has been treated with respect, with commiseration, and we’ve been treated with respect and commiseration.

Interview with Mireya Pentón Orozco,
mother of Léster González Pentón

Interviewer.- Mireya, I’ve come to see you to know how your son is doing, how his health is doing, how he’s being treated.
Mireya Pentón Orozco.- Well, he’s in very fine health because he’s young and, so far, he hasn’t had any ailments. He’s fine.
He’s been taken care of; I can’t say he hasn’t been taken care of; he has – and lately, he has even been taken out on a furlough. He’s been taken to a medical check-up. His mouth problem was dealt with. He had a few bad teeth pulled out to have his dentures in place.
Now, he told me that he just got some infection; but, well, he’s under a treatment with oxacillin and we hope that he’ll get over it. He’s got to wait 25 days, I think, to have his dentures made.
He’s been holding up pretty well there and his health has been all right up to now.
Interviewer.- Do you write each other letters often?
Mireya Pentón Orozco.- Well, we do, although the letters sometimes take a while, back and forth.
Well, I’ve been told that sometimes it’s also a post office problem, I don’t know what – because, well, when I have a situation I go to the prison headquarters and get an explanation, and I demand that an explanation be given to me because I deserve it as a mother – and then, what I’ve been told so far is that there are some mailing problems.
Interviewer.- How are you treated when you go to the prison authorities? How’s your relationship with them?
Mireya Pentón Orozco.- No, I haven’t had any problems in that respect. I’m going to tell the truth: I’ve always been treated pretty well. I’ve always gone there and get an explanation on the situation I have.
Interviewer.- Has he received the benefit of conjugal visits?
Mireya Pentón Orozco.- Yes, conjugal visits are every five months for three hours. Three hours every five months.

Interview with Dulce María Amador,
wife of Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández

Interviewer.- Dulce María, have you been able to visit Carmelo?
Dulce María Amador.- Yes. He was detained on 19 March 2003. I used to go to Villamarista (the detention center) every Wednesday, where I was given an hour. I saw him there, we chatted and I gave him food for lunch at that moment: coffee, juice, that sort of stuff.
The trial was on 4 April and he was transferred to Guanajay Penitentiary on 23 April. As soon as we found out, we went to Guanajay the following day. Carmelo’s daughter, who is a doctor, and myself. And we were allowed to see him right away, the following day, without any prior notice or anything. And we spent an hour talking to him on that cleanup visit, which is a prison regulation.
Interviewer.- Did you take him anything?
Dulce María Amador.- Yes, indeed, I took him lunch, juice and some toiletries.
Interviewer.- Were you allowed to take that in without any hassle?
Dulce María Amador.- Everything was passed on to him. I’ve never had any problems in Guanajay trying to pass anything in.
Afterwards, I’ve kept going there to visit him every three months. Conjugal visits in Guanajay have been every four months, not like in other penitentiaries where the regulation is every five; I’ve had conjugal visits in Guanajay every four months and the regular visits every three.
Interviewer.- Dulce, about the medical treatment he’s received, what does Carmelo say about that?
Dulce María Amador.- Well, Carmelo told me that he’s got no complaints. On this last visit, on 4 April, we spent two hours together and he told me: “Dulce, I’m not feeling bad, I’m doing very well because the hospital facilities are very good.” And Carmelo’s daughter went to the hospital. I stayed on the visit with the son-in-law and with him talking about things and she went to see the hospital. Later on, she told me that the place was very clean, very organized, very neat and that the care is good. And he told me that he’s doing fine, with his ailments, of course, because he’s got them; but, well, he’s feeling all right; he’s being very well taken care of.
Interviewer.- Has he been allowed to have his Bible?
Dulce María Amador.- Yes, he’s got a Bible.
Interviewer.- What else?
Dulce María Amador.- He’s got the Bible since he was in Villa (the detention center). I took it to him the first week I went, the first Wednesday. It was my turn to go every Wednesday. I took him the The New Word, a magazine published by the Catholic Church; those little leaflets handed out every week at all services. I go to his church (Cristo de Limpia, in Corrales, between Egido and Monserrate). That’s his church. I go there every Sunday and then take him all the religious literature – and I haven’t had a problem with that so far. Besides, he asks me to do it.
Interviewer.- Books, other magazines?
Dulce María Amador.- Books, magazines. I generally take him regular books, some historical, because he doesn’t like to read garbage; yes, I do take him a lot of literature to keep him amused, particularly historical stuff. That’s the literature he likes.

Interview with Gisela Delgado,
wife of Héctor Palacios

Interviewer.- Gisela, have you been able to see your husband recently?
Gisela Delgado.- I saw him yesterday. He’s hospitalized at Pinar del Río provincial facility, in the detention area, because he had a gallbladder operation on 19 February.
Interviewer.- And, for example, he was operated on and received medical care.
Gisela Delgado.- Well, I think that was the very right thing to do; it was only human for him to receive medical care.
Interviewer.- And how was that medical care?
Gisela Delgado.- I can’t complain, because they were civilian doctors, although we know that the hospital was taken over by the police; they call it special troops. Security agents were present; there were many officers inside the operating room and also outside.
Interviewer.- But you told me, indeed, that you had no complaints about the medical care.
Gisela Delgado.- The medical care was good, I think, because of what I saw the doctors doing. I was able to talk to them, not because the police made it possible; it really wasn’t that way. I arrived in Pinar del Río and had to locate the doctor’s house because I couldn’t reach him at the hospital. And I was able to talk to the doctor before he was operated on.
Interviewer.- And what did you talk to the doctor about?
Gisela Delgado.- I mainly asked him about his health. We are not people to compromise others with our ideas. I mean, our ideas are ours. If you ask me, I tell you. It’s not that I come up with something every now and then. And I asked him about his health, mainly, if he could take the operation and what the odds were.
Interviewer.- And what did the doctor tell you?
Gisela Delgado.- He told me that he didn’t think that Héctor was an exception in these cases; that his gallbladder was full of stones and that the operation was imminent because he had many small stones that could come out of the bile duct, out of the gallbladder and into any duct. The way my husband and I see it, we’ve been well taken care of by the orderlies, the nurses, the doctors.
Interviewer.- Did you make any special request to that doctor when you talked to him?
Gisela Delgado.- We know that here in Cuba that minimum access operation exists, that it was being performed in the province. The doctor in charge of the prison, Doctor Pozo, told me that it was being done in the province, that there was no need to transfer him to the City of Havana, that it was being done there and that they were going to try minimum access and refrain from the conventional operation in which the abdomen is cut up.
Interviewer.- That is, the doctors agreed to use the minimum access technique.
Gisela Delgado.- Yes, yes, there was a minimum access specialist. Doctor Dopico and Doctor Montes de Oca. I talked to them when they came out of the operating room. They told me that nothing had gone wrong, that the operation had taken an hour, that they had made it, that this posed no other serious risk to the internal organs, that what they saw as surgeons was that everything had gone well.
Interviewer.- But the truth is that he’s received good medical care and that you and your husband are grateful for that care. You were saying so a while ago.
Gisela Delgado.- I guess I can’t say the opposite because, above all, these people worked very well both humanely and professionally. It all seems that Héctor’s recovery is very good.

Interview with Margarita Borges,
wife of Edel José García Díaz

Interviewer.- María Margarita, how many times have you visited Edel?
María Margarita Borges.- Well, five visits as such.
Interviewer.- Have you been allowed conjugal visits?
María Margarita Borges.- Yes, conjugal visits are every five months and the visits every three months. Conjugal visits are every five months for three hours and the visits for two hours.
Interviewer.- Do you take him anything to eat? Do they let you take it in? What can you take?
María Margarita Borges.- Well, yes, so far I’ve had no problems with the things that I’ve been able to take to him.
Interviewer.- And what’s his medical care like now?
María Margarita Borges.- Well, the medical care he’s had has always been good; he’s never complained of the treatment given by the doctors.
Interviewer.- And what about the doctors’ treatment towards you? Have they given you any explanations at all?
María Margarita Borges.- Yes, so far the doctors have explained everything to me that relates to him. I even met with the psychiatrist that sees him in Santiago and she told me all about his situation. So far, the treatment that he’s had from the doctors and stuff has been good.
Interviewer.- What else have you been allowed to give or pass to him?
María Margarita Borges.- The food and the toiletries. I’ve passed everything on to him. No problems there.
Interviewer.- And what has he said to you? What has he told you about the treatment inside? Has he ever complained of abuse?
María Margarita Borges.- Well, he’s never complained of any abuse – and the treatment to him and to myself so far has been respectful. He’s never told me of any disrespectful treatment or anything. And, well, yes, it’s only logical that he feels bad there, though the treatment is good, because, well, he’s in jail – and one of the reasons that I understand is that he shouldn’t be in jail; that’s what I think about this, right? But, well, so far the treatment has been good. There hasn’t been any problem even when I’ve gone to see the head of the unit over any situation. The treatment has been good.
Interviewer.- Hey, María Margarita, and, for example, when he has needed some medication, have they asked you for it, have they told you to buy it yourself?
María Margarita Borges.- No, so far all medications he’s needed have been supplied there.
Interviewer.- Free of charge?
María Margarita Borges.- Yes, free of charge. I’ve also taken some medications to him that they have allowed me to take through to him.
Interviewer.- Do you know of any other health treatments or medical check-ups?
María Margarita Borges.- Yes, as he’s told me, they’re constantly taking blood samples, weighing him, taking his blood pressure; he’s been taken to the dentist, have had some teeth filled; so far that’s what he’s told me.
Interviewer.- Well, how have you been treated when you’ve gone to see him in prison, when you’ve requested to see him?
María Margarita Borges.- Well, I’ve never made any request to see him because so far I’ve made my visits every three months and, well, the treatment has been good. I’ve even had my doubts about something and I’ve called the head of the unit and told him and, well, so far they’ve respected me and I treat them with the same respect that I get from them.

Interview with Ileana Marrero Jova,
wife of Omar Rodríguez

Interviewer.- How’s your husband? Have you been able to see him recently?
Ileana Marrero Jova.- Yes, recently, I saw him on 14 February and he’s in good health, considering the circumstances; his mood is all right, but, well, he’s still detained there.
Interviewer.- How often can you see him?
Ileana Marrero Jova.- Every three months.
Interviewer.- How are the officers taking care of him in prison?
Ileana Marrero Jova.- His mood and health are fine. Well, they treat him well, with respect; so far, nothing major has happened; I don’t know, they treat him well; for the time being, they’re taking good care of him.
Interviewer.- I want to know if you’ve found your husband tortured or physically injured.
Ileana Marrero Jova.- No, I haven’t found him physically injured, of course not.

Interview with Beatriz del Carmen Pedroso León,
wife of convict Julio César Gálvez Rodríguez

Interviewer.- How’s your husband, Beatriz?
Beatriz del Carmen Pedroso León.- My husband is fine, I see him fine. He had a gallbladder operation to remove a stone and I see him fine.
Interviewer.- Has he been recovering all right?
Beatriz del Carmen Pedroso León.- He’s been recovering all right; he was operated on more than 48 hours ago and I see him all right, recovered, with good food and in a good mood; his high blood pressure has abated; he’s sedated.
Interviewer.- Have you been able to see him systematically all this time he’s been in detention?
Beatriz del Carmen Pedroso León.- Yes, I have, I’ve been able to see him; I’ve been allowed some visits and I’ve been able to see him and talk to him; the visits have been very fruitful because we’ve been able to share and exchange views and opinions – and he’s said no, even this time that I came I didn’t have to bring him food; I brought him juice and stuff, but he had everything he needed. He had good food and that…

Felipe Pérez: Well, we said that we were going to hand those images to the media on tape. We are also going to deliver to the press the transcript of those testimonies, as well as the text of the US resolution on Cuba.
I only have two questions left, in all earnest, will all due respect, as always.
I wonder why testimonies like these have not been published, why in the course of a year not even a single news bureau, not even once, has managed to obtain a testimony of this nature, as obtained with all due respect by the reporters of our national television. I wonder if it was because these people were not available or did not want to meet with the press – because the testimony of some people appears in the international media every day.
I wonder and I ask you: why has not a testimony like this been published, not even once? I am not saying that others should not come out, those that have said that there is no medical care, that those people are in dungeons. I agree that those can come out; the question is why never this viewpoint appears.
I wonder and I ask you, not to get a reply right away, but for you to consider, by sleeping on it, whether Cuba is right or not in saying that there is a campaign; whether Cuba is right or not in saying that the private media driven by specific interests, not friends of Cuba, is keen on conveying a distorted vision.
I am not asking why the media coverage is not favorable to Cuba, I am not demanding that much; I am not demanding any complacent or friendly coverage towards Cuba, but I wonder if there could be any objective and balanced coverage, that could also show this side of the coin. Our reporters have gone there very easily and have asked questions, with the press release of a news agency, where those names were listed, reportedly the most serious. Well, I have been told that some did not want to provide any testimony. Correct, that is their right; but the question, that I would like to leave hanging in the air here today, is why not a single word has been uttered about that in the course of a year. Who has set the ban? Because I know that the correspondents would never lend themselves to a scheme in which the truth is kept concealed, exonerating each correspondent here. The question is: why has that not appeared ever?
I am not scolding you; I am just launching a prayer in search of the truth.
The second question is: Could it be published now? Will these images be seen, as others have been seen, on a daily basis, or at least once, on TV channels? That lasts 19 minutes. After all the debate that there has been, would it not be worth playing 8 or 10 minutes of that on any TV channel from around the world? Will it be done? Will a front page and a screaming headline be devoted to it?
I am going to give you the transcript in Spanish, English and French, so that it can make the cover of a newspaper tomorrow.
Will editorials be written on the information that I have provided here? That is the question that I would like to leave hanging in the air.
I am not going to complain about what has happened. I wonder if from now on it is going to be published, if it will come out into the open, if the truth that Cuba presents will prevail. Because the truth must be the guide of all compasses.
The truth is what has brought the Cuban Revolution all the way here and what will continue to take it forward until we defeat the blockade and the aggression unleashed against our people.
I usually answer your questions; however, today, since I have been the one to leave the questions floating around, I would like to thank you all for coming. I think we have provided you with a lot of information, and I thank you all.
Moderator: Thank you very much, Minister, for your information.