The assumption of office of the Reagan administration in the United States, in the 80s of the past century, imposed significant tactical changes on US strategies aiming to overthrow Cuba’s revolutionary government.

Overnight, renowned terrorists and CIA agents of Cuban origin made their appearance, supplied with disguises —not to mention offices, “organizations” and connections in international NGOs— of human rights defenders and “peaceful anti-Castro opponents”.

As though by magic, with the funding and guidance of the United States government, so-called activists and human rights groups made an appearance in Cuba. These individuals, recruited and financed as any other mercenary, carry out missions dictated by the United States, with the aim of destroying the constitutional order chosen by Cubans and complying with the provisions of the Helms-Burton Act, which not only contains a complex provision of extra-territorial scope designed to ruin Cuba’s economy, but also, in Chapters I and II, establishes the principles of the “new juridical and constitutional order” that would be imposed on Cubans in a future “independent” Cuba.

The aggressiveness of these groups and the seriousness of their actions as a fifth column set against the social project of self determination undertaken by Cubans has grown with the presence of ultra-conservative and militaristic groups of the extreme right in the Reagan, Bush (father) and W. Bush administrations.

In the case of George W. Bush, the imperialist cravings of the circles making up his government were supplemented by the quotas of power conceded to its protégé, the Cuban American terrorist mob, during the time of his administration, as reward for the decisive role this one played in the fraudulent unfolding of the year 2000´s presidential elections in Florida.

In the past three years, the government imposed on the United States with the assumption of office of W. Bush has brought about a tightening of the blockade and a harshening of hostile policies toward Cuba that know no precedent, more public and covert interventionist actions, threatening declarations by top-ranking government officials and, in particular, a growing and direct involvement of its diplomatic personnel in Havana in attempts at destabilizing Cuba´s constitutional order and the exponential growth of official funds destined to these operations.

Cuba recognizes that the mercenaries recruited by the United States in the island to carry out its policy of domination against the Cuban people lack any potential
—being rejected by all of society and lacking autonomous social foundations and an independent social project— to become, in and of themselves, a veritable challenge to Cuba´s revolutionary process. Nevertheless, it appreciates the danger inherent to the possibility that their activities be utilized, by way of the US government´s proven manipulative capacity in the mass media, as a pretext to carry out or support an eventual military action in Cuba, a possibility which has become very real and threatening.

The increased magnitude and aggressiveness that we have witnessed in the US government´s campaign of disinformation and lies against Cuba since the second half of March of 2003 comes consequently as little surprise. It finds its origin in the arrest, on the 18th and 19th of March 2003, and subsequent trial, on the 4th, 5th and 7th of April, of 75 of the mercenaries recruited, funded, trained and commanded, in Cuba, by the government of this superpower. These mercenaries were conducting actions aimed at overthrowing the political, economic and social order constitutionally adopted by the Cuban people through a universal 1976 referendum backed by overwhelming popular support, adopted, that is to say, two centuries after the adoption of the US Constitution still in force today, whose text, it is well worth mentioning, was never scrutinized by a significant sector of that nation, African Americans, women and people of low income to be included therein.

The campaign —persisting to the present day and seeing the cynical, confederate and active support of various governments of the “coalition of the willing” that invaded and continues its occupation of Iraq— has made use of sophisticated techniques of disinformation developed by nazifascism, unjustifiably and repeatedly vesting the justly convicted mercenaries with false epithets, such as “dissidents”, “peaceful political opponents”, “human rights defenders”, “anti-governmental or non-conformist intellectuals”, “journalists, librarians or independent unionists”. According to these campaigns, they were “arbitrarily and unjustly” arrested and convicted for the simple and “peaceful exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, opinion and association”.

The anti-Cuba campaign has known no limits. It has resorted, even, to drafting false denunciations of these facts through mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. One of the themes pursued was embodied by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Despite having received from the Cuban government irrefutable proof of the respect for the right and principle of due process that characterized the arrest and trial of the more than 70 mercenaries at the service of the United States, this group decided to ratify the false allegations fabricated by US agents and to declare as arbitrary the arrest of their mercenaries in Cuba.

Both the Charter of the United Nations and the two international agreements on human rights —in their provisions binding for Party States— recognize that “all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of this right they freely establish their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”, and that all States shall promote and respect this right in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations. In conformity with and by virtue of the exercise of this right, the Cuban people have established their Constitution and their laws. No one has the right to question the constitutional order adopted by a people in the exercise of their sovereignty. No one has the right to judge the actions of the Cuban people in ignorance of the permanent and serious threat posed by the United State’s hostility toward their independent existence as nation.

As in the case of any other nation, the Cuban people resort in these circumstances to the right to defend themselves against the acts of political, diplomatic, economic, commercial, financial, radio and television hostility perpetrated for over four decades by the United States. Were not special legislative provisions and decrees adopted by European nations in view of the threat posed by fascism in the region during the 30s and 40s of the past century? Why did no one question the juridical provisions and measures adopted by the United States and countries in Western Europe during the so-called “Cold War” in order to suppress the alleged “communist peril”, many of which continue to be in effect?

Why does no one condemn the provisions of the Logan Law, included in chapter 45, title 18, part 1 of the US Code of Crimes and Criminal Procedure? Said provision states that any US citizen anywhere who, without the authorization of the US government, directly or indirectly takes up or maintains any kind of correspondence with any foreign government, official or agent, in connection with any dispute or difference with the United States, shall be fined in accordance with that provision, jailed for a period of up to three years or both.

The United States bars its citizens from maintaining any form of correspondence with any foreign government in connection with any dispute or simple difference that affects them. At the same time, it expects Cuba to tolerate the recruitment and the activities of mercenaries that not only maintain correspondence with but also follow instructions from and carry out missions for the foreign superpower that levels a policy of hostility and aggression against it, aimed at overthrowing its legitimately elected authorities and at destroying its constitutional order.

The rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as they appear it article 29, cannot, in any case, be exercised in contraposition to the objectives and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including sovereign equality, independence and the territorial integrity of all nations.

To request that Cuba set free or reduce the severity of the sentences of those who were judged and convicted by competent and independent courts, in compliance with laws adopted by their Parliament, is tantamount to requesting that it interfere with the functioning of its judicial system. This would violate not only Cuba´s constitution but all internationally pertinent principles on the independence of the judiciary as well.

On April 17, 2003, the Commission on Human Rights decisively rejected, with 31 votes against and a mere 15 in favor, an initiative presented by Costa Rica at the behest of the United States, aimed at questioning the legality of the measures adopted by Cuba against the mercenaries, in exercise of its right to legitimate defense. Beyond the Commission, not even within the scope of the Organization of American States, has the US managed to impose a critical pronouncement on the necessary and exceptional measures of self-defense adopted by Cuba against the actions of the salaried mercenaries of the superpower.

The Truth about the Trials

. Twenty-nine trials were held in Cuba, in different provinces across the nation, in which 75 people were accused: 74 men and one woman. The courts handed down jail sentences of 6 to 28 years. Nowhere was the death penalty, nor a life sentence, handed down, as anti-Cuba propaganda has falsely divulged, despite the serious crimes that were committed and the dangers to Cuba´s national security these entail.

. The police officers that detained the mercenaries did not resort to any kind of violence or the use of force, not even minimal. Knowing the nature of the crime perfectly well and bereft of any moral justification or principle of dignity, the mercenaries did not offer any resistance to the arrests.

. The penal proceedings were carried out summarily, in view of the seriousness of the circumstances and by virtue of Law No. 5 of 1977, Law of Penal Proceedings.

. In accordance with Cuban legislation and judicial norms, a summary trial signifies the power of the Supreme Court President to shorten the period of the trial; in no case does it imply the curtailing of judicial guarantees.

. All of the accused were previously informed of the charges filed against them and had the opportunity, as all who are accused in Cuba, to plead their case before trial. That these individuals were told the charges against them at the time of trial is completely untrue.

. All of the accused exercised their right to a defense attorney that, according to Cuban legislation, can be designated by the accused or, failing this, appointed by the court. Fifty-four defense attorneys participated in these trials, 44 of them, 80 % of the total, designated by the accused or their families. Only 10 defense attorneys were court-appointed. The claim that the right of the mercenaries to a competent defense was curtailed is false.

. Contrary to what is alleged in anti-Cuba propaganda campaigns, all of the accused exercised their right to be heard in an oral trial before ordinary civilian courts that had been previously assembled, in conformity with Cuban and international legislation. No special, ad hoc tribunal was created to judge them, nor were special or ad hoc judges appointed.

. No secret trials were held. The oral hearings for all of the trials were public and adversarial. Nearly 100 people, on average, participated in them, that is to say, nearly 3 000 people in total, chiefly made up of relatives, witnesses, experts and other Cuban citizens.

. It is true that a few accredited foreign diplomats in Havana were not present at the trials by decision of the judges, as no foreigner was being put on trial, only Cubans. The Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations only envisage consular access to trials in cases where the detained are foreigners.

. The relevant courts, by virtue of their prerogatives, decided to deny access to the press, due to the information relating to national security that would be handled during the trials and to prevent publicity from interfering with the impartiality and objectivity of the court’s functioning.

. Nevertheless, the press was informed of these trials in detail. On April 9, 2003, two days after the last of the trials held, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, Felipe Pérez Roque, offered a long and detailed press conference that saw the participation of 82 journalists belonging to the accredited foreign press, representing 59 media from 22 different countries, and all of the national press. During this conference, the Cuban chancellor, making use of video and audio tapes and other kinds of documentary evidence presented at the trials, informed the press of the circumstances and development of the trials in question and answered questions posed by reporters.

. A book entitled “Dissidents” was also published in Cuba; the book included the testimonies of 8 Cubans who, voluntarily and in compliance with the dictates of their patriotic conscience, provided Cuban State Security with extensive information on the activities that the 75 tried and convicted mercenaries were conducting against Cuba’s constitutional order. These 8 honest Cubans, committed to the cause of their people, “allowed themselves to be recruited” as alleged mercenaries by the US Interests Section in Havana and “joined” the ranks of a number of subversive organizations created by the United States in Cuba. In said organizations, they reached important positions and received a significant share of the money channeled by the superpower’s administration to pay for their services. Their testimonies confirm the facts stated in this report. (See: “Dissidents”. Rosa Miriam Elizalde and Luis Báez. Editora Política Publishing House. Havana. 2003).

. All of the accused and their defense attorneys exercised the right to submit the evidence and present the witnesses they considered favorable to them, in addition to those presented by the investigative officers and the prosecution. The defense attorneys presented 28 different witnesses of those called on by the prosecution; of these, 22, the immense majority, were authorized to act as witnesses by the courts.

. All of the defense attorneys had prior access to the prosecution’s files.

. As established in Cuba’s legislation and as notified at the time of trial, all of the accused had the right —as exercised by the majority— to appeal to a court higher than that responsible for their trial, in this case, before the Supreme Court.
. The seizure and confiscation of possessions all were authorized by a court order and always carried out following proof of their illicit origin.

. In all trial stages, the most scrupulous respect for the physical and moral integrity of each and every one of the accused was maintained. All of them have enjoyed and continue to receive medical care, including specialized services, absolutely free of charge, as do all other Cubans.

. There isn’t a shred of evidence suggesting that any form of coercion, pressure, threat or blackmail was used to obtain the declarations and the confessions of the accused.

. During his oral hearing, after the court had reminded him of his right to declare or abstain from declaring or from responding to a specific question if he so wished, one of the accused freely declared: “I would like to comment here, before this court, on the adequate treatment that we’ve received from State Security authorities within the investigative organs, to say it was a just treatment, we have not been provoked, we have not been mistreated at any time”. To this, he added: “…and to express my thanks for this just treatment, for the fact that we’ve received excellent medical attention three times a day and that the doctors have come to our cells in view of any pain or health complication we’ve experienced. They’ve conceded us contact with our relatives and, well, we’ve had extensive contact with our defense attorneys, they’ve given us all the time in the world to converse with them”.

Medical care offered the mercenaries in prison. The truth about some of the most renowned cases in the deceptive anti-Cuba campaigns.

. Like all of Cuba’s penal population, the convicted enjoy adequate emergency medical services in all penitentiary facilities, which, in some cases, include hospitals that offer surgical services. As is established and generally practiced in Cuba, in the more complex cases that have required costly examinations or specialized treatments, the mercenaries have been transported to and admitted into regular public hospitals, where all Cuban citizens receive medical care free of all discrimination.

. The afflictions that some of the convicted suffer from were contracted prior to their arrest. None of them suffers from any condition that would prohibit reclusion.

. In all cases reporting illnesses, relatives have received timely information from medical personnel on the evolution and treatment of the disease and the medical attention that has been offered in each of the cases.

. We can take as example the case of Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe, who, according to media campaigns promoted by the United States, was suffering from hepatic cirrhosis and was in serious medical condition due to inadequate medical attention. We must stress that this, as many other allegations of medical assistance that has been denied the 75 mercenaries, is completely false.

. As the government of Cuba informed one the organs of the Commission on Human Rights, once Espinosa Chepe’s relatives had submitted a summary of his medical record a few weeks following his detention, Cuban authorities immediately proceeded to re-locate him, on April 20, to the inmate’s ward of the Carlos J. Finlay Military Hospital in Havana.

Following this, on May 12, he was admitted into the inmate’s ward of the “Agostinho Neto” Hospital, for the purposes of conducting a hepatic study, which revealed that Espinosa Chepe does not suffer from hepatic cirrhosis, as has been alleged, but rather from a hepatic granulomatosis, which does not interfere with the normal functioning of the liver and was caused by a Brucelosis, contracted before his imprisonment.

Visits from relatives were authorized during his stay in the hospital. On May 22, 2003, his niece, Ileana Moreno Espinosa, a doctor, was conceded a meeting with the Chief of Medical Services of the Provincial Ministry of the Interior and with the doctor from the “Agostinho Neto” Hospital who was directly treating Espinosa Chepe. In this interview, Dr. Moreno Espinosa was presented the details of the medical examinations conducted and their results, as well as those which were still pending; she expressed satisfaction with the report.

Despite the medical follow-up that Espinosa Chepe has been subjected to, he himself has refused to submit to a number of tests that would be useful to a more profound analysis of his health. On May 29, 2003, he refused to submit to a gastroscopy and other routine tests that had been prescribed with the aim of evaluating the digestive problems he was presenting.

On May 31, he was hospitalized in the inmate’s ward of the “Ambrosio Grillo” Hospital with the aim of carrying out more extensive medical examinations. On this occasion, a computerized axial tomography, urine analysis, renal system check-up, gastroscopy, an ultrasound, erythrosedimentation analysis, rectal, liver, bilirubin and glomerular filtrate analyses were recommended.

Espinosa Chepe has refused to submit to other prescribed analyses, such as a laparoscopy and a biopsy of liver and pancreas, an analysis of colonic edema, and a gastroscopy, claiming these would bring him complications.

Espinosa Chepe´s medical condition is stable and wholly compatible with the conditions of reclusion in which he finds himself.

. Just as much could be said in connection with the campaign of false allegations regarding the mistreatment and inadequate medical attention and treatment allegedly encountered by Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, who reportedly suffers from high blood pressure and an ischemic cardiopathy.

As indicated, she was to be re-evaluated by the practitioner every three months. However, it was decided that a specialist in internal medicine was to examine her every 15 days and that the prison doctor was to do so every week.

Roque Cabello has had periodic contact with her relatives, who have received precise and detailed information from the facility’s doctor about her medical condition and the treatment that she receives.

However, in July of 2003, Roque Cabello began turning down the medical attention, medicine and diet that she was being offered in prison, accepting only those that were delivered or sent by her relatives.

On July 22, she was re-located to the “Carlos J. Finlay” Military Hospital, upon presenting a high blood pressure and chest pains; she was subjected to two echocardiograms.

Due to reported chest pains, a computerized axial tomography and an electrocardiogram were conducted on July 27. Both yielded negative results, that is to say, neither revealed any life-threatening complication, as anti-Cuba propaganda has divulged. The doctors prescribed her the appropriate diet and medication.

That same 27th of July, during the visit of her niece, Maria de los Ángeles Falcón Cabello, the head of the hospital ward detailed the inmate’s condition, the prescribed treatment, the results of the analyses, the examinations conducted and the new tests that were to be conducted.

On July 28, a new medical exam conducted determined that her vital signs were stable and that her blood sugar levels remained high, in view of which the doctors decided that she should begin a diet for diabetics.

Roque Cabello’s medical condition is stable and wholly compatible with the conditions of reclusion in which she finds herself.

. As can be appreciated, these and all other inmates enjoyed the surest and amplest guarantee of quality medical attention. They are admitted into regular public hospitals whenever their condition requires it; there, like all Cuban citizens, they are submitted, entirely free of charge, to costly and sophisticated medical examinations employing high-tech equipment, being prescribed and receiving the medication that they require.

Unionists, “independent” journalists and librarians, or simple mercenaries?

. The mercenaries who were convicted were neither “unionists” nor “journalists”, and much less “independent librarians”, as the enemies of the Cuban Revolution have repeated ad nauseum. The one, common denominator that defines them is a merciless thirst for money and the absence of any scruple when it comes to obtaining it. They have no qualms, even, about betraying their people by offering their services to the foreign power that seeks to strangle it economically and to destroy its project of independence and sovereignty.

. Of the 37 convicted who had supposedly acted as “independent journalists”, only 4 had actually studied journalism and held the position at one point in their lives.

. Not one of them was a union leader nor could have been, because the overwhelming majority of those convicted had not, of his or her own decision, performed any kind of work for several years. They lived off the money that they received for carrying out mercenary missions at the service of the US government and of the Cuban American terrorist mob in Miami. Not one of them had any contact whatsoever with a worker’s collective or group within Cuba; ergo, they could not have performed any union-related tasks. No group of workers ever elected them as the representatives of its interests.

. Claims of the supposed existence of “independent libraries” in Cuba are sheer nonsense. Few countries in the world have created as many public libraries as has Cuba, with as ample catalogues of books to be utilized free of charge by anyone who’s interested. Few countries in the world have published so many volumes, written by authors of the most diverse regions of the world, to sell them at as low prices as Cuba does.

Not counting the libraries that operate today in practically all schools and universities, nearly 400 public libraries are in operation throughout Cuba. In 2003, over 2000 volumes and nearly 30 million copies were printed. In the 2004 International Book Fair alone, 5 million copies were sold at prices incomparably lower than any one may encounter in any other nation in the world in 34 of the nation's cities, including over 1 000 volumes of the best universal literature.

Following in situ studies on alleged “independent libraries” in Cuba, professional international and American organizations have corroborated the falsity of allegations circulated by anti-Cuba campaigns. Not one of the convicted mercenaries is a librarian, let alone an independent one.

At the General Assembly of the IFLA held in Boston in 2001, through a resolution approved with over 86 % of votes and at the request of American and Cuban librarians, it was decided that we should “Urge the US Government to share information materials widely in Cuba, especially with Cuba’s libraries, and not just with ‘individuals and independent non-governmental organizations’ that represent US political interests” (See: Web page of Cuba's Jose Marti National Library, http://www.bnjm.cu/bnjm/espanol/index.e.asp and web page of Librinsula , digital publication of the Jose Marti National Library relating to this topic, http://www.bnjm.cu/librinsula/2004/febrero/08/index.htm.)

This resolution clearly described the supposed “independent librarians” as representatives of US political interests in Cuba. Furthermore, it urged the Government of the United States to put an end to the harmful practice of denying the vast majority of Cuban citizens access to the US literature of their interest, and, in particular, of denying so sensitive a sector as healthcare access to scientific and academic publications.

This resolution was backed by the special reports that the IFLA’s Committee on Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) presented in 1999 and 2001, as well as by FAIFE’s and ALA’s (American Librarian Association) visit to Cuba, the latter participating in a free tour of the nation and its libraries. In the presentation titled “US-funded Dissent and the "Independent Libraries Project" in Cuba” presented before the Cuba Today Panel of the Pacific Coast Council for Latin American Studies at Los Angeles’ East University from the 8th to the 9th of November of 2002, Rhonda L. Neugebauer, bibliographist for the University of California in Riverside, gave testimony of her visit in Cuba, in the year 2000, to over a dozen of the so-called “independent libraries” and the country’s public libraries, in the company of Larry Orberg, librarian for the University o Willamette.

What follows is a fragment of this presentation:

“By interviewing the owners of these “libraries,” we discovered that these "libraries" were carefully chosen drop-off and contact points for personnel from the U.S. Interests Section and others, who visited them on a regular basis, to deliver materials and money. We also discovered that by accepting anti-government materials and by developing "libraries" with these materials, the "librarians" qualified to be paid a monthly stipend--"for services rendered," as one of them put it”.

“Our interviews with these "librarians" contradicted a good deal of the PR campaign that their U.S. financiers had undertaken, and established the fact that the communiques circulated in the U.S. about these "libraries" were intentionally misleading and politically motivated”.

- “They have served no jail time for library activities; rather any jail time has resulted from illegal activities and for their work to organize political operations directed from abroad”

“They are aware of the U.S. government’s political, financial and diplomatic connection to their work”.

Is the Cuban legislation used to convict the mercenaries incompatible with international law and international human rights instruments?
The answer is no. The Cuban legislation applied is similar in spirit and letter to that which is in effect in many of the world’s countries, including western industrialized nations, used to guarantee and protect national security in view of external threat. It is wholly compatible with guarantees that are internationally accepted as necessary for securing due process and which, in addition, were in effect before the crimes were committed.

During the trials, Article 91 of Cuba’s Penal Code, Law 62 of 1987, was invoked and applied. This article is passed down from the Social Defense Code of 1936, drafted during the time of the pseudo-republic in Cuba and established under the auspices and the control of the United States. This code had of itself borrowed important provisions and characteristics from the Penal Code that was in effect in Cuba when the latter was a Spanish colony.

Article 91 of the Penal Code currently in force in Cuba reads: “Acts against the independence or territorial integrity of the State. He or she who, at the service of a foreign State, acts with the objective of undermining the independence or territorial integrity of the Cuban State, shall incur a jail sentence 10 to 20 years, or death”.

In the proceedings instituted against the mercenaries, a number of articles comprising Law No. 88 were also applied, the article titled “Protection of Cuba’s National Independence and Economy” among them, adopted after long debates held throughout Cuba in response to the Helms-Burton Act, adopted in 1996 to institutionalize the extraterritorial continuation of the blockade and to establish numerous provisions designed to promote the destruction of Cuba’s constitutional order, identifying the principles of institutional structuring that would be imposed on the Cuban people following the overthrow of their current political, economic and social system.

Cuba is not the only country in the world that criminalized collaboration or compliance with the Helms-Burton Act within its territory. Countries like Canada, Mexico and Argentina adopted laws that treat as a crime and prosecute any collaboration with or application of the extraterritorial provisions of the Helms-Burton Act. The European Union also adopted regulations in this regard.

The facts considered and the acts that were characterized by Law as serious crimes correspond to acts of direct collaboration with the application of the Helms-Burton Act. No one in Cuba has been harassed, much less tried and convicted for the exercise of some of the basic human rights recognized by the Universal Declaration, such as are freedom of opinion, expression or association.

Among the proven crimes committed by the convicted mercenaries, the most noteworthy are:

. Systematic participation in meetings with US congresspeople and businessmen convoked by the US Interests Section in Havana, aimed at hindering the efforts of those who, within the United States, work toward relaxing or lifting the blockade of Cuba. The mercenaries who were convicted have lobbied arduously in favor of the blockade against their people and against the implementation of successive resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations which have demanded —the last was backed by 179 Member States— that an end be put to this unilateral and illegal policy. That is to say, they have violated not only Cuba’s legislation, but also tried-and-true norms of international law.

. Fabrication of false statistics, rumors or distorted information about Cuban economy and society, with the aim of encouraging the massive withdrawal of foreign investors with present businesses in Cuba and scaring off potential investors, to thus reinforce the deleterious impact had by the US blockade on the human rights of the Cuban people. These mercenaries have gone as far as threatening foreign investors, warning them that, following the destruction of Cuba’s current constitutional order, their investments would not be respected.

. Conspiring to subvert Cuba’s constitutional and institutional order, following the instructions and using funding and resources supplied by the Government of the United States. They have promoted, organized and carried out plans aimed at encouraging upheaval, chaos and discontent in the population, in the hopes of provoking a massive upheaval that will do away with the nation’s institutions or, at the very least, produce an image of nationwide anarchy that will provide the pretext to call for a military invasion by the United States.

. Periodic exchanges and meetings with renowned officials and agents of US intelligence services and the Cuban American terrorist mob, for whom they sought out information relating to Cuba’s national security or fabricated allegations that were of use to the aggressive anti-Cuba media campaigns spearheaded by the United States.

. Distorting Cuba’s role in the international fight against terrorism and fabricating false allegations to support the interests of power circles in the United States and those of the Cuban American terrorist mob, in order to keep Cuba in the list of States that supposedly promote terrorism divulged by the US Department of State. With this, they would hope to produce a solid and readily available pretext for an eventual military action against the Cuban people.

. Placing at risk the physical and moral integrity of millions of Cubans, as well as the independence that was consolidated at the cost of the blood, pain and sacrifice of millions of Cuba’s best citizens.

The Government of the United States and the Cuban American terrorist mob have created, direct and finance the mercenaries in Cuba, whom they attempt to present as “dissidents” or “a legitimate peaceful opposition”.

The Bush Administration has transformed the US Interests Section in Havana into the general staff and headquarters of Cuba’s internal subversion.

Section 109 of the Helms-Burton Act authorizes the President of the United States to lend assistance and other types of support to individuals and organizations in Cuba involved in actions aimed at destroying the nation’s present social and political system. Section 115 offers protection to resources destined to covert activities against Cuba by US intelligence agencies.

The convicted mercenaries had “free access passes” for facilities belonging to the US Interests Section in Havana, passes which embassies and entities around the world reserve for their officials and employees.

The so-called Revista de Cuba, published by the alleged independent journalist association Manuel Márquez Sterling, was elaborated and printed within the US Interests Section in Havana, to be distributed by its salaried mercenaries among some individuals scattered across Cuban territory. The magazine El Disidente is edited and printed in Puerto Rico with funding from the US government and brought to Havana, taking advantage of the immunity granted the diplomatic pouches sent to the US Interests Section.

The declarations of some of the accused reveal just how subordinated these mercenaries are to the money and instruction received from the superpower. The words that follow were spoken by Osvaldo Alfonso Valdés, of his own free will, during the trial brought against him:

“We know that the resources made available to us for our work originate from funding approved by the government of that country (referring to the United States)”.

“I admit that I have received funding and material aid from organizations stationed in Miami, and that these resources originate from the government of the United States, therefore, in a sense, we’ve been serving their interests”.

On February 27, 2003, the Cuban American Adolfo Franco, Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), declared before the Subcommittee for Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives that his agency had invested 22 million dollars since 1997 to implement the Helms-Burton Act in Cuba. He also declared that, in compliance with this law, propaganda material had been sent to Cuba, and over
7 000 radios designed to receive transmissions from the anti-Cuba radio broadcasting station sustained by the US government had been delivered, among other things.

USAID itself made clear that these 22 million dollars were but a small part of the funds channeled toward Cuba. The greater part of the budget destined to subversive activities is channeled from covert operations funds.

USAID’s 2002 budget breakdown for subversive activities in Cuba reveals the connections of the convicted to US anti-Cuba policies, as can be appreciated in the following figures:

- To foster international solidarity with Cuban activitists: 8 099 181 dollars.

To help create independent NGOs in Cuba: 1 602 000 dollars.

To give exposure to independent journalists: 2 027 000 dollars.

To plan the transition in Cuba: 2 132 000 dollars.

The Center for a Free Cuba headed by Frank Calzón, renowned CIA agent, received 2 300 000 dollars for its anti-Cuba actions.

The American Center for International Labor Solidarity that reportedly works toward “persuading foreign investors not to invest in Cuba”, received 168 575 dollars.

The Dissidence Support Group stationed in Miami received the generous contribution of 1 200 000 dollars.

Receipts and payrolls for cash remittances and goods sent by the US government were presented in the trials; these had been delivered to the mercenaries through terrorist mob organizations based in Miami, travelers or emissaries acting as couriers, or directly by the US Interests Section in Cuba.

For example, according to the receipts and bills confiscated, Oscar Espinosa Chepe received, between the dates of January 2002 and January 2003, at least
7 154 dollars from the US government and its agents. A total of 13 660 dollars, hidden in his home, were confiscated.

Nearly 5 000 dollars were confiscated from Héctor Palacios; this money was given him as reward for his mercenary actions, carried out at the service of the US government.

From the time of his arrival in Cuba on September of 2002, the current head of the US Interests Section in Havana increased the regularity of meetings with mercenary agents recruited in Cuba. His interventionist and provoking declarations and actions grew in number, in flagrant violation of basic norms governing diplomatic behavior.

The US Interests Section and its Head were advised, through diplomatic channels, of the violation of Cuban and international law they were committing, attempting to persuade them to cease their provoking and illegal behavior. Regardless, the Head of the US Interests Sections persisted in his activities, promoting new and more serious subversive actions.

Cuba was patient and tolerant, but the matter had reached a point which proved unacceptable to the nation’s security, faced with a deliberate intention of continuing the promotion of confrontational and subversive actions. Cuba could not permit the open disrespect for Cuban and international law to go on with impunity. Cuba had to protect the constitutional order established by its people and secure respect for its legitimately elected government. No other alternatives existed. We had to act in a sovereign, firm and lawful manner, as any other country in the world would have. No State permits any of its citizens to collaborate with a hostile foreign power that attempts to subvert and topple the country’s institutional order and deprive its people of independence and the right to free determination.