Cuban Judiciary Defends Closed-Door Espionage Trial of Alejandro Gil

The Supreme People's Court of Cuba's decision to hold the espionage trial against Alejandro Gil Fernández behind closed doors has raised little surprise among those familiar with the Cuban legal system.

However, it has sparked a legitimate concern both domestically and internationally: Whom does it shield by keeping the public in the dark about a case involving a former regime minister? Is it safeguarding national security or the very power structure he was part of?

The only official attempt to justify the secrecy came from the state-run newspaper Granma, which recently featured an interview with Dr. Arnel Medina Cuenca, the Vice President of the Cuban Society of Penal Sciences and a Criminal Law professor.

His explanations provide a legal framework that, rather than clarifying, confirms the existence of a legality tailored to silence and institutional control.

Judicial Authority in a System Without Independence

"The Supreme People's Court announced that the espionage trial of citizen Alejandro Gil Fernández will be conducted in private," reported Granma. When questioned about the reasons for this decision, Medina responded:

"This decision is solely up to the Court, which analyzes the specific case and has all the elements from both the prosecution and the defense."

The rationale is based on Article 477 of Law 143, which mandates that trials should be public unless there are "reasons of national security, morality, public order, or due respect to the victim or their families."

This is where the grey area emerges: "In cases of espionage, this restriction is almost a standard. During the proceedings, information could surface that, by its nature, could endanger national security if made public," Medina warned.

The key is in that closing remark: "this restriction is almost a standard."

What should be an exception for extraordinary cases becomes, in practice, the standard approach to shield high-profile political processes.

The argument of protecting "superior legal goods" sounds legitimate on paper, but in a country without a free press or independent judicial oversight, it only reinforces the state's power to operate in secrecy.

National Security or Protection of the Regime?

The case of Alejandro Gil is not just another trial. He was the face of the economic adjustments imposed by the regime during the pandemic. While the population suffered blackouts, inflation, and shortages, Gil was the figure defending the "Ordering Task" and other unpopular measures on television.

His downfall represents not only a political shift but an internal fracture whose magnitude the government seems determined to conceal.

What is he really accused of? What information might he have provided and to whom? What other officials are involved? Is it a legal case or a political vendetta?

None of these questions have answers, and they likely won't if the trial continues in complete silence.

Espionage: A Legal Framework Designed for Ambiguity

Medina Cuenca explained that espionage is among the most serious offenses within the Cuban Penal Code, with penalties ranging from ten years in prison to the death penalty.

"Espionage is committed by anyone who, to the detriment of state security, participates, collaborates, or maintains relations with the intelligence services of a foreign state, or provides them with reports, or obtains or attempts to obtain them for communication," he stated.

However, the law doesn't limit itself to foreign intelligence services. It also includes those who collaborate with NGOs, international institutions, or even "legal or natural persons" if their actions are deemed against state interests.

In essence, nearly any contact with the outside world can be criminalized if the political power decides so.

"Even the mere act of clandestinely entering, with deceit, violence, or bribery, any of these places is punishable by two to five years in prison," Medina added.

The design of this legal figure seems less oriented towards protecting national security than providing a tool to punish dissident or threatening behaviors to the status quo.

Presumption of Innocence or Implied Media Conviction?

Despite the severity of the charges, Medina Cuenca insisted that the accused's rights are guaranteed: "The Constitution and the law enshrine that every accused is presumed innocent until a final sentence is rendered against them."

However, in practice, Alejandro Gil has vanished from official discourse. His once-ubiquitous image has been erased. He has had no opportunity to publicly declare, and the trial's closure only reinforces his isolation.

The presumption of innocence, if it exists, does so only within the confines controlled by the very system accusing him.

Multiple Charges and an Unprecedented Political Fall

When the Attorney General's Office formally announced the case against Gil, it also mentioned other charges besides espionage. Medina Cuenca explained that this implies "at least two different files" and that the Court chose to begin with the most severe.

"The other charges, supposedly involving other individuals, will be judged later in a subsequent process," he indicated.

This raises another relevant question: Why separate the cases? Who benefits from this process fragmentation? Is it an attempt to disconnect responsibilities in the power spheres?

The silence not only protects Gil. It also shields those who worked alongside him, supervised him, promoted him, or benefited from his decisions. A closed trial also exempts them from responding to public opinion.

A Legal Framework Serving the Regime

Medina Cuenca concluded his remarks by legitimizing the system:

"Our Penal Code, in line with international Comparative Law, typifies this crime with all the rigor it deserves [...] The judicial process is conducted with strict adherence to the law, ensuring both the protection of national security and the rights of the accused. It's a delicate but necessary balance that Cuban law precisely captures."

However, beyond the official narrative, an uncomfortable reality persists: the Cuban law may be stringent, but it is not transparent; it may appear balanced, but only when power is not at stake.

The trial of Alejandro Gil, closed to the public, with no access to independent media or international observers, is yet another demonstration that justice in Cuba is administered behind closed doors, away from the citizens' scrutiny.

The Supreme People's Court of Cuba has scheduled the oral trial of Alejandro Miguel Gil Fernández for Tuesday, November 11, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., according to an official note released this Monday.

The proceedings will take place in the Chamber of Crimes against State Security and will be conducted under strict confidentiality measures.

The statement noted that, "for National Security reasons, the parties and individuals authorized by the court will attend the trial," in accordance with Article 153 of the Cuban Constitution and 477.1 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

It was also reported that both defense attorneys and the accused have had access to the case file and the prosecution's provisional conclusions, and that the defense's conclusions have also been presented.

This will be the first of two judicial processes Gil Fernández faces, and the more delicate of the two: an espionage charge for which the Cuban prosecution is seeking a life sentence.

Gil Fernández was removed from his positions as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Planning on February 2, 2024, and just over a month later, on March 7, it became known that he was under criminal investigation.

According to official information, the former minister acknowledged "serious charges" and submitted his resignation from the Communist Party of Cuba and his seat in the National Assembly of People's Power.

The Attorney General's Office confirmed on October 31 that it had initiated public criminal action against Gil Fernández and other involved parties, following investigations conducted by the Ministry of the Interior's bodies.

The fiscal note lists an extensive array of crimes attributed to the former minister: Espionage; Embezzlement; Bribery; Tax Evasion; Money Laundering; Forgery of Public Documents; Removal and Damage of Documents or Objects in Official Custody; Influence Peddling and Acts Detrimental to Economic Activity or Contracting.