This past Friday, Cuban academic and researcher Hilda Landrove described the use of the Cuban legal system to shield political police agents as a "symptom of extreme degradation." Her analysis was shared on Facebook following the sentencing of Anna Sofía Benítez Silvente, known as Anna Bensi, and her mother, Caridad Silvente Laffita, on Thursday.
The East Havana Municipal Court handed down a sentence of two years of restricted freedom to both women for "acts against personal and family privacy," as defined by Article 393 of the 2022 Cuban Penal Code. The incident originated back in March when Yoel Leodán Rabaza Ramos, a MININT sub-officer, visited their home to deliver a State Security summons. Mother and daughter recorded and shared the encounter on social media.
Legal System as a Tool of Oppression
Landrove, a doctor in Mesoamerican Studies from UNAM and professor at Tecnológico de Monterrey in Querétaro, wrote, "The legislation's use to expressly protect regime enforcers in a totalitarian state signifies extreme degradation, highlighting state violence as an administration of terror and the regime's illegitimacy."
The scholar pointed out the paradox: the Cuban state, notorious for violating citizen spaces, now invokes privacy protection to criminalize two women who filmed an agent inside their own home. "This is a particularly perverse tactic in the raw imposition of power, especially in a country where the state has always violated privacy," she noted, adding that it reflects the regime's attempt to provide its agents with "protection and impunity during a critical moment."
Contradictions and Inconsistencies
Landrove's interpretation aligns with Cubalex's stance: Article 393 is meant to protect citizens' private lives, not the official acts of public servants. Recording police officers performing their duties is a legitimate citizen right. Ironically, Rabaza Ramos unwittingly confirmed this in the video, admitting he was merely acting under State Security orders.
The case was marred by irregularities from the start. Initially shelved, it was reopened in July after Rabaza Ramos filed a complaint, having previously demanded a "public apology video" from Bensi to restore his reputation. During the trial, only one defense witness was allowed in court compared to seven for the prosecution, and two defense witnesses were detained before they could testify.
International Backlash
The court also claimed the video revealed the agent's address, yet images of Rabaza Ramos’ ID showed no address field, contradicting this claim.
Outside the courthouse, Anna Bensi stated, "They found my mom and me guilty of the supposed crime." The sentence—two years of restricted freedom for each—sparked widespread international condemnation. The U.S. Embassy in Cuba tweeted, "Thinking differently is not a crime," while Cuban-American Congress members Mario Díaz-Balart, María Elvira Salazar, and Carlos A. Giménez called for their unconditional release.
Landrove's analysis concluded with a stark warning to regime supporters: "Faced with the possibility of an end, those who have committed crimes have only two paths: change your stance before it's too late or continue as instruments of dictatorial brutality." She declared, "But the dictatorship will end. Justice will prevail. They will pay dearly for every tear of our suffering."
Frequently Asked Questions on Legal and Political Tensions in Cuba
What triggered the sentencing of Anna Sofía Benítez Silvente and her mother?
The sentencing was triggered by their recording and sharing of an encounter with a State Security agent, which was deemed an act against personal and family privacy by the Cuban legal system.
Why is Article 393 of the Cuban Penal Code controversial in this case?
Article 393 is controversial because it's meant to protect citizens' private lives, yet it was used to penalize the recording of a public official, which is considered a legitimate citizen right.
How did the international community react to the sentencing?
The international community, including the U.S. Embassy in Cuba and Cuban-American Congress members, condemned the sentencing and called for the unconditional release of the two women.