Case Summary and Outcome

The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) held Cuba responsible for the human rights violations suffered by Ms Yoani María Sánchez Cordero, a well-known journalist, and blogger critical of the Cuban government, which included arbitrary detentions, smear campaigns, illegal tapping, web blocking, among others. Ms Yoani Sanchez filed a petition against Cuba on 28 September 2012, claiming that the Cuban government had blocked her blog “Generación Y” and that she had been subjected to detentions, assaults, obstacles to leaving the country, telephone tapping, intimidation, threats, and smear campaigns by the Cuban government for several years. On 9 November 2012, the IACHR  granted precautionary measures in favor of Yoani Sanchez, ordering Cuba to guarantee the life and physical integrity of her and her family. For its part, Cuba did not present any arguments or respond to the IACHR’s requests in this case. The IACHR maintained that there is a structural pattern of persecution, censorship, and violence against opposition journalists in Cuba. It also considered that the Cuban constitutional legal framework violates the right to freedom of expression, enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, by making the free dissemination of ideas subject to the objectives of the socialist state. Furthermore, the IACHR concluded that the petitioner, Yoani Sánchez, was the victim of two illegal and arbitrary detentions, during which she was physically assaulted and subjected to an attempt at forced nudity by the Cuban police. The IACHR also found that the State had prevented the petitioner from leaving the country on twenty occasions without giving her a valid reason. Moreover, the IACHR held that the petitioner had been subjected to a smear campaign by the Cuban government and that she had been threatened, harassed, and bullied. The IACHR also held that the petitioner’s communications were intercepted, that her blog was blocked, and that all her complaints and petitions to state authorities were never answered.

The IACHR concluded that Cuba had violated the rights recognized in articles I (right to life, liberty, security, and personal security), II (right to equality before the law), IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination), V (right to protection of honor, personal reputation and private and family life), VIII (right to residence and movement), X (right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence), XVIII (right to fair trial), XXI (right of assembly), XXIV (right of petition), XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest) and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Finally, the IACHR ordered full reparation in favor of the petitioner and non-repetition guarantees to prevent future human rights violations against Yoani Sánchez and other journalists critical of the Cuban government.

---

Facts

On 28 September 2012, Ms Yoani María Sánchez Cordero filed a petition against Cuba before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Yoani María Sánchez Cordero is an independent journalist and Cuban blogger, well known in Cuba, and around the world, for her criticism of the authoritarian Cuban government on her blog “Generación Y”. 

Ms Sánchez Cordero requested that the Cuban state be held internationally responsible for violating various rights and obligations enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration” or “the Declaration”) because she had suffered “telephone tapping, surveillance of her home, persecution, threats, detention, ill-treatment, prohibition of access to public places and denial of authorization to travel abroad, perpetrated against the alleged victim as measures of retaliation for the exercise of her right to freedom of expression.” [p. 1]

Ms Sánchez Cordero claimed to be a political opponent who had been detained, attacked, wiretapped, and threatened by the Cuban Government. The petitioner stated that she co-founded the magazine “Consenso” in 2004 and started her influential blog “Generación Y” in 2007. She added that she was also the director of Cuba’s first independent news website, “14ymedio.com”, where she addressed issues such as internet access, living conditions, corruption, and the lack of freedom of expression in Cuba. 

The petitioner stated that her blog “Generación Y” had gained worldwide recognition and won international awards. However, Ms Sánchez explained that since 2008, the Cuban government has blocked the “Generación Y” blog within the state, forcing her to rely on friends living outside of Cuba to publish her content on the internet.

Sánchez Cordero also stated that she had been subjected to censorship, persecution, illegal detention, physical attacks, intimidation, interferences to her telephone line, and a smear campaign orchestrated by the Cuban Government. The petitioner claimed she was detained several times without a warrant and received several threats due to her journalistic work. 

Ms Yoani María Sánchez Cordero claimed to have been arbitrarily detained by the authorities on two occasions without the Cuban police giving her any reason for them.

In addition, the petitioner claimed that between 2007 and 2012, the government repeatedly denied her permission to leave Cuba, without providing any explanation for it. Ms Sánchez Cordero stated that on 5 November 2010, after being denied the right to leave the country, she had formally requested a reply from the Immigration Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior but had not received a reply. Consequently, in the absence of a reply, Ms Yoani María Sanchez Cordero filed a complaint with the Cuban Minister of the Interior on 30 March 2012. However, she stated that the Cuban Government had not yet replied to this appeal. 

In addition, the petitioner stated that since October 2007, her home’s telephone and mobile phone have been tapped and that she and her family have been under constant surveillance by the Cuban government. 

On 9 November 2012, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of Yoani Sanchez, ordering Cuba to guarantee the life and physical integrity of the petitioner and her family. However, Cuba “has not adopted any measures, nor has it provided the IACHR with any information on the status of these measures”. [p.2]

On 23 July 2018, the IACHR notified the state of the deadline to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. However, Cuba did not submit them.

On 30 October 2021, the Commission issued this report on admissibility and merits in favor of Yoani Sánchez.

---

Decision Overview

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had to decide whether Cuba had violated the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, thereby incurring international responsibility, in light of the facts disclosed by Ms Yoani María Sánchez Cordero, which included telephone tapping, surveillance of her home, persecution, threats, detention, ill-treatment, prohibition of access to public places and denial of authorization to travel abroad, perpetrated against her as repressive measures for her work as an independent journalist.

Ms Yoani Sánchez claimed that Cuba had violated the rights recognized in articles I (right to life, liberty, security, and personal security), II (right to equality before the law), IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination), V (right to protection of honor, personal reputation and private and family life), VIII (right to residence and movement), X (right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence), XVIII (right to fair trial), XXI (right of assembly), XXIV (right of petition), XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest) and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. The petitioner argued that she is an independent journalist critical of the Cuban government and that she has suffered illegal detentions, attacks on her physical integrity, obstacles to leaving the country, telephone tapping, intimidation, threats, smear campaigns, and the blocking of her blog inside Cuba. 

For its part, Cuba “did not submit any observations on the admissibility of the petition or on the merits of the case.” [p. 21]

At the outset of its analysis, the IACHR found that Cuba had not presented any observations or arguments contradicting the allegations made by the petitioner before the Inter-American Human Rights System in several petitions filed against the state for violations of the human rights enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, to which Cuba is a signatory country. Under this premise, the IACHR decided to apply Article 38 of its Rules of Procedure, which states that “the facts alleged in the petition shall be presumed to be true if the State in question does not provide relevant information to dispute them.” [p. 44] 

The IACHR noted that there is a historical context of persecution of journalists and political dissidents in Cuba. In this regard, the IACHR noted that in Cuba there is a pattern of serious violations of the human rights recognized in the American Declaration against journalists critical of government policies. To underscore this point, the IACHR cited the Special Report of the IACHR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression on “The Situation of Freedom of Expression in Cuba”, from 2018. 

Subsequently, the Commission analyzed whether the state of Cuba had violated the right to life, liberty, and security of person (Article I), the right to equality before the law (Article II), and the right to be free from arbitrary detention (Article XXV) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man to the detriment of the petitioner, Yoani María Sánchez Cordero.

The IACHR held that no one may be subjected to arrest or detention for reasons or by means that are incompatible with fundamental rights, because, among other things, those detentions are “unreasonable, unforeseeable or disproportionate.” [para. 111] Similarly, citing Vladimir Herzog v. Brazil, the IACHR held that “the exercise of the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association cannot constitute a legitimate reason for the deprivation of a person’s liberty.” [para. 113] For its part, the IACHR reaffirmed that the state is the guarantor of the human rights of persons detained in its prisons since it is the entity responsible for detention centers.

On the other hand, the IACHR, citing its 2018 report “Women Journalists and Freedom of Expression”, affirmed that “the documented attacks against women journalists represent a distinct form of sexual violence in captivity.” [para. 127] The IACHR also stated that women journalists are subjected to violence, especially sexual violence, in order to silence them, but also with the aim of sending a deterrent message about the consequences against people who think like them.

The Commission confirmed that the petitioner was detained by the police on two occasions—on 24 February 2010 and on 5 October 2012. It also found that “the State did not provide a legal basis to justify either detention, did not produce an arrest warrant, the victim was not informed of the reasons for her detention or the charges against her, and the police did not provide her with a written record of her detention.” [para. 130] Likewise, the IACHR found that there was no evidence that Ms Yoani Sánchez “was detained in ‘flagrante delicto,’ in circumstances of manifest criminal activity, nor was she brought before a judge in a timely manner to determine the legality of her detention.” [para. 130]

At the same time, the IACHR highlighted the existence of a pattern of persecution against journalists critical of the Cuban government. Similarly, the IACHR concluded that “the detentions were arbitrary since they were aimed at punishing Yoani Sánchez for her critical stance towards the Cuban government and for her political opinions and expressions and her civic activities, that is, they were based on a restriction of the exercise of her right to freedom of thought and expression.” [para. 132]

In turn, the Commission confirmed that the petitioner was the victim of physical assaults during her detentions in 2010 and 2012. In addition, it found that the attempts to forcibly undress Yoani Sánchez during her detention constituted acts of gender-based violence carried out with the “intention of humiliating and punishing her for her work as a journalist and blogger.” [para. 135]

The IACHR concluded that the state of Cuba was responsible for the “illegal and arbitrary detention of Ms Yoani Sánchez on two occasions, and for violating her rights to equality, dignity, and humane treatment during her detention and in the custody of State agents.” [para. 136] Hence, the IACHR declared that Cuba had violated Articles I, II, and XXV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man to the detriment of Ms Sánchez Cordero.

The IACHR then examined if Cuba had violated the right of residence and freedom of movement provided for in Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. In this regard, the IACHR stated that “the exercise of this right should not depend on any particular purpose or motive of the person who wishes to move or remain in a place.” [para. 138] Furthermore, the Commission recalled that in the case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that the right to leave the country “may be restricted only in accordance with the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality of the restrictions, to the extent necessary in a democratic society.” [para. 140] The IACHR found that Cuban state agents restricted the petitioner’s access to public places without justification, thereby restricting her freedom of movement within the territory of Cuba. 

The IACHR also noted that under Cuba’s Migration Act (Law No. 1312 of 1976), which was in force at the time of the events denounced by the petitioner, Cubans needed an official permit to leave the country. The IACHR found that Ms Yoani Sánchez made twenty attempts to leave the country between 2007 and 2012, which were denied without any explanation. The IACHR, citing its Seventh Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Cuba from 1983, also found that Cuba’s repeated failure to respond to requests for permission to leave the country was a violation of the right to freedom of movement as enshrined in the American Declaration. 

The Commission also stated that the facts of the case demonstrate the application of a law that violates Ms Yoani Sánchez’s right to residence and movement, as it does not meet the standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality. 

In light of this, the IACHR concluded that the restrictions on movement within Cuba and to travel abroad constituted reprisals against the petitioner for her open criticism of the Cuban regime. Thus, the Commission held that Cuba violated Article VIII of the American Declaration to the detriment of Ms Yoani Sánchez Cordero.

Next, the IACHR examined whether Cuba had violated the rights to freedom of assembly (Article XXI) and association (Article XXII) of the petitioner.

The IACHR referred to its 2019 “Report on Protests and Human Rights” to state that “the exercise of the right of assembly is of vital importance for the consolidation of the democratic life of societies and, therefore, of imperative social interest.” [para. 147] In turn, the Commission, citing the IACHR Report Oscar Elías Biscet et al. v. Cuba, from 2006, found that the Cuban authorities’ intolerance of all forms of political opposition constituted the main restriction on the rights of assembly and participation. 

The IACHR then found that the state prevented Ms Yoani Sánchez from exercising her right to assembly on several occasions, with the aim of preventing her from expressing her critical ideas to others. In this regard, the IACHR established that the petitioner was prevented from accessing public places to demonstrate, “without the State agents justifying the legitimacy of this prohibition.” [para. 153]

Furthermore, the Commission stated that by preventing the petitioner from participating in public demonstrations, the Cuban government sent a collective message regarding possible repercussions against individuals who shared similar criticisms and ideas as the petitioner’s. 

Consequently, the IACHR concluded that Cuba had violated the right to freedom of assembly as enshrined in Article XXI of the American Declaration.

The IACHR, referencing the precedent it laid out in Juan José López v. Argentina (2011), recalled that freedom of association has two dimensions: the individual and the social one. It also clarified that the individual dimension “entails the right to freely associate with others, without government intervention that limits or hinders this right.” [para. 151] It explained that the collective dimension, for its part, “is the right and freedom to pursue a lawful objective without pressure or interference that could alter or change its purpose.” [para. 151] 

Considering this, the IACHR stated that “it does not appear from the case file that the State restricted Yoani Sánchez’s right to form or participate in an association or organization with other persons with the aim of acting together for a common purpose and a vocation of permanence over time, which distinguishes it from freedom of assembly.” [para. 156] For this reason, the IACHR concluded that Cuba had not violated the petitioner’s right of association. 

Then, the IACHR had to decide whether Cuba had violated Yoani Sánchez’s right to inviolability of the home and correspondence as set in articles IX and X of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. 

The Commission held that the right to inviolability of correspondence has been extended to communications, including telephone communications and new technologies, such as the internet. To underscore this point it cited the IACHR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s report on “Standards for a free, open and inclusive Internet” (2017), and the European Court of Human Rights’ cases Klass et al. v. Germany; Halford v. United Kingdom, Amann v. Switzerland, and Copland v. United Kingdom. 

The IACHR also stated that the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or abusive interference with one’s correspondence is a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and that it is “linked to the State’s obligation to create a protected environment for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression since the violation of the privacy of communications has a chilling effect and affects the full exercise of the right to communicate.” [para. 159]

The IACHR then found that Cuba had “restricted or intercepted Yoani Sánchez’s telephone communications because of her journalistic work critical of the regime.” [para. 162] The IACHR also stated that the wiretapping reflected the increased use of surveillance by the state to monitor the activities of independent journalists and political dissidents, especially on the Internet. 

For these reasons, the IACHR concluded that the state of Cuba violated Article X of the American Declaration to the detriment of Ms Yoani Sánchez. 

On the other hand, with regard to the right to inviolability of the home, the IACHR found that the petitioner did not allege a violation of this right and that there was only surveillance of the surroundings of Ms Yoani Sánchez’s home, which does not constitute sufficient evidence of a violation of this right. Therefore, the IACHR concluded that Cuba had not violated the right to inviolability of the home as enshrined in Article IX of the American Declaration.

Subsequently, the IACHR considered whether Cuba had violated the right to freedom of expression (Article IV), the right to vote and participate in government (Article XX), and the right to the protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life (Article V), of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, to the detriment of the petitioner.

The IACHR recalled that the right to freedom of expression is “an essential condition for the existence of a democratic society.” [para. 166] Moreover, the IACHR added that the purpose of the right to freedom of expression is to strengthen the functioning of pluralistic and deliberative democratic systems by protecting and promoting the free flow of information, ideas, and expression. 

The IACHR then stated that “freedom of expression is a cornerstone on which the very existence of a democratic society rests,” [para. 166] citing Advisory Opinion No. 5 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. [para. 166] The IACHR also argued that the freedom to express opinions and disseminate information critical of the actions of public authorities, or a government, is an essential element of the right protected by Article IV of the American Declaration.

The IACHR also stated that the right to freedom of expression cannot be subject to prior censorship by the state. Subsequent liability, on the contrary, is permitted as long as it is not abusive or arbitrary, is provided for by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary and proportionate. 

The IACHR then stated that the right to freedom of expression “finds in the Internet a unique instrument to develop its enormous potential in broad sectors of the population.” [para. 175] The IACHR also highlighted that the importance of the Internet as a “platform for the enjoyment and exercise of human rights is directly related to the architecture of the network and its guiding principles, including the principles of openness, decentralization, and neutrality.” [para. 176] In particular, the IACHR stressed, citing its report on “Freedom of Expression and the Internet” (2013), that net neutrality is a necessary condition for the exercise of freedom of expression, which cannot be “conditioned, directed or restricted by means of blocking, filtering or interference.” [para. 177]

The IACHR then stated that “restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet are only acceptable if they comply with established international standards, including that they are provided for by law and that they are necessary to protect an interest recognized by international law.” [para. 178] In turn, the IACHR stated that the blocking or suspension of websites are similar measures to the closure of a newspaper, or a radio or television station.

Considering these standards, The IACHR found that “Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere where it can be categorically stated that the right to freedom of expression is subject to the objectives of the socialist State, and that there is no legislation or practice that protects this right and guarantees its free and full exercise.” [para. 190] The IACHR also found that the Cuban legal system is extremely restrictive toward the right to freedom of expression. 

Specifically, the IACHR noted that Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution of 1976, which was in force at the time of the alleged facts, “conditioned the exercise of freedom of the press to the objectives of the socialist state.” [para. 191] On this point, the Commission stressed that this norm was incompatible with international standards, which recognize that freedom of expression cannot be subject to any condition, such as the political ideas of a party or the absolute control of government power. 

The IACHR also argued that the new Cuban Constitution of 2019 maintains the main restrictions on freedom of expression of the previous Constitution. Hence, the IACHR concluded that both the 1976 and 2019 Constitutions established arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, in violation of Article IV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

Moreover, the IACHR found that “arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression have also been transferred to digital spaces.” [para. 195] In this regard, the IACHR affirmed that digital communication platforms have become central in Cuba because traditional media are owned exclusively by the State—and a single political party. However, the IACHR noted that “far from meeting the standards of a free, open, and inclusive network, the regulatory deployment and practices in Cuba generate a controlled and biased space.” [para. 196]

Likewise, the Commission considered that it was thanks to new technologies that the critical blog “Generación Y”, produced by journalist Yoani Sanchez, was created. The IACHR said that the petitioner is a journalist and blogger who disseminates ideas critical of the Cuban government and daily life in Cuba. The IACHR concluded that “blocking access to Yoani Sanchez’s blog constitutes prior censorship, violates the principle of net neutrality, and therefore violates the right to freedom of expression not only in its individual aspect, by preventing a blogger from freely expressing information and ideas of all kinds, but also in its social or collective aspect, by depriving Cuban citizens of access to content of public interest, thereby directly attacking the plurality of voices in the public debate.” [para. 200] Similarly, the IACHR stated that blocking Yoani Sánchez’s blog was facilitated by a system of internet monopoly in Cuba, under the authority of the Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de Cuba S.A., and therefore attributable to the state of Cuba.

With regard to the right to honor and reputation under Article V of the American Declaration, the IACHR stated that “stigmatizing statements expose journalists to a greater risk of violence, harassment, and threats, making them even more vulnerable than they already are.” [para. 187] The IACHR also stressed that while public authorities may publicly discuss or criticize the press, they should not make statements that expose journalists and media workers to an increased risk of violence through stigmatization, as this endangers freedom of expression and journalistic work. 

The IACHR found that Ms Yoani Sánchez was the target of a defamation campaign promoted by the government and orchestrated by the state media. In addition, the Commission found that the statements made against her were a form of stigmatization carried out by state agents because of her critical stance towards the government and that these statements were made publicly in front of her family, friends, colleagues, and the whole Cuban society. The Commission considered that these acts of harassment, in the particular context of Cuba, were strategically used by the state to deliberately damage the victim’s reputation and integrity before the public, calling her a “terrorist”, “mercenary”, “public enemy”, “despicable parasite”, among other insults. 

In addition, the IACHR considered that the harassment and government surveillance of the petitioner’s home contributed to the way Cuban society perceived the reception of the journalist’s views and expressions. The Commission argued that this behavior affects not only other journalists but also the general population, who are well aware of the consequences of openly opposing the regime.

The IACHR considered that these state practices, carried out against Sánchez, were “reprisals for her journalistic activity and for the opinions and expressions critical of and opposed to the Cuban government that she expressed in her blog, Generación Y.” [para. 205] It also concluded that these practices sought to silence her dissident voice in order to prevent the population from having access to fundamental information of public interest. In light of these reasons, the IACHR concluded that the aforementioned practices were arbitrary restrictions on her rights to freedom of expression (Article IV) and private life (Article V) under the American Declaration.

Furthermore, the IACHR stressed that the violence suffered by the petitioner, particularly gender-based violence, as well as the other acts of persecution against Sánchez as a journalist, not only violated her right to freedom of expression, “but also had an impact on other critical and dissident women journalists in Cuba.” [para. 206]

Regarding the right to vote and to participate in the government, as laid out in Article XX of the American Declaration, the IACHR stated that “the full exercise of the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly is also essential and plays a direct role in shaping decisions that affect the community.” [para. 185] However, the Commission found that the petitioner did not allege any specific restrictions on her right to associate or form political parties to express a particular political position, and therefore the IACHR found that there was no violation of Article XX of the American Declaration.

Finally, the IACHR had to decide whether Cuba had violated the right to a fair trial (Article XVIII), the right to petition (Article XXIV), the right to due process (Article XXVI), and the right to equality (Article II), under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

The IACHR affirmed that “the State has not investigated, prosecuted and punished those responsible for the arbitrary detention and physical violence against the victim, more than 11 years after the first detention and subsequent complaints.” [para. 224] Thus, the IACHR concluded that the State of Cuba had violated the right to a fair trial (Article XVIII) and the right to petition (Article XXIV) of the  Declaration, to the detriment of Ms Yoani Sánchez. On this issue —citing IACHR Reports, Report No. 67/06, Case 12.476, Oscar Elías Biscet et al. v. Cuba, October 21, 2006; Report No. 68/06, Case 12.477, Merits, Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo et al. v. Cuba, October 21, 2006—, the Commission recalled that it has repeatedly held that in Cuba there is no proper separation between the branches of government that guarantees the administration of justice—free from interference from other branches. 

Likewise, the IACHR affirmed that in Cuba the courts are subordinated to the executive branch or head of state, which prevents persons identified by the State as “dissidents” or “opponents”, accused of political crimes, from being tried impartially, as required by the provisions of the American Declaration. Under this premise, the Commission also considered that the judicial authorities violated the guarantees of independence and impartiality, and therefore concluded that the state also violated the right to a fair trial. 

In addition, the Commission considered that Ms Yoani Sánchez was “subject to differential treatment, not based on objective reasons, justifying or perpetuating such treatment,” [para. 231] because of her critical opinion of the Cuban government. Therefore, the Commission also concluded that the State of Cuba was responsible for violating the right to equality of the American Declaration.

Taking this into consideration, the IACHR unanimously concluded that the State of Cuba violated the rights recognized in articles I (right to life, liberty, security, and personal security), II (right to equality before the law), IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination), V (right to protection of honor, personal reputation and private and family life), VIII (right to residence and movement), X (right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence), XVIII (right to a fair trial), XXI (right to freedom of assembly), XXIV (right of petition), XXV (right to protection from arbitrary arrest) and XXVI (right to due process) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, to the detriment of Yoani Sánchez Cordero. The Commission also concluded that the State was not responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles IX (right to inviolability of the home), XX (right to vote and participate in government), and XXII (right to association).

In light of the above, the IACHR recommended that Cuba pay full and comprehensive reparations, both material and non-material, without specifying a monetary amount. The Commission also recommended that the state cease all acts of persecution against Ms Yoani Sánchez Cordero and adopt the necessary measures to guarantee her right to leave and enter Cuba freely. In addition, the Commission recommended the state carry out an investigation to clarify the circumstances of Ms Yoani Sánchez Cordero’s arrest, and to deactivate the computer filter blocking access to the blog “Generación Y”.

As a non-repetition guarantee, the IACHR recommended Cuba to adjust its laws, procedures, and practices in conformity with international human rights norms and standards, especially those related to the digital environment. The IACHR also recommended that the state adopt adequate and effective prevention, investigation, and punishment mechanisms to prevent and combat violence and harassment against journalists.  The Commission also recommended the state refrain from exercising absolute control over the internet, including the exercise of arbitrary filtering and blocking of content. Finally, the IACHR recommended Cuba adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the prosecutorial and judicial authorities.

---