Mr. Cason, as we can see, came to Cuba with the plan of creating a single party of dissidents in Cuba. I don't know, then, why it bothers him so much that we Cuban revolutionaries have a single party to defend the Revolution, since that is what he has tried to foster with the so-called "dissidents".

            His instructions concerning these groups were to iron out their internal differences, the internecine "fights" over who shall play the leading role or over money, and to try to create a unified group, with money.

            I am amazed that he doesn't talk about the prizes awarded in the United States, because the International Republican Institute, one of the groups that has received money from the United States, that received as much as $1,674,462 in 2002, and what for? To help create the bases of international support to provide the activists in Cuba with material, moral and ideological support, even giving them awards and international recognition. And we know how this institution and others in the United States have been involved in the business of giving prizes and for that reason they have been giving more and more money every year, organizing trips, awards, tours. We have information on all of that.

     I want to highlight to you the idea that Mr. Cason marks a time when the anti-Cuban policy, the policy of subversion against Cuba is become fiercer, overt, gloves off.

            Here he says: "I meet whenever I can with the Cuban-American National Foundation", the people who financed the wave of terrorists attacks on hotels in Cuba which caused the death of an Italian tourist and injuries to dozens of tourists and Cuban workers.

            "I meet with them whenever I can", with the Council for the Freedom of Cuba which is the paramilitary wing of the old Cuban American National Foundation; Martín Pérez, head of the Foundation's paramilitary apparatus, the organizer of many plans to assassinate the head of the Cuban state, President Fidel Castro, at international events; people involved in organizing and financing the attempt to put 40 kilograms of C-4 explosive in the Ibero-American Summit in Panama to assassinate the President of Cuba.

            So "I meet with them whenever I can to give them information, to compare notes; I give them hope that the time is near when they and the groups inside which we support can finally ensure that people enjoy their human rights" all those individuals, Batista supporters most of them, implicated in the repression and murder of 20,000 Cubans during the Batista dictatorship.

            We are very well aware why Mr. Cason has come here, what orders he brings, what his motives are and what affiliations he has. Therefore, it is our duty and our right to defend our country's independence using the legal structure in our country strictly within respect for our laws, for our moral values and our sense of life and of the convictions that guide us.

            Now, that interview took place in December. What has happened between then and now? On February 27, 2003, Adolfo Franco, a Cuban, one of more than twenty holding positions in the government, an administrator who looks after Latin America and the Caribbean in USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, a U.S. government agency, said before a House of Representative Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the U.S. Agency for International Development has invested more than $20 million, $22 million to be exact, since 1997 to put the Helms-Burton Act into effect in Cuba.

            He also said that one of the things done to comply with this act has been to send materials, propaganda,  to deliver more than 7,000 radio tuned to receive Radio Martí, among other things.

The USAID itself has said that these $22 million are just a tiny part of the funds channeled to Cuba, a tiny part! because most of the money for subversion does not go through USAID. The Helms-Burton Act has paragraph 109 which directs the government to distribute money for subversion in Cuba through USAID and it has paragraph 115 which favors giving the money through secret channels, the special services' channels. USAID itself says that the amount they give is the smallest part and, according to Franco, it has been $22 million since 1997.

            On February 28, the Five Cuban Heroes unjustly imprisoned in the United States when they were helping the fight against terrorism, are once again send to the punishment cells from where they are not allowed out until April 2.

            On March 24, the Office of Foreign Assets Control  —the U.S. government office which keeps an eye open to see that the blockade is abided by— issues new regulations which make the blockade even tighter: travel by Americans to Cuba is limited even more; the small licenses that had been issued so that students could come to Cuba, for intellectuals and suchlike, have been restricted to such a point that they are virtually eliminated; educational exchanges are eliminated, no only who can come here has been restricted in an arbitrary manner but also who can go there. Visas are virtually denied out of hand to young people, students, Cuban intellectuals, athletes, and scientists to attend events in the United States to which they have been invited. Travel to Cuba on trips to supply the groups in their job of internal subversion has been expedited. Americans are forbidden to attend seminars and conferences in Cuba organized by Cuban institutions. That is to say that on March 24, a new tightening of the blockade took place, which takes the measure against Cuba envisaged by the blockade to schizophrenic levels.

            On March 26, the Secretary of State Mr. Colin Powell appears before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee and announces that the budget he is presenting includes $26,900,000 for anti-Cuban broadcasts on Radio and Television "Martí"; this is added to the twenty something millions we already mentioned and is a violation of international legality, of the International Telecommunications Union's regulations, and acknowledges that they finance a radio station which violates our radio electronic space with more than 1,200 broadcast hours to Cuba every week encouraging internal subversion, sabotage plans, encouraging desertion, illegal emigration, that is what that radio and television station spend their time doing, spreading lies and false stories  about Cuba.

            On March 31, the State Department publishes its report on human rights in the world, which, as we know, discusses the whole world except for the United States itself and devotes pages of lies and slanders to Cuba which are then used as the basis for submitting the resolution against Cuba, which the United States sponsors and organizes, in the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

            This year the resolution will be voted on, on April 16. The United States, because of its inability and lack of credibility to submit it, especially since it has been out of the Commission for a year as the international community felt that it did not meet the requirements for being a member of the commission, and after getting back on [the commission] thanks to Spain and Italy that agreed to withdraw their candidacies so that the United States could be elected without voting since it set the condition of not having to go to a vote because it feared losing —because voting in the election is secret and they are afraid of secret ballots whereas we aim for them— so it is back, but it feels afraid to submit the resolution against Cuba.

            Other countries that previously rendered them this service are not willing to do it anymore.  So now the United States has sought to have the governments of Peru and Costa Rica join with the government of Uruguay, who did it last year. They have submitted an almost innocuous text which says practically nothing but meets the American goal of ensuring that the subject is kept before the Commission on Human Rights so they can justify keeping the blockade against Cuba by the censure of Cuba in Geneva.

            On April 2, the Undersecretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Curtis Strubble said "the USAID will invest $7 million from the fund for economic support in Cuba this year". Note how money is flowing into Cuba. Here we have seen Mr. Cason saying that the United States really does not provide financing. In my view, Mr. Cason does not read Congress's minutes, they don't tell him what his bosses say because the Undersecretary of State says that they have allocated $7 million this year; the Administrator for Latin America says that they have allotted $22 million, USAID alone. Mr. Cason doesn't want to know about these things but anyway I shall tell you later on how the money gets here and what is the government's role and I will show you here the paychecks and the payrolls that we have in our possession.

            On April 6, the Sun Sentinel, a Florida newspaper has an article telling how the counterrevolutionary organization Commandos F-4, a violent terrorist group tied to sabotage plans, to armed raids into Cuba are training with heavy arms —it doesn't say with handguns and knives— it says: "Training is with heavy arms to carry out armed actions against Cuba and for a possible armed invasion of that country."

            The Sun Sentinel calls the terrorist organization paramilitary and prints statements by the head of this organization that openly declares their intention of eliminate the Cuban President by military force and terrorist methods. They train, they have a camp over there, located in south Florida and they feel inspired in this new time in relation to increase their violent terrorist activities against Cuba.

            This is what has been happening, especially in the last few months, since the U.S. government decided to turn up the heat on our country.

            Now, what has Cuba done during this time, what have we done, aware that the majority of the U.S. people does not have a hostile view of Cuba; aware that there is a growing current of friendship of sympathy towards Cuba in the US; knowing that the overwhelming majority of the American people supported the return of the little Cuban boy whom they tried to kidnap in Florida; motivated, as well, by genuine feelings of respect of friendship toward the people of the United States?

             While all of this was going on, we, after the terrorist attacks of   September 11, which Cuba condemned offering its sympathies to the American people, rejecting the practice of terrorism, offering our air space, our airports, offering medical assistance, offering Cuban institutions to provide help for the victims of the attack, after we had offered to the US medicine to fight against anthrax in the United States, we offered to produce 100 million tablets for them, free of charge, but received virtually no reply. We expressed our willingness to provide medical equipment developed in Cuba, scientific equipment that, in a time of terror in the United States, could help with research to fight against anthrax.

On 29 November 2001, we sent a note to the Head of the US Interest Section in Havana which officially proposed the draft agreements for both countries to co-operate in matters concerning the fight against drug-trafficking, the fight against terrorism, co-operation to eliminate the smuggling of persons, the illegal immigration which we have submitted on previous occasions and which have been reiterated afterwards, receiving a negative reply.

            Why is the U.S. government not interested in co-operating with Cuba in matters concerning drug trafficking, the fight against illegal emigration, boat and plane hijacking, people smuggling and the fight against terrorism? Why isn't it interested? These are subjects of interest to the U.S. society.

            On December 20, 2001 we passed our law against acts of terrorism in which we set penalties for anyone using Cuban territory even to organize or finance acts [of terrorism] against other countries including the United States.

             When the news about the Nile virus broke out we made an offer to the U.S. government to co-operate in scientific research. While this was going on what was going on over there? Cuba was falsely and unjustly accused on being a country that sponsors terrorism, of being a country with a program to develop biological and chemical weapons that we had to prove wrong when the time came. They tried to boycott President Carter's visit to Cuba by making those accusation to coincide with his visit to our country.

            We have, nevertheless, kept on with our fight against terrorism, we have given drug traffickers tough sentences, we have struggled to ensure that drugs don't travel close to Cuba so that Cuban territory is not used to ship drugs to the United States.

            The U.S. people must have plenty of examples of the feelings of respect for Cuba, proved by the hundreds of US farmers who have come to Cuba, who have defended their rights. And it was while they were defending their rights that the purchase of more than one million tons of food was purchased from the United States, worth almost $250 million, something significant for U.S. farmers.

            In other words, while all this was occurring and Cuba was making gestures of good will, the response was all this policy of harassment and provocation against Cuba.

            Now well, I should give a brief timetable of the days leading up to the criminal trials, which we shall explain later.

            On February 24 this year, the head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Mr. Cason, in a meeting organized by him with a group of those mercenaries who, organized and financed by the U.S. government cooperate with the power that attacks their country, at that meeting Mr. Cason made unheard of statements, words never before spoken by any diplomat in any part of the world, offensive words against the government and people of Cuba, words that infringe the basic rules on how diplomats should behave, interfering words, words aimed at provoking the Cuban government and people. That was February 24.

            On March 6, the President of the Cuban Council of State, Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz, in his remarks to the National Assembly gave due response to these provocations, called these words a shameless and defiant provocation and suggested that perhaps the numerous U.S.  intelligence service officers who work in the USIS could explain to Mr Cason that Cuba could easily do without the U.S. Interest Section in Havana; a warning, a clear message that he should stop his provocations, should temper his behavior, which is becoming truly intolerable for the authorities and the public opinion in Cuba.

            On March 7, the U.S. State Department confirmed that the five Cubans held political prisoner in U.S. jails had been in the punishment cells for nine days.

            On March 10, we delivered a diplomatic note to Mr. Cason, Note 365 in which we replied to the statements he had made on February 24, we asked him once again to cease his openly provocative actions, his interference with Cuba and we let him know about decisions we had taken concerning his subversive movements in our country which violate Cuban law. It seemed to be our final warning, our final effort at persuading Mr. Carson about his irresponsible and openly provocative behavior.

            On March 12, that is, two days after our note, seemingly as a response to our appeal, to our diplomatic note, Mr. Cason organized a new conspiratorial meeting in his own residence, the place where he lives, setting yet another record, now he was not only offering his offices but also his house.

            On March 14, two days later, he again organized another meeting —it was so quickly organized that we perceived an obvious decision to reach a confrontational stage with Cuban authorities— it began at 10:00 in the morning, ended at 5:00 in the afternoon.

            We have been patient. I am telling the whole story to provide evidence that we have been patient, that we have been tolerant.  But, in fact, Mr. Cason's latest decision to turn the U.S. Interests Section in Havana and his residence into a sort of headquarters of subversion against Cuba, is sending a message to all these mercenaries which is that of believing that they can count on impunity, that they are protected by a powerful ally who encourages, finances, organizes, and directs them and having created this situation, Mr. Cason implementing his government's aggressive policy against Cuba at unsuspected levels has compelled us to apply our law, and these trials must be understood as Cuba's behavior when no other option remained given the path of confrontation and provocation that the U.S. government  has chosen to pursue in its relations with Cuba and in which the Head of its diplomatic mission in Havana has played a leading role.

            Our patience was no longer justified; our tolerance was no longer justified. Things had reached an untenable point for our country which lives under aggression, harassment and blockade and which has laws to defend itself and has made sovereign use of its laws to protect its sovereignty, to punish those who co-operate with the power that tries to subvert order in the country and tries to crush and deprive Cubans of the right to enjoy independence and self- determination.

            Mr Cason and his irresponsible behavior exhausted our patience. He is the main responsible for what has happened.

            Therefore, after all this, on March 18, the decision was taken to arrest a group of the mercenaries who had been at the meetings on December 24, March 12 and 14. Thirty-two mercenaries were arrested that day.

            On the following day, March 19, another 33 mercenaries were arrested. They had, and have, been involved and received money and given distorted information so the Helms-Burton Act could be implemented, so that the blockade could be implemented. They have contributed to the U.S. policy of condemning Cuba in Geneva to legitimize the blockade, to give a cloak of respectability to the blockade that is rejected by the international community.

On the night of March 19, a DC-3 was hijacked the result of years of tolerating, of encouraging plane hijackings, of welcoming those who commit violent acts to emigrate illegally to the United States as heroes.

            And I really want to stress this, because, when I say that it was the 18 and 19 of March I am underlining that this decision was taken and these arrests took place before the war in Iraq began and before the two planes and the ferry were hijacked. The decision was taken before and the arrests took place as a result of the unbearable situation we had been placed in by Mr. Cason's provocations and irresponsible behavior.

            Now, with the DC-3 hijacked, the hijackers in the United States, the plane confiscated, the news leaked to the press that the authorities were willing to grant the hijackers bail —which finally, it seems, is not going to happen but it was leaked to the press and where there's smoke there's fire— all this created new encouragement, as we warned, and again on March 31, the AN-24 was hijacked. On April 2 the ferry was hijacked. Curiously, with the ferry hijacking there was a change in the behavior pattern that U.S. authorities had showed until that time. Because in compliance with the Migratory Agreements they intercepted at sea all the small craft that were trying to reach the United States, they stopped the boats and were committed to returning those who were trying to reach the United States illegally. They didn't return all of them, they took between 10% and 12% of those intercepted to the United States, under one pretext or another, but still they did return about 90%.

            On the day of the hijacked ferry they said that they were not willing to act in this case as they had always done and so we took action and solved the problem.

            In other words, there has been a wave of plane hijackings, an attempt to use illegal emigration to destabilize the country, to create a situation in Cuba that was really complex.  Then, on April 3 the trials began.

            Now that I have spoken of the immigration issue I want to add a piece of information that I think is important for what I am about to say. I want to say that we believe that the increase in hijackings —I already said there were seven hijackings in seven months using firearms, knives, violence against passengers, grenades-- our opinion is that these hijackings, these numerous plans for hijackings, for illegal emigration to the United States are actually part of a deliberate plan to encourage illegal departures from Cuba, to encourage people to commit acts of terrorism on boats, and on planes that fly to and from Cuba, to encourage the hijacking of Cuban boats and of Cuban planes, to create the conditions which will allow them to tear up the immigration agreement.

            We believe there is a deliberate plan whose final goal is to tear up the immigration agreements which have been working between the two countries for almost a decade and to realize the dream of the groups of Cuban-born extremists, of the Cuban-born terrorist mob living in Florida that have always opposed these agreements and put continual pressure on the U.S. government to break up these agreements.

            It is worth now casting a brief look at the text and commitments in this agreement. This is the joint communiqué of September 9, 1994, signed by both governments and it reads, "migrants rescued at sea attempting to enter the United States will not be permitted to enter the United States." It goes on to say that "both countries pledged their cooperation to take prompt and effective action to prevent the transport of persons to the U.S. illegally," this is signed; it also says that "the two governments will take effective measures in every way they possibly can to oppose and prevent the use of violence by any persons seeking to reach, or who arrive in, the United States from Cuba by forcible diversions of aircraft and vessels."  This is the commitment entered by the United States Government. It also says that "the United States ensure that total legal migration to the United States from Cuba will be a minimum of 20, 000 Cubans each year."

            I will dwell here on this table I am showing: the U.S. government's commitment is to give visas to a minimum of 20,000 Cubans a year so they can emigrate. This does not include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, therefore, not including that, a minimum of 20,000 should emigrate.

            This table shows the true situation five months into the ninth year of the agreement. Each year of the agreement begins on October 1.

            Between October 1 and February 28, in these first five months of the agreement in the year we are now in during which the United States should grant no less than 20,000 visas, with five months gone, they have issued 505 visas. Last year there were 7,237, in 2001 there were more than 8,300, in 2000, 10,860 and in 1999 back then, five months into the year, almost 11,600 Cubans had received their visas and were emigrating to the United States.

What does this abrupt reduction in issued visas mean in overt violation of the Immigration Agreement? Why is the U.S. government not meeting its commitment?  Why, after five months have gone by are we not even close to 10,000 Cubans with visas and they have issued hardly 2.5% of the visas agreed to?

            Last year there was already a violation; in 2002 they did not issue 20,000 visas. They were short by 2,000 visas since they granted just over 18,000 visas. That was a breach of the agreement last year, which ended on September 30.

            Then, from October 1 until now, look at the curve (he points to the graph). What are we dealing with? We are dealing with a deliberate plan to make those who want to emigrate lose hope, so that they have no alternative but illegal emigration. Why don't they meet their obligations?  Why has the Interests Section, with the extensive consular apparatus they have working in Havana, with all their facilities, given out barely 505 visas? It's the same in March, six months into the year.

             So, at the present pace there will be a flagrant violation of the Immigration Agreement that commits the U.S. government to hand out at least 20,000 visas. We are witnessing the implementation of a premeditated plan to encourage illegal emigration, to leave those who want to emigrate from Cuba no other option than to hijack boats, planes.  What we want is that migration takes place in a legal and orderly fashion.

            There are people who want to tear up the immigration agreements. There is a list of people we know quite well who don't want any immigration agreements, who want to create an incident between Cuba and the United States, who are asking the United States to use aggression against Cuba.

            Therefore, I think that this is the right opportunity to warn about this new provocation and confrontation scenario.

            On May 2, 1995 both governments issued a joint declaration, which was annexed to the previous communiqué, and reads:

            "From this moment on Cuban migrants who are intercepted at sea by the United States will be returned to Cuba.

            "Both parties reaffirm their joint commitment to take measures to prevent dangerous exits from Cuba which could mean a risk of loss of human life and both commit themselves to opposing those acts of violence associated with illegal migration".

            This is the agreement in force between our countries and we see how they dangerously breach the Immigration Agreement and issue a really minimum amount of visas to migrate legally from Cuba.

            Now, I will offer you some information about the criminal trials, having looked at the background and explained their causes and the conditions that have brought us to this point.

            Twenty-nine trials have been held in Cuba, in just about every province in the country. Charges were pressed against 75 people, 74 of them men, and the courts have handed down appropriate sentences of between 6 and 28 years in jail. Therefore, it is not true that there have been death sentences. It is not true that in these cases life sentences have been handed down, which the law allows for and the behavior of some of the defendants merit. Actually, even longer sentences than they were given are provided for their crimes in most legal systems around the world.

            The criminal trials were arraigned on an expedite basis as per Law No. 5 of 1977, the Law of Criminal Procedure. And here I want to make a side comment.

            A summary trial is an institution that is not new and is far from being a Cuban invention and something only used in Cuba, far from it. It is in the body of law of more than 100 countries, including the United States and was, in fact, brought to Cuba by the Spanish colonial government. Summary trials did not arise in Cuba in the Revolution; they date back to the 1888 Law of Criminal Prosecution so that it was the Spanish colonizers who brought this to Cuba, the Spanish colonial government. The Law of Criminal Prosecution of 1888 was in effect in Cuba as the Law of Criminal Procedure until 1973 when new regulations were adopted, but they took a lot from that law. Just as the present Cuban Commercial Code is still the Spanish Code from colonial times. And the interventionist U.S. military government from 1900 to 1902 used summary trials. So, we have inherited this institution, which is also used universally. 

A summary trial means that the President of the Supreme Court is empowered to shorten the time for holding a trial, but under no circumstances does it mean a limitation of guarantees. Therefore, I strongly reject the idea that a summary trial is a trial without guarantees or that a summary trial is an institution invented by Cuba.

            Summary trials also existed in the pseudo-republic, under Machado and Batista's bloody dictatorships, which U.S. governments supported and financed giving them military and political support, although they were not often used or they were used but they were not the only measures because they resorted to more expeditious solutions such as murder, disappearance and crime against their opponents.

             In Latin America the United States backed military dictatorship that disappeared and murdered hundreds of thousands of people. They too used more expeditious procedures such as murder and disappearance, which the Revolution cannot be accused of. No one can come up with, nor will ever be able to come up with the name of a missing person in Cuba, the name of a murdered person, or of someone arrested in the early hours of morning with a hood placed on his or her head who was never seen again. However, there are hundreds of thousands of cases on those lists of missing people in Latin America that have yet to be resolved. No one can accuse Cuba of any such thing! Just as it cannot be accused of having the new institutions created by U.S. legislation such as the Secret Military Courts.

            Therefore, I maintain that there has been absolute respect for due process and that all defendants have had their full guarantees respected in accordance with Cuban law and with the principles generally recognized and accepted throughout the world.

            I will be quoting them in the six arguments I will put forward.

            First, all of the defendants knew of the charges brought against them and had the opportunity to contest them before the trial began. They could also set forth anything they considered relevant. It is not true that they only learned of the charges during the trial. They were informed in advance and just like any other defendant in Cuba they had the opportunity to give their views on the charges.

            Secondly, all of the defendants exercised their right to have legal counsel, a defence lawyer who, according to Cuban law, can be either retained by the defendant or, if he or she fails to do so, appointed by the court as assigned counsel.

            I will make clear that 54 defence lawyers took part in the 29 trials; some lawyers represented more than one defendant.

            Fifty-four took part, of which the defendants and their families appointed 44. I reject the notion that some of the defendants were not properly defended in their trial; that is untrue. Those who say this are lying. Of the 54 lawyers, the defendants retained 44, that is, 80% and the courts appointed 10.

            Thirdly, all of the defendants exercised their right to be heard by previously established courts. No special ad hoc tribunal was set up to try them. They did not go before a military court set up in an expeditious way; that is not true. They were brought before previously established provincial courts, as our law provides for, and judges appointed who were already there and working in those courts. No judges were appointed on any especial basis nor courts specifically set up; that is untrue.

            Therefore, all of them, each and every one of them, exercised their right to be heard in public hearings by courts and judges that already existed. Oral proceedings were held with the defendants where they exercised their right to speak, where they answered questions from the defence and the prosecution, where witnesses were called, experts were called, where the defence lawyers examined the witnesses, including the experts. There were oral hearings because our law does not allow a court to make a decision without a hearing, as it is the case with the U.S. and other legal systems where the defendants can plead guilty or cut a deal, and sentence can be passed without a trial.

Here in Cuba a hearing is required and hearings were held. In other words, nobody was judged on paper or without being given the chance to express his opinion and make his statements and those of his lawyers.

The oral hearings were open to the public. I reject the notion of secret trials. On average, about 100 people per trial attended the hearings. Almost 3,000 people attended all of the hearings, mostly family members, witnesses and expert witnesses —hundreds of witnesses and expert witnesses— and on average about 100 people almost 3,000 at the 29 trials. Therefore, I reject the notion of the defendants brought to trial in a place with no guarantees and with nobody in attendance; that information is false.

            I must now here make clear the following: it has been said, "Foreign diplomats in Havana were not present at the trials." Some foreign diplomats, I should say from a small number of countries, were especially interested in these matters, I don't know why. And this has been used as an example of the lack of guarantees.

            Who can say that a foreign diplomat has any right to attend a trial if someone from his country is not being tried? If there had been a citizen from his country, the trial would have been held without the presence of a diplomatic representative. That is how things works in Cuba in those cases where foreigners must stand trial because they have committed a crime in our country, drug trafficking, crimes of terrorism and other crimes. There is always diplomatic and consular access and representation from the defendants' country of origin.

            Why should a foreign diplomat attend a trial where Cubans are being tried by a Cuban court, with Cuban accusers, Cuban defence attorneys and Cuban relatives? What monitoring job does he or she have to do there? If they want any information they can address the Foreign Ministry and we shall decide what information we offer. We do not have to grant a special right that we are not granted. The courts are empowered to decide who can and who cannot attend.

            I want to make it clear that we have not ignored any prerogative of some foreign diplomats in Havana. There is simply no reason for foreign diplomats to attend a trial unless one of their nationals is on trial.

            The courts decided that they would not be open to the press, that is their prerogative and we respect it. They decided for security and organizational reasons and to avoid any incidents to limit access of hundreds of thousands and millions of revolutionaries who, angry at the unpatriotic and mercenary attitude of those individuals would have liked to attend those trials but couldn't go either. But those trials were held with all guarantees for the physical and moral integrity of the accused and with due order and respect for their relatives and for all involved.

             I stress that these were oral, public and adversary proceedings, that is a principle of law, which allows for the defence to present opposing views. Therefore, I strongly reject the idea of a trial in which these rights were not guaranteed.

             Fourth, all of the defendants and their defence lawyers exercised their right to introduce evidence in their favor, which was examined the same as that produced by the police investigation, which was introduced by the prosecution. They exercised their right to call their witnesses. The defence lawyers called 28 witnesses who had not been previously called by the prosecution, of whom 22, the overwhelming majority were authorized on the spot by the courts to act as witnesses.

All of the defence lawyers had prior access to the list of charges. What happened to the defence lawyers of the five Cubans unjustly sentenced in Miami did not happen here, that still today, all this time after the trial, they have not been given access to 80% of the documents submitted by the prosecution because the U.S. government has declared them to be secret. That did not happen here.

            What happened to the five Cubans in Miami who were not able to read the charges against them in order to prepare their defence did not happen here. That did not happen nor did the defence lawyers have to argue their cases without having seen 80% of the prosecution's charges. That was not the case here.

            Neither have any of those defendants in Cuba been put into solitary confinement to prevent them from preparing for the trial.

             Fifth; all have the right, and they were notified of this during the trial, to appeal their sentences in a court higher than the one, which handed down their sentences, in this case to the Supreme Court. This is a right they have which the Cuban law respects scrupulously.

             And sixth; I said I was going to cite six arguments. There has been the most transparent and scrupulous respect for the physical safety, for the physical and moral integrity of each of the defendants at every stage of the trial. There is not here the slightest evidence or the slightest suspicion of coercion, pressure, threats or blackmail. We cannot be accused of any of that because we have morale, because we believe in moral values and that is what has allowed us to get this far, and our people know that.

Now on this subject I'm going to show you the opinion offered, on this matter of guarantees, by one of the defendants in a trial yesterday.

(A video is shown)