presented through a communication of April 10, 1972, alleges that a
number of United States citizens residing in Cuba for 6 years have-made
efforts to return to their homeland; the reply they received from the
Delegation of Switzerland in Cuba is "that they have not yet
received from the Cuban Government the authorization necessary for their
Commission considered this communication at its twenty-ninth session
(October 1972) and agreed: i) to request the appropriate information
from the Government of Cuba in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its
Regulations and ii) to address the Government of the Swiss
Confederation, requesting that it kindly inform the Commission, insofar
as possible, whether it is true that the efforts being made through the
Swiss Embassy in Cuba by many citizens of the U.S.A. to obtain
authorization to travel to their country of origin (the United States)
have been excessively delayed.
to these decisions, the Commission addressed its-self to the Governments
of Cuba and Switzerland through notes dated November 1 and November 14,
Government of Switzerland replied as follows:
view of the legal nature of the mandate of protective power (mandat
de puissance protectrice), it is not incumbent upon this Government
to make to third states or intergovernmental organizations any value
judgement on any position of the government of the state concerning
which it exercises its protection. The Government of the Swiss
Confederation therefore believes that only the Government of the United
States of America is competent to receive the request of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights".
its thirtieth session (April 1973), the Commission continued its
examination of the case and, in view of the terms of the note of the
Swiss Government, on the one hand, and the lack of reply from the
Government of Cuba, on the other, it decided to address the Government
of the United States, requesting information in accordance with Articles
42 and 44 of the Regulations. In implementation of this decision, a note
was sent to that Government on June 17, 1973. In a letter dated June 18,
1973, the complainant was informed of the new procedure being used to
deal with the matter.
the thirty-first session (October 1973), the Commission noted that the
Government of the United States had not replied to the note of June 17,
1973, and decided to repeat the request for information and to postpone
the examination of the case at that session.
Government of the United States, through its Mission to the OAS, in a
note dated December 13, 1973, replied to the request of the Commission
and sent information on the steps taken by United States citizens still
resident in Cuba to leave that country vis a vis the Swiss delegation in
Cuba and, in particular, on the status of such negotiations with respect
to the relatives of the complainant.
a letter of December 28, 1973, the Commission transmitted, to the
complainant the pertinent parts of the information supplied by the
Mission of the United States to the OAS.
that information at hand, the Commission continued its examination of
the case at its thirty-second session (April 1974) and decided: a) to
request the Government of the United States of America to be good
enough to report on the development of the procedure for the departure
from Cuba of the persons mentioned in the complaint and b) to request
the complainant to state whether she would have any objection to the
names of her relatives resident in Cuba being made known to the Cuban
Government in a request for information that the CIDH would send to the
above-mentioned government in the event that the complainant gave her
compliance with paragraph a of this decision, the CIDH addressed the
Government of the United States on June 3, 1974, and the complainant on
April 26, 1974, and informed them of the decision (paragraph b) on the
Government of the United States, in a note dated July 11, 1974, informed
the CIDH that, for the time being, it had no new information about the
matter to pass on to it, not only with respect to the persons involved
in the case but also with respect to the general status of United States
citizens that wished to leave Cuba.
respect to the complainant, in a letter dated May 4, 1974, she
authorized the CIDH to report to the Government of Cuba the names of her
relatives in the country.
the basis of this information, the CIDH examined the case at its
thirty-fourth session (October 1974) and decided: a) to request the
Government of Cuba, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its
Regulations to provide the pertinent information on the individual
status of the persons affected, mentioned in the complaint, who are
still waiting to leave that country because of the lack of the necessary
authorization from Cuban authorities and b) to inform the
complainant of its decision.
implementation of the foregoing, the Commission: a) Sent to complainant
a letter on November 18, 1974, and b) again sent a letter to the
Government of Cuba on December 17, 1974.
the thirty-fifth session (May 1975), the Commission continued its
examination of this case, bearing in mind, above all, the fact that the
Government of Cuba continued to fail to reply to the repeated requests
made by the Commission to provide the appropriate information.
Therefore, since the 180-day period provided for under Article 51 had
elapsed as had the extensions provided for provision of the
corresponding information, it approved the following resolution, in
application of the provisions contained in Article 51, presuming
confirmation of the allegations, in the complaint, (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.35,
doc.7, rev.1, of April 15, 1975):
communication of April 10, 1972, acts are denounced allegedly in
violation of the right to residence and movement, set forth in Article
VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
imputable to the Government of Cuba and claiming as victims numerous
foreigners in that country who are being prevented or delayed in leaving
communication of April 28 of the same year, the following was
brother Alberto Castillo, my nephew Arturo Castillo his wife and four
children were among the first group who applied for repatriation as
recorded in the Swiss Embassy in Havana. Furthermore, my nephew
completed the necessary requirements and arrangements to send his eldest
son without delay to the States by way of Spain about six years ago. The
funds covering all expenses were sent to Cuba, and that was the end of
our transactions. We never heard what happened to the cheque.
names and nationalities of the persons who are subject to your claim:
Castillo (my brother). Born in West Florida (over 70 years of age)
always lived in the United States where he was educated. Attended school
in Key West, Atlanta and Montreal, Canada. Traveled to Cuba for
Castillo (my nephew). Son of my brother, Arturo Castillo, M.D. (also
American born). This nephew happened to be born in Cuba but legally
adopted his father's American citizenship. His four children were born
in Cuba but since they are too young no legal action has been taken to
legalize their American citizenship.
reasons given by the Government of Cuba in not permitting them to leave
frequently visit the Swiss Embassy in Havana to inquire when they are
scheduled to leave and the only reply they receive is that the Cuban
government has not as yet authorized their departure."
exercise of the-authority granted it by Article 9 (bis) of its Statute,
the Commission requested that the Government of Cuba, by notes of
November 1, 1972 and December 17, 1974, to provide the appropriate
information and transmitted to it, at the same time, the pertinent parts
of the aforementioned communications, in the manner established in
Articles 49 (1) and 44 of its Regulations.
5.1 of the Regulations reads as follows:
occurrence of the events on which information has been requested will be
presumed to be confirmed if the Government referred to has not supplied
such information within 180 days of the request, provided always, that
the invalidity of the events denounced is not shown by other elements of
Commission may make an extension to the term of 180 days in cases in
which it finds it justified."
the formulation of observations nor, in general, the competence of the
Commission to take cognizance of denunciations regarding violations of
human rights committed in the territory of Cuba is barred by the
measures adopted by the Organization of American States with respect to
the present government of that country, since that government has not
denounced the Charter of the Organization, provided for in Article 148
of the Charter, for which reason it is reason it is the duty of the
Commission to continue to take cognizance of these denunciations.
view of the systematic silence of the present Government of Cuba in the
face of the numerous communications received from the Commission, it
would serve no practical purpose to make the type of recommendations
envisaged in Articles 9 b and 9 (bis) b of the Statute.
However, this does not prevent the Commission from making known its
considered opinion on the allegations to the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS; RESOLVES:
presume the confirmation of the occurrence of the allegations contained
in the communications of April 10 and 28, 1972, in application of
Article 51 of the Regulations.
include this resolution in the Annual Report that the Commission
presents to the General Assembly of the Organization (Article 9 (bis) c
of its Statute) making known that the allegations constitute a serious
and repeated case of the violation of the right to residence and
movement, set forth in Article VIII of the American Declaration of the
Rights and-Duties of Man.
transmit this resolution to the Government of Cuba and to the claimants.
resolution was brought to the attention of the Government of Cuba and
the complainant through notes of June 1, 1975, and June 4, 1975,