UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on the US to ensure that its immigration policies comply with international law, citing reports of arbitrary detentions, family separations, and dehumanizing treatment. And Democratic lawmakers demanded that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem answer for a growing death toll in immigration detention since President Donald Trump took office for his second term.

The medical examiner in El Paso County found this week that Geraldo Lunas Campos, a 55-year-old Cuban migrant held at a local Homeland Security detention camp, died of asphyxiation on Jan. 3—a homicide. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) initially saidCampos died after staff “observed him in distress.” The Washington Post reported witness testimony that camp guards had choked him to death.

The homicide finding adds to intensifying controversy over deaths involving ICE, following the fatal shooting of Renee Good, 37, by an ICE officer in Minneapolis.

The UN’s Türk said that individuals are being detained “sometimes violently” at hospitals, places of worship, schools, and homes, “often solely on mere suspicion of being undocumented migrants.” He noted that children are missing school and medical appointments out of fear of family separation.

“States have the authority to establish their national migration policies, but this needs to be carried out in full accordance with the law,” Türk said. “Adhering to due process is crucial to the legality and legitimacy of any policy.”

Türk’s statement comes amid declining public support for ICE. A New York Times/Siena University poll of 1,625 registered voters conducted Jan. 12-17 found that 61% of voters believe ICE tactics have “gone too far,” including 71% of independents and 19% of Republicans. Across the political spectrum, just 26% of voters thought the enforcement tactics used by ICE were “about right.”

In his statement, Türk also called for an independent investigation into deaths in ICE custody, adding that 30 people are reported to have died in the agency’s custody since President Donald Trump took office for his second term on Jan. 20, 2025. This marks the highest figure since 2004, and there have already been a further six deaths reported in ICE custody so far this year.

The ICE detainee death reporting website lists only 18 deaths for fiscal year 2025, which ended Sept. 30, but the page has not been updated since October and does not yet include figures for fiscal year 2026. More than 65,000 people are currently in ICE custody, a two-thirds jump since Trump took office. This figure includes 1,700 children, and reports of harsh conditions include contaminated food, limited access to clean drinking water, and inadequate medical care.

Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Noem on Dec. 22 demanding answers about what they called a “callous disregard for human life” by Homeland Security, the federal department that oversees ICE. The letter, signed by 13 House members led by Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, counted 53 total deaths in ICE or Customs & Border Protection (CBP) custody since Trump took office. It also alleged that Homeland Security attempted to deport two witnesses to Campos’ death while the investigation remained open. Homeland Security maintains that Campos attempted to take his own life and resisted staff who intervened. Lawmakers demanded documentation on all custody deaths, medical staffing levels, and mental health screening protocols by Feb. 5.

From JURIST, Jan. 23. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Photo: Paul Goyette in Chicago via Wikimedia Commons

Did Delcy capitulate?
Meanwhile in Washington, White House officials were briefing members of Congress, who were not notified beforehand of the Jan. 3 military operation in which Maduro was captured.

And in Venezuela, Maduro’s groomed successor, newly inaugurated acting president Delcy Rodríguez, showed signs of capitulating to the pressure from Washington. After the Pentagon raid in which Maduro was taken (which also claimed the lives of at least 60 people, including civilians and several members of a Cuban security detail), Rodriguez defiantly stated in a televised address: “There is only one president in Venezuela, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”

But the next day, she struck a conciliatory tone, writing on social media: “We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence.”

Bellicose mid-flight press conference
Rodríguez is under explicit threat from Trump, who told reporters on a Dec. 4 flight from Florida to DC that if she doesn’t cooperate “she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro.” When asked about his boast that he will “run” Venezuela, Trump responded: “We’re dealing with the people. We’re dealing with the people that just got sworn in. And don’t ask me who’s in charge, because I will give you an answer and it’ll be very controversial.” When the reporter took this bait and asked him what that meant, he replied: “It means we’re in charge.”

Trump was similarly lacking subtlety in his claim to Venezuela’s oil: “The oil companies are ready to go. They’re going to go in. They’re going to rebuild the infrastructure. You know, we built it to start off with many years ago. They took it away. You can’t do that.”

Apparently refering to Venezuelan efforts to extend state control over the country’s oil resources following US investment in the sector over a century ago, he added: “It was the greatest theft in the history of America. Nobody has ever stolen our property like they have. They took our oil away from us. They took the infrastructure away and all that infrastructure is rotted and decayed, and the oil companies are going to go in and rebuild it.”

And indeed, shares of Chevron, the last US oil company that was authorized to operate in Venezuela, soared as much as 10% in pre-market trading after Trump’s comment. Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips shares also rose around 4%.

Queried about his supposed isolationism and antipathy to “nation-building,” Trump explicitly invoked the notion of Latin America as a US influence sphere, which was articulated in his recent National Security Strategy. He said of Venezuela: “This isn’t a country that’s on the other side of the world. This isn’t a country like we have to travel 24 hours in an airplane. This is Venezuela. It’s in our area, the Donroe Doctrine.”

Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland
He went on to directly threaten Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro: “He has cocaine mills, cocaine factories. He’s not going to be doing it very long.” So there will be another military operation?, the reporter asked. Trump: “It sounds good to me.”

Mexico was next. Invoking the flow of migrants across the US southern border, Trump reiterated his recent threat of military intervention: “Mexico has to get their act together, because they’re pouring through Mexico, and we’re going to have to do something.”

And even Greenland: “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you. You know what Denmark did recently to boost up security in Greenland? They added one more dogsled. It’s true.”

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen prompty responded: “This is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.”

And Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said in a statement: “It is necessary to reaffirm that in Mexico the people are in charge and that we are a free, independent and sovereign country. Cooperation, yes. Subordination and intervention, no.”

But Secretary of State Marco Rubio meanwhile warned that Cuba could be next, responding to a reporter’s question at a DC press conference: “Yeah, look, if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned.” (PBS NewsHour, FreedomNews.tv, CNN, The Hill, Politico, NDTV, NBC News)

Photo: US Navy via Latin America Reports

The Migrant Operations Center at the Naval Station Guantánamo Bay was originally opened in 1991 to hold Haitian migrants, and predates the detention camp established at the base after the events of 9-11 to hold “illegal enemy combatants.” Guantánamo gained a grim reputation during the years it was heavily used to hold “enemy combatants” after 9-11, becoming known for what rights groups called extralegal and inhumane conditions. Since then, especially through efforts under the administrations of presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the number of detainees held there has dwindled to 15.

The new plan for the Migrant Operations Center comes amid the Trump administration’s harsh crackdown on undocumented immigrants living in the US. This will be the first mass-deportation to Guantánamo since Trump signed an executive order on his first days in office ordering the secretary of defense and the secretary of homeland security to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Guantanamo to full capacity. The center can hold up to 30,000 detainees. Trump’s executive order and the newly released documents indicate that the facility will be used to hold undocumented migrants temporarily until they are transferred to their countries of origin.

Politico and the Washington Post reported that this plan has only come together in the last few days, and may be subject to change. Also at issue is a class-action lawsuit pending in Washington DC, Luna Gutierrez v. Noem, in which civil rights groups are calling for the courts to declare holding immigrants at Guantánamo illegal and unconstitutional. The lawsuit cites 10 immigrant detainees who experienced conditions such as insufficient food and rodent infestations at Guantánamo Bay.

From JURIST, June 11. Used with permission.

Photo: Spc. Cody Black/WikiMedia via Jurist

As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas…which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement…and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety.

Commentators have criticized the ban, pointing out that it disproportionately affects Muslim-majority and African countries. Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnes Callamard lambasted Trump for the action, calling it inhumane:

President Trump’s new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel. By targeting people based on their race, religion, or nationality, from countries with predominantly Black, Brown and Muslim-majority populations, this blanket ban constitutes racial discrimination under international human rights law. It also spreads hate and disinformation, reinforcing the notion that these populations are more likely to pose security risks or engage in acts of violence.

Leaders of affected countries have also denounced the United States for the action. In a Facebook post, Chad President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno announced a corresponding ban on US citizens and jabbed at Trump for his recent receipt of a Qatari luxury jet:

I have instructed the government in accordance with the principles of reciprocity and suspended the granting of visas to citizens of the United States of America. Chad has neither airplanes nor billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and its pride.

The ban extends almost completely to nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Additionally, more partial bans have been placed on nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

The restrictions bear a striking resemblance to Trump’s 2017 travel ban, which blocked travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. Some of these countries—namely Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen—have suffered under both bans.

Trump justified the current ban in almost identical fashion as the 2017 ban, relying on certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 212(f) of the act allows the president to deny entry into the country if doing so “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The administration additionally cited 215(a), which allows the president to block individuals’ entry if they knowingly make false statements or otherwise engage in fraudulent activity.

For both bans, Trump claimed that restrictions were not based on religion or race but rather countries’ deficient screening processes, high terrorist activity, poor information sharing, and high overstay rates.

After multiple challenges, the US Supreme Court ultimately upheld Trump’s first travel ban under the INA and the US Constitution.

Trump stated: “We will restore the travel ban…and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court.”

From JURIST, June 5. Used with permission.

Note: The 2017 Trump travel ban was overturned by Biden on his first day in office, Jan. 20, 2021.

Photo: Minneapolis protest of 2018 Supreme Court decision upholding Trump’s first travel ban. Credit: Fibonacci Blue/Flickr

The experts, part of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures, expressed concern that the credibility of the international legal system is at risk due to inaction over ongoing violations in the occupied Palestinian territories. They warned that failure to act could set back the multilateral system by decades and called for decisive, principled and concerted action.

The UN experts also highlighted the disproportionate impact of the ongoing conflict on vulnerable populations, particularly women and children. They stressed that ensuring accountability for violations is essential to safeguarding fundamental human rights and preserving international peace and security. The experts concluded:

We call on all nations to join us in our solemn commitment to an international order based on the rule of law. Only through coordinated, collective action can we hope to end this cycle of impunity and safeguard the rights and lives of those affected.

On Jan. 31, delegates from nine nations (including South Africa, Malaysia, Colombia, Bolivia and Cuba) formed the Hague Group, responding to the failure of the broader international community to halt Israel’s military actions and crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories. Drawing on a series of binding and advisory rulings, the group’s declaration especially cited the Advisory Opinion of July 2024, issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The opinion asserted the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and called for a total and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

International human rights groups have documented numerous violations of international humanitarian law, from indiscriminate air-strikes that hit civilian shelters and hospitals, to targeted demolitions and forced evictions in both Gaza and the West Bank. International legal actions have mounted, including an International Criminal Court investigation and South Africa’s application to the ICJ, accusing under the Genocide Convention. Israeli authorities have refused to cooperate with UN inquiries or investigate alleged war crimes.

From JURIST, April 8. Used with permission.

Notes: Having just visited Hungary, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week met with Donald Trump at the White House, where the two discussed their plan to “transfer” the population of the Gaza Strip. (NYT) These meetings took place in defiance of an ICC warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest on war crimes charges. (NYT)

Nicaragua last week withdrew its application to intervene in the proceedings of South Africa v Israel at the ICJ, without citing any reason for its decision. (Jurist) But just days earlier, the UN Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua released a landmark report naming 54 Nicaraguan officials allegedly responsible for grave human rights violations. The violations occurred as part of a systematic campaign of repression orchestrated by President Daniel Ortega’s government. (Jurist)

See our last report on genocide accusations against Israel.

Photo: Hague Group

In southern Mexico, where US and Mexican deterrence policies caused a major humanitarian crisis last year, local residents say crossings from Guatemala to the border state of Chiapas have significantly decreased. At the US southern border, numbers apprehended by US Border Patrol dropped from around 61,500 in January to 11,709 last month. And in the Darién Gap—the treacherous jungle migration route connecting South and Central America—crossings have also decreased dramatically, from 25,111 last September to just 408 in February.

But the stifling effect of Trump policies on the movement of people heading north is creating new challenges. People on the move are now stranded in precarious living conditions across Mexico, more exposed to potential abuses and violence, and deeply affected by the uncertainty of further policy changes ahead.

“Even though the number of people on the move may have fluctuated, we still have thousands of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in Mexico who have urgent, unmet needs,” said Michelle Van Akin, associate director for humanitarian programs for Plan International USA.

Trump administration funding cuts to foreign aid have forced a reduction in services and are making it harder for humanitarian organisations to provide assistance, according to Van Akin. “The needs are staggering,” she added.

“The main problem is that migrants are stranded with no information about whether they will be able to apply for asylum [in the US] again or if there will be new norms allowing them to transit to the United States,” said Reinaldo Ortuño, Mexico and Central America medical coordinator at Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

Mounting needs
About 270,000 people were waiting to get an appointment to seek asylum in the United States through US Customs and Border Protection’s controversial CBP One cellphone application when Trump shut it down on January 20, the day he re-entered office.

People relying on the application for an opportunity to enter the US were left stranded along Mexico’s southern and northern borders, in Mexico City, and in more remote areas with fewer resources. Since it was launched in 2023, nearly one million people had been able to enter the US legally using CBP One. But people often had to wait for extended periods of time, living in precarious and often dangerous conditions before they were able to secure an appointment.

Aid groups say that many asylum seekers—having fled gang violence, political repression, and other crises throughout Latin America and the Caribbean—have not given up on the idea of crossing to the US and are waiting for new opportunities, hoping the policies will change.

In Mexico City, they have been setting up unsafe, makeshift camps, and thousands are also living in dire conditions in northern and southern Mexico.

“The main needs that we’ve identified include legal assistance to regularise immigration status, urgent medical care, including mental health support, and access to reliable information as well as basic needs like food, shelter, hygiene materials,” said Van Akin.

Enrique López, field coordinator for Doctors of the World in Tapachula, a city in the state of Chiapas along Mexico’s southern border where many asylum seekers and migrants first arrive from Guatemala, said that although the number of migrants crossing the border dropped in February, people continue to arrive.

Those still entering Mexico are mostly from Cuba, Honduras, and Haiti, and are still hoping to eventually reach the US, according to López. Others are coming to Tapachula from other states in Mexico, trying to return to their home countries, while many already in Tapachula are searching for work to support themselves and planning to request asylum in Mexico.

“They don’t do it by choice, but rather because transiting through Mexico has become more complicated and there are no ways to access the United States, if not irregularly,” López said. “The cases we see are more complex as migrants take more dangerous routes, are exposed to more risks, and don’t have the possibility to travel in large groups [to protect themselves] anymore,” he told The New Humanitarian.

Acute respiratory infections, skin diseases, and gastrointestinal problems are some of the most common health issues. Rape and sexual violence also remain major issues.

“We do case management for survivors of [gender-based violence], and the same number of cases continue to come in,” said López. “There are more risks, less services, and less funding to assist.”

Growing exposure to abuse
Organizations such as MSF have warned that sexual violence against migrants on the route between Colombia and Mexico is on the rise. In 2024 alone, the organisation assisted more than 700 survivors of sexual violence in Mexico and hundreds more in Central American countries—far more than the 232 they assisted in 2023.

For the many migrants escaping violence—and who have been subjected to violence while on the move—the prospect of having to return to their home countries and potentially relive the same abuses is particularly dreadful.

According to a poll led by the Danish Refugee Council, 26% of the migrants interviewed between October and December 2024 in the Mexican cities of Matamoros, Reynosa, and Tapachula said the reasons for leaving their country were threats, violence, and intimidation. Another 21% mentioned insecurity and general violence, and 12.7% persecution.

“It means a huge emotional burden, frustration, and anxiety, because by returning to the places they escaped they put their health and physical integrity at risk,” said MSF’s Ortuño.

A legal limbo
Some efforts have been made to help migrants who want to return to their country of origin. In early February, the UN’s migration agency, IOM, announced it was expanding its Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) program in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama to facilitate safe returns. In January and February, IOM received nearly 2,900 requests—three times more than during the same period last year.

But the Trump-induced crisis in Mexico is being compounded by shortcomings in migration policies across Latin America. There has been no coordinated response to address the situation by scaling up consular services to facilitate returns or by fostering integration initiatives in their respective countries: Migrants are often pushed to leave because of xenophobia and lack of opportunities.

An agreement between Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s administration and the Mexican government reportedly allowed more than 500 nationals to be repatriated. But for many, returning safely to their home countries—or to a country where they will feel safe—is not an easy prospect.

For migrants from other parts of the world—Indians, Afghans, Chinese, and others—stranded in Mexico, the hurdles are even higher. Local humanitarian workers say discrimination is common and language barriers compound other vulnerabilities. The Mexican Commission for Refugee Aid (COMAR), which handles asylum claims, and other institutions providing assistance to migrants often don’t have translators or the ability to understand the specific needs of people from all over the world.

Dwindling aid
As humanitarian needs mount, the Trump administration’s decision to massively cut funding for foreign aid makes it all the more difficult for aid groups to respond.

“We [at MSF] still have the capacity to provide support on the health front, but we notice the absence of other actors who play an important role in protection and other services,” said Ortuño.

The Adventist Development & Relief Agency International—a faith-based NGO that provides legal counsel, medical services, and internet access across Chiapas—was forced to reduce its assistance due to funding cuts, and Plan International had to shut down its child protection programs in Tapachula.

The New Humanitarian contacted several other organizations and agencies to find out whether they had to suspend some of their activities, but they refused to comment.

“That decision [to suspend foreign aid] is limiting us a lot, and we will have to see where to diversify funds,” a staff member at one affected organisation told The New Humanitarian, on condition of anonymity, adding: “Now, the salaries will be taken out of an emergency fund.”

The reduced presence of aid groups impacts other factors too, Van Akin said: “It makes it very difficult to have an accurate idea of how migration dynamics are changing because of the suspension of funding. It’s hard for us to be able to paint an accurate picture.”

— Daniela Díaz for The New Humanitarian, March 26 (condensed; some internal links added)

Reporting for this article was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism. The New Humanitarian used transportation provided by Médecins Sans Frontières to secure access to migrants and staff in the organization’s mobile clinics in Tapachula and Suchiate. Additional reporting by Daniela Mohor and by Eric Reidy. Edited by Andrew Gully.

Photo of Tapachula migrant camp: Daniela Díaz for The New Humanitarian

Within 30 days of the date of the order, the US Secretary of Interior is to take “all appropriate actions” to rename the gulf, defined as the area “bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba.”

The decision, which immediately raised tensions between the US and Mexico, prompted Sheinbaum to write her letter to Google, arguing that the US did not have the right to rename the whole Gulf unilaterally.

Sheinbaum stated that Trump’s executive order to rename the Gulf must cover only the portion of the body of water under US jurisdiction. She told reporters: “What Google is doing here is changing the name of the continental shelf of Mexico and Cuba, which has nothing to do with Trump’s decree, which applied only to the US continental shelf.”

Sheinbaum noted that Mexico would wait for Google’s response before proceeding with legal actions.

From JURIST, Jan. 19. Use with permission.

Image: Google

In its first weeks in office, the Trump administration has launched a campaign to round up and deport thousands of undocumented people. Stepped-up deportation flights to Latin American countries are already causing concern and controversy, with Latin leaders saying deportees are being subjected to inhuman treatment. As a result, on Jan. 26, Colombia announced it would not allow US deportation flights to land—but accommodations were reached after Trump threatened steep financial penalties if it did not comply.

From The New Humanitarian, Jan. 31

Photo: Spc. Cody Black/WikiMedia via Jurist

Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism has been widely condemned by activists around the world. Trump reinstated the terrorist designation in January 2021 in the final days of his first term, after it had been reversed under the Obama administration. Biden then upheld Cuba’s inclusion on the SSOT list despite promises to review the policy. Six months into his term, Biden announced new sanctions against the island.

The deal lifts a huge burden off of the Cuban people. Cuba’s SSOT status produced a chilling effect in which banks and financial institutions were hesitant to engage with the island, created obstacles to delivering humanitarian aid, and prohibited US universities from collaborating with Cuban writers, artists, academics, and journalists. As a result of these policies Cuba has lost a staggering 10% of its population in the last few years.

The Cuban government responded to the move by thanking the international community for its solidarity and highlighting the need for further action to end the United States’ “genocidal and illegal policy of economic asphyxiation against Cuba.” The government specifically called out the ongoing targeting of Cuba’s fuel supplies, the “cruel and absurd persecution” of its international medical brigades, and restrictions on financial institutions and transactions. According to the Cuban government’s own calculations, the ongoing US embargo cost upwards of $5 billion dollars in 2024 alone. The rising human and economic costs of the sanctions led the United Nations to, once again, vote overwhelmingly to condemn the embargo in October 2024.

As part of the agreement, the Cuban government began the “gradual” release of hundreds of prisoners, news that was welcomed by the relatives of jailed protestors. The majority of those to be released took part in the July 2021 anti-government protests that resulted in the arrestsof up to 1,000 people. While the government responded to the protests with initial promises of reform, it subsequently passed a penal code that increased restrictions on basic freedoms and initiated a crackdown on Cuba’s “critical left” that labelled domestic protesters as “enemies of the revolution,” thus damaging the Cuban government’s remaining ties to the country’s grassroots social movements.

The durability of Biden’s deal was immediately cast into doubt. Just one day after the policy change, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, said during his Senate Confirmation hearing that Cuba belongs on the SSOT list. Rubio is widely seen as having a smooth pass to confirmation, especially after drawing bipartisan support at his hearing. He was not the only one to cast doubt on the policy. Upon hearing of the policy change, Mauricio Claver-Carone, Trump’s envoy for Latin America and one of the initial architects of the initial SSOT policy, criticized the Biden administration’s “love” for “authoritarian anti-American regimes.” Trump’s pick for national security adviser, Congressman Mike Walz, made clear that “anything that they’re doing right now we can do back.”

From NACLA Update, Jan. 17

See our last reports on the SSOT designation and the protest wave in Cuba.

Photo: Falkenpost/Pixabay

Several NGOs including Justicia 11J and the Centro de Documentación de Prisiones Cubanas(Cuban Prison Documentation Center), operated by Mexico-based non-profit organization Iniciativa para la Investigación y la Incidencia (Research & Advocacy Initiative), released statements denouncing the conduct of the Cuban authorities and demanding access to Cuban prisons to ensure an end to the systemic violation of prisoners’ rights. Justicia 11J and the Center for a Free Cuba urged “governments, the United Nations, international human rights organizations and medical associations around the world” to “pressure the Cuban regime” and “provide the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access to all Cuban prisons,” and to provide care and treatment for sick or injured prisoners.

The death of the political prisoner and member of the opposition Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU), Manuel de Jesús Guillén Esplugas, who had been serving a sentence of six years in the Combinado del Este prison in Havana, drew condemnation from multiple international organizations.

Guillén Esplugas was among those arrested after participating in the protests that began on July 11, 2021 (11J), when thousands of Cubans, spurred by their dissatisfaction with living conditions, organized demonstrations against the regime for its handling of the economy and COVID-19 crisis, and repression of dissidents. Constant blackouts and shortages of food, medicine and personal hygiene items contributed to the nationwide protests.

A statement from Guillén Esplugas’ mother, Dania Esplugas, stated he died as a victim of a beating by prison guards, in which he sustained a fractured collarbone and trachea damage. Authorities informed his brother and cousin that Manuel had hanged himself. However, they have maintained he was killed, attributing his neck injuries to a guard’s belt. Reports indicate the beating occurred in a punishment cell following a prison escape attempt. Statements were also released by the US Embassy in Cuba and Rosa María Payá, a Cuban activist and founder of Cuba Decide, a pro-democracy non-profit Manuel had promoted.

The Cuban Prison Documentation Center monitors human rights violations and conditions within Cuba’s detention and confinement centers. In April, the center reported that Guillén Esplugas, who was held alongside violent criminals, was “plagued by bedbugs, rats and poor nutrition,” was “extremely thin,” and that jailers had denied him “medical care for scabies and skin problems.” Justicia 11J has been verifying, updating and disseminating information on public protests in Cuba since the July 2021 unrest. Justicia 11J notes this marks the “third verified death” of a protester from the July 2021 uprising. Its Annual Report 2024 revealed that 554 people remain imprisoned in connection with the July protests.

From JURIST, Dec. 4. Used with permission.

See our last report on the protest wave in Cuba.

Image: Justicia11J