Following the Supreme People's Court's notification of severe sentences against the accused Alejandro Miguel Gil Fernández —former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy— the magnitude of the implications resulting from the criminal conduct judged, and which had to be proven in the aforementioned criminal proceedings, is evident.

The forcefulness of the arguments presented by the judicial entity stands out, regarding the scope and consequences of the committed acts, above all due to their gravity, not against one or several persons, but against an entire people who cannot separate this matter—beyond the ethical, moral, and political degradation of the accused—from the profound economic crisis the country is suffering.

However, there is discussion of possibilities that, according to the norms of due process, are guaranteed to the accused going forward. On this matter, Granma spoke with Dr. in Juridical Sciences Mariano Rodríguez García, head of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of the University of Havana.

Dr. in Juridical Sciences Mariano Rodríguez García.

— Why are these elements referred to in the note? Could more have been said?

— "The note from the Supreme People's Court refers, in a generic manner, to the essential aspects concerning the notification of the sentence."

"Of course, it is limited to its informative character about the process. It does not need to allude to the technical legal details, to the arguments of proven facts that the judicial ruling must detail, and which are known to the defense lawyer, the accused, and his relatives."

— Do you believe that, by virtue of the public interest, more elements are provided than on other occasions, and that the dimension of the gravity of the accusation is conveyed?

—I believe the essence of the generic conduct, and of the behaviors for which he was accused, is offered. The crimes charged were espionage, bribery, influence peddling, and falsification of public documents, among others. One would have to see, specifically, which were proven, how they are interrelated with each other, to have held one or two trials, and then be able to give a deeper opinion."

— Why two criminal proceedings for the same accused?

— "I believe it is essentially due to the sensitive nature of the information derived from the first judicial act, for the crime of espionage and those related to it, which could involve data and persons that, if made public, could affect state processes, important economic processes at the national level."

"It is always preferable, as established by the Criminal Procedure Law, to hold trials behind closed doors in these cases, for reasons of public security or national interest."

— There were two proceedings, and yet the note refers to a joint sanction. How is this explained?

— "According to the sanctioning system established for each crime, the acting court must sanction or punish each conduct and, depending on the type of punishment imposed, determine a single penalty, based on a series of procedures."

"If there are sanctions that involve the death penalty, perpetual deprivation of liberty, or temporary deprivation of liberty or a fine, and any of these are established for several crimes, a single sanction is determined, in an alternative manner: either perpetual deprivation—as appears to be the case—or temporary deprivation of liberty or a fine in pertinent cases."

"But in the case of several crimes with temporary deprivation of liberty sentences—let's use a hypothetical example: eight, ten, five, and seven years—a single and joint sanction is made by establishing the most severe sanction (eight years), converted into the minimum limit, and the sum of all penalties (30 years) as the maximum limit. The judging court must impose a single penalty that falls within that framework."

— How is it guaranteed that the accused can appeal the decision of perpetual deprivation of liberty?

— "The acting court has already notified him of the rulings. Now the accused can appeal, to challenge those sentences if he considers that the court made an error in the judgment, or was not fair, or has some grounds regarding the assessment of the evidence or any of the aspects of a formal order —I mean strictly of the law— application or interpretation of the law, or any other matter related to the essence of the issue debated in the trials."

"His defense lawyers can file the corresponding appeal and must have the guarantee that the accused will be heard again, provided it is filed within the established term."

"This would be resolved by another court, which would review these options, with or without an oral hearing, in which it can be argued why it is considered that the court of first instance was not fair or made errors in its assessment of the evidence or in its decision."

"There, then, what was done would be evaluated, and a new sentence would be issued, which would determine whether the decision of the court of first instance is confirmed, or whether there is some cause, some reason for this appeal to succeed. Once this appeal is decided and resolved, the sentence is declared final, and the appeals are exhausted."

— Are there no others?

— "For extraordinary cases, the law establishes a special review process, but it is not considered an appeal against the sentence, which is already final."

"I insist that it is a new process of an exceptional character, which only proceeds in particular situations determined by law, such as, for example, when new elements arise that were not taken into account in the trial."

"The finality and execution of the sentence are not affected by the mere admission of that possibility." (Granma)