A Shameful Stab in the Back for Angel Santiesteban from UNEAC

A Shameful Stab in the Back for Angel Santiesteban from UNEAC / Amir
Valle, Angel Santiesteban
Posted on June 17, 2013
By Amir Valle

The strategy of UNEAC and certain "disinformed" writers against Ángel
Santiesteban

One more shame falls on the Writers and Artists Union of Cuba. This
time, the shame is a dirty attack, manipulative and disloyal, against
Ángel Santiesteban.

I read it in the blog "The Unknown Island," by the Cuban essayist and
journalist Enrique Ubieta, and it appears to be signed in principle by
eight women, among whom we find some of the writers most admired for
their work. But more than these signatures, what catches my attention is
their taking advantage of the accusation against Angel Santiesteban to
call for a struggle against violence toward women and to initiate with
this article (embarrassingly manipulative) a campaign to collect signatures.

It is, in short, another step in the campaign to criminalize Ángel
Santiesteban.

The initial question that I pose to the signatories is this: The person
or persons who have hatched this campaign, have they had the decency to
give you access to the documents that both the prosecutor and the
attorney used in the trial? I, from Germany, only had to ask that they
send me everything by email, and it was enough for me to read both
files: Prosecution and Defense, to add my name to the call that we, his
colleagues and friends, have made internationally in support of someone
like Ángel Santiesteban.

I write these words from the deep respect that I feel for women, whom as
a Christian I consider the most perfect creation of God. I have
demonstrated this in my life and my professional career. Just this March
8, when you signed this document, I marked 16 years of marriage with a
woman I consider responsible for all the good things I've done since
I've known her.

And just as you were signing, I gave a lecture on literature written by
women in Cuba, in which, of course, I mentioned some of you, proud of
having been a witness to one of the most solid literatures written by
women in the Spanish language, and, moreover, proud, until today, of
being the only Cuban writer who decided one day to discover, promote and
include in four anthologies the work of these Cuban women writers. As
you surely know, I'm proud to say that many of the most important women
writers in Cuba today saw their first stories published in my anthologies.

The lie is lame

"The truth always catches up with the lie, now matter how much it runs."

I believe in that maxim. I know the mechanism for soliciting this type
of signature: They ask you to sign against something or someone without
putting all the real cards on the table; they want you to come out
against something or someone only explaining to you the official
version, the part of the facts that suits them. For that reason I have
decided to write to you (and to those who want to read this article),
inviting them (inviting everyone), to respond with dignity and integrity
to these questions.

A brief introduction

I am one of the few people who can witness directly from the beginning
the relationship between Ángel Santiesteban and Kenia Rodríguez, the
mother of Eduardito, this boy they both conceived.

At that time, I lived in Ángel's house and was very close to the
beginning of this love story, diverted today, sadly, into hatred. I
remember that Ángel brought only virtue and a better life from the
beginning of their relationship. Kenia worked in a Chinese restaurant,
and thanks to Ángel's tenacity, she managed to start a UNEAC course in
theater production. Years later I saw Kenia traveling abroad,
accompanying Ángel on cultural trips.

Now Kenia is the complainant in the case for which he has been
sentenced. I don't know what little bird whispered in Kenia's ear that
made her, two and a half years after their separation as a couple,
decide to initiate a series of personal accusations "oddly and
coincidentally" just after Angel opened his blog, "The Children Nobody
Wanted," and his former wife began a steady love affair with a
well-known artist. It would be good to note that Kenia, even
acknowledging publicly that Ángel was an excellent father, forbade any
relationship between the boy Eduardo and his father. Now it is known
that, in secret from his mother, Eduardo sought out his father when he
was barely 15-years-old.

Knowing Kenia as I do, I would like to make an appeal to her conscience
so that she will see the light, so she will tell and defend the truth,
without lending herself to any guy's manipulations, above all for the
well-being of the son that was born from this love; I call on the courts
to reopen a case that, as the defense attorney showed, should be legally
annulled because of the great quantity of procedural and judicial
irregularities committed; and I call on the decency of those who have
launched from their offices or those who have naively joined the
campaign of criminalization without assessing the pure truth of the facts.

From my point of view, I noticed in the whole trial against Ángel
Santeisteban sufficient evidence to strongly affirm that it's a matter
of an absurd and crude strategy by State Security to silence his voice.
They are afraid of the impact that his criticisms could have, coming
from a writer of his courage and reknown.

If I could find one single factor of merit that demonstrates Angel's
guilt in the crimes attributed to him, I never would have raised my
voice in the way I did. I have even written that if Angel is guilty of
something, he should be condemnded for that. But what we have seen, in
the police work as well as in the judicial process, is so full of fraud,
irregularities, violations and attempts at corruption and lies against
Angel, that surely we can raise our voices to denounce this outrage.

We have rallied prestigious institutions (the majority of them not
political) to take up our defense. And we have done it with proof in
hand. I therefore encourage anyone who reads this article to offer
answers substantiated by the truth to the following questions:

Why weren't the complaints consistent from the beginning, and why did it
take more than a month between the first and the last act, when
according to the complaint it was a matter of a sequence of facts that
occurred the same day? One month later did Kenia remember details that
were supposed to be certain, that remained in her memory?

Why did the complainant present the medical certificate with a date
previous to that of the complaint?

Why did the doctor, who supposedly signed the warrant, according to the
declaration that is on record in the investigative file, not remember
having attended her nor even remember the case?

Why did the complainant lie on the day of the trial, asserting that she
was taken to the hospital, accompanied by the police, after making the
complaint, if the date of the warrant shows that it was prepared one day
before?

Why did the Provincial Court accept these lies, in spite of the
attorney's claim in the closing statement of the oral hearing? Why did
the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the petitioner in charge of
ensuring the facts, not see that these violations didn't occur?

Why, as was verified later, did Mayor Pablo, Chief of the heads of the
Plaza Municipality sectors, who was involved in a love affair with the
complainant, pressure the prosecution witness to not recant, and for
what motive did he advise Kenia Rodriguez, according to the same
informer, to confess before Angel and his son?

Why was the case file reopened after having been archived upon
determining that there was no cause to send it to the Prosecutor and
open a lawsuit?

Why reopen a file when never before did they take Kenia's accusations
seriously (performing only the bureaucratic process of listening to
her), upon the evidence, according to the investigator's own words, of
Kenia's nervous disorder and the constant sham and inconsistencies in
her declarations? Why did the complainant commit blunders when referring
to them?

If there aren't political reasons, why try to convert a man considered
an exemplary citizen and a distinguished writer into a public monster at
the moment he decides to publish criticisms about the Cuban political
reality through his blog? Why does this campaign of criminalization
coincide so well with his being marginalized in the national culture?

Why was the file forgotten (archived) just until the invitation from the
First Festival of the Word in Puerto Rico arrived, where Ángel
Santiesteban would participate together with a group of intellectuals
(from the Left, but with positions critical toward the political reality
in Cuba)? Why did they "casually" cite him with urgency and decide to
impose on him a bail of $1,000 pesos, thereby preventing his
participation in the said event, which has international prestige in
literary circles? Why, just at the moment when the international impact
of his blog would grow and just when he would enjoy the promotion of his
work and critical labor as a blogger in an international festival did
they decide to impose on him the precautionary measure?

Why did they send the case investigator (yes, the same person who had
archived the file) on a different tack, and mysteriously extract the
file to take it to another police unit with another investigator? Why
did this investigator reopen everything trying to implicate Santiesteban
during three years, without being able to find the least glimmer of
evidence that would tie him to the facts? What obliged this investigator
to pressure, blackmail and harass the witnesses, investigating them in
their neighborhoods and spreading the rumor that the neighbors might be
implicated in the murder of a foreigner? Why, as these witnesses
confessed, were they pressured to give up their decision to testify in
favor of Angel?

Why did they wait three and one-half years to have the oral hearing? Why
after setting it for the day of April 3, 2009, did they suspend the
hearing? Why did they violate in such a flagrant manner the Penal Code
that establishes that once a date is ratified and the parties notified,
the matter can't be suspended and they can't return to an investigation,
except if new evidence comes up in the same oral hearing that the Court
needs to investigate? Did they not understand that no elements existed
to judge the accused and sanction him, as they finally did? Did they
understand that it was too obvious that they were committing an unwise
injustice and, later, if they didn't prepare well, they wouldn't be able
to justify the punishment for lack of evidence?

Why did the file travel several times to the Provincial Court after
being dismissed each and every one of these times?

Why did they have to threaten the first attorney, as she herself
admitted, obliging Angel to look for another legal representative who
would not let himself be pressured?

Why did the Prosecutor, police and the complainant (in my opinion
encouraged by the impunity they felt at being supported by State
Security) set up a false "witness" who, thanks to the astuteness of
Santiesteban's friends, they were able to unmask? Why did the judges not
throw out a case obviously invented, before the overwhelming evidence of
this video where the false witness relates the pressure he received from
the police to declare himself against Santiesteban? Why did Kenia, if
she knew the truth, need to bribe the witness, as he could compromise
himself in the video where the same witness exhibits the gifts he
received as a bribe?

Why, from the time that Santiesteban said he knew about the video
(authenticated as real and valid by an experienced official), did the
Prosecutor find himself obligated to withdraw these crude accusations
that, among other things, were accumulating the exorbitant sum of 54
years in prison for the extensive and fastidious list of false
accusations? Why, upon seeing them discovered so clearly, did they have
to dismiss the 15 years the Prosecutor was requesting as punishment for
all the supposed crimes?

Why starting from this moment, instead of annulling the case because of
the amount of irregularities (perjury of the claimant and demonstration
of her intention to harm Angel at all cost) did they decide to return
the file to the investigative phase, to readjust it and continue with
their malevolent plan? Why and for whom did they study it for several
months in the police unit, and later in the Provincial Prosecutor's office?

Important and suspect: Why was the file requested from the General
Prosecutor of the Republic?

Something else important and suspect: Why did the file record, in a note
signed and sealed by the police investigator, "Urgent Interest of the
Minister"? Why was a supposed case of "domestic violence" handled at the
highest level of the Ministry of the Interior?

Still more important and more suspect: If there were no political plot
behind all this, why was the file sent from the General Prosecutor to
the General Headquarters of State Security in Villa Marista, according
to what Santiesteban's attorney was told in the same General
Prosecutor's office? Why, if the General Prosecutor of the Republic said
that the file was in Villa Marista, when the defense attorney presented
himself at Villa Marista, did they deny that the file was there? What
did they have to hide?

Why did the Investigator continue with this false report, if, in spite
of his bold attempt to implicate Santiesteban, he could not manage to
set a trap?

Why did the Prosecutor, beginning with the aforementioned video of the
false testimony, feel obligated to withdraw the complaints, leaving only
the minor offenses: "home invasion and injuries"? Why did they keep
these accusations, if the same video had already proven that Kenia
Rodriguez was lying, for which she could be prosecuted for the crime of
perjury, which was not done?

If it was a matter of a supposed ordinary crime, why did they hold the
trial in the Main Hall of State Security, in the special headquarters in
Carmen and Juan Delgado? Why were members of State Security posted
outside? Why, as many witnesses could substantiate, were buses
distributed "with veterans and enthusiastic people who spontaneously
agree to defend their revolution"?

Why did the Court put Santiesteban in the totally indefensible position
of not being able to call his own witnesses? Why, in return, did it keep
the flimsy prosecution "witnesses", all of them State functionaries and
soldiers, obviously conspiring to try to give some credibility to the
sanction, which, surely, had already been handed down?

How is it possible that a court can accept as convincing truth the
testimony of the handwriting expert who stated that Angel was guilty
because of the "size and inclination of his writing", when the defense
lawyer demonstrated scientifically and legally that handwriting,
according to international norms, cannot ever be considered a conclusive
truth?

Why did the Court reject the defense attorney's testimony that, thanks
to his friendship with the complainant, he could affirm that Kenia
Rodriguez had told him on several occasions of her intentions to cause
harm to the father of her son, meaning to Angel? Why also did they not
take into account the declarations of the boy's teacher (the Director of
his school, considered a dependable person), who stated that the child
confessed to him that his mother obliged him to lie about his father to
damage his public image? Why also, "curiously" did they throw out the
statements of three other witnesses, who showed that Angel Santiesteban
was somewhere else just at the time that Kenia, supposedly, was being
abused by him?

Why did the professionals, who attended the oral hearing–the lawyers,
ex-prosecutors, intellectuals–after hearing the parties, agree that
Angel was innocent and should be absolved, that absolutely nothing was
presented that would incriminate him, except the declaration of the
Lieutenant Colonel (the handwriting expert), who stated that he was
guilty because of his inclined handwriting?

It's enough to appeal to a little decency, a small quota of ethics, in
order to conclude, before these terrible irregularities, that all this,
even though it appears to be a joke, is a stifling and hallucinatory sin.

But if they weren't enough, I want answers to some more questions:

Important proof of infamy: Why did the State Security official known as
Camilo, after beating up Angel Santiesteban, November 8, 2012, tell him,
"Aren't the five years years we're going to toss at you enough?"? In
front of a witness, Eugenio Leal, Angel said, "Some day you will pay for
your abuse," and Camilo responded, "When I pay, you already will have."
How could Angel Santiesteban, thanks to agent Camilo, alert the
international community about his sentence one month before the Court
sentenced him?

Why was the sentence excessive, as the defense showed in the appeal, if
the court recognizes Santiesteban as a citizen who is distinguished by
his intellectual work, nationally and internationally, and there are no
prior offenses, circumstances that, according to Cuban legislation, are
attenuating, which could drastically reduce any sentence?

Why do multiple cases exist in this same Court, processed for the same
supposed crime, sometimes with weapons involved and with people with a
full criminal history, and in none of the cases did the sentences come
close to five years' deprivation of liberty?

Why, again "curiously", did the Court make a mistake in the second
clause, which added one more year to the sentence? Why wasn't this
annulled, as established by law for this type of procedural "error"?

Why did the Superior Court, which had a decent opportunity to amend the
scope of this injustice, catalogue as "without place" (meaning, they
didn't accept it) the diligently-researched file presented by the lawer
as a Cause for Appeal, in the face of the enormous list of
irregularities committed in this case?

I have many other questions. I only ask whoever reads this article that
they don't judge without having the evidence. To the present and future
signatories of this call for signatures, "Zero Tolerance for Violence
against Women", that UNEAC now brandishes, deceitfully, taking advantage
of Angel Santiesteban's case, I now remember that in the history of our
country, we intellectuals have been participants in many injustices
simply by not searching for the truth and by conforming ourselves to
what our government officials tell us.

I, convinced by the evidence of Angel's innocence, continue asking these
questions. I don't expect them to be answered, although perhaps they
should be.

Why did Kenia Rodriguez, the supposed victim, if she were convinced of
the solidity of her accusations, tell her son that she conceived him
with Angel's love, and "that I never thought to bring a lawsuit"?

Why and who, again "casually", decided and authorized that they wait
until the International Book Fair in Havana conclude to emprison the
writer Angel Santiesteban if the sentence was already handed down?

Why does Angel Santiesteban now not falter, if he is an intelligent and
humble man, who other times has seen fit to publicly recognize the
mistakes in his personal and professional life?

Why does he feel so proud to find himself in prison?

Why has he decided to give State Security a lesson in principles and
loyalty to his ideas, reminding them with his performance and his
writings that this move against him is simply a punishment, an
underhanded message about power against Cuban intellectuals and the
martyrdom that those who decide to rebel against the establishment can
suffer?

They do what they can do against Angel, and I am certain that History
will reclaim him some time as one of the cleanest, most transparent
intellectuals and brave fighters of his time inside Cuba in these
so-convulsed times that we Cubans live in. I know him with his virtues
and his defects. I feel proud to be a member of his generation of
writers; I am filled with pride at his brotherhood, and I feel proud to
be the friend of one of these Cubans who, from the island, fights so
that all of us can have the right to think with our own heads, have our
differences respected, express our criticisms and nonconforming
politics, without being catalogued by the government with the classic,
trite, derogatory labels that up to today they have used, those who
defend totalitarian thought, which, happily, each day that passes, has
more cracks in Cuba.

Published under "Personal Thoughts", Amir Valle's blog.

Translated by Regina Anavy

Spanish post:
Una vergonzosa puñalada en la espalda de Ángel Santiesteban desde la UNEAC
http://loshijosquenadiequiso.blogspot.be/2013/03/una-vergonzosa-punalada-en-la-espalda.html

9 March 2013

Source: "A Shameful Stab in the Back for Angel Santiesteban from UNEAC /
Amir Valle, Angel Santiesteban | Translating Cuba" -
http://translatingcuba.com/a-shameful-stab-in-the-back-for-angel-santiesteban-from-uneac-amir-valle-angel-santiesteban/