Interview with Rosa Maria Paya

Interview with Rosa Maria Paya / Lilianne Ruiz, Rosa Maria Paya
Posted on June 18, 2013
By Lilianne Ruíz

HAVANA, Cuba, May, www.cubanet.org.- Rosa María Payá, daughter of the
late leader of the Christian Liberation Movement, returned to Cuba after
finishing a tour with the main objective of promoting an international
investigation to clarify the circumstances that led to the tragedy on
July 22, 2012 that killed Oswaldo Paya and Harold Cepero.

The daughter of Oswaldo Paya and Ofelia Acevedo agreed to an interview
for Cubanet. Having captivated the public through the media, she insists
that neither his undisputed leadership nor she herself that is the most
important thing. To discover whether or not there was government
responsibility in the events of July 22, 2012, would end with a cycle of
violence and impunity for State Security, and the alleged immunity of
the authorities to the consequences of the systematic violation of the
human rights of all Cubans.

Lilianne Ruiz: What is the situation of the demand to international
organizations that they investigate the Payá case?

Rosa María Payá: In the Universal Periodic Review report, there was a
statement on the matter. We presented the case to the Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial Crimes of the United Nations Human Rights Council, headed
by the High Commissioner Navi Pillay. A few days later, the Special
Rapporteur answered us saying that they accepted the case and are in
contact with the parties. In fact, I think the words that they used in
contact with the families of the victims, which implies a judgment about
what happened. Beyond that, the United Nations has its mechanisms of
action, directly with the government of the country, of sending a
request for information or of sending emergency measures, not all of
which are public. What we do know is that they are working on the case.

I asked Mrs. Navy this question directly because after the speech to the
Human Rights Council — in that two minute speech, I was interrupted by
seven countries with "human rights standards," including Cuba, Russia,
Belarus — after that there was a plenum with the High Commissioner, and
I was able to directly ask her the question of whether she knew about
the case (i.e., the request for an international investigation) and she
gave me her condolences, told me they knew about the case and put me in
touch with the Rapporteur on Extrajudicial crimes; and that's when we
presented demand, and a few days later they responded by saying that
they have the case. It is a process. I'm not saying they are doing an
international investigation, I'm just saying what they said: they are
working on the case with the United Nations mechanisms, not all of which
are public.

How did your speech before the United Nations Human Rights Council go?

RMP: During the Human Rights Council there are some weeks when NGOs can
speak. There was an NGO called U.N. Watch who gave their time to me. I
had two minutes at the Human Rights Council, and when it came time for
my speech I hadn't been speaking for thirty seconds when "Cuba" started
to make noise and demand the floor. The president, of course, stopped
me, and gave the floor to the representative from the Cuban mission to
the U.N. I can't find the exact words, but the tone was the same threats
as always, "How is it that this mercenary can come before the United
Nations Human Rights Council?" They asked that I not be allowed to
speak, that I not be allowed to finish the two minutes.

I believe that later the United States got up and said something like,
"Fine, in any event, we all have the right to speak. We are going to
listen to what she has to say." The United States sat down and the
following began to stand up consecutively: China, Russia, Belarus,
Pakistan, Nicaragua, I don't remember which other countries who say they
are "standard bearers of Human Rights," standing up to support "Cuba,"
to say, "just to support Cuba's motion." But fine, after the last one
sat down, the president turned to give me the floor and I could finish.

At this Council they listen to all kinds of things, every day that it
lasts — from the slaves of Mauritania, to torture in Iran, and most of
the countries don't react against the Human Rights activists who are
talking there. This reaction, apparently planned — because they would
have had to talk with China, Pakistan, Russia, Belarus, Nicaragua,
because they jumped up at this moment and supported "Cuba" — also
indicated their arrogance, their inability to deal with the truth. What
we were asking for there was an investigation, we were asking for a
plebiscite. We were not accusing anyone, on the contrary, we were
proposing a dialogue.

What can you tell us about your interview with Angel Carromero?

RMP: Well, I talked with him upon arriving from the airport. I arrived
from the airport — I was very tired, I was going to go to sleep — and he
was at my house. My cousin's house. He was very close, very coherent,
very rational; he explained everything to me. He wanted to explain
everything to me step by step, what had happened. He was angry at how he
had been treated in Cuba, at how he had been treated in Spain, about the
things that they continued doing, the attitude of the press. I say angry
because he was frustrated that what had come out was not the truth, and
with regards to his own situation, he was being treated as guilty though
he was innocent.

But he was still very rational and very consistent, and also very calm
in explaining the facts in a coordinated and accurate way. There were
even times when he told me "I don't remember; what you're asking me I do
not remember exactly. Sometimes I have lapses. They drugged me." That
is, he did not invent anything, and was very accurate. Even when I
sometimes theorized, he said, "That I do not know." And so everything
that we said was exactly what we had knowledge of. We have never made up
versions of what happened. We have given facts that we have been able to
confirm.

He was very willing to support us in everything, and convinced that what
he said was the truth and that he would tell the truth where he had to.
He spoke to the press when he decided to, and in the way he decided.
Some sectors of the Spanish press were at times hostile to him. Maybe
that's why he decided to start by other means. But I think it was also a
sum of circumstances: at the time he had decided to speak, the
Washington Post asked for an interview. He did it the way he wanted. He
told me he was going to do it, and I asked him to do it, too. But
perhaps more importantly he was ready, as he put it, to take part in any
legal proceedings as a witness, stating the facts of his experience.

How do you interpret the behavior of the Spanish government?

RMP: We tried to see everyone in Spain, to explain to everyone what had
happened, because we were asking for support for an investigation, a
cause that we know is very just, and that also has much to do with
Spain, because two of those involved are Spanish citizens. One of them
is my father and the other is Angel Carromero.

To me, the attitude of the government has proven lacking, because of the
fact that Angel Carromero is innocent, and the government knows it,
because the same text messages that I know about are in the hands of the
Spanish government. Yet he is still treated as guilty in a free country
where there is knowledge of his innocence. We disagree with this and
object to it, and have said so explicitly. I told this to Minister (of
Foreign Affairs) García-Margallo who responded that he will not
interfere with our efforts to achieve this international investigation.

Have you received indications of support from other politicians and
European parliamentarians?

RMP: I met with many politicians in Spain, of various stripes. The PSOE
(Spanish Socialist Workers Party) did not want to meet with us, and also
sent an offensive letter saying that I was using an accident for
political purposes. Which was quite deplorable, but in any case the
decision not to meet with us was theirs.

But with the exception of the representatives of the PSOE, I have met
with leaders of the PP (Peoples Party), the UPyD (Union, Progress, and
Democracy), and the CiU (Convergence and Union) parties. Everyone has
been supportive and in fact are committed to supporting the
international investigation. Many were already committed to supporting
human rights in Cuba.

Apart from this attitude of government officials, all the politicians I
met with in Spain, from José María Aznar, Esperanza Aguirre, Rosa Diez,
Duran i Lleida, or Mr. Vidal-Quadras, a PP member of the European
Parliament – as all the European People's Party deputies, who are 280 of
the entire Union — had an attitude of commitment and solidarity with the
international investigation, with the holding of the plebiscite, and
with human rights in Cuba. And not only Popular Group MEPs. I also
talked with independent MEPs, one of whom is Mr. Sosa Wagner of UPyD,
who is one of those promoting a declaration requiring an international
investigation as a pronouncement of the European Parliament. There are
several mechanisms within the European Parliament taking place at this
time, with the goal of a statement that demands an international
investigation regarding the death of my father and Harold. My father was
awarded the Sakharov Prize by the European Parliament, so it makes sense
that the European Parliament is not silent.

I also met with the Swedish Foreign Minister and the Norwegian Minister
of Foreign Affairs. Their positions have been in solidarity with the
international investigation and with human rights within Cuba.

Where can we read the speech to the European People's Party? Do you want
to comment for us on the points raised?

RMP: I made a speech on the floor of the parliamentary group, which was
most of the deputies. I read from my notebook, but I transcribed it and
sent it for publication on the blog www.rosamaríapaya.org.

At this juncture, when the EU is in negotiations to reach an economic
agreement with Cuba, we simply say that the Common Position requires
respect for human rights and makes it a condition for the normalization
of relations.

We believe that respect for human rights must be measurable and
concrete. To simply say "respect for human rights" can be too general.
For example, the Cuban government releases the 75, and imprisons another
group. But it sells it as a process of change or openness. The same way
it selling these reforms. Just as it let me out of the country and says
it is because it is changing when it is not real, when in fact Cubans
are not able to decide. But it also plays it as a card to show to the
European Union and say, "Look, there is respect for human rights in Cuba."

The proposal in the European Union is: "The signs of respect for human
rights in Cuba cannot come from the government; that is, they cannot
come only from the government; they must first come from the demands of
the Cuban people in exercising their rights."

Until now, the only demand that is, in fact, a demand from the Cuban
people under the law, is the holding of a plebiscite on the Varela
Project. If the Cuban government undertakes a plebiscite, if it asks the
people, if it meets its own law, its own constitution, and responds to
this popular demand, this can be a sign that a process of
democratization has begun in Cuba. Until that happens, it cannot be said
— because it would not be true – that there is a democratic change in
Cuba that would justify such a normalization.

We are not opposed to trade between the EU and Cuba. We are against
trade made at the expense of the rights of Cubans. That is, trade must
actually be with Cuba, with all the Cuban people, and not just with the
government. And that is the proposal: support the demands that
effectively come from the people. The "respect for human rights" that
you decided to place when you wrote the Common Position can only be
measurable if it responds to the demands that are born from the same
people. So far these demands are specified in the plebiscite of the
Varela Project. The opposition has more strategies, they are the demands
of The Way of the People. But as a first step, we would not even say we
support the opposition, we say we support the demands that come from people.

Will your public appearances be limited to promoting the international
investigation into the case?

RMP: I think it has been quite explicit during these past two months: we
as a family and as a movement have the goal of achieving this
international investigation. Because we deserve to know the truth,
because the people of Cuba deserve to know the truth. It is fair to all
Cubans. But also because as a political movement we are looking for a
transition that permits national reconciliation, and this requires the
recognition of all truth. If not, there can be no reconciliation and no
real transition, at least not the kind we're looking for.

In addition, our efforts for an international investigation was what we
were talking about before: we want to know what happened. But we also
want to avoid it happening again. And somehow you have to break that
feeling of impunity that the State Security of the Cuban government has
now. And we believe that an international investigation, with legal
consequences for the Cuban government, is a way to break this impunity.
And we did not stop there. We asked for precautionary measures. One of
them has been for Yosvany Melchor. This is the only one they're
responded to, so far. That is, it has now been ordered.

The Interamerican Commission on Human Rights has recognized a
precautionary measure that protects Yosvany Melchor who is a prisoner of
the Movement, a prisoner so unique because he is not part of the
Movement, the one who is part of the Movement is his mother, Rosa Maria
Rodriguez Gil. Three years ago, State Security went to see her and told
her that if she did not collaborate with them and if she did not
distance herself from the Movement her son was going to pay the
consequences. Two days later, her son was jailed and then accused of
nothing less than human trafficking, with a contrived trial in which the
principal witness said he was not familiar with Yosvany, that he had met
him a day earlier in jail when they put them together.

And even so, that witness, who was also one of those implicated in the
event, is at home and Yosvany was given 12 years in maximum security
prison. He has spent three years. A boy who is now thirty years old and
has committed no crime, only because of being the son of Rosa María who
is a courageous woman who said to State Security: "I am not going to
betray who I am." And so, the Interamerican Commission has now expressed
itself in that regard. There are other precautions underway and also in
process is the demand that we will present the week of April 20 seeking
an international investigation of the case. They told us that the
process was a little long, right now it is being studied. It is still
too soon to give a verdict, we know that it is going to be a long process.

Is Rosa Maria Paya going to assume leadership of the Christian
Liberation Movement?

RMP: For more than two years I officially have formed part of the
Movement, but in any event the whole family is implicated in cases like
these. My brothers and I, although we may not be part of the Movement,
in some way we collaborate or are influenced by the political work of my
father. I am not the leader of the Movement. The Christian Liberation
Movement has a Coordinating Council. In these moments, because of the
circumstances and also because of my decisions, it is possible that my
face may be more visible. But in any case my face is not important. The
important thing is the message, and the message of the Movement at this
moment, and for the majority of the opposition, has agreed on the
demands of the Way of the People.

Recently, the Eastern Democratic Alliance has joined the platform of the
Way of the People, which coordinates the Christian Liberation Movement.
Could this platform of change successfully unify, and therefore
strengthen, the internal opposition?

RMP: None of the legal tools in which we work can be carried out alone.
We are talking about the Varela Project, the Heredia Project that right
now is in process of gathering signatures. Many organizations in Cuba
that are not the Christian Liberation Movement collaborate. In a unique
way the demand for a plebiscite: the plebiscite on the Varela Project.
We believe that the conditions are favorable, in the first place because
it is necessary. We have spent more than 10 years and 25 thousand Cubans
are demanding a plebiscite, and the National Assembly is obliged to
respond. It is obliged to hold the plebiscite because the legal petition
was signed by more than 10 thousand citizens, and this by the
Constitution is the same as an answer, that in the case of the Varela
Project translates into a question of citizenship, in a referendum, in a
plebiscite that they so far refuse to hold.

I believe that we are at a point at which we have common demands, that
most of the opposition has signed. A very diverse majority, because
there are all colors in the Way of the People. We are also talking about
demands that are popularly supported.

Ten years ago the strategy of the Cuban government was to incarcerate
the 75 and change the Constitution; in some way it worked to confuse
people, frightening and changing a little the priorities of the
opposition, which were converted to getting the 75 from the jail and not
to achieve a plebiscite. In those moments we believe it is now
necessary, now the 75 are out of jail but more than anything the Cuban
people now need these changes in a concrete way.

Do you believe the reforms of Raul Castro may drive change towards the
freedom and democracy that so many desire?

RMP: The government's strategy in these recent years has been to sell an
image of openness. Using these reforms but also using some publications,
using all its marketing apparatus, using its advocacy; selling the
picture of change without changing. Making reforms that do not guarantee
rights although they touch on important points for Cubans like the entry
into and exit from the country.

But in each case the reforms are designed in such a way as to also
become a mechanism of control of the Cubans; because they are not a
right, they are a concession by the government. And Cubans, whether they
read the law or not, have that perception. That is to say, from the one
with a café to the person who seeks a passport he knows that he is
asking permission, not exercising a right. And he also knows that when
he gets the passport or when he sells peanuts, it is a privilege because
he can do it. And as he has a privilege he does not want to lose it.

And how are privileges lost in Cuba? By mixing in politics, demanding
rights. As is the case of a girl named Madelaine Escobar who is a member
of the Movement in Holguin. She has a café. Twice they have withdrawn
her license. Each time she has protested, and she protests so much that
she ends up in the Police Station, all the questions that they ask her
are of the type: How many members are in the Christian Liberation
Movement? How many signatures from the Heredia Project? Not one
regarding why they took the license. This is illustrative of how each of
these reforms is converted also into a measure of control by the Cuban
government. And I understand that the international community does not
see it the same way because they don't know these mechanisms.

Supposedly businessmen form part of Civil Society, and an important
part, but for the business to be free, first you have to be a free
person. In Cuba there are no free people nor are there free businesses.
There are concessions, which they give to some people, but besides some
people who are more privileged than before, because who has 50 thousand
dollars in Cuba in order to start up a "Paladar," a private restaurant?
The cases that we are familiar with are people from the government. And
in each case, instead of forming free Civil Society — that is, people
capable of influence in a medium, of adding ideas, of generating
changes, of being agents of development — it constructs privileged
people with fear of losing their privileges.

It is difficult to understand the complete picture, but it is a reality
that is happening in Cuba. These reforms, in the law do not recognize
the rights of people, and in practice they function as mechanisms of
control by the government that also guarantee its absolute power. And
they are sold, to the international community, as a process of false
opening and that also comes accompanied by an increase in evident
repression. In recent years, arbitrary detentions, beating,
intimidation, threats have increased. They have increased for the
members of the Christian Liberation Movement, independent journalists,
Ladies in White, members of other organizations. It is reality that
repression is now greater, at the same time that they sell these reforms
as a process of opening; with the intention of cleansing the image of
the Cuban government, with the intention also of doing business with the
European Union, the exiles in the United States, with Latin America.

We cannot be absolute, certainly one sector of society has benefited, at
least it has increased the number of people who have access to those
privileges — which should not be privileges because they are rights. In
any case it is a strategy of the Cuban government for the exterior; it
is not a commitment to the well being, development and democracy of the
Cuban people. For Cubans there is no real change, there are no rights,
there is no possibility of self management. Before this lack of options
that represents the Cuban government for the Cubans, before that absence
of offers and that increase in repression, the oppositions rises with
the Way of the People.

Is Project Varela alive?

RMP: Project Varela has more than 25 thousand signatures with picture
identification in the National Assembly; but by having so many more
sympathizers, it has many more signatures. The process of verification
is so complex that they cannot deliver them all. Because each signature
that arrives at the National Assembly is a signature gathered and then
verified and then acknowledged, before being delivered to the Assembly.

Project Varela has a series of steps. The first was the presentation in
the National Assembly, the second was the presentation of the signatures
that guarantee the initiative; and the third was a response that has not
arrived. And that response is holding a plebiscite. After there is a
plebiscite, there will be another step, the elections. There was a split
regarding the intensity of the demand for the plebiscite. By a
government strategy, which was to incarcerate the leaders of Project
Varela. And well, it is all a marketing strategy, that evidently
affected the development of the Project. But what is a fact is that the
rights Cubans are demanding through the Varela Project, are rights they
still do not have. What is a fact is that the government is violating
its constitution because it has not held a plebiscite.

Therefore, what it is about is the holding of a plebiscite. And now it
is about that the government is trying a false transition. Now it is
about that Cubans have a level of higher awareness about what is
happening. There is an awakening of solidarity and understanding with
the Democratic Cuban Movement, inside and outside of the country,
through which we are all making the same demands. There is a preliminary
step in which we find ourselves that happens by the recognition of
rights. Cubans of course want to eat better, they want to enter and
leave the country; of course they want to live better. But Cubans also
understand that for that we need rights. We need self management,
because we have the capacity, the imagination, and we are sufficiently
hard working to design the prosperous and happy country that we want.
And we understand that for that we need rights.

With a dictatorial government that does not permit you self management,
well you simply cannot be happy in your country. You do not have all the
means that you need for the search for human happiness and not survival.
That's why this is the moment to have a plebiscite. This is also the
moment because we may be in a time of false transition. We are in danger
of becoming Russia or China or any other aberration that you might think
of: a change without rights, is not a change. It is also the moment for
the international community to react on the basis of the demands of the
Cuban people, and not on the basis of signals sent by the government.

In Cuba there have been no free elections for 60 years, therefore, the
Cuban government is not legitimate. That does not mean it has no
authority. The dialogue that we are proposing takes into account the
Cuban government. Why does it take it into account? Because the Cuban
government is the authority. Legitimate or not, it is. And what we
cannot do is divorce ourselves from reality.

The Way of the People is much wider, the transition is much wider. The
Varela Project is one step inside the Way of the People. Although it
appeared before: the Varela Project is a legal, concrete tool; that of
course has great implications: political, social, for the life of
Cubans. But it is a first step. The Way of the People is the platform
that solidifies all the efforts of its actors, that are the major part
of the opposition of the Democratic Cuban Movement, inside and outside
of Cuba, for a peaceful transition and for changes in Cuba. Somehow it
orders them, but in any event it is not written in stone.

It is here to concentrate the unity of the Cuban Democratic Movement in
terms of its objectives. And it is also here to serve a little as a road
map, but a road map that can be transformed, modified, enriched as
needed, also on the basis of proposals that are put forward. One of the
strategies that the Way of the People proposes is the promotion of legal
changes that guarantee rights. That's why the Varela Project may be
added to the Way of the People, as other initiatives that claim the same
rights may be added. The Heredia Project, like Project Varela, is an
initiative of legal change. That is to say, the Cuban Constitution gives
the possibility to the citizens of making legal proposals and presenting
them to the National Assembly. What does the Constitution also say? That
if the legal proposal is supported by more than 10 thousand citizens
with the right to vote, something that in Cuba is acquired with photo
identity, then in this case a plebiscite is held. To ask the people: Do
you want or do you not want these legal changes that Project Varela is
proposing?

Project Heredia is guided by the same legal strategy; taking the
Constitution into account, it proposes a change in the law. Project
Varela has five points: freedom of expression, freedom of association,
liberation of political prisoners, the possibility of having private
businesses, and free elections. Each of these points corresponds to few
legal proposals, that have also been enriched with the presentation of
laws; for example, in the National Assembly there is an Amnesty law that
is presented in the thinking of the Varela Project's point that speaks
to the liberation of political prisoners, as will be presented a Law of
Association, as the Varela Project contains a small Electoral Law that
can also be expanded because Cuban electoral law is a joke in bad taste.

Project Heredia has a series of chapters that may go to more daily needs
of Cubans, like: freely exiting and entering the country, free access to
the internet, free movement, in other words, that we Cubans cannot be
called "illegals" inside our own country, that they end domestic
deportations; also like the recognition of citizenship rights of people
who are in exile, and their children, who are as Cuban as those who live
in Cuba. They also have in mind some fears of Cubans, as is the case
with what is going to happen with property in Cuba at the time of the
transition. Project Heredia proposes that the properties that have a
social use, or people's homes, be respected. Because Cuba changes, I
cannot take from you the house where you maybe lived for 20 years,
although initially it may not have been yours. It is a measure that of
course implies waiver and generosity.

It is also a fact that the government in transition has no money for
repairing the damage or compensating for 54 years of theft by the Cuban
government. So there are some waivers that we must make, and that is one
of them. There are points about which we have to be very clear, and one
of them is that no family will have to leave its home just because Cuba
changes. But there is one very curious thing: Project Heredia as
proposed by law is delivered in the year 2007; after the year 2008 a
series of reforms begins, and these reforms are touching almost one by
one the points of Project Heredia.

Namely, that they partially fulfill what Project Heredia says, but avoid
delivering rights to Cubans as demanded by Project Heredia. They
implement migratory reform in which they can say yes: they repealed the
exit permit, but that does not mean that Cubans do not have to seek
permission to leave because they have to seek permission to get a
passport; that if Project Heredia is accomplished, these requirements
would be illgal because it is planned that there will not exist a
conditional right to be human beings, to be children of God, to freely
enter and leave the country.

That is to say, in Chile, Chileans could enter and exit the country,
they could have businesses, they could buy cars; the Spanish, they could
do they same with Franco and at any rate they held a plebiscite and that
led to a transition. Because we human beings need all rights; and we
need — besides food — liberty.

Have you received sufficient support from the Catholic Church in Cuba?

RMP: I believe you have to differentiate what is the Catholic church:
The Catholic Church is also me and it is you. To differentiate what is
the Church from a certain sector of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, that
we understand that they have positions that are almost complicit with
this Fraudulent Change.

The reality that I have experienced with regards to priests, nuns,
laity, who have lived as Cuban people, that have suffered with the Cuban
people, and they have the same desires for change as the Cuban people,
of solidarity, of accompaniment; shelter, understanding, and that also
is the Church in Cuba. I can tell you that the Ladies in White — when
they came to see their husbands: those who lived in Las Tunas to Pinar
del Rio; and those who lived in Pinar del Rio to Santiago de Cuba — they
stayed in the home of nuns and priests all over the island. That is, it
has been the Catholic Church standing with my family, and also with
activists for human rights in Cuba, that is what I have experienced.

It has been something fundamental for me, and it is something that
deserves to be recognized. As we also see a certain divorce from reality
that may not be the intention, but is what can be interpreted also from
certain positions that some publications in the Havana hierarchy have
taken, that suggest complicity, or at least a communion, with this
strategy of Fraudulent Fraud by the Cuban government.

How has the behavior of the authorities been on your return to Cuba?

RMP: Right away you notice that there is tension in their faces, that
they know what is happening, but their response was: "Welcome." And
everything was very quick in the airport. They have been, of course,
watching us, stalking us in a less evident way. Two members of an
organization showed up very quickly. We agreed to the appointment by
telephone. One of them sat in the living room to converse with me, and
as he had come by motorcycle, the other boy who came with him stayed
outside. A short while into the conversation we have a patrolman at the
door asking for documents of the two, and asking for the motorcyclist's
papers. Something totally artificial because patrolmen don't go through
backstreets asking for documents.

But there was a threat on a blog. . .

RMP: On the Cuban Herald blog, of the many that the Cuban government has
in order to send its messages in a way "not so official." Although we
are familiar with and know how official they are. A threat as concrete
as: "We are going to put you in prison." But always with the same style,
with that style reminiscent of criminality. That is to say, within the
law, within the right, you do not threaten; you say things concretely.
It's like what happened in the United Nations: "This mercenary that has
dared to come here;" it's not spoken that way.

The authorities should not speak this way. Here they let you see, even
using the law, an undertone of criminality, of impunity. Of course it is
a direct threat and against me personally and against my mother. What
they do not dare to do now by phone, what they have decided now not to
do directly, they do publicly; using the unjust law that they have, the
law that in many senses is criminal because it is not based on rights
but on the repression of rights.

From Cubanet, March 31, 2013

Source: "Interview with Rosa Maria Paya / Lilianne Ruiz, Rosa Maria Paya
| Translating Cuba" -
http://translatingcuba.com/interview-with-rosa-maria-paya-lilianne-ruiz-rosa-maria-paya/