Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Fernando González, Antonio Guerrero and René González had not even been born or were still toddlers when the anti-Cuba terrorism promoted by Washington was already bringing death and destruction upon their people. They belong to a generation of Cubans who have had to live their entire lives under the most relentless, insidious and prolonged war ever waged against any nation.
There are many reasons to be in solidarity with these heroes in light of the shocking injustices committed against them and against their families. But there is one thing in particular that brings us to turn all our efforts toward their freedom in a veritable national battle, as it has to do, literally, with an entire people's right to exist.
The case of the Five is irrefutable proof that this war - and particularly, its most appalling form of terrorism - not only continues today but also is intended to continue forever, even threatening those Cubans yet to be born.
The arbitrary arrest of our five compatriots on September 12 1998; the brutal conditions to which they were subjected in prison; the abundant manipulations and violations of the legal proceedings; the verdicts; the sentences; the cruel treatment that they are still receiving; the almost total silence of the mainstream media; all this points to the conclusion that the United States intends to continue to promote terrorism against Cuba. This is why they so brutally punish those who dared to face the terrorists and make sure that their so-called "free" - or "disciplined", as Noam Chomsky accurately calls it - press remains silent.
Everything is well documented.
During the period that preceded the public hearings in the Miami court that heard the case, the South Florida Federal Attorney General's tried hard to protect the terrorist groups that operate against Cuba from that city. It asked that the issue of terrorism be completely excluded from the hearings, that the members of the terrorist groups not be called to testify, and that if they were, their testimonies be protected under the Fifth Amendment (so nothing could be revealed). All this is recorded in official documents, along with the recognition of their crimes by some of the terrorists themselves and the evidence presented by the defense.
As if that were not enough, both the Court and the Government openly declared that the goal of the "trial" was to protect these terrorist groups. The government did this by asking in formal written petitions that the defendants not only receive the maximum possible sentence but also by requesting that they be prevented from carrying out acts against terrorism once they are set free. The Judge acceded to these petitions, saying in her sentence that: ""As a further special condition of supervised release the defendant is prohibited from associating with or visiting specific places where individuals or groups such as terrorists, members of organizations advocating violence, and organized crime figures are know to be or frequent".(Transcript of Sentencing Hearing Before The Honorable Joan A. Lenard 12/14/01 .Pages 42-43 and 45-46)
The Five had originally been accused of conspiracy to commit espionage. They were described as spies by the local authorities and the media in Miami, who condemned them without hesitation from the day they were arrested. However, no evidence was ever submitted: documents, secret material that they might have had, or any witness saying that these men sought classified information. On the contrary, witnesses in authority - generals, admirals, and colonels in retirement, who carried out high responsibilities in the US armed forces and security agencies - declared under oath that none of the defendants had done anything approaching these charges. They had not committed espionage, neither had they attempted to do so, nor had they been instructed to do so.
An additional, more outrageous and absurd charge was brought against Gerardo Hernández: conspiracy to commit murder. He was portrayed as being responsible for the deaths of those who lost their lives on February 24th, 1996 in an incident that occurred when the Cuban Air Force - exercising Cuba's legitimate right to protect its national sovereignty - shot down two small aircraft that belonged to a well-known terrorist group. This Miami based group had violated Cuban airspace on countless occasions, carrying out sabotage and subversive activities against Cuba.
Regardless of the fact that the whole regrettable incident was not a case of murder, but a direct result of Washington's aggressive policy toward Cuba leading to the island's inalienable right and obligation to defend itself, Gerardo had absolutely nothing to do with what happened that day.
The charge brought against Gerardo demonstrates the real motivation behind this whole case and the absolute lack of ethics on the part of the US authorities. This charge was added in May 1999; a full eight months after the five Cubans had been arrested and, by the way, had spent all that time in solitary confinement. The new charge came after they had been formally accused of other charges and after media outlets in Miami reported on meetings between the Prosecution and members of anti-Cuba terrorist groups, in which the latter openly requested that this charge be added to the list of other false and outrageous accusations.
This new and irresponsible slander was also proven false during the trial, in which irrefutable evidence was introduced proving the continued violations of the Cuban airspace - including the day of the regrettable incident - as well as the subversive activities and terrorist plots carried out by the Miami group in question. Irrefutable evidence was also presented that proved the US Government equally guilty, as it knew well before hand of this new provocation and did nothing to prevent it. Obviously, the prosecutors failed to present any evidence whatsoever against Gerardo --no witnesses, nothing to link him to what happened that day.
On May 25, 2001, as the trial was about to conclude, the US Government took a totally unprecedented step. It filed an emergency motion to the Court of Appeals in Atlanta requesting that it direct the Miami Court to change its accusation, admitting that "in light of the evidence presented in this trial, this presents an insurmountable hurdle for the United Sates in this case, and will likely result in the failure of the prosecution on this court" (page 21, Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition). In other words, they were forced to admit what they had always known: that they didn't have a shred of evidence to support the charge that Gerardo had murdered anyone. The US authorities always knew that they could never prove such an outrageous falsehood. At the time they added the charge in the early stage of the legal process, they simply wanted to fulfill the desire for revenge of the anti-Cuba terrorist groups in Miami and provide them with yet another element to further inflame the anti-Cuba atmosphere in Miami to make an impartial and fair trial totally impossible.
The Court did not accept the prosecutors' petition and consequently the jury was forced to decide whether Gerardo was guilty or innocent of the charge brought against him two years before. Then, something occurred that could only happen in a Miami court. The jury, without even hesitating, raising any doubt or asking for any clarification, acted with unusual swiftness and found Gerardo guilty of first degree murder. That is to say, they found him guilty of a charge that the Prosecution itself had attempted to withdraw.

As for the jury's behavior - mirrored by that of the Judge and the Prosecution - they did nothing but confirm what was already obvious: Miami could never provide an objective judgment of the Cuban Revolution and its representatives. How can this be ignored given the fact that bombs have exploded and people have been threatened and hurt for simply expressing their desire to attend concerts given by Cuban singer Rosita Fornés or the Los Van Van musical group? How can this be ignored when in Miami a painting by Cuban artist Mendive was destroyed with Nazi-like fury in the middle of the street - the same place where then six-year old Elián González was kidnapped for four months in complete disregard of the position of the US Government, the Court, US law and human decency? How can anyone ignore the fact that the Grammy's ceremony was moved on two consecutive occasions out of Miami, because the organizers feared for the safety of participating artists?
From the very moment our five compatriots were faced with a judicial process this has been precisely the key question to be solved. Their lawyers requested their right - under the US Constitution and law - for their trial to be held somewhere else where an impartial jury could be found. The Prosecution stubbornly opposed the defense request, alleging that Miami is something other than it really is. Without even a blush, they asserted that Miami could perfectly well provide an impartial, fair trial in the case of these five Cuban patriots, whose only crime was to damage the interests of the anti-Cuba terrorist groups that rule over that entire city. In spite of the insistence of both the defendants and their lawyers - the latter frequently complaining to the jury about the tremendous pressures exerted on the defendants and their relatives - the Judge took the Government's side and denied the Five their elemental right. She ruled that the trial should take place in Miami. Upon announcing her decision, the judge made a statement on March 16, 2000 as surprising as it is clarifying: "This trial will be more interesting than any TV program."
On November 12th, 2002 Leonard Weinglass, Antonio Guerrero's attorney, supported by the other defense attorneys, requested that the Miami court dismiss the sentence and hold a new trial in another city.
The main reason for the motion was the Prosecution and the Judge's improper behavior when handling the original request by the Defense, who had had requested a change of venue several times since January 2000.
The Florida Federal District Attorney's Office had strongly opposed a change of venue. However, a year later, on June 25, 2002, when it was prosecuted in a civil lawsuit (Ramirez vs. Ashcroft), the same District Attorney's Office requested a change of venue using the same arguments that the defense attorneys for the Five had put forward.
The legal precedent used in both cases was the same: Pamplin vs. Mason, 1968. When it was used by Antonio Guerrero, the District Attorney argued that Miami-Dade County was an "urban center" that is "extremely heterogeneous" and "politically non-monolithic" with "great diversity" and therefore it was possible to provide the Five a fair and impartial trial free of "external influence". Yet, when the District Attorney's office was the defendant it testified that in relation to Cuba, there existed "profound sentiments of prejudice rooted" in Miami-Dade County that made a fair and impartial trial "virtually impossible".
The Judge committed a number of violations that contributed to depriving the accused of their most basic rights in the manner in which she treated the testimony of Professor Moran, an expert hired by the Court at the request of the Defense. She violated the ex parte nature of this request by communicating it to the Prosecution; she hid the fact that she had prior contact with Moran; she delayed and manipulated payment for his services; she rejected his findings with superficial and false arguments; and she manipulated his data which found that a change of venue should take place. By denying the Defense request for this change of venue, therefore, she both ignored and contradicted Federal Law.

The Motion demanding a new trial that was presented before the court in Miami, analyzed with judicial rigor these violations of the Judge and the Attorney General's office and attached documents and sworn declarations that fully proved the fairness of the petition and the need for a new trial outside Miami, which, given the new evidence, was clearly in the interests of justice.

Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González y René González, are not only heroes of the Republic of Cuba, but also of culture. They are five intellectuals that think and create under the most hostile and difficult circumstances. They are five intellectuals that have been imprisoned for their ideals - ideals that, without guns or violence, they used to fight against terrorists that act with impunity. They selflessly used their intelligence and talent in this battle armed only with their convictions and an admirable spirit of sacrifice.

From this harsh injustice and imprisonment they continue to fight. They do not stop drawing and writing. In verse and prose they communicate with thousands of people around the world. The message they send - actively supported by the international movement for their freedom - is an invaluable cultural contribution. Nobody can imprison a free and creative spirit.
January 2nd, 2003-03-02

(Afterword to the book Cicatrices en la Memoria (Scarred Memories), published by Capitán San Luis Publishing House, which includes stories and cartoons by Cuban writers and artists on anti-Cuba terrorist acts over the last four decades.
The text of this book, unlike most film credits, refers directly to people and events that are real. By reading this book we once again experience the anguish and pain that will always accompany each and every one of us.)