Speech by Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, President of the Cuban Parliament, at The Tenth International Conference of European Studies organized by the Centre for European Studies.

An occasion last year similar to the present one coincided, not with a hurricane or some other natural disaster, but with the appalling events of 11th September. Meeting again in Havana a year after the outrage, terrorism and its associated problems have become a central issue the world over.

The programme for the conference covers several specific and important topics concerning various aspects of the European scene and Europe's relations with the rest of the world, as well as including master lecture by Dr. Erwin Lanc, former Austrian minister of Foreign Affairs and president of the Vienna International Institute for Peace, who honours us with his presence in Cuba. His lecture will deal with the effort against international terrorism from an European perspective. It is inspired to a large extent by the anniversary of the horrendous event that coincided with last year's conference and, prompted also by the fact that we shall be holding an important exhibition related to the issue, that I will include reflections on the case partly - inevitably - from a Cuban perspective.

The past year has seen awareness of, and confirmation of the need for, a coherent global response to terrorism. There has been a virtually unanimous international rejection of practices and methods that threaten people's fundamental values - the right to life, to peace - with methods that are intrinsically evil.

The international community has also progressed in the definition of rules that are mandatory for its member states; these have been reflected – as we all know - in decisions of the General Assembly and particularly in resolutions of the UN Security Council, clearly establishing specific obligations under Chapter VII of the Charter for all UN Member States and even setting up a Special Committee to monitor implementation of the resolution and compliance by All Member States with its provisions.

The Security Council Resolution was adopted in September 2001 by unanimous vote, on the proposal of the United States, and basically imposes on all member nations a duty of bilateral, regional and international cooperation, in the efforts to prevent or, where appropriate, punish any act of terrorism against anyone, regardless of the form or means of such action.

A year on from that infamous crime - a year of effort by everyone to prevent a repetition of the atrocities that shook American society and of any other acts that threaten or encroach on the lives of defenceless, innocent people anywhere - is perhaps an appropriate time for reflection, for a civilized dialogue involving everyone, to assess our progress in making opposition to terrorism universal and in achieving a consistent set of countermeasures.

As I have already stated elsewhere, from a Cuban perspective, certain aspects relating to this fight should, I believe, be the subject of greater international concern.

During your stay in Havana or anywhere else in Cuba you may decide to visit, you will certainly hear about five Cubans incarcerated in the United States following a trial - which I do not propose to discuss on this occasion for want of time and circumstance - which was marked by countless procedural violations that we hope will be remedied when the case finally reaches the Court of Appeal.

There is too little time, nor is this the occasion to dwell on the procedural questions surrounding that trial. I would simply emphasize the fact that the predominant issue in the case, right from the time our countrymen were arrested, has been and still is the fight against terrorism - however difficult it is for certain of the media (with claims to be informative) to appreciate this point.

Before the trial opened, several motions were submitted by the South Florida District Attorney's Office, one of which sought to exclude any mention of terrorism at the subsequent public hearings, while another was designed to avoid calling as witnesses members of terrorist groups based in the United States.

In case –by a decision of the court- the latter motion were denied, another sought to prevent any witness who claimed the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution (conferring the right not to incriminate oneself) from making any statement to the court, on pain of prosecution. And apart from the purport of these and other documents submitted by certain witnesses and, of course, of those introduced by the prosecution, some witnesses were specifically warned that they could be prosecuted if they said anything about their terrorist activities. In other words, they would incriminate themselves.

Evidently the intention was to avoid having the fight against terrorism - which the prosecution knew was the motive - as the matter to be judged, but rather their allegations of offences under US law.

The attempts to prevent clarification of the basic motive behind the events that led to the arrests and trial, whose procedural details I shall pass over, are apparent from this document, which is not easy to follow but is highly revealing. It is an emergency motion, an urgent application submitted by the prosecution at the end of the hearings, before the jury withdrew to consider its verdict.

I do not propose to read it out, except for this short, telling passage in which the prosecution describes its application as without precedent. It certainly seems unprecedented that after the hearings, presentation of evidence, examination of witnesses etcetera - the prosecution should acknowledge in writing that it had failed to substantiate the main charges against the defendants and that consequently it would be in danger of losing the case.

I quote verbatim from Page 21: "In the light of the evidence presented at this trial, this represents an insurmountable obstacle for the United States in this case and could lead, or probably will lead, to failure of the indictment". Surprisingly, fate was much kinder to the prosecuting attorneys than they themselves anticipated, in writing. A few days later, having announced in advance the date and time on which it would pronounce its verdict, the jury found all the defendants guilty on all counts, as if this unprecedented circumstance - capitulation in writing by the prosecution accompanied by a request to the Court for a change in the final terms of the indictment - had never existed.

This is related to something I hope will be looked at on some basis during the appeal. It is the venue: the fact of having held these proceedings in a place regarded by the defence, rightly in my view, as one in which it was impossible to ensure an impartial, objective trial of defendants accused of working for the Cuban government.

There is one aspect of this which has had minimal coverage in the media but which remains curious: the same administration of the same South Florida DA's office which indicted the defendants, (although acknowledging afterwards that it had failed to prove the main charges), that is, the same prosecution which objected to transferring the trial elsewhere, itself succeeded on 23 August last in securing the transfer of another case due to be held in South Florida, on the strength of the same reasons and arguments put forward by the defence for switching the trial venue of our five countrymen. They used the same argument: the impossibility of holding an impartial trial of a case relating to Cuba in Miami Dade. They raised the same arguments concerning the climate of pressure and prejudice, which was also reflected in the local press; the same argument that this situation would put pressure on the jury - advanced by the same prosecution that a year earlier had objected to a change of venue for the trial of our five countrymen. On 23 August last they won a disturbing victory: a Miami federal judge decided that when the defendant is the US Government in a context similar to that of the five Cubans - the case also involved Cuba and attitudes towards Cuba - the venue must be changed.

The case in question is that of Ramírez vs. the INS, which is like a sort of archeological find, very difficult to track down in the media, but which exists - exists as part of the process of clarification. There is a need to seek out places where pieces of information such as this can be found.

By chance, the successful application aimed at avoiding trying the case at a venue where an impartial hearing would not have been possible coincided with another event also little known to the general public. On the same day, there was an odd communication from the same government prosecution service, in this case further north, in the East district of the State of Virginia. It made certain requests to a federal court in connection with a strange history mentioned briefly in one media source, forgotten the following day, but which resurfaced later.

It concerned the case of Zacharias Moussaoui, a foreigner arrested in the United States, who has the distinction of being the only person currently being held and under prosecution on charges of participating in the events of 11th September.

He exercised the rights conferred by US legislation under Rule 16 relating to 'Discovery' or the duty of the prosecution to give defendants access to the evidence on which the charges are based, and obtained what an official was quoted by the New York Times as describing as "millions of documents and pieces of evidence". According to the prosecution, these were delivered from 7 June onwards, initially in electronic form, followed later by copies. In electronic form because, of course, the defendant has a computer. According to the Times article, in addition to the latter and the millions of documents and pieces of evidence mentioned in this correspondence, he also has a few videos. He also has two cells: his prison cell and what is referred to in official communications as the 'Discovery Room' . This is an additional facility provided by the Virginia State prison authorities for use as a kind of library or office, where the inmate can study his documents, etc.

It is worth reading, this correspondence. The letters from the prosecution and the judge, the reply of the judge to which partial reference has appeared in the American media but without giving all the details. These can be found by anyone interested at the website www.antiterroristas.cu. It includes in full the correspondence between the DA's office in Virginia and the federal judge, together with other documents on terrorism. These would be unknown were they not accessible at the website mentioned, which we hope will be of some service in remedying the situation created by the strange combination of circumstances that has resulted in the concealment of certain matters that should be of interest in today's world.

I am not in any way going to criticize the assiduousness of the FBI in delivering this mass of documentation to detainee Moussaoui. I believe that every accused person has the right to be regarded as innocent until proved guilty, and US legislation leaves no doubt on this point.

Neither do I criticize the Virginia federal prison authorities for their amiability in providing the extra cell, computer, TV, video and other facilities enabling the defendant to study his case and prepare for the trial.

Neither will I censure Judge Brinkema for her careful regard for safeguarding the defendant's rights, the need to protect his privacy, not to disturb him with the series of FBI requests to search his room to see if certain documents were there or, as happened just yesterday, her decision to postpone his trial until June of next year.

Neither do I criticize the presumed or alleged mistakes made by someone in the FBI, a story that has been kept more or less under wraps. The first letter on the subject is dated 23 August - the very day on which the request to switch the venue in Ramírez vs. the INS was granted. The prosecution wrote to the federal judge explaining that in the welter of documentation sent to the defendant, two secret items concerning the FBI investigation of the Al Qaeda terrorist group had been included by mistake.

A few days later (on 29 August), the prosecution expressed its anxiety over the fact that the more important of these documents had still not turned up. A few days later, the prosecution clarified that, in fact, seven secret documents had inadvertently found their way into the accused's personal library. The final conclusion was that the real total was 48, which over a period of three months had been passed to the defendant - who, if he is an industrious type, may have been able to study them on the computer etc. etc.

Another event of special interest partly explains my reluctance to criticize the FBI's conduct in its handling of this case. By virtue of a number of interviews of the accused on 28 August, certain officials obtained, on a friendly basis, his cooperation in the recovery of these documents. The relevant communication quotes Mr. Moussaoui as saying "You can take the documents so long as you leave the videos".

This same communication from the prosecution also mentions that the defendant spends a lot of time working on the computer - more than on the printed material - including accessing a website relevant to his defence.

It is hard to criticize the care with which the FBI, the prosecution, the prison authorities and the federal judge involved in this case have handled matters - their recognition of the rights of all prisoners regardless of the crimes of which they are accused. I am not now going to make comparisons with the plight of the thousand or so foreigners who, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have been detained in the United States since approximately the time of our last conference here in Havana. In other words, as a result of 11th September, around a thousand unnamed persons, who have not been charged and have no legal representation, have been getting a different kind of treatment. According to other leaked information, ACLU is reviving an institution that appears to be buried under the rubble of the Twin Towers, namely the time-honoured principle of habeas corpus. I am not going to condemn such practices, nor demand that each of these thousand detainees be provided with a room adjoining their cell equipped with a computer, TV, video etc. But there is at least some justice in ACLU's request to know who they are and what are the charges against them. And I want to restrict the complaint, as it were, to the Cuban element.

Our five countrymen imprisoned in the United States are awaiting removal of the obstacles that have so far prevented their case from being transferred from the South Florida District Court to the Appeal Court in Atlanta, Georgia.

Because, four years on, the judge in the case (Judge Lenard) still has not decided on the oldest of the defence motions, submitted before the start of the public hearings. Throughout these hearings, since the end of the trial and still today, the request is that Rule 16, which is being so jealously and meticulously upheld in the case of Mr. Moussaoui, should also be applied to those who combat terrorism.

This is a trial that has been weighed down by that little detail. Not only the defendants, but even their defence attorneys - the public defenders who represented them - have been denied access to the bulk of the documentation that allegedly justifies the charges against them.

No-one is asking for private offices in the prisons where they are being held, or that they be given computers. They do not and could not have them, and nor could any other inmate in any of the prisons concerned. No video, no computer, and much less access to the Internet from their cells. I respect the strange reasons that prompt the authorities to accord such careful and attentive treatment to someone who could be regarded as currently the most dangerous detainee on earth - the only person so far under prosecution for participation in the events of 11th September.

Three months after that date, in the session at which the five Cubans were sentenced, the government and the Miami federal judge were confronted by an extremely serious problem: two of the five convicted men were US citizens by birth. In the cases of the other three, the sentences clearly provide for their transfer to the immigration authorities, should they ever regain their liberty, for deportation. The two US citizens cannot be deported, however.

The US government represented by the South Florida DA's office wrote to the judge stating the problem, with special reference to one of two Cubans who is also an American citizen: René González, charged with nothing more than having been an agent of the Cuban government who had not registered as such and whose sole mission was to infiltrate certain Miami-based terrorist groups. His sentence was only 15 years so that, as the relevant government memorandum states, he would walk free eventually - after serving the longest term they could impose - and would return to his previous activities.

Effectively restricting his future activity was the key part of this sentence, as important as the term of imprisonment. Judge Lenard imposed this additional penalty by means of a strange condition tacked on to the sentence. Quoting verbatim from page 45 of the transcript of the proceedings on 14 December 2001 (three months after the atrocity against the American people): "As a condition of his supervised release, the accused is prohibited from associating or visiting with terrorist or similar groups or going to places known to be the haunts of such groups".

One might have thought that the judge had acted in an unguarded moment, that she had not sufficiently weighed her words, were it not for the fact that they reappeared verbatim two weeks later in the sentence on Antonio Guerrero, the other of the Cubans who is also a US citizen. In spite of having sentenced him to life imprisonment plus ten years, in view of the chance he might nonetheless regain his liberty and, being a US citizen, could not be deported, the US government applied to the judge for restriction on his future activities. The judge obliged, using exactly the same wording as that added to the sentence on René González.

This happened in the context of an international scenario supposedly marked by our universal opposition to terrorism, which also implies an obligation to combat it in all its forms and manifestations, in accordance with the US resolution unanimously adopted by the Security Council. Concerning the latter measure, president Bush never tires of repeating an axiom with which it is hard to disagree: "Those who protect a terrorist are much terrorists as the terrorist himself".

What can one say of those who not only protect them but punish US citizens and prohibit them from doing anything against terrorist groups, either now, or in 15 years' time, or in a life sentence plus 10 years?

Forgive me for having taken up more of your time this morning than I intended, but I hope you can understand that in this global battle against terrorism - whose vital importance to Cubans cannot be overestimated - the idea that there is such a thing as good terrorism, such as that practised against Cuba, cannot be entertained; people's rights must be safeguarded and protected; such a view cannot be allowed to justify ignoring the rights of US citizens and others who, because they risked their lives right there where groups operate, should in reality have been always considered heroes. This is not what the Cuban government says, but the US government, which it confirms in a judicial sentence: not only are terrorists present, but their identities, locations and haunts are known. And it is assumed that they will remain, and their identities, locations and haunts will continue to be known for the next 15 years, for a life sentence plus 10 years.

This inconsistency, this discriminatory attitude, which at bottom implies tolerance of terrorism, is relevant to Cuban national security - not in militarist or strategic terms, but in terms of the safety of Cuban men and women, of preventing someone from setting off a bomb in the middle of a school or theatre or hotel. The safety of Cubans in a world in which all of us genuinely oppose outrages everywhere, in any circumstance, whatever the claimed justification.

For Cuba, it is simply inadmissible to pursue a supposed war on this scourge while at the same time formally - as in the case of this judicial sentence - condoning the terrorism which is currently being practised against Cuba and which we assume will continue in the future.

We have not embraced this cause solely out of brotherliness, sympathy and solidarity with our five countrymen who are suffering unjustly. It is not only out of sympathy and solidarity with their families; we are also demanding the right and need of our entire people to benefit from this universal call to ensure that no-one can make attempts on the life of others using the despicable devices of terrorism.

I reiterate my apologies for having taken up so much of your time and reiterate in particular my gratification at your presence here. Accept my best wishes for a productive few days. Make the most of your stay: the sun will shine, the clouds will disappear, the weather will be good after the storm.

Enjoy your stay in our country.

Many thanks