On May 27, 2024, the Cuban Parliament published the draft of a new law titled Transparency and Access to Public Information. Despite its name, the law has been criticized for potentially restricting access to essential information and maintaining high levels of state secrecy.
The draft centralizes control within the Ministry of Interior, potentially limiting public access to critical data. Key institutions like the Judicial Power, National Assembly, and Council of State are not required to disclose information, undermining the law’s purported aim of fostering governmental transparency.
The law defines ‘public information’ in a restrictive manner, allowing the Ministry of Interior considerable authority to classify and declassify information. This centralization raises concerns about the independence and objectivity of information access.
Organizations such as the Regional Alliance for Free Expression and Information have voiced concerns that, without significant reforms and the adoption of international best practices, the law will continue to restrict information access in an environment already plagued by misinformation and state control.
The Civil Society’s Criticisms:
- Restrictive Public Information Concept: Defines public information narrowly, limiting it to what is held or guarded by obligated entities and not recognizing broader public interest activities.
- Lack of Maximum Publicity Principle: Does not adhere to international standards that call for maximal publicity and accessibility of public information.
- Exclusion of Key State Organs: Excludes major state organs like the Judicial Power, National Assembly, and Council of State from transparency obligations.
- Centralized Control by the Ministry of Interior: Grants the Ministry extensive control over information classification, raising concerns about impartiality.
- Criminalization of Independent Media: Supports the criminalization of independent media and journalists under the Social Communication Law and decrees №35 and 370.
- Limited Active and Budgetary Transparency: Lacks provisions for active transparency in critical areas like public official assets and budgetary information, hindering public oversight of resource management.
- National Security Concept as a Secrecy Excuse: Broad and vague definitions of ‘national security’ could be used to deny access to critical information.
- Opaque Appeal Process: Lacks a clear and accessible mechanism for appealing denied information requests.
Experts and independent organizations emphasize the law’s failure to meet international standards. According to Cuban jurist Edel González Jiménez, the Ministry of Interior’s control over classified information is a significant barrier to exercising the right to information.
The Cuban Legislative Observatory, and other commentators, argue that without independent media and a clear appeal process, the law cannot achieve true transparency. The general consensus is that the draft law perpetuates state control and a culture of secrecy, rather than promoting openness and accountability.
Jurist Eloy Viera Cañive observed that the law’s stipulations make applicants responsible for the use of accessed information, potentially exposing them to administrative, civil, or criminal penalties for misuse.
Although Cuban authorities have pledged to subject the draft law to public consultation, many, including Cuban lawyer Eloy Viera Cañive, question the legitimacy of such processes, citing minimal changes between initial and final drafts and limited consideration of public input.
Cuban journalist José Raúl Gallego critiqued the contradictions in the government’s transparency promises, noting the systemic repression of independent journalism and habitual information concealment as barriers to genuine transparency.
Read the full article in English on martiverifica.info, assisted by Google Translate.