Case No. 207-2008 E F P No. 10-08 Moa SENTENCE NUMBER EIGHTEEN IN TWO THOUSAND NINE lrudges FRANCISCO BRUNET GOMEZ ~ANET KATHERINE SARDON ECHARRI RAFAEL QUESADA CALDERON JOSE LEYVA DE LA ROSA In the city of Moa on the twenty-ninth day of the month of January oftwo thousand nine. HEARD. In public trial before the People's Provicial Tribunal of Fifth Criminal Court of Holguin Provincial cuasa two hundred and seven of two thousand and eight, followed by the crime of Trafficking in Persons, among the parties, the Prosecution is represented by Kenia Perez Truyenque, for the other party defense counsel Francisco Javier Tapia Pacheco who appears on behalf of the accused ALEJANDRO MEDINA MANUEL AGUILERA, born in Havana, the son of Ibrahim and Ramona, buyer for the chain company Dona Yuya, address at Miro street, number one hundred and forty-six, between Aricochea y Cable, municipality and province of Holguin, in prison provisionally because of this case. And the defense counsel, Carlos Manuel Perez Leyva, who appears on behalf of the accused DANILO CURBELO GARCIA, native of Holguin, sone of Laurel and Deisa, of thirty-eight years of age with passport number C seven five five two five one, address at one seven five zero West six zero street, Hialeah, Florida, United States, in prison provisionally because of this case. SPEAKER TO BE THE JUDGE FRANCISCO GOMEZ BRUNET WHEREAS: Proved that the accused Danilo Curbelo Garcia, resident in the United States of America, who traveled to Cuba on the eighteenth of July of the year two thousand and eight, after being housed in his families' home, in the municipality of Holguin, within a province of the same name, he entered into an agreement with the accused Alejandro Manuel Medina Aguilera, who he had known previously because they had been neighbors when he lived in Cuba, looking to get easy gains derived by obtaining athletic talent for their inclusion in the professional sporting leagues of the country already mentioned [unintelligible word] especially baseball players, they agreed between themselves to speak with the Holguin baseball team's pitcher, Aroldis Chapman de la Cruz, with whom Alejandro Manuel had relations of friendship to a certain extent, this athlete who is known nationally and internationally despite his short career in sports, but who is seen as one of the great talents of Cuban pitching, it was in this manner on 27 July of the year two thousand and eight that Medina Aguilara along with Curbelo Garcia decided to travel from the municipality of Holguin to the town of Frank Pais, which they did in an Moskvich automobile that belonged Danilo's family, arriving at Aroldis Chpaman de la Cruz's domicile, located at First street number four El Polo Frank Pais, province Holguin, at approximately 8:30 at night and after inquiring about [Aroldis Chapman] to his father, Juan Alberto Chapman Bennett, who responded that [ Aroldis Chapman] was sleeping, and given the insistence on seeing him, Aroldis rises and they ask him to accompany them to their car, Danilo Curbelo Garcia in the presence of Alejandro Manuel expresses to [Aroldis Chapman] that he has a telephone number for Daltan Viciendo, who had abandoned the country some months before
and that he wanted to speak with him, without agreeing to anything more about it, however the next day both defendants, persisting in their purpose, decided to travel back to the town Frank Pais in a vehicle rented by Danilo Garcia Curbelo, the car's was an Audi model AUT A fourtwo-zero-zero-two-six, from which they called via mobile phone to Aroldis, expressing that they were heading toward the municipality of Frank Pais, that they desired to get in contact with him, this call was specifically effectuated by the accused Alejandro [next page] 2 Manuel Medina Aguilera, inviting him to meet in some place of the town already referred to above in half an hour and upon arriving there they made several efforts to locate him, finding him on the main street of that town, specifically in front of the place known as The Plaza, where both defendants approached him and Danilo asked Aroldis WHEN DO YOU LEAVE, engaging in a conversation with Aroldis, where he expressed that there were major league players of inferior competitive quality to that of [Aroldis] and they were playing, explaining to him right there that he could leave with them to the city of Havana, that upon getting there, they would take him to a house, where they would pick him up for the purpose of transporting him so that he could play in the major leagues, logically inferring that it would be outside of the country, all of which was heard by the accused, Alejandro Manuel, who was standing at his [Danilo Curbelo] side. Things being as they were, upon receiving beforehand the foregoing information on the claims of the defendants and the insistence of their actions toward the above player, interior ministry officials proceeded to effectuate the arrests of the defendants that very night at the exit to the municipality [Frank Pais], nevertheless they [the defendants] continued their trip [back to Holguin] minutes later, and the corresponding charges were filed later. Defendant ALEJANDRO MANUEL MEDINA AGUILERA of maladjusted social behavior, as he is often seen in public places, in which causes fights and brawls, executively sanctioned in case five hundred twenty-three of 1989, of the People's Provincial Court of Holguin, to four years' imprisonment for the crime of Robbery With Violence and Intimidation of People. Defendant DANILO CURBELO GARCIA, of normal behavior prior to the events [of this case], which does not consist criminal record. WHEREAS: That the Tribunal arrived at the certainty of the facts narrated above based on the evidence presented during the trial, in this vein the statements of the defendants, where Alejandro Manuel Medina Aguilera had a partial recollection of the facts, admitting having gone to the municipality of Frank Pais, but never with the intention of convincing the baseball player to abandon the country, giving few credible or convincing arguments, the same position was maintained by the incarcerated Danilo Curbelo Garcia, who always denied his true intensions, since he admitted to having a conversation with Aroldis, but never with the intention of having [Aroldis Chapman] abandon the country, although throughout the extensive investigation [Curbelo Garcia] recognized and provided enough details of how this exit could be executed, the judges considering that the defendant Alejandro Manuel constituted the main link for them to meet with Aroldis Chapman since he [Alejandro Manuel] accompanied [Curbelo Garcia] on two occasions to the municipality of Frank Pais in order to meet with Aroldis. Added to this was the examination of the documentary evidence which confirmed the behavior maintained by both imprisoned [defendants] prior to the events [that gave rise to this action] and the criminal records or lack thereof of each, considering the health of one of them currently these being the various
reports on Complementary Research, Criminal Record Certificates, clinical history and summary where it is established that the defendant suffered a traffic accident in the year 1998, documents that are noted on the pages of the Cause. Added to the above, was abundant testimonial evidence like that of Aroldis Chapman de la Cruz, who demonstrating confidence, clarity and above all firmness in what he said, affirmed for the judges every single one of the actions realized by both imprisoned [defendants] upon visiting him on two occasions at his place of residence and the statements they made to him, with the marked interest of getting him to leave the country, where upon at that time they told him details about the route that would used to leaving the country, said testimony that was corroborated by the statement of Juan Alberto Chapman Bennett who as father of [Aroldis Chapman] knew of the events herein related through his son and consequently reported to the Tribunal what he knew from the beginning. In the same manner was heard the testimony of Luis Quesada Parra, police investigator who was in charge of the investigation as to the facts of this case an9- explained the entire investigative process that was conducted, the procedural behavior of both defendants and the conclusions above the actions of the defendants, ratifying in due course the report issued in this regard. Finally, the tribunal examined the testimony of the witnesses proposed by the defense Almarada Esther Pena and Carmen Ramirez Acosta, which fundamentally focused on defendant Alejandro Manuel's conduct, his job stability and his social relationships. [next page] 3 WHEREAS: That the prosecutor maintained its provisional findings as definitive just as they are written on pages one and two of the roll of the case. WHEREAS: That the defense counsel Francisco Javier Tapia Pacheco maintained its provisional findings as definitive just as they are written on pages thirty-one, thirty-two and thirty-three y the defense counsel Carlos Manuel Perez Leyva modified his provisional findings as written on pages thirty-four, thirty-six, thirty-seven and thirty-eight on the roll of the case, along with a written document presented by him to page forty-six. FIRST CONSIDERATION: That the facts that are here declared proved constitute the crime of intentional and consummated Trafficking in Persons, expressed and sanctioned in Article three hundred forty-seven section two of the Penal Code, in relation to article nine second one and two and article twelve section one of the Penal Code, given that their agents without being authorized to do and for profit, organized and promoted persons to leave the country for destination in third countries. SECOND CONSIDERATION: That the defendants are criminally liable as authors of the above-referenced crime for having committed the violation in conformity with that established by Article eighteen section two paragraph a) of the Penal Code. THIRD CONSIDERATION: That in the commission of the crime there are no concurrent aggravating circumstances nor extenuating circumstances that would relieve the defendants of criminal responsibility. FOURTH CONSIDERATION: That criminal responsibility entails civil responsibility but it is not appropriate to rule on that regard because it is not relevant in this case.
FIFTH CONSIDERATION: That to apply the appropriate measure of punishment imposable on the defendants the Court takes into account the provisions of Articles twenty-seven and fortyseven of the Penal Code in so far as it deals with crimes that significantly affect Third World countries and especially Cuba, which does so much for the welfare of the human beings, however unscrupulous people try every means to affect our social system with the theft of sports talents, scientific personnel, technicians and professionals trained by the Revolution, wherever,these individuals may be found exercising their services in sister countries who need them just as in our own country, without taking into account the generic recidivism of Alejandro Manuel, since the crime he committed occurred so long ago that it is virtually irrelevant. WE JUDGE: the accused DANILO CURBELO GARCIA Y ALEJANDRO MANUEL MEDINA AGUILERA are punished as perpetrators of one count of Trafficking in Persons and imposing TEN YEARS OF INCARCERATION relative to the first and SEVEN YEARS OF INCARCERATION the second that will be served in prisons determined by the Ministry of Interior, serving for compliance all of the time of preventive detention required by this cause, with the addition Article thirty-seven section one and two of the Penal Code, involving the loss of the right to active and passive suffrage, as well as the right to hold office in the organs of direction for the political activity of state administration, in state economic units and in mass organizations and socials for the same term of the penalty imposed for each of the defendants. Regarding Civil Liability we make no pronouncements because they are not relevant. Regarding assets we make no pronouncements because they were not referenced [next page] 4 Regarding the cautionary method of provisional imprisonment that was imposed on each defendant will continue in place until this sentence attains firmness for the subsequent implementation of the sanction. The appeal from this judgment should be filed before the Penal Board of the Supreme People's Court within ten working days following notification of this judgment. Give Notice to the parties of this Resolution and refer a timely copy of this judgment to the Provincial Department of Corrections and implemented be the other provisions. IN OUR JUDGMENT, WE ANNOUNCE, ORDER AND SIGN. CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION I, Kenia Bravo, Esq., hereby certify that I am competent in Spanish and English and that I have accurately translated the above document from Spanish to English to the best of my abilities. Dat., t&boj3 ~~ /. ~- ~