United States Narration Supersede Equality of Nations assured under UN Charter- The Cuban Experience

 The art of narration selection, building on the favoured perspective and creating acceptance happens not just in the media, the UN platform but also within institutions supposed to deliver justice, this is clearly seen in many instances in the United States. At times, it is the sound of silence from the US court that deafens humanity, as in the case of the US President proudly claiming he has bombed fishermen boats, and his administration even opting for double strike in case some soul had been left alive to bear witness to the incident. Not one official or those from judiciary has asked about legality of extrajudicial killing or how did the US President or any of the official determine that fishing boat contained drugs, when the only option for detection was from the skies above, miles aways from the boat. Besides it is common knowledge that physical examination along with chemical testing is necessary to determine the chemical composition of the substance suspected to be drugs.

All the illegal options within US governance have been made possible through narration building within domestic and international media. When tailor made narrative manipulated for political advantage is presented as truth from the centre of power, oval office of the President, public are blindsided to absence of logic and relevant source for data verification. These narrations are then segmented and used by US Ambassadors to influence policy decision at UN Platform or the court within the United States or abroad.

Here I am taking an example of an event that happened thirty years ago in Cuba, to illustrate how narration has been used to build a case, to direct its presentation and integration by concerned audience, to define its legal framing, creating a stimulus for international policy adaption and creating a foundation for further isolation of the target, the accused or victim country, here Cuba.

I. The event in Past and its current link

The specific focus is on the events that happened on 24^th February 1996, that led to the downing of two aircrafts belonging to a humanitarian agency, Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR). The main focus of BTTR was to save rafters who left Cuba to illegally enter the USA, and got caught in difficult situations including dying because of dehydration, during the journey. The agency was founded by Jose Basulto in 1991, he is a Cuban whose focus was to overthrow the communist government in Cuba [1,2]. He made this clear to both the US government and the Cuban government. The transgression into sovereign space of Cuba is clear from the data, it is also possible to infer that the US government encouraged the work of BTTR beyond that of saving rafters fleeing Cuba [3].

International relationships between Cuba and the United States took an interesting turn after communist government came to power in Cuba. The US government along with elite right-wing Cubans have been shouting foul since the 1959 and yet Communist government continues to exist and Cubans continue to reside there. During the 1990s when Cuba lost support of the Soviet Union and given trade restrictions through sanctions, the situation became difficult for many Cubans and there was large migration from Cuba to different states in the region, including the US which has a significant Cuban population in Miami, Florida.

A strange delusion exists within US governance system, it has been there for decades, the belief that as the most powerful country the US can dictate which kind of governance can be opted for within other sovereign nations especially those in the region and this has been subtly carried out through Organisation of American States.  A clear indication of the same is seen in the functioning of OAS, which considers it is a fundamental requirement that governance in the region should move towards unitary democracy, and that is crucial for peace in the region. This selection of one type of political ideology over others, is done subtly and blatantly forgetting it is a transgression into the sovereign rights of another country and its citizens.

Initially the downing of two aircraft was seen as part of human rights violation, Right to life among others. As a result, an assessment was sought from Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding admissibility of the case [4], IACHR is part of Organization of American States (OAS). It is relevant to note that Organization of American States of which the United States is part off, is funded by the US and is the largest funder, providing more than 49 percent of funds. As an organ of OAS, Inter-American Commission on human rights is also largely funded by the US [5]

The report by Inter-American Commission on Human Rights used the perspective of a) Right to life as given in Article 1 and b) Right to fair trial as given Article XVIII of American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. It should be remembered that the United States never ratified American Convention on Human Rights the legally binding treaty and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The US through the humanitarian agency Brothers to the Rescue and OAS is trying Cuba based on a legislation that the US refused to ratify giving sovereignty concerns.

It is the American Convention on Human Rights that confers Inter American Commission on Human Rights as competent to hear issues regarding the compliance to agreement undertaken by States [6]. Besides, Cuba is not part of American Convention on Human Rights [ibid] and Cuba though the founding member of OAS, was excluded from participation in inter-American system forum since 1962 [7], as a punishment for opting for Communist Government and not a Unitary Democracy as per the guidelines for governance in the region by the United States.

The incident of downing of aircraft near Cuba is brought up as a legal issue under American Convention on Human Rights by the United States which is not bound by the Convention and case is filed against Cuba which also cannot held legally accountable and yet the issue and the verdict of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights and later deliberation by UNSC was upheld by the UN. The obvious international support from the beginning and local mobilisation by right wing Cubans led to enforcement of Helms-Burton Act of 1996, President Clinton’s measure that ensured strict sanctions were passed into law and thereby tying the hands of future US Presidents [8,9].

It is interesting to note that another angle taken by the report of Inter-American Commission on Humans Rights is that there is case under Torture Victim Protection Act, which allows individuals to file civil law suit in US Federal Court against individuals. who acting under actual or apparent authority of any foreign nation, committed acts of torture or extrajudicial killing. Here the downing of airplanes was considered to be extrajudicial killing [10]. This provision under law has been used against many foreign leaders by the US. Interestingly there is no option of similar nature to hold US officials accountable, besides all US Presidential Executive Order has a rider no US official will be held legally accountable to events that occur as part of performing his/her duty or work.

It is based on the report of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Civil Aviation Organization Release reports and details provided by Brothers to the Rescue and others that the US Ambassador to UN, Madeleine Albright spoke on this issue and asked for immediate action against Cuba.

The position taken by the Ambassador was similar to that of OAS and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which is that Right to life was taken away and that the Cuban military knowingly and wilfully and in broad day light shot down two aircraft and killed four individuals, three US citizens and one US resident. She said the US victims were murdered by the Cuban government and that no attempts were made to forcefully land the BTTR aircrafts and no warning shots were fired. She claimed the aircrafts were in international airspace when the shots were fired [11].

I. a.  President Trump Administration’s approach to the issue

The incident was already assessed and action taken both by UNSC and by the US government through US Presidential Executive which destroyed the economy of Cuba. The fact that many sanctions continue and US President has ensured the total destruction of Cuban economy by attacking its source for oil, specifically Venezuela. All these measures have been taken to pressurise Cuba to ignore its sovereign rights and give into American demands. The present superseding indictment is also a move to assert the democratic rights of Cubans would be shaped in manner that is pleasing to the US and President Trump’s administration.

Given the fact that the earlier legal case did not lead to total surrender of Cuban government, now President Trump wants to have a different take on the incident of downing of aircrafts by Cuban military.  Besides, the case under TVPA can only be acted upon with 10 years after the incident. Now, the US administration, DOJ, has moved forward with a case against Raul Modesto Castro Ruz and five others, Raul Castro is the brother of late Fidel Castro and was the defence minister at that time. The Superseding Indictment against Raul Castro and others focus on the

(1) aircraft destruction via:

 a) Punishment for the destruction US registered aircrafts under 18 US Code §2332 (b) (2); Section 2332b is intended to reach violent international terrorist activity that takes place within the US where at least a part of that activity also occurs outside the US. The violent activity can be targeted against persons of property within the US . This has been used against many international terrorists, as in case of involvement in September 11, 2001, attacks and 1998 US embassy bombing.  As per this code, whoever kills a US national while such national is outside the US, shall if killing is murder as defined under section 1111 (a), be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for any term of years or life or both [12]. There is separate punishment in case it is voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.

b) Under 18 US Code § 32 (a) (1) makes it a federal crime to wilfully destroy, damage or disable an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the US or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas or foreign air commerce [13]

c) Under 18 US Code § 34 is a federal criminal statute that establishes the penalty for committing wilful destruction or sabotage against aircraft, motor vehicles, or related transportation facilities – if that sabotage results in the death of any person [14,15]

d) Under 49 US Code § 46501 (2) defines the “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States’. This legal framework establishes US federal authority and enables US courts to prosecute crimes (like hijacking or air piracy) committed abroad specific aircraft, even if they occur in international airspace [16]. The special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States includes any of the following aircraft in flight (“aircraft in flight” means an aircraft form the moment all external doors are closed following boarding- a) through the moment when one external door is opened… b) until, if a forced landing competent authorities take over…

2.  Killing of BTTR flyers using heat missiles by Cuban military

a) Under 18 US Code § 1111 (2) (1), first degree murder is defined as any unlawful killing of a human being with malice, afterthought that is wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing… [17]

b) Under 18 US Code § (2), concept of Principals in federal law is established. It ensures that anyone involved in a federal crime against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission is punishable as principal. Whoever wilfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offence against the United States, is punishable as a principal [18].

II. Issues of Concern with regard to earlier legal action against Cuba and downing of aircrafts

1. The report of Inter-American commission on Human Rights is cited Right to life, as an “absolute right” with no exception. But that is not the case, there are exceptions. According European Commission on Human Rights, Article 2- Protects your right to life. But there are instances where restrictions to the right to life can exist. Article 2 is often referred to as an “absolute right”. These are rights that can never be interfered with by the state. There are situations when exceptions do apply.

For example, a person’s right to life is not breached if they die when a public authority (such as the police) uses necessary force to; stop them carrying out unlawful violence, to stop rioting or uprising. According to International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) only intentional taking of life death penalty, self-defence or quelling a riot.

Here the entire document has not stated that BTTR may be a humanitarian organisation for the US but for Cuba Government it as a paramilitary terrorist organisation, and had been found to be involved in terrorist activities.  It included destruction of government property and illegal entry into the country.

2. IACHR and US Ambassador and the UN claims that the air crafts were shot down in international airspace and they base their conclusion on IACO report [19,20].  As per IACO report the data provided by the US and Cuba could not be used as they were different, and could not be reconciled. IACO then depended on inferred data based on information provided by different witnesses in the area, and the data received from their instruments used where not continuous and accurate, so cross verification and assumption were used to arrive at a conclusion, ignoring the presence of raw data.

3. The report does not focus on the intention aspect of the event be it with regard to the aircraft or the agency for whom the flyers were carrying out their duty. As per Aviation Criminal law the intent of the person and intent regarding the vehicle (aircraft) is considered relevant. Under 18 US Code 2332 (C) Other – whoever outside the United States engages in physical violence – (1) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of the United States; or (2) with the result that seriously bodily injury is caused to a national of the United Staes, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten year or both [21].

 The IACHR always presented the perspective of the US, it did not indicate that Cuba has classified BTTR as a terrorist organisation, this based on the presentation of Cuban Foreign Minister at UN discussion and hence the agency aircraft tries to enter Cuban territorial space, it is seen as a terrorist agency entering Cuba. There have been many instance when BTTR aircraft entered Cuban airspace specifically to   mobilize Cubans against the Cuban government. It is very interesting that a country the US that can classify any one as a terrorist and sanction anyone including staff at UN agency for doing their job has the audacity to justify all acts of BTTR against a sovereign nation and state full support of BTTR and its goals, which includes overthrowing a foreign government. In this case and with regard to superseding indictment against Raul Castro the intention is the same to disempower Cuban Government and hamper its capacity to run the country and strong move towards it was the Helm’s Burton Act.

Isn’t there another side to this perspective which Cuban Foreign Minister tried to highlight for a more objective and asked for just discussion on the issue but he did not get the support for the same. For example, a paramilitary terrorist group BTTR that has carried out terror acts on different occasion by illegal entry into Cuban territory as a matter of taunting the government. The founder of BTTR has made it clear on many occasion he considers it is his right to do so, at no point has the US government set boundaries for the agencies on what it can carry out within a foreign sovereign nation. The US government can be inferred to have encouraged the functioning of the agency [22].

Does the silent acceptance of this by international community mean that UN member states have to seek permission from US President to decide on the governance system within their own country?

4) US Ambassador insists that the flights informed Cuba, this was done through reporting their schedule to Florida and Havana. But, the report by IACHR indicate that BTTR did report their flight schedule for morning to Miami and Havana. Later in the report it is indicated that morning flight did not happen and the BTTR personnel decided to fly in the afternoon after lunch.  They did fly from Florida to Cuba at 1.21 pm, that’s when the second flight left. During that time the flight schedule was reported only to Miami, when the flyers were reminded, they have to inform Havana they ignored the instruction, they did this only much later on reaching 24 parallel. The BTTR founder said that is fine, they are not bothered about it. The flyers were also told certain spots in Cuba airspace are risky as Cuba was conducting military manoeuvring exercise. The BTTR flyer laughed and said it is always risky [23, 24].

5. According to flight regulation rules and procedures in case there is a change in time, then another new application has to be filed for seeking permission which has to be done a day in advance. All the three flights flew to Cuba airspace without legitimate permission and after recuring warning about the possibility of the air space being risky because of military training by Cuban forces.

6. According to data provided by IACHR and ICAO the flights left Miami at 1.20 pm and weather was clear. As per information available about flight duration from Miami to reach Cuba is around 1 hour to 1.30 hrs so how come the aircrafts did not reach Cuban territory even after 2 hrs of straight flight time and no issues being reported by either of the aircrafts. As the downing of the aircrafts happened at 3.20 pm, it means the aircrafts had covered two hours of flight time, which means they should be inside Cuban territory. The detailed report from ICAO indicates instances when BTTR being within  Cuba’s territorial airspace [ibid].

7. For any criminal or accidental events, the antecedent factors are relevant, here it includes the antecedent factors of the aircraft and that of the agency that the flyers represent, for the flyers where not there on their individual capacity, they were flying as part of the agency, Brother to the Rescue. The agency has a clearly stated mission not just to safe rafters flee Cuba but also mobilize Cubans to bring about regime change. This has been stated loud and clear by the founder of the agency and also is reflected in his and agency action after the agency was formed. This was not case of civilian aircrafts being downed it was case of aircrafts that Cuban government suspected to be a risk and capable of carrying terror acts, as the agency has done so in earlier instances. Besides, BTTR is termed as a paramilitary terrorist agency by Cuban government.

8. The founder of the agency Basulto has stated his anti-Cuban government stand and also has proudly stated of working for CIA to try to overthrow Castro government. He has stayed in Cuba and spied on Cuban government on behalf of CIA and US government . He is not an innocent civilian and his agency workers are not innocent civilians but are part of mission that seeks to overthrow Cuban government.

9. Even when considering the case as part of human rights violation, the contextual details of the aircraft is relevant. Here the flyers were not civilians flying to Cuba on for civilian purposes they were part of a humanitarian agency that was setup to save rafters who fled Cuba without permission. This process of saving rafters lost its relevance when US changed its policy and state any rafters that reached US shore illegally would be sent back to Cuba. This meant much before the downing of aircrafts happened there were no rafters to be saved. The only activity carried out by the agency BTTR is to mobilize Cuban against Cuban government, besides dropping pamphlets breaking into Cuban territory was also seen as way to taunt the Cuban government. The US has clear cut norms for pamphlet distribution and it falls under Federal Aviation Administration Regulation, special permission has to be sought and specific spot chosen, dropping of pamphlets by US citizens or those living in the US without permission is a crime. There is no way an aircraft from another country can sneak into the US and drop pamphlets and in case it does not adhere to warning signs, it can be shot down as last resort.

III. Issues with current case by DOJ under President Trumps administration

1. While in previous case under Inter American Commission on Human Rights the focus was on Right to life and extrajudicial killing under Torture Victim Protection Act, but here the case is a superseding indictment against Raul Castro the brother of Fidel Castro and four others. This case builds up from the assumption that the US government has the right to decide whether communist ideology should exist within any country in the region.

Within the current case, the focus is to build a background to indicate that the Cuban Government has been conspiring against the BTTR flyers, even having spies to get information on the flight details of BTTR flyers, and based on these details the Cuban military were waiting to kill the flyers. There is problem with this argument, when there is so much resources crunch because of actions taken by the US why would Cuba send spies to collect information that has to be provided legally to Cuba as per rules and regulations for aviation.

According to the rules, for aircraft to fly to Cuba would need official application to be made at least 48 working hours in advance. On certain occasion on urgent basis permission is given for an additional fee within one to six hours. This process in rare and not regular practice. Details of the flight has to be provided such as - a) aircraft information include aircraft make, model, registration and MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight) and b) Operator name, crew member name, license number and passport details. c) Flight details should be provided to Cuba, this would include details on specific entry and exit point, routing of the flight, all this has to be provided in the Cuban Flight Information Region (FIR) d) Valid airworthiness certificate, radio licence and liability insurance and e) Exact reason for charter flight.

2. The case against Raul Castro and others is presented as though they were waiting to kill BTTR Flyers for no reason. That is not the reality, the true picture for Cuba the actual victim, for an agency that it considers a paramilitary terrorist agency keeps entering its air space without permission, taunts the Cuban Government and indicates to the Cuban public that the Cuban government is unable to manage its own security. As this became a real issue the Cuban government did complaint to the US Government to take action on this regard. 

So, the flyers that flew to Cuba were not innocent civilians with no questionable motive but well-planned staff of BTTR who actually even on 24^th February did not stay on the route and took deviation and this has been provided in the detail report by IACO [25].  The behaviour of BTTR is one of planned attacker out prove a point to the Cubans and mobilize them to overthrow the existing government in Cuba. Even on 24^th February they ignored the warning at Miami and from Havana that certain spots are risky, for Cuba is conducting military exercises, yet these warnings were ignored.

While the US is so liberal with regard to function of BTTR, within the US there is strict regulation about any association or support being provided for Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTO). It should be remembered that BTTR is registered in the US and Cuba considers BTTR as a paramilitary terrorist group. According 18 U.S. Code § 2339  whoever knowingly provides  material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so shall be fined…, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. As per 18 U.S. Code § 2339 (B) to knowingly provide material support to FTOs may face criminal liability [26]. The definition of “material support” broadly encompasses “any property”, tangible, intangible or service. It includes currency, monetary instruments, financial securities, financial services, lodging, training (i.e. instructions or teaching designed to impact a specific skill), and export advice or assistance (i.e. advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge) among others. Anything and everything can be included as material supports, selling them goods or services can lead to criminal investigation and prosecution. There is no need for knowledge about intent, only knowledge about FTO is adequate for being charged [27].

Within this context, if actually the country US is a democracy, and therefore hold same principles for other countries as for itself, can then the US, its agencies and professionals be legally tried for providing material support to Foreign Terrorist Organisation by other countries, here example being, Cuba. Can Cuba fine the US, its citizens or agencies for the same?

3. The case largely rests on the US Special Aircrafts Jurisdiction it is interesting to note that this is being used to assert the rights of an agency BTTR which Cuba considers to be paramilitary terrorist group. It seems a paramilitary terrorist agency is entering airspace within Cuba without permission going to area it has been told clearly to avoid as it is dangerous, the flyers lied about its flight route and yet according to the US, Cuba was expected to welcome the flyers and ignore concerns regarding Cuba’s sovereignty and safety.

4. Again, and again the humanitarian angle of BTTR is highlighted, yes BTTR did save rafters for many years. But when the policy on migration shifted and it was decided that migrants who reached US shores illegally from Cuba would be sent back. This literally stopped the instances of people trying escape Cuba using rafts. Then why was BTTR making these flights to Cuba. If US government was serious about peace, it would have put restrictions on BTTR and not evidently supported BTTR to continue to overthrow Cuban government.

5. The string that runs through this case as per the US government is that Cubans are suffering and dying under Communist regime. They all want to leave the country and huge number of Cubans have left their country for others foreign countries. But the population data does not substantiate huge migration since communist government came into power [28], after Communist government came to power in Cuba the population grew from 7.14 million in 1960 to 10.94 million in 2012, after which declined to 10.94 million. The reduction in population after 2012 was linked more lowering of total fertility rate, an aging society and emigration because of difficulty created by decades of sanctions.

In case of mortality rate among infants, in 1954 it was 78.42,  1957 it was 71.89,  in 1959 it was 67.65, in 1961 it dropped to 36.80, 1966 it was 35.80, in 1977 it was 22.90,  in 1981 it was 17.30, 2006 it reached 5.40, in 2010 it was 4.90, 2014 it was 4.80 and it increased in 2020 to 5.70 and it fell again to 3.94 in 2025 [29].

While the US government would like the world to believe Cuba is a country where local people are abused and Cubans want to leave their country in large numbers. Data indicates that this not true, and health status improved after 1959, especially for children. The idea that BTTR is fighting for ordinary Cubans seems a bit of an exaggeration.

6. What the superseding indictment against Raul Castro and others prove is that the US is using its judiciary to assert of sovereign rights of a Latin American country and to gain support within the region and globe for the same. This is a dangerous especially when read within the background of digital governance, where the US has indicated it has no respect for domestic law or international ones, where human are transported in conditions worse than cattle, for cattle can be rejected if the quality of health not ensured, that is absent in case of human. So now the great torch bearer of democracy stands naked in front of the world branding people as criminals with no shred of evidence and kicking them around private and public prisons within and outside the country as per the will of the oval office, as the US has said goodbye to due process.

The US in its conceptualisation of OAS in its present form seems to assume it can enforce democracy across Americas, strange the American leaders’ sense nothing ajar when speaking of Enforced Democracy. Probably when the Sectary of War can speak about “negotiation through bombs” as a strategy, then anything is possible.

Sovereignty for All or Sovereignty for None!

Molly Charles

 

  

Reference

1.  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3pz43k99xo

    The deadly plane attack at the centre of Castro’s indictment

2. https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/exile/basulto-testifies.htm

   Basulto testifies on role as anti-Castro Operative

3. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba/2026-05-19/cuba-declassified-records-brothers-rescue-shootdown

Cuba: Declassified Records on the Brothers to the Rescue Shootdown| National Security Archive

4. https://cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99eng/Merits/Cuba11.589.html

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, Report No 86/99

    Case 11.589

    Accessed on 8^th June 2026

5.   https://www.oas.org/budget/2025/Approved_Budget_2025.pdf

   Approved_Budget-2025.pdf

   Accessed 16^thJune 2026

6. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/que_es_la_corte.cfm?lang=en

     Inter-American Court of Human Rights- What is the I/A Court H.R?

    Accessed on 16^th June 2026

7. https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/37856.html

    Organization of American States.

    Accessed on 16^th June 2026

8. https://repository.unclawsf.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol20/iss4/1

   William. S. Dodge, The Helms-Burton Act and Transnational Legal Process, 20 Hastings Int’l compar.     

    L. Rev. 713 (1997).

    Accessed on 9^th  June 2026

9. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/phg/STATUTE-110/pdf/STATUTE-110-Pg785.pdf

    STATUTE-110-pg785.pdf

    Accessed on 9^th June 2026

 10.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_cout_of_Human_Rights

     Inter-American Court of Human Rights-Wikipedia    Accessed on 9^th June 2026

11.   https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/default/files/en/sc/repertoire/96-  99/Chapter%208/Americas/19%20-%20shooting%20down%20of%20aircraft.pdf

12. https://www/law.cornell.edu.uscode/text/18/2332

     18. U.S. Code § 2332- Criminal penalties | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

     Accessed on 12^th June 2026

13.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32

      18 U.S. Code § 32-Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities | U.S. Code| US Law |LII/ Legal Information Institute

14. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-titel18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partl-chap2-sec34.pdf

USCODE-2011-title18-partl-chap2-sec34.pdf

15.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/34

     18 US Code § 34- Penalty when death results | U. S. Code | US Law |LII / Legal Information Institute

16.   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501

         49. U.S. Code § 46501- Definitions | U.S. Code| US Law |LII / Legal Information Institute

17.   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1111

        18 U.S. Code § 1111 -Murder | U.S. Code| US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

18.    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2

        18 U.S. Code § 2 – Principals | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

19.  https://www.icao.int/filebrowser/download/100241?fid=100241

       LC-SC_MOT-2-WP-4.United-States.pdf

       Accessed 12^th June 2026

20. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/217561?In=en&v=pdf

       Note

21.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332

        18  U.S. Code § 2332 – Criminal penalties | U.S. Code | US Law | LII/

22.   https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/default/files/en/sc/repertoire/96-  99/Chapter%208/Americas/19%20-%20shooting%20down%20of%20aircraft.pdf

        https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/217561?In=en&v=pdf

       Note

23. https://cidh.oas.org/annualrep/99eng/Merits/Cuba11.589.html

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, Report No 86/99

    Case 11.589    Accessed on 8^th June 2026

24. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/217561?In=en&v=pdf

       Note

25.  https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/217561?In=en&v=pdf

       Note

26.   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B

      18 U.S. Code § 2339B Providing  material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organisations | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

27. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-15-providing-material-support-terrorists-18-usc-2339a

Justice Manual | 15. Providing Material Support To Terrorist (18 U.S.C. § 2339A) United States Department of Justice

28. https://www.worlddata.info/america/cuba/populationgrowth.php

29.  https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/cub/cuba/infant-mortality-rate