Exhibit E - El Nuevo Herald

Exhibit E
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
.
/
~~
~~