The national coordinator of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, joined the renewed debate in the United States this Thursday regarding the shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996, questioning the legal viability of a possible criminal charge against Raúl Castro for that event.
In a post on social media, Hernández Nordelo —one of the members of the so-called “Five” Cuban agents who served time in the U.S. for espionage— responded to an image and headline circulated on the social media of CiberCuba, which reported that Cuban American congress members are pushing for the prosecution of Raúl Castro for the downing of civilian aircraft.
As is customary, the Cuban leader made light of the media coverage and claimed that the legislators would be using a legal argument "lying" about the location of the downing.
"It seems that the trio of congressmen has not realized that the only legal argument that the USA could use—by lying—[is] to claim that the shooting down occurred in international waters," he wrote.
In his post, Hernández Nordelo added that this line of reasoning would have been weakened by recent actions of the U.S. Congress that would endorse operations against vessels in international waters for "national security reasons."
In his view, this would have created "a bad precedent" for trying to build a legal case against the former Cuban leader.
A political offensive aimed at reaching the Department of Justice
Hernández Nordelo's statements come after Cuban-American congress members, led by Mario Díaz-Balart, announced that they will formally request the U.S. Department of Justice to assess charges of murder against Raúl Castro for the shootdown on February 24, 1996.
The incident occurred when two Cessna 337 aircraft from Brothers to the Rescue were shot down by MiG fighters from the Cuban Air Force.
Four activists from the organization died: Carlos Costa (29 years old), Pablo Morales (29), Mario Manuel de la Peña (24), and Armando Alejandre (45). Three of them were U.S. citizens and one was a permanent resident. A third aircraft, carrying José Basulto, Sylvia Iriondo, and other crew members, managed to escape and land in Florida.
For decades, organizations from the Cuban exile community have demanded justice for this event, which they consider a deliberate act of murder against civilian aircraft. Within the context of this historical pressure, the new legislative initiative seeks to reopen the debate not only as a political memory but also as a potential criminal case under U.S. jurisdiction.
The central point: Where the shooting down occurred
The exact location of the downing is the legal axis of the debate. According to the congress members and exile groups, the attack occurred in international airspace, which would support the jurisdiction of the U.S. because it involved a crime against American citizens outside national territory.
That version has been supported for years by references to the report from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which examined the case following the incident.
The ICAO —a specialized agency of the United Nations— concluded that the shootdowns occurred outside Cuban airspace, a point that has been used by activists and politicians to argue that it was an illegal attack under international law.
Cuba, on the other hand, has historically maintained that Brothers to the Rescue conducted provocative incursions, including violations of national airspace, and that the 1996 operation was a response to security reasons.
The difference is significant: if the downing had occurred within Cuban airspace, the case for U.S. criminal jurisdiction would become much more challenging.
By questioning the argument of "international waters," Hernández Nordelo attempts to undermine the central pillar on which the current political offensive stands: the idea that the United States has a clear legal basis to accuse Raúl Castro of homicide.
How viable is a criminal process against Raúl Castro?
Beyond the political debate and the age of the 94-year-old general, the real possibility of prosecution faces complex obstacles.
First, there is the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The United States does have precedents for prosecuting crimes committed outside its territory when they involve American citizens, especially in cases of terrorism, kidnapping, or murders linked to federal interests.
However, the 1996 downing has not been historically processed as a federal criminal case against the Cuban leadership.
The second major obstacle is immunity. Although Raúl Castro is no longer head of state, international law and U.S. judicial practice recognize different types of immunity for high-ranking foreign officials, especially when it comes to actions taken in their official capacities.
This is one of the points where the case could encounter practical limits: even if jurisdiction existed, the process could stall in prior litigation regarding immunity.
A third factor is practical viability. Raúl Castro lives in Cuba, and there is no realistic possibility of extradition. In practice, a criminal process could result in a symbolic accusation or an arrest warrant that would only take effect if Castro traveled to a country willing to cooperate (which is unlikely) or through a capture operation similar to the one carried out against Nicolás Maduro.
Nonetheless, the legislators advocating for the initiative argue that the value of the process would be political and moral: to formally establish that it was an assassination of American citizens and that those responsible must face legal consequences, even if not immediately.
The case resurfaces following the arrest of a former Cuban pilot
The discussion was reactivated strongly since the end of 2025, when U.S. authorities arrested the former Cuban pilot Luis Raúl González-Pardo, accused of immigration fraud and lying during his entry process into the country about his connections to the regime.
González-Pardo has been identified by survivors and activists as part of the aerial operation of 1996. In a recent interview with Hypermedia Magazine, Sylvia Iriondo, a survivor of the attack, publicly stated that the former pilot played a key role in the military operation, despite not having fired at the downed aircraft.
The arrest for an immigration offense —rather than for direct involvement in the downing— has been interpreted by some exile groups as an initial step to reopen the case and reassess responsibilities.
In that narrative, the detention of an executor or indirect participant could open doors to reexamine the chain of command, although legally the pathways may not be straightforward.
The Wasp Network, the intelligence context, and the battle for the narrative
In the background of the debate, another element reemerges: the Avispa Network, a Cuban espionage network dismantled by the FBI in the late 1990s. Various journalistic analyses have indicated that the infiltration of exile organizations, including Brothers to the Rescue, was part of the regime's strategic interests.
However, the publicly available material does not provide conclusive evidence that the Avispa Network directly coordinated the downing; the connection is more presented as a context of prior surveillance and intelligence.
A dispute between historical justice and legal boundaries
Hernández Nordelo's comment suggests that the case is not only discussed as a historical fact but also as a contemporary battleground: Cuban-American exiles and congress members are seeking to reactivate a criminal charge, while the Cuban apparatus attempts to delegitimize the legal basis and portray the case as propaganda.
Almost three decades after the crash, the question remains open: Can the United States translate a historical demand into an actual criminal case?
The answer will depend less on political noise and more on whether the Department of Justice finds a viable legal path to maintain jurisdiction, overcome immunity obstacles, and build a solid case.
Meanwhile, the 1996 episode continues to be one of the most persistent wounds in the Cuba-United States relationship.
Filed under: