The article says that Cuba and Castro are anti-death penalty and there hasn't been an execution in Cuba since 1953. These three men were tried and sentenced to death, lost an appeal, and then executed in a matter of three months. There is no press about the trials, and no way to assess whether they were accorded any kind of due process. The author says that Castro ordered the executions to proceed out of concern that Bush would start a military action against Cuba if the hijackings of the vessels and airplanes by Cuban "terrorists" continued.

The threat of war in Cuba from Bush and his coterie of crusaders, all of them crazed with hubris after Iraq, is real. A military campaign against Cuba, coinciding with the already-underway 2004 electoral campaign, may be the only way he can hope to finally get himself elected, even if only for his second term. And every day the economy is working against him with no signs of improving for 2004. He knows the economy in ‘92 did his father in, and he may conclude that fulfilling his divine mission to extend U.S. military control of the world will need a crisis very close to home.

Amnesty International also complains about the executions.

In early April 2003, the Cuban government ended a three-year de facto moratorium on executions, killing by firing squad three men who had been involved in a hijacking. They had been subjected to a summary trial and appeals process, and were executed less than a week after their trial began. Amnesty International's 3 June report, Cuba: "Essential measures"? Human rights crackdown in the name of security (AI Index: AMR 25/017/2003), provides information on the case of the executed men as well as on the background, legal framework and prosecution of the 75 newly-recognised prisoners of conscience.

....Amnesty International maintains that the activities for which the dissidents were prosecuted were not criminal in nature and did not jeopardise national security, falling rather within the parameters of the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms as guaranteed under international standards. At the same time that it deplores this escalation in grave violations by Cuban authorities, Amnesty International recognises the negative effect of the US embargo on the enjoyment of the full range of human rights in Cuba, and recommends in the June document that the US government revise its policy with a view to ending the harmful practice. However, neither the US embargo nor any other aspect of US foreign or economic policy can be used to justify grave violations of fundamental rights by the Cuban authorities.

Second Update: We've edited our post twice now, as we just received some welcome corrections and additions from Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch, who also authors excellent commentary over at Findlaw. Joanne advises,

The 12 Cubans who were just returned to Cuba are unconnected to the 3 who were executed. (The only link is that the execution of the 3 strengthens the claim of the 12 that they would face persecution if returned to Cuba.) The 3 were executed on April 11, a mere nine days after they tried to hijack a passenger ferry to the U.S. Nobody was injured during the attempted hijacking. The 3 received summary trials.

Here's the full story from Human Rights Watch.

Joanne goes on to say,

Yes, Castro claims to be anti-death penalty (or to regret having to rely on the penalty), but no one would be executed in Cuba if he opposed its use. The claim that there have been no executions in Cuba since 1953 is absurd. No one knows the exact number of people executed in the early 1960s, in the wake of the revolution, but the best estimates are that at least a couple of thousand were. Since then, there have been high-profile trials that have resulted in executions, most notably the execution by firing squad of Maj. Gen. Arnoldo Ochoa and Col. Antonio de la Guardia in 1989.

President Castro used the supposed "threat of war" on Cuba as a justification for sentencing 75 dissidents to long prison terms in early April, the same period as the executions of the 3 hijackers. I think in both cases the threat of war was a pretext -- the only relevance of the war was that with the world focused on Iraq (and angry at the United States), the crackdown was likely to receive less international scrutiny.

Thanks, Joanne!