Opinion; Subjects: MALDIVES, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.18-00683(E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention9788
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its eightieth session, 20–24 November 2017
Opinion No. 91/2017 concerning Imran Abdullah (Maldives)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The mandate of the Working Group was most recently extended for a three-
year period in Council resolution 33/30 of 30 September 2016.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 16 May 2017 the
Working Group transmitted to the Government of Maldives a communication concerning
Imran Abdullah. The Government replied to the communication on 31 July 2017. The State
is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
General Assembly
Distr.: General
22 January 2018
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
2
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Imran Abdullah is a 42-year-old national of Maldives. He is the head of the
opposition islamist Adhaalath Party and a religious scholar.
Arrest and detention
5.
According to the source, Mr. Abdullah was arrested on 1 May 2015, at around 11
p.m., during a meeting at the residence of another political figure in Male’, by five
members of Maldives Police Service. One of the officers appeared to be in charge of the
group and wore a dark blue police uniform and a nametag, while the other four wore riot
gear with masks over their faces and did not show any kind of identification.
6.
The arresting officers presented a warrant, issued by the Maldivian Criminal Court,
ordering the arrest of Mr. Abdullah in connection with an investigation related to a rally
held on 1 May 2015. According to reports, the rally had been organized to call for the
release of political prisoners and for the establishment of justice and accountability in the
country. Mr. Abdullah had reportedly been involved in the rally by giving a public speech.
However, the source claims that the investigation was not focused on Mr. Abdullah’s
speech, instead its aim was to demonstrate that Mr. Abdullah did not personally act to halt
the violent incidents that took place in different parts of the city during the night of 1 May
2015, when the rally degenerated into a riot. Partly as a consequence of his speech, Mr.
Abdullah was held responsible for the ensuing violence.
7.
According to the source, following his arrest, Mr. Abdullah was held in solitary
confinement at Dhoonidhoo Island Detention Centre, a facility which, according to
monitoring bodies and previous Governments, is not fit to accommodate people. The police
refused to grant Mr. Abdullah access to a lawyer for the first 18 hours of his detention and
only allowed him to see his lawyer prior to taking him to Male’ for his remand hearing,
reportedly in contravention of article 48 (b) of the Maldivian Constitution. At the hearing,
the Criminal Court ordered that Mr. Abdullah be held on remand for 15 days, pending an
investigation. The period of remand was later extended for an additional 10 days.
8.
Mr. Abdullah’s defence counsel reportedly appealed against this remand ruling
before the High Court, which overturned it on 27 May 2015, citing Mr. Abdullah’s ill-
health and ordered that he be transferred to his domicile and placed under house arrest.
However, later that day, the police allegedly made an additional remand request to the
Criminal Court, which imposed a travel ban on Mr. Abdullah.
9.
The source reports that, on the same day, President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gavoom
publicly stated that he would ensure that criminal charges were brought against Mr.
Abdullah. The police subsequently arrested Mr. Abdullah again on 1 June 2015 on the basis
of a court order.
Court proceedings
10.
The source highlights that, on 1 June 2015, the Prosecutor General’s Office charged
Mr. Abdullah with inciting terrorism and violence, under section 2 (g) of Act No. 10 on the
Prevention of Terrorism of 1990, in connection with his activities on 1 May 2015. The
Prosecutor General’s Office reportedly cited Mr. Abdullah’s speech at the rally, in which he
said that, by the end of the day, President Yameen would have to ask the Vice-President
and the Commissioner of Police to “go home” (resign).
11.
The source reports that the Criminal Court called for the first hearing to take place
on the following day, 2 June 2015, making it impossible for the defence counsels to register
with the Court 48 hours prior to the hearing, in line with court procedure. However, the
judge reportedly allowed the defence lawyers to attend the proceedings and address the
Court during the hearing. At the hearing, the Court reportedly ordered Mr. Abdullah’s
detention for the period of the trial. The source notes that article 49 of the Constitution
states that an individual may be kept in pretrial detention if there is a risk that he or she
might manipulate evidence and influence witnesses, abscond from trial, or become a threat
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
3
to public order. However, the source submits that none of these elements were taken into
account when considering the issue of Mr. Abdullah’s liberty during his trial.
12.
According to the source, Mr. Abdullah requested to be transferred to house arrest
when he was moved to Maafushi Island Prison on 23 July 2015. The Chief Judge of the
Criminal Court granted that request and ordered the transfer on 5 August 2015. However,
Mr. Abdullah was summoned to the Court for a hearing within 24 hours of the transfer. A
judge reportedly reversed the decision of the Chief Judge based on a police intelligence
report, the contents of which were allegedly not shared with the defence lawyers. The
source further notes that Mr. Abdullah was then held at the Dhoonidhoo Island Detention
Centre from 6 August 2015 until his transfer to Himmafushi Prison on 31 August 2015.
13.
When Mr. Abdullah was summoned to a third hearing, two of the three judges
concerned were reportedly away on leave. According to the source, the trial began with a
judge announcing that he alone would be presiding over the case, following the dissolution
of the previous three-member panel of judges by the Chief Judge. The source highlights
that, during the hearing, the judge was particularly harsh and rude towards the defence
lawyers, accusing them of misleading the court and making statements supportive of the
charges presented by the prosecution. The defence lawyers allegedly raised this issue when
the judge was formulating intimidating remarks and questions. The judge then issued a
verbal warning and ordered the defence lawyers to apologize, which they did.
14.
The source reports that the Court allowed a State witness to speak anonymously at
the hearing from a location outside the courtroom. Mr. Abdullah’s lawyers had the
impression that the witness was reading out a written document, rather than speaking from
memory. The defence lawyers reportedly noted that they found it difficult to cross-examine
the witness, as his identity was withheld and they did not have any information about him.
When the witness was asked whether he was employed by a private institution or by the
State, the judge allegedly interrupted the proceedings, requesting the witness not to respond
to the question.
15.
The Criminal Court reportedly barred all of Mr. Abdullah’s witnesses from the trial,
stating that the defence lawyers should have declared their intent to produce witnesses at
the beginning of the trial.
16.
The source highlights that the long delays in conducting the trial were justified by
the Criminal Court saying that they were waiting for a larger courtroom to be prepared in
which to hold the hearings. However, no more than 10 observers, including members of the
media, were allowed inside the courtroom. The reason given for that restriction was a lack
of space. The Criminal Court has reportedly held trials in the same courtroom at which over
40 observers were in attendance.
17.
On 16 February 2016, the Criminal Court sentenced Mr. Abdullah to 12 years’
imprisonment. The source notes that, on 8 March 2016, the defence team lodged an appeal
with the High Court, which upheld Mr. Abdullah’s sentence on 23 April 2017. Mr.
Abdullah is currently being detained at the high-security Maafushi Island Prison.
Conditions of detention and access to a doctor
18.
According to the source, Mr. Abdullah was held in solitary confinement at the
Dhoonidhoo Island Detention Centre for 25 days and then held in solitary confinement in a
“VIP room” for a further 25 days. Following his transfer to Maafushi Island Prison, on 23
July 2015, his health reportedly deteriorated rapidly due to the fact that he is diabetic and
was served inappropriate food at the Prison and the fact that he was not given access to
medical care for back pain caused by sleeping on a slab of concrete in the solitary
confinement cell of the Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre.
19.
The source submits that Mr. Abdullah was once again transported to the
Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre, where he was then reportedly subjected to additional
inhumane treatment. He did not receive a Qur’an for the first 24 hours of detention. In
addition, Mr. Abdullah was not given a prayer mat for the first three days of detention and
had to pray on the concrete floor of his cell, a situation which caused scabs to form on his
knees as a result of bleeding. Mr. Abdullah reportedly requested to see a doctor but did not
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
4
have access to one for two weeks, during which time he had developed a skin condition and
could not sit up for long periods of time due to back pain.
20.
Following Mr. Abdullah’s transfer to Himmafushi Prison on 31 August 2015, he
reportedly did not have access to medical facilities and was provided with meals unsuitable
for diabetics, even though the judge had specifically ordered the State to ensure Mr.
Abdullah’s access to medical facilities and to accommodate his dietary requirements during
his detention.
Analysis of violations
21.
The source submits that the arrest and detention of Mr. Abdullah is arbitrary under
categories I, II, III and V of the categories applicable to the cases submitted to the Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention.
22.
According to the source, the arrest and detention of Mr. Abdullah is arbitrary under
category I, as the arrest warrant stated that Mr. Abdullah was to be arrested as a part of an
investigation related to the rally, whereas, under article 46 of the Maldivian Constitution, an
arrest can only be made based on an allegation relating to an offence. The source also states
that the legal grounds for the imposition of pretrial detention were not met.
23.
In addition, the source submits that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Abdullah falls
under category II, as it was a result of his exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and
expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of assembly and
association, as well as the right to participate in public affairs, as guaranteed by articles 18,
19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by articles 18, 19, 21, 22,
25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). The
source believes that Mr. Abdullah’s arrest was a way of taking revenge on him for having
withdrawn from the ruling political coalition.
24.
The source submits that Mr. Abdullah’s deprivation of liberty also falls under
category III, as the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial have been violated,
specifically articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9
and 14 of the Covenant. The source highlights that Mr. Abdullah was not granted sufficient
time to appoint a lawyer and to properly prepare for the trial and was not allowed to present
witnesses on his behalf and to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The source also
notes: the sudden change in the composition of the panel of judges hearing the case, from a
bench of three judges to a single judge; the clear disregard for Mr. Abdullah’s arguments by
the presiding judge; and several incidents of bias in favour of the State by the judge during
the trial which reportedly had a negative impact on the independence and impartiality of the
trial and sentencing.
25.
Finally, the source submits that the detention of Mr. Abdullah is arbitrary under
category V, as he has reportedly been persecuted for having stirred up dissent against the
current Government. The Government reportedly turned against Mr. Abdullah when he
declared that he and the Adhaalath Party had decided to withdraw from the ruling coalition,
stating that the Government had carried out actions contrary to democratic principles and to
its election pledges. Mr. Abdullah later joined the opposition coalition and continued to
raise issues with and criticize the Government, at times disclosing sensitive information
about activities involving the Government and the ruling party and its affiliated public
officials.
Response from the Government
26.
On 16 May 2017, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the
Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested the
Government to provide detailed information by 17 July 2017 concerning Mr. Abdullah’s
current situation and any comments that it might have on the source’s allegations.
27.
On 31 May 2017, the Government sought an extension of the time limit for
submitting its response. In conformity with paragraph 16 of its methods of work, the
Working Group granted the Government an extension of two weeks, allowing it until 31
July 2017 to submit its response.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
5
28.
In its response of 31 July 2017, the Government categorically denies that Mr.
Abdullah has been a victim of a politicized process; that there has been a complete
nullification of his rights under national and international law, with his trial and conviction
amounting to a flagrant denial of justice; and that he was kept in solitary confinement or
denied access to medical care.
29.
According to the Government, a rally organized by Mr. Abdullah and the Adhaalath
Party on 1 May 2015 on the theme of bring an end to brutality converged upon the Green
Zone, a protected area where key Government institutions and security installations,
including the President’s Office, the headquarters of Maldives National Defence Force and
the headquarters of Maldives Police Service, are located. Mass demonstrations and
gatherings near those premises are prohibited under section 24 of Act No. 2 on the Freedom
of Peaceful Assembly of 2013.
30.
In the resulting clashes with the police, property was destroyed and 26 officers were
injured. Mr. Abdullah reportedly failed to call off or end the rally and to halt the ensuing
violence, despite being responsible, as the organizer, for resolving any situation where there
was a dispute, or an act of violence, or any damage to property or harm to individuals,
pursuant to section 52 (a) of Act No. 2 on the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly of 2013.
31.
According to the Government, on 1 May 2015, Mr. Abdullah was arrested at his
residence at around 11.05 p.m., for an alleged act of terrorism committed during the rally.
On 1 May 2015, he was taken to Dhoonidhoo Island Detention Centre (a police custodial
facility) and, on 2 May 2015, he was brought before the Criminal Court for his remand
hearing, at which he was represented by his lawyers. At the hearing, the Criminal Court
ordered that that Mr. Abdullah be held in police custody for a period of 15 days. On 7 May
2015, he lodged an appeal with the High Court against the Criminal Court’s 15-day remand
order. On 14 May 2015, the High Court upheld the 15-day remand order.
32.
On 17 May 2015, Mr. Abdullah was brought before the Criminal Court for his
second remand hearing, at which he was again represented by his lawyers and the Criminal
Court ordered that he be held in police custody for a further 10 days. On 25 May 2015, Mr.
Abdullah lodged an appeal with the High Court against his second 10-day remand order
and, on 27 May 2015, he was brought before the High Court for his second remand appeal
hearing, at which his lawyers were present. The High Court, in consideration of the state of
Mr. Abdullah’s health, overturned the Criminal Court’s 10-day remand order and ordered
instead that he be kept under house arrest for a period to be determined by the Criminal
Court.
33.
On 27 May 2015, as Mr. Abdullah’s second 10-day remand order issued by the
Criminal Court on 17 May 2015 expired, he was brought before the Criminal Court for his
third remand hearing. At the hearing, at which Mr. Abdullah was represented by his
lawyers, the presiding judge ordered his release in consideration of the High Court’s
decision handed down on that same day. The police requested a 30-day overseas travel ban
relating to Mr. Abdullah, which was granted by the presiding judge, and Mr. Abdullah was
released from police custody.
34.
The Government states that, on 1 June 2015, the Prosecutor General filed a charge
with the Criminal Court against Mr. Abdullah under section 2 (g) of Act No. 10 on the
Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1990. On that same day, the Criminal Court ordered that
Mr. Abdullah be arrested and brought to trial. On 2 June 2015, Mr. Abdullah’s trial
commenced with the first hearing at the Criminal Court before a panel of three judges.
35.
At the same hearing, the Prosecutor General requested Mr. Abdullah’s remand until
the end of the trial and the three-judge panel unanimously ruled that he be remanded at a
place determined by the Ministry of Home Affairs based on the seriousness of the charges
against him and the police intelligence report.
36.
On 5 August 2015, upon request by his lawyers, Mr. Abdullah was brought before
the Criminal Court for review of his detention. In view of the state of Mr. Abdullah’s
health, the judge ordered that he be placed under house arrest and Mr. Abdullah was taken
to his home.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
6
37.
On 6 August 2015, following an application from Maldives Police Service, Mr.
Abdullah was brought before the Criminal Court for review of the decision of the previous
day concerning his placement under house arrest. Based on a new police intelligence report
submitted to the Court, the presiding judge ruled that Mr. Abdullah be held on remand until
the end of the trial at a place determined by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As a result of
that ruling, Mr. Abdullah was taken to a remand facility in Male’ Jail on the same day.
38.
On 13 October 2015, Mr. Abdullah again requested the Criminal Court to review his
detention. A panel of judges unanimously determined that he be placed under house arrest
in consideration of the state of his health. The Court also ordered Mr. Abdullah to notify the
police if he were to leave his house and informed him that any violation of this condition
would result in the review of his house arrest.
39.
The third hearing in Mr. Abdullah’s trial was held on 17 January 2016. Because of
the transfer of two of the three judges adjudicating Mr. Abdullah’s case to the High Court
bench, a shortage of judges and a heavy caseload, the Chief Judge used his prerogative
under section 55 of Act No. 22 on the Judicature of 2010, to reassign Mr. Abdullah’s case
to a one-judge panel. The fourth and fifth hearings in Mr. Abdullah’s trial were held on 18
and 24 January 2016.
40.
The Government reports that, on 6 February 2016, the Criminal Court reversed the
decision made on 13 October 2015 to place Mr. Abdullah under house arrest and remanded
him at a place determined by the Ministry of Home Affairs until a verdict was reached in
his case at the Criminal Court. Following the handing down of the Criminal Court’s order,
Mr. Abdullah was transferred to Asseyri Prison on Himmafushi Island.
41.
On 10 February 2016, the sixth hearing in Mr. Abdullah’s trial was held. On 15
February 2016, the Criminal Court heard closing statements from the Public Prosecutor and
Mr. Abdullah’s lawyer.
42.
On 16 February 2016, the Criminal Court found Mr. Abdullah guilty under section 2
(g) of Act No. 10 on the Prevention of Terrorism of 1990 and sentenced him to 12 years’
imprisonment. He was taken back to Himmafushi Island to serve his sentence in the special
protection unit of Asseyri Prison.
43.
On 8 March 2016, Mr. Abdullah appealed against the Criminal Court’s judgment to
the High Court. On 24 March 2016, the first appeal hearing was held. On 4 April 2016, Mr.
Abdullah was reportedly transferred to house arrest as a result of renovation work at the
special protection unit of Asseyri Prison. On 7 April 2016 and 21 March 2017, the second
and third hearings were held.
44.
On 23 April 2017, the High Court confirmed the Criminal Court’s judgment of 16
February 2016. On the same day, Mr. Abdullah was taken back to the newly built special
protection unit of Maafushi Prison. On 26 May 2017, Mr. Abdullah was transferred to
house arrest for the month of Ramadan and, on 30 June 2017, he was returned to Maafushi
Prison.
45.
According to the Government, Mr. Abdullah was represented by his lawyers
throughout both the investigation and the trial.
46.
The Government states that, as Mr. Abdullah was convicted by a Maldivian Court in
accordance with domestic law, his detention cannot fall under category I. Mr. Abdullah was
arrested under a warrant issued by a court in accordance with article 46 of the Constitution.
Mr. Abdullah’s speech at the rally, in which he incited fear and hatred, leading to the injury
of 26 police officers and acts of vandalism in the Green Zone, amounted to the use of terror
tactics, force or making threats to cause harm or damage to person(s) or property orally, or
in writing, or by other means to create fear amongst the community under section 2 (g) of
Act No. 10 on the Prevention of Terrorism of 1990.
47.
The Government also states that Mr. Abdullah’s pretrial detention was in conformity
with article 49 of the Constitution, which states that no person is to be detained in custody
prior to sentencing, unless the danger of the accused absconding or not appearing at trial,
the protection of the public, or potential interference with witnesses or evidence dictate
otherwise. The police and the courts cited public safety as the grounds for the remand
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
7
orders concerning Mr. Abdullah. Mr. Abdullah’s pretrial detention also met the additional
requirements — under the domestic case law established by Maldivian High Court
judgment Nos. 2012/HC-A/263 and 2012/HC-A/265 — that the alleged offence must be of
a serious nature and that probable reason or evidence must exist to support the suspicion
that the person concerned committed the alleged offence.
48.
With regard to the source’s claim that Mr. Abdullah’s deprivation of liberty falls
within categories II and V, the Government claims that his trial and conviction for
individual criminal acts relate neither to his exercise of human rights nor to discrimination
on the basis of his political opinions. Mr. Abdullah was responsible for inciting the
demonstrators to bring an end to brutality and to rise up in a different manner against a
lawful government, resulting in injuries to police officers and the destruction of public and
private property. It is also evident that neither his political opinions nor his position were
taken into account during his trial.
49.
The Government also refutes the alleged total or partial non-observance of fair trial
and due process rights that amount to category III. In the Government’s view, it is beyond
the remit of the Working Group to evaluate the evidence in Mr. Abdullah’s case, as the
Working Group has consistently refrained from taking the place of the judicial authorities
or acting as a kind of supranational tribunal when, as in the present case, it has occasion to
verify the conditions of the judiciary’s application of domestic law. When it examines a
communication, it prefers not to query the facts and evidence of the case.1
50.
The Government also rejects any charge of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment. Regarding Mr. Abdullah’s alleged solitary confinement during the pretrial
and trial stages, the Government states that he was held in a detention cell located within a
unit where he was allowed to go out for walks and the adjacent cells were occupied by
persons who were also kept in custodial detention. The so-called “VIP rooms” were more
comfortable and had more facilities than ordinary custodial cells, and Mr. Abdullah was
placed in one such room out of consideration for the state of his health.
51.
The Government also refutes the claim that Mr. Abdullah was denied access to
medical care. During the pretrial and trial stages, Mr. Abdullah had 20 medical
consultations, of which 8 were with specialist doctors in hospitals/clinics in Male’. Since
the beginning his sentence on 16 February 2016, Mr. Abdullah has had 19 medical
consultations, of which 18 were with specialist doctors in hospitals/clinics in Male’.
52.
The Government further asserts that, following Mr. Abdullah’s request of 6 May
2015 that he be given food suitable for diabetics on 6 May 2015, which was duly recorded
and addressed in the case diary attached to the Government’s submission, he was served
food from the standard dietary menu for diabetics in police custodial facilities and prisons.
53.
In addition, the Government notes that the source does not allege that Mr. Abdullah
was denied regular access to or communication with his family and lawyers during all
stages of his detention. During the pretrial and trial stages, Mr. Abdullah had 13 phone calls
with his family, 21 phone calls with his lawyers and 14 meetings with his lawyers.
54.
The Government argues that the Working Group does not examine complaints about
instances of detention and subsequent disappearance of individuals, about alleged torture,
or about inhuman conditions of detention as long as they do not affect the trial as
established in Fact Sheet No. 26 of the Working Group and its jurisprudence.2
55.
The Government nevertheless adds that incommunicado detention lasting a few days
is authorized under the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
56.
According to the Government, even if the Working Group finds procedural
irregularities in the case of Mr. Abdullah, they are not of such gravity as to render the
deprivation of liberty arbitrary under the “double threshold” rule for the determination of
1 See opinion No. 40/2005, para. 22.
2 See opinions No. 41/1996; No. 7/2007; No. 28/2007; and No. 12/2007. See also the Government’s
submissions in opinion No. 25/2007.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
8
category III that there must first have been a violation of due process rights and, thereafter,
that the violation must be of sufficient importance — a flagrant denial of justice — so as to
declare the deprivation of liberty arbitrary.3
57.
In terms of remedies, the Government asserts that Mr. Abdullah has had ample
opportunity to challenge the rulings of the courts and that, consequently, his detention
cannot be considered to be arbitrary on this point.4
58.
As for the equality of arms, the Government asserts that Mr. Abdullah was given
ample time and facilities to prepare his defence. According to the Government, the fact that
Mr. Abdullah was not granted 48 hours to prepare his defence prior to the first hearing did
not constitute a problem, as he had over 4 months prior to the first and second hearings to
make preparations. The length of Mr. Adbullah’s trial before the Criminal Court (8 months
and 15 days) was not untypical of cases involving serious criminal offences. The delay was
caused by the transfer of two judges to the High Court and the request by Mr. Abdullah’s
lawyers to be given enough time to prepare his defence. The Government also claims that
only 10 observers had requested admittance.
59.
With regard to the lack of defence witnesses, the Government claims that, on 13
October 2015, the defence lawyers requested permission to submit the speech given by Mr.
Abdullah at the rally held on 1 May 2015 as evidence, stating that they did not wish to
submit any further evidence. Both the prosecution and the defence had the opportunity to
cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, including in relation to video footage.
60.
As for the anonymous prosecution witness, the Government argues that his
anonymity was preserved for his protection and claims that the following three-prong test
for anonymous witnesses, as set out by the European Court of Human Rights, was met:
(a)
Anonymity must be necessary and the court must know the witnesses’
identities;
(b)
The evidence given by the anonymous witnesses must not be the sole or the
decisive evidence demonstrating the guilt of the accused;
(c)
There must be certain procedural safeguards; in particular, the defence must
be able to question the anonymous witnesses.5
61.
In addition, the Government acknowledges the equality of arms issue raised by the
confidential police information reports that were used to overturn the house arrest orders.
However, the Government argues that it merely changed the place of detention from Mr.
Abdullah’s house to a facility designated by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The fact of his
detention was not affected.
62.
The Government does not consider that Mr. Abdullah’s lack of access to his lawyers
prior to the remand hearing on 2 May 2015 constitutes an issue, as he was allowed to meet
with his lawyer at court.
63.
Furthermore, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary was reportedly not
compromised by the replacement of the three-judge panel with a one-judge panel. All the
judges presiding over Mr. Abdullah’s case at the Criminal Court and the High Court acted
in accordance with the law and procedure, gave equal opportunity to both sides to present
their case and at no time showed any favour or bias towards the prosecution.
64.
Finally, noting the observations made by the Working Group in its previous
opinions addressed to Maldives6 in relation to irregularities affecting the overall criminal
justice system, the Government alludes to recent judicial reforms in the country, including
the enactment of the first Criminal Procedure Code, which entered into effect on 2 July
2017.
3 See opinions No. 11/2004; No. 20/2004; No. 28/2005; No. 36/2005; No. 44/2006; and No. 7/2007.
4 See opinions No. 15/2005; No. 15/1996; No. 14/2002; and No. 41/1996.
5 European Court of Human Rights, Doorson v. the Netherlands, application No. 20524/92, 26 March
1996.
6 See opinions No. 33/2015; No. 59/2016; and No. 15/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
9
Further comments from the source
65.
On 2 August 2017, the Government’s response was sent to the source for further
comments. In its response of 14 August 2017, the source states that the Government has
failed to factually refute the original allegations. The Government claimed to have
respected Mr. Abdullah’s rights from the beginning of the trial, whereas the initial
violations of his rights began on 1 May 2015, when he was arbitrarily arrested and endured
additional violations of law and procedure. The source asserts that this situation renders any
subsequent actions taken unjust.
66.
The source reiterates the political nature of Mr. Abdullah’s arrest and trial,
highlighting the speech in which President Yameen vowed to see him prosecuted. The
source has also provided the observation reports on the rally of 1 May 2015 and states that
Mr. Abdullah’s trial was marked by glaring violations of the laws and procedures on
several occasions, such as denial of legal access during detention and failure to give
adequate notice to Mr. Abdullah’s lawyers prior to hearings.
67.
The source asserts that the Government’s response is groundless. Mr. Abdullah
suffered immensely while held in State custody and his health has deteriorated significantly
due to a lack of medical care. At the time of writing, Mr. Abdullah’s family and legal team
had not received any response to their requests for visits and meetings with him. The prison
staff continue to deny Mr. Abdullah meals appropriate for diabetics, resulting in severe
fluctuations in his blood sugar level. Mr. Abdullah is currently being held on death row,
with no fan, no light and no mattress, and only a concrete slab to sleep on.
68.
The source highlights that the registrar of the Supreme Court has not yet accepted
Mr. Abdullah’s appeal and that there is no end in sight in that regard.
Discussion
69.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their extensive
engagement and for their submissions in relation to Mr. Abdullah’s detention. The Working
Group reiterates that, for the future and in accordance with its revised methods of work,
communications and replies shall not exceed 20 pages and any additional material,
including annexes, exceeding that limit may not be taken into account by the Working
Group (see A/HRC/36/38, paras. 11 and 15).
70.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations (see
A/HRC/19/57, para. 68).
71.
The Working Group recalls that where it is alleged that a person has not been
afforded, by a public authority, certain procedural guarantees to which he or she was
entitled, the burden of proof should rest with the public authority, because the latter is in a
better position to demonstrate that it has followed the appropriate procedures and applied
the guarantees required by law.7
Category I
72.
The Working Group will examine the relevant categories applicable to its
consideration of this case, including category I, when it is clearly impossible to invoke any
legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty.
73.
With regard to the source’s claim that Mr. Abdullah’s arrest warrant was invalid
under the Constitution,8 the Working Group refrains from taking the place of the national
7 See Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639, at para. 55, pp. 660–661; opinions No. 41/2013, para. 27; and
No. 59/2016, para. 61.
8 Arts. 46 and 47 of the Maldivian Constitution, available from
www.presidencymaldives.gov.mv/Documents/ConstitutionOfMaldives.pdf.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
10
judicial authorities or acting as a kind of supranational tribunal by analysing the validity of
the arrest warrant, which is a matter of domestic law, unless it can be said that a rational
and fair person necessarily would admit that the arrest warrant would infringe fundamental
principles of human rights as they have been understood by the international community
and international law.
74.
The Working Group wishes to point out that persons deprived of their liberty have
the right to legal assistance at all times, a right that is inherent in the right to liberty and
security of person and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent
and impartial tribunal established by law under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 9 (1) and 14 (1) of the Covenant. Principle 18 (3) of the Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment refers to the right of a detained or imprisoned person to be visited by and to
consult and communicate, without delay or censorship and in full confidentiality, with his
or her legal counsel, while principle 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles and
Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty
to Bring Proceedings Before a Court states that persons deprived of their liberty have the
right to legal assistance at any time during their detention, including immediately after the
moment of apprehension.
75.
Whereas the Government has not explained why it took 18 hours for Mr. Abdullah
to obtain access to his lawyers, the Working Group considers that such a delay must remain
absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. In this particular case, it
appears difficult to find justification for the delay, especially since Mr. Abdullah was held
in solitary confinement during this initial period of detention until his presentation before
the remand hearing.
76.
The initial solitary confinement also violated Mr. Abdullah’s right to be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and to
take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the
lawfulness of his detention, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 9 (1), (3) and (4) of the Covenant.
77.
Concerning Mr. Abdullah’s pretrial detention, although the Government claimed
that public safety required his remand, the Working Group notes that such concern, even if
it were genuine, could have been adequately addressed by placing him under house arrest, a
less severe form of deprivation of liberty preferred by Mr. Abdullah and his lawyers,
instead of police custody, an unnecessarily and disproportionately harsh regime of
detention, without prejudice to the arbitrariness of either house arrest or police custody.9
Indeed, the courts repeatedly ordered that Mr. Abdullah be transferred to house arrest, only
to have their decisions subsequently overturned in questionable circumstances.
78.
The Working Group underlines that the right to liberty and security of the person
prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, as guaranteed in articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant. As stated in the United Nations
Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, deprivation of liberty is
regarded as unlawful when it is not on such grounds and in accordance with such
procedures as are established by law (see A/HRC/30/37, para. 12).
79.
The Working Group therefore considers that Mr. Abdullah’s pretrial detention
lacked legal basis, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 9 of the Covenant. The Working Group thus concludes that his detention
is arbitrary, falling within category I.
Category II
80.
The Working Group recalls that the right to hold and express opinions, including
those that are not in accordance with official government policy, is protected by article 19
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.
9 See deliberation No. 1 of the Working Group (E/CN.4/1993/24), para. 20.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
11
81.
The Working Group is of the view that Mr. Abdullah, as the leader of the islamist
Adhaalath Party, was exercising those fundamental freedoms under international human
rights law when, owing to political differences, he led his party out of the ruling coalition
and into opposition, in order to criticize the Government’s autocratic tendencies and to
organize protest rallies on the theme of bringing an end to brutality, and was arrested, tried
and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
82.
The Working Group also notes that Mr. Abdullah is not the only Maldivian political
opposition leader to have been deprived of his liberty for having exercised fundamental
freedoms and human rights. Like other opposition figures, Mr. Abdullah also faces terror
charges.10 The Working Group considers that his position as leader of a political party that
withdrew from the ruling coalition was a relevant factor in his arrest and detention.
83.
While the Government claims that Mr. Abdullah is responsible for the violent
clashes with the police at the Green Zone that saw injuries and acts of vandalism, the
Working Group must respectfully disagree with this claim. The Government does not
contend that Mr. Abdullah personally took part in the violent clashes, but argues that he
incited the demonstrators to violence through his speeches. However, while his public call
for Maldivians to rise up in a different manner was clearly intended to mobilize the
demonstrators to protest and was very critical of the Government, it did not refer to any
form of violence.11
84.
As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies stated in their recent joint
report, while organizers should make reasonable efforts to comply with the law and to
encourage peaceful conduct of an assembly, organizers should not be held responsible for
the unlawful behaviour of others. To do so would violate the principle of individual
liability, weaken trust and cooperation between assembly organizers, participants and the
authorities, and discourage potential assembly organizers from exercising their rights.12 The
right to freedom of peaceful assembly is held by each individual participating in an
assembly. Acts of sporadic violence or offences by some should not be attributed to others
whose intentions and behaviour remain peaceful in nature.13
85.
For these reasons, the Working Group is of the opinion that Mr. Abdullah’s
deprivation of liberty violates articles 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 18, 19, 21, and 25 of the Covenant, falling within category II.
Category III
86.
The Working Group will now consider whether the violations of due process and
fair trial rights suffered by Mr. Abdullah were of such gravity as to give his deprivation of
liberty an arbitrary character, falling within category III.
87.
The Working Group notes that a defendant’s right to legal assistance should not be
limited to its availability during the trial. Defendants must have adequate time and facilities
for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel, in accordance with
article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. This assumes that the detainee enjoys access to legal
counsel at all stages of detention. The source asserts, and the Government has not disputed,
that Mr. Abdullah did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for his first remand
hearing, a part of the broader trial proceedings, following his arrest on 1 May 2015.
88.
The Working Group has found that denial of access to all documents supporting a
detention, along with effective prevention from challenging the legality of detention,
10 See opinions No. 59/2016; and No. 33/2015.
11 See opinion No. 22/2017, para. 73.
12 See A/HRC/31/66, para. 26; and opinion No. 22/2017, para. 74.
13 See A/HRC/31/66, para. 20, citing European Court of Human Rights, Ziliberberg v. Moldova,
application No. 61821/00, 4 May 2004.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
12
violates article 9 of the Covenant. 14 In the present case, the Working Group finds it
troubling that, on a number of occasions, the Government submitted confidential police
information reports to the courts in order to thwart Mr. Abdullah’s request for house arrest
in lieu of police custody during the pretrial and trial stages. It was difficult, if not
impossible, for Mr. Abdullah’s lawyers to prepare his defence against such secret materials.
Given that Mr. Abdullah had already been released or placed under house arrest by court
orders on previous occasions without prejudice to the investigation or trials, it is difficult to
justify such actions by the authorities and the courts’ deference to the police on the matter.
89.
The Working Group also expresses its concern that the first hearing of the trial at the
Criminal Court was held on 2 June 2015 before Mr. Abdullah had had adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of his defence. Given the subsequent delays in trial
proceedings, it is difficult for the Working Group to understand the Court’s decision to rush
the first hearing. The time granted after the first hearing cannot fully remedy the damage
done to Mr. Abdullah’s position. This is especially problematic as the failure by Mr.
Abdullah’s lawyers to submit a list of witnesses before the opening of the trial was used as
an excuse by the Court to refuse to hear any defence witnesses.
90.
No less problematic is the use of the anonymous witness for the prosecution at the
trial. While there may indeed be exceptional circumstances where the identity of the
witness may be kept confidential, the Government has failed to state convincingly the
reason for his anonymity. Mr. Abdullah’s lawyers were reportedly not even permitted to
ask questions about his private or public employment status. Such a practice poses a grave
danger to the principle of the equality of arms, as the defence has to evaluate or challenge
the credibility of the witness with little information. The Working Group also notes the
source’s observation that the witness sounded as if he was reading out a prepared text.
91.
The Working Group also notes with concern the Criminal Court’s refusal to hear any
witnesses for the defence.15 The failure to submit a list of witnesses prior to the opening of
the trial is a rather unsound ground for denying this minimum guarantee for criminal
defendants. Combined with the anonymous prosecution witness, the Working Group is of
the view that the lack of defence witnesses constitutes a serious violation of article 14 (3)
(e) of the Covenant.
92.
The transfer to the High Court of two of the three judges assigned to Mr. Abdullah’s
trial before the Criminal Court constitutes another issue of concern for the Working Group.
While personnel changes within the judiciary may necessitate reassignment of trial judges,
the Working Group notes that it is unusual to see a three-judge panel shrink to a one-judge
panel.
93.
The Working Group also considers that the delays during the trial proceedings, as
well as the failure of the registrar of the Supreme Court to accept Mr. Abdullah’s appeal,
violate Mr. Abdullah’s right to trial without undue delay under articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c)
of the Covenant. The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to hear Mr. Abdullah’s appeal
also seems to violate his right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher
tribunal according to law, in accordance with article 14 (5) of the Covenant.
94.
The Working Group further expresses its regret at the ill-treatment suffered by Mr.
Abdullah, including the 25-day solitary confinement, failure to promptly provide a Qur’an
and to provide a prayer mat, with harmful effects on his knees, as well as failure to provide
medical care and meals appropriate for diabetics, despite a court order to that effect. Those
elements are indicative of violations of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. In particular, the Working Group notes that
the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment has defined solitary confinement in excess of 15 days as prolonged, at which
14 See opinions No. 31/2017, paras. 32–33; and No. 44/2017, paras. 34–36. The Working Group has also
noted the Human Rights Committee’s request to Israel to end the use of secret evidence in
administrative detention proceedings in the Occupied Territories, see CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 10.
15 See also opinion No. 29/2017, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
13
point some of the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible.16 Such
prolonged solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment and, in certain instances, may amount to torture (see A/63/175, paras. 56 and
77). The Working Group also reminds the Government of its obligation as a party to the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.
95.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that the non-observance
of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial established in articles 9, 10 and
11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant is
of such gravity as to amount to a flagrant denial of justice and to give Mr. Abdullah’s
deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling under category III.
Category V
96.
The Working Group will now examine whether Mr. Abdullah’s deprivation of
liberty constitutes illegal discrimination under international law, falling within category V.
97.
While the Government claims that Mr. Abdullah was tried and convicted for his
individual criminal acts and not his political or other views, the Working Group has already
established that Mr. Abdullah’s arrest, detention and imprisonment resulted from his
exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association and political
participation. When it is established that Mr. Abdullah’s deprivation of liberty resulted
from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the
deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of
discrimination based on political or other views.
98.
The Government tellingly claims that it arrested and prosecuted demonstrators other
than Mr. Abdullah, while denying discriminatory intent or treatment on its part. However,
this mass arrest highlights the Government’s indiscriminate prejudice and bias against all of
those demonstrators who took to the streets on 1 May 2017 because of their political or
other views and their desire to exercise their civil and political rights, regardless of their
individual responsibility for causing violence or committing other illegal acts. Mr.
Abdullah’s critical speech, as well as his position as the leader of an opposition party that
had withdrawn from the ruling coalition, also deserves consideration.
99.
As in another recent case that concerned the arrest, detention and imprisonment of
another prominent opposition politician in Maldives, the Working Group cannot help but
notice that Mr. Abdullah’s political views are clearly at the centre of the present case and
that the authorities have displayed an attitude towards Mr. Abdullah which can only be
characterized as discriminatory. 17 The Government’s continued refusal to grant Mr.
Abdullah’s requests to be placed under house arrest, as well as the ill-treatment suffered by
him, such as a 25-day-long period of solitary confinement, failure to promptly provide a
Qur’an and to provide a prayer mat, with harmful effects on his knees, as well as lack of
medical care and meals appropriate for diabetics, despite a court order in that regard, do not
point to the equal protection of the law.
100.
For these reasons, the Working Group considers that Mr. Abdullah’s deprivation of
liberty constitutes a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, on the grounds of discrimination based on
political or other opinion aimed at and resulting in ignoring the equality of human beings
and that it therefore falls within category V.
Consistent pattern of arbitrary arrest and detention of opposition politicians
101.
The Working Group notes with concern the consistent pattern of arbitrary arrest and
detention of opposition politicians in the judicial process marred by irregularities under the
16 See A/66/268, paras. 26 and 61. See also rule 44 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which likewise refers to solitary confinement
for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days as prolonged solitary confinement.
17 See opinion No. 15/2017, para. 93.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
14
current administration.18 The Working Group recalls the recent petition for judicial reform
that was met by the Government’s indefinite suspension of 54 signatory lawyers.19 The
military’s frequent interference in the business of the People’s Majlis casts further shadow
on the rule of law in Maldives.20
102.
The Working Group recalls that the duty to comply with international human rights
standards that are peremptory and erga omnes norms, such as the prohibition of arbitrary
detention, rests with all bodies and representatives of the State, all officials, including
judges, prosecutors, police and security officers, and prison officers with relevant
responsibilities, and all other natural and legal persons.21
103.
As a party to the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments
on the international rule of law and human rights, it is incumbent upon the Government of
Maldives to continue to strengthen democratic institutions, reinforce democratic practices
and guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the primacy of the rule of law. The
“rule of law” should not to be confused with “rule by law”, the subversion of law as a tool
for arbitrary rule by Government in collusion with the judiciary, paving the way for the
hatred of anyone to lead to deviation from justice. The case of Mr. Abdullah’s arrest,
detention and imprisonment appears to fit the pattern of rule by law.22
Country visit to Maldives
104.
The Working Group reiterates that it would welcome the opportunity to conduct a
country visit to Maldives, in accordance with the request it made on 2 March 2017, so that
it can engage with the Government constructively and offer assistance in addressing its
serious concerns relating to the arbitrary deprivation of liberty.23 The Working Group notes
in particular the recent cases considered by the Working Group.24 The Working Group also
notes that Maldives has issued a standing invitation to all special procedure mandate
holders since 2 May 2006 and looks forward to an invitation to visit the country.
Disposition
105.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Imran Abdullah, being in contravention of articles 2, 3,
5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
of articles 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
106.
Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the
Government of Maldives to remedy the situation of Mr. Abdullah without delay and bring it
into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
107.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Abdullah immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
18 See opinions No. 15/2017; No. 59/2016; and No. 33/2015.
19 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “UN rights expert urges Maldives
reforms after mass suspension of lawyers”, 9 October 2017. Available from
www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22211&LangID=E.
20 Inter-Parliamentary Union, “IPU condemns military lockdown of Maldives Parliament”, 23 August
2017. Available from www.ipu.org/news/news-in-brief/2017-08/ipu-condemns-military-lockdown-
maldives-parliament.
21 See opinions Nos. 22/2014, para. 25; 48/2013, para. 14; 36/2013, paras. 34 and 36; 35/2013, paras. 35
and 37; 34/2013, paras. 33 and 35; 9/2013, para. 40; 60/2012, para. 21; 50/2012, para. 27; and
47/2012; paras. 19 and 22.
22 See opinion No. 59/2016, para. 68.
23 See opinion No. 15/2017, para. 95.
24 See opinions No. 15/2017; No. 59/2016; and No. 33/2015.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/91
15
108.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group
refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association.
Follow-up procedure
109.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Abdullah has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Abdullah;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr.
Abdullah’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made
to harmonize the laws and practices of Maldives with its international obligations in line
with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
110.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the
Working Group.
111.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above
information within six months of the date of the transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
112.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.25
[Adopted on 24 November 2017]
25 See Human Rights Council resolution 33/30, paras. 3 and 7.