CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016 7.8 The author notes the State party’s observation that any witnesses became irrelevant due to Mr. Humaam’s confession of 22 May 2013. However, because Mr. Humaam retracted his confession on 31 May 2013, he should have been allowed to call witnesses. Although the High Court and the Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Humaam was unable to demonstrate a danger to either himself or his family, even though he alleged these as reasons for the confession, after withdrawing the confession on 31 May 2013 Mr. Humaam sought to call witnesses to prove that he had been under duress when he made the confession. As he was not allowed to do so, he was denied the opportunity to mount his defence, contrary to article 14 of the Covenant. Hence, the State party’s contention that calling witnesses at that stage was “irrelevant” is incorrect. 7.9 The author submits that Mr. Humaam lost two key witnesses. The first one was the police officer who was in charge of monitoring closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras on the streets in the vicinity of the scene of the murder. Not only did the officer die soon after the incident (his unexplained death was never investigated), but there was also no video footage of the relevant time from any CCTV camera in that vicinity. The second witness, Mr. Azlif Rauf, whose passport was seized by the Maldives Police Service in connection with Mr. Ali’s murder, was mysteriously allowed to leave the country and has not returned since. It is clear that a person whose passport was seized by the police and prevented from leaving the country by a court order for a very serious crime could not travel abroad unless senior government officials and the Maldives Police Service had facilitated his departure. The police opened an investigation to determine who was responsible for facilitating his departure, but that investigation has thus far not concluded. The author asserts that the State party misrepresented the facts in its observations by stating that the second witness had left the country of his own volition, thereby suggesting that he was free to leave without the consent of the authorities. 7.10 Maldives does not have a code of criminal procedure or an evidence act. Very few provisions on evidence are contained elsewhere in domestic law. Therefore, criminal procedure relating to the conduct of a trial and appeal is left to the discretion of each judge on a case-by-case basis. Maldivian courts do not have any rules relating to anonymous witnesses. The defendant’s right to a fair trial is violated in every case where the prosecution relies on anonymous witnesses. As it is impossible to conduct a crossexamination of an anonymous witness, there are no means available for the defendant to verify the truthfulness of the testimony. Usually, a written statement is taken from anonymous witnesses. However, the prosecution does not share the written statement with the defence. The defence thus cannot be prepared for the cross-examination. Moreover, anonymous witnesses are relied on by the prosecution only in political cases. The identity of a witness is withheld for political reasons rather than to protect individual witnesses. 7.11 The author further refers to a report prepared by the University of Pennsylvania Law School for the Government of Maldives in 2005, 14 which stated that “the Maldivian criminal justice system is inadequate, to the point that it systematically fails to do justice and regularly does injustice”. In its report, the University of Pennsylvania Law School recommended wide-ranging reforms and noted that, without dramatic change, the system was likely to deteriorate further. The proposed reforms included making the judiciary an independent branch of government, limiting the police’s right to search, establishing defendants’ right to legal counsel, and ending the “present practice of relying primarily on confessions as the basis for establishing criminal liability”. To date, these recommendations have not been implemented in full, and the author submits that political influence on the judiciary has increased since 2005. 7.12 The author notes that, under article 6 (4) of the Covenant, anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence and that amnesty, pardon or commutation of the death sentence may be granted in all cases. A State party must ensure the availability of this right in all cases. Under sharia, the opinions of jurists are divided on whether the State can commute death sentences of those convicted of murder. However, an executive regulation issued by the Government in 2015, known as the 14 www.unicef.org/maldives/Criminal_Justice_System_in_Maldives.pdf. 9