CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016 reveal a violation of Mr. Humaam’s rights to legal assistance under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. 9.5 Regarding the ability to present witness testimony more generally, the Committee notes the author’s claim that Mr. Humaam was not allowed to call defence witnesses, including witnesses to establish that his confession was made under duress. The Committee further notes his claim that one of the witnesses Mr. Humaam wished to call died in still unexplained circumstances, without an investigation ever being carried out, and that the CCTV evidence to which the deceased witness’ testimony related was never made available. The Committee further notes that another witness Mr. Humaan wished to call had had his passport retained by authorities after the murder to prevent him from leaving the country, and yet, he still was allowed to leave. The author further claims that the complete discretion of judges in Maldives as to what evidence is presented, including which witnesses, if any, can be called, and the use of anonymous witnesses in the trial, prevented the defence from being able to cross-examine witnesses. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that Mr. Humaam was not allowed to call witnesses in his defence due to his confession at the outset; that the complaints regarding witness unavailability were not substantiated; that these matters were not under State control; that, as in other jurisdictions, judges have discretion regarding whether to admit relevant evidence; that Mr. Humaam had been given the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses as, even though anonymous, all essential information was provided; and that he had been able to crossexamine them regarding the DNA evidence, having had access to the report. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the right to obtain the attendance of witnesses requested by the accused or their counsel is not unlimited, but that there should be a proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against the accused at some stage of the proceedings.20 The Committee also notes the irregular representation of Mr. Humaam by counsel during his capital trial proceeding. The Committee considers that the failure to allow the defendant an opportunity to present witnesses in his defence in a capital proceeding, including witnesses to corroborate the involuntary nature of his confession, and the failure to provide in a timely manner relevant information that would allow adequate cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, violated Mr. Humaam’s rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (e) of the Covenant. 9.6 The Committee notes the author’s claims that Mr. Humaam’s mental health had been called into question by a recent history of psychiatric treatment and by his erratic and inconsistent behaviour from the outset of proceedings, which included rejecting Stateappointed counsel and insisting on his own representation, repeatedly changing pleas, and generally acting against his own interests, and that the State party failed to facilitate an independent psychiatric assessment despite requests by the family, the police and a penitentiary medical doctor. It also notes the author’s argument that the only professional psychiatrist in the country had refused to make a psychological assessment of Mr. Humaam due to a conflict of interest. It further notes the State party’s argument that the court adjudged Mr. Humaam to be fit for trial, that there was no indication of a history of mental illness, that the matter was raised late in the trial proceedings after a change in Mr. Humaam’s representation, and that it is for the defence to furnish the supporting evidence. The Committee considers that, particularly in a capital trial, in a context where Mr. Humaam was making inconsistent pleas, was insisting on representing himself and was otherwise irregularly represented by counsel; where a psychiatric assessment had been requested by his family and by a penitentiary doctor; where there was evidence of prior State care for mental health issues and requests for assessment in prior proceedings; and where the State party has not presented evidence of a detailed inquiry into Mr. Humaam’s fitness to stand trial, the State party failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into Mr. Humaam’s mental health, and thus failed to ensure that Mr. Humaam was capable of standing trial and that he was competent to act in his own best interests. Under these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the State party violated its obligations under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 20 General comment No. 32, para. 39. 13