CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016 6.7 Moreover, Mr. Humaam voluntarily and intelligently entered a guilty plea with full knowledge that his right to submit defence witnesses would be waived. The author of the complaint alleges that the confession was obtained under duress, but no specific information is provided to substantiate this claim. Under article 52 of the Constitution, a confession obtained under duress must not be admitted. However, the defendant must raise this issue and thereafter show that the confession was obtained under duress. Once the defendant confesses of his own free will before a judge, the confession will be considered valid unless there is evidence to prove that the person was forced to confess. In this case, there was no evidence that the defendant had any mental illness or that he was forced to confess. Hence, the judge in the court of first instance correctly ruled that his confession was admissible under article 52 of the Constitution. The High Court also held that the defendant had confessed to murdering the victim of his own free will in a sound state of mind, in front of the judge and thus in accordance with the law. The High Court concluded that, when the confession is allowed to stand at trial, the trial judge is justified in not allowing the defence to submit witness evidence to prove his innocence. 6.8 The suggestion that the ability to have the sentence commuted has somehow been curtailed is wrong. The author’s interpretation of the Clemency Act is that the President must take into account principles of sharia, including the right of qisas, and that the President’s discretion is thus removed. The issue concerning the President’s right to pardon an offender was addressed in an entirely separate and distinct case. Moreover, because the regulatory procedure concerning the imposition of the sentence is governed by the Regulation on the Investigation of Murder and Implementation of the Death Penalty, the family members of Mr. Ali will be explicitly asked whether they wish to pardon the offender. Regardless of whether the victim’s family wants to pardon the offender, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs must initiate the mediation process, the whole purpose of which is to explain to the victim’s family the importance and the role assigned to a pardon in Islam. The regulation absolutely requires that the victim’s family be consulted, even on the day of execution, and there is thus ample opportunity for the family members of the victim to communicate their wishes. 6.9 In addition, in its decision on the appeal, the High Court notes that all relevant heirs wanted the death penalty for the person or persons responsible for Mr. Ali’s murder. Thus, the family signalled an intent that the execution ought to be carried out. 6.10 The Supreme Court decision offers further guidance on and analysis of the issue of qisas and offers a position contrary to that advanced by the author concerning heirs. There is still ample opportunity for the family of the victim to request that the execution be commuted, rendering this particular objection baseless. 6.11 Regarding Mr. Humaam’s reported mental illness, the fact that a report is requested does not mean that an assessment must be undertaken. Mr. Humaam failed to provide any supporting evidence regarding his mental incapacity. Further, if an “independent” report is requested, it should not be the court’s responsibility or that of the prosecution to commission such a report. Finally, the issue of mental health was not raised in these proceedings until Mr. Humaam changed his legal team at a late stage, suggesting that this was a last ditch argument before conviction. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 12 March 2017, the author submitted the following comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. 7.2 The author states that, according to the police report appended to the State party’s observations on the merits, 11 on 13 October 2012 Mr. Humaam was interviewed in Feydhoofinolhu, an island that is far away from any police detention facility and that has never been a detention facility. Nor was it used by the Maldives Police Service to conduct investigations or interviews of suspects. No explanation has been provided as to why this was deemed appropriate. 11 Maldives Police Service, Case Report [Redacted Version] LC2012/15547, 15 December 2016. 7