CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016 7.3 Regarding the observation that Mr. Humaam was transferred to Villimale’ police station on 30 October 2012, 12 it is unclear where Mr. Humaam was held prior to this transfer. Furthermore, it is highly unusual for the police to transfer any detained person from Male’ to Villimale’, which is a separate island from Male’. Normally, persons detained by the police are held either in police detention facilities in Male’ or on Dhoonidhoo Island until the end of their trial. The author wishes to have an explanation. 7.4 A lawyer was appointed for Mr. Humaam on 2 November 2012, and on 16 November 2012 Mr. Humaam signed a statement denying the offence. On 7 December 2012, Mr. Humaam was taken to the police headquarters in Male’ and made the alleged confession there. It is not clear why he had to be brought all the way from Villimale’ to the police headquarters in Male’, where he suddenly confessed to the crime that he had earlier denied and signed a statement to that effect. Immediately thereafter, he was brought before a judge, and he repeated his confession. The records of the investigation, trial and appeal do not show that the legal counsel for Mr. Humaam was present when the alleged confession was made to the police on 7 December 2012 and before the judge the following day. This is a clear violation of articles 51 (f) and 53 of the Constitution, which include the right to consult with and be represented by a lawyer of the defendant’s choice. Mr. Humaam’s lawyer departed Maldives to study. As Mr. Humaam couldn’t afford a lawyer, he was appointed a public defender. However, Mr. Humaam refused the services of that public defender because he did not trust the criminal justice system. His lack of access to his retained counsel and access to any counsel at certain times indicates that the alleged “confession” was not made voluntarily. 7.5 Furthermore, the absence of video footage of the alleged “confession” at the police headquarters on 7 December 2012 violates section 6 of the Police Powers Regulation (dated 2 November 2008), which requires video recording of all police investigation interrogations. Lastly, according to the court records, Mr. Humaam was charged on 30 January 2013. It is not ordinary criminal procedure in Maldives to record a confession of a suspect in court before the suspect is charged with a crime. 7.6 On 6 May 2013, when the trial commenced, without a lawyer for the defence, Mr. Humaam denied having committed the offence. However, at a hearing on 22 May 2013, without being represented by a lawyer, Mr. Humaam “confessed” to the crime. On 31 May 2013, when he was represented by counsel, Mr. Humaam retracted his “confession”. 7.7 The author further refutes the State party’s observation that there was no evidence suggesting that Mr. Humaam had any mental illness or that he was forced to confess. The courts failed to take into account the fact that Mr. Humaam had a history of mental health issues and had been in State care for treatment only months before his arrest. This fact, coupled with his behaviour from the time of his arrest on 2 October 2012, constitutes a flaw in the entire trial and appeal process. The Case Report of the Maldives Police Service 13 shows that doctors have prescribed medication to Mr. Humaam for mental issues and that the only professional psychiatrist in the country refused to make a psychological assessment of him due to a conflict of interest. The Human Rights Commission also wrote to the Maldives Police Service regarding psychiatric medication for Mr. Humaam. The Police Case Report also states that the lawyers for Mr. Humaam requested that the trial court assess his psychological condition and that the court refused those requests. Moreover, Mr. Humaam was in State rehabilitation care due to behavioural issues until a few months prior to Mr. Ali’s murder. When Mr. Humaam was produced before the Juvenile Court in a previous case, the Juvenile Court directed the authorities to provide psychological counselling to Mr. Humaam. This fact should have been within the knowledge of the trial judge. 12 13 8 In the chronology of events provided by the State party on page 4 of its submission on admissibility. Maldives Police Service, Case Report [Redacted Version] LC2012/15547, 15 December 2016. The report indicates that, on 17 February 2013, Mr. Humaam was taken to a psychiatric hospital to see a psychiatrist at the request of his family and was evaluated and prescribed medication for anxiety, auditory hallucination and “suspiciousness”. This is also when the only available clinical psychiatrist refused to perform an evaluation on the ground of conflict of interest.