CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016 5.5 The forced confession was made at a remand hearing on 7 December 2011, but, at the trial, Mr. Humaam later retracted the confession on the ground that it was made under threats to his family. This was dismissed by the State party, which argued that his confession was corroborated by witness statements. Mr. Humaam confessed to other crimes at the trial, but he always categorically denied the murder of Mr. Ali. 5.6 The reintroduction of the death penalty in April 2014 was a campaign pledge during the 2013 presidential elections. The State party and judiciary appear to have colluded to expedite Mr. Humaam’s case, despite the fact that he was sentenced to death in 2014, before Regulation 2014/R-33 had been proclaimed. The President and the Home Affairs Minister have consistently and publicly stated that the death sentence will be implemented. 5.7 Before the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, Mr. Ali’s family had appealed for a temporary reprieve for Mr. Humaam, but this was ignored by the Supreme Court. Despite the public claims by the police, there has been no investigation of other persons allegedly involved in the murder. Mr. Ali’s family members have publicly stated that they do not believe the people who masterminded the murder have been investigated. This in part motivated their letter requesting a reprieve.8 5.8 Regarding Mr. Humaam’s mental state, during the High Court appeal process, which occurred between 21 October 2014 and 7 September 2015, Mr. Humaam was referred to a psychiatrist by a penitentiary medical doctor. Moreover, Mr. Humaam’s conduct at trial, manifestly acting against his own interests by constantly changing his plea, backed by behavioural signs observed during family visits and his history of mental illness, clearly pointed to the need for an independent psychiatric evaluation, especially in the light of the capital crime with which he had been charged. However, no evaluation was carried out. 5.9 Regarding the submission by someone other than Mr. Humaam or his duly authorized representative, the communication was drafted with assistance from Mr. Humaam’s lawyer, but, owing to the urgency of the situation, fear of delays and the fear of attorney-client privilege being breached by police surveillance in politically motivated cases,9 the author felt it necessary to proceed himself. All relevant powers of attorney were submitted. The Committee should therefore find the communication admissible and proceed with its examination on the merits. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In a note verbal dated 12 January 2017, the State party reiterated its prior arguments on admissibility and submitted its observations on the merits of the author’s complaint. 6.2 In its observations dated 12 January 2017, the State party submits that a defendant before the court would ordinarily have had the opportunity to call evidence in his defence. However, Mr. Humaam fully admitted to the offence before the court both on 7 December 2012 and on 22 May 2013. On 22 May 2013, he was asked to confirm his plea on more than one occasion and did so. On both 7 December 2012 and 22 May 2013, an admission was made, and a guilty plea was entered. He therefore also chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to present any witnesses or to adduce any evidence. Mr. Humaam only sought to retract his initial confession much later in the proceedings, at which time his request to call witnesses was refused. As recorded by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, he was unable to demonstrate that an alleged danger to himself or his family had motivated his confession. Consequently, the confession could not be withdrawn. Furthermore, it is established jurisprudence that, in cases involving the right of qisas, such as this one, an individual cannot retract a confession of murder. This is constitutional since, pursuant to article 142 of the Constitution, a judge must consider Islamic sharia when deciding matters upon which the Constitution or the law is silent. Further, it is settled in domestic law that principles of sharia are to be applied in matters concerning qisas, including on issues relating to any retraction of a confession. 8 9 In this regard, the author refers to the report published by the Maldivian Democracy Network regarding the flawed trial, titled Republic of Maldives v. Mr. Hussein Humaam Ahmed: Reprieve death row prisoner. “Maldives accused of spying on imprisoned Mohammad Nasheed”, Guardian, 10 September 2015. 5