A/HRC/34/54/Add.3 Maldives JUA 30/06/2016 Case No. MDV 2/2016 State Reply: None to Date Allegations of the risk of imminent execution of Mr. Hussain Humaam Ahmed following judicial procedures that did not meet international standards on fair trial and due process of law. 346. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the Maldives has not replied to the present communication, thereby failing to cooperate with the mandate issued by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 25/13. 347. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Special Rapporteur concludes that there is substance in the allegations presented in the initial communication, available via the link above, and is therefore of the view that the Government of the Maldives, by failing to protect the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Ahmed, including by extracting a confession under duress, subjecting him to prolonged solitary confinement, denying him a psychological evaluation, and sentencing him to death following judicial procedures that did not meet international standards on fair trial and due process, has violated his right to be free from torture or cruel or degrading treatment as provided by Article 1, 2, 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture (CAT). 348. With regards to the allegations of prolonged solitary confinement, the Special Rapporteur draws attention to his interim report to the General Assembly of 5 August 2011 (A/66/268) where he defined solitary confinement, in accordance with the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement, as the physical and social isolation of individuals who are confined in their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. He observed that while solitary confinement for short periods of time may be justified under certain circumstances when adequate and effective safeguards are in place, the use of prolonged (in excess of 15 days) or indefinite solitary confinement causes severe mental and physical pain or suffering. The Special Rapporteur further recalls paragraph 28 of the General Assembly resolution 68/156, stating that prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement runs afoul of the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, due to the prisoner’s lack of communication, as well as the lack of witnesses inside the prison, solitary confinement may also give rise to other acts of torture or ill-treatment. 349. As observed by the Special Rapporteur in his 2012 report to the General Assembly (A/67/279), there is evidence of an evolving standard within international bodies and a robust State practice to frame the debate about the legality of the death penalty within the context of the fundamental concepts of human dignity and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This evolving standard, along with the resulting illegality of the death penalty under such prohibition, is developing into a norm of customary law, if it has not already done so (para. 74). Even if this customary norm is still under way, the Special Rapporteur considers that most conditions under which capital punishment is actually applied render the punishment tantamount to torture and that under many other, less severe conditions, it still amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (para. 75). Moreover, the Rapporteur emphasizes that “the expression ‘most serious crimes’ must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure” (CCPR General Comment 6, 1982) and that they are defined as “cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill, which resulted in loss of life” (A/HRC/4/20, paras. 39-53 and 65). 65