Republic of Maldives
Head of state and government: Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom

Judicial overreach included curtailing the independence of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives, which the government failed to defend. Judicial impartiality was a serious concern. Leading political opponents of the government were sentenced to long-term imprisonment after grossly unfair trials. Hundreds of opposition activists were detained and later released after being charged with criminal offences. The government stated that flogging would not be removed from Maldivian law.

BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court increasingly assumed the role of a legislature by unilaterally issuing rulings that had the force of law, some of which undermined human rights. One such ruling reduced the period for launching an appeal from 90 to 10 days, making it extremely difficult for prisoners to prepare their appeal. Another severely undermined the constitutional independence of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) when the Supreme Court declared that it should "work like a ministry or an extension of the government instead of an independent body". The government failed to ensure the Commission's independence.

Maldives' human rights record was assessed under the UPR in May. It focused on a range of human rights concerns, including flaws within the judicial system that had not been addressed since the previous UPR.

The new Penal Code finally came into force in July. There were reports that some people had been charged and tried under the new Code. They included two women sentenced by a Hithadhoo court to 100 lashes and several months house arrest, each for giving birth to a child years ago without being married.

UNFAIR TRIALS

Constitutional safeguards for the right to a fair trial were increasingly eroded. Although the government maintained that due process was followed, severe irregularities were revealed during a series of trials leading to the long-term imprisonment of the government's political opponents. They included the trials of former President Mohamed Nasheed, sentenced in March to 13 years for allegedly ordering the detention of a judge during his presidency; former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, sentenced in March to 11 years for allegedly keeping an unlicensed weapon; and former Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim, sentenced in March to 25 years for alleged corruption.[1]

In these cases, the lawyers for the accused were not given adequate time to prepare their defence and the right of the defence to call and examine witnesses was either denied or severely limited. Impartiality was a serious concern. In Mohamed Nasheed's trial, two of the three judges who tried and convicted him had themselves acted as witness to the alleged offence by signing a witness statement as part of the initial complaint. In the former Defence Minister's trial, some of the documents provided by the prosecution and used as evidence at the trial were never shown to the defence.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded in October that the detention of Mohamed Nasheed was politically motivated and his trial unfair. The Working Group stated that "the adequate remedy would be to release Mr Nasheed immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation". The government rejected the Working Group's opinion.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Judicial impartiality remained a serious concern which the government failed to address. The authorities frequently claimed that they would not address any complaints against the judiciary because courts were independent. At the same time, the government failed to strengthen the Judicial Services Commission to enable it to address impartiality and other issues related to the judiciary.

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

Hundreds of political opponents of the government taking part in peaceful demonstrations were arrested, detained for days or weeks, and released only after having conditions imposed preventing them from taking part in future demonstrations for a certain period. Journalists, human rights defenders and opposition politicians received death threats, and police failed to carry out effective investigations and bring the perpetrators to justice. Political rallies were attacked by gangs suspected of working in collaboration with the police. None of the attackers, even those allegedly known to the police, had been brought to justice by the end of the year.

CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING PUNISHMENT

Courts continued to sentence people, the vast majority of them women, to flogging, most commonly for fornication.[2] The sentences were carried out. Despite flogging constituting cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and concerns voiced by the CEDAW Committee in February, the government stated that they would not remove the punishment from Maldivian law.

DEATH PENALTY

No executions have been carried out for more than 60 years, but the government continued to declare that people sentenced to death would be executed.


[1] Maldives: Assault on civil and political rights (ASA 29/1501/2015)

[2] 60th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: The Republic of Maldives – review of the combined fourth and fifth periodic report (ASA 29/002/2015)

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.